Boeing’s 737-MAX has been grounded for the better part of a year with no end in sight. But with clearance out of their control, is the aircraft manufacturer helpless against mounting losses?
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
The Problem
Boeing’s 737-MAX jets have a design flaw that has been a contributing factor in two fatal crashes. Some of the fault of the two crashes may be down to training or lack of emphasis but in at least the case of Ethiopian 302, the pilots correctly responded to the software and the aircraft still failed to stay in-flight.
Even since the worldwide grounding that followed the March 10th crash, still further problems have emerged. Among them, concerns about other product lines (the 787, delayed 777X launch), allegations that software solutions were outsourced to Indian engineers for less than $9/hour and lastly damning communication between executives which show knowledge that the problem existed well before sale.
The Solution
Unlike other software solutions for consumer hardware, the 737 MAX solution seems to be much more hardwired into the aircraft. While it appears to be a 737-800 with new engines and some software upgrades, clearly if it was as simple as uninstalling the new upgrade and using 737-800 software which continues to fly every single day, they would have done so by now.
If adapting software used in other models is an unacceptable or unworkable option, a complete re-build shouldn’t be entirely necessary. It’s not as if the 737-800 software was completely different than other versions. Those builds utilized what was already known, working, and in-place with adaptations for new features without pretending the aircraft is unlike anything else.
If a brand new product is what was needed, how much longer would that solution take? It seems to be a rolling delay which would suggest it is close, but not here yet.
Who’s In Control
Boeing’s level of control is really limited at this point. Assuming they had a working solution already in testing, there are really a number of entities that control whether the airplane takes to the skies again.
Governments have to allow for the aircraft to fly in their airspace, they don’t move particularly fast and they don’t have any incentive to allow the MAX back over their country where harm could be done in their air and on the ground.
Airlines want to get the aircraft back in the sky, they have expansion and equipment replacement plans built around the plane. But they also have to get customers to ignore the issues and book without regard to the plane. Both airlines and customers have expressed serious concern that customers may revolt or book away from the MAX which would be devastating for the carriers.
Can the Problem Become Too Big?
American Airlines, which only had 24 Boeing-MAX aircraft in the fleet, hasn’t been able to use the type since April of this year. American Airlines CEO Doug Parker, never one to shy away from hyperbole, had concluded that more than $540 million in damage had been done to the carrier by the grounding of the aircraft. Trump Parker also stated that Boeing shareholders would pay for the wall damages. Maybe. But if so, I doubt it will be based on Parker’s estimations, they will have an awful lot of carriers with their hands out.
Boeing has already absorbed hundreds of millions in losses and last week fired the CEO of Commercial Airplanes, Kevin McAllister (it’s too serious for a Home Alone joke, but has no one noticed this?) If American Airlines has just 24 of the type and has attributed over $540MM in losses, how will the airline compensate owners of the other 413 already delivered and the stacked aircraft filling Renton and Boeing parking lots?
RyanAir has not been quiet about the strain the MAX grounding has put on the carrier, Norwegian has cancelled trans-Atlantic routes featuring the aircraft.
Using Parker’s math (a dangerous proposition, I know), Boeing Shareholders would be on the hook for $9.832 bn in damages for the grounding. While Boeing is a much larger company than a $9.832 bn loss burying the carrier, the free cashflow drain would be a difficult constriction to bear (even if they spaced out payments.) More orders have been cancelled in 2019 than added, and it’s not just the MAX. With a delayed rollout of the 777X now until 2021, it’s clear that they have more to prove than folding wing tips; 787 orders have also been dropped.
At what point does Boeing’s handling of the 737 MAX issue become too much? At what point do customers who always turned to Boeing in the past for safety and stability now turn elsewhere?
Conclusion
I’m not sure that exposure from the 737 MAX failures alone can bury the airline manufacturer and I hope it doesn’t, the world is a better place with Boeing around – they are an American institution. However, the bleed over from this issue to other product lines has already started and customers are aware of what plane they are flying on for the first time, perhaps, ever. Boeing needs to dramatically turn this issue around, work with regulators and governments to ensure that this isn’t the iceberg that takes down an unsinkable ship.
What do you think? Is the problem getting too big for Boeing to mitigate? Will customers trust other Boeing aircraft? How do you feel about the manufacturer’s ability to produce a safe aircraft?
I think you’ve made way too many mistakes with aircraft type names in this article.
First of all, it’s a 777X, not a 77X.
Secondly, “737-8” is more often used to denote a 737 MAX 8 than a 737-800, which you’re trying to refer to. If you’re abbreviating 737-800, then it’s “738”, not “737-8”.
Good notes on the 777X and 737-800 series. Admittedly, with the switch over from 200, 300, 700, 800 series to MAX 8 has me playing catch up. The new 777s are 777-8 and 777-9, as are the 787s. I intermix the names in my head. Airbus did the same type thing.
Within the company itself the airplane models are regularly referred to a 37 – (minor model); 47 -(minor model); 67; etc. So the shorthand for the 777X is typically, 77X and the 737 – Max8 or 9 are just referred to as the 800, or 900. At least out in the shop and in your average meeting.
