Southwest Airlines Says They'll Purchase 'Hundreds' More Boeing 737 Max Aircraft (inc.com) 258
Inc. magazine describes as "stunning" announcement from Southwest Airlines, "by far the biggest 737 Max customer in the United States, with 34 of the planes among its fleet, and plans for many more. "
Speaking at a chamber of commerce event in Dallas, Southwest chairman and CEO Gary Kelly said Southwest has no plans to abandon the 737 Max. In fact, he said it will purchase "hundreds" more 737 Max aircraft. "It's a very good airplane, but Boeing has acknowledged that they've got some things they need to address with the software in that airplane," Kelly said, according to the Dallas Business Journal. "It seems like it's a relatively straight-forward modification. We're obviously anxious to get the airplane back in service."
That's it: all-in on the 737 Max. Or at least close to it...
By flying just one aircraft, Southwest knows that almost any of its pilots can fly any of its planes. Its scheduling and maintenance tasks become a lot easier than for airlines with multiple types of aircraft. But it also means that ultimately, Southwest's brand and its overall success are tied up with Boeing and the 737 in a way that few other airlines are.
Marketwatch adds that in fact, major airlines "are hungry for fuel-efficient single-aisle aircraft such as the Max, and there's a long backlog for the jet's closest competitor, Airbus SE, analysts at Oxford Economics said in a note Thursday.
"That will shield Boeing from a mass cancellation of orders," the analysts said.
That's it: all-in on the 737 Max. Or at least close to it...
By flying just one aircraft, Southwest knows that almost any of its pilots can fly any of its planes. Its scheduling and maintenance tasks become a lot easier than for airlines with multiple types of aircraft. But it also means that ultimately, Southwest's brand and its overall success are tied up with Boeing and the 737 in a way that few other airlines are.
Marketwatch adds that in fact, major airlines "are hungry for fuel-efficient single-aisle aircraft such as the Max, and there's a long backlog for the jet's closest competitor, Airbus SE, analysts at Oxford Economics said in a note Thursday.
"That will shield Boeing from a mass cancellation of orders," the analysts said.
That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically it didn't need a software fix to keep the nose down. The pilots could do that themselves.
The software was created so that the pilots wouldn't have to be retrained/recertified on the Max aircraft. If the flight characteristics (e.g., nose heavy, nose light) are significantly different between two models of aircraft, the pilots have to undergo fairly extensive training on the new model.
Boeing wanted to be able to advertise this model as a drop-in replacement for the regular 737, so they had to make it fly just like the 737 via software kludges. This enabled the carriers to get by with their pilots only needing a few hours of training (on an iPad no less, no flight simulator required) to be able to fly a 737 Max.
The kludge is there to avoid having to train pilots, not because they couldn't fly the plane without it.
Re:That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:5, Insightful)
How the parent gets insightful and this doesn't is mind boggling. One of the few posts here that actually understands the business. The reason the 737 won the war for orders is that it required next to no training, no simulator time, practically some online power point training for their current 737 pilots. That also meant no raises for pilots flying them, which is also part of the reason for pilot disdain towards it.
The cost savings are massive compared to going with a different plane. Also, keep in mind the software 'patch' is really meet change in system requirements. The software itself wasn't flawed. The flaw is in the system design of how the mcas and autopilot are coupled too closely and you had no electric trim control without mcas being on.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The 737 max has not won the war of orders - it has one and a half thousand fewer orders than the A32x neo. Airbus simply is physically unable to manufacture enough A32x neo for all the demand.
Re: That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:2)
The NEO has also been on the market for about twice as long.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, there is only a year of difference. Airbus started taking orders in 2010, Boeing in 2011, and that headstart only accounts for 30 orders.
Same goes for the actual deliveries, just a year of difference. A320 neo is simply a better airplane. It has more efficient engines, more room inside, faster maintenance thanks to the self diagnostics and the far more detailed documentation and it is easier to fly.
How hard is training (Score:3)
I wonder about this training argument. A slightly bigger nose pull up on take off? Something to be warned about. Maybe a run through on the simulator. But hardly a major training expense.
I have flown many different light aircraft with different characteristics. But you adjust pretty quickly. Even going from tricycle to tail draggers can be learnt pretty quickly, although that does require some practice.
