Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter
Back to Squawk list
  • 32

Boeing says it might have to shut down 737 Max production

Soumis
 
New York (CNN Business)Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg warned investors Wednesday that the company might need to further slow or temporarily halt its 737 Max production. Boeing has continued to build the 737 Max, its bestselling jet, although at a slower pace. The plane has been grounded since mid-March because of two fatal crashes that killed more than 300 people. Boeing hopes to get approval for the plane to fly again sometime early in the fourth quarter. Muilenburg said any further delays in… (www.cnn.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


sho69607
Spencer Hoefer 14
Isn't poor management what led to the demise of McDonnell Douglas in the 90's? Boeing isn't broke like MD was at the end, but this whole thing of designing things on the cheap and cutting corners is what bankrupted their former competitor in the first place.
Cansojr
Cansojr 3
EXCELLENT COMMENT!
siriusloon
siriusloon -2
Instead of shouting, please disable your CapsLock key and try using the up/down voting arrows.
Cansojr
Cansojr 1
I do that when somegthing is caped for posiivve emphasis regarding an excellent squawk. I am not yelling.
Cansojr
Cansojr 1
And you were not yelling when you accused me of being insane?
airuphere
airuphere 2
I wonder if any MD staff is still with them after the buy out...? With their same philosophies.
w7psk
Ricky Scott 2
Very Much Yes with very much the same philosophies. But, they thought they could make it work this time.
ROBERTMILLSJR
ROBERT MILLS JR -1
I’m sure the main reason McDonnell Douglas (MD) failed was California Workers' Compensation (WC) Fraud by Medical Doctors, plaintiff/applicant attorneys and major insurance companies (most if not all of the big and small ones - you know many of their names).
Some of the insurance companies/administrators in California that I worked for gladly paid 100% of all obviously fraudulent and exorbitantly billed WC claims; because, the law in California was WC insurance carriers got 140% for whatever they paid on behalf of employers to medial/legal, applicant doctors.
Moreover, California apparently has the highest WC cost system in the USA, but, provides the least amount of benefits to injured workers of all 50 states.
As an insurance adjuster, starting straight out of the USAF in 1986 for a major insurance carrier, literally every other employer for which I did an onsite WC injury investigation in the Los Angeles basin was insolvent; and, the reason always given was “we couldn’t afford the WC insurance premiums.”
Even some of my defense attorneys were apparently “on the take,” apparently, receiving kick backs in the form of cocaine and cash to get me and other adjusters to pay the fraudulent bills to avoid litigation. I fired an entire, substantial law firm, substituted out their files, and, the firm folded.
I fought tooth and nail against the system for six years, willingly working 100 hour weeks when being paid for 40 hours, not being an idiot Californian, initially being hired specifically, because, I wasn’t from California and being prior military.
In fact, I solely started the war against California WC fraud in 1989, with the assistance of one honest defense attorney; and, what I solely started eventually gave California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger his signature, major accomplishment in office, California WC reform.
I to this day highly respect Governor Schwarzenegger for being an honest and business-minded governor. He’s been the best to date of all California governors.
My respect is so high for then Governor Schwarzenegger, for several years after the reform, I told many other business persons that “I’d take a bullet for Arnold.” I’ve ultimate respect for that man.
To me, apparently crooked doctors, insurance companies/administrators, attorneys, politicians & judges, and, a terrible labor-employee pool to pick from brought down McDonnell Douglas.
ROBERTMILLSJR
ROBERT MILLS JR -1
I’m sure the main reason McDonnell Douglas (MD) failed was California Workers' Compensation (WC) Fraud by Medical Doctors, plaintiff/applicant attorneys and major insurance companies (most if not all of the big and small ones - you know many of their names).
Some of the insurance companies/administrators in California that I worked for gladly paid 100% of all obviously fraudulent and exorbitantly billed WC claims; because, the law in California was WC insurance carriers got 140% for whatever they paid on behalf of employers to medial/legal, applicant doctors.
Moreover, California apparently has the highest WC cost system in the USA, but, provides the least amount of benefits to injured workers of all 50 states.
As an insurance adjuster, starting straight out of the USAF in 1986 for a major insurance carrier, literally every other employer for which I did an onsite WC injury investigation in the Los Angeles basin was insolvent; and, the reason always given was “we couldn’t afford the WC insurance premiums.”
Even some of my defense attorneys were apparently “on the take,” apparently, receiving kick backs in the form of cocaine and cash to get me and other adjusters to pay the fraudulent bills to avoid litigation. I fired and entire law firm of attorneys, substituted out their files and, it folded.
I fought tooth and nail against the system for six years, willingly working 100 hour weeks when being paid for 40 hours, not being an idiot Californian, initially being hired specifically, because, I wasn’t from California and being prior military.
In fact, I solely started the war against California WC fraud in 1989, with the assistance of one honest defense attorney; and, what I solely started eventually gave California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger his signature, major accomplishment in office, California WC reform.
I to this day highly respect Governor Schwarzenegger for being an honest and business-minded governor.
My respect is so high for then Governor Schwarzenegger, for several years after the reform, I told many other business persons that “I’d take a bullet for Arnold.” I’ve ultimate respect for that man.
To me, apparently crooked doctors, insurance companies/administrators, attorneys, politicians & judges, and, a terrible labor-employee pool to pick from brought down McDonnell Douglas.
Cansojr
Cansojr 23
Boeing is trying to make a severely impaired aircraft with patches, software changes. This does not change the fact that this aircraft should meet the same fate as other errors in aeronautical design. This program should be terminated before other lives are needlessly put at unnecessary risk.
nicolengono
nicole ngono 1
I agree . So sad , I like Boeing aircrafts !
nicolengono
nicole ngono 0
I prefer to travel in a Boeing plane that in an Airbus . Look at the rudder , Boeing's rudders are more solid or stronger .
hornet135
hornet135 -6
Speak in facts, not projection and hyperbole.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 3
he is speaking in facts. Boeing should have never made this aircraft, as it has a major physical design flaw, and they attempted to compensate for that with flawed software.
hornet135
hornet135 -2
His "severely impaired" is really a stretch as is your "major physical design flaw". I know it's popular to demonize Boeing in any possible way, and they totally deserve it for how MCAS was implemented and rushed to market while being essentially hidden from pilots. However, there's no reason why MCAS can't be properly implemented.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
There is no reason why MCAS should have existed, except you said it yourself. The jet was rushed to market. Hence it's the only way they could get a physical design flaw, to function like other craft.
No one is "demonizing" Boeing, but many are extremely, to say it mildly, ticked off at them. It isn't just due to the MAX issues, but that was the tipping point.
hornet135
hornet135 -1
The concept of MCAS isn't inherently flawed, in fact MCAS is not that different systems that have existed on the 737 prior, like speed trim, etc.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 4
MCAS is flawed. There was no preemption coded into it, there was no code to safely enter a cross check with the other panel/controls to see if what is being reported is indeed accurate, and because of that, couldn't have been overridden.

