The question everybody is wondering what the answer of is this: Are US-trained pilots any better at flying than non? Does air combat experience help you become a better flyer of complicated machines? Being of not great intellectual prowess, I like to restate the obvious
I remember many years ago several accidents on the DC 10. After the Memorial Day accident in Chicago I refused to ever fly that piece of garbage again as did many others and eventually they were taken out of service. I fear the same fate may await the Max.
1
Although the evidence of Boeing has been conclusively shown to be at fault for the deaths, there is still an atmosphere of deflect and avoid in their public statements. This is unconscionable.
If it is Boeing, I am not going.
2
There is a 5 minute video on youtube in which an American Airlines pilot explains what happened to cause these planes to crash and that there are two switches to disconnect the software so the pilot to take charge of flying. If the pilots of those two planes had watched that 5 minute video, they would not have crashed. The pilot who presented this said the entire training program for the 737 Max is a 56 minute iPad video. This should not have happened.
1
Boeing must love Robert Mueller right now.
Way to shift the focus, bro!
1
I wonder if anyone looked at Indonesian Air's prior airline accidents:
2018 - Lion Air Flight 610 crashes into Java Sea - 189 people killed
2015 - Aviastar Flight 7503 crashed into Latimojong Mountain killing all 10 aboard
2015 - Trigana Air Service Flight 267 crashed into Tangok Mtn. 54 people were killed
2015 - Indonesian Air C-130 crashes near Medan killing 22
2014 - Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 crashes into Java Sea killing 155
2012 - Sukhoi Superjet 100 crashed into Mount Salak killing all 37 people
Airline accidents happen in all types of planes - I don't think that's the problem.
2
Time to buy Boeing stock.....
2
@There - spoken like True American! And I wish I had some cash to follow your advice!
This plane is a death trap
2
I am sure the excellent engineers at Boeing understood the perils of a single point of failure system (MCAS) (with input from a single sensor) being the standard option on the 737 MAX and probably recommended against it. I am speculating that they were overruled internally by MBA-type business managers. How much profit per plane would they have lost by making the dual sensor MCAS standard? Shows that skimping on safety is penny wise and pound foolish!
Also, the fact that the FAA certified it is scandalous.
4
@Kam Banerjee - didn't certification come with "official" input from folks at Boeing?
1
A company that takes short cuts, games the approval/compliance process, literally defrauds it's clients and causes hundreds of lost lives and imperils tens of thousands more around the world should be closed down and it's executive managers jailed.
Will Boeing be another example of the "too big to fail" club? Despite what would be deemed as acts of homicide and conspiracy?
This will go down as one of the gravest corporate crimes in recorded history eclipsing white collar frauds such as Enron and VW where lives were not lost, lives not wrecked.
There is no logical reason for any company not to cancel it's orders with Boeing, period. They will no doubt be spending billions in settlements and class action suits defending their unscrupulous actions. The economic, financial and human pain and losses this company has caused is blatantly and deliberately criminal.
The public, the countries, the world should insist that justice be swift and decisive. Also, that the FAA should also be severely sanctioned for it's duplicitous role in allowing this type of self governing activities to exist and prosper.
5
This airline, Garuda Indonesia, as of March 2018 had total debt of USD 3,08 billion. In the mid-2018, it issued bond in Singapore Stock Exchange to pay some of its debt. For years and still ongoing, the airline has been losing money.
No wonder, Garuda Indonesia is quick to cancel its orders from Boeing even the conclusion from official investigation is yet been released.
Garuda Indonesia management see this as an opportunity to cancel the orders without revealing the true reason, not able to pay the planes.
So, Boeing took the equivalent of a motorcycle and tried to turn it into a Stretch Limousine. Knew the design was a failure from the beginning and sold the *fix* an an extra optional feature.
What could possibly go wrong with the ultimate post-deregulation Airline Business Model: Greed chasing Greed?
4
What is Lion Air & Ethiopian Air's responsibility in this matter? Were their pilots sufficiently trained? Did they opt to equip and maintain their airplanes properly?
Boeing should be charged with negligent homicide or similar.
3
We all know what will happen, since no one in their right minds would fly in this death trap, Boeing will need to change the plane's name. 837, new and improved, it is not the 737 max, but of course since they are too cheap to redesign the plane, it will be the exact same one physically as the 737 max.
3
The real issue is and remains why does the 737 Max requires the software in the first place. Seems to me there is a deeper problem, a hardware one, related to a problematic center of gravity and how this is affected by certain operating conditions. In any case, as a frequent flier, no amount of sophisticated software will get me on one of those.
4
The Garuda spokesman has it right. It's all about psychology. If only 10 or 20% of the passengers decide not to fly with this aircraft then the airline has a problem in terms of return on investment from this plane. This has nothing to do wether the plane is technically safe or not.
3
I would like to book a flight from SFO to Minneapolis in June. I will not buy a ticket if I cannot be guaranteed that I will not be flying on a Max 8. And I will not fly on one in the future. Flying is already stressful enough without being on a plane that has caused not 1, but 2! fatal crashes.
5
@J, it's called Greyhound. I suggest you book early.
1
Indonesian/South Asian carriers (Garuda, Malaysia, Air Asia, Lion Air) don't have a great safety regime and reputation; their training is a step behind the leadership of American and European carriers, as well as those at Qantas, Singapore, and Cathay.
Garuda cancelling orders because it's 'customers' desire this, show you how short-sighted the management team is. Where will they get new planes? From Airbus? With a four-year backlog on comparable products? Do you really believe Garuda knows something the Americans or Europeans don't already about the 737? Shees. Boeing has a big problem but Garuda is hardly a benchmark in the industry. Far from it. Do your homework NYT.
1
@Thomas Penn in Seattle Your information on Garuda was once accurate but they improved so much that they're now one of only 11 airlines to have earned a Skytrax 5-star rating. Nor have they abandoned Boeing. They're willing to talk to Boeing about other aircraft they sell--just not this mis-engined one.
1
@Ehkzu
come on Ehkzu - you know Skytrax is very subjective and industry folks like myself take it with a grain of salt. Agree they will always talk, but no one really knows what Skytrax means. Thanks for the note.
And when the Boeing CEO is ousted how many hundred millions bonus will be get? There are never a by consequences for these billionaire CEOs.
7
Is the B737 Max 8 engine placement on the wing designed for maximum energy savings at the expense of safety? The Max 8 is prone to head up and stall, so an autopilot fix was needed to compensate by pointing the nose down. A software “fix” and training is a just bandaid. Fix the design of the engines and their placement. How can people trust a plane that either stalls or aims itself into the ground? All for energy savings?
5
This would be a great contracts exam question.
3
Not many passengers are going to want to fly in this plane, at least not until the investigation of what happened is complete. That's likely to take many months.
2
I guess I was uneducated on this score, and I have always presumed all of the options were in "the back of the plane" other than those to allow airplanes for specific reasons or routes. For example, Alaska Airlines in days of yore had extra equipment to allow them to fly in higher levels of fog due to their high level of flights to Alaska, which often let me get home to Seattle.
As someone with 4MM+ air miles, it never occurred to me that any general aviation feature was an option. These features (and training) were needed to be able to safely handle a heavier payload which was built into a redesign of a plane. How was this "an option?" It puts new meaning to the word "option," and truly shows the lack of leadership of the FAA that they let planes be defined as such - i.e., equipment necessary for the safe flying of the plane vs. truly optional equipment to equip a plane for .
I realize that the Feds let autos slowly add safety features - for example seat belts (which were only required after Nader's campaign) posi-traction, and side airbags as options first. Though others like Consumers Union and the insurance industry did much to educate and incentivize consumers to ask for them, and now demand them.
It is sad there wasn't a whistle blower in Boeing's engineering group to make consumers aware of the situation with these planes. If Boeing was in the progress of adjusting the software, management and engineers clearly knew there was a problem and didn't speak up.
5
@P Dunbar, I think there is a large misunderstanding with regards to what is standard on an aircraft & goes that process happens. No one reading any of these articles will ever buy a 737 max. Cars & other retail products are a different story. What you should think about is quality of training of the pilots.
2
Indonesia has had plenty of trouble regarding plane accident in the past decade and there doesn't seem to be any solution from the regulators to prevent it again other than raising the price of budget fares. If you're asking why, there's this stigma that budget fares' cheap prices means that the airline's maintenance and safety are more lax than regular-priced ones, which is only two airlines as I recall, Batik Air, a subsidiary of Lion, and Garuda Indonesia.
What surprised me was when our government quickly decided to ground all 737 max flights after China did so. It was weird seeing Indonesia's federal government, which is kinda famous here for endless bureaucracy, move this fast (seriously, it took them one and a half year just to print my citizen's ID card), and then Garuda deciding to cancel all their 737 max orders from Boeing, considering the amount of the deal, is another shocking move, I believe.
There's probably little chance they would go through this plan though. I believe the government will probably just pause the orders, and go through with it once everything is settled and Boeing updates the software. Whether these swift actions are connected to the upcoming election, I don't really know, but I do hope that isn't their main motivation in doing all of this.
1
So, “to get out of such a commitment, an airline has to show that the plane suffers from a structural problem or some other debilitating flaw, industry experts say . . . “
One would think that the propensity for plowing into the ground would qualify as “some other debilitating flaw”.
12
Not with untrained Indonesian pilots.
1
Boeing may not yet realize that they are the public face of Trumpism, greed, and our sad decline into an irrelevant but feared nation. Lucky Boeing. Unlucky us.
11
Somehow, someway . . . legal and regulatory approved the first public comments of Boeing CEO Dennis A. Muilenburg, that the company was “taking actions to fully ensure the safety of the 737 Max.”
For someone with a loss for words, he did OK.
3
Why, after the Indonesian crash, didn't all pilots who fly the 737 not find out how to turn off the MCAS. I'm not even a pilot but from hearing on the news that the MCAS was the prime suspect in the Indonesian crash I would have looked up that day how to turn it off. Talk about on the job laziness.
5
The Airbus A320 Neo is a great plane but there’s a long wait for them. I’m glad I fly in an A320 every week instead of a 737 Max and that’s going to haunt Boeing for quite a while if they don’t nip this is the bud quick. If I was Boeing I’d offer the special safety upgrades for the MCAS system for free at the very least. The new world of social media is unforgiving and Boeing is in big trouble with this public relations disaster. Hopefully some positive changes will come of this in the long run.
12
The new Bombardier/Airbus A220-300 carries slightly fewer passengers than a Max8 (160 versus 166+) and has shorter range, but surely its odds of increased sales just went up at least slightly.
It costs about $90m, versus $120m for the Max8 and is more sparing of fuel.
With its dispatch availability of 99.85%, the A220 appears to be more reliable.
(Source for all stats: Wikipedia)
9
First and foremost condolences to the friends, families, and loved ones lost in the two tragic accidents.
Boeing has superior track record in manufacturing a safe state of the art aircraft with zero catastrophic failure. The more complex systems rely heavily on software and firmware for operation and I have every confidence that Boeing will get this right. Who in there right mind is willing to scrap a $120 million aircraft over a software issue.
Besides if the flight crew is willing to board this plane again after the upgrades so am I.
1
I won’t fly on one...
12
@Christopher me neither I wonder if the carriers will be upfront enough to provide you with the necessary equipment information when you book a flight or be evasive when asked.
8
It’s a sad day that corruption is in our face and passengers never reached their destinations because of corporate greed and incompetence A crash that could of been prevented. The more the truth comes out it is gut wrecking to read, that executives established a business model that was based on greed .
Boeing is like the current president and his administration there is nothing but corruption . These executives should testify before Congress and be charged with murder.
10
How thoughtful of Boeing to make the Disagree Light a standard feature after. 2 crashes. I’d love to know how much they charged when it was an option. Or, would making it standard in the first place make someone question if more pilot training was needed? This whole 737 Max launch is another typical corporate-FAA wink, nod, handshake fiasco. A brand new jet, not really says Boeing so we don’t need new simulators. We can also get away with reduced training too, an. IPad app will dot he trick And let’s be good guys and propose to the FAA that they can use our internal certifiers rather than the fogey old FAA.
Then the crashes. The non+US airlines/authorities ground the aircraft. The FAA? We need more information. A short time, later, the “stable genius” grounds the aircraft. We may as well, everyone else has.
Boeing’s response? We’re going to release a software update. Oh yeah, we’ve been planning it for awhile, quite a while. Mr President: did the shutdown delay the release? OF COURSE NOT! And now we’re going to make the Disagree Light standard. We have to. People are starting to distrust the aircraft. OMG! The 737 Max could end up like the DC 10., hauling cargo and fighting fires. CFO to CEO, “making it standard effectively admits our liability in the lawsuits coming from the 2 crashes”. Hey we’ll just have to take the hit, besides, at least it didn’t happen in he US or Europe.
Way to go Boeing. Way to go FAA. Make America great again.
14
Serves Boeing and our pusillanimous FAA right. This is a huge economic blow to the US--deregulation is not necessarily the truest friend of big corporations.
10
Boeing is just like many hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, universities and others who value profit above everything else including honesty and human life. Nothing new here yet we continue to elect their quislings.
12
Boeing would do well to remember that it takes far less time to destroy a brand than it does to build one up. With a nod to Marshall Fields - which was purchased by Daytons (Target). It took about three years to destroy what it had taken 150 to build up - however no lives were lost in the process.
Livelihoods - now that is another matter.
9
These 2 catastrophes are consistent with what I have learned as the Swiss Cheese model of sentinel serious events happening.
