Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
hivue
Posts: 2092
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:45 pm

Agrajag wrote:
Then fast tracking the NSA (with best available engine) and then offering them at cost or near to cost to all Max customers.


Bad idea. Fast-tracking and short-term thinking is a whole lot of the reason why Boeing is in this mess now.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
hivue
Posts: 2092
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:48 pm

Elementalism wrote:
LY777 wrote:
Do you think there is a risk Boeing may cancel the 737Max program or is it science fiction?


Science fiction.


It's straight fiction. No science involved.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
889091
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:02 pm

Once the dust settles with the MAX, would the FAA 'go-back' and look at previous certifications provided for lets say, the 787-8, 787-9, 747-8i, etc? i.e basically going on full CYA mode.....
 
oschkosch
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:11 pm

asdf wrote:
par13del wrote:
MrBretz wrote:

I second this one. What’s going on technically?

We are waiting on the FAA to conduct their safety checks, since they told Boeing to zip it we now have no leaks or unrealistic optimistic guidance on RTS, just have to sit and wait while the FAA does their thing. Hopefully, if someone leaks information of training requirements, we will know that they have gone past the technical stuff.


Has boeing delivered anything to the FAA ?
according to what we know they still have not delivered.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21888
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:13 pm

889091 wrote:
Once the dust settles with the MAX, would the FAA 'go-back' and look at previous certifications provided for lets say, the 787-8, 787-9, 747-8i, etc? i.e basically going on full CYA mode.....


Likely, but the 787 is a fully clean-sheet design. There was no grandfathering in that model because the model was new. The 748-8 may be worth a look, but one would expect that any significant issues would have popped up by now (and indeed a few did and were resolved).

But I expect that the 77X will find itself under a microscope now, especially after the pressurization test results.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
smartplane
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:07 pm

DocLightning wrote:
889091 wrote:
Once the dust settles with the MAX, would the FAA 'go-back' and look at previous certifications provided for lets say, the 787-8, 787-9, 747-8i, etc? i.e basically going on full CYA mode.....


Likely, but the 787 is a fully clean-sheet design. There was no grandfathering in that model because the model was new. The 748-8 may be worth a look, but one would expect that any significant issues would have popped up by now (and indeed a few did and were resolved).

But I expect that the 77X will find itself under a microscope now, especially after the pressurization test results.

As Morrison pointed out with the A380, a clean-sheet design isn't necessarily a 'clean' design. This happens with all aircraft - lots of exceptions and equivalents are granted, including for the 787.

The FAA has already identified hands and eyes involved with MAX design and approval, also involved with the X and 787. As part of this process, all X documentation to-date is under FAA and EASA review.

We also know the X will be subject to concurrent airworthiness approvals by EASA and UAE GCAA.

The 787 must come under the same regulatory spotlight when resources permit. Boeing / FAA actions in respect to the chronology of lightening protection change approvals must have raised a further red flag, which the new FAA senior management team will want want to review.

There is a press blackout in respect to new models, including the X and MAX 10, with Boeing keen not to irritate airworthiness authorities, or draw attention. Posters on here likely involved with the X and -10 are silent.

Boeing is hoping for good news by 3 March, when the 2020 A4E conference takes place. Boeing is the sponsor. A number of speakers / panel members are MAX and X customers, though positive and especially negative comments will be choreographed in advance, with a possible exception (or two).
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8447
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:22 pm

DocLightning wrote:
There was no grandfathering in that model because the model was new.


But there were broad assumptions made based on the past experience, like not testing all battery cells together and certifying by testing just one cell.
All posts are just opinions.
 
TaromA380
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:47 pm

LY777 wrote:
Do you think there is a risk Boeing may cancel the 737Max program or is it science fiction?

I think both cancelling and pursuing are on the table.

The Max’s expected economic reward of the program was in accordance with cheap development, self-assessment of regulation rules and no training needed for airlines.

The self-assessment ceased to exist.

Boeing and the Regulators will surely find an agreement where everyone will know what they must follow respectively validate. However, I strongly suspect that beside all kind of hardware and software tweaks (already deeply eating into program’s profitability), pilot training (to cope with the induced risk of mixing Mcas with old non-FBW airframe) will be mandatory. This last point will eat once again into profitability and appeal on the market.

With such a program profitability development – the Max becoming a black hole, Boeing will have to make up its mind whether to continue or no. Either cases it will be bad. The challenge will be to correctly estimate the worst one.
I’ve almost put in the same phrase Boeing and correct estimations.
 
freakyrat
Posts: 2078
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:55 pm

Gingersnap wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
freakyrat wrote:
Forbes magazine has hinted that the FAA will recertify the MAX but as a separate 737 type. They also said that once it starts safely flying again that the whole fiasco will be forgotten.


That doesn't make much sense.

- The MAX is already a seperate 737 type. It's certified as a 737 MAX, not a 737 NG or anything else.
- If they're talking about certifying it as another aircraft type entirely, that would not be possible. It's only certifiable as a 737 due to all the grandfathering of the systems.
- If they mean type rating, that would make more sense. It should probably have it's own type rating, not sharing one with the previous models.

But I'd love to see the article. I searched for Forbes and 737 MAX, and couldn't find an article with any mention of that.


I can only imagine such a suggestion would mean they are expecting or planning on forcing Boeing to carry out a full re-certification of the aircraft as if it were a clean sheet design.


Here is a quote from the Forbes article: "THE MISPLACED ASSUMPTION: That the 737 MAX MCAS fix is a fix. Boeing may still be required by regulators to re-approve the plane as a separate aircraft type from the 737 family. We may still be discussing the fallout from this aircraft grounding next summer, if not next Christmas."