In the IT world, that is called a sanity check. That should have existed well prior to any testing, let alone real world implementation. Those are serious flaws that never should have been signed off on, let alone been run through a compiler without being addressed.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
You beat me to it. Not only is it flawed, it should never have existed save Boeing wanted to rush the jet to market, and it is not similar to pre-existing B737 flight controls.
hornet135
hornet135 1
Nobody is arguing that the MCAS software isn't flawed, but rather that there is nothing inherently wrong with using electronics and computers/software to modify the handling characteristics using stabilizer trim. It just has to be implemented properly and not given cursory treatment. Despite claims to the contrary, this is not the first time 737 flight characteristics have been modified using computer controlled stabilizer trim.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
What you are describing is basically fly by wire. I would love to know which 737 used computer controlled stabilizer trim, not including the autopilot, before the MAX? As far as I know, the MAX is the first 737 to use fly by wire.
hornet135
hornet135 1
Speed trim is the best example, introduced with the Classic series and remaining through to the MAX.

From the 737 flight manual
“The Speed Trim System (STS) is a speed stability augmentation system designed to improve flight characteristics during operations with a low gross weight, aft center of gravity and high thrust when the autopilot is not engaged.”

The speed trim uses the inputs of thrust setting, airspeed, rate of climb, horizontal stabilizer angle. It runs on the Flight Control Computer which houses two 16 bit microcontrollers of differing manufacture.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Thank you...so again Boeing was blowing smoke up the butts of folks when they stated way back that the MAX was the first 737 example to use a fly by wire system with MCAS. Basically this is likened to MCAS, on a smaller scale, and with better "characteristics".
When reading through what pilots were saying about it, thou, they found it to be an interference rather than a helper. And if Boeing already had this system, why not continue to use it in a greater capacity rather than the botched up attempt called MCAS.
Notice too how speed trim needs 4-5 inputs to trim slightly. MCAS took 1 input, now apparently it will use 2 inputs, to trim major...so yes MCAS, itself, is flawed, not just the software but the total package.
jbqwik
jbqwik 15
Little is being said about the 'other' software issue(s) which are causing the extended delays in return to service. But apparently it's enough to make a recert a real possibility. And I wonder if any other type are running legacy software with 'issues'?
I also agree that Muilenburg and his cronies should be held more accountable; his initial public denials were offensive and gross. The corporate Boeing ethos has, for the last 15 years, been all about $$ and keeping Airbus down as much as possible, at any cost. Not what Boeing used to be.
Flic1
Flic1 25
The MAX needs to be relegated to the dumpster of flawed engineering and design immediately. Shame on Boeing...I used to have a lot of respect for this company but corporate greed has taken over as it has with most public companies. Sickening this CEO hasn't been escorted out of the building but instead will get another $10mm raise this year. Pathetic...
bazkennelly
Barry Kennelly 3
Yes I agree a complete redesign and rebuild is the only way out, nobody will fly in a MAX now. Computer software to correct the poor aerodynamics.. what were they thinking!
siriusloon
siriusloon 2
For an airliner, I agree, but modern fighters since at least the F-16 are inherently very unstable and cannot fly without their FBW system. Using software to "correct" an unstable fighter is standard practice. You want an unstable fighter because it's much easier to maneuvre, a feature not required in an airliner or other transport.
Sabretooth78
Christopher Sargeant 0
You mean when you have a fried hard drive you can't just get it back up and running by reinstalling the OS? I've wasted my life... :)
hornet135
hornet135 2
Relegated to the dumpster, really? Boeing messed up majorly, but it's really quite astonishing that this had so many upvotes.
speshulk99
john kilcher 1
Surely this Max issue has political overtones. Boeing is US, A/B them. Childish thinking, methinks.
vanstaalduinenj
Jon Van Staalduinen 5
Need to move on from the 737 design.
vanstaalduinenj
Jon Van Staalduinen 3