I remember reading a pilot's account from in the early days of the Battle of Britain. He was barel
Re: (Score:3)
A pilot getting back one aircraft safely, in completely different safety scenarios, is an incredibly meaningless comparison. We want about 99.9999 % probability of non-crash flight these days, and 99.99 % non-injuries due to turbulence.
In war scenarios, where the pilot has agreed to die flying the plane if need be, and if he doesn't fly it despite the risk - thousands more are likely to die due to enemy bombing - the comparison to peace time becomes even more meaningless. Here, a few dollars more, or a slig
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw is in the system design of how the mcas and autopilot are coupled too closely and you had no electric trim control without mcas being on.
The flaw is deeper than that. Any critical control system without the ability to determine failed state of its inputs should have 3 inputs and control from the middle most value.
Re: (Score:2)
The plane is inherently unstable.
This is the real problem.
Re:That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When the tee vee tells you it is safe now you'll forget you ever said that.
Re: That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:2)
Re:That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck, Southwest. You just lost this customer.
Given how with any airline you're not going to know which plane you're on until you actually check in and select your seat, and given the overwhelming dominance of Boeing in the USA airspace domestically, did you just decide never to fly again or were you virtue signalling?
Re: That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but you'll probably get into that plastic POS and drive to the office.
The average person living in the United States has a 1 in 102 chance of dying in a car crash, compared to a 1 in 205,552 chance of dying as a passenger on an airplane.
Which one is the death cylinder again?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not even true. The software change was designed to be a fly-by-wire type of incremental improvement that addresses a problem (stall) that affects all commercial airplanes.
This is just weird FUD that makes up a bunch of bullpucky.
The reason people died is that the normal system of testing software for airplanes wasn't used, instead the FAA decided to do an experiment with self-regulation, and of course "self-regulation" is just a fancy way of saying "not regulated."
What Southwest Airlines knows, and
Re: (Score:2)
Also, SW is likely to get a big discount on them now!
Re: That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:2)
If it didn't _need_ this software to overcome the instability then the Lion and Ethiopian crashes would not have occurred.
That's stupid. Those crashes occurred because the system malfunctioned in a way that put the plane into a difficult to recover condition. Had the system simply been turned off from the start, neither crash would have happened.
The pilots did turn off the software and they couldn't control the planes.
You can't just turn off the software. The EA pilots turned off the entire electric trim system, which is the right approach. The problem is that MCAS had already driven the trim to such a high angle that they were unable to use the manual system to then correct it.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who designs hardware knows that's a poor shortcut.
Nope, not a short cut. An engineering decision made within the bounds of requirements for the project (fit this engine on that airframe). The fact that the engineering behind it was a bucket of shit is something completely different, but this wasn't some hardware designer's poor shortcut.
Re: (Score:2)
The 737 design change positioned the engines so the plane needed a software fix to keep the nose down. Anyone who designs hardware knows that's a poor shortcut. The bottom line is Boeing rushed a duct tape software solution ...
Marketwatch adds that in fact, major airlines "are hungry for fuel-efficient single-aisle aircraft such as the Max, ...
Couldn't Boeing simply add weight toward the nose to counter-balance the new engine placement. I know it would be a bit counter-productive with regard to fuel-efficiency, but, if viable, it would be a permanent hardware fix.
[Engineers please let me know why this is a stupid idea (aside from fuel consumption) -- seriously asking.]
Re: (Score:3)
It would keep the nose down in all conditions, not just some specific ones. It would be close to the centre of mass so the weight would have to be high. It would screw with the carefully calculated aircraft balance. And then there is no room for that in the 737, it is very cramped already.
Only aircraft that had engines on the tail ever did this.
Re: That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:4, Insightful)
Engineers please let me know why this is a stupid idea (aside from fuel consumption) -- seriously asking
Because the aircraft is properly balanced as is, and changing it's CofG would do nothing good.
The nose-up tendency occurs only under a very specific set of conditions. That means during all other phases of flight the pilots would have to trim the plane to let it fly straight (otherwise it would constantly be going nose down thanks to your extra weight).
Then - when they finally did get into the specific conditions which you were trying to address - the added weight would do absolutely nothing to help since the plane is most likely trimmed to counter it.