Now I personally believe its a speculation however the FAA may require a separate Type Rating to fly the aircraft.


The article is titled: Whats Ahead For Airlines And Aviation In 2020.
Last edited by freakyrat on Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ACATROYAL
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:55 pm

Not sure if anyone else has posted this but the delivery dates just keep slipping for all airlines it seems:

As seen in Airline News
AIRLINE NEWS: Ryanair CEO says airline may not receive first 737 Max delivery until October | The Globe and Mail - https://airlinenewswire.com
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:15 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
There was no grandfathering in that model because the model was new.


But there were broad assumptions made based on the past experience, like not testing all battery cells together and certifying by testing just one cell.


It is astonishing how still some posters here want to rationalize the decisions around the original lithium ion battery for the 787.

Every body seem to know that you do not put a large lithium ion battery onboard an airliner, it is just to dangerous. So if you have to transport something like that and have to do it by air, you have to provide some sort of secure containment.

So the engineers at Boeing looked for the biggest and chemical most unstable lithium ion battery they could find, to put it into the electrical cabinet near the flight computers without containment. I would have assumed somebody in the design or safety at Boeing or in the safety team at the FAA would have taking a breather and started to think about what they were doing. A lithium ion battery has as a solvent a hydrocarbon, also sometimes called fuel in other applications. A big lithium ion battery has a lot of this solvent. When you heat this hydrocarbon it can gase out and can provide a highly explosive mixture of fuel and air.

What they did, was placing a fuel air bomb into the electrical cabinet with the electrical cabinet providing even spark plugs. It was sheer luck that non of this bombs went off, a few fizzled.

The solution was of course a solid safe containment for the battery, including a vent that would move the dangerous fumes outside the airplane.
 
User avatar
JetAwayDrew
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:27 pm

It looks like the Max could have more issues ...

https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing ... 1578085667
 
beechnut
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:37 pm

JetAwayDrew wrote:
It looks like the Max could have more issues ...

https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing ... 1578085667


Not surprisingly, a supplier is turning to other sources of revenue because of the production stoppage. Surely there will be more, and perhaps some bankruptcies requiring certification of a new supplier. This can have a snowball effect, and the longer the stoppage goes on, the higher the risks.

This is one reason why I don't think the MAX being toast is "science fiction". I won't say it's a certainty, but I will say it's a non-negligible risk, and one that will grow the longer the shut-down continues.

Beech
 
kalvado
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:42 pm

JetAwayDrew wrote:
It looks like the Max could have more issues ...

https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing ... 1578085667

These are not max issues, this is just a result of extended grounding, drying out airline payments, and decision to halt production. There will be similar issues with each and every supplier - which have to be orchestrated in tune for production restart.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:11 am

JetAwayDrew wrote:
It looks like the Max could have more issues ...

https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing ... 1578085667

Also assists Airbus solve another bottleneck, allowing PW to increase deliveries for the A220, offset by increased CFM deliveries for the A320 family.

Do most airlines care? With PBTH, if performance and pricing are comparable, no.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:30 am

asdf wrote:
par13del wrote:
MrBretz wrote:

I second this one. What’s going on technically?

We are waiting on the FAA to conduct their safety checks, since they told Boeing to zip it we now have no leaks or unrealistic optimistic guidance on RTS, just have to sit and wait while the FAA does their thing. Hopefully, if someone leaks information of training requirements, we will know that they have gone past the technical stuff.


Has boeing delivered anything to the FAA ?

Well, the head of the FAA said so, but I guess since he was around at the same time as the last CEO of Boeing who was fired, maybe he is cut from the same cloth?
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:40 am

889091 wrote:
Once the dust settles with the MAX, would the FAA 'go-back' and look at previous certifications provided for lets say, the 787-8, 787-9, 747-8i, etc? i.e basically going on full CYA mode.....

The minimum action on all current types (including 737NG) per NTSB recommendations, if not already completed.

'...Require that for all other US type-certificated transport-category airplanes, manufacturers (1) ensure that system safety assessments for which they assumed immediate and appropriate pilot corrective actions in response to uncommanded flight control inputs consider the effect of all possible flight deck alerts and indications on pilot recognition and response; and (2) incorporate design enhancements (including flight deck alerts and indications), pilot procedures, and/or training requirements, where needed, to minimize the potential for and safety impact of pilot actions that are inconsistent with manufacturer assumptions. (A-19-11) ...'
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... SR1901.pdf

Ray
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24772
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:34 pm

beechnut wrote:
Not surprisingly, a supplier is turning to other sources of revenue because of the production stoppage. Surely there will be more, and perhaps some bankruptcies requiring certification of a new supplier. This can have a snowball effect, and the longer the stoppage goes on, the higher the risks.

This is one reason why I don't think the MAX being toast is "science fiction". I won't say it's a certainty, but I will say it's a non-negligible risk, and one that will grow the longer the shut-down continues.

I think this is an overly dramatic rendition of the situation reported in https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing ... 1578085667

When you read what the article says, it's pretty clear the title is click bait, there will be no shortage of engines.

Instead of producing CFM LEAPs at a 50/50 A vs B ratio, the ratio is shifting 58/42 in favor of the A model for 2020.

That means CFM will still be producing a LOT of LEAP-1Bs even though the airframe production line is halted!

To put some numbers to it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_LEAP suggests the 2020 goal for CFM is to produce 2,000 LEAP engines, this means CFM should be producing 840 LEAP-1Bs in 2020 even though the production line is now halted!

As per Boeing's shut down press release, they will favor bringing frames out of storage over new production once the RTS happens.

Given the shut down will last months, there will be a large number of LEAP 1Bs available once RTS happens.

I think a snowball effect would only take hold if Boeing was doing nothing to manage the situation, and I think Boeing is actively managing the situation.

I'm curious: are you willing to state your odds for the "MAX is toast" outcome?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:04 pm

Revelation wrote:
beechnut wrote:
Not surprisingly, a supplier is turning to other sources of revenue because of the production stoppage. Surely there will be more, and perhaps some bankruptcies requiring certification of a new supplier. This can have a snowball effect, and the longer the stoppage goes on, the higher the risks.

This is one reason why I don't think the MAX being toast is "science fiction". I won't say it's a certainty, but I will say it's a non-negligible risk, and one that will grow the longer the shut-down continues.

I think this is an overly dramatic rendition of the situation reported in https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing ... 1578085667

When you read what the article says, it's pretty clear the title is click bait, there will be no shortage of engines.

Instead of producing CFM LEAPs at a 50/50 A vs B ratio, the ratio is shifting 58/42 in favor of the A model for 2020.

That means CFM will still be producing a LOT of LEAP-1Bs even though the airframe production line is halted!

To put some numbers to it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_LEAP suggests the 2020 goal for CFM is to produce 2,000 LEAP engines, this means CFM should be producing 840 LEAP-1Bs in 2020 even though the production line is now halted!

As per Boeing's shut down press release, they will favor bringing frames out of storage over new production once the RTS happens.

Given the shut down will last months, there will be a large number of LEAP 1Bs available once RTS happens.

I think a snowball effect would only take hold if Boeing was doing nothing to manage the situation, and I think Boeing is actively managing the situation.

I'm curious: are you willing to state your odds for the "MAX is toast" outcome?


The ratio A versus B was actual rather 34 to 66. With complaints about shortages on the A side. It is quite a story if CFM expects an increase of delivery numbers of the CFM LEAP-1A. Perhaps marriage to Boeing has it´s draw backs.

Up to now Villaroch, Île-de-France, assembled all 1A, all 1C and some of the 1B versions. Durham, North Carolina and Lafayette, Indiana assembled only 1B. Now one or both of the USA assembly facilities will assemble 1A.

I assume the times of LEAP shortages, especially high thrust versions, for the A320neo family will be a problem of the past.

Even if CFM will produce some 1B engines, that production will ramp down drastically, including the supply lines, and has to ramp up, if the 737MAX should be produced again.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24772
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:24 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Even if CFM will produce some 1B engines, that production will ramp down drastically, including the supply lines, and has to ramp up, if the 737MAX should be produced again.

Right, which is about the best possible outcome when you announce you are halting production of the aircraft.

A reduction in production to 42% of output of engines is far better than a reduction in production to zero.

A reduction in production to 42% of output is not evidence of a "snowball effect" or "MAX is toast".

It is saying CFM is willing to produce on average 70 engines per month in 2020 for an aircraft whose production line is halted!

CFM is willing to do this without even knowing when RTS will happen or when Boeing will switch from delivering stored aircraft to delivering new aircraft.

It will let CFM fill orders for the other products so when the MAX does RTS there will be less pressure to produce the A models, and will give the company more flexibility to build either product at the US locations, which in the long term might bring unhappiness to some EU workers.

Presumably that new flexibility will be funded indirectly via Boeing's compensation payments, so it's a loss for Boeing but a win for Airbus and CFM International.

I'm curious: are you willing to state your predicted odds of MAX production restarting?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
TaromA380
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
It is saying CFM is willing to produce on average 70 engines per month in 2020 for an aircraft whose production line is halted!
Revelation wrote:
Presumably that new flexibility will be funded indirectly via Boeing's compensation payments

Looks like CFM has nothing to lose - Boeing is paying the bills.

However there is no guarantee that this situation won't change tomorrow. 2020 will be a long year and it's only the 4th of January.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24772
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:30 pm

TaromA380 wrote:
However there is no guarantee that this situation won't change tomorrow. 2020 will be a long year and it's only the 4th of January.

There's no guarantee that this situation or any one of a countless number of things won't change tomorrow, but we do have a pretty specific report from a well known media outlet, something to inform our discussion...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
smartplane
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:22 pm

morrisond wrote:
uta999 wrote:
This mess goes back much further than 2011. The 737 should have been replaced with a new model after the first A320-200 came out.

The 737 nose and fuselage is basically 707/727 vintage from another era. Would it still be acceptable to be building the 707 or 727 in 2020. It would not.

Why is it any different for the 737?


There are almost zero parts on the MAX that are the same from the 707 or 727 era other than the general exterior shape.

Much like as others have posted the A320NEO has only about 25% parts commonality with the original 320.

It's kind of equivalent to the Super Hornet vs Original F18 Hornet - they kind of look the same but almost nothing is interchangeable.

Parts may not be interchangeable, and the word 'grandfathering' wasn't used then, but assumptions, tolerances, capacity and weight approvals can be traced back to the 707/727 era.

For example earlier 737 fuselage length growth was based on 727 and 707 performance and data.

The numbers speak for themselves, as to whether grandfathering limits have been pushed too far with the 737 family. Figures in brackets are -100 compared to MAX 10:

Length - 43.8m (29) +51%
Span - 35.9m (28) +28%
Wing - 127m2 (91) +40%
MTOW - 88.3Mt (50) +77%
Thrust - 130kN (62) +110%

Any surprise the MAX family has a far smaller 'safe' flying envelope, compared to earlier models? Cobbled together digital and analogue systems, and top gun pilots were never going to be enough to compensate globally.

Any surprise NG needed STS, and MAX needed STS plus. No wonder some in FAA and EASA considered the MAX was an iteration too far.