Even if moving the engines back was an option, it would mean all the current Max's (many that have never flown a single mile) would be useless scrap.
Also all the cost of redesign and software etc...would be immense.
Boeing needs a fresh start. Move on from the 50 year old 737 design. Use the c series as a modern example of how awesome a new aircraft can be.
siriusloon
siriusloon 2
I'm hardly an apologist for Boeing, but they build the aircraft their customers want and what a lot of their customers wanted was an updated 737. Introducing an entirely new type is more expensive, regardless of how much better its seat-mile costs might be, than adding a new variant of an aircraft already in their fleet (and in some cases, comprises 100% of their fleet). Training pilots, cabin crew, maintainers, and ramp workers takes time and money. So does acquiring and keeping a second logistics tail with little commo9nality with the existing one. Airlines don't add an entirely new type on a whim, so when they say they want more and better (in theory) 737s, of course Boeing will sell them 737s. It's clear that Boeing has wanted to move on from the 737 for a long time for a variety of reasons, but they're in business to make money and they're not going to tell customers, including some of their biggest ones, "no more 737s".
bigkahuna400
bigkahuna400 1
Boeing screwed the pooch on this one. They always the "Max" was a half baked project, but did not realize the "new engines" did not fit correctly until it was almost ready etc. Trying to keep the 737 alive was bad decision. They took years to bring it out as well and could of designed a new plane in same time it took to "re-engineer" this nightmare. But dumping it now would cost a great deal in jobs, other companies involved in it in many countries as well....Mgmt should fall on their sword though....
bigkahuna400
bigkahuna400 9
Told you this would happen...also no place to park them continuously as well at 30+/Mo.
cdavidpcarr
David Carr 4
The 737 MAX - A varient too far
ecoRfan
Adam DiSarro 4
I'm an all-American Boeing Boy, but I say the MAX should be banned from the sky as it is simply not balanced enough to be airworthy. Had the 757 tooling not been scrapped before ETOPS, we could have averted this entire mess. I would never board a MAX as everyone knows now it's unbalanced.
hornet135
hornet135 1
Balanced enough? That's not the issue.
ianmcdonell
ian mcdonell 6
Now that news is a real surprise - NOT
golfbum971
golfbum971 6
Whoever made the decision to destroy the tooling for the 757 should be put in front of a firing squad!
wentress1027
Wendy Henderson 3
Good idea to many ?
asellitto
A Sellitto 2
Southwest just eliminated all flights to and from Newark Airport- Not enough planes!
watkinssusan
mary susan watkins 2
this was expected,as were several airlines posting cutbacks and possible layoffs because they cant use the 737 max or have had to cancel delivery of the same plane..its a real shame because people at boeing will be laid off as well..i had read an article describing issues and problems with their new Dreamliner aircraft also...this company as been around for so many years..sad...
Sabretooth78
Christopher Sargeant 3
Don't fret, though: The execs will do just fine. Some of them might be inconvenienced by having to wait a few minutes to find a position somewhere else (poor things) but nothing life-altering.
michel17
Michel Montreuil 2
The parking lot is full boys! Time to shut it down!
philderooy
Phil Derooy 3
There is no way I’d ever board a 737 Max jet...NEVER
djjamar
Jamar Jackson 4
Karma is a mean b**tch and snitches get big snitches.
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
just a new single aisle composite, plus a little more cash, (then their spending now) and time, would have them close to the top, the 787-8, 9 and 10 are not only great aircraft inside, but saving time and fuel all day, every day - around the world
the guy who fought for the above, probably got canned, just the idea of boarding a 737-10 makes me ill
- outside of the 57 and larger, I avoid 37's even before the max - if at all possible.
cabin comfort in the back, has always been better in a A-320 / 19 and 21 / just because the fuselage is larger, and not tapered in front until after the main boarding door, or at the center line (window seats)
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
But with that said, I've flown a MAX 9, and would fly any American Airline Max, at any time.
those who say never... good luck
Jackx9
Don Quixote 0
Look! Another Boeing/MAX Article! What a surprise! CNN(gag)!
siriusloon
siriusloon 2
How many Boeing shares do you own? Or maybe you actually work for their PR agency?