It's a bad idea for other reasons too, but I think "it doesn't do what you think it does" is the best reason to dismiss it.
Re: (Score:2)
The nose-up tendency occurs only under a very specific set of conditions. ... It's a bad idea for other reasons too, but I think "it doesn't do what you think it does" is the best reason to dismiss it.
Thanks, I hadn't realized the issue only happened under certain specific -- presumable rare -- conditions. From what I had read I thought the plane was pre-disposed to pitch up most/all the time due to the new engine placement. Obviously, I need to read more about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:2)
Not exactly rare, these conditions happen at every takeoff.
Do they now. Pray tell, then, why is MCAS designed not to operate with the flaps down? You do realize that planes take off with flaps down, right? If this is such a big problem at take off, why is the system disabled by design?
Re:That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, MCAS wasn't needed. The 737 MAX would have been certified without it -- but perhaps only with anew "type" designation. The handling characteristics of the 737 MAX without MCAS is sufficiently different than the rest of the 737 models that the FAA may have (or perhaps did) required that it be given a new class designation. This would have meant that that pilots would have to get another type rating to fly it and that's expensive/time consuming and exactly what Southwest avoids.
Yes, in the end, the poorly designed MCAS made the plane less safe -- but with the design changes that Boeing has made, there's little reason to fear flying in a 737 MAX in the future.
Perhaps the culture at Boeing needs changes and it is important to understand how MCAS got out the door with at least two stunningly bone-headed design flaws (the first being relying on a single AOA sensor when there are two just begging to be queried, the second being that MCAS could trim the horizontal stabilizer to ridiculous extremes quickly when it was intended to be a minor augmentation).
Re: (Score:3)
No mod points today, but this deserves it.
The first bone-headed design flaw isn't really a DESIGN flaw - it's a bone-headed marketing flaw. Querying both AOA sensors is an EXTRA-COST option that most domestic airlines purchased, but some non-USA airlines didn't. I guess you could say that this was an architectural failure by not identifying that a single-point of failure in the AOA indicator would cause catastrophic failure of the aircraft, which would make redundancy mandatory and eliminate the option to
Re:That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:5, Informative)
Querying both AOA sensors is an EXTRA-COST option that most domestic airlines purchased
I haven't heard about an option for querying both sensors for MCAS. Do you have a reference for this? What I have heard is that there is an option for a "sensor disagreement" warning light - it doesn't change the way MCAS gets its data, but does light up when the sensors disagree, and another option to give a sensor disagreement warning on the main screen. These might help the pilot diagnose the root cause of the issue quicker, but they still need to be trained to turn the MCAS off within 40s of the warning lights appearing to avoid a crash.
Re:That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:5, Informative)
Quibble: the MAX was not sold with an option to query both AOA sensors. However, the AOA disagree light (which would show if the AOA sensors were off) was an option. Note that an AOA would not have necessarily prevented either accident. The number of steps required for the pilot to see the AOA disagree and then remember that MCAS only queried one sensor, etc.... would have been too complicatedâ"any pilot that had that kind of understanding would have simply disabled electric trim and the MCAS system. The Ethiopian Airlines flight disabled electric trim but was going too fast for manual trim to work.
Re: (Score:3)
I was in Uncle Sam's Yacht Club 9 years in the air wing on an aircraft carrier. I was an electronic technician for everything from radios to radars, altimeters to electronic countermeasures.
My brother was on a carrier, as well. We're puzzled about what the goddam problem is. How in simple fuck is stall avoidance relying on two external rotating goddam blades? How the Sam Hill was a "double vote yes" not designed in for both blades? How in Jesus' name is there not a fallback and a failover? Whose idea was it
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also ex-Navy. I served on what was then a Destroyer Escort (Now they're called Fast Frigates to match NATO terminology.) long enough ago to have served in the Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club. Back then, at least "Uncle Sam's Yacht Club" referred to the Coast Guard, not Uncle Sam's Navy. I might add, that back then it was fairly common knowledge that you had to be at least six feet tall to join the Coast Guard so that if your shi
Re: (Score:3)
Joseph Clayton, a technician at the North Charleston plant, one of two facilities where the Dreamliner is built, said he routinely found debris dangerously close to wiring beneath cockpits.
“I’ve told my wife that I never plan to fly on it,” he said. “It’s just a safety issue.”
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what happens when companies are hell bent on destroying unions. One of the up sides to having rules that protect the jobs of employees is that they're free to point out when things like this are endangering lives and the company's reputation.
Boeing employees in WA took a significant amount of pride in what they were doing. Things were far from perfect, but they were reasonable secure in their work as long as they were doing it right.
Re: That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:4, Insightful)
Now kindly step out in front of a bus.
Re: That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:4, Interesting)
So the Government should tell businesses what terms they use and from whom they buy?
This company over here hires contractors from Lockheed. Now, an employee of another contractor wants a position on this project, but...the company says they have to be a Lockheed employee. Should the Government force the company to buy contract labor from the non-Lockheed company?
Unions have contracts stating that employees under a bargaining unit--a specific set of jobs detailed in a bargaining contract negotiated between the employer and the employees as an organized unit voting democratically for union representation--must become union members within 30 days of hiring. Should the Government tell private business and private employees that such associations are not the way we've planned our economy, and that they must employ who the Government says to employ?
Modern unions have pay grades with a minimum. They're paid based on merit or negotiation, and many contracts actually enforce a merit system rather than a seniority system (this is a core for the IT labor union I'm putting together; factory unskilled work was seniority-based).
Unions also can't and won't protect you from gross incompetence. They can try, in theory, but...a court of competent jurisdiction can find the union contract stipulates tenure terms and that gross incompetence violates those terms.
Anti-union arguments are generally a matter of stripping businesses and employees of their right to free association, and make as much sense as requiring businesses to buy Dell and HP even if they only want to buy IBM simply because some of their employees want to work on an HP Laptop.
Re: (Score:3)
Not being able to fire someone for gross incompetence?
Not being able to pay based on merit?
Requiring all employees to pay union dues against their will?
Unions are the most un-American and Communist bullshit to infiltrate our society in it's history.
None of the above are typical of modern trade unions in most of the Western world, so why would it have to be the case in the USA?
Only to a certain Age group. (Score:2)
:)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Everybody who works in a factory making something important sees shit that concerns them, this is a typical type of concern voiced by factory workers in every industry where the product has lives on the line.
Nothing about what he says implies that it is more or less safe than other planes, or even that he identified something dangerous. It might simply be that he isn't an important enough to be able to talk to the engineers about it to find out if it is even a problem, or to explain the physics of electrica
Re:That doesn't fix the culture at Boeing (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing about what he says implies that it is more or less safe than other planes, or even that he identified something dangerous.....
What we are hearing about Boing safety seems to me to sound more and more like the denials of the nuclear industry. "One accident in a milion years1" but there were three in the last ten?? what gives? "that's all because the soviets didn't follow safety rules. In places like Japan where they do there are never any problems" err Fukashima! nobody died blah blah blah
You tell us that the technicians talking about debris know nothing. What we hear is that you are ignoring them. Hell, the USAF has actually halted deliveries from Boeing due to debris [bloomberg.com]. Perhaps if you listened a bit to the guys on the ground instead of overriding the FAA certification process [vox.com] you wouldn't be releasing flying death traps.
Trust me, I won't be flying Southwest. An airline that's willing to risk it's passengers to get a special discount deal is not my idea of safety.
Re: (Score:2)
if debris that was found was, or was not, "dangerously close" to anything at all
The very word debris tells you immediately that it shouldn't be there.
Why would you build an aircraft with debris in it? Haven't you heard of FOD? Doesn't it entirely negate the point of designing a more cost effective fuel efficient aircraft to then leave it encumbered by debris?
Debris: Bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Joseph Clayton, a technician at the North Charleston plant, one of two facilities where the Dreamliner is built, said he routinely found debris dangerously close to wiring beneath cockpits.
I think they noticed that at the crash sites too ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Southwest has no troubles filling their planes. Their safety record is amazing. So, keep your head in the ground.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
http://fortune.com/2018/04/18/... [fortune.com]
https://thepointsguy.com/2016/... [thepointsguy.com] from this article:
The original version of this article from June 2016 noted that Southwest Airlines had a perfect safety record for more than 49 years. However, as a result of the Southwest flight 1380 accident on April 17, 2018, the airline has incurred its first passenger fatality as a result
Re: (Score:2)
In what specific case is the MAX quaLitatively different than any other 737, or Airbus?