Multiple problems have to line up all in a row to shoot through all the holes for a serious safety event to happen. usually there is a piece of cheese blocking the free passage. Sadly, hole alignment is what has happened in this case. No one problem is entirely to blame.
Yes I have problems with Boeing for making these safety features "Optional". That is abhorrent.
But I also have to look a the airlines themselves that CHOSE not purchase them and
the apparent lack of adequate training of pilots.
And further down the responsibility assignments is those of us who push the demand for these super low cost airlines. We are unrealistic to think they won't cut something to enable their prices to remain so low. Sadly it is safety, far more critical than that bag of pretzals, that has suffered.
3
Good for them. Boeing needs an awakening.
11
Good, I hope other airlines will follow suit. Boeing needs to be hit where it hurts most.
5
These 2 catastrophes remind me of what I was taught is the Swiss cheese model for analyzing sentinel dangerous events. Nothing ever has 1 cause. Line pieces of the cheese up, each piece representing a potential problem. Usually a line can't go through from front to back as another piece blocks it. When the holes align, then the dangerous event occurs.
In this situation:
1. Boeing: abhorrent that it made these safety features optional
2. FAA: alleged misconduct by conflict of interest, etc
3. The Airlines themselves: CHOOSING to put profit over safety by not buying these options
4. The airlines themselves: for apparently not giving adequate training to the pilots
5. And the passengers to some extent by choosing bare bottom cost. Yes it is a reasonable expectation that none of the above should have occurred and that the plane you fly on is safe, and the pilots well trained, but it is also naive to think that costs will not be cut somewhere . Items # 2 & #3 cost money. Gas prices must be similar among airlines, and labor costs probably much more variable but still have to be somewhat in line with each other. The airlines are looking to make a profit somewhere, and eliminating those bags of chips are really not going to do it.
Looking at all factors, and addressing them are more conducive to problem solving then pointing fingers and putting blame at any one place
2
If only aviation expert Donald J. Trump had not given the Boeing 737 Max 8 a poor review, Boeing might have a chance of survival. As it is now, between 39% and 42% of U.S. passengers will refuse to fly on the 737, no matter what.
3
The DC-10 name never recovered after the 1979 Chicago crash, and the later iteration was the MD-11. Yes, there are surely differences, but McD couldn't stick with the "10" part.
In this case, Boeing's 737-any-variant reputation is now permanently self-besmirched.
Air Florida, while teetering already, never recovered after the anti-ice system was never engaged and the 737-200 crashed into the Potomac.
ValuJet also never recovered after at least one oxygen generator went off in the cargo hold and set off the others, causing the crash of the DC-9.
I fear the same for the 737, earned or not.
New leadership at Mother Bee: infested by marketing people aka bean counters aka chart boys aka yes men aka umbrella holders, flashlight holders, special assignment specialists (usually absent--away on special assignment), facilitators, team facilitators, facilitating teamers, and other "walking FOD." (Look up "FOD.")
Metaphysical certitude exists that the marketing people won against the engineering people, no matter how vociferous the objections, on this possibility of uncommanded flight control movement that was NOT explicitly brought to the pilots with the loudest training megaphone possible.
This is precisely what happens ANYWHERE when marketing people are allowed to make critical decisions in lieu of broadly trained, seasoned, knowledgeable, dedicated engineering personnel.
3
They are now charging extra for wings; if you want the entry-level model, just ask for a "bus"...
7
Boeing needs to stop building these aircrafts and redesign the plane so that it is safe to fly without software fixes. There absolutely has to be redundancy on planes in order for them to be safe. They cannot be optional. There is no way to "pull over" and fix something if you break down at 30,000 feet. Redundancy in systems and excellent airplane design is what makes flying safe. So with only one sensor as input and a design that is flawed, Boeing had created a plane that is unsafe and needs to be redesigned from scratch.
10
The DC 10 was the first, and last, airliner manufactured by the union of Douglas and McDonnell. Following several crashes which revealed design problems, the public shunned the planes. Even though improvements were made, an admirable safety record achieved, and even a name change for the plane, people stayed away. They’re still in the sky and performing well. The largest fleet is flown by FedEx and carries your parcels around the world.
1
Good for Indonesia. Hit em' in the only way that matters to a corporate mentality. In the pocket book. Let the stock holders and board members squirm and simper. That's all their good for.
As innovative and brilliant as Boeing designers and engineers are, their executive management, risk management and attorneys should be put on a jet that has been rushed through certification, with faulty sensors, without a software upgrade or any training or instructions and left to fly it themselves.
If that sounds too harsh, maybe it is. I mean, it was only HUNDREDS of people that died.
10
Boeing deserves it
8
it goes something like this...Boeing waits a bit, things cool down.
Boeing lowers the the price...Garuda, validates the "fix" and everthing is dandy $$$$. "Nothing to worry about folks, just a little turbulence..."
5
Boeing's First Business was making Furniture, like their Redmond brother that bought NOKIA, they should buy IKEA. Atleast they get floating lifesavers with IKEA. Further cost cutting is Pilot training with Microsoft Flight Simulator.
as easy to see as the present, prolonged US stock market crash. keep it up! easy money :)
2
Interesting item from an airline that operates 737MAX:
OSLO — Norwegian Air’s fleet of 18 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft is not equipped with a cockpit light warning of discrepancies between angle-of-attack sensors, the company said Friday.
“We have chosen not to fit this particular optional extra to our Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which is a decision other airlines have also made, since it is not a safety critical feature nor is it a requirement by any aviation authority, regardless of what some may falsely allege,” Norwegian said in an email to Reuters.
Is it possible the plane is fine but airlines failed to hire experienced pilots and train them properly? The safety record despite the two tragic crashes suggests the plane is safe.
1
Indeed, the pilots’ proficiency hasn’t really been questioned so far, and it might be part of the key to understand what caused these two tragedies. It is OK to ask these questions during an investigation.
1
@Steve Ell
You have it right. The aircraft is safe and the problem is with the low-cost airlines. A pilot in the right side seat with only 200 hours.? Murphy's law struck again.
"Norwegian Air said Friday.
'We have chosen not to fit this particular optional extra to our Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which is a decision other airlines have also made, since it is not a safety critical feature''
A disagree light is not a safety critical feature? Maybe not. But as the paying customer, I disagree and will choose a carrier that places an emphasis on my safety. IMHO, that would not be Norwegian Air assuming the remark is accurate.
1
The negligence and arrogance displayed by the Boeing administration of the first plane crash leading to the second one is unfathomable. Boeing needs to learn the fact that human lives are sacred and can not be compensated and justified by saving cost for more profit. The withdraw of contract from various airliners shall send a clear message to Boeing whose safety reputation is forever tainted. Who is responsible? None of the Boeing directors has assumed any responsibility.
10
We live in an Analog World, where Natural Laws are hardwired. Bringing Digital processing to Analog processes leads to many errors, Digital control, DSP are imperfect. Perfecting Analog control means more in-tune with Natural Laws. Intuition is superior to Logic.
2
Two plane crashes is two too many. But this model flies 10s of thousands of times per day. You are at greater risk of dying from getting in your car in the morning, and odds are you don't demand safety improvements that would save lives or even choose the safest model available to you. Humans are notoriously bad at evaluating relative risks.
2
What goes around comes around, Boeing was and always has been very critical, of the Competitions accidents and let’s face facts, had the help of the FAA.
I simply don’t believe the low number of 787 Max planes flying, less than 1000 are capable of ten of Thousands of landings per day.
I believe the number since this plane was launched is 34000 so yes it is correct to say a person is probably safer flying in a 747 Max than being driving or passenger in a Pick up Truck on US Roads.
That doesn’t mean that the competition aren’t gonna work it into Boeing.
Especially after Airbus had a Air France sensor icing tragedy over the Atlantic, at the time Boeing were extremely critical, one might have imagined they would themselves haves multiple redundancy on critical sensor system.
2
After Boeing's "Extortion" to get Cash to upgrade "Bad Design", that they knew could kill people. All Orders and investment in Boeing should be pulled and all upper level management fired and indited!
5
This is not surprising. Boeing is very greedy and arrogant. They should put safety ahead of dollars.
5
I'm not sure I've ever read so much outright malarkey in Times comments. Boeing made some terrible mistakes and the company's workers and investors are going to pay dearly for years to come. We have no idea what the price will be.
But the comments here all but suggesting Boeing intentionally cut corners in order to make more money -- it's just beyond absurd. Safety is everything to their $600 billion business. The amount of testing and scenario planning that goes into designing and certifying an airframe is almost beyond anyone's comprehension.
5
Boeing deserves heavy criticism but not sure if the safety features that were optional would save either plane. if they were not told about MCAS than a AOA disagree indicator would not give pilots enough info to to disengage something they did not know about.
Boeing aircraft have superb safety record especially the earlier 737 NG (the version before the MAX) which has the best safety record of any small twin.
so please no arguments about the evils of capitalism. Soviet planes had far worse safety record and incredibly unreliable and fuel thirsty.
But it does look like the B737 has been modified to almost breaking point. Boeing will not get too many orders but the 5000 on order will probably be delivered. a contract is a contract and their are no alternatives except the A320 whose order book is full
1
I have already decided that I will never fly on one, even with the new software. I suspect a worldwide survey would reveal that millions of other travelers have as well. It's just common sense at this point. We've all learned what Boeing means by "Max". It's when you supersize an old aircraft beyond what it was designed for, then try to patch it with software. Keeping the software mod on the down-low was the tell that they new this was an ill-considered, scotch-tape-and-bubble-gum strategy. Doubling down by not updating the software promptly after 189 deaths, then getting their cronies in the government to keep them in the air after another 157 perished, was unconscionable.
14
@Beach Chair Philosopher. Sure hope you enjoy walking or waiting for the bus.
1
Boeing deserves to go out of business as soon as possible.
4
How many people want to fly in a Boeing Max 8...even after the supposed fixes and OPTIONAL safety features are added? Hands up! How many people want to fly in ANY Boeing aircraft after what has come to light regarding their unconscionable and immoral disregard for passenger and crew safety? Show of hands please. Not only is the Max 8 dead, the entire brand is. I no longer have confidence in any Boeing plane after these shocking revelations of their cost cutting measures and collusion with the FAA and I am not alone. I hope the FBI investigation leads to charges and long prison sentences. The 348 souls who perished deserve justice and the we, the people of the world, demand accountability.
14
I will certainly avoid the 737, max or not, at all costs. To sell safety features as "extras" is just outrageous greediness.
12
I would be looking at the requirements of a commercial pilot for those countries, before I looked at the plane. How difficult is it to turn off the auto-pilot and fly the plane? But Indonesia has to look out for its national airline and blame the plane before the investigation is even over and withhold the blackbox information from Boeing.
1
"Dennis A. Muilenburg, Boeing’s chief executive, said this week that the company was “taking actions to fully ensure the safety of the 737 Max.”
Talk is cheap, Mr Muilenberg. It would mean more if you fired several of the top executives involved in this shoddy, incompetent farce, prior to resigning yourself and giving back your bonuses and pay for, say, the last 3 years.
But we all know that takes integrity, so it's not going to happen.
4
The airline employees got the shaft during the recession because of fuel prices. Who would think Boeing would sell them out?
Nice going corporate America! Nice going F.A.A. Nice going Mr. Muilenberg and Mr. Elwell, and Mr. Trump and Ms. Chao.
Hoping the airline crews will not be the ones to have to suffer - again.
10
The MCAS system carries a fundamental flaw. The MCAS system can over ride a pilot, and enforce that. In the case of the Asian crash,, the 'safety system,, MCAS, resisted all efforts to pull up and forced the nose down into the dirt. Yes, the pilots could have pulled the manual out,, found page 432 in the loose leaf binder,, and then item, by item, worked down the check list.. While the plane was attempting a 22 second dive into the dirt. Yeah,, riiiiiight. That is gonna work.
The older 737 systems is correct. The auto pilot, or safety system can force the nose of the aircraft down, but if a pilot hauls all the way back on the yoke, the system stops. The safety system has been over ridden by the pilot with a very intuitive move. no searching through 432 pages for the correct procedures and switches.
No, zero,, zip, nada, systems should be able to over ride the pilot unto death. This IS the fundamental flaw of the MCAS 'safety' system.
13
Guess Garuda should have chosen a Bombardier.
Oh wait, they probably would have. Too bad Boeing sued Bombardier over a plane Delta bought from them that Boeing didn't even sell. And then Bombardier had to sell part of their operation to Airbus just to stay solvent.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, litigate.
3
This is the beginning of the end for this plane. The American public will not want to fly on anything called a MAX 8 again. I don't. It will need a skillful renaming and rebranding campaign by corporate image consultants to get it back in the air.
5
I was under the silly impression that airplanes are built with Murphy's law in mind. I didn't know they had switched to Bernays' law. More planes will fall from the sky if these criminals aren't held accountable. I'll make sure from now on that the planes I fly with are Airbus. No Boeing for me!
2
There is way I would fly on one of these planes. Absolutely no way. And I love to fly.
3
Well, no kidding. The software features provided for control on the aircraft were not adequately tested during system integration and forced the plane into a nosedive killing everyone on board.
An airline company should not be required to buy optional "safety" features to make the standard features of the aircraft operationally safe! The base configuration of the aircraft, as delivered, contains control software that is not operationally safe.
4
Should safety be sold as an option?! Capitalism at its finest!
3
Did Trump pull his usual move (see the latest on North Korea sanctions) and personally intercede on behalf of his business buddies at Boeing? It’s bad enough that he failed to appoint an FAA director for a year or more. But this President puts his own personal interests above all others, and he doesn’t fly commercial so why would he care? (He did announce he was appointing his personal pilot to head the FAA, but fortunately, like most of his whimsical impulses, that one went nowhere.
