Airbus could clone their A320 factories like they did in Tianjin and Mobile and build another one at, let's say Moses Lake or Mojave.
Boeing still has a narrow body with valid certificate. NG restart/rampup could be much easier for Boeing and entire supply chain. I doubt tooling have been scrapped because thousands are still flying.
If an airline would get new aircraft which are not better than the old ones, there is no point in ordering new ones. ~80% of the MAX orders are NG replacements. Adding the A320 replacements we get maybe 90% of the MAX order book. Shipping an NG instead of a MAX is useless.
Part of the shutdown I'm sure is to get the attention of politicians.
How could a politician help to resolve the complex failure modes the MAX seems to have?
The discussions today with the FAA will be very different thsn yesterday. No reduction in rigor, but at least a timeline to stop finding issues.
Issues are found in testing. Thats the nature in testing. Only by ostrich policy a timeline can be defined for finding issues.
A timeline to define requirements.
The requirements were available in written form since 2011 when the MAX was launched.
I'm a test lead in Aerospace, so I'm well aware of what I typed.
The testing requirements are growing. This is a pause to all get on the same plate. The certification authority and Vendor always negotiate the RVTM (Requirements Verification Test Matrix). The current RVTM is certainly not the 2011 RVTM. With multiple certification authorities, there is always test growth. This compares to Verification by analysis or Verification by simulation.
There are multiple levels of requirements. The top level is fixed. The derived requirements allocated to testing or retest has changed. New flight tests not agreed to in 2011 are being imposed.
I live this life. Certification authorities always want tests added at great cost. My last program they wanted to add six months of testing; it ended up costing us two months as we couldn't prove requirements clearly without new tests.
It turned out most of the testing the certification authority demanded was because their test equipment was faulty and they wanted more data to compare to a competitor. Not my problem, we collected the required data ourselves, the nice to have duplicate data we accomodated, but it wasn't required.
This problem was solved months ago. The politics are driving too much double guessing. A shutdown has a wonderful way of putting things in perspective.
Regulator churn is something I manage for a living. This churn just went out if hand.
Some of the posts here do not delve into reality. I routinely get waivers for verification requirements. There are even waivers to top level requirements where, "I cannot meet the requirement, but by training (say pilots), we reduce probability to meet the intent of requirements" or by adding a limitation or constraint (e.g., cross wind limitation until a new actuator is developed).
Unfortunately certification often becomes political. My last program we had the government remove certification personnel when we found they were going out the revolving door to a competitor. Those personel were trying to add testing for no good technical reason.
Unfortunately, personality and politics rears into aircraft certification. If it didn't, I wouldn't be as popular in test engineering.
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.