This may come as a shock to you, but CNN is in the business of reporting news and this is still an ongoing story whether you personally wish it wasn't or not. Are you aware that you don't actually have to read or watch CNN? Just let Faux News do your thinking for you.
HarrisonV
Harry Venison 1
Haha, well said ;)
steerts
Ron Streetenberger -1
My comments about Muslim crews in the cockpits of the only two fatal crashes of the Max resulted in the removal of it due to negative reactions. So much for freedom of the speech on Flight Aware. Maybe I was closer to the truth than many would allow.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
I went back and read itour comments were not close at all!! Maybe you did not stop and think A: How do you know who they were? B: Even if they were Muslim folk, WTH has that got to do with anything? C: Racism of a culture Has it occurred to you that not all Muslim folk are bad??
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Your comments*
steerts
Ron Streetenberger -1
Somalia and indonesia are Muslim countries. The crew were 99% Muslim. I did not say that Muslim pilots were bad: Only prone to be bad pilots. The Indonesian 777 that disappeared was piloted by a Muslim pilot who obviously was eager to go to Paradise.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
WTH has Somalia got to do with either of the 2 crashes? NO, the crew of the ETHIOPIAN Airlines craft were not 99% Muslim!
BTW, before spewing more racist aligned remarks, you may want to get your facts straight. It was Malaysian Airlines triple 7 and no one knows WTH happened.
steerts
Ron Streetenberger -1
Islam is a faith and I am not guilty of faithism or racism. I'm sorry That I was wrong about both countries but Ethiopia and Malaysia are also Muslim countries.
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 2
The CIA World Factbook has these numbers for religious affiliations in Ethiopia:
Ethiopian Orthodox 43.5%, Muslim 33.9%, Protestant 18.5%, traditional 2.7%, Catholic 0.7%, other 0.6% (2007 est.)
Still want to pretend that Ethiopia is a Muslim country?
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
ALSO, the crew of the Ethiopian Airlines WERE NOT 99% Muslim!!
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
If you noticed, I stated "racist aligned remarks", and if you are not racist then why the "was piloted by a Muslim pilot who obviously was eager to go to Paradise." AGAIN NO ONE really knows WTH happened!!
siriusloon
siriusloon 2
This is a privately-owned forum and has no obligation for "freedom of speech", especially when that "freedom" is exercised irresponsibly with stereotypes and racism. Don't like? Start your own forum and make your own rules. I bet you'll be booting out everybody who simply disagrees with you, whether they make racist comments or not.
steerts
Ron Streetenberger -1
I didn't know that we were such close friends.
BobWysocki
Bob Wysocki-Borejsza -9
Boeing has lost it grip and could file for chapter 11 anytime soon

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 22
It is more than that. The LEAP engines are so much bigger than the CFMs they have on the B738 that for the MAX they had to move the location of where they are mounted, otherwise they would not have enough clearance for the engines. That is what caused them to be moved in the first place, which altered the CG, and caused the potential for a higher AoA and additional lift being created, which in turn brought in MCAS.

So no, mounting the new engines on the B738 will NOT work.
airuphere
airuphere 4
Well said. Question... Boeing says the new engine placement caused the “slightly” higher AoA needing MCAS... is this CG shift really a slight change making the nose drift slightly up - or does it totally kill the aerodynamics? As we know MCAS is only on during manual flight not needed all the time? Kinda like the MD11 and it’s temperamental pitch control?
* asking the question not making a statement looking for actual opinion.
btweston
btweston 6
From what I read (and this is off the top of my head) the issue isn’t just the CG but that the placement of the engines also causes a change in the airflow which basically equates to the nacelle creating its own lift, causing an uncommanded pitch up at higher AOA.

So it seems that there is a real aerodynamic problem, which is why the fix is not as simple as telling the MCAS “don’t do that.”
williambaker08
william baker 2
If im not mistaken didnt they have to redesign the landing gear as well to make it longer and then fold into itself upon retraction.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
That was on the MAX10, and it is what I was referring to in my reply to Brad. The nose gear was already lengthened.
hornet135
hornet135 3
Right, the issue is the extra lift created at high alpha by the larger nacelles situated a little further forward. This can result in a pitch up moment at slow speeds, high alpha, and high thrust. Enough so that the stick forces/handling in that rare corner of the flight regime are different enough from the 737NG to require MCAS in order to maintain a single type certificate. A lot of words get thrown around like "cg problems" and "inherently unstable" without much to support it. Cg issues would be present throughout the flight, even times when MCAS isn't intended to be active. Also, on the flight prior to the first crash, MCAS was disabled and the flight continued without incident. Doesn't exactly sound like an inherently unstable aircraft to me, just one with a critical issue.
airuphere
airuphere 1
Thanks for the reply! And to the others who have replied too. There is a great vid on YouTube about the max 10 landing gear.. fyi
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 2
Actually...it could work...issue is Boeing wants to keep its blinders on and not listen to anyone.
A few "researchers" plugged in what would happen if the bigger engines were back in the NG mount location and then used the hydraulic landing gear idea the MAX10 uses. Wing leading edge would need an bit of an increase in dimension, the nacells (which are slightly flat along the bottom but not noticeable) would have to be a tad flatter, but it worked.
The downfall was the fuel burn decrease dropped from +17% to +14.48%
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
Then they'd have to back to every buyer, and convert them, I don't think there's a chance of that happening.
rapidwolve
rapidwolve 1
Oh I agree. There would be no way they could convert them. My reply was to Brad saying that it could not have been done in reference to starting the B737NG line back up. The "ground up" approach.
siriusloon
siriusloon 2
They're still making NGs. Aircraft that will become P-8 Poseidons, for example, start out on the standard production line and then are flown to another Boeing site to become military aircraft. They are far from being the only examples on the NG line.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!