1
Entirely Boeing's fault - they dropped the ball on communicating system changes and nickel-and-dime customers on safety features that should be standard. Way to go, Boeing
3
Please read Arthur Miller's "All My Sons" or watch the film. A manufacturer of military aircraft parts knowing there's a flaw on the assembly line, doesn't stop production because it will cost him a lot of money. Soldiers die as a result. In the end, referring to the killed airmen, he says "They were all, all my sons."
3
The Seattle Times has the best explanation:
"Current and former engineers directly involved with the evaluations or familiar with the document shared details of Boeing’s “System Safety Analysis” of MCAS:
Understated the power of the new flight control system, which was designed to swivel the horizontal tail to push the nose of the plane down to avert a stall. When the planes later entered service, MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document.
Failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane’s nose downward.
Assessed a failure of the system as one level below “catastrophic.” But even that “hazardous” danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that’s how it was designed."
5
Yes, cancel the 737 Max 8! Few people will want to board a plane with such a bad reputation.
Boeing should retire the entire 737 Max line. The original airframe design is obsolete, and it has been successively overstretched and overburdened for more seats and heavier engines.
5
I hear car manufacturers are now offering their standard models without brakes, they'll be offered as options.
10
We need to stop coddling the executives at all major companies in the US.
Instead of repeating over and over the company name like Boeing or the FCC start naming names of the people who made the decisions to do or not to do something.
Here are some more names of disgusting companies that got away with murder PG&E, Monsanto-Bayer, Dupont, Citgo and the list is almost endless over the years. All protected through crafty lawyers.
Our "elected" officials need to start working for the lower and middle class or toss them out now.
2
@Mike.... uhh.... the FCC is communications. The "FAA" is airplanes. Or at least that's the way it was before Trump took office.....
1
Part of me hopes this destroys Boeing, just to illustrate the corruption of capitalism. I know, honest working folks will suffer, but the arrogance on exhibit astounds me.
Of course, the defense boondoggle will continue.
2
These cancellations are only the beginning. Selling critical safety features as add-ons is a horrendously corrupt business practice. Unlike an anti-lock brake features that might be sold separately on a car, this is an airplane that flies at 35,000 feet with no margin for error. Imagine if the car companies sold their vehicles with brakes as an optional safety package. Was there even a thought within the executive levels at Boeing regarding the potential liability issues or were they simply reacting to some ad-hoc and poorly vetted recommendations made by some consulting firm that did not know airline safety from potato chips?
So let us take this further. Should the airlines sell spots on the plane and charge extra for seating? Bathroom use requires additional spend.
3
Who are the people at Boeing specifically we can start to look into?
Start naming names not repeating a companies name.
Who at the FCC is directly involved in overseeing this plane?
Let's get specific.
4
When orders get cancelled, it won't be the Boeing executives that will suffer. It will be the workers that will get laid off.
Boeing executives will still get their bonuses, cash in their stock options, and their golden parachute exit packages.
6
This is the second time this week that the US has been made to look like an incompetent banana republic. First, New Zealand, within days after their massacre, banned the assault rifles that murdered 50 of their people. Despite the massacres in the US, we have never banned these assault rifles. Now, Indonesia takes the stand to cancel any orders for the Boeing 737 Max 8 because of its two crashes that should never have happened. The US was the last country to acknowledge that this aircraft was dangerous to unsuspecting passengers. No longer can the US be called the most powerful country in the world. It is not even second or third in the ranking of countries. We have lost power, influence, and respect in the world and that began in 2016.
5
Trust me... two years from now, not a single person who made a negative comment on this subject will have any issue boarding a Boeing 737 Max 8... especially if the ticket was the cheapest one they could find!
It should also be pointed out that commentators screaming about the Boeing 737 Max 8 and crying about climate change will not have any problem boarding a Max 8 so that they can get drunk on a cruise ship, while gorging themselves on shrimp and swordfish steak!
Won't fly on a DC-10? Won't fly on a Max 8, 9 or 10? Concern for our planet? Shocked by the FAA? Won't allow children to be vaccinated? Sticking with the new years resolution?
All the worlds problems would be solved if people actually followed through with their NYT grandiose proclamations!
3
@The Critic, Allow me a quick response. Boeing is a monopoly. What "choice" do we ultimately have as travelers? Exerting pressure on Boeing is the only way to ensure that the company stays honest. I'm afraid I don't put much trust corporations these days. People seem to think that they are looking out for our best interests. They are not.
3
Boeing deserves to have all orders cancelled for their planes since they didn't care about human life.
3
Way to go Garuda Indonesia!
3
Why would a country cancel orders on jets where not flying nose first into the ground at 500mph is an option? Just remember, 'murica ... regulations are for chumps. Corporations, banks and international crime families are perfectly capable of self-policing.
Yours truly - the Republican Party.
2
Dumb is as dumb does.
Com-on Boeing!
Why would Boeing ever make safety equipment an option seems totally insane.
Now, with their reputation twisting in the winds, 2 crashes, and hundreds dead, they will install all the "optional" safety equipment on all 737s, to try safe face.
They wouldn't have had to safe face now, had they installed all the safety equipment in all planes in the first place.
It would have cost a lot less than it will cost now.
3
Opt in here if you want to live, is what is sounds like the message has been regarding safety features. Safety features should not be "optional" or for sale. The Indonesian airline should not have to hope that Boeing allows them out of the deal, there is enough evidence already to justify annulling contracts. Lawsuits should be filed as well as criminal charges brought against Boeing, FAA and other entities connected to this egregious breach of safety and disregard for human life.
11
This is why regulations and oversight are important. Corporations if left alone will not do the right thing, they will just maximize profits.
Regulations are protections for regular people. When will we understand this?
7
How is it no pilots have been able to speak openly and forthrightly about the procedures for overcoming a faulty MCAS? In the U.S. alone there are currently a half million commercial pilots, I will take a lowball gander and assume several 1000 are/were certified to fly the 737 max.
I find it curious that the actual operating pilots of these planes seem to be silenced.
3
What will happen is that the airline will leverage the accidents to get Boeing to give them a discount.
The result will be that the airline will get a decent airplane (especially after the upgrade) and Boeing will avoid a significant loss.
The cynic in me says that this is so WRONG on all kinds of levels.
4
This entire situation causes me to feel insecure about flying; I never felt that way before. As Boeing builds a large portion of the aircraft that we fly on, flying makes me nervous. I've always loved road trips.
2
dont forget that airlines were offered, but chose to not pay for safety features, presumably to increase profits. these companies should shoulder at least as much responsibility as boeing.
1
I doubt Boeing engineers are at the heart of this problem. More likely the business C-suite. Engineers are typically rigorous in approach though over-ruled by finance and bottom line bookings.
Boeing needs to show the world genuine rehabilitation in it's safety process, training and making good to victim's families.
4
I don't work for Boeing, but live in Boeing's home town, have relatives who have worked or do work for the company, and follow its fortunes rather closely. I've been concerned for the past 10 years or so at the number of warnings that are coming from them, and from people in comments sections such as this (people who claim current or past Boeing engineering employment) that seem increasingly to warn of compromises on the part of the company.
Those alleged compromises seem to come with respect to all phases of production--design elements, build quality, and quality control. Even making allowances for mere disgruntlement on the part of employees who just don't like change, these expressions of concern do seem worrisome. And this case, along with that of the "igniting batteries," does suggest that attention to safety may be eroding in the interest of faster, cheaper production in a very competitive industry.
The company has an enviable reputation for safety among all airplane manufacturers--and the U.S. similarly is highly regarded for safety of the airways. This "developing story" would suggest that it's time for Boeing itself, and the Federal Aeronautics Administration, to look long and hard at what has gone wrong, and to identify and eliminate "root causes" of what are clearly defects resulting in fatalities and loss of public confidence in air travel.
4
Boeing's management of this crisis will become a classic business school case study of exactly how *not* to do it.
Instead of taking leadership of all efforts to understand what happened and what needs to be done, instead it continues to argue that the plane is safe, that they followed all regulations, that they can't help it if airlines don't buy safety-related options, that all that's needed is a software update -- and then it chooses to exclude a critical safety feature in the update!
Given Boeing's failed leadership, now the ONLY way to fully address this crisis and to have a hope of recovering its reputation is for:
1. The FAA and, critically, the EASA (Europe's aircraft certification agency) to go through a thorough process of re-certifying the plane.
2. The Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, and the head of Boeing's commercial airplane business, Kevin G. McAllister, must be fired by Boeing's Board of Directors. This crisis happened because of a failure of corporate culture and leadership.
3
@GAP
Hmm. some 15 years ago or so there was a major scandal with the KC767, a tanker based on the 767. The Pentagon procurement officer responsible was going to be hired by Boeing shortly after she procured the lease. She served 9 months in jail. Boeing's CFO also served time, and the CEO was forced to step down.
So the Air Force put out a proposal for a new tanker. A Northrop Grumman/Airbus joint venture offered their A330 MRTT (to be built in Alabama) and won. Boeing protested, so the DoD put out a new RFP, Northrop Grumman pulled out in disgust saying it favored Boeing, and Boeing predictably won. Their KC46 is just entering service now, 2 years late, even though it is based on the KC767.
It's not clear what the grounds for protest were as the GAO cited sensitive and classified information, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines in their decision (available online) that the A330 was the better option. Boeing claimed that N-G/Airbus were being rewarded for exceeding performance parameters (the RFP apparently said that that would not be a factor), while *they* were being punished for offering a lower performance alternative even though "conversations" with the AF said they wouldn't be.
If you're Boeing, what lessons regarding lobbying and applying political pressure do you take from this?
1
Fixing the software will not solve the same type of problem as long as the company thinks it’s perfectly normal to cozy up with the regulators, while on the other hand bullying the local government, e.g. Washington State, for its special tax cuts.
2
It's interesting that this is Garuda Airlines, which had a very poor track record in safety, but is trying to compete with Lion Air and has been steadily improving its safety rating. Boeing has decided to sell safety as an optional add on. It's time that there was an international standard for safety and that airlines would be graded on whether they meet certain standards for safety and service. As a frequent flyer, I can say that Lion Air was the worst airline I have ever flown. Three weeks ago, I flew on Lion Air because 30 years ago, I flew on Garuda and some seats had ropes for seat belts and that memory stuck with me. It's high time that the government started stepping in and examining the low cost airlines that offer nothing in service and limited safety. The airline industry used 9/11 as an excuse to scale back service and at the same time quality went out the window. Some airlines still offer a decent ride to economy customers, but for the most part flying has become a horrible, tedious endurance test for those who can't afford Business or First Class. Airlines should be boldly rated, made to compete and have mandatory safety equipment. They are not transporting cattle, they are transporting people and they should earn the right to fly. If they can't provide safety and service, they deserve to be out of business. I flew Emirates last year, they have proved it can be done.
4
@thewriterstuff
Actually Garuda is quite good these days. It seems they too were embarrassed by their product, especially in comparison to those in neightoring countries and have seriously upped their game in the last 10-15 years. Far, far better than Lion Air. Much spendier as well.
@TDK Yes I know that now, I wish I had done more research before I bought that Lion Air ticket. That airline should not be in the air and I hope that enough people sue over the crash that they get what they deserve: bankruptcy. I fly over 100K miles a year, that airline should not be allowed to fly.
Unbelievably, BOEING (boing boing) stock is still higher than one year ago. It rallied on these 5000 orders.
Boeing reminds me of those bosses in movies which storm into offices and want things done fast. When someone says it cannot be done, they say I do not care how you do it, do it or you are fired.
I always thought that was ridiculous that people would achieve unachievable stuff just because they were threatened to lose their job. And that such bosses exists.
I may have been wrong. It may exist at BOEING (boing boing).
4
The crux of the matter is whether the FAA has any credibility when it ultimately declares the 737 Max “fixed”. Maybe certification from the E.U. and Canada will help.
Another crash will end matters, both for Boeing and for certification.
I doubt the flying public will flock knowingly to flights using this plane. Maybe marketing ploys, like removing model identification in flight info, will obscure the choice of plane enough. Will such subterfuge encourage confidence?
70
@John✔️❎✔️Brews
It's surprising how quickly the flying public forgets about the type of aircraft involved in a crash. For example, most people forgot that the cause of TWA 800 in 1996 was due to cracked insulation on the wires running through the gas tank. All of us flew for years on similar models without saying a word about it.
And then there was the Tylenol scare in 1982. At the time everyone became scared of the product, but a few years later it seemed that sales increased. There's an old saying: "Any advertising is good advertising."
4
@W
Bottles of all kinds of pills and powders are now sealed with a protective cover. When it has been opened, it's a warning sign to the consumer that the bottle has been tampered with. As to the airline accident: There was a thorough investigation, and requirements developed to prevent future tan explosions.
4
@John✔️❎✔️Brews . The attention span of most people is very limited. In 6 months almost no one will be able to recall the model number of the planes that crashed.
2
Who speaks for the souls of the dead, the hundreds of dead?
They are the important ones to keep in mind in this debacle.
Not Boeing, not the FAA, not the airlines.
The squabbling comments on this forum, and the assignment of blame to corporate entities, does further injury to all those souls.
3
More and more I hear how important the STEM fields are in education and how valuable a MBA degree is. Yet both are worthless if the people who go into their fields fail to learn critical thinking or ethics. Who were the engineers that developed a product in which critical safety features were considered optional? Wouldn’t they have found a way to incorporate into the basic design? Where we’re the bosses that approved this?
