business

Boeing wins confidence of shareholders, prepares for key 737 MAX test flight

19 Comments
By Nova Safo and John Biers

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


19 Comments
Login to comment

Even if Boeing manages to identify and fully fix this problem, I say it's still in the rational self-interest of all flyers everywhere to forever shun the 737 MAX and avoid airlines who fly it. Only consumer backlash and the guarantee of massive financial failure will incentivise manufacturers to carry out the thorough (and lengthy/costly) testing that should have been undertaken before paying passengers were ever allowed onboard. Given how important and close the airline sector is to governments, it's naive to think that the safety regulators are up to the job.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

The CEO of Boeing blamed the Pilots for the 2 crashes....

5 ( +5 / -0 )

M3M3M3 = spot on !

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Mr. Muilenburg, please resign.

You are most definitely not the right person to be in charge of such an important company whose products' safety is of utmost priority rather than just having a well versed and shrewd businessman at the helm. Your priorities are in the wrong order.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

With such large engines practically blocking airflow to the wings, I’d be concerned about the safety of the plane even after they update the software to ignore faulty sensors.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The real answer is to lengthen the wheel struts of the plane , then the engine can fit under the wing as Airbus have done.

Its the right engine to use as it is more efficient but its diameter is greater than the 737 was originally designed for, so it won't fit under the wing and at the same time give enough ground clearance, that is why they moved it forward, that is why they then needed a trim adjustment program to compensate, that is where the fault lies.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So they have a patch to stop the problem caused by a system that is only necessary because of a fundamental design flaw in the first place? Will G above is quite right, the engine placement is the underlying problem with the aircraft but the core problem is the penny pinching management that tried to cut corners to get a cheap fix rather than build a safe solution. Yet again US corporate culture placing profits before customers lives.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Forgot to add he may have won the confidence of his major shareholders but I dought he has the confidence of his customers or their passengers!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

”doubt”

1 ( +1 / -0 )

”chain of events”? Yes, as in rushed modifications - brushed away concerns by engineers - depending on one (1)! single data input - short reaction time for pilots because of low altitude right after start. Really not the best choice of words, but if Trump can tell 10.000 lies and still has many believers, business leaders will follow that rhetoric of denying, deflecting, alternative facts.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

With the FAA inherently sidelined due to GOP incompetence, Boeing is working at a severe disadvantage to its competitors. Expecting Boeing to self-regulate is a forlorn hope.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The answers of Boeing may have satisfied their shareholders, but considering the information which was made available since those two crashes and how Boeing is dealing with it, I won't fly in their planes anymore.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I say it's still in the rational self-interest of all flyers everywhere to forever shun the 737 MAX and avoid airlines who fly it.

Good luck with that.

The CEO of Boeing blamed the Pilots for the 2 crashes....

The data from the preliminary reports suggest just that. I am not absolving Boeing of an ill-thought design, but recovery was possible through procedures that are memory items.

I dought (sic) he has the confidence of his customers or their passengers!

The DC-10 suffered a couple of significant crashes in its early years. However, it went on to become a moderate success.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Apparently the FAA have received 216 problem reports about the type of sensors used by Boeing's 737 Max.

Also, there's confusion about the "Optionality" of the backup sensors which would have apparently created an alert if the two disagreed with each other.

I wonder if National Geographic will produce one of it's Mayday series to include either or both of these crashes.... that would be interesting.

And as for what Trump said, if he were running Boeing he fix the problems and rename the aircraft... that's common business sense. You wouldnt create a new ship called Titanic immediately after the first went down right ?

737 Max is a disaster for Boeing, and like the Titanic, it should be discontinued under that brand. Boeing pushed this aircraft through under the 737 series banner saying that pilots would not need much conversion training, though clearly, this does not appear to be the case. Fix the problems, rename the craft series, sort out the training.

The FAA needs to answer some questions about the Self-certification it gave to Boeing.

I hope the relatives of the deceased each get a good payout from Boeing/US Govt. 1 Million US$ bare minimum and that's on-top of any insurance that they may have had.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sorry but Boeing's CEO must resign, and Boeing itself must itself pay those impacted a serious amount of Cash. Doing other than that, is simply telling us that Boeing does not "care" about us, but just wants to sell "planes".

We, the people, need to fight back.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

ANA & JAL... will you tell us in advance of booking, which aircraft you will place us upon ?

Will the Insurers raise their max amount from 100 Million to 10000 Million yen ?

Looking at the insurance bit... 100 million yen, isn't much - it's 10 Million yen per year for 10 years - a pittance for some. So are the Insurers are in Cohort with Boeing ? Something needs to change, Boeing does for starters. Hit them where it hurts.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The New York Times had a very revealing article about the 737 entitled Boeing’s 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/business/boeing-737-max-.html

Reading that article, I kept thinking that Boeing looked very much like it was operating in the same way as scandal plagued Japanese companies. I kept expecting to see a statement that the Boeing 737 team communicated by fax rather than e-mail.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

> ANA & JAL... will you tell us in advance of booking, which aircraft you will place us upon ?

They do. It is listed on their websites (or travel sites) what type of aircraft you are booking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Boeing pushed this aircraft through under the 737 series banner saying that pilots would not need much conversion training, though clearly, this does not appear to be the case.

They actually do NOT need that much conversion training. The MAX flies like previous versions of the 737 except it is a bit light in the nose when pitching up.

I wonder if National Geographic will produce one of it's Mayday series to include either or both of these crashes.... that would be interesting.

It certainly would be interesting. Of course one of the first things mentioned would be MCAS, but then they would explain how the crews failed to handle the 'stabilizer trim runaway' problem, or how one crew re-engaged the autopilot thereby reintroducing the pitch problem. It would also go on to explain how in the case of ET302 the pilots never took the powers levers out of takeoff thrust.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites