The sooner Boing goes out of business, the better!
2
Refuse to cooperate in an investigation. Where have a heard this before?
11
Hey Boeing, if you're listening and paying attention, which you should be, here's what: I'm never flying on a Boeing aircraft again. Good job cutting corners on safety in order to make your shares worth more.
9
The US is no longer a leader. Its standing in the world is going down, down, down.
More shameless contortions to avoid facing the truth.
8
Boeing repeated the mistake that led to the 2009 crash, depending on a single sensor when at least two should have been used. If this had been pointed out two 737 Max crashes would have been avoided.
Even so I doubt that the 737 Max should be allowed to resume flying.
8
In the future, Airbus. Boeing's desire for quality and customer safety was replaced by a drive for a larger revenue stream.
Perhaps these disasters were a Boeing "top down" drive to boost return on shares for investors. Competition with Airbus put the pressure on to win contracts, especially when Airbus planes are superior.
The Max, which should probably just be scrapped rather than fixed, epitomized a desperate corporation willing to endanger passengers to keep afloat. The engineers who designed the forward heavy Max, knowing it would nose dive, did not have designed adequate software and sensors designed to counter the problem.
Boeing refused to train pilots in how to manually control a Max in a sudden nose dive.
It seems the software/sensor problem was repeated on a regular 737, and now Boeing, and the NTSB are stonewalling. This does not inspire confidence in Boeing, or the NTSB.
Why trust Boeing?
7
Ah, the Dutch can be stubborn, especially when it is about being flexible with the facts. They have a good chance of winning this showdown with the NTSB and Boeing. Reminds me of the experience of Trump's ambassador in The Hague in his first press conference, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/opinion/peter-hoekstra-dutch-reporters.html .
2
Well they were certainly "stubborn" in assisting with the cover-up and declining to make public their report findings, for ten years.
4
I’m afraid this looks horribly like Boeing and the American safety experts running scared and putting their fingers in their ears. Why, oh why, do they think this is unnecessary? I wonder what pilots generally feel about this attitude that immediately makes them Suspect Number One in the event of these very troubling tragedies?
5
Very interesting to read Ayn Rand’s take on the pseudo-businessman. Most will find the current description Boeing behavior eerily familiar.
For Rand a pseudo-businessman of Boeing type, is an “essentially non creative, who seeks to get rich, not by conquering nature, but by manipulating men, not by intellectual effort, but by social maneuvering.”
He “hires personal press agents and postures in the public spotlight” and “flaunts his money in vulgar displays of ostentation; he craves ‘prestige’ and notice and hangs eagerly on the fringes of ‘café society.
” This style-over-substance leader has a gift for making his businesses popular and receiving “good press.”
He is detached from the nitty-gritty of the home office, working on what is considered bigger things in a marquee city. He has “Washington ability,” whereby skillful actions result in legislative favor.
His firm produces glossy annual reports and he makes many speeches. Of great importance to him are the company’s slogan, symbol, and “noble plan.” The flawed leader seeks security in hiring “very promising young men, all of them guaranteed by diplomas from the very best universities.”
The CEO looks upon himself as a Great Man, creating a legacy with an autobiography in mind. He is extremely confident, believing that reality will be what he wants it to be.
And when things go sour, he is full of excuses!!
1
Boeing is making a grave public relations mistake. Given the bad publicity over the 737 Max, the more it does to appear as though it is ensuring public safety, the better its long run business will be.
4
I worked for a corporation that believed and encoded into policy that employees and customers were the most valuable asset the corporation had, that the more we valued both, employees and customers, the richer the company would become.
And, they meant it literally, as in, the more that we care for our employees and customers, the more revenue we would make.
And it took them for a 100 year run.
Do corporations have corporate missions anymore besides quarterly profits?
4
If corporations are the same as people then Boeing should be charged with mass murder.
11
Government agencies owe us a better oversight. Crashes have causes. And, when systems fail, the manufacturer is the cause, not the people damaged by the failure. By definition, systems failures are manufacturer's. Nice to have appropriate countermeasures for system failures ingrained in the pilot's training. But, that didn't happen either. Boeing has made a practice of blaming pilots for their design failures and their product failures. Especially third world pilots. That is a fact. When will the Dutch summon the courage to stand up to criminals like Boeing. Maybe they are the same people who allowed the genocide in Rwanda.
6
As with any publicly owned corporation today Boeing must meet profit expectations or their stock prices will tumble. In most large corporations top level executives' pay and continued employment are tied to stock performance. So it is natural for executives to chose shortcuts when they think that they will get away with them. It is a system that we "designed" and that companies have to exist within, but it is in no one's long term interest.
Boeing has clearly taken this too far and hundreds have died for their errors in judgement. Think about that the next time you consider boarding one of their planes.
18
@Jim Dickinson
I saw in a news item that Boeing is worth $132b and has obligations of $136b, and that of course is supposing that flying and building of 737 Max will resume.
1
I wonder if any of the Boeing decision makers, in pondering their decisions to allow critical systems to work on a single sensor, realized that if that single sensor failed and there was any evidence of pilot error involved in the ensuing crash, those pilots would almost surely not be alive to defend themselves in the subsequent investigations and litigation.
21
Important note for the “I’ll only fly Airbus from now on” crowd:
Airbus and Boeing have completely different design philosophies. Boeing’s general design philosophy is that if something goes wrong, the pilots should be the ones to deal with it. Airbus’ philosophy is that the computers should deal with it. Look at Air France 447. That crash happened because two very experience pilots had no clue what they were doing.
As for the safety of the 737NG, it is one of the safest airplanes in history. The previous generation 737-300/400/500 (Classics) which appeared in 1984, had a crash rate of 0.25 per million departures. The 737 NG (New Generation) models which entered service in 1998, have a crash rate of just 0.08. So if you are going to refuse to fly on the NG, you may as well just refuse to fly.
Anyway, before I go off on a tangent, it’s very important for you to realize that if you think you’re just going to avoid these issues by flying on Airbus exclusively, you’re actually increasing your exposure to this type of accident, not decreasing it.
Read up on Qantas flights 72 and 73, two (of many) in-flight incidents with the Airbus A300. And they never even figured out what went wrong, much less fixed it.
So if it’s only Airbus for you, good luck. You’re gonna need it.
10
@Mike Great points and historical examples. Airbus has had its share of accidents as well, several of which were related to software "bugs". Modern aircraft are incredibly complex systems that when they have "domino effect" failures can lead to catastrophic outcomes, but the rate of failures certainly seems to have have been decreasing at least for US carriers. I travel frequently and have no concerns flying on either Boeing or Airbus aircraft.
I was surprised at the apparent Boeing design decision of having two sensors available on the 737 Max but only taking inputs from one at a time.
4
@Mike Lets correct some of your very obvious mistakes.
It was Qantas QF72 only not 73, only happened once not twice. It was also a Airbus A330 not an A300 as you suggest.
As for incidents on the A300, that particular model of plane did not have the same type of flight computer as the later A320, 330, 340, 380 and 350 has. Think of it as similar to the 737.
1
I share Mike’s caution about assuming one manufacturer is more saintly than another.
Boeing may deserve the intense attention it has been getting since the two Max accidents, but I know from airline pilot friends that Airbus has had its share of design/manufacturing issues.
And any discussion of crimes committed by a manufacturer should be paired with a discussion of the wide disparity of training standards for international airline pilot training. Some airlines are to be avoided and it has nothing to do with the aircraft type being flown.
5
Wow. Better to come clean and face the music, rather than let the bad news drag on, Boeing.
8
While visiting his airplane building shop at the Duwamish shipyard in 1916, Boeing (William E., Founder/Owner/President/Board Chairman) saw a set of improperly sawed spruce ribs. He brushed them to the floor and walked all over them until they were broken. A frayed aileron cable caused him to remark, "I, for one, will close up shop rather than send out work of this kind.”
10
"But the previously unpublished study . . . accused Boeing of emphasizing the pilots’ mistakes to divert attention from the company’s design missteps."
And History repeats itself...
Boeing's Board of Directors cannot fix this problem. Series of problems. They're shedding trust like laundry in a hurricane.
Boeing seriously needs to install its biggest stakeholder -- its Union employees -- on its board of directors, pronto and, why not emulate Olde Europe by filling half of Boeing's board of directors with them.
Without Trust, there is no Boeing.
13
Taking their cue from Trump, McConnell and Republicans. Some world we live in now.
14
That’s what I was thinking! The role modeling has begun.
2
This is just more proof that for Boeing safety is job priority number 5,638,429. Just so you know, that's a marked improvement for Boeing.
3
There is only one rational solution to this problem.
Its broad application will save lives
and, as a byproduct, work toward saving
homo sapiens who otherwise
would be lost to climate chaos.
Stay off jet airplanes for fifty years
or until they figure out electric engines.
4
In addition to the cover up, the key engineering failure was described in the article, i.e. 'In both the Max accidents and the 2009 crash, which involved a 737 NG, Boeing’s design decisions allowed a single malfunctioning sensor to trigger a powerful computer command, even though the plane was equipped with two sensors. For both models, the company had determined that if a sensor failed, pilots would recognize the problem and recover the plane. But Boeing did not provide pilots with key information that could have helped them counteract the automation error.' Thus, if true, they created a potential single point of failure. In the world of responsible engineering this is a cardinal sin. Whoever did this and whoever approved it should never be allowed to touch anything of significance again.
14
@Paul
Correct, Proper and historical engineering priciples would not have relied on a single point of failure, that's rule number one taught in all engineering schools. Boeing's priorities have changed from and engineering driven company to a financially driven company. The change started when McDonnel Douglas management personnel were integrated into Boeing after the merger. The use of mangement personnel from a failed company doesn't make sence.
8
If its Boeing, I'm not going!
6
Regulatory capture, a focus on shareholder and managerial profits, little respect for the engineers, deceitful public relations.... you name it. American capitalism in full view. Its enough to make on believe the system needs reform or something more drastic.
9
Boeing is not doing itself any favors, nor is the NTSB helping, by the way they first coaxed, or strong-armed Dutch authorities into modifying their report on causes for the 2009 737NG crash.