According to discussions on pilot forums, if the plane pitches up too much and starts to lose power then increasing thrust, which would normally help, makes things worse because the engines, being too far forward, then force the plane even further up. On a normal 737 or Airbus, increasing thrust in this case would help to counteract the stall. The software fix is designed to counteract this by forcing the nose down, however we have no reason to know whether it is sufficient and, given that they messed wit
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the awesome deserts in Europe that compare to Death Valley?
Where are the landscapes that look like the Grand Canyon or even just South Utah?
Where can I get proper texmex food or even just a decent barbecue?
Where can I find wild alligators and go to a rodeo?
Also, could I just apologise for not managing to get shot by the police on any of the two dozen times I've been to the US.
Betcha they're now getting a substantial discount (Score:5, Interesting)
Southwest is known for making shrewd long-term structural plays, and it would not shock me if they used this as a good opportunity to lock in some very favorable pricing over the long haul.
Re:Betcha they're now getting a substantial discou (Score:5, Interesting)
Strategically the MAX makes the most sense for Southwest if Boeing can fix the problems. Even if Southwest has to recertify their entire staff of pilots eventually, the MAX carries more and has longer range. With a longer range they can fly coast to coast nonstop. Currently the bulk of their fleet is the 737-800 I think which has almost a top range of 3000 nautical miles. Washington DC to San Francisco is about 2800 miles which doesn’t allow for a lot of safety margin. The new MAX 8 has a range of 3500.
Re: (Score:2)
Strategically the MAX makes the most sense for Southwest if Boeing can fix the problems.
Fixing an unstable airplane where the placement of the raised engines has already changed the center of thrust making the plane pitch up quite a bit when you kick it in the ass, introducing the larger inlet cowling into the airstream creating more lift, creating a positive feedback loop where the plane simply wants to stall at the worst times?
Like takeoff. And it has to be controlled via software.
The fix is a different airplane
The new MAX 8 has a range of 3500.
As long as it doesn't turn itself into an auger.
Re:Betcha they're now getting a substantial discou (Score:4, Interesting)
There's only one question that matters: did Boeing fix the problem? If not, them people will die, and Southwest might, too.
Re: (Score:2)
They cannot fix the problem. Problem is in the design as people pointed out consistently over last half a year. What they can do is kinda circumvent the problem by either training pilots to be aware of the problem (BAD PRODUCT) or have some software hacks that will account for the problem and self correct (WORSE PRODUCT).
It does not mean it will crash again. But it might...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think single aisle planes are so great when you have screaming children and people trying to talk or have quiet vacations or some harpy yackin endlessly on the in-flight phone service.
Oh good, you'll never be on one of my flights as I would always choose a 737 over some giant cattle car.
People who want a quiet vacation might want to try a stay-cation instead of flying to a popular tourist destination, though. And people who call strangers "harpies" should probably just stay home regardless. Same for people bothered by the sounds of children.
Airplanes are not intended as your Safe Space.
Makes sense, they have a lot of time on them (Score:3, Interesting)
Southwest knows better than most people if the planes are capable or not. I got an email from Southwest Cargo shortly after the accident that pointed out Southwest had tens of thousands of flights (maybe more) with the Max without issue. If the pilots there feel like it's a good plane, that's good enough for me.
Re: (Score:3)
If the pilots there feel like it's a good plane, that's good enough for me.
Exactly this. Guess what, pilots don't want to crash either.
Re: (Score:2)
Some do.
Re: (Score:2)
What pilot was given the choice? I'm sure it was either fly these new planes we spent billions on or find a new job.
That is not a real thing. There is a severe pilot shortage. Not only do you not threaten to fire them, instead you go the other way and spend lots of money to retain them.
That pilots like to fly the 737 is one of the reasons that airlines buy it. That isn't going to change. Just like somebody crashing a poorly maintained Mercedes Benz and making the news would not stop delivery drivers from preferring Mercedes box vans over Ford. Except for delivery drivers with companies that don't do correct maintenance;
Re: (Score:2)
Betcha they get the dual sensor upgrade to the MCAS system free as well as a further discount on all the planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Betcha they get the dual sensor upgrade to the MCAS system free as well as a further discount on all the planes.
That doesn't fix anything. Two sensors are no better than one for detecting a fault. You need three sensors. What you do get with the upgrade is a "disagree" light. But if the previous two crashes have shown anything it's that the pilots already knew the sensors were faulty.
But at least now there'll be an extra light on in the cockpit just so everyone knows for sure why they will die.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true at all. The MCAS system isn't really necessary, and only operates (normally) when the plane is already in an unusual part of its flight envelope.
The two crashes happened because the pilots didn't know what was happening until it was too late to correct the problem.
Theoretically, if all Boeing did was install the AoA disagree lights, you can bet that any 737 MAX pilot who saw one would instantly disable the electric trim, and thus MCAS, and avoid the problem. Just using both AoA sensors and t
Re: (Score:2)
Southwest had tens of thousands of flights (maybe more) with the Max without issue
Think, man. ten thousand flights is not very many.
Read the article, or at least the summary. What is Southwest basing this decision on? They are basing it on the promise of Boeing executives that the problem is fixed. Now use your judgement as a software engineer: how likely is that to be true?
Re:Makes sense, they have a lot of time on them (Score:5, Insightful)
100% of the 737 MAX purchased by Southwest have an optional AOA display.
Neither of the planes that crashed had that display. They have the same sensors, they just don't have a display that illustrates the reading.
When pilots have the optional display, it is much more obvious that they have a bad sensor, so they don't experience the same type of confusion about the problem that led to the crashes.
Because of that, even without the software fix the Southwest planes are unlikely to have a problem. Also, both the crashed planes had bad sensors logged on previous flights followed by a lack of maintenance; Southwest isn't allowed to operate that casually with regards to maintenance. The pilots flying with a bad sensor would most likely be the same pilots that just experienced a bird strike, so they'd be on guard for sensor issues. It is when other pilots that didn't experience a bird strike get into the plane, think it is OK, and take off to problems that led to both crashes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that in both crashes, the problem happened shortly after takeoff.
They had very little time to diagnose and fix the problem, by switching off the auto-trim to deactivate MCAS, and then manually adjusting the trim - a slow process that requires physical strength.
The AOA display increases the chances of sensor failure being detected before there are catastrophic consequences, but doesn't rule it out entirely. Hopefully Boeing's fix will allow MCAS to be disabled while still allowing the auto-trim to rem
Re: (Score:2)
100% of the 737 MAX purchased by Southwest have an optional AOA display.
Neither of the planes that crashed had that display.
I don't know that you want to offer that excuse. At least for Boeing's part. Makes a hella good prosecution argument though.
Yes your honor - the display that keeps the plane in the air is an added price option!"
A random pilot called it (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember when this plane was officially announced, I saw it on social media, some random guy claiming to be a 737 pilot commented (paraphrasing):" why not build a whole new plane instead of using this tired airframe? You can only bolt on to it for so long." Boom. Give that man a raise.
Re:A random pilot called it (Score:4, Insightful)
One word: money. It would cost Boeing a lot more to design a new frame even if it is just a modification of the 737. It would cost airlines more to re-certify/re-train pilots. One of the major issues is the plane may have to be raised higher for the engine clearance. That would also mean it would cost airports some money to accommodate a new 737.
I’m not saying this justifies money over lives. I’m merely explaining what I think was the main reason.
Re:A random pilot called it (Score:4, Informative)
It has nothing to do with retraining pilots or changes to airports. Airbus was working on their plane for a long while before and got it to market while Boeing was doing nothing. What Boeing did was the quickest response that they could offer. They felt that they couldn't wait the time to develop a proper response to Airbus so they put larger more efficient engines on the 737 and wrote MCAS so that the pilots didn't need to have to re-certify.
Then they make MCAS only look at one sensor (who knows where that decision was made but I hope people kept the emails to cover their butts), made the safety indicators for the sensors optional, and didn't bother to mention MCAS in the basic training manual for the MAX except in the index so the pilots wouldn't know what it was when it kicked it. But if you paid for the "optional" safety measures you get told about these things.