That being said, Boeing has a huge problem that they may not be able to surmount. This did not just occur overnight but has been growing slowly for years, ever since McDonnel Douglas took over, in fact. Since the late 1990’s the message from management has been, “we can’t be second place.” While management bloat and production cost cutting have occurred simultaneously, much to the chagrin of the rank and file.
Ultimately greed has been the primary driver in these tragedies – senior management insists that Boeing’s primary focus be increase shareholder value. One facet affected is increasing inventory turns the results of which are rushed orders from suppliers with the concomitant effect on quality. In fact, in order to meet the former production rate of 52 37’s per month (all of varying minor models) Boeing implemented a “production system” prior to adequately understanding their real capacity. All these factors serve to create a hostile, panicked and reactive company culture.
Woo, the article section “The Solution” seems to think it’s a software problem. Like those annoying updates for your printer. Not really
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the root cause the new larger engines (included for increased fuel efficiency) that changed the aerodynamics of the plane? Then the software to adjust for this was faulty?
And also the root cause for the extreme damage to Boeing’s reputation for calling it a software problem.
@Klanfa
No. Just no. 77X = 777x in shorthand. 737 Max 8 shorthand is 7M8.
77X is actually the IATA code for the Boeing 777-200 Freighter.
7M8 is indeed the MAX 8 but I didn’t argue about that. Kyle used 737-8 which doesn’t really/technically denote any aircraft, but if it is used, it’s used for the MAX 8 and not the -800.
@ Kyle — Boeing is basically part of the US government. They will be just fine. In fact, their stock is UP about 1% over the last 12 months.
The problem wouldnt be a problem if the US had more than one manufacturer of commercial jets left. If that was the case someone would just wait another year or so and purchase The Boeing Company on the cheap to replace this archaic design from the 50´s with something contemporary. But there is no one left, so I foresee more like a People´s Enterprise Boeing that will do everything based off political determination. And we all know where that ends.
Presumably the FAA will put the planes back up in the air while the EASA keeps them grounded — this will enrage U.S. flyers and damage the reputation of airlines like SWA and AA.
The main difference which is at the heart of the 737 Max problem is that it has larger engines than earlier 737s. Since the 737 sits low to the ground it was necessary to mount the Max’s engines differently, which in turn lead to the issues and events resulting in the Max being grounded. This is all on the record, and makes it clear solving the Max problems is not as easy as the article seems to suggest. So yes, the Max is unlike earlier 737s in this one significant way, and that’s why getting it flying again is complex and time consuming.
First I’m going to disagree that the pilots responded properly. Yes they did initially turn off the electric trim so they got that right. But they stayed in Take Off Power allowing the aircraft to accelerate right through Vmo. The high speed was the main reason why they were unable to turn the wheels and was a major error on their part.
I don’t know of course what their training included but I strongly suspect that it had some relevant facts. First that MCAS operated off the Captain’s AOA vane. So when the Captain’s stick shaker went off it should have caused all kinds of red lights to flash in their heads regarding possible MCAS activation. Secondly that MCAS will not function with the flaps out. Which means that they should have known retracting the flaps would immediately allow MCAS to come one which means they should have been ready for it. This was not a crew that did everything right and still couldn’t save the airplane. Not by a long shot.
Second Airbus has problems its own at the moment. Deliveries are well behind schedule and they are having quality control issues with the aircraft they are building. My airline has had significant problems getting the 321 NEOs we were supposed to as a result.
Third given the fact that large airline production is a duopoly it’s going to take a lot more than this to take out Boeing. Yes it’s certainly going to hurt them but in the long run airlines buy planes based on economics not safety.
These comments about pilot error hold little weight when you consider that the plane crashed not once but TWICE within months, basically upon service entry. Further, please find me one person that agrees single AOA sensor driven MCAS is not a disastrous design.
Blaming pilots is a huge mistake. Huge. If you continue to claim that one of the most respected Airlines in the world (Ethiopian) has bad pilots, and the plane is safe as long as good pilots are flying it, no one will board it.
Kevin McAllister (Boeing) vs Kevin McCallister (Home Alone).
Say it out loud. If you can draw a distinction, you’ve got a better ear than I do.
Not sure what mentioning Trump in this article was good for other than clickbait
Next time use that energy on factual accuracy improvements in your writings.
click·bait
/ˈklikbāt/
nounINFORMAL
(on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page.
The Parker headlines were just phrased very similar to Trump/wall headlines – picture of Executive (Parker/Trump), “and they’re going to pay for it” just seemed like a close similarity to me.
That said, when you correct someone on factual accuracy perhaps you should consider the use of terminology in your correction. Clickbait would be a title or an image that would intentionally mislead or “bait” a reader to “click” an article that didn’t deliver on the claim. How does a sarcastic crossed out word(s) make someone click an article they are already reading? Or were you just telling me to improve factual accuracy while misusing a term?
@Gene is spot on. The US Gov cannot let Boeing fail.