Could dynamic paper-based engine de-rating be an option based on the model, altitude, attitude, weight, etc? Or physical changes to wing and rudder? Or differences in one or both based on each MAX version? Or Boeing even drop some versions altogether? Given the specification spread, will a one size fits all solution be possible or safe?
 
oschkosch
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:57 pm

Revelation wrote:

I'm curious: are you willing to state your predicted odds of MAX production restarting?


Not a question for me, but I will answer anyway ;-)

I say the odds of max production restarting are at around 6/1.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
beechnut
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:39 pm

Revelation wrote:

I'm curious: are you willing to state your odds for the "MAX is toast" outcome?


Sorry I have no hard data on which to base a prediction. It is more of a gut feeling based on the fact that there is a dearth of news coming out of Seattle/Chicago, the production stoppage, and some insider info I have from Transport Canada (but not from someone directly involved with the MAX re-certification).

So I will limit myself to saying "not insignificant", i.e. somewhere north of zero.

Beech
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24772
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:57 pm

My gut feel is 99.5% in favor of MAX RTS, 0.5% "MAX is toast" and must be replaced by something that is not a 737, like NSA. I simply haven't seen any concrete evidence that supports the idea that MAX is un-fixable or needs a fix that costs more in time or money than a replacement program would cost. If I see such news I'll adjust my opinion. I think the lack of news is a non-issue, FAA has asked Boeing to stop talking, and we're just now coming out of the holiday period so a lot of the externally visible events such as test flights were probably not possible over the holiday period.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Tavocruz
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 2:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:06 am

Wow, just for how long will this saga drag on?
I am glad my home airline hadn`t ordered any Max-es yet.

Also, I am curious up to what point the flying public will not be aware of when they will be flying on a Max and when not.
The general consensus on A-net is that the average pax is too "ignorant" to know what metal they fly on, or that Joe Average simply doesn`t care.
I guess the latter is true, but up to what point does this hold up!??
Boeing doesn`t appear to be in a hurry to phase out the "Max" brand, marketing wise.....but should they be?

Revelation wrote:
My gut feel is 99.5% in favor of MAX RTS, 0.5% "MAX is toast" and must be replaced by something that is not a 737, like NSA. I simply haven't seen any concrete evidence that supports the idea that MAX is un-fixable or needs a fix that costs more in time or money than a replacement program would cost. If I see such news I'll adjust my opinion. .


While I agree with your premise, it is fair to state that many of your predictions throughout the Max grounding threads proved untrue! (or waaaay too optimistic in Boeing´s favour).
Up to the point where you mocked A-net users that were sceptical about an imminent return to the skies way back in 2019.
It would be grand of you to at least acknowledge that.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:26 am

smartplane wrote:
morrisond wrote:
uta999 wrote:
This mess goes back much further than 2011. The 737 should have been replaced with a new model after the first A320-200 came out.

The 737 nose and fuselage is basically 707/727 vintage from another era. Would it still be acceptable to be building the 707 or 727 in 2020. It would not.

Why is it any different for the 737?


There are almost zero parts on the MAX that are the same from the 707 or 727 era other than the general exterior shape.

Much like as others have posted the A320NEO has only about 25% parts commonality with the original 320.

It's kind of equivalent to the Super Hornet vs Original F18 Hornet - they kind of look the same but almost nothing is interchangeable.

Parts may not be interchangeable, and the word 'grandfathering' wasn't used then, but assumptions, tolerances, capacity and weight approvals can be traced back to the 707/727 era.

For example earlier 737 fuselage length growth was based on 727 and 707 performance and data.

The numbers speak for themselves, as to whether grandfathering limits have been pushed too far with the 737 family. Figures in brackets are -100 compared to MAX 10:

Length - 43.8m (29) +51%
Span - 35.9m (28) +28%
Wing - 127m2 (91) +40%
MTOW - 88.3Mt (50) +77%
Thrust - 130kN (62) +110%

Any surprise the MAX family has a far smaller 'safe' flying envelope, compared to earlier models? Cobbled together digital and analogue systems, and top gun pilots were never going to be enough to compensate globally.

Any surprise NG needed STS, and MAX needed STS plus. No wonder some in FAA and EASA considered the MAX was an iteration too far.

Could dynamic paper-based engine de-rating be an option based on the model, altitude, attitude, weight, etc? Or physical changes to wing and rudder? Or differences in one or both based on each MAX version? Or Boeing even drop some versions altogether? Given the specification spread, will a one size fits all solution be possible or safe?


Well they did stretch the 707 to 46.6M and a MTOW of 151T - So the fuselage has been longer before and the overall aircraft a lot heavier

It's not so much a 737 MAX as a 2 engine rewinged 707.

Another example of a big increase we have seen recently has been A321-100 Growing from 83T to 101T (A321XLR) on the same wing but with about 5,000lbs more thrust per side and leading to some issues with control logic and nose up tendencies.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:21 am

morrisond wrote:
smartplane wrote:
morrisond wrote:

There are almost zero parts on the MAX that are the same from the 707 or 727 era other than the general exterior shape.

Much like as others have posted the A320NEO has only about 25% parts commonality with the original 320.

It's kind of equivalent to the Super Hornet vs Original F18 Hornet - they kind of look the same but almost nothing is interchangeable.

Parts may not be interchangeable, and the word 'grandfathering' wasn't used then, but assumptions, tolerances, capacity and weight approvals can be traced back to the 707/727 era.

For example earlier 737 fuselage length growth was based on 727 and 707 performance and data.

The numbers speak for themselves, as to whether grandfathering limits have been pushed too far with the 737 family. Figures in brackets are -100 compared to MAX 10:

Length - 43.8m (29) +51%
Span - 35.9m (28) +28%
Wing - 127m2 (91) +40%
MTOW - 88.3Mt (50) +77%
Thrust - 130kN (62) +110%

Any surprise the MAX family has a far smaller 'safe' flying envelope, compared to earlier models? Cobbled together digital and analogue systems, and top gun pilots were never going to be enough to compensate globally.

Any surprise NG needed STS, and MAX needed STS plus. No wonder some in FAA and EASA considered the MAX was an iteration too far.

Could dynamic paper-based engine de-rating be an option based on the model, altitude, attitude, weight, etc? Or physical changes to wing and rudder? Or differences in one or both based on each MAX version? Or Boeing even drop some versions altogether? Given the specification spread, will a one size fits all solution be possible or safe?


Well they did stretch the 707 to 46.6M and a MTOW of 151T - So the fuselage has been longer before and the overall aircraft a lot heavier

It's not so much a 737 MAX as a 2 engine rewinged 707.

Another example of a big increase we have seen recently has been A321-100 Growing from 83T to 101T (A321XLR) on the same wing but with about 5,000lbs more thrust per side and leading to some issues with control logic and nose up tendencies.


Let us look at your facts. The A321 having problems with control logic and nose up tendencies, is either I assume just a misunderstanding from you.

If you call having a limit to the stall protection, the program that prevents the pilot from putting the A321 into stall and having to limit the CG at certain loads, as having problems with the control logic is going a step to far. There is no problem when the CG is in the right position at the corresponding load. Every frame in operation has those limitations. The A321 has also no nose up tendency, but when the CG is in the wrong position and the frame is raised to much to fast the stall protection will not work. Airbus will write new programs and that will give more possibilities in regards to the CG position, but will it eliminate limits to the CG position, no.

The A321XLR will show an MTOW increase of 22 % against the A321-100, but actually not with the same wing. Different wing tip device and different flaps and perhaps other changes. The A320 started out with an MTOW around 75 t, but a slightly different wing, so we could talk about 35%

Let us now compare looking at some extrem MTOW changes on the same wing 777-200 to -200LR MTOW change 41%, change in the wing were additional wing tip devices. If we go all the way to the 777-300ER we have 42 % change on the same wing.

Looking at the 767. we see a 43 % increase of the MTOW from 767-200 to -400ER on the same wing with additional wing tip devices.

737 from Jurassic to MAX does see an increase of 77 % but with changes to the wing and wing tip devices.

So now we do have the numbers. But what do they really matter? The A321neoLR has a very good runway performance and good economy, so the wing with the current wing tip devices, with the current engines seems sufficient. Could it be better, perhaps. Are the specs of the A321neo competitive, you can bet on that.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:30 am

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Parts may not be interchangeable, and the word 'grandfathering' wasn't used then, but assumptions, tolerances, capacity and weight approvals can be traced back to the 707/727 era.

For example earlier 737 fuselage length growth was based on 727 and 707 performance and data.

The numbers speak for themselves, as to whether grandfathering limits have been pushed too far with the 737 family. Figures in brackets are -100 compared to MAX 10:

Length - 43.8m (29) +51%
Span - 35.9m (28) +28%
Wing - 127m2 (91) +40%
MTOW - 88.3Mt (50) +77%
Thrust - 130kN (62) +110%

Any surprise the MAX family has a far smaller 'safe' flying envelope, compared to earlier models? Cobbled together digital and analogue systems, and top gun pilots were never going to be enough to compensate globally.

Any surprise NG needed STS, and MAX needed STS plus. No wonder some in FAA and EASA considered the MAX was an iteration too far.

Could dynamic paper-based engine de-rating be an option based on the model, altitude, attitude, weight, etc? Or physical changes to wing and rudder? Or differences in one or both based on each MAX version? Or Boeing even drop some versions altogether? Given the specification spread, will a one size fits all solution be possible or safe?


Well they did stretch the 707 to 46.6M and a MTOW of 151T - So the fuselage has been longer before and the overall aircraft a lot heavier

It's not so much a 737 MAX as a 2 engine rewinged 707.

Another example of a big increase we have seen recently has been A321-100 Growing from 83T to 101T (A321XLR) on the same wing but with about 5,000lbs more thrust per side and leading to some issues with control logic and nose up tendencies.


Let us look at your facts. The A321 having problems with control logic and nose up tendencies, is either I assume just a misunderstanding from you.

If you call having a limit to the stall protection, the program that prevents the pilot from putting the A321 into stall and having to limit the CG at certain loads, as having problems with the control logic is going a step to far. There is no problem when the CG is in the right position at the corresponding load. Every frame in operation has those limitations. The A321 has also no nose up tendency, but when the CG is in the wrong position and the frame is raised to much to fast the stall protection will not work. Airbus will write new programs and that will give more possibilities in regards to the CG position, but will it eliminate limits to the CG position, no.

The A321XLR will show an MTOW increase of 22 % against the A321-100, but actually not with the same wing. Different wing tip device and different flaps and perhaps other changes. The A320 started out with an MTOW around 75 t, but a slightly different wing, so we could talk about 35%

Let us now compare looking at some extrem MTOW changes on the same wing 777-200 to -200LR MTOW change 41%, change in the wing were additional wing tip devices. If we go all the way to the 777-300ER we have 42 % change on the same wing.

Looking at the 767. we see a 43 % increase of the MTOW from 767-200 to -400ER on the same wing with additional wing tip devices.

737 from Jurassic to MAX does see an increase of 77 % but with changes to the wing and wing tip devices.

So now we do have the numbers. But what do they really matter? The A321neoLR has a very good runway performance and good economy, so the wing with the current wing tip devices, with the current engines seems sufficient. Could it be better, perhaps. Are the specs of the A321neo competitive, you can bet on that.



I'm just referring to this where they say it has a nose up tendency https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance ... ch-anomaly

I'm sure the MAX would be fine as well if you limit the COG envelope. It just may be more extreme on the MAX.
 
rob66
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:31 am

XRAYretired wrote:
889091 wrote:
Once the dust settles with the MAX, would the FAA 'go-back' and look at previous certifications provided for lets say, the 787-8, 787-9, 747-8i, etc? i.e basically going on full CYA mode.....

The minimum action on all current types (including 737NG) per NTSB recommendations, if not already completed.

'...Require that for all other US type-certificated transport-category airplanes, manufacturers (1) ensure that system safety assessments for which they assumed immediate and appropriate pilot corrective actions in response to uncommanded flight control inputs consider the effect of all possible flight deck alerts and indications on pilot recognition and response; and (2) incorporate design enhancements (including flight deck alerts and indications), pilot procedures, and/or training requirements, where needed, to minimize the potential for and safety impact of pilot actions that are inconsistent with manufacturer assumptions. (A-19-11) ...'
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... SR1901.pdf

Ray


And I think that could be the elephant in the room. Every Aircraft system has to have a comprehensive system safety assessment done. This is normally done by people other than the design engineers.

This systems safety assessment breaks down the system into individual compeonents with their individual failure rate and a fault tree is built up modelled on the system and at the top it calculates the failure rate of the system. An analysis is then carried out regarding the system failure modes and a categorization is given to each, these being Minor, Major Hazardous: 1 x 10-6 and Catastrophic: 1 x 10-9

If system doesn't meet these requirements then typically it is redesgined or grandfathered. My feeling is that when the FAA started reviewing the aircrafts documentation, it simply hadn't been done properly, did not meet the category required if at all. This could mean that a whole host of systems either have to have a new safety case built - not a trivial job or even worse the system simply doesn't meet the hazard's failure category
 
chiad
Posts: 1332
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:17 am

gregpodpl wrote:
A moment ago in Financial Times:

Airbus: fight risk
If Boeing scraps the 737 Max, it could be the worst-case scenario for both manufacturers
https://www.ft.com/content/6a6d665f-a2f ... 790afad3bc (paywall)

Main point of the article: if Max is scrapped Airbus will have to spend a lot on R&D fast to compete with new Boeing plane - which will not be good for shareholders.
Not a new thought, what interested me was seeing in a subtitle in major financial newspaper: "If Boeing scraps the 737 Max". Also in the article: "The fate of the 737 Max remains unknown".


I think the NEO program has so much more "life" left that even if Boeing lauched a all new program (with EIS in 2027), Airbus could wait half a decade before doing the same possibly taking advantage of newer engine technology.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:18 am

ACATROYAL wrote:
Not sure if anyone else has posted this but the delivery dates just keep slipping for all airlines it seems:

As seen in Airline News
AIRLINE NEWS: Ryanair CEO says airline may not receive first 737 Max delivery until October | The Globe and Mail - https://airlinenewswire.com


IMO not for all airlines. Ryaniar don't want to introduce the MAX in the summer, because it's their busiest season. And pushing back deliveries of the MAX200 for Ryanair frees up delivery capacity for other airlines.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:24 am

ACATROYAL wrote:
Not sure if anyone else has posted this but the delivery dates just keep slipping for all airlines it seems:

As seen in Airline News
AIRLINE NEWS: Ryanair CEO says airline may not receive first 737 Max delivery until October | The Globe and Mail - https://airlinenewswire.com


Here is a link directly to the article and not only to the website:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... ery-until/
 
NZ321
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:49 pm

gregpodpl wrote:
A moment ago in Financial Times:

Airbus: fight risk
If Boeing scraps the 737 Max, it could be the worst-case scenario for both manufacturers
https://www.ft.com/content/6a6d665f-a2f ... 790afad3bc (paywall)

Main point of the article: if Max is scrapped Airbus will have to spend a lot on R&D fast to compete with new Boeing plane - which will not be good for shareholders.
Not a new thought, what interested me was seeing in a subtitle in major financial newspaper: "If Boeing scraps the 737 Max". Also in the article: "The fate of the 737 Max remains unknown".


This reads like hot water to me. How is Boeing going to engineer and bring to fruition a whole new narrow body in a short time frame? Airbus is already working on a replacement strategy for the A320 and have just taken on the increasingly popular A220. Plus Boeing will take a serious hit on the Max. Imagine the order cancellations and then the demand for Airbus Neo in the interim which would surely fund such a development at Airbus. I don't see Airbus as the loser on this one.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 1:58 pm

NZ321 wrote:
This reads like hot water to me. How is Boeing going to engineer and bring to fruition a whole new narrow body in a short time frame? Airbus is already working on a replacement strategy for the A320.

Obviously Boeing cannot, after all, they were pushing the NSA to airlines prior to the NEO and the MAX and the airlines said no, we are told it is because they did not want to wait, I am shocked that since the MAX tragedy that viewpoint has not been revisited with all the other conspiracy theories that abound.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15332
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:00 pm

Who knows when RTS will happen for the 737MAX, but I would expect it to be on the longer side of estimates, perhaps 4Q2020.

As with any project, there will be unforeseen issues for getting a proper fix, getting certification, installing the fix, training mx and pilots, monitoring to see if works in real use, adjustments and retraining. Then there is pressures to get this fix done and the 737MAX in the air. That includes the Boeing executives and financial staff, shareholders, politicians (as a big top pay employer in the USA, the biggest exporter company in revenues). If the situation got real bad at Boeing then like with GM and Chrysler in 2008-09, the government would do a bail out deal to save the company and jobs.
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:01 pm

Why haven't any customers cancelled orders for the MAX and switched to Airbus instead?
Vahroone
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:20 pm

Spiderguy252 wrote:
Why haven't any customers cancelled orders for the MAX and switched to Airbus instead?


And wait till 2028 for their aircraft?

If you have the MAX on order you might never get a cheaper aircraft ever. A newly built aircraft for almost nothing with just a year delay. Do not forget the airlines will get compensation for the delayed delivery so you pay even less, while Airbus can and will charge a lot more.

TK gets around 5-10 million compensation per MAX grounded/undelivered. That is a massive discount on a frame that costs around 50m.
 
AirBoat
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:58 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:03 pm

rob66 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
889091 wrote:
Once the dust settles with the MAX, would the FAA 'go-back' and look at previous certifications provided for lets say, the 787-8, 787-9, 747-8i, etc? i.e basically going on full CYA mode.....

The minimum action on all current types (including 737NG) per NTSB recommendations, if not already completed.

'...Require that for all other US type-certificated transport-category airplanes, manufacturers (1) ensure that system safety assessments for which they assumed immediate and appropriate pilot corrective actions in response to uncommanded flight control inputs consider the effect of all possible flight deck alerts and indications on pilot recognition and response; and (2) incorporate design enhancements (including flight deck alerts and indications), pilot procedures, and/or training requirements, where needed, to minimize the potential for and safety impact of pilot actions that are inconsistent with manufacturer assumptions. (A-19-11) ...'
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... SR1901.pdf

Ray


And I think that could be the elephant in the room. Every Aircraft system has to have a comprehensive system safety assessment done. This is normally done by people other than the design engineers.

This systems safety assessment breaks down the system into individual compeonents with their individual failure rate and a fault tree is built up modelled on the system and at the top it calculates the failure rate of the system. An analysis is then carried out regarding the system failure modes and a categorization is given to each, these being Minor, Major Hazardous: 1 x 10-6 and Catastrophic: 1 x 10-9

If system doesn't meet these requirements then typically it is redesgined or grandfathered. My feeling is that when the FAA started reviewing the aircrafts documentation, it simply hadn't been done properly, did not meet the category required if at all. This could mean that a whole host of systems either have to have a new safety case built - not a trivial job or even worse the system simply doesn't meet the hazard's failure category


I agree with the above ,but if you look at a horizontal stabilizer that has more authority than the elevator, then logically the amount of redundancy should be the same or better than that of the elevator. (You can even say the one with more authority should be the primary surface and have most redundancy)
I would not even debate the issue.
This issue has arisen due to the engine placement below the wings which causes big out of trim moments from max to min thrust. This should have given someone a message that double or triple redundancy is needed in case of control surface actuation failure.(elevator and trim)
The 737 has double hydraulic circuits for the elevators and they are even split left and right to act independently if necessary.
The A320neo has cg restriction at present, so how about giving the 737 fleet speed restrictions so that the mechanical hand wheel can always be used. Might take a while to get to your destination.
 
JibberJim
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:15 pm

marcelh wrote:
IMO not for all airlines. Ryaniar don't want to introduce the MAX in the summer, because it's their busiest season. And pushing back deliveries of the MAX200 for Ryanair frees up delivery capacity for other airlines.


That would be an uncharacteristically strange move from MOL, or an extremely expensive one for Boeing. MOL isn't going to agree to delay delivery when there are penalties to be accrued from Boeing for failing to deliver on time are there. The compensation from Boeing would have to be larger than the penalties, and larger than the costs of flying around older planes, there may be some value to FR getting predictable delivery dates, but even pushing out FR deliveries by months isn't ready to do that now.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2840
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:30 pm

AirBoat wrote:
rob66 wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
The minimum action on all current types (including 737NG) per NTSB recommendations, if not already completed.

'...Require that for all other US type-certificated transport-category airplanes, manufacturers (1) ensure that system safety assessments for which they assumed immediate and appropriate pilot corrective actions in response to uncommanded flight control inputs consider the effect of all possible flight deck alerts and indications on pilot recognition and response; and (2) incorporate design enhancements (including flight deck alerts and indications), pilot procedures, and/or training requirements, where needed, to minimize the potential for and safety impact of pilot actions that are inconsistent with manufacturer assumptions. (A-19-11) ...'
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... SR1901.pdf

Ray


And I think that could be the elephant in the room. Every Aircraft system has to have a comprehensive system safety assessment done. This is normally done by people other than the design engineers.

This systems safety assessment breaks down the system into individual compeonents with their individual failure rate and a fault tree is built up modelled on the system and at the top it calculates the failure rate of the system. An analysis is then carried out regarding the system failure modes and a categorization is given to each, these being Minor, Major Hazardous: 1 x 10-6 and Catastrophic: 1 x 10-9

If system doesn't meet these requirements then typically it is redesgined or grandfathered. My feeling is that when the FAA started reviewing the aircrafts documentation, it simply hadn't been done properly, did not meet the category required if at all. This could mean that a whole host of systems either have to have a new safety case built - not a trivial job or even worse the system simply doesn't meet the hazard's failure category


I agree with the above ,but if you look at a horizontal stabilizer that has more authority than the elevator, then logically the amount of redundancy should be the same or better than that of the elevator. (You can even say the one with more authority should be the primary surface and have most redundancy)
I would not even debate the issue.
This issue has arisen due to the engine placement below the wings which causes big out of trim moments from max to min thrust. This should have given someone a message that double or triple redundancy is needed in case of control surface actuation failure.(elevator and trim)
The 737 has double hydraulic circuits for the elevators and they are even split left and right to act independently if necessary.
The A320neo has cg restriction at present, so how about giving the 737 fleet speed restrictions so that the mechanical hand wheel can always be used. Might take a while to get to your destination.


