Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

Another concern that I have is around the quality of aircraft that will be produced going forward, as I would expect Boeing would want to ramp up production to a far higher rate than normal in order to satisfy cash flow and profit requirements and recoup some of the losses as fast as possible. This will put pressure on workers and suppliers and may encourage shortcuts such as has been reported in the 787 program.
 
Southwest Airlines on Thursday said it won’t fly the grounded Boeing 737 Max until next year, warned about higher-than-expected costs and announced it’s pulling out of Newark Liberty International Airport this November as the grounding of the new jets drags on longer than expected.

Southwest dropped the Max from its schedules until Jan. 5, later than any U.S. airline, a move that means the low-cost carrier — and passengers — will face canceled flights and potentially higher fares during the busy end-of-year holiday travel period. The Dallas-based carrier expects its capacity this year to fall 1% to 2% in 2019 from last year, down from a forecast of a 5% expansion. ...
 
Whilst this is bad for Boeing right now, if we cast our memories back Airbus wasn't perfect either with the AF A320-111 demonstration crash at the 1988 Habersheim Airshow.

I'm sure it was very bad for Airbus at the time but there are plenty of A320's flying today. Both have had significant problems in the past.

Will be interesting to see how Boeing will recover this situation.
 
Whilst this is bad for Boeing right now, if we cast our memories back Airbus wasn't perfect either with the AF A320-111 demonstration crash at the 1988 Habersheim Airshow.

I'm sure it was very bad for Airbus at the time but there are plenty of A320's flying today. Both have had significant problems in the past.

Will be interesting to see how Boeing will recover this situation.

Pretty sure that was found to be basically pilot error, and bad flight planning.
 
Agree both Airlines have had issues there are some differences

The A320 was a relatively new aircraft model where as the 737 is an old model that has been added and added to. Airbus didn't hide the issue and didn't blame incompetent pilots.

Boeing hid the issue didn't train pilots properly and blamed poor piloting for the crashes, BIG DIFFERENCE

Boeing's rush to secure orders put commercial considerations before safety, lets not discuss the battery issue with the 787 nor the poor build quality being reported, I for one still prefer an Airbus over a Boeing I would still however still fly certain Boeing models.
 
Pretty sure that was found to be basically pilot error, and bad flight planning.


From Wiki

This particular flight was not only the A320's first passenger flight (most of those on-board were journalists and raffle winners), but it was also the first public demonstration of any civilian fly-by-wire aircraft. The low-speed flyover, with landing gear down, was supposed to take place at an altitude of 100 feet (33 metres); instead, the plane performed the flyover at 30 feet, skimmed the treetops of the forest at the end of the runway (which had not been shown on the airport map given to the pilots), and crashed. All the passengers survived the initial impact, but a woman and two children died from smoke inhalation before they were able to escape.
Official reports concluded that the pilots flew too low, too slow, failed to see the forest and accidentally flew into it. The captain, Michel Asseline, disputed the report and claimed an error in the fly-by-wire computer prevented him from applying thrust and pulling up. In the aftermath of the crash, there were allegations that investigators had tampered with evidence, specifically the aircraft's flight recorders
 
More detail on the interactions between Boeing and the FAA during the development of the MAX and after the first crash.


...
In the middle of the Max’s development, two of the most seasoned engineers in the F.A.A.’s Boeing office left.

The engineers, who had a combined 50 years of experience, had joined the office at its creation, taking on responsibility for flight control systems, including MCAS. But they both grew frustrated with the work, which they saw as mostly paper pushing, according to two people with knowledge of the staff changes.

In their place, the F.A.A. appointed an engineer who had little experience in flight controls, and a new hire who had gotten his master’s degree three years earlier. People who worked with the two engineers said they seemed ill-equipped to identify any problems in a complex system like MCAS.

And Boeing played down the importance of MCAS from the outset.

An early review by the company didn’t consider the system risky, and it didn’t prompt additional scrutiny from the F.A.A. engineers, according to two agency officials. The review described a system that would activate only in rare situations, when a plane was making a sharp turn at high speeds.

The F.A.A. engineers who had been overseeing MCAS never received another safety assessment. As Boeing raced to finish the Max in 2016, agency managers gave the company the power to approve a batch of safety assessments — some of the most important documents in any certification. They believed the issues were low risk. ...
...
Days after the Lion Air crash, the agency invited Boeing executives to the F.A.A.’s Seattle headquarters, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn’t know.

In the middle of the conversation, an F.A.A. employee, one of the people said, interrupted to ask a question on the minds of several agency engineers: Why hadn’t Boeing updated the safety analysis of a system that had become so dangerous? ...
 
I cant see how it couldn't have been cheaper now given the issues and the compensation that will have to be paid to airlines families suppliers etc would have to end up being over the 10 Billion Dollar Mark surely.
 
The criticism seems to be getting more intense.

 
I don't hate nor love either Boeing or Airbus. But this thing with the MAX aircraft is to me essentially a case of a bubble forming that eventually had to burst. As JB has said from the start, Boeing kept "grandfathering" an old design due to economic pressures.

I had expected since the first crash (where the fundamental flaws in design and processes became apparent) that this was going to be big. But it seems that the whole thing has taken on a momentum that includes not just rectifying the plane, but the entire philosophy of design and certification. As I said, the bubble has burst. It is not inconceivable now that those endless new planes accumulating in various carparks and deserts will never actually fly.

This is not big, this is huge.
 
I have a feeling the 737 Max will not fly commercially as a passenger jet again..
The fallout and negative public perception from the 2 crashes maybe a hurdle too high for Boeing to overcome.
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling the 737 Max will not fly commercially as a passenger jet again..
The fallout and negative public perception from the 2 crashes maybe a hurdle too high for Boring to overcome.

I think this issue transcends the public issue of perception. Public perceptions wither after a month or two of no coverage - Boeing could get past that just by renaming the aircraft. It appears to me that the relevant authorities have instead actually woken up to serious and sick issues within the build/certification process. I think this is now the predominant factor. They (as in those authorities) have woken up and realised that things were amiss. And as happens in these circumstances, they are now swinging the other way, no longer turning a blind eye, to becoming suddenly serious and cautious. That is why the MAX is flapped....
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

I think this issue transcends the public issue of perception. Public perceptions wither after a month or two of no coverage..

This is the question.

Aussies readily forget the Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia incidents, happy to book and fly both of them. But 10 years on still refuse to fly Garuda based on perception.

How the 737MAX plays out will be interesting.
 
This is the question.

Aussies readily forget the Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia incidents, happy to book and fly both of them. But 10 years on still refuse to fly Garuda based on perception.

How the 737MAX plays out will be interesting.
Thats TRUE, but if the flights were cheaper and in first class. I could be swayed. So then you die sitting in first lol
 
I don't hate nor love either Boeing or Airbus. But this thing with the MAX aircraft is to me essentially a case of a bubble forming that eventually had to burst. As JB has said from the start, Boeing kept "grandfathering" an old design due to economic pressures.

I had expected since the first crash (where the fundamental flaws in design and processes became apparent) that this was going to be big. But it seems that the whole thing has taken on a momentum that includes not just rectifying the plane, but the entire philosophy of design and certification. As I said, the bubble has burst. It is not inconceivable now that those endless new planes accumulating in various carparks and deserts will never actually fly.

This is not big, this is huge.
I bet you ten bucks that they fly again. It's not a graveyard issue yet. Grandfathering and old design? What does that mean?
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top