After the two deadly crashes of the Max, the majority of fliers did not want to fly in a Max again. It's grounding is costing Boeing millions.
There was a reluctance on Boeing's part to release the truth behind the Max crashes, doubtless to prevent revenue loss. But, after a protracted period, most of the truth came out.
Now, Boeing is stonewalling the Netherlands on a crashed 737NG, which apparently also had flawed sensors and no pilot instructions on how to override them.
This does not raise confidence among potential fliers, many of whom now insist on Airbus. Boeing needs to be utterly transparent, and re-build its core ethics, and technology, to regain public confidence.
13
Wait. Folks are jumping to the conclusion.
Boeing has no authority to attend theee hearings if NTSB refuses.
Congress has authorized only this agency to conduct investigations.
Folks should also remember that Egyptian, Indonesian and the most recent Iranian investigators refuse to allow full NTSB participation - and Boeing declined.
So, a Dutch agency with different management led by their new parliament wants questions answered - only NTSB can provide.
If Boeing disregarded - imagine, the next investigation. NTSB relies on the manufacturer to provide crucial data - NTSB may then have a great difficulty.
And let's face it - a root cause of a complex machinery like aircraft is rarely just one component.
Remember our space shuttle disasters - a whole set of complex interweaving causes were identified.
But the shuttle investigations showed human error of launch commanders as a primary trigger point.
NYT magazine published an incredible "background investigations " on Max accidents.
And the conclusion again was a pilot error attributed to lack of "airmanship"
Finally, someone below is mistaken.
The Dutch accident was a 737 NG - and not a Dreamliner which is 787.
2
@Neil With its record why would anyone trust the NTSB?
4
@s.chubin Especially in this administration. Pity someone taught DJT how to manipulate the market.
1
For years I've been hearing about design flaws in the Dreamliner. The decisions Boeing took about the Max have strenghtened my resolve to stick to Airbus-flying airlines whenever possible.
8
We do not need to have a company vying for global dominance that has a history of skirting safety, compromised inspections and regulatory manipulations.
There should be a Boeing wing in a federal prison to accommodate all that participated in these deceptions and criminal actions aside from personal and company fines.
11
Shame on Boeing and its grinning glad-handing leadership. A strong business depends first of all on the integrity and honesty of its leadership.
Either Boeing addresses the issues that led to these tragedies head-on or it will go out of business eventually.
11
I know that almost everyone is fed up with the lawsuit culture that flourished during the '80s and '90s. But this case is a great example of why a citizen's right to sue must not be restricted. Who does the little guy turn to when governments and corporate giants cooperate to stuff the truth into a black hole.
While the victims of this and the other two Boeing crashes probably have received compensation, think of how much less that would be if they didn't have the right to sue in civil court. In this particular case, it might be the only opportunity for the real truth to be uncovered and real justice to be done.
16
The US corporate sector has been coddled for years, with ever increasing benefits of regulatory capture and favourable tax treatment throughout the IRS code. They have put so many billions of dollars into their lobbying and campaign financing, and seen it pay off big time, that they can’t envision a world in which they don’t control government. That is the essence of “governance” in the United States today. So Boeing is shocked - shocked! - that someone may hold them to account.
US government is so morally and ethically bankrupt that they can’t be looked to for protecting the rights and safety of ordinary people. (Not just Americans, but also Ethiopians, Turks, Dutch, Indonesians, everyone.). The job now falls to the Europeans, who are better at keeping their corporations in check, to provide responsible regulation in place of the US. And strange as it may seem, even China may step up with a proper regulatory regime. Boeing may find out that they have no place to fly their planes.
Would it be better with Biden, Warren, Pete, Sanders, Bloomberg, other? Definitely, but it will be a very long struggle to get anything like the government of the people, by the people, and for the people that Lincoln had in mind, lest it perish from the earth.
24
It looks like Boeing has been putting defective planes on the market for a quite a while. In the meantime, someone had to rubber stamp this all along. Who to trust now?
6
This will continue until the felons are jailed, not fined, jailed.
19
So, it will be eternal then?
Cooperate.
Boeing, particularly, is in no position to decline, with its credibility teetering.
9
Comment writers here, responding to @seabiscute should be made aware that Boeing simply does not follow its own design procedures. In all designs, there is a reiterative protocol evaluating the consequence of a failing component. All control failures, no matter how remote or benign, are addressed with a back-up procedure. Failures with less remote catastrophic consequences (i.e., would result in two or three crashes in the life or a particular model) have two and sometimes three automated back-ups. In the Turkish airliner and the more recent Max crashes, the iterative design process failed. The planes were left with no backups to handle a failure that led to their crashes. It is disingenuous to blame the pilots when the problem is clearly a broken safety design loop. And now it appears to be caused by a long-standing systemic management problem at Boeing.
30
I am confident that Americas legal system has statutes that allow the people at Boeing who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of passengers to be held accountable for their willingness to put greed and ever higher profits above the lives of innocent travelers. Negligent homicide and willful negligence charges should be the remedy for executives whose callousness disregard for safety killed hundreds of their costumers. Prison and the forfeiture of all assets would be the proper punishment, not $60,000,000 bonuses.
14
Were you living thru our recent financial meltdown? Millions of people lost their homes, money and hopes for retirement. All at the criminal workings of Wall Street and banks who enriched themselves beyond comprehension.
As of today, not one senior executive has been jailed, none disgorged their illicit earnings. Broken lives remain broken.
That is the sad state of big business in America. I for one am glad to see that Boeing is being held accountable but don't expect any action in criminal court. Those attorneys earn big bucks to avoid any such litigation.
9
"I am confident that Americas legal system has statutes that allow the people.." Why are you confident? Cannot we conclude the opposite view from the impeachment of Trump? A corrupt man is maintained in power.
6
Boeing thinks it is in the business of making aircraft when it is actually in the business of trust. Without public trust it will go out of business.. like Arthur Anderson did after Enron.
25
@Jacques
Boeing has been in the business of making money, not making aircraft. But it is 50/50 going out of business which, among other things, will be a significant hit on the US economy. Proof that financialization of the economy is a recipe for disaster
8
Possibly. But there are so few alternatives. It appears the 737 MAX will still be delivered. And not all reservations show you what plane you fly.
2
I would like for Boeing to go out of business entirely. But don't let the CEOs and other higher ups escape with a golden parachute.
19
I have just updated my criteria for buying a flight:
1. Plane type (No Boeing)
2. Price
3. Number of transits
There's no way I could survive a flight on Boeing. If it doesn't crash, I will die of heart attack from the stress of just sitting inside and expecting the "automation error" after every minor bump.
15
But how do you implement that? Airlines can change planes and some only show aircraft after booking.
1
@CitizenTM Oh. That might severely limit my options. I won't book a flight if the airline doesn't tell me what the aircraft is. I might have to switch to trains and ships after all. (I wonder how that will work for a Japan-Europe travel...)
1
@kornel
Ferry to the mainland, train from eastern Asia to Europe. Quite an adventure. You would need a lot of time...
Good luck!
3
Boeing corporate culture of money over safety is likely to cost them the company. There are people at both Boeing and the FAA who should be in jail.
35
These in jail right along with many business and political folks.
Boeing top brass should be given two or more different answers, then be given say 90 seconds to figure out which answer is real and what to do in response. They’re trained business men and women right. If they both chose and respond right, they get to live.
21
If Boeing "refuses to cooperate in investigations" into harm and death done by its negligence (or worse), then issue subpoenas, contempt citations, and file criminal charges against any and all top management, including the recently-resigned CEO and his $80 million in stock options and other Golden Parachute" assets.
34
What human service, particularly if it ended in death and disaster, is worth $80m? People have lost all decency.
6
NASA has always used three sensors whose readings are compared such that any one sensor failure is easily detected and the computer locks out the one oddball sensor AUTOMATICALLY. This is done for any sensor whose misreading can result in a loss of spacecraft. No special procedures or training necessary for the pilots. No checklists to be quickly consulted. The pilots simply FLY THE AIRCRAFT! If this is done to safeguard the handful of people on a spacecraft it should also be done for an aircraft containing hundreds of people.
29
Historically, sensors (transducers) have the highest failure rate of any aviation technology category. Which makes sense - these are generally precisely made devices that are exposed to extreme conditions. A design where a single-point failure places an aircraft in a potentially catastrophic situation is a case of extreme negligence.
22
New evidence has emerged regarding Boeing's role in this disaster. Perhaps there would not have been two later crashes if this information was made available as soon as it became known. This is pure greed on the part of Boeing and it should pay a heavy price. If Boeing continues to refuse to cooperate then Europe will have no choice but to ban any Boeing aircraft from its skies and to refuse to certify any new Boeing aircraft. Just a guess but within one week of a total European landing, transit, and certification ban Boeing will be begging to provide whatever is demanded from it or else file for bankruptcy. If it can be proved that Boeing knowingly contributed to this and other crashes then Boeing executives should be charged with murder in those countries that still have the death penalty.
31
Not a huge fan of Boeing at the moment. But good luck to all who wish to boycott Boeing. The only other major player in the market is Airbus. If you can manage a busy travel schedule using only Airbus, more power to you.
9
That’s what I am doing, checking the aircraft before I buy the ticket. It is my “payback” and also I may be saving my life. Who knows?
14
I avoid Boeing altogether. I only fly Airbus's airlines
1
The attitude shift away from the customer by companies like Boeing, Facebook, Apple, and Walmart—that were once examples of the “good guys”, and have now become profit centers without conscience, is front and center for all to see. I put the blame on the lack of competition created by the mega buyouts. Bring back stronger anti-trust laws and tax benefits for the smaller companies, rather than tax benefits for the mega companies and not the smaller competitors, and the story will change.
38
Kudos. Well analyzed. The stock market is the core of our cancer; there can be capitalism without a stock market.
4
When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997, they didn't realize that MDD carried with it a slow acting but lethal virus called "Rent Seeking". It's when management tries to increase profits not by building a better product more efficiently but by lobbying, gaming the regulatory system, and using the courts to thwart competition.
In a perfect world, Boeing would realize that this virus is killing it and the board would hire a CEO who recognizes that rent seeking is not a long term viable strategy and he or she then calls an all-systems-wide stand down at Boeing and ejects every practice, procedure and employee that is tainted with the MDD virus.
The current CEO though seems to come from this same fraternity of rent seeking executives. How easily can I tiger change its stripes, assuming it wishes to?
57
Don't eat American meats, don't fly American planes, don't drive American cars then you avoid many problems.
25
There was an obvious design flaw (relying on one sensor for a flight-critical system), but this also tells us about Turkish Airlines pilots.
As pilot "Mike" below tells us, they ignore basic flight safety rules, and train new pilots to ignore them.
4
Take notice, and do not enter into any new contracts with Boeing. Alas, the NTSB is even more toothless and corrupt under the Trump (non)-Administration.
Travelers, choose airlines that use other than Boeing craft.
23
I see no real basis for trusting Boeing in the future.
33
Trump has set an example.
30
These CEOs are learning from the best...lie and obstruct. The only problem is someday Trump will be gone and these corporations want to continue operating beyond an 8 year term limit. Behaving like this ensures airlines will send their business to Airbus, thus continuing the edict Everything Trump Touches Dies.
28
The simple lesson from all of this is: do not fly on the 737.
22
Why should they cooperate?
They only built the plane. They weren't flying it.
4
Why Boeing officials en masse are not in prison is astounding to me.
29
@David Very funny. Boeing executives? Why are not many Chase, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, possibly Walmart, Facebook, Verizon etc executives in jail as well? The disease at the core will in due time destroy America. Business, economy, education, justice, health care you name it. Who is at the top. A crime boss and his gang. Putin can't stop laughing, even Lenin's corpse in his mausoleum is giggling.
2
KLM can always stop buying Boeing aircraft.
13
@george eliot
And Dutch authorities can bar 737s from the Amsterdam airport ... that happens to be one of the major connection points in Europe.
7
Globalization run amok?
6
It's like Boeing is committing corporate suicide before our eyes.
30
@Chris Morris
Hasten the day!
What, are they taking notes from the Trump playbook?
21
If I am going, it's not Boeing.
10
Now I’m not only worried that my next flight is a 737-800; but sickened that their CEO strolled out with tens of millions, after leaving hundreds of dead bodies in his wake. Boeing, job one is to restore the flying public’s confidence, at all costs.
18
Can your reputation get any worse, Boeing? Sorry, you may want to act like Donald Trump with your non-cooperation, but that ain't gonna fly. You must be held accountable. If not, you will be ruined and deservedly so!
23
The American experiment is turning into the American't experiment. Boeing, Iowa, Iraq and so forth
17
Please excuse me that I need to go back to the previous article about this disaster
New York Times: "After a Boeing 737 crashed near Amsterdam more than a decade ago, the Dutch investigators focused blame on the pilots for failing to react properly when an automated system malfunctioned and caused the plane to plummet into a field, killing nine people."
Did the writer actually read the Recommandations report. Start at the first page and everyone can clearly see and read that the Dutch Safety Board lays with the Recommandations the blame squarly with Boeing.
Recommandations page 1
"1. Boeing should improve the reliability of the radio altimeter system."
...
"3. Boeing, FAA and EASA should assess the use of an auditory low-speed warning signal as a
means of warning the crew and – if such a warning signal proves effective – mandate its use."
"4. Boeing should review its ‘Approach to stall’ procedures with regard to the use of autopilot and
autothrottle and the need for trimming."
...
"7. Boeing should make (renewed) efforts to ensure that all airlines operating Boeing aircraft are aware of the importance of reporting."
Not a peep about pilots. One can bet one's bottom dollar that the Dutch Safety Board writes its own reports and that Boeing is not a sort of co-writer at all.
Please let put the blame were it belongs in the first place. Boeing knew about this problem a long time, but deemed it not a security risk. Ergo nine people dead, New York Times.
Edmond V.O. Katusz
38
The suppressed 2009 safety analysis is worth reading for anyone interested in this topic. It is pretty damning of the corporate culture of Boeing.
https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/nl/media/inline/2020/1/21/human_factors_report_s_dekker.pdf
24
@Howard, my jaw dropped when I read that report. Thank you for posting the link to it.
(reply submitted 11:10 p.m. CST 2/6/20)
3
@Howard Thanks for the the link to the analysis. As an engineer, I am interested in the details. Blaming the pilots is unfounded; they had 30 seconds to respond to an autothrottle that was reading a faulty altimeter. They tried to increase thrust, but were overruled by the computer. This situation is similar to the 737Max crashes; there were two sensors, but Boeing used only one and never checked or warned of discrepancies. Criminal negligence.
8
@Howard
Right there on page 5 described as controller anatomy automation surprise.
Not explained in any manual, and not obvious. You need Trump reality distortion to blame this on pilots.
1
Guilty as sin.
12
Not. Flying. Boeing. Ever.
15
Party before country, profit before safety. These are the times that try men’s souls.
18
Corporations are people in the USA. Innocent until proven guilty. Helps to have all the $ you could ever need to get the very best lawyers we produce. Merika!!!
9
New CEO, same culture. They have only cared about PR, even as they shoot themselves in the foot doing so. I suppose it’s also been easier for both Boeing and the FAA to ignore any accidents involving foreign airlines ... America First !
Instead, the new reality - as with the MAX - may be up for other nations to act first, and the US to follow.
14
The “market” should have had enough by now. Boycott Boeing flights and the airlines that fly their planes. That is the quickest, non-stop route to necessary corporate reforms and consumer safety.
26
Wasn't it a federal agency that dragged it's feet on shutting down Boeing planes after the two recent crashes, well after other national aviation agencies had taken that precaution? This refusal risks the reputation of the NTSB et al for integrity and reliability. Rolling back regulations to Make America Great should protect ordinary citizens, not just wealthy corporations.
Boeing has no reputation to protect anymore. We know they are all about shareholder value. I hope European aviation agencies do a better job of protecting the flying public than the US ones appear to be doing.
20
@John Boeing isn't even about shareholder value. They're really only about CEO bonuses. Shareholder value (and thus shareholder's interests) matter only because the bonuses are tied to that.
17
@RH Good point. This sort of bad corporate behavior and the use of the last big tax cut to fund buy backs rather than investing in job creation as promised sours me on the "power of free market" fairy tale.
2
Sounds like Boeing has learned a thing or two about how to deal with the "Legal System" from "The Stable Genius." Why should anyone or any company adhere to any law if the president doesn't? This is what happens when the law in general is flouted. Of course the public suffers when there is no rule of law and that is just the way that corporations and tyrants like it.
27
“The company has a lot to answer for,” said Mr. Paternotte...Sadly, this is an understatement. Boeing will not repair its tarnished reputation this way.
12
Boeing's refusal to appear is very Trump-like. And why would anyone trust Boeing to be telling the truth even if they did testify? I'm sure their legal department has decided that stonewalling is a wee bit better than lying. But they'll be prepared to lie if it comes to that.
34
I work in the aviation industry as avionics systems engineer.
My instinct is that Boeing should be broken-up but I know that, in the big picture, that would be bad for the USA.
Instead, every aircraft manufacturer on Earth should be licensed by nations to sell aircraft to airlines based in that nation.
So for instance, Boeing would have to licensed by the USA to sell to United, American, Southwest, etc., but Boeing would have to be licensed by The Netherlands (or EU) to sell to KLM.
Boeing cannot afford to lose customers such as the major world airlines like KLM, so licensing Boeing to sell forces them to be a bit more complicit with governmental authorities such as the Dutch government.
Of course, there is always the problems of government extortion, corruption, or being a pawn in trade wars, so there should be some kind of treaty and due process regarding national licensing. But under no circumstance should a private entity be capable of obstructing government investigations - criminal or otherwise.
38
@VJR
The EU has common regulations for everything. And I bet that Boeing has to deal with EU regulators rather than individual countries. At least for those European nations that belong to the EU. The Netherlands is one.
4
I can't help thinking if we had a humanistic President leading our country we would have large Federal level investigations as to why these hundreds of people were killed by some sort of malpractice by Boeing or even our own federal inspectors,the Max 737 failure is almost a secret here ,no biographies of the dead nor memorial.
34
There is a quality planning tool from WWII called failure mode and effects analysis. The fact that the single sensor failure mode was not addressed in the Max fmea is unprofessional to the point of criminality.
61
@terry In the Marine Offshore industry, FMEA is more common in the last decade or so. As a person familiar with the importance given in the Marine industry, it is a shocker to see they had a single point failure on a 'Passenger airline'.
I mean to protect damage to subsea assets ( Steel) we are now operating on 'triple redundancy' as a minimum standard (3 Motion sensors. 3 Gyros, 3 wind sensors ) and for passenger airlines, they had one sensor inadvertently compromise an entire plane is mindboggling.
33
Given Boeings existing credibility problem over the 737 Max debacle one would think they would rush to be open and transparent as a way to address their credibility issues and restore public confidence in the company and efforts to ensure the safety of their planes. But no, they choose instead to clam up so they look like they are trying to hide facts from the public and investigators. Its time to fire the new CEO and bring on one that isn't afraid of the truth and recognizes that truth is fundamental to restoring the flying publics confidence in the company.
53
@Leninzen If Boeing wanted to be transparent they wouldn't have moved their corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago.
The silver lining to the Trump/Senate whitewash is the template of a cover-up is now bright as day in the collective memory. We know one when we see one now.
40
I invite all to watch "All My Sons", the film version of Arthur Miller's play, about a plane parts manufacturer cutting corners and sending defective parts into planes. Boeing executives should be compelled to watch it.
28
They should be compelled to watch it as the in-flight movie on a 737Max transatlantic flight. Put the CEO and entire Boeing Board on the flight, and be sure the pilot has had minimal training on the aircraft.
20
I do not see why Pieter van Vollenhoven and the RVV (Dutch safety board) are taking flak for this. As with any crash, there are multiple causes, and the Dutch RVV appears to have identified all of the possibilities, with the last clear chance to avoid the disaster resting with the pilots.
That said, the report did have information that Boeing failed to act upon, and for this, they are rightly culpable.
Disclosure: I was involved in the design of the RVV 1997-2003.
6
They are taking flak because it appears they changed their findings after Boeing objected. That’s worth looking at, given Boeing’s Max issues.
16
@beaujames The fact that only one sensor was used when input from more than one was available is criminally stupid engineering. If the crash would not have happened without the single sensor failure anything that happened after that is small potatoes. The fact that Boeing allowed this same single sensor failure on the max should have engineers putting guns to their heads. Unless of course they were overruled by management.
10
@terry
Good engineering is always overruled by management. Follow the money!
I'm already boycotting the 737 MAX, regardless of the FAA's final decision of airworthiness, because the design was misconceived from the start and the FAA's relationship with Boeing was incestuous.
I hope I don't have to add the 737 Next Gen to this list, but I will, if the FAA and the NTSB further corrode my trust in them.
42
You can’t really boycott something that isn’t available.
5
I think there is strong element of Dutch politicians grandstanding here. Dutch investigators had full knowledge available to them, including a report they commissioned themselves which clearly identified an issue. They chose, for whatever reason, not to highlight a ‘single point of failure’ problem that appears obvious. They need to investigate what their regulatory system and culture failed to bring to the table and how to change that, not rehash the original investigation.
7
@Dubliner - I believe that the Dutch legislators are holding the hearings to look into the actions of their own safety board. The first paragraph is misleading, I think, but the second begins "Members of the Dutch parliament wanted to question the Boeing chief executive, David Calhoun, about the company’s possible influence over the original Dutch investigation of the accident,...."
Airbus for me and my kin. Boeing and Allegiant Air for the rest of ya.
25
@PMD Please, you don't think Airbus has screwed up? Didn't they lose a plane travelling from Brazil to France because of malfunctioning pitot tubes? Didn't they lose others because of faulty automation? Don't put your faith in brands. Boeing may clean up their act and Airbus may become complacent.
Just curious - Are you driving the same brand of car as you did 20 years ago?
1
Airbus for me too. Only Airbus.
3
@Harvey Bernstein Was Airbus's response to those crashes anything like the prolonged obfuscation, denial, deflection, and evasion that Boeing indulged in after the 737 Max crashes?
Look, airplanes crash. No matter how hard the manufacturers try to make them safe. The important thing is how does the manufacturer react after a crash. It's plain to see the second 737Max crash wouldn't have happened if Boeing was an ethical actor.
And yes, our family still drives Hondas more than 20 years after the first one.
2
When you're guilty as sin, you never give yourself up. Ask Trump, Mulvaney, Graham, Pompeo, KAC - anyone in this regime because they all lie.
54
Fly by wire systems depend on pilots to make the correct decision to override in real time when the system misguides. Real time is great for the folks who obsess about eternal vigilance and have encyclopediac memories and instant recall. Try being a sleep deprived father with a screaming infant in the car. Now change that for a pilot at 200 MPH at 1000' and descending with a full load. Mistakes happen, they shouldn't be because the pilot forgot to override a faulty process that the computers didn't catch.
This reminds me of the time the captain told me to shut down one and two. I asked why. He said we have to reboot. He then shut down engines three and four. So I shut one and two. We had 60 passengers on board. But we were a boat on a river at 4 MPH with no traffic, not a commercial aircraft. A simple solution would be to restore commercial aircraft to old school technology that relies on basic airmanship and teach that knowledge relentlessly to those who apply. Or make engineers accountable to the pilots who have to deal with the array of options available when the right stuff is needed "right Now" to get home.
11
@sly creek -
"A simple solution would be to restore commercial aircraft to old school technology that relies on basic airmanship and teach that knowledge relentlessly to those who apply."
Well, except that commercial airline crashes have been on a downward slope over the last 20 years even as air travel has increased and more and more automation has been added to airliners. In 2017, for the first time ever, there were no passenger jet crashes at all.
1
Boeing should be banned from making Aircraft
22
Wow, learning from Trump. Stonewall all the way.
49
Time for everyone everywhere to refuse to fly on Boeing planes.
38
@Donna - You don't seem to realize that almost half of the world's commercial jetliners are made by Boeing.
They have blood on their hands, plain and simple. All those families... And it could have been prevented. Makes me sick to my stomach.
29
RIP Boeing. Is Trump telling you to stonewall?
30
I will only book Airbus flights going forward.
25
American exceptional arrogance at it's best.
Boeing has created a golden opportunity for Airbus and Airbus will no doubt, fill this vacuum
42
@Ron B
I wonder how Brexit will disrupt (or facilitate, who knows) parts acquisition for Airbus, if market share increases. Airbus reports most of its wings are manufactured in the UK: https://www.airbus.com/company/worldwide-presence/uk.html
1
Refuses to cooperate, well then let the Dutch cancel all Boeing orders.
28
@Lawrence
And ban 737s from the Amsterdam airport.
Looks like Boeing learnt something from Trump. Deny, obfuscate, lie, stall.
40
Another Boeing 737 contraption breaks up when slightly stressed, injuring or killing all passengers.
The 737 competitor, Airbus 320, is sturdy enough to let down in the Hudson River or a Russian cornfield in an emergency, without fatalities.
And wouldn't you know? Boeing overstretched and overburdened this flimsy air frame to create the treacherous 737max!
45
@AynRant
Recall, that after 5 failed simulator runs, the FAA was able to land without crash. They used that to blame Capt. Sully, also because he - just using good judgement; no time for simulation- to blame him for the the loss of aircraft.
Boeing's stock is up about 3 percent today.
It's just like Trump: crime does pay.
30
@marks
.....and off 14.85% in the last 12 months which will have shareholders disputing your observation.
4
Wow, did Boeing just adopt the "Duck"s litigation technique? Their workers should sue management for gross incompetence.
Nothing like throwing gasoline on the fire in your house.
9
Looks like their CEO is taking his lead from the President his cabinet and the GOP...
Nothing to see here folks..cause we we say so ....
17
Boeing executives need to go to jail for negligent homicide. Their corrupt and shortsighted love of money has cost hundreds of lives.
27
I might travel on a Boeing 737-8, if it ever does fly, but only if Boeing pays me 5 million dollars for the flight. The plane is absolute junk.
12
Why not, it worked for Trump.
12
Today there was another accident with a 737. This time in Turkey. Plane had a rough landing, but cause of accident is not yet known.
13
Nothing to hide? Perhaps they would like to blame this on the Chinese or Iranians? Another Made in USA nightmare?
9
I’m a pilot. Can someone tell me what Dutch legislators know about air crash investigations? Because this crash was investigated by professionals and a probable cause found. What you at the NYT cited in your “investigation” is perfectly normal. Essentially you found one guy who felt that his findings didn’t carry as much weight has he thought they should have, and his former professor and mentor who agreed.
This is going beyond the point of obsession at this point, guys, it really is. There are always disagreements within investigations, and sometimes investigators or entire groups of investigators within an investigation will disagree so vehemently with the findings that they file a dissent. That didn’t happen here. Which tells me a lot.
Furthermore, I’m quite familiar with this accident, and the crew was rightfully blamed. They disregarded a SACROSANCT policy among airline crews by not initiating a go-around when they hadn’t achieved a stabilized approach by 1,000 feet. And they knew the radar altimeter was malfunctioning. What’s even worse is that this was a training flight! So they were teaching the new first officer to ignore standard safety practices! What does that tell you?!
I am so tired of the Times’ quite deliberate, and very diligent, efforts to misinform the public. I really am! This accident was investigated and blame apportioned appropriately. Ditch legislators have no business sticking their noses in here. Let. It. Be!
15
@Mike
You might very well be on the money, and Dutch investigators might be out to lunch, but this is a public relations/court of public opinion matter. The flying public doesn't look at the intricacies of pilot protocol. They see Boeing planes malfunctioning and lives being lost, and stonewalling by Boeing. The company should be bending over backwards in cooperation. Doesn't matter what's fair.
12
@Mike
I wish I had enough knowledge to agree with your or not. Can we hear from other professionals?
2
@Mike
What's your problem with second investigation?
It is done by experts in Netherlands, you are not asked to participate, it does not affect your life at all.
Unless of course they find more evidence that Boeing and N.T.S.B. rushed 737 NG to the marked while covering up known safety issues in which case more Boeing planes might be grounded and you could be out of job, assuming you even fly planes like these.
If the crash was due to pilots' errors then I'm sure the second investigation will come to that conclusion too.
6
In our country, this is called "Taking the Fifth"
8
Sounds very presidential.
10
It seems to me this unapologetic arrogant behavior of not being accountable is becoming a virulent political and corporate theme.
7
@Indya
"Becoming?"
3
Time to start flying Airbus products only.
8
The answer to all this for the rest of the world is to buy Airbus airplanes.
15
@Joe Not The Plumber
Are Airbus planes magically exempt from ever crashing? From a quick Google search Airbus 310 has the highest fatality rate if planes flying and Boeing 747 the lowest.
2
@Bsdetector
Airbus 310 was first introduced in 1982 and production stoped in 2007 with a total of 255 units built. Whereas, Boeing 737 NG had its first flight in Feb 1997 and are still being built. It also gave rise to the now infamous 737 MAX. So your safety comparison is not relevant for the article. If only the crash investigation was carried out without interference and lessons learned were incorporated in designing and developing 737 MAX, Boeing Company would have had a great success in hand.
3
@Bsdetector
Ah, is that why airlines stopped flying the 747?
Oh well isn't this just dandy.
The formerly gold-standard flight-investigative agency and a formerly credible manufacturer of now off-brand airliners have joined force to drive the American aviation industry headlong into a swamp.
I know I will never fly, nor allow my extended family to fly any airline still using Boeing equipment and now, I will likely try to avoid American-flagged airlines as well.
Not only do we have a president, a military, a financial industry, a government, media bereft of credibility, viewed universally across the globe with mistrust and suspicion, our major industries and our safety regimes are losing influence like a Boeing 737 Max loses altitude, uncontrollably and very fast.
No thank you, Boeing. Good job outta you, Dutch guys.
Never Boeing. Never again.
17
Why american flagged airlines have had no fatalties in like a decade. Much better to fly Ukrainian airlines.
@Bsdetector
You may not have noticed, as your efforts at sarcasm take all your time, but America today is vastly different, vastly less than the America of even three years ago.
Boeing's behavior here is evidence enough we have lost our way and lost our edge. You may choose Ukraine air, I have other better, less funny options.
Not sharing data smacks of a cover up. Boeing could try a stab at some good PR by showing it, too, wanted to understand what went wrong. How far back has this existed? Unforgivable. How many millions did the last CEO, Muilenberg, walk away with...thirty nine? Enjoying yourself?
16
This revelation to a jury will cost Boeing.
5
Having read the report, the first thing that I noted was that the final approach was not hand flown. The co-pilot was not flying the plane, the autopilot and auto-throttle were. The POH failed to mention that the latter received its altitude input only from the captain's side radar altimeter. Oops!
This is not the first time that the auto-throttle was directly involved in a crash instead of a landing.
As I noted earlier, an American jury that hears this will likely punish Boeing for not revealing certain intricacies in the POH of the 737 MAX.
11
I guess the Boeing executives and NTSB have already absorbed the lesson from the impeachment.
9
The first thing that ran through my head just reading the headline was that Boeing is taking a cue from trump: just say no.
8
Selling off all my Boeing stock today. Enough is enough.
3
Trump will pardon Boeing and declare that nobody died and the planes never crashed. At least 40% of America will believe him.
25
No need for evidence or witnesses...sounds familiar!
9
The American system is completely corrupt. This is another reason we need Elizabeth Warren. The company and the regulators are in cahoots and both are working against the interests of the people and the world to fatten profits. Shameful. American-style predatory capitalism has become a worldwide menace.
18
Sounds like the backstory in Arthur Miller's 1947 play "All My Sons" ....
6
A precedent just been set by the members of congress who chose to be deaf, dumb and blind to the urgent need for them uphold their oath to the people. Boeing is just following the new National norm... Remember, when your children reap what you have sown, don’t act surprised or make excuses.
8
What is an American agency doing in Netherlands to investigate a Turkish airline crash? American overreach is only justified when American agencies and companies aren't inept and evil.
3
Will European leaders ever realize our country is like a Banana Republic with mostly sleazy leaders, and they should chart paths forward without anything from the United States?
9
Are Boeing lawyers saying “this plane did not fall from high enough to warrant investigating”?
8
Quit picking on Boeing!
Corporations are people too, you know!
7
Both Boeing and NTSB have lost the confidence of people all over the world. This is a chance for them to step forward and be honest, and try regain some trust. If they are innocent of malfeasance in the original investigation, they should be eagerly co-operating; if they tried to divert attention from the truth in the investigation, they need to step forward and show that they have changed. But, of course, they haven’t changed.
19
Neither Boeing nor the NTSB have acted in ways that demonstrate safety to be their primary concern, which it always must be.
Despite the different Boeing models and software systems, the design flaw described below was a key contributor to all three crashes. This certainly suggests that both Boeing and the NTSB are culpable to a certain degree.
The obvious issues of moral, civil and criminal liability will need to be determined in a court of law. Given the dollar limits in the applicable international treaties, the legal damages incurred will be minimal, so the key questions are who was at fault.
"In both the Max accidents and the 2009 crash, which involved a 737 NG, Boeing’s design decisions allowed a single malfunctioning sensor to trigger a powerful computer command, even though the plane was equipped with two sensors. For both models, the company had determined that if a sensor failed, pilots would recognize the problem and recover the plane. But Boeing did not provide pilots with key information that could have helped them counteract the automation error."
"After the 2009 crash, regulators required airlines to install a software update for the NG that allowed comparison of data from the two available sensors — much the same fix that Boeing has now proposed for the Max. In the case of the NG, Boeing had developed a software update before the 2009 accident, but it wasn’t compatible with all existing models, including the jet that crashed near Amsterdam."
13
Those pesky "malfunctioning sensors". Evidently the one responsible here, and of course the pilots, was or was not duplicated as backup? Granted, commercial planes hurtling through the skies are mind numbing in their complicated technology, but it appears the initial investigation could have been more attuned to public relations rather than finding problems. Then there is the NTSB, yet another of our commissions and departments meant to keep us safe from corner cutting? In the age of deregulation should one give them a pass?
9
Did Boeing fire all its competent public relations staff along with its historically excellent engineers? The narrative is now not whether or not Boeing was at fault in 2009, but rather their current behaviour that (wrongly or not) reeks of obfuscation, misdirection, covering up, and hiding from the truth. Not exactly ideal considering the current 737-Max debacle and the need to improve public perception of the company.
28
So Boeing is stonewalling again. They haven't learned their lesson. Bring charges against Boeing officials (past and current) and jail them.
39
An expert study that blasted Boeing for “design shortcomings” and other missteps. Boeing won’t cooperate? Easy. The Dutch Safety Board should lobby the EU to ban all Boeing airplanes from landing at European airports.
38
February 6, 2020
Let's not start to activate an inquiry that must be for everyone to sort thru the facts and always towards advancing transparent facts - with concern to company or government restrictions that are as well defined for the process to successfully gain knowledge for the best in our world connectivity to live smart, well, safe, and participatory to the openness to share in all realms inclusive of th academy and technological minds.
1
I wonder if Trump, et al., had hand in preventing NTSB and Boeing from participating again or testifying again.
8
Good report but it's still missing the big one - Japan Air Lines (as spelled at the time) Flight 123 on August 12, 1985 with 520 fatalities. The cause was an incompetent repair by Boeing technicians of the rear pressure bulkhead - only one row of rivets put in by Boeing whereas the written instructions had clearly indicated two rows of rivets were necessary. Japanese law enforcement moves to question the Boeing technicians were denied.
29
@Stephen I remember that crash well...it sears the memory as one of the most horrific, given the number of fatalities and the slow and agonizing death that those poor passengers faced—the plane stayed aloft but out of control for more than half an hour, and even then many passengers survived the impact only to die while awaiting rescue (other than the 4 who miraculously survived).
However, that plane was a Boeing 747SR, not a 737 and therefore unrelated to either the 737 MAX or NG models. In addition—as you point out—the crash was caused by technicians who repaired the plane 7 years before, after a
pilot error led to a tailstrike that damaged the plane. The technicians used a shortcut rather than the sturdier Boeing-authorized repair method.
Certainly the specific technicians who did not use the proper repair method can be held accountable for the crash, as can Japan Air Lines inspectors who failed to notice the faulty repair afterwards...but it would unfair in this case to blame the crash on the 747’s design or the Boeing engineers behind it.
7
The duopoly of the airline business - One is inept (Boeing) and one is corrupt (Airbus).
What is a flyer to do?
9
These are the people we trust with our lives and they cut corners. Corporate malfeasence and greed costs lives.
17
I am an engineer/scientist, but not in the aerospace field. However, I do understand most of the general engineering aspects and safety criteria.
To rely on a single sensor (when two are available) and to expect pilots to deal with an unexpected malfunction at a critical flight phase (e.g., post take-off and during approach/landing) is asinine. In my world, there is always redundancy, and system checking is simply an expected process component.
When the MAX debacle was exposed, and subsequently having read some time ago about the NG issues, I long ago decided that I will not fly on a 737 NG/MAX. I am educated and aware. Why would I needlessly place myself at risk? Airlines take note: I will not fly on one of these aircraft.
The cozy relationship between Boeing, the FAA and the NTSB has to be broken up and real oversight and accountability is required.
52
Time for Boeing to face a worldwide boycott of its aircraft. Maybe then the company will start taking flight safety seriously.
17
The Dutch would instantly get the needed cooperation if they refused landing rights to all Boeing aircraft.
33
@Hank - With almost half of passenger jets world-wide and 90% of cargo planes made by Boeing, this is hardly a practical suggestion.
This must be why chickens prefer to walk instead of fly.
6
Well, that strategy worked for Don Trump, so why not?
Criminals, all of them.
12
What goes around comes back. The corruption of our political system will sink our economy in the longer run. No one will want to fly Boeing or eat our nasty tainted crops or buy our overpriced and obsolescent weapons. Once they begin to dare to show some independence, the dollar will sink like a stone.
11
Boeing constantly bellyaches, whines, and chatters on about Airbus receiving government subsidies for developing new products. But how about Boeing's soft power? That is, having a government regulatory system bought and paid for. That's a subsidy of the very worst kind.
40
Refusing to cooperate with investigations, even into somethings that killed many totally innocent and people — this is the model and legacy that Trump and his enablers have created.
And THAT is one of the most shameful and dangerous aspects of Trump’s slam-bam acquittal and the cynical, bait-and-switch strategy of his lawyers and Congressional Republican attack-lemmings.
14
Common thread in many airline accidents is over reliance on automated systems. Take hold of the stick and throttles and fly the darned like you were supposed to have been taught. Pilots are allowing "fly the airplane skills" to languish with deadly results.
6
@centex guy - Yeah, that must be why commercial plane crashes have been trending downward as more and more automation has been put into use even as air travel has been increasing. In 2017 commercial aviation had its safest year ever with no crashes of passenger jets.
I hope Boeing learned its lesson regarding safety. Cozying up to Wall St. and forgetting the safety of their passengers has severely damaged their reputation.
I flew for business for many years on domestic and international flights. Well over a million miles. I've seen so many airlines come and go.
Had several scares though they weren't attributable to the pilots or the planes as severe weather and turbulence were the causes.
The Boeing plane in the deadly crash near Amsterdam was a different model than the 737 Max. Since the MCAS system that was the primary cause of the two recent crashes hadn't been developed in 2009 it couldn't have been the cause of the Dutch crash.
I remember when the 737 started flying cross country flights. I was so disappointed as they had considerably less room than the 747's, DC10's Lockheed L-1011's.
I've flown hundreds of flights on 737's and never had any concerns over safety issues.