As long as they keep it at normal speeds and below Vmo - the manual trim wheel should be absolutely fine as reported by actual 737 Captains on these forums who have used it in flight. You would get there in normal time.
 
Draken21fx
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:38 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:39 pm

JibberJim wrote:
marcelh wrote:
IMO not for all airlines. Ryaniar don't want to introduce the MAX in the summer, because it's their busiest season. And pushing back deliveries of the MAX200 for Ryanair frees up delivery capacity for other airlines.


That would be an uncharacteristically strange move from MOL, or an extremely expensive one for Boeing. MOL isn't going to agree to delay delivery when there are penalties to be accrued from Boeing for failing to deliver on time are there. The compensation from Boeing would have to be larger than the penalties, and larger than the costs of flying around older planes, there may be some value to FR getting predictable delivery dates, but even pushing out FR deliveries by months isn't ready to do that now.


I found that strange as well. Let's say Boeing offers them 5+5 deliveries in July and August, it would be much simpler in my mind getting the planes and not flying them for 2 months if needed, rather than postponing deliveries for after summer. Also Ryanair will be flat out during the summer season, those airplanes can provide useful if some of their planes go tech.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19278
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:44 pm

Spiderguy252 wrote:
Why haven't any customers cancelled orders for the MAX and switched to Airbus instead?


Through end of November, Boeing recorded -119 "contractual changes" for 737s. That number excludes an additional -131 ASC606 adjustments. December's final figures will be worth watching.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:50 pm

Good article from Forbes regarding the problems that Boeing must face up to in 2020, including its lack of leadership and direction, plus the ongoing 737MAX fiasco

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgol ... ust-begun/

I am wondering what Spirit Aerosystems down in Kansas are going to do... they already have over a hundred completed 737MAX fuselages stored down there.. they are in the process of buying Bombardiers Belfast plant that makes the wings for the A220.. so are they are going to lay off hard to replace workers in Kansas.. seems logical that if they can build 737MAX fuselages they could build A220 or A320 fuselages .. maybe a bit simplistic.. but its a thought.
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:54 pm

scbriml wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
Why haven't any customers cancelled orders for the MAX and switched to Airbus instead?


Through end of November, Boeing recorded -119 "contractual changes" for 737s. That number excludes an additional -131 ASC606 adjustments. December's final figures will be worth watching.

Scott Kirby has gone on the record stating UA has been wheeling and dealing on additional MAX aircraft as others have deferred or cancelled orders.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:57 pm

morrisond wrote:
I'm sure the MAX would be fine as well if you limit the COG envelope. It just may be more extreme on the MAX.

On what facts are based your certitude ?
If it's so simple, why Boeing did not do that since a full half year to stop the grounding and restart the full production ?
Last edited by PixelFlight on Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:04 pm

morrisond wrote:
As long as they keep it at normal speeds and below Vmo - the manual trim wheel should be absolutely fine as reported by actual 737 Captains on these forums who have used it in flight. You would get there in normal time.

Again, Vmo is just a safety margin to Vd. FAA require that longitudinal control must be designed to work up to Vd.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
smartplane
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:17 pm

Scarebus34 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
Why haven't any customers cancelled orders for the MAX and switched to Airbus instead?


Through end of November, Boeing recorded -119 "contractual changes" for 737s. That number excludes an additional -131 ASC606 adjustments. December's final figures will be worth watching.

Scott Kirby has gone on the record stating UA has been wheeling and dealing on additional MAX aircraft as others have deferred or cancelled orders.

Customers must disclose to markets 'material' changes to orders, both increases and cancellations, so if undisclosed by Boeing, UA, and customers, the 'wheeling and dealing' has yet to firm.

All MAX customers have signed RR style confidentiality agreements. MOL is probably at the limit of what can be said, but acceptable due to the unique model variation ordered.

We live in interesting times. Boeing (and Airbus) standard sale / purchase agreements preclude customers from selling undelivered aircraft to third parties, other than in contemplation of sale / leaseback. Perhaps this condition has been suspended for the duration of the grounding. Boeing would prefer changes to end customers if orders remain in tact, rather than order cancellations and then new orders placed. Such changes will be conditional, more akin to options to minimise disclosures at this stage.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1911
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, January 2020

Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:35 pm

Article about some of the problems that Boeing is working on aside from MCAS. Seems they are looking at wiring that may cause a short and force the plane down if the pilots doesn't react quick enough. Then there is also lightning protection that was inadvertently removed to fit the engines on the aircraft. Those are some of issues also being looked at.

It’s Not Just Software. New Safety Risks Under Scrutiny on Boeing’s 737 Max.

Even as Boeing inches closer to getting the 737 Max back in the air, new problems with the plane are emerging that go beyond the software that played a role in two deadly crashes.

...

The company is looking at whether two bundles of critical wiring are too close together and could cause a short circuit. A short in that area could lead to a crash if pilots did not respond correctly, the people said. Boeing is still trying to determine whether that scenario could actually occur on a flight and, if so, whether it will need to separate the wire bundles in the roughly 800 Max jets that have already been built. The company says that the fix, if needed, is relatively simple.

...

Boeing also recently told the F.A.A. that it had discovered a manufacturing problem that left the plane’s engines vulnerable to a lightning strike.

While assembling the Max, workers at Boeing’s Renton factory had ground down the outer shell of a panel that sits atop the engine housing in an effort to ensure a better fit into the plane. In doing so, they inadvertently removed the coating that insulates the panel from a lightning strike, taking away a crucial protection for the fuel tank and fuel lines. The F.A.A. is developing a directive that will require the company to restore lightning protection to the engine panel and Boeing is already in the process of resolving the issue.


It does state in the article that there will be simulator flights for regulators from Europe this week coming up. So progress it seems but challenges could still demand attention form the company.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos