CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

Politically, Seattle ( Boeing's hometown) and Washington state are both Democrat turf....only three Republicans out of ten Representatives. Both Washington State senators are currently Dems.

Trump doesn't give a rap about anywhere that isn't pro Trump.



Sanctions implies a concerted global action to punish an American company....don't think that is the case.

This is a safety issue. Nobody wants loaded passenger jets dropping out of the sky over their backyard.

Hairy times for Boeing CEO.
Sanctions was probably the wrong word.
 
The Unholy Trinity of Manufacturers, Operstors and Regulators have been playing fast an looose for years, their only God being cash. Plenty of scrap metal and numerous lives.

Don’t hold your breath.
I remember the DC-10 cargo door fiasco for which, IIRC, the FAA got a right bollocking from the NTSB for putting commercial concerns before air safety. About time aviation safety was split from the FAA. Mind you that’s been talked about for decades.
 
The following is a very interesting CBC story on what may be wrong with the Boeing 737 Max 8 and what it could mean for Boeing.
What could be wrong with the 737 Max — and what it means for Boeing | CBC News

I will pick a few points to highlight, but the story as a whole is worth reading.

Boeing's 737 was competing with the Airbus A320 for the biggest segment of the airliner market. Both models were getting old but were still selling well, so neither company was in a rush to come out with an all new replacement.

Then Bombardier came out with their plans for their new C Series. This plane was a game changer. Both Boeing and Airbus realised they needed a replacement to compete with it, but didn't want to spend the money on an all new design. Instead they made incremental improvements to their existing older ones.

The result was the Boeing 737 Max and the Airbus A320 NEO. Since first delivery in 2017, Boeing has old almost 400 737 Max planes.

One of the improvements that Boeing installed was new engines. These ones are larger in diameter. To accommodate them they had to be installed further forward and higher up on the wing.

That changed the dynamics of how the aircraft responds and can cause the nose to pitch up. If it pitches up too high, it can stall. To resolve that Boeing made software changes that automatically push the nose back down if the system thinks there is a danger of a stall. However, they didn't bother to tell the pilots about this.

Boeing now had a problem that had to be fixed. It's the equivalent of a recall notice on a car. If Boeing can deal with it gradually over a period of months it would be much less expensive than if they had to fix it all at once. Now that all the planes are grounded however, they have no choice but to fix them, and to do it right away.

Boeing's share price has fallen 13 percent since the Ethiopia crash. They were expected to sell 580 737 Max jets this year, twice what they sold last year. This was to account for a third of their profits. They have another 5,000 on back order, worth more than $600 billion.

If Boeing can't restore confidence in the plane, they stand to lose a lot of money. One analyst in the story notes that a full replacement for the 737 would cost $10 billion to develop, and it won't happen overnight.

The above is the background to this ongoing story, and why it matters so much to Boeing and the US government.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Minor point, but Boeing moved their corporate headquarters to Chicago several years ago. As to the politics of it all, they have major production facilities in Missouri and South Carolina, both of which vote Republican.
Noted......which is why Trump gave a speech at St Louis,NOT Seattle :)

@terminal - how much cash does 13 per cent of the Boeing shareprice represent ?
( bearing in mind all share prices are nominal and have surprisingly little to do with a company's cash position)
 
Last edited:

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
ouch...from today's Economist:

Two tragic air disasters may not down Boeing

Analysts whisper that the issues with the Max may be only the start of bad news for Boeing. Before the latest rout, its share price had tripled in three years. In 2017 it was America’s best-performing industrial stock. In 2018 it was the eighth-best. But this, industry watchers caution, has more to do with its generous dividends and share buy-backs, which return 95% of the cash it generates to investors, than with a careful assessment of the risks associated with the company. If the Max or another issue stopped the flow of cash, investors could be in for a rude shock.

Boeing’s current strategy increases the risk of that, thinks Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group, an aviation consultancy in Virginia. The company wants to grab its suppliers’ fat margins by making more components in house. But this exposes it to losses if margins turn negative in a downturn. The company is vulnerable to Mr Trump’s trade wars, and the protectionism they stoke abroad: 85% of its civil aircraft sales come from outside America.