Perhaps if they had known how to think critically or ethically they would have realized that it was not only unethical to risk people’s lives but their own livihood could be at stake. Just because such a product can be made and sold doesn’t mean it should be. A reading of philosophy, great literature and some of the social sciences could have told them that if they had cared to listen.
7
That it took two crashes to get Boeing's attention is horrific. A general cleaning of the airline industry, the builders, the pilots association and the regulators is needed to restore the confidence once held in the industry. Start at the top, but also fire those lower lever types who had a hand in the terrible decisions to make airlines pay for safety and to exclude safety features from the pilots' training and manuals.
We are scheduled to fly in one of those doomed planes at the end of April. We are thinking of taking a train instead.
5
No matter what contracts were signed or deals were made, Boeing must grant any airline that has orders for the 737 MAX-8 the right to cancel that order with no compensation to Boeing whatsoever. The airlines surely ordered the planes in good faith with the certainty that the planes were as safe as humanely possible. Who would pay one-hundred-million-plus for a plane they thought was more likely than most going to crash?
That Boeing says it’s taking actions to fully "ensure the safety of the plane" will likely fall on dear ears. I would hope every airplane manufacturer does that every time a plane comes off the (assembly?) line. I wouldn’t fly on 737 MAX-8 even if I were flying to Oregon for physician-assisted suicide. I cannot imagine the horror the passengers and crew on the two 737 MAX-8s that crashed experienced.
To refuse to cancel contracts is corporate greed at its worse.
9
We must not wait for the purchase dominoes to fall or for Boeing's Rube Goldberg software "fix".
The FAA must permeably ground this plan due to an unsafe design.
Software must not be allowed to mitigate catastrophic risks of flawed design.
6
Reminds me of the days when turn signals on cars were an extra "option" along with passenger side view mirrors.
Corporate America: profit over people. Same old story.
4
@george eliot
Most drivers treat them as optional!
2
Boeing catering to the cost-cutting crowd plus the Republican-led corruption of the FAA are valid points. But don't stop there, airlines like United skipped the chance to order the optional safety equipment. They are prioritizing profits (read short-term gains that the top tier of management can use to bolster their end-of-year performance bonuses) over safety.
3
What needless loss of lives. If the mentally unstable man in the Trader Joe hostage standoff is charged with murder because the LAPD shot and killed one of his hostages, then the CEOs of Boeing who are responsible for the release of this flying death machine should be charged with murder and go to jail accordingly.
Though I'm hesitant to use the word "evil", selling the not-killing-everybody-onboard software as an upgrade is truly evil.
2
Boeing hasn’t just shot themselves in the foot, it may very likely prove to be entirely self inflicted to the head.The almighty dollar does it again. Greed will be understood as to have brought our country to its knees. Such a pity. Next.
8
I would cancel any pending Boeing orders... this company sell the sensor to pick up issue for an additional 80K ?? greed will get you no where.. time to lay off the individual/s who finalized these deals... and they need to be indicted on murder charges
4
All those braying here should spend less time typing and more time reading.
Boeing will fix what is not right ... the order of magnitude increase in airline safety is because of, not in spite of automated systems ... like the one that failed in the 737 MAX, either from inept implementation, or pilot error, or ignorance due to factors beyond the pilots control . Boeing will fix the implementation and the piloting issues, no doubt, and I would expect the MAX version of the 737 will going on to have an enviable safety record. As one person with some sense commented here ... when these planes get back into the air, they will probably the safest planes in existence.
"In 2017 there were 10 fatal airliner accidents, resulting in 44 occupant fatalities and 35 persons on the ground: the safest year ever for commercial aviation, both by the number of fatal accidents as well as in fatalities.[6] By 2018, fatal accidents per million flights decreased 16 fold since 1970, from 6.35 to 0.39, and fatalities per trillion revenue passenger kilometre (RPK) decreased 54 fold from 3,218 to 59.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#WWII_and_later
- condolences to those who lost loved ones -
2
@Fred Mueller
Two years from now, not a single "Braying Commentator" will hesitate boarding a Max 8, 9 or 10!
Loved reading your post!
The question should be addressed why Lion Air did not stop flying that plane instantly after a very close call when first landing in Jakarta - that lack of management killed some 180 folks. Same why Ethiopian Air then put a 29 year old pilot in charge of that plane without proper training and double checking with Boeing. Such countries are the killers - bad for tourism.
7
I am 100% sure this mistake done by Financial people in Boeing pressured to Engineers.
1
If all of the planes in the backlog of back orders Boeing is sitting on are cancelled, well, Boeing will take a very big hit indeed.
Sacrificing lives because of an optional gadget that could have saved them is evil. Wonder where those who made risk-benefit analysis are and if they have any idea what they did.
Boeing should be put out of business.
141
@George Dietz I agree, to make life-saving software optional for purchase like you would leather seats on a car, is criminal and the Executives off Boeing need to be in jail for the manslaughter of hundreds of innocent people.
13
@George Dietz Boeing is a great American company with an outstanding long term safety record. They certainly blundered egregiously with the software design on the MAX, but are taking corrective action. To say that they should be put out of business is absurd, but they will of course suffer a damaged reputation and billions of dollars in expense.
I would have no fear of flying in the MAX even ahead of the software upgrade knowing that pilots would surely now be well informed of how to shut down the MCAS software if necessary. Furthermore, even considering the lives lost in the two crashes, the fatality rate per passenger mile is still twice as safe as riding in a car.
2
I don’t blame them. Safety features should never be optional on airplanes!
126
Boeing was too cheap to properly design a new model from ground up. A bandaid software fix to mitigate inherent aerodynamic instabilities doesn’t cut it. I won’t be flying on a Max ever.
2
This is good.
It will teach Boeing a lesson about the need to put the safety of human lives first, and profits second.
I hope that all outstanding orders for this plane get canceled.
The burden of proof should now be on Boeing to demonstrate that this plane is safe to fly by even comparatively inexperienced pilots.
7
There are switches labeled “cut out” on the all 737 center consoles to deactivate the electric trim. On the flight previous to the Lion Air crash the crew also experienced a run away trim. A pilot riding on the jump seat suggested switching off the electric trim and the flight landed safely.
The MCAS system apparently has a problem and Boeing should have included information about this system in its training material. However, the first reaction of any pilot who has a run away trim, regardless of the reason, should be to turn off the system. This should be automatic, in any airplane.
Unlike in the US most countries do not have general aviation. In pilots in these countries are often hired with no experience or background in aviation. They are given limited training in basic airmanship before being put into very sophisticated simulators and taught to rely on the automation. This is fine as long as everything is working properly. When systems fail pilots need to be able to revert to basic airmanship, switch off whatever is causing the problem and manually fly the airplane.
10
Republicans started the deregulation mania that led to these crashes. They have blood on their hands. Remember and vote accordingly in 2020.
No More Republicans. None. Not One.
18
@Ignatz Farquad
The prices for airline tickets are drastically cheaper today then they were before deregulation and flying in the US is far safer.If you want to go back to the good old days of oligopolies run by a few majors then plan on paying triple for your ticket.
1
I always vote Democratic but: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act
It's time to look at Senator Warrens smart fix. Corporations with revenues over a billion should have to consider more than just quarterly profits and cash flow, and measure quality in terms of other factors like safety. The failure to consider the other costs to society of doing business is causing great harm in general. Given what benefits we provide in terms of infrastructure, military protection, and courts etc., and what enormous power these mega-corporations wield over our lives, it's not too much to ask.
6
"Airlines also have limited alternatives, as Boeing and Airbus are the primary manufacturers of airliners used by most of the world’s commercial carriers.
Ah, the never-ending benefits of consolidation.
5
I worked in a test lab at Boeing for many years. Now retired.
This is heartbreaking on so many levels. Especially of course for those that lost their lives.
And in my decades there, Boeing really did care about safety.
Boeing was founded in 1916. It played a major role in WWII, building the B 17 & B 29, both key to the allied victory. The AF still flies a few B52s today..
And of course the Boeing 707, 727, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787 have all been great, safe planes.
The 737 has also been a safe plane since 1967 ... until this latest redesigned version.
It's self evident someone made a horrible decision regarding certifying the MCAS anti-stall system software & one relevant sensor (the Alpha Vane) as safe & sufficient.
The new system was required to correct for potential stall problems as a result of new larger engines (that increased fuel econ by up to 14%), but that were located further forward under the wings.
The MCAS software tells the flight control system to change its Angle of Attack downward if a stall risk is perceived, which the computer initiates automatically. And switching the autopilot system off doesn't deactivate MCAS.
But the pilots can flip two switches (that cut power to the motor driving the nose down) to override the MCAS system.
But they have to very quickly recognize that there is a problem with the MCAS & be aware of how to override it.
It seems training on such was nil. Lawsuits/loss of orders are inevitable. Don't know if Boeing will recover.
16
@dre
They ought to not have designed this plane but started with something completely new.
3
I worked for Boeing for 26 years in a laboratory which provided test support for airplane certification. I have never worked with so many hard working, committed, smart people with tremendous integrity. Most of these people are gone now because laboratories are expensive to operate and maintain. The emphasis on cost-cutting was just unbearable for anyone who had a long work history with Boeing.
18
Perhaps the best take-away from this article is 'caveat emptor' (let the buyer beware) on new technology. It seems that Garuda Indonesia was in a hurry to buy the latest-and-greatest, but without giving any thought to the inherent risk of an un-proven design. The inability of their management to assess risk probably shows up in other parts of their business, too. Such as, how do they assess the risk of reduced maintenance? Or of overworked or inexperienced pilots?
In cases like this it might be better for Boeing to walk away from their business, and to let their competitor deal with a problem customer such as this.
I am reminded of computer designer Seymour Cray. Cray never allowed any new technology less than ten-years-old into his computer systems. It is a lesson that many engineers hold dear to their hearts.
2
I’m not supportive of Boeing in this case. But the article did not talk about the large negative profitability and debt for Garuda Indonesia. As a state owned airline, it is struggling with cost overruns. It had previously delayed its Max orders once before. This tragedy was probably a timely lifeline to get a better deal on 737s, which is most of GA’s fleet.
3
This is a perfect example of Capitalism shooting itself in the foot.
So we hear that Boeing had the hardware on the shelves that could have saved those airplanes that crashed.
However, the hardware was not required and therefore were considered optional equipment installed for an extra fee on request. Boeing used it to maximize profits.
Why on earth would Boeing would make safety equipment an option seems insane, and a perfect example of what happens when the profit motive is paramount over anything else.
Now their reputation and business are in jeopardy because someone decided that safety is not as important as profits.
And, now as Boeing bleeds capital and cancelled contracts worth $Billions, they will likely have to go and update every 737 Max with said hardware at no cost.
3
It’s way too early to cancel any orders due to safety issues. Could the airline itself be at fault because they put a pilot in command who was not qualified?
2
And so it begins.
Boeing needs to find a solid argument against two successive crashes that killed everyone on board.
So far, the arguments that they are putting forth—
1–a software patch is coming but the government shutdown delayed it, and,
2–the crashes could have been prevented had the airlines purchased extra training for their pilots—
are not cutting it.
Because there is no winning argument against hundreds of deaths that could have been prevented.
How about a PR stunt wherein the CEO and all the C-Suites, the Board of Directors, and their families fly a Max 8 with two untrained pilots to show how safe the plane is?
No?
8
Wonder if Indonesia National Airlines’ decision was influenced by Lion Air’s clumsy PR debacle to quickly pay off victims’ families and to protect itself, Boeing, and contractors from being sued? Wanting to be safe is a universal human right.
1
Free market at work:
When you lie, mislead, put out shoddy products and lead to the deaths of hundreds, customers have the right to stop doing business with you.
4
Boeing, going, gone. And bye bye America. These are meant as exaggerations but what's good for or about Boeing is so for America. Fortunately for Boeing and America, over tbe near and medium term, they can bully their way into and out of situations.
The Garuda is coming home to roost in Seattle, WA, after Boeing dropped their new MAX8 737s through a deadly crack. Let's hope Garuda Airlines can cancel their order for 49 of the planes...one was delivered and passengers don't want to fly it from Indonesia to parts elsewhere. How can trust be restored to Boeing after they self-certified the MAX8s and charged for crucial "add-ons" in sale price of the 737s? Greed is never good.
1
I'm not defending Boeing, the company has been Restructuring itself for years with top executives rolling in high dollars at the expense of their employees, the quality of their products as well as Washington State taxes (similar tactics to what Amazon used recently to get huge tax cuts). Anyone familiar with the company's history can see that ever since they failed to make one of their top engineers and leading executives, Alan Mulally their CEO, and instead hired Jim McNerney from 3M. There was a huge reason for this move. Jim's job was to come into a company that had always been run by engineers who put Quality and Safety first and turn the company into a more profitable company by not training employees as well, reducing pay and benefits to employees and streamlining the design and build processes thru less testing, less inspection, using other low cost companies to manufacture key components, and making profit the number one metric going forward. Please note that had the company still been run by Boeing executives this would never have taken place however the company was now totally run by McDonnell Douglas executives and although they had run their own company into near bankruptcy they had failed to learn any lessons on why Boeing had remained competitive in the market while they did not. Just a side note: Alan Mulally went to Ford and made them the leading auto Mfg in the US. Trucks using aircraft grade aluminum to reduce weight Hmmm. I wonder who came up with that?