When the FAA gives final approval for the 737 Max to take to the air again, I believe it will be one of the safest planes in the air. It seems as if the FAA inspectors, and rightly so, are going over every nut and bolt (metaphorically speaking) in the plane to make certain it's air worthy.
Yes, it's true that the FAA should have done this before and certainly Boeing is paying dearly for their loss of focus on the safety of their passengers.
Hopefully this saga will end soon and passengers can take to the skies with no fear of a potential crash.
2
The MBAs at Boeing have successfully moved too many essential safety "features" into the optional additional-fee column to generate additional profit. This is standard corporate short-term thinking. Once too many of your budget customers crash planes without the "premium" safety options, the bottom line goes through the floor. Get back to the drawing board and provide the additional documentation, simulator training, and safety engineering features as STANDARD to insure the long-term profitability of your company. It's also the humane thing to do. Go figure ...
9
This is one example of how attacks on our allies, dissing global organizations and the resulting loss of comity and trust across national boundaries are detrimental to corporations like Boeing. The political risk element in Boeing's operations were under appreciated before the MAX 900 calamities. Now its hitting headwinds arising from America First policies and as America's largest exporter has a big fat target on its tail for countries that need to respond the trade wars launched by our stable genius. Boeing is doing its part to destroy its legacy goodwill with its obstinance and failure to cooperate . If it were confident about its actions it would use this opportunity to defend itself . Now its letting ythe Dutch control the narrative. As for our own regulators, its clear by now that Trump doesn't play well with others.
13
Boeing no longer has a stellar reputation to defend, just the bottom line. Any downside to playing hardball with investigators has evaporated.
12
So a powerful computer command based on the readings from a single sensor...and the proposed fix is to instead consider readings from two sensors? So how would the computer know which of the two sensors to "trust"?
2
@EW - This is not an unsolvable problem. Boeing actually had a fix for the problem prior to the time of the crash but hadn't yet made it compatible for all models of the plane, so it wasn't installed on the Turkish plane.
Now our government is covering for Boeing?
Boeing may well be innocent in this case, but that cannot be established without an investigation.
Guess withholding evidence is the new normal for litigation in the US.
17
@Chickpea
money talks, nobody walks...ever again.
1
@Chickpea
Kinda reminds me of another disaster investigation.
2
I know that big business is ruthless, but I didn’t know that the venerable Boeing Co was actually EVIL. Now I know. I shouldn’t be surprised.
30
They are just following the current President’s lead. And that of his obstructionist, bait ‘n switch lawyers.
2
The MBAs have taken over Boeing. They need return to their rigorous engineering roots. Hundreds of people die and Boeing wants to close the books instead of dig deeper. Boeing leadership either lost it's way or never had the right values.
36
My take away from this is that I would never fly on Turkish Airlines. To never fly on a Boeing plane would be a difficult resolution to keep in America. I rarely fly at all though, and wish I never had to.
2
@Joe Runciter I have flown Turkish Airlines a number of times trans-Atlantic and within Europe. It is an excellent airline with some of the trans-Atlantic captains being west Europeans. As a pilot myself, I have conversed with several on the long flights. They know their business.
16
Where is absolutely no connection with this crash and the MAX. The system that malfunctioned on the MAX does not exist on the -800 series there for no tie The Turkish crash was caused by pilot error after an auto throttle rollback, where the pilot flying did not realize the loss of airspeed, while the captain did not do the required call outs. Boeing and the NTSB covered this crash and wrote a complete report, that makes it clear what the issue was. Boeing had engineering employees on the flight returning to Seattle and they wanted to understand what happen and they did. No connection period.
5
Regulation. Maybe not such a bad thing after all. Imagine a world in which corporations and polluters are no more accountable for their misconduct than Trump is at this moment in history. Responsible citizenship is not among the prerequisite attributes for any CEO in the world.
49
One tactic to get Boeing's attention and cooperation would be to ban all 737's from landing in Holland or flying over their airspace until a few 'minor' questions can be answered.
53
@tommag1
Extend the ban to Europe. I'm sure Boeing will learn something eventually. If the NTSB and the FAA want to cover up, so be it. But then there shall be consequences. We are not a U.S. state.
2
Far too many Turkish Airline flights -- not all of them Boeing craft -- have crashed, most due to pilot error, a number bespeaking the inadequacy of the airline's maintenance, an order of magnitude or more on a per flight basis than western carriers. I agree with Boeing and the NTSB stepping back from participating in what may well be a Turkish government pseudo investigation, a cover-up. The Turks have controlled investigations in the past to avoid criticism, and will undoubtedly do the same here.
5
Are there any statistics that show AIRBUS planes to be safer than Boeing’s, or any indications that AIRBUS corporate culture is different than Boeing’s?
3
@Haluk I can't speak to stats on the subject, but we could also point to the age of the core 737 design. They've kept the plane similar so pilots can recertify easier, because it keeps current airlines that use the 737 using them. The problem is that that is an unbroken line since the 60s, the equivalent Airbus lines starts a few decades later.
@Haluk
Yes there are: Boeing's best-selling jet is grounded, because it is not safe. All Airbus jets are allowed to fly.
About the corporate culture: Boeing has refused to cooperate with an investigation. Airbus has not.
4
This is the new norm. Refusing to cooperate. It’s worked so well for trump and his cohorts.
66
@David Yes, refusing to cooperate seems like the new norm but this crash was over ten years ago and Boeing had too much input into the crash investigation back them.
We should all be very afraid. Corporations can be evil goloms with power beyond shareholding and money.
13
“...independent, transparent and free from bias” does not mean competent, conscientious and complete. I suggest that one catch is that it’s very difficult to be independent when the manufacturer is on the investigative team. It’s also virtually impossible to conduct an investigation without it.
13
Passengers in the U.S. will not tolerate a bloated airline manufacturer (Boeing) calling all of the shots regarding airline crash records/investigations. This high-profit, big-boy, company that has made politicians it's pawn over the years needs to know that we, the passengers, will demand to be heard when it comes to flying safely on whatever conveyance we choose.
16
A manufacturer that refuses to cooperate with a safety investigation should lose the right to sell passenger airplanes. End of story.
195
@Honey Badger - The safety investigation was done and dusted years ago. To have its conclusions picked apart under the current clouds throwing shade on Boeing is not something I'd want to voluntarily sign up for either.
1
@Doug - The opening of the article is misleading. It's an investigation of corporate influence on a (Dutch) government body charged with responsibility for public safety.
1
If there was ever a time for transparency and cooperation this would be it Boeing. This is not the time for any perception of withholding. Rebuilding trust in the company and your aircraft should be the top priority. Right now you are flying in some unfriendly skies.
27
These crashes appear to have resulted from a series of shortcuts management took to make financials look good to investors. Ironically these smart money choices have ended up costing billions in losses. I hope Boeing can restore their former values of safety, reliability and careful engineering, but the management philosophy will have to change first.
8
@Michael O’Brien,
Yes. Penny wise and pound foolish.
As I remember it, Exxon had let their oil spill containment fleet deteriorate prior to the Exxon Valdez disaster rather than spending minimal money to keep it up to date.
And then there is NASA's decision not to spend a paltry million dollars to bench test the multi-billion dollar Hubble Telescope's bad optics prior to launch.
2
@Michael O’Brien
Please don’t hold your breath. Boeing is an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
2
@Michael O’Brien
All engineered designs, including autothrottle systems, involve trade-offs. The article clearly states two sensors are available on the aircraft, so it would have probably cost almost zero to use the input from both sensors in the automation. Yet you have leap to the conclusion that both sensors weren't used for cost reasons?
It's more likely that the trade-offs were evaluated and it was found, on balance, that using one sensor was preferred. How is this possible? You have to consider the new risks you introduce by adding complexity. You also have to consider the overall design philosophy of the aircraft.
Boeing has historically and purposefully given more responsibility to the crew. Airbus has historically made it harder for the crew to intervene with the onboard automation. So Airbus is clearly superior, right? Not exactly. Airbus's philosophy has introduced complexity that has caused planes to crash and people to die.
The truth is human interaction with automation isn't simple. You can add all the sensors and voting schemes you want and people are still going to die. The best we can do is minimize this. I believe Airbus and Boeing have both done a good job with safety despite their different philosophies. In the US, we often go an entire calendar year without a single fatality in a Boeing or Airbus flights operating regularly scheduled service. The same people who claim they will never fly in a Boeing probably drive a car, and that's far riskier.
3
I wonder if the Fall of once mighty Boeing will become the first domino that will mark the beginning of the end of the USA prominence in science and technology?
Someone talk me off the ledge.
40
@Truth is True That end had already begun. It began when we decided to defund education.
7
Let's put the rosiest cast possible for Boeing in thinking about the 2009 Amsterdam crash. Let's agree that the pilots could have overridden the automated systems under whose control the aircraft was designed optimally to fly.
Let's say that, if left manually uncorrected by the pilots, the plane will crash. Let's add the disturbing development that Boeing is now stonewalling the investigation with the knowing compliance of American public regulators regulators. Let's add that Boeing fails to train pilots to correct in-flight the automated systems that were improperly designed in the first place.
Would you knowingly board a Boeing aircraft ever again? Good luck with that. Pack your parachute in your carry-on luggage and rediscover your inner religiosity.
Or, fly Airbus.
82
@John LeBaron Well said, Mr. LeBaron. Boeing is saying, yes, the planes are unsafe, but a good pilot should be up to the task. Precisely what Marx warned against.
40
The problem always goes back to the notion that today's pilots can't fly. They are simply taught to babysit a complex
computer based technology. Should sensor/software interaction produce a problem, they can be at a loss as to the resolution. Pilots need to spend more time in a simulator addressing these types of computer failures. Step 1: override the computer. Step 2: fly the plane using your own skills.
12
@Mike Also, more time in the air doing actual flying. Nothing can substitute for that. And the added expense should be passed on to the cost of airfares. There is no free lunch.
7
In case of the 2009 Amsterdam crash the malfunctioning height sensor value shutdown the engines just before the runway. There was not much for the pilots to do at that point.