Lastly, Boeing cannot increase the amount of money it returns to shareholders indefinitely. Its net debt is rising, albeit from low levels.


It is possible that Boeing will be exonerated from blame for the latest crash. Some threats to its business may not materialise. No one has died in accidents involving the previous five aircraft types that Airbus and Boeing have developed. This happy streak has now come to a solemn end. The damage to Boeing’s prospects may not be irreparable. But they have been battered.
 
ouch...from today's Economist:

Two tragic air disasters may not down Boeing

Analysts whisper that the issues with the Max may be only the start of bad news for Boeing. Before the latest rout, its share price had tripled in three years. In 2017 it was America’s best-performing industrial stock. In 2018 it was the eighth-best. But this, industry watchers caution, has more to do with its generous dividends and share buy-backs, which return 95% of the cash it generates to investors, than with a careful assessment of the risks associated with the company. If the Max or another issue stopped the flow of cash, investors could be in for a rude shock.

Boeing’s current strategy increases the risk of that, thinks Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group, an aviation consultancy in Virginia. The company wants to grab its suppliers’ fat margins by making more components in house. But this exposes it to losses if margins turn negative in a downturn. The company is vulnerable to Mr Trump’s trade wars, and the protectionism they stoke abroad: 85% of its civil aircraft sales come from outside America.

Lastly, Boeing cannot increase the amount of money it returns to shareholders indefinitely. Its net debt is rising, albeit from low levels.


It is possible that Boeing will be exonerated from blame for the latest crash. Some threats to its business may not materialise. No one has died in accidents involving the previous five aircraft types that Airbus and Boeing have developed. This happy streak has now come to a solemn end. The damage to Boeing’s prospects may not be irreparable. But they have been battered.
There were other news reports recently that Boeing was already suffering due to the American aluminium and steel import tariffs.
 
Air Canada are predicting that the Boeing 737 Max will remain grounded for at least three weeks. Expect flight disruptions to last — Air Canada says its 737 Max jets will be grounded 3 weeks at least | CBC News
"We are cancelling all flights on our Boeing 737 Max fleet for the next three weeks and we will continue to modify our plan and communicate to you and our customers as needed."
Air Canada and Westjet have loads of these planes and this is causing a lot of disruption in Canada.
 
Well anything Airbus= pilot error by default.
Will be interesting to see if Boeing are acceptable of culpability.
@Toastie you're Boeing are'nt you?>

Edit> Caveat.. I'm a fully fledged member of the AAAIC. I singlehandedley solved several air accidents and did so before those walts on Pprune even got close to the source.

I have even, utilising my vast expeience, offered useful "words of advice" to some of our very own Skygods.

Face the master!!
 
Last edited:

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
It's an interesting case from a Risk Management perspective.

Managing risk is about mitigating rather than avoiding - you cannot eliminate risk, but you can put risk mitigation in place.

The example often cited is Ford Motor Company and the low end compact model called the Ford Pinto

The designers knew that there was a flaw in the build, they identified the risk and told senior management about it.

Management evaluated the costs of mitigation and chose to ignore the identified risk.

Professionalism/The Ford Pinto Gas Tank Controversy - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Whilst I am sure Boeing was unaware of the potential software issue when the ac was fielded, there are a number of reports from the US of pilots identifying the risk through day to day operation.

BEFORE two ac made unscheduled interfaces with Planet Earth, snuffing out 346 people.

If Boeing was aware of the risk and yet chose not to act on it then.....bring out the firing squad.
 
All known by the aviators on here with their eyes closed I'm sure.

Interesting video by the always excellent Mentour pilt for the layman

 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
he sounds like he learnt his English in Dublin.
 
Interesting development. Apparently BA has grounded a lot of their 787s with the Trent engines, nothing related to the 737 but I didn't know where else to post.

"British Airways are carrying out detailed precautionary inspections on their Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines on some of their Boeing 787-9 aircraft to ensure they meet safety requirements. Due to this issue, BA has grounded several of their 787-9 aircraft and had to make adjustments to their long-haul flight schedule."

British Airways To Lease Air Belgium A340 For Toronto Flights - Simple Flying
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top