10
I worked for Boeing for 41 years, 8 of those as part of the customer interface during the construction of the airplanes where the customer has it's inspectors reviewing the build process of the aircraft they have purchased. There is a game played by Boeing and the airlines where the airline inspector will attempt to find as many defects or suspected defects as possible so when their executives sit down with the final contracts just prior to the airplane being delivered to them, the airlines can attempt to one final time to get money off of the airplane's cost due to it perhaps not being of the exact quality they expected in their contracted price. Anyway, I believe it is certainly possible that a number of airlines will attempt to threaten cancelling contracts Etc. as a way to get a better price or higher amount of funding for their grounded airplanes. The game is on.
59
@Mitch Interesting. The name of the game is “profit”, and companies - aircraft manufacturers and airlines, etc. - get created in an attempt to create profit. No matter what these companies say, profit is always the bottom line. Let the buyer, and the flyer, beware.
10
@Mitch
Yours is one point of view. Perhaps the airlines are indeed trying to gouge Boeing for a knockdown price, but perhaps also they are listening to their customers. I refused to fly in a DC10 and will never fly in a Max8,9 or 10.
18
@Mitch. The charging for upgrades including critical safety features cause hundreds of people to die. I have no sympathy for Boeing. The CEO and his enablers should be looking at serious jail time.
28
I am totally down for investigating this crash and determining legal culpability and improved best practices. But the handling by many news organizations (e.g. The Daily) and individual commenters sounds a lot like a witch hunt. If anything the responsibility rests with our own government and the FCC. We "should" understand that a corporations main motivation is profit. It is up to the FCC and other responsible bodies to hold them to account. If airlines choose not to buy optional safety features, where does the blame rest. And Boeing isn't stupid, they know that crashes aren't good for business. Not to mention that we all want cheap airfare. Thrifty tickets obviously come at a price. We are all part of "the system." It is all to easy to cast stones. Let the legal system do their job, and end prosecutions in an obviously biased court of public opinion. Same goes for basically every political issue of the moment.
20
@blm
For a time this comment board was relatively free of political rhetoric but rather focusing on what happened and where the culpability might lie. I see now that blaming Boeing for cutting safety corners will be called a "witch hunt" just like Trump uses "witch hunt" to discredit the search for truth.
24
@blm - You mean the FAA, not the FCC, right?
7
@blm
What exactly does the Federal Communications Commission have to do with investigating a possible flight control problem?
8
It’s a good week to be an Airbus salesperson.
112
@Marshall
That is until the world finds out that they have similar issues and just haven't been caught yet...
"Boeing’s best-selling plane is nevertheless a blow to the company, which has been thrust into crisis by the crashes"
Dear journalist, my high school English teacher would not allow your grammar, and I will not accept your semantics.
"Boeing thrust hundreds of families around the world into crisis when its best selling plane auto-crashed twice and killed hundreds of people."
8
What a crazy race we are. We call ourselves Homo Sapiens and after discovering the safety flaws of 737 Max and resolving to fix them I would think the aircraft would move to the top of the list of desirable aircraft if safety was a concern.
1
@Montreal Moe
The aircraft has new bigger engines that were mounted in a different place on the aircraft decreasing its stability. The software in question is meant specifically to correct for that. Older versions of the 737 had vertical stabilizer/rudder problems that were never really addressed, let alone acknowledged by Boeing. You can google that yourself.
The Sapiens in me says, "don't fly poorly designed aircraft". Call me crazy!
We read it is "difficult to cancel" an order for a plane.
But wait!
A plane that handles so psycho that the manufacturer determined it to be unsafe to fly w/o special dedicated programs to keep it from crashing?
And customers don't dare get on.
All w/o notification of the buyers or pilots of such a major risk?
Nuts.
10
@sjm
I bet the WTO - with all planes grounded - will support GARUDA in this.
1
I hope the New York Times is satisfied in helping create and fuel this hysteria with multiple fever pitched articles every day. There is no need to wait for the investigation to be completed when we have so many aeronautical and aviation experts crucifying Boeing in the comments sections of every article.
Nevermind the fact that the first country to ground these planes, namely China, is developing a competing aircraft, the C919; and the fact that the French investigators have every incentive to lay the fault at the feet of Boeing, thereby benefiting their countrymen at Airbus.
I really hope you're happy destroying an American company.
2
@Mike
I'd rather put it this way ,that I am happy public outcry has
made our own USA ground this aircraft.
Boeing gets all the blame it deserves for the almost 300 lives lost ,Boeing will not be destroyed but because we are now once again getting the FAA on the right rack to ensure safety for all and not just Boeing's profit's.
This is a horrible example to be from Boeing( as investigations come forward ) to have put so many lives at risk by either poor software design or incompetent training of the 737 Max's pilots.
Please do not blame the New York Times as the messenger of bad news for Boeing ,they themselves created it from day one.
5
@Mike Amen, amen. Good point.
@Mike
How many more accidents from a company that saved money by rolling out a new aircraft model without the expense of designing it before hysteria is justified and fever pitched articles are warranted?
1
Message to Boeing:
What is the value of public confidence?
You cannot put a dollar value on it.
5
Ok, so we make corporation people "designees" to judge the suitability and safety of their own products.
What could go wrong?
And one of said corporate drones is now the acting secretary of defense. Anyone else thinking dark thoughts about the procurement of new equipment for our fighting men and women?
3
I served the American people as a Designated Pilot Examiner. The FAA designee programs for pilots and aircraft mechanics are essential to the functioning of the US aviation system. FAA budget is insufficient to hire sufficient Aviation Inspectors to carry out all tasks necessary for aviation safety. As a result, there is a partnership between the FAA and the aviation industry to work together for the safety of the American public and efficient operation of the National Airspace System (NAS).
Designees are of the highest reputation chosen by competitive testing, background check, interview, and skill and knowledge demonstration. A designation is a position of public trust and prized distinction awarded to only the most experienced pilots and mechanics. Industry designees such as those that work with Boeing have unique knowledge of their areas of expertise and a demonstrated commitment to the functioning of the NAS and most importantly the safety of the American public. They are not FAA employees but are working for the greater good, often for little remuneration. It is impossible for the FAA to have all the knowledge and expertise of these professionals.
For the FAA to develop a designee program with Boeing speaks to the safety record and reputation Boeing has build over decades with the FAA. The designees are the eyes and ears of the FAA and are major contributors to the millions of safe flights made here and abroad every year.
1
Boeing to its customers:
If you need brakes, rear view mirrors or seatbelts, it’ll cost you extra.
If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going !
9
@New World
Great idea. Means one less in the airport crowd. Just take the bus.
They wanted to charge what is it, thousands of dollars, for an indicator light?
was it worth about $5B so far? and those lives?
5
An interesting spin - buy planes on the cheap, leaving off safety items - then - don't train or screen your pilots. Then blame the manufacturer and try to pull a trump and skate.
Sure - it's pretty much a perfect storm with enough blame to go around - let's just keep a sharp eye on the ball.
1
Boeing: “Would you like the option which keeps the plane from automatically nosediving into the sea, killing all aboard?”
Customer: “No, that doesn’t seem important. What colors do the seats come in?”
1
@Marshall
Do you think Boeing built in the nosediving feature to encourage the airlines to spend more money on safety features? Is Boeing now telling the airlines, "We told you it would be a smart purchase. It was only $80K!"
It's shocking to me that simple safety features are not included, but considered extras. Capitalism today truly has no conscience. Corruption (money) rules.
6
There are plenty of safety features, just not enough time and money spent to train flight crews.
Remember that US airlines have flown the same aircraft for several years without crashes. Third world countries have a long history of negligence. Been there, seen it.
We keep hearing about how the MCAS malfunctioned AFTER it received incorrect data from faulty sensors. Two errors, one software, one physical, combined to produce tragic outcomes, So what's the story on those sensors? Why were they faulty? Why were they not replaced? Why did the planes fly with faulty sensors?
2
Why was data from only 1 sensor being used to provide input to a life-critical system? NO redundancy. You don’t even have to have taken engineering 101 to find this preposterous.
Boeing cut corners and the FAA looked the other way. Now Boeing will suffer. I hope they survive - and come out the other side as a better company.
1
Clearly Indonesia government and Garuda are diverting attention from focusing on the lack of training for their pilots and their unwillingness to pay extra for the added safety systems. They are playing the popular narrative to blame Boeing. It is well known in the aviation community that 2nd and 3rd world nations have much more lax training requirements for airline pilots aggravated by greater cockpit automation with planes that practically fly themselves.
1
I think what Boeing did was despicable and a potential crime or negligence at best . However, I don't think that these engineering and product management and external policy issues cannot be fixed. The software will work and they will have to undergo new flight tests. Installing the "optional upgrades" i.e. sensors and controls should be done at NO cost. Airlines should then train the pilots and regulators should certify them.
So I don't think Boeing as a company should be put out of business due to the negligence of a few corporate heads who should all go to jail if found guilty.
Recall that FAA has been financially eviscerated possibly on purpose by successive administrations esp Republican libertarians who believe fervently in no regulation or self regulation. This of course is true of other regulatory agencies like FDA and FCC etc. This hasn't worked in banking and pharma. FCC has also been subverted by lobbyists and by administrators who worked for the airline industry and return to the airline business after their tenure in government. So our tax money goes to corporate social programs.
So, I don't think we should close up Boeing as many suggest. I think however their brand has been tarnished. The entire board and heads should be held financially liable if possible. It is a text book case of what not to do when your company is in the wrong.
1
Get ready for the government bailout. Zero regulation, obscene profits for the plutocrats, taxes to pay for it all from the rest of us. Rinse. Repeat.
5
Good. Every airline should cancel their orders for this disaster. The only way to get greedy corporations like Boeing to change their MO is to hit them in their bottom lines. Lord knows our feckless FAA in Mrs. McConnell's Department of Transportation won't ever put passengers before profits. And Trump just loves Boeing so it's a nonstarter with him as well. And passengers should refuse to fly in this deathtrap . That will convince airlines to cancel orders as quick as anything.
7
If the flying public refuses to fly this aircraft and thinks up disparaging names for the Max (the kind of thing Trump does so well) the story will have legs and fairly quickly the plane will no longer be viable. Like the Edsel automobile. The public looked, and decided the front resembled a toilet seat. That was the beginning of the end.
1
@JR
"Fake plane Max"?
As I've said before here, Boeing would be much better off now had it been appropriately regulated. Companies have a hard time focusing on safety when they have to compete with others that will do anything to save a buck.
Regulation levels the playing field.
7
Lost a ton of faith in the FAA and Boeing when the U.S. was the last country to ground it, and only after open outrage. Clearly they've now become political like the FDA. Really calls into question what ulterior motives there may be (i.e. money, favor, and influence).
6
The last time I heard Boeing talk about it, they required a one-third down payment before they would even schedule an order. If Indonesia is willing to give up that much money for the sake of safety, I hope they have legal recourse. Boeing's decision to withhold safety equipment we now know is vital, unless extra payments are made, is worse than criminal: it's monstrous.
10
Self driving airplanes..What could go wrong? The thing about good government regulation is that it puts the consumer and safety first. The F.A.A. has been the gold standard in international aviation for years. I want the F.A.A. to be well funded and independent of commercial influence. Air plane safety like food and drug safety is a proper function of government. Boeing has demonstrated that private industry is by definition only interested in the public good as long as it does not interfere with its profits.
Government is not the problem. Greed is the problem.
17
The world can't force us to choose better presidents but they don't have to buy planes that are subjected to a safety evaluation and certification process that might have been compromised or politicized. I am sure Airbus has its own issues (according to knowledgeable people) but the last two major airline disasters involved planes made by Boeing, not Airbus.
11
@Barbara Don't forget about Atlas Flight 3593 (aka "Prime Air"). That was a 767 from February that (while it's still being investigated) is looking more like an autopilot control issue (engines ramped to full throttle and nose went straight down on approach). But that was a 27-year-old plane, so who knows. Boeing has become complacent and they will pay for it.
3
Not correct. Most recent info:
Pilot error. Captain mistakenly hit TOGA full power switch on approach and FO overcorrected, pushing nose down...
1
I am not a pilot or engineer, but how difficult would it be for Boeing to revert to the flight control systems and software of the previous versions of the 737? It seems the premise of the MAX series was to keep it so similar to the previous series that little training was needed. The public would have much more confidence if Boeing returned to what we know works and what the pilots know how to fly.
1
@Turner Boone My understanding, from my husband, who has a better understanding than I do, that it would be very difficult. The new plane is different in size and shape, and the MCAS system was put in place largely to mimic the controls and flying experience of the prior version. So, basically, they were already trying to go back when they encountered these problems.
2
@Turner Boone what you are suggesting is a reasonable and thoughtful technical solution, but the problem here is not technical, its moral. Somewhere in some spreadsheet human lives = dollars in compensation to family members of dead passengers. If the change you are suggesting costs more dollars than compensation for future crashes, future crash will be allowed to occur. That's whats happening. Ralph Nader taught us this a while back with the automobile industry. Depending on our level of consciousness, this is either an economic or a moral issue. We either leave dollars on the table, or people on the planet.
4
@Turner Boone Here is link to an interesting article containing details of Boeing’s internal deliberations regarding whether to design a completely new plane or “re-engine” the 737. It was clearly a complicated decision process that involved lots of moving parts.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/20/boeing-didnt-want-to-re-engine-the-737-but-had-design-standing-by/
Why isn't the question as much about Indonesia's National Airline choosing not to purchase the additional safety components as it is Boeing's choice to make it optional?
The answer is you can stuff these planes with tons of safety technology that will skyrocket the price of the plane plus maintenance costs, and last I looked passengers were more than happy to plunk down as little as possible to fly, as they stuff overhead compartments to save $25 on checking a bag.
1
@MitchP
Nose up to stall, nose down to crash. Critical safety is critical safety.
1
As yet, we do not know what caused the 2 planes to go down, but we do know that the characteristics of each crash were very similar. That indicates some common problem with the plane — more than likely one of the computer systems or software, who knows. I do not blame the public for not wanting to fly on these planes, and checking the plane I'm going to fly on is routine for me. Long and short, Boeing and the FAA should't have certified these aircraft like they did, and they should provide simulators for pilots to train on as well.
11
We trust corporations too much. I think this tragic situation is a learning experience for all of us in terms of how we relate to businesses (all enterprises).
I'm old enough to remember when the default setting for most consumers was a healthy skepticism dealing with companies. Look at the war raged with the auto industry over something as simple as seat belts. Look at the way tobacco company executives bald-faced lied to Congress (and us) about the dangerous effects of their "product." I could go on endlessly.
All too often we are told to "sit down and shut up" by corporate America because they need to protect "shareholder value." They know full-well that most of us have fewer options today in finding a diverse array of suppliers because many industries have been monopolized and consumed by mega-wealthy interests.
22
@mrfreeze6 The FAA has been compromised, just as the FDA has. It's all about profit.
3
This... we need more balance that supports all people. Greed is not good
1
@Tom Bakers, Yes, isn't it ironic that the government, so vilified these days, actually turns out to be quite important in the lives of millions of people. At present, the FAA is headed by an incompetent Trump sycophant. There should be calls for her resignation but, alas, only crickets.
No one should buy an airplanes from a company that nickles and dimes safety features.
No one should buy airplanes from a company that prioritizes cashing in political favors to control the damage over safety of human beings.
Its time for independent regulators. And lots of new regulations.
39
@Karin ..... and no one should fly an airline that cheaps out on their equipment, training and maintenance either. There's enough blame to go around.
1
Bye-bye Boeing....I find it's safety policies disgusting to the point of extremely criminal. Next stop, the so-called president and the party of greed....a nightmare, all.
20
So throw in the extra upgrades for free and give them another simulator or two free of charge as well. Who knows what else Indonesian Airlines can milk this for. Modern commercial jets just don’t grow on trees. Personally I’m not yet ready to declare Airbus saints either. Competition is supposed to improve products, remember?
5
Considering these planes are grounded worldwide, it would seem any airline could cancel any contract for a plane currently deemed unsafe and not airworthy by EVERY country’s aviation authorities without incurring a contractual financial penalty. What legs exactly does Boeing have to sand on in enforcing terms of these contracts?
8
The plane has not been deemed unsafe by anyone. Whether it's safe or not has not been determined. Assuming there are defects, presumably they can be fixed prior to the scheduled delivery. Indonesia does not likely have a contractual basis to cancel based on what's in the public domain right now.
1
@Andrew
National security...Boeing has many allies on the Hill. Boeing will fight this along any lines. But as I mentioned I wouldn't want to see Boeing go out of business.
Assessing the two referenced crashes effectively requires a certain level of understanding the relevant factors -- and far too many commenters, and journalists, are attempting an assessment without having that understanding.
Below:
>>> "Apparently, the pilot in command had not used the simulator for this plane even though his airline had one."
That's not true, although it was inaccurately claimed, in the NYT, yesterday. There are a total of five (5) MAX simulators in the world. Boeing has four of them, Air Canada has one. Ethiopian Airlines has none. Visit the Ethiopian training school website and see the list of simulators -- no MAX.
>>> "Apparently, neither of the pilots understood what two switches on the panel were for."
This is simply wrong. The stabilizer trim cutout switches have been present on every 737 aircraft for decades, in the same position on the lower right (FO side) of the pedestal. operating them is part of the fundamental training every pilot on the type has had and must have had.
What the accident crews did not know about is the existence of a new and unexplained system (MCAS) that could operate the trim in new and unexpected ways. Before the Lion Air incident, *no one* flying MAX aircraft knew about it. The ET crew may have known it existed, but it's unlikely that they would have recognized its actions.
Apparently, neither of the pilots understood what two switches on the panel were for.
13
@Douglas,that reminds me of the switch on my truck’s dashboard for turning the passenger side airbag on or off. I don’t dare touch it, it seems too scary what with life and death safety and all.
1
@Douglas thank you for your comment.
1
Perhaps, if Boeing "rebranded" the Max to something completely different.....like "THE CORVAIR "
6
I remember Ralph Nader's book, "Unsafe at Any Speed", thinking perhaps this might be Boeing's mantra regarding the 737 Max - "Unsafe at Any Airport".
I think Boeing realized they had a problem, tried to contain the intel and were able to illicit the help of the FAA in keeping things quiet while making attempts to remedy the problem. Unfortunately, another crash occurred that "was eerily similar to the crash of Lion Air Flight 610" and instead of taking the high ground and being proactive by coming forward and grounding the 737 Max planes themselves, they stuck to their story that these planes were airworthy. The larger Boeing protested that the 737 Max was safe, the bigger and deeper the doubt expanded.
I truly believe Boeing has the software and knowledge to fix the various safety features that are needed. What they are currently battling is the lack of trust and confidence in the flying public. I question if that degree of negative public perception can ever be fixed, remedied or overlooked.
11
@Marge Keller That is what the discovery process is for in legal proceedings. This will play out very very slowly.
The CEO needs to go. They need to show contrition and take responsibility personally. Heads need to roll and roll publicly. The sooner the better. They have done nothing to tell the public they get it. They need to stop blaming the pilots and say loud and clear at every turn they are the problem and they know it and own it and will solve it NOW! Heads need to roll.
271
I'm not defending Boeing, the company has been fashioning itself after our Trump administration with their top executives rolling high dollars at the expense of their employees, the quality of their products as well as Washington State taxes (similar tactics to what Amazon used recently to get huge tax cuts). Anyone familiar with the company's history can see that ever since they failed to make one of their top engineers, Alan Mulally their CEO and instead hired Jim McNerney from 3M. Jim's job was to come into a company that had always been run by engineers who put Quality and Safety first and turn the company into a more profitable company by not training employees as well, reducing pay and benefits to employees and streamlining the design and build processes thru less testing, less inspection, using other low cost companies to manufacture key components, and making profit the number one metric going forward. Please note that had the company still been run by Boeing executives this would never have taken place however the company was now totally run by McDonnell Douglas executives and although they had run their own company into near bankruptcy they had failed to learn any lessons on why Boeing had remained competitive in the market while they did not. Just a side note: Alan Mulally went to Ford and made them the leading auto Mfg in the US. Trucks using aircraft level aluminum to reduce weight Hmmm. I wonder who came up with that?
45
and the CEO will ride off into the sunset while the rank and file workers pay price
19
@Mort Dingle Lion Air is culpable for failing to fix on-going problems with the plane. Lion Air is culpable for not informing the flying crew that the same problem occurred on the immediately preceding flight and how it was circumvented. Lion Air was culpable for dispatching the plane without properly fixing the AOA sensor. Lion Air is culpable for flying a crew that didn't know how to shut off runaway pitch trim (regardless of cause). And I think it will turn out that Ethiopian Air will be culpable for dispatching an overloaded airplane.
3
Probably just a shake down.
1
What is the United States of Boeing Southwest American Airlines America going to do about these flying coffins?
Create a crash betting line in Las Vegas?
10
@Blackmamba US airlines, having trained their flight crews, paid for what they considered needed safety items, and continued proper maintenance will likely be just fine.
2
This is what happens to the American aircraft manufacturing business without a strong independent FAA. This is what happens when we gut/pervert the federal government. Get it now, Republican voters?
59
@Bhj They probably don't understand. They don't want to understand.
4
I'm wondering what the "MAX" part means if the plane was absent these safety features.
3
I won't be caught dead in a Boeing 737 Max. Boeing executives deserve some serious jail time for manslaughter at the very least.
27
@tobby If you were to fly in a 727 Max your probability of dying is possibly significantly increased
2
Is a false signal emitted from a defective sensor considered to be the delibilitating flaw?
3
Start naming names at Boeing and the FCC.
Murder charges for anyone if it is found to be a direct result of profit over peoples lives.
I think is past due that corporations who made up the catch phrase "we are people too" start being treated like people in a criminal sense.
Stop coddling companies like Boeing and government officials like the FCC and treat them as we would be treated in a court of law. Yes the rules of how they treated need to be immediately changed.
Innocent people died, again.
15
More of this to come.
Boeing designed, engineered, built, and delivered a defective product. Airlines have every right to cancel orders.
The Airbus320neo is a superior plane, and Boeing rushed its 737max thru the design, engineering, and regulatory processes in an effort to try to compete.
Well, Boeing, you failed.
12
When I flew in the past, if I saw the plane was a Boeing, I was always happy because I thought they were the best planes. Perhaps that was over simplistic and naive. Thanks to this lemon of the skies, I'll now wonder "does this plane crash itself too?"
11
People over profit, people over planes. More regulation is needed to keep capitalism in check. Boeing's brand will be destroyed and they will have to pay millions for the deaths of people who trusted the brand.
So sad. So many lives lost, and many hard working people will lose their jobs because Boeing didn't do the job. Will the executive lose their bonuses or get jobs in the FAA?
18
Faulty design by Boeing is the culprit. The engines are too heavy for the plane, thus the stalling tendency/software to compensate/pilots to compensate for software.
Instead of designing a new plane Boring squeezed one more model into the 737 family.
What now? Lawsuits galore, possible a bankruptcy filing by Boring to limit liability.
4
Given the presence of only a single competitor with a year's backlog, and the enormous barriers to entering this market, Boeing has nothing to fear. Yet another instance of too big to fail.
6
Unchecked capitalism deserves death by a thousand cuts. Only huge stock market hits would bring people back to their senses. Not everything should be about profits. And we need to rein in FAA. Fire every official and making it a fully independent agency, then hire good people with no industry ties. If Defense budget could be diverted to totally useless projects such as a southern wall, they can most definitely be directed towards FAA. Prosecute anyone and everyone in regulatory agencies that is corrupt.
12
I think it is time to fire up the Wurlitzer Organ and for the choir to open their hymnals to Hymn #1:
"Hail Technology! Technology Will Set Us Free!"
("Just FEEL your Standard Of Living rise, Brothers & Sisters!")
1
In thinking of Boeing’s greed—
I’ve often wondered why the “greed side” of human nature so often dominates the “altruistic side”.
5
Boeing 737s have been flying since 1967. The latest incarnation MAX 8's design began in 2011 and had its first flight in January 2016. The people who are now blaming capitalism and the GOP should consider these fact patterns. A much more pressing concern for all of us is that the U.S. economy could feel the cancellation effects if it becomes a global trend. JP Morgan estimates the 737 MAX accounts for one-quarter of domestic U.S. aircraft production. For context, JP Morgan is forecasting first-quarter GDP at 1.8%—a big Boeing hit would knock it down to 1.2%. Like it or not, what happens to Boeing impacts all of us. So let's keep the schadenfreude down to a minimum, shall we.
1
the grim, regrettable, inevitable fact about technological progress and innovation is that we learn through catastrophe.
the modern control infrastructure (as james beniger describes it) evolved from a train crash. the modern safety infrastructure evolved from the necessity of handrails at niagra falls. the modern traffic safety code of signs and signals and sanctions evolved from the 1930's interstate highway system, where tired drivers displayed the kinds of fatal misjudgments that tired drivers can make.
a peculiar hypothesis from that constellation of facts: we might forestall catastrophe if we stopped innovating for a while and just learned how to cope with what we have.
but we can't stop, because competitors keep competing, operational costs keep rising, and the population keeps growing. the airline pilots will just have to continually retrain, like tax attorneys, to keep up with the technology.
here we reach fascinating questions: are we innovating faster than human can learn? are we complexifying more than human can suss? see facebook posts for an answer.
yes, IQ scores are continually rising, probably because environments are changing from tic tac toe kinds of problems to puzzles similar to chess -- keep up, or die.
where are we going, and what do we expect to find when we get there? why, a more complex world, a more technical world, filled with corporate contracts, corporate ownership, security risks, and things to complicated to operate safely and securely.
9
When Boeing purged the old baby boomer, EXPERIENCED, engineers and skilled trades in their quest to get two employees for the price of one, it boosted the stock and made the CEOs rich. Looks like the MBAs and denizens of Wall Street will ruin another company. We need to realize these CEOs aren't really in their jobs for to keep a company in business. They're only goal is their own enrichment.
55
Hello Boeing customers !
We offer you the following glorious 737 Max 8 pricing packages:
1. $90 million, our bare bones option, no safety features included; good luck keeping this baby airborne
2. $95 million, our mid-grade option for customers who like a little safety, but not too much. (NOTE: you better have heroic pilots)
3. $100 million, our full-price option includes extra warning lights indicating the plane's sensors and software are malfunctioning, pilot training for new and hidden safety features, training manuals and life insurance for all about to perish.
Safety.....for a price.
We are Boeing !
Nice people.
218
@Socrates
Do add $105 dollars to have pilot's lean how to fly this new aircraft in 45 minutes time on their Ipad.
15
@Carlyle T.
I'm surprised Boeing didn't have pictures of pilots getting their 737 Max 50-minute training certificates, Ipads in hand: look ma, no flight-simulator!
4
Boeing’s biggest mistake was moving it’s headquarters to Chicago, far away from its production facilities, and becoming out of touch with Bill Boeing’s vision. Now the company, like so many others, is run by bean counters whose only concern is the bottom line.
Very few of the corporate types at Boeing today remember what was known locally as the “Boeing Bust”, when 48 years ago next month on April 16, a billboard near SeaTac displayed the words “Will the last person leaving Seattle turn out the lights”. It’s not something we’d like to relive because of some greedy corporate types looking only at short term gains.
144
@Philip
Hope they're sued into bankruptcy so the lesson will stick.
6
@Philip
yep, a constant solace for me is that government goes for long term gains...2020
1
I cannot conceive of ever boarding a Max 8, and I expect the majority of the flying public will have the same reaction.
Airlines will balance their anticipated loss of revenue versus the loss of their deposits, and take into consideration the probability that they would win a suit demanding the latter on the basis that they were not informed of the inherent instability of the craft. That it is inherently unstable is proven by Boeing determining that it needed a software patch -- MCAS -- to counter its proclivity to stall.
The 737-800 Max is dead. And that may carry Boeing with it.
40
I wouldn’t want to be caught on that dangerous thing! Doesn’t matter what they do, I don’t want to be their guinea pig! And they’re clearly extremely untrustworthy and cold and greedy and money-minded folks over there at Boeing. I don’t trust anything they say or do at all!! I don’t trust anything they or the FAA say, they’re clearly money-minded people first and foremost, they don’t care about lives, they just care about their fat bank accounts. They’re criminals, the fact that they’re not being investigated speaks to how corrupt the whole system may be. Anything to do with that plane I don’t want!! If I can travel by ship across continents I would do that!! They need to refuse that coffin, and Boeing needs to lose it, forget the whole thing!!!
17
Boeing should to start a "moonshot" project to design a new airplane with comparable specs.....or they will be out of business - no one wants to fly on these aircraft - I own a travel agency and everyone is asking if they are booked on a Max.
19
If Indonesian customers have lost confidence in the Max it is because Indonesia has failed to take ownership of Lion Air's negligence. Lion Air failed to fix problems with the accident airplane. Lion Air failed to alert the accident crew that the previous crew had a problem with the AOA sensor and MCAS. Lion Air failed to alert the accident crew how the previous crew resolved the problem. Lion Air failed to fix the problem before dispatching the accident airplane. Lion Air's accident crew didn't know how, and failed to follow the standard runaway pitch trim procedure on which they had presumably been trained.
Finally, Indonesia's investigation has been less than transparent. Somehow, we are just learning now (6 months after the accident) that the prior crew experienced and successfully dealt with the situation that apparently brought down the Lion Air flight.
To the extent Indonesia is relying on supposed similarities with the Ethiopian Air crash, that's a lame excuse. The jury is still out but my money is on an overloaded plane at high density altitude (the Ethiopians would never have allowed a plane to fly with a malfunctioning AOA sensor, and their highly-trained, expert pilots, or one of them anyway, would have know just what to do when faced with runaway pitch trim).
4
Dear Boeing: Please see Harvard Business Review re: Johnson & Johnson’s handling of tainted Tylenol circa 1980. That is how the best in class handle crises. You are not doing so well in handling the 737 Max crises.
18
suspect many more 737 Max orders will be cancelled.
11
Never ever let the fox guard the hen house.
24
Honestly at this point, I’m not certain I would trust the “software update.”
49
@Hla3452
Your mistrust is well placed. A "software update" to fix a physical problem that causes the plane to be unstable. And the "software update", if it works properly, just allows the pilot to know enough to take the controls back from the software to fly an unstable aircraft - which is why the software was required in the first place.
No thank you.
I'll stop flying before I get on one of those aircraft until they have years of no incidents.
5
Its kind of weird. I usually stay away from 1.0 software versions because there are issues and customers are the testers. Sadly this actually had people s lives involved. And honestly the stupid design of depending on pitot tubes only to automate airplane stability was idiotic. It takes more sensors and more intelligence. Why Boeing did not stress this with huge warning is beyond me. I would fire all involved in not doing their job and maybe look at criminal charges if there was intentional hiding of the risks.
17
@Wyatt
But which prosecutor is going to go after BOEING? Most victims are foreigners. And have little voice.
Volkswagen Executives were arrested when entering the US. Maybe BOEING executives should be careful traveling abroad.
1
I do not understand how when assessing readiness for launch, the manufacturer does not have to declare any 'single point failures'. Defense-in-depth is a decades old concept that has been crucial to minimizing accidents in many risk-averse fields. Is it not a requirement in FAA evaluations?
9
It seems the FAA has some answering to do. There should be a FULL investigation into how Boeing did not include safety features on the 737 Max, but classified them as optional safety features. And why the FAA didn't oversee this properly. Enough is enough. We are watching a country slide into a 3rd world country with all the deregulation. We are better than this and we deserve better than this.
59
@Concerned for the Future
FAA = Boeing. FAA has become a toothless agency. They defer all decisions to the airlines and manufacturers. This is not a bug. It's a feature of corporate heaven that United States has become.
5
A loss of confidence cannot be fixed with a mere software update.
140
Get ready for more of this (winning). If aircraft manufactures have nothing else they have to have reliability, integrity and the confidence of the aircraft buyers and their customers. Right now Boeing, through greed, laziness and a knowledge that they had no real oversight from the Feds is lacking in all of that. Boeing's loss will be Airbus' gain and undoubtedly this sad chapter will give the Chinese a fresh entry into the world market. Greed and stupidity seems to conquer all in this country right now.
86
Boeing should suck it up and facilitate the cancelling of these jets. If not than we should not be at all surprised when seat belts and air bags show up as optional equipment.
Greed is not good, greed and the incessant focus on the bottom line is a plaque in modern economics. Buyer beware or buyer be dead.
31
American capitalism will greed itself to death, cycle by cycle, unless kept in regulatory check.
The latest worldwide “Great Recession“ was a perfect example.
14
Let’s hope this is the beginning of the end of the Boeing 737 Max 8—
Just like China beginning the grounding of the dangerous plane, before the rest of the world joined in.
22
There seems to be an effort to put the blame on Boeing. I have to wonder about the pilot's responsibilities in these cases.
Apparently, the pilot in command had not used the simulator for this plane even though his airline had one. Apparently, neither of the pilots understood what two switches on the panel were for. Apparently, a non-flying pilot had "saved" the same airplane by advising the pilot what to do on a previous trip, and apparently the incident was not reported.
As a pilot in the midst of commercial training, I strive to understand each button and knob. I seek to understand each system and its failure mode. Yes, modern planes are complex. But that doesn't absolve the PIC (pilot-in-command) of the responsibility of absolutely knowing his ship inside and out. And I fully expect, when my commercial certificate practical test comes soon, that the examiner will fail me if I can't identify all of the controls and switches, and how to override a failure. Yes, a Boeing 737 is more complex than a Cessna. But the principal is the same.
47
@Scott Cole
It's difficult to blame pilots when the formal training consisted of an iPad program and a manual.
125
You may be thoroughly trained and still be unaware of updates or alternative settings for unknown to you fault designs. Boeing knew this was a problem, did not inform all operators and along with the FFA while working on a software update didn’t make the public and airlines aware of the issue. The government shutdown further delayed work on the solution. Don’t point fingers at the dead pilots.
118
@Scott Cole . Reasonable post. Very few here seem to understand and it's so easy to fire a bullet at Big B. even though they have problems with driving.
4
To save money, they jerry rigged new engines onto an old model. Then they installed Robo ware to correct the problems this produced, software with thousands of lines of mysterious code that can hijack the airplane and leave the pilots helpless when a little gunk has built up in a sensor. Critical warning devices were sold as expensive extras. They have created a Franken jet out of misbegotten parts, a plane designed not by engineers, but by geeks, cost cutters, and profiteers. All this was overseen by "inspectors" who turned out to be their own employees. Now they are wondering why people don't want to fly a Robo plane that flies itself and its helpless pilots into the ground at 500 miles an hour, vaporizing everyone on board so that there are no remains to be buried and relatives have to settle for empty caskets?
125
@John . Spot on. You've frame the whole thing succintly.
1
@Louis Grenier I completely agree with you about Johns comments. That is exactly what happened. The only way to fix this is to put the smaller engines back on and lose the competitive edge (from fuel savings) to Airbus.
1
Thank you, Reagan, for deregulating corporate America. For sure they will just regulate themselves! And thank you trump for budget cuts to the agencies meant to protect the public, leaving us vulnerable, from food to flying.
151
@DMS
I never forgave Ronald Reagan for all of the banking deregulations he imposed while president. His various deregulations resulted in people either losing their shirt or losing their life.
11
@DMS - It was Jimmy Carter who deregulated the airline industry.
It was Bill Clinton who developed the "partnership" model to regulatory oversight, with industry paying fees to fund the regulatory agencies. The FDA and Big Pharma were the first target.
This funding model institutionalized regulatory capture.
After that, it was a small step from there outsourcing and self certification and deregulation via privatization.
4
@Bill Wolfe
Hi Bill.
People here don't care about that. They just want to blame Reagan.
1
When I fly to Seattle it is on a Boeing plane. I am very proud of what they have done for aviation.
Bad actors, in the form of uppermost management, have squandered the hard earned respect and years-long work their betters put in because they are worried about their stock price, which is tied directly to their wealth.
Little men, again, putting their profit and power in front of our country. Please vote in 2020 to regain out trust in government, and revive, enforce, and fully fund the governmental departments that control the worst impulses of the best type of economy in the world - a market-based, Capitalist democracy that treats its people with respect and competence.
31
Take the train or drive. Take a larger jet that makes more stops and uses more fuel. Stay home.
Years ago Ford had an issue with roll over crashes concerning their compact SUV due to improper use of off road tires under highway conditions. Turns out the problem was driver error, namely panic. The vehicle did not roll over to in numerous track tests when a tire was blown out.
Boeing needs to address the underlying issue but human shortcomings are the real culprit here. Pilot error. That and the news cycle.
2
So if a car rolls over more than other cars that’s driver error? Blowing a tire is scary, and if your car requires that you be a trained test driver to keep all four tires on the ground... well, that seems like an engineering problem.
Same for a plane - it just shouldn’t require you know a series of steps to keep it from plunging randomly into the ground. It’s not pilot error - it’s a plane error that the pilot failed to fix; at BEST shared responsibility.
2
@Jean Auerbach it shouldn't? Really?
What took em so long? That’ll touch off an avalanche of cancellations. No airline passenger of sound mind would climb aboard a self-crashing max again.
22
just the beginning. boeing's reputation has been destroyed; hundreds of families destroyed; the u.s. reputation as the leader in aviation destroyed; the local communities reliant on boeing employment destroyed.... and all because of the staggering greed in the executive suite.
but those same men will surely see a bonus this year -- although not as generous as in the past.
37
I can only feel very sad that an important and respected American brand has been severely compromised by a few greedy people.
We have seen this happen in every major Industry...banking, car manufacturers, medical industry...etc....
These few greedy people cause great harm, including deaths and great financial loss to others.
These people know they will not be brought to justice and will walk away from the disasters they cause filthy rich. They are not ignorant and know exactly what they are doing and are almost always highly educated.
We need to dry out our corrupt money soaked government or this downward fall will continue.
35
@Richard Fried
They will indeed walk away in this life.
But we don't stay here forever, and some day will have to answer for their deeds.
4
One very interesting question not even asked in the Media about the two Boeing Crashes: Ethiopia, and Indonesia is why there have been 2 crashes abroad involving the same system and none in the U.S. The Times has shown that upwards of 40% of U.S. flights uses the 737 during this period of time. Are foreign planes sold more defective or is foreign personnel less well trained or both? A crash is clearly more likely statistically in U.S. airspace because of its many 737 plane miles and its denser flights so its unlikely luck was the difference. This fact needs to be addressed.
2
@Michael Cohen According to NYT AA bought both options, SW had same options placed differently, and UA fly by using "other data"
1
"Indonesia’s national airline has told Boeing that it wants to cancel an order of 737 Max 8 jets . . . adding that its passengers had lost confidence in the model after two deadly crashes in five months."
Regardless of Boeing's after the fact safety measures which have and continue to be taken coupled with all of the endorsements from the F.A.A. regarding the airworthiness and safety of Boeing's planes, it's the public perception that will remain and linger for a long time. Fear is a hard emotion to overcome. Sometimes this kind of stink never goes away.
I would not be shocked if Garuda Indonesia is only the first of other airlines to cancel these planes from Boeing.
10
Let's take a 1962 Chevrolet Impala and keep upgrading it ad nauseum and see how that turns out. There is (generally) nothing wrong with the original 737 as an airframe - once the rudder control design was corrected and metal fatigue issues addressed - but the genesis of this problem is not a software glitch, it is the fact that in order to keep this airframe commercially viable it requires engines that change its aerodynamic properties which in turn requires electronic vigilance / intervention - the MCAS software.
Perhaps Boeing should be rethinking and accelerating 797 design.
8
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.
When your greed is such that you charge additional costs for safety features on your airplanes (!!!), you deserve all the negative consequences that come along with that. It is unconscionable that Boeing would seek to squeeze every last dollar out of their products at the expense of air travel safety.
22
@Vin as an aside, the loss of Boeing will be a big loss to the US trade balance sheet.
Sadly it took the lost of so many lives to hopefully make Boeing realize by not addressing the possible future problems with their new aircraft with each and every pilot ,apparently having pilot's just practice the new controls on an Ipad and not in an aircraft simulator ,plus still staying moot with comments to reassure the public that"Max" is safe ,they now have a future bigly text book example of how NOT to run an aircraft manufacturer.
I am hoping that we also have a criminal investigation to see if Boeing held back data that it's Max planes could crash on take off. Shame,shams ,shame.