One single sensor triggered the shutdown. Pilot error was that they did not understand the seriousness of this one single sensor sending wrong numbers, while in higher altitude, and ended up paying for it with their lives.
Their fault of course and nothing to do with the fact that Boeing had designed this to their airplane.
Similar to car wheel lock engaging on a highway, because the car though it was parked as one ABS sensor was showing no speed value.
3
Boeing and the NTSB need to slow down and consider their responses before stiff-arming an international investigation into a crash with implications for the Max nightmare. Being uncooperative only compounds the problem. Haven't they heard? "The cover up is worse than the crime."
43
@Brett L I suspect that they are about to find out the hard way that this not a smart strategy. A Dutch legislator cited in the article. said so in transparently clear language. I would be surprised if the MAX ever flies in European skies again.
16
@Brett L I think Turkish President Erdogan should make a phone call to Trump, Trump will then replace head of NTSB and then ... and then, I am not sure, will NTSB cooperate OR completely clam up?
@Ajax
Boeing needs to learn a hard lesson. They sound very arrogant in refusing to re-investigate the 2009 crash. I hope the Dutch refuse to let Boeing fly until they feel satisfied that all unanswered questions in that crash are explored.
Why aren't those responsible for the crashes last year going to jail. They should be legally held responsible. They tried to save money by circumventing procedures. This is criminal-- killing the loved ones of family members. I would never fly Boeing.
6
I will no longer fly any Boeing aircraft.
For years I have used one airline for my flying and it has Airbus manufactured planes with a wider cabin and wider seats.
I flew last, in a last minute emergency, on a Boeing 737 and sitting near the front of the plane I could hear loud noises and felt banging through the floor, as the pilots lowered the plane's (forward) landing gear. Quite frightful. I never heard or felt any such noise when flying an Airbus A-320 or A-321 sitting near the front of the plane.
29
@Fred M There is no direct link between real risk and fear, and no direct link between mechanical noise level and risk level. To some people there is an assurance in being able to hear the landing gear lock before landing.
3
@Fred M
So should Boeing execs focus on replacing the defective MCAS software or on quieting the landing gear?
2
I can guess you don’t fly much. The Airbus 320 is 146 inches vs 139 on the 737. Divide those seven inches by six seats and an aisle.
You give the impression that your A-320 experience is like a ballroom in comparison. They’re both cramped.
As far as noises, you’ve never heard the infamous Airbus “dog yapping?” The hydraulic systems make some very disquieting noises. I’ve seen many fellow passengers become quite frightened by the unusual sounds.
This doesn’t excuse Boeing from some very questionable decisions, but your generalizations are uninformed.
7
I think it is within the realm of possibilities that Boeing will be forced to get out of civil aviation business, due to public’s perception of the safety of these planes. Airplanes being one of the top exports of the U.S., Lockheed, possibly under government encouragement, may re-enter the business, which they abandoned after L1011’s commercial failure.
12
@Haluk And yet, the L1011 was one of history's great airliners. Just as that other magnificent Lockheed creation, the Connie and Super Connie.
6
Boeing got IBMed, or GEd, depending on your perspective. The same lame finance people who outsourced Big Blue to India and made it largely irrelevant in the name of keeping up the share price, and brought GE its Finance mess, have handed us the plane maker that MAXed us. Not only that, Boeing moved production to a state without a culture of multi-generational aircraft craftsmanship just to increase profits and the result, as one might predict, are not pretty.
100
I think the takeaway from this is that it is NEVER okay for automation to activate a change that has the potential to be deadly. Expecting human pilots to countermand an automated system that, left alone, will cause a crash is insane. Especially when there is so little time to react. At a minimum Boeing should welcome a new investigation.
44
@Eric - Read the human factor report linked at the beginning of the article. A lot of research and study has been done dating back years about these issues. Not everyone pays attention to them and they still don't know how to solve some of the problems, but a lot of progress has been made. It's a really interesting report.
So many deaths.
A company's value and reputation shredded.
Thousands of American jobs lost or will be lost.
Yet CEOs and lobbyists still walk away with millions, and the donations to politicians have been banked, not to be returned.
Boeing is probably toast now. With America's regulatory framework, I wonder what company will be next.
But what I really wonder about, is how anyone still votes for a candidate who accepts corporate donations.
45
@Guy Mostly because we have no candidates that don't accept corporate donations.
3
Every BOEING passenger should be given a pill that would kill them before a potentially dangerous crash is about to occur. And this is how it could work:
There should be a pop-out draw that is connected to the sensor, AI connected to the comments in the cabin, connected to the other sensor that may or may not be installed or working properly, and connected to the angle of attack of the plane that:
pops out and command "take me now."
I'm sure that this would make all the passengers feel better and could be implemented and certified at a fraction of the cost of the re-engineering now going on.
OR
They can fly, and I can't believe I'm stating this, AIRBUS.
17
@Rick Tornello after being a Boeing fan forever - I just love the 777 and the 747 -- I am now firmly committed to taking flights where the equipment is by Airbus.
22
@Eric Francis Coppolino - The Boeing 777 and the Airbus 330, both long-range planes, have almost identical crash rates of 0.18 and 0.19 per million flights, respectively.
I read Professor Dekker’s analysis of the Turkish Airlines crash in Amsterdam from the June 2016 issue of “Airline World”. It’s helpful that he flew as a part time B737 copilot for 4 years as he analyzes the causes of that crash.
Decker offers 2 choices in the article: “Of course you could argue that the best way to prevent recurrence of the accident would be to change the design, rather than teaching pilots to stare harder at their displays and intervene more aggressively at the first sign of trouble.”
Staring at automation displays is a lot of the problem.
A common thread in all 3 accidents is a low time copilot flying the airplane without the basic pilot technique of keeping his left hand monitoring throttle position while use for the other hand to monitor the flight controls. This is similar to the cause of many Tesla crashes.
The throttles of these airplanes were at extreme positions of idle or maximum for 1.5 to 4 minutes in all 3 of these crashes. Similar with the the Asiana crash in SFO. The common thread is a lack of basic airmanship that could have saved all these people. Increasing automation will help but the primary problem is lack of BASIC flying skills.
Look at the Air France 447 Rio - Paris (Airbus 330) crash or maybe AirAsia 8501 (Airbus 320). Same issues, different manufacturer.
16
@Gino I agree completely. All of these commenters saying they are now going to only fly Airbus are missing the point. I fly United on Boeing planes all the time and was frequently on the MAX before it was taken out of service. No problems. United pilots are well-trained and capable of flying without over-reliance on instruments! There's a reason these crashes happened on little-known foreign airlines. Obviously, Boeing should have taken the variable quality of pilot training arund the world into account in designing the MAX, but that doesn't mean that all Boeing planes are suddenly unsafe.
7
@Anna
Boeing actively avoided having pilots do more training for the Max. That was one their goals with the Max to boost sales.
Pilot skills aren’t as high at new budget airlines and this was known so let’s have them not get training and then ignore faulty sensors so they don’t crash?
13
@Jon T That's a reason to avoid budget airlines, not a reason to avoid Boeing planes.
4
After I book my flight for a vacation to The Netherlands this year, I'll be sure I send an email to the carrier saying I picked them because I was able to select a non-Boeing airplane.
That's how change is accomplished.
71
Enjoy your stay in the Netherlands. Still have many fond memories of my childhood stays on Ameland.
Read the fine print before you buy and fly.
Boeing will make the planes, decide if they are safe to fly, certify their safety, sell the planes, investigate the crashes, control the investigation, decide what to release to the public and what to hide, and stonewall after the truth starts to leak. End to end control of the business supply chain and of the end as well.
100
@PK Jharkhand And where does Secretary Chao come in on all this? More power, no accountability, Marionette Mitch covers her flank.
6
Welp it looks like travel lans will now have to include figuring what planes are in service - since most here will stake their lives on Airbus - Im off to research more - I have some trips coming up and still have time to readjust.
4
So this is how deregulation will make America great again...
185
Ain't that the truth! But we're dumber than the doorknobs that make America great.
7
Why would anyone cooperate with anything at this point? We've seen from the top of our government that one can simply ignore and obstruct all lawful authority and nobody will do anything about it. Lawlessness reigns supreme.
152
@Tim I am continually amazed at what people can manage to tie back to the current administration. An accident in Europe from 2009, wow. I'd suggest trying to think about something else from time to time...
9
@GT It isn't the 2009 crash being tied to today's lawless presidency, it is the refusal of the company and NTSB to accept any further responsibility for getting to the bottom of that crash. If they have nothing to hide, then why not participate? If all their initial participation was above reproach, then go ahead and walk those wooly-headed Dutch investigators through it point-by-point, and show them they are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Instead, the parties involve are refusing to participate in what is obviously a legitimate inquiry, which sounds like a page right out of the current Republican playbook - deny, obstruct, make sure the process fails to get all the information it needs.
71
@GT
The problem is not new. The problem is historical and the result of bad governance from both sides of the aisle. I think it's fair to say that in the US the rot began with Reagan and in the UK with Thatcher. Both union busters and de-regulators. Since then our politicians have paid more attention to the wealthy corporations funding their elections than the public good.
Money IS the root of all evil. In this case it's Boeing cutting corners to increase dividends.
I am an FAA licensed pilot. I believe the pilots should fly the planes and the computers should monitor them, not the other way around.
59
I work in the aerospace and defense industry. Aviation accident and mishaps that results in large numbers of fatalities often are the result of chain reactions. The key words CHAIN REACTION. Human factors play a large role in how and why aircraft are designed the way they are. As do the condition and disposition of the flight crew. I caution on blame about in this case. The unfortunate truth is aviation regulations across the world are written in blood and charred corpses. It frequently takes multiple accidents to make travel safer. Key point that these are unrelated systems, that happen to have a similar effect. Multiple factors can lead to disaster. Global regulators are just as much to blame as Boeing. Facts are missing here. Many comments, and I find it unfortunate that people do not understand exactly how aircraft are designed, tested, qualified and certified, under who various roles fall. People should understand the differences. Issue is the ability to abuse the system, its being used in a way for which it was not intended. I partly blame the NYT for this miss information. Many companies certify aircraft that roll of an assembly line, that has been in production. Clean sheet designs companies cannot certify those. I encourage people to understand how the system works before assigning blame and the NYTshould educate people in their articles about how Airworthiness and such analyses work for the KEY Regulators. Otherwise they spread fear and mistrust among the public.
5
@Kyle "It frequently takes multiple accidents to make travel safer." Maybe this is the problem .. Why must it takes hundreds of dead bodies to get it right? Too Costly? The problem for regulators is that they have shown themselves not to be worthy of our trust.
18
@Kyle So you are trying to make what point? Even if the pilots could have prevented the crash the fact is that they rushed out a design that was flawed. Powerful engines that were on an aging airframe. Since that could make the plane stall they created a flawed software fix based on a single point of failure even though they had two sensors. On top of that the information to the pilots was severly lacking at best. Yeah, its a chain, but a chain of critical mistakes by Boeing. On top of that the internal mails show that they knew more about it and employess disparaged the design.
42
@Kyle Key point of the article: Boeing is fighting a deeper understanding of the crash. All of your key points are dependent on this.
24
Delta's decision to never buy another Boeing aircraft seems very sound. My friend died on a 737 that crashed while landing at Pittsburgh. That crash, and several others, was caused by a design flaw. I think Boeing's culture is sick and has been for many, many years. The company seems to intentionally place safety and lives below their profitability. That is a nice way of saying they are willing to kill people to make more money.
199
@Horace
Check out Arthur Miller's classic play that touch on some of these issues "All My Sons."
5
@Horace
Sorry for your loss. I too think that Boeing has been sick for a very long time because they seem very well versed in sabotaging investigations.
6
@sheila
We'll complacently send tax dollars to a government that doesn't represent the interests of its people but we will not fly on Boeing Jets.
Bye Bye Boeing.
1
Great move Boeing. I'm sure this will convince many airlines to but from Airbus instead of Boeing.
26
Is there any reason at all why foreign carriers (or even clear-thinking American ones) would buy another single aircraft from Boeing? Especially when better options exist?
25
@Tony Long
Exactly how many options exist? Is there another American manufacturer of commercial airliners?
1
@Harold There is no America anymore. Thus, there are no laws. That's why the lawbreakers can obstruct investigations.
"Maga".
3
What you're seeing here is a lot of Boeing bashing, a lot of it justified, but let us not forget that the FAA was even more complicit by allowing Boeing to self-regulate. That is a failure of government oversight in the name of "loosening regulations," a term that warms the heart of every Republican who voted to reduce any such oversight. Criticize Boeing if you like, but all of this could have had a far different outcome had the regulators been encouraged to do their jobs, instead of being cut off at the knees.
235
“had the regulators been encouraged to do their jobs...” And why is this? I’ve been seeing the influence of corporations having greater and greater power over governments functions in the last 30 years. So, along with the revolving door of executives moving in and out of regulatory departments, this is the result of the corporations just caring about themselves and their stockholders. This is the unbridled capitalism.
With their political and financial power, it will not change and will only get worse fr the people.
20
@bacchus725 You don't seem to understand the extremely robust function of the 'invisible hand" of free range capitalism which will correct any manufacturing problems. We don't need no stinkin' oversight. Of course a few planes full of people might crash and burn but Boeing was already paid for the plane so who cares. It increases GDP.
9
@bacchus725
money talks, nobody walks...least of all the US government.
4
I thought “systems” were in place to back up pilots not vice versa. Designing it the other way around is willful negligence. Expensive Redundancy is the savior. Boeing’s moral vs economic choice has backfired like PGE. MBA curricula have something to consider.
30
Actually, when I was at Harvard Business School in the late 90s there WAS a case study of Boeing vs. Airbus. Clearly then, as now, Boeing was the lesser company.
59
@Allan Have you heard the one about the next generation of Boeing jetliners? The cockpit will carry a pilot and a dog. The pilot to look at the computer screens, the dog to bite the pilot if he/she tries to touch anything.
5
As a frequent flyer on long haul flights to Asia (probably the longest flights possible at 15 hours+), I'll choose the airlines based on the type of plane they use. Airbus only from now on...
121
@Shari Gresh
That's too bad, because the 737 NG has the statistical best safety record of all modern airliners flying today, 1 passenger death per 10-million commercial flights. But by all means, give in to hysteria.
3
Maybe Airbus gave up on the A380 too soon.
So a plane crashed in 2009 because of a flaw in one sensor, and Boeing decided to equip its new Max with that design flaw built in? That amounts to critical negligence. The persons who made that decision, and those who approved it, should all be charged with murder.
276
@BobM
That sensor (2009) was an altimeter. It read a lower altitude (than true altitude) and caused an autothrottle power reduction , logic being that wheels where about to touch down. Pilots tried to increase power but autorhrottle overruled them.
Different sensor but similar reliance on automation. Still, MAX is a more egregious case
18
@BobM
The fundamental flaw at Boeing was, and continues to be, trying to avoid major capital expenditure for new air frames (so dividends can be higher) while trying to compete against Airbus' newer designs. The avoidance of adding 'extra' pilot procedures that require additional pilot training was an effort by Boeing to keep the price of the 737 low enough to compete with Airbus. Pilot training is an expense to the airlines buying new designs or updated ones that require pilots to perform and be familiar with aircraft characteristics.
So Boeing didn't tell buyers about the changes in the cockpit, told buyers that no new training was required, and put passengers and crew in danger so they could compete with Airbus and continue to pay stockholders dividends. Fire the current Board of Directors and include at least three active pilots on the replacement Board. I won't be boarding any Boeing aircraft until I see the results of such changes.
43
@BobM
Just to correct your comment. I assume that you meant criminal negligence, not critical negligence.
3
A malignant corporate culture, born of cowboy/flyboys and robber barons, encouraged by defective regulation, sustained by public funds, and supported by dependent employees and communities. Wall to wall corruption.
117
@Realist Add to all of that a public that does not want to pay what (safe) flying really costs.
4
Is Boeing trying to ensure that European carriers will never purchase their planes again?
372
@jrw - They're definitely trying to ensure that AMERICAN carriers won't buy their products either!
Glad I mostly fly Delta where more and more Airbuses are being purchased and solid reliable OLD Boeings like the 757 and 67 are still being pressed into service...
28
@jrw Were you on the USABC MC?
If so I'm in the phone book under the H's.
No SPFs allowed by the FMEA!
Boeing should be given two choices and only two:
cooperate or dissolve the corporation.
That's the whole of it.
284
@Jeff Bowles,
Agreed. Hopefully the public will take care of this. I plan to do my part: I'LL never board another 737 Max.
64
@Jeff Bowles Should, but how? By what legal instrument do you suggest dissolving this? Boeing is owned collectively, at any point in time, by thousands if not millions of people. I agree in principle, but this is one company that certainly seems "too big to fail".
2
"By what legal instrument do you suggest dissolving this? Boeing is owned collectively, at any point in time, by thousands if not millions of people."
Then every single one is responsible for this murder, and ought to immediately dump the stock and/or answer to the courts.
As for what legal instrument? Here's hoping White House counsel can tell President Sanders, when our years-long nightmare of a presidency-intermission finally ends.
7
I can understand Boeing. They are avoiding to open Pandora's box. But it is rather unfortunate that the NTSB is guiding them into lawlessness.
69
@Blackbird
FFS, the NTSB is probably the most honorable governmental investigative agency there is. Their investigation was sound and thorough, so of course, they're not going to go along with manufactured crisis.
2
@Blackbird , this Trump's America.
1
@Blackbird , this is Trump's America.
At what point does a company get designated as a criminal enterprise? Surely, the relentless pursuit of profit should not make them immune.
135
@RAD61 If they hire savvy lobbyists, they likely won't be designated as a criminal enterprise no matter what they do.
3
@RAD61 - Remember those magic words: TOO BIG TO FAIL ??
3
@RAD61
The Dutch and their Europeans allies should open a criminal investigation with subpoena power and extradition power. Issue warrants through Interpol if they have to, but get these corrupt Boeing executives under oath.
5
Are we rethinking that small government philosophy yet? Minimal oversight can shave few dollars off a price but can have disastrous consequences like this.
321
@EW
It's not that the FAA is to small, it's that senior
FAA officials are appointed on the basis of being friendly to Boeing. It's not a size issue, it's a personal integrity issue.
23
That’s the new GOP and their prepackaged slogans. In one sentence “I am pro life!” In the next “I am for the free market, regulations kill jobs!”. If the lack of regulations kill people, that’s ok. The only important “life” is that of each unborn fœtus.
18
@Harold - Well, actually, it's both. Cronyism is deadly. So is trying to get by with insufficient personnel to do a job thoroughly and correctly.
6
Another case in our ongoing crisis of accountability. Those who are allowed get away with anything will repeat their misdeeds until stopped.
181
So it must have gone like this, often enough to become a pattern: "we will design a system based on only one sensor, which could fail. But we won't tell you about that in advance. Then, if it does fail, you can correct the problem manually. But we won't tell you how, or even that you could."
I used to prefer flying on Boeing aircraft. I don't anymore.
259
@Seabiscute The pilots were 100% told and trained how to deal with that error. They just didn't do it well. And that's possibly because they were dealing with a higher than anticipated level of alarms. But they should have been able to handle it (like certain other flight crews did).
5
@Greg Reminds me of Garrison Keillor's adage that in Lake Wobegon, all of the children are above average. All pilots/flight crews cannot be above average, cannot be the best responders to emergencies -- particularly the diciest ones. Therefore, all such dicey situations that are created or worsened by aircraft design should be prevented, nor should pilot/crew correction be counted on, even as they are trained for same as rigorously as possible. Ninety-percent of actual emergencies will be handled by pilots/crews who are *not* in the top decile.
64
@Greg But isn't the whole point of automated systems that they take some of the guesswork out of very high stress situations? Automation should make flying more, not less, afe.
Ultimately relying on one sensor when there are two just boggles the mind. The fact that they had to be ordered to do this (and using one sensor was approved by Boeing's lackeys at the FAA in the first place) tells you a lot about the situation.
96