“and they’re going to pay for it” just seemed like a close similarity to me. Sounds like you are one of those antiTrump Democrats. In the interest of full disclosure are you adverse to Boeing paying for all the damages it created because Seattle and Chicago (two Boeing cities likely to take a big hit) are Democrat strongholds?
What are you 5? Full disclosure of what, it’s a blog. Kyle’s poor writing and skewed perceptions aside, go back to lotion, tissues and bejeweled mirror of your orange cuddle buddy. It doesn’t matter who shells out up front, it’ll end up being the consumer that pays in the end.
Aloha, Dave.
THE 737 MAX IS FATALLY FLAWED PER SULLY, GROUND THE PLANE PERMANENTLY!
No one has mentioned the altered glide characteristics of the flawed MAX 737 if both engine fails. With an offset placement (from center of gravity) of the new engines, the plane may be aerodynamically flawed..something that no amount of software tinkeriing can fix. So much for “I am comfy with the plane once the MCAS software is fixed”. I believe a lot more factors are at play due to compromised engine placement. So much so that no software can fix, only hide the inherent flaws.
It is like masking fundamental health issues with symptom-hiding drugs. Forsever grounding may be the only real solultion.
It’s basically a safe aeroplane. Just needs a bit of tweaking to the software. I’d fly on one tomorrow.
I flew on 20 different flights on WN when the Max was in service. I’ll do it again as soon as they’re back in skies. I have no qualms about the aircraft.
At this stage and given the extent of the damage in terms of brand and reputation, the clear path is to go back to the drawing board.
If you think of a similar situation, you might remember the explosive Samsung s7. It was touted as the best phone designed at the time and was selling really well until the explosions. Samsung went back to the drawing board and was humbled by the experience.
I’m sure it’s not an easy path to follow for Boeing. But it looks likely. Customers are more aware these days of the products they buy. Why would they not do the same for their airlines esp with the risk of a crash?
“III CONCLUSION
The information obtained by the KNKT during its investigation of the Flight JT610 Accident demonstrates that the primary cause of the Flight JT610 Accident was Boeing’s flawed design and development of MCAS. This conclusion is further supported by the independent analysis of Boeing’s certification of the 737-8 MAX aircraft conducted by JATR and the NTSB.”
Anyone want to take a smart guess where the abovementioned quote sourced from?
Isn’t Boeing about to buy Embraer’s E-Jet division? Why Boeing doesn’t drop the 737 brand altogether and let Boeing Brazil develop a bigger, single-aisle version of those E-Jets?
Unfortunately we have ill-informed people who believe everything they hear and see. It was a tragedy that might have been prevented with better trained pilots and better supervision on the part of Boeing. Having said that , the media uses scare tactics and the ill- informed public start panicking. The flaws will be fixed and the planes will fly again, Boeing has taken a huge hit , and we stockholders are paying but eventually it will be better all around .
But…but…but… The training fill all the checklist required by the manufacturer itself to fly the plane in question… And now you’re bling the media? What a snowflake…. Pfft….
All the theoretical discussion is fine but regardless of any of the points discussed, Boeing has one more crash before 3 strikes and they are out! The Software is a fix for a aerodynamic flaw in the design. Even if the software solves 99.9 % of the flight problems, it does not solve the design problem. Lawyers are probably already hedging their bets for future lawsuits! Will be very difficult to control the narrative if a future tragedy occured. Software is not a solution for design flaw, especially if not rigorously tested.
Would it be at all possible to “Un-MAXify” the existing 737 planes and then send them to airlines as 737-NGs?
You touch on many viable aspects related to Boeing’s dilemma. Of principle concern is the MAXs unnatural flight characteristics which require augmented assistance; this is fine in military applications BUT not in general aviation. Secondly, Boeing continues to pass the buck… It doesn’t really appear to accept its aggressive pursuance of self regulation which lead us to this very point in time; without REAL regulatory oversight manufacturers will take shortcuts which impact everyone’s safety. Personally, I don’t ever expect the day where I will ever want to fly the MAX in any way shape or form. Those of us considered enlightened will continue to object to this aircraft’s recertification and reentering service. Of course there will be those who will fly the MAX given the initial deep discounts airlines will put forward in an attempt to get the public to fly on the aircraft BUT business and casual travelers remain deeply weary of the aircraft and its brand. No amount of software patches or retrofits will make this aircraft as safe as it could have been. Shame on Boeing AND shame on the FAA for allowing all of this to go as far as it has.
Every 737-Max should be flown to the closest boneyard and scrapped. Boeing needs to give up on this ancient platform and start from scratch. They’ll survive. The taxpayer-borne write-off will ensure their survival.
For those of you that favor scrapping the 737Max, remember this. Airbus developed the A300 series back in the 90s, and found (through various incidents) that rudder forces alone could fail the vertical stabilizer. However, even after the 2001 AA crash of flight 987, the plane was NEVER GROUNDED. The crash was blamed on the flying first officer – that he used too much rudder input. What’s the difference here? Pilots using “to much” rudder and pilots that don’t know how to deal with runaway trim? Both Airbus and Boeing designed planes that pilots could crash – that is not sufficient reason to ground an entire fleet.