10
Watching them test the 777, the thorough engineering, painstaking efforts to iron out any possible issue, I was so impressed with Boeing and its engineers. Now, we are here, two decades later, and a company I hold in great regard has fallen due to greed. Extra costs for safety systems? Really? This is not the Boeing I came to respect. If Boeing hadn't forced a fundamentally flawed design through and/or had been honest with itself about the potential for this design flaw to turn deadly and/or had stepped up to the plate immediately after the first tragedy, it's long respected reputation wouldn't be so tarnished and long-term future wouldn't be in jeopardy. Many people were involved, and none voiced their concerns? They did this to themselves.
27
@Character Counts: You wonder whether Boeing employees voiced their concerns about the 737 MAX. From my experience in the software industry, I'm *sure* Boeing engineers voiced strenuous objections about the airplane's design. But doubtless they were overruled by the bean counters. Profit uber alles!
4
I know readers won’t want to hear this but perhaps this tragedy is what happens when career politicians such as Mr. Huerta, former Obama pick to head the FAA until January of this year, lead agencies of which they have no knowledge. I hate to say it but I prefer to have a former Delta pilot as chosen( belatedly ) by Trump running an agency overseeing the airline industry.
36
I know everything isn’t about sports, but winning teams are hardly ever curated and managed by former players. That kind of leadership is a different skillset.
5
Why did the Trump administration kept Mr. Huerta as head of the FAA after they took office and why did it take so long to ground the plane?
8
@X Your right it’s the money men running sports teams today but they usually have knowledgeable folks mostly former players as coaches and talent scouts.
Boeing management made some blunders that could threaten the company’s solvency. It would seem that they have tried to maximize profits by not setting safety as a deal breaker priority.
There is no way that any routine regular procedures completed every time a commercial plane flies should have unexpected responses to common flight issues which any pilot would be unaware. Boeing even offered a safety feature that might have mitigated problems as an extra feature, as if safety was not a basic priority.
Well now they may pay the piper for their gambling with the lives of their customers’ employees and customers.
36
Good.
Boeing built its reputation on engineering safe equipment.
Since Boeing seems to have zero mechanism to certify its planes are airworthy, I'd like to see ALL airlines cancel orders from Boeing no matter what series plane they are buying.
Proper training for pilots should not be hidden/offered as an "ala carte" option.
And then the FAA needs to change its rules immediately to ensure independent oversight of certifying planes. A fox should never be chosen and paid to certify the safety of the chicken coop.
72
Boeing has deceived the FAA and customers about major changes of the 737 flight operations compared to previous models. It concealed the relevance and extent of the MCAS and it kept a crucial safety feature optional. Boeing put profit over safety. Lives were lost in Indonesia and more lives were lost in Ethiopia because Boeing did drag its feet to fix the flawed software.
One can argue this passes the threshold from negligence to the criminal offense of manslaughter. Airlines surely are in full right to cancel the orders without costs to them because they were deceived. But they also can make an financial argument. Passengers lost the trust and will refuse flying with the Max (even if this can be a baseless fear after a fix). Hence airlines will not be able to make the money they calculated to earn when making the purchase. One way or another airlines will demand compensation. It will cost Boeing billions to satisfy the claims.
37
@Oliver Herfort
But most probably, management will still get huge bonuses, which is all they care about.
Unless stock holders fire them.
11
@Max Lewy
And it's these same stockholders that are the engine that drives the quest for greater profits,
ergo decisions that too often cost lives. That should bother them. It would me.
1
@Max Lewy They'll get huge bonuses and 'golden parachutes' even it stockholders fire them.
2
Garuda has been known to have financial troubles as recently as last year. While I'm sure there are many customer concerns this feels more like a strong arm move to get a steeper discount on their orders.
2
Sure. It’s always about money—never about the safety of passengers. In the USA.
4
Garuda will possibly be in worse financial jam if they continue their order of the plane as if nothing happened, ignoring customer’s justified fears.
After Malaysian Airlines’ missing MH370 and MH17 incident, lots of customer avoided Malaysian airlines afterward. This brought severe lose of customers and hence financial issues for the company. I believe Garuda is wise to listen to their customers’ perceptions to avoid losing them. And also, Garuda had only recently be able to land in Europe. They may want to do their best to ensure customer’s safety or risk losing grounds.
Customer safety in flight goes together with long term profit in my opinion. Otherwise focusing on short term goals will only make the company loses money on the long run by losing customers’ trust.
3
People have died flying this 'fuel efficient workhorse'. Boeing should allow any company with orders for their planes to cancel those orders lest more people die. A software fix is a little late at this point and making safety equipment 'optional' as in car purchases should be against the law for mass transit machines like airplanes.
83
Why in the world should it be difficult to get out of the contract with Boeing if it can be compellingly and demonstrably shown that Boeing designed a patently unsafe aircraft, taking shortcuts every step of the way and still refusing to acknowledge the gravity of the problem???
173
Who, anywhere, would willingly fly in one of these 737 Max 8 planes?
Nobody is going to believe anything Boeing says about the system in question being repaired/upgraded for safety.
Carriers who buy these planes will be boycotted by the flying public. No nation is going to let its national airline take that hit. These contracts are never going to be paid.
From a contract law, either Boeing knew about the problem and did not disclose it, or it did not know. In the former example there was Fraud in the (Inducement and the contract is void. In the latter example then there wa sa "...Mutual Mistake..." about the plane being sold and the contract is voidable.
This is going to put Boeing out-of-business. Boeing, the company that built the planes that won WW2-
Hard to believe.
109
@Lefthalfbach
IT was Jim Mcnerney who pushed the 727 Max and he is now retired and set with millions and millions of dollars. It is proof that Harvard Business School is a great place to train bean counters who know how to cut costs. One option at this point would be for Airbus to take over Boeing. Another would be for the Chinese to take over Boeing. The credibility gap is huge. Another option would be for Boeing to build a new plane and sell none of these and have no plane to sell in this market space for five years.
1
Boeing put profit ahead of safety, and it's reaping the results.
94
I can't blame them especially when"safety features" cost more money. Greed is the driving factor at this point. Boeing should be ashamed and have to pay for the grounding of these planes.
56
@Dog
Oh! Boeing will pay for this from all parties affected.
There lack of comments since these two deadly accidents has made speculation go haywire ,what happened to honest public relations?
2
@Carlyle T. - within 24 hours of your comment here, they're in heavy conference at Boeing. I bet they're all on vidoe-phone throughout the global reach of their operations. I also bet Boeing has never faced such a crisis and they know it's of their own making. This is make or break time.
I'd like to see Boeing drag Garuda to court to force defective, deadly planes on them. If they don't accept the cancellations, they will deteriorate their already broken image beyond redemption.
It appears Boeing still did not "get" it.....
37
The great unregulated Republican 'free-market' is working like a charm.
Companies with little regulation or fake regulation churn out defective products, customers begin to notice they purchased junk and they seek out other providers who make a safer product that is regulated by a real government, not a fake American government that can't even stand the role of government.
America's radical right-wing 'small government' small minds helped build this Boeing deathtrap by defunding the FAA and making them subservient to corporate CEOs, share prices and Wall St. Greed Over People.
Enjoy the Boeing Recession ... and many other 'free-market' recessions to follow that originate directly from deregulatory nihilism the Republican refusal to govern until catastrophe and fatalities strike.
Nice GOPeople.
Remember in 2020.
322
@Socrates
The aircraft was certified in 2015, during the Obama administration.
4
@Joseph. Using guidelines enacted in 2005 during the Bush administration. Socrates point still holds.
34
@Socrates The claim that an airplane crash in Africa is the fault of U.S. Republicans is ridiculous.
p.s. I voted for Hillary and donated to Bernie's campaign.
3
Good Job People of the World!
The article says, "“Our passengers, psychologically, they don’t trust flying with Max anymore. They often asked during booking what type of aircraft they would be flying on.”
This is the answer. If all these morally/ethically bankrupt corporations and investors understand is profit their passenger and stock prices must hit the dumpster. They have their private jets and could care less how mamy people's lives they destroy with their insatiable greed.
We can always drive, take the train, take the bus, walk or just stay home.
39
Deregulation, making America great again.
130
Boeing needs to retrofit all their planes with the safety features that required extra cost, and include them as standard features for the future. It is morally reprehensible that such safety features require an extra charge, and mind boggling that this passed muster at the FAA.
29
Maybe they should throw in the safety extras for free. I'm also sure that they outsourced the programing, cut back on the testing, and we know the documentation was lacking. They cut corners and wonder why they have issues.
30
So many of our best and brightest work at Boeing. These engineering jobs are American jobs and the backbone of the upper middle class. I am furious at Boeing for selling critical safety equipment at an extra cost which has lead to the tragedies and now threatens Boeing’s very existence and good paying American jobs.
Greed has no end - they must be reigned in but I fear this administration no longer cares for human lives- it is all about the profits to them.
197
Diedre do you know that the code was created by them? Most of this is done offshore these days.
3
Yes, the best and brightest Deirdre. An acquaintance of mine was a high official in OUR FFA, tasked with keeping OUR skies safe. He retired and now is a highly paid consultant with Boeing - he knows all the ins and outs of defying regulation.
Very unamerican. Very dangerous. Very unacceptable.
71
@njglea
I work in a different industry which is also highly regulated. 40 years of denigrating and freezing pay for government workers and officials pretty much guarantees that as soon as they get their retirement points they are hopping to the corporate ship. They dramatically increase their salaries and become eligible for bonuses that equal their former salaries.
12
We will see if Boeing decides to cooperate with this, the request from Garuda Indonesia should be honored. Given what has happened, the nervousness is justified but mass cancels is probably not in the future. The basics of this plane have been around for 50 years, but Boeing needs to do HARD WORK to resolve all issues with the public perception of the plane. The airframe seems to be fine (outside of the fact that it is out of balance, I do not know enough to know if this is a major issue or not although it doesn't seem like it), the software programming must be resolved and a few other items as well but there is not a lingering safety issue that has been identified. Hopefully, Boeing will have the class to resolve all of these issues, compensate the Airlines that want it and allow others out if they so choose, that would be the right thing to do. Once they hype and hysteria calms down - and there is way too much of it right now - I will have no issues flying on these jets in the future. If Boeing does not work with Garuda Indonesia, then I would encourage others to pull their orders to put major pressure on Boeing and hurt their pocketbook. To me, Boeing is in the wrong, they must make this right.
The downfall for Airbus is that they do not have the capacity to take in the slack and no one else is making a competing plane. Maybe Bombardier would want to take a more active position instead of selling their IP to Airbus? There is opportunity here.
2
Not sure if it is the same plane built 50 years ago...for Max 8, they moved the engine requiring software to further manage aerodynamics with only one sensor - additional safety features will cost you. At what point, incremental changes become so manny that it becomes a completely new system.
11
@A Concerned Corproate Citizen - I would agree with much of what you are saying but when I evaluate the platform through all of the iterations, it is sound. The airframe can handle the nacelles being moved forward with a larger engine, that has been proven as this has been flown safely for many revenue flights. The issues with MCAS and AoA sensors must be fixed immediately, that was juts plain stupid but I don't want to answer the question of "was add a larger engine to this design a good idea", that is not relevant at this point as it already exists. I would love to see a story on how many other commercial planes have this problem of being out of balance by design, I wonder how many others are running into this issue or an issue like it and what they fixes have been. That would be a good story idea but it would take time.
4
It boggles my mind that CEO's don't regard brand protection as rule number one. VW, Wells Fargo, Boeing and countless others have frittered years of pride in reputation building down the drain. To think that the safety equipment (software) was not included in base pricing is an example of how a relatively minor financial decision can ruin the whole enchilada.
157
@Chris
Just pass the buck to the next guy; this iteration of the Max 8 most likely wasn't initiated by the current Boeing CEO. The CEO in charge, whoever he was (just for the record, it'd be great if the media names him) got his high stock price & golden parachute, who cares about anybody else.
8
Passengers have lost faith in Boeing and the U. S. FAA to put passenger safety above profits. Who in their right mind now would ever agree to purchase a ticket on a Boeing MAX 8? Flying is stressful enough without the wonder of “Is that simply wind turbulence or another cost-cutting feature of the MAX 8”?
208
@SC
Agreed. The problem is, should they start flying MAX 8's again in the U.S., airlines have the right to switch out planes at the last minute; so you could find yourself on one whether you like it or not. Best thing to do would be to avoid flying airlines that have them at all.
11
@Paula
You're absolutely right! And great advice on choosing airlines without the MAX 8 in their fleet.
5
I cannot blame Garuda Indonesia for their attempt to cancel the contract. Boeing has lost trust and respect in addition to loss of $27 billion in market cap. These accidents and loss of their perceived ability to deliver sound and safe planes without thinking long term is simply mind boggling. We now know that FAA is fairly useless in deregulated environment. Where is the board for oversight - existing Boeing’s management lacks a moral and ethical compass in addition to long-term viable thinking.
44
Let the collateral brand damage begin. I'll be surprised if the Boeing CEO makes it through April. The drip drip drip of Boeing stock will be so painful that Boeing will be recommending the complete re-structuring of FAA protocols.
54
@Amor Fati
I hope. It has started. But the gains of the past year are still huge.
1
Good for Indonesia. The only way Boeing and other corporations will take a lesson about corner cutting is if it affects their bottom line. Boeing needs to revisit its commitment to product integrity and not charge extra for basic safety features, not slap a software patch on a physics problem, etc.
231
@Boggle
Fixing the problem would have cost a lot less than paying their lobbyists before this happened.
2