People at Boeing need to go to jail, and not the jail that people who commit white collar crime go to. Send them to the worst jail in the US because they've killed around 300 people. Then Boeing should be made to pay retributions to the families of those who were killed and the airlines impacted. Regulations should be introduced to make it that there are no more optional safety features and every new plane has to go through a standardized suite of tests performed by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He said nothing of costs because costs were not a fucking factor.
His first sentence: "It has nothing to do with retraining pilots or changes to airports.” Either your reading comprehension is terrible or you’re just lying.
It is irrelevant whether southwest would ever purchase it as that had no influence on boeings desperate need to stay competitive.
The whole point of this article is about Southwest. If you are an airline that had 737s (and there are many) would you buy A320s to replace them? Airlines have to consider not only plane purchase costs but operational costs. In the case of budget airlines they are more cost sensitive. The cost of re-training/recertification of pilots and mec
Re:A random pilot called it (Score:4, Informative)
It has nothing to do with retraining pilots or changes to airports. Airbus was working on their plane for a long while before and got it to market while Boeing was doing nothing. What Boeing did was the quickest response that they could offer. They felt that they couldn't wait the time to develop a proper response to Airbus so they put larger more efficient engines on the 737 and wrote MCAS so that the pilots didn't need to have to re-certify.
It's not just that, Airbus was able to simply sling new engines on the A320 family to make the A320neo, they could do this without changing they dynamics of the aircraft meaning it didn't have to be recertified so any pilot rated to fly an A320ceo (current engine option) can fly a neo (new engine option). Boeing needed to do the same but as the B737 was fundamentally still using a design from the 60's, before the advent of high-bypass turbofans which are much larger than older turbofans, they had trouble fitting them under the wing. the CFM56 engines used on the 737NG are ovoid shaped to fit them on, the CFM LEAP engines on the 737 MAX are even bigger.
As Boeing didn't want to raise the aircraft (1. it would take significant re-engineering of the wing box and; 2. it would make the 737 less suitable for operating out of small airports without significant infrastructure, think the kind of airport that might see 1 flight a day) they chose to mount the larger CFM LEAP engines higher and ahead of the wing which changes the aircraft's dynamics which they chose to compensate with by using software in order to avoid having to recertify the aircraft and have to retrain pilots. The problem with that is that you can't fix bad hardware design with software.
The A320 series was designed in the 80s, with high-bypass turbofans in mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
One word: money. It would cost Boeing a lot more to design a new frame even if it is just a modification of the 737. It would cost airlines more to re-certify/re-train pilots. One of the major issues is the plane may have to be raised higher for the engine clearance. That would also mean it would cost airports some money to accommodate a new 737.
I’m not saying this justifies money over lives. I’m merely explaining what I think was the main reason.
Fortunately, the accidents won't cost them a penny.
Re: (Score:2)
Boom. Give that man a raise.
What for? For a peanut gallery comment? The answer of "why" was incredibly clear from the start, Boeing's hands were tied by their competitors, and that strategy was known about up front.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that is the same tired bloviation that people say about any old design.
Pilots know what they like to fly, they know which planes provide a better experience for the pilot, but why would have any clue in hell when the engineers should use a new airframe or an old one? The design doesn't get "tired," only the airframes that were already manufactured and then used will become "tired" with age.
He sounds like an idiot who doesn't know what he knows, or what he doesn't know. That's sub-Rumsfeldian philosop
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the 737 fanboi is here. The designs do get old and the 737 is a shitty airplane for the pilots. It has a cramped, loud, uncomfortable and unergonomic cockpit. It also requires a higher workload for the same tasks compared to the a320. There is a reason why many airlines move to Airbus.
Re: A random pilot called it (Score:2)
Yes, the A320 is more comfortable and easier to fly ... and yet most pilots who have flown both will still tell you they prefer the 737.
The most common complaint I've heard goes along the lines of "the 737 is an airplane with a computer in it; the A320 is a computer with an airplane built around it".
Re: (Score:2)
Not most, just some of them because they can't cope with a sidestick. For those who do, the A320 is far less tiring in a long shift. It is like the difference between working in a cubicle and in an actual office.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not exactly a novel statement. People were saying that about the 737 NG twenty years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
One (me) presumes that one or more critical contract[s] depended upon Boeing's ability to deliver a new plane in a more timely fashion than was possible if they were to take the time to do a new airframe.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It maybe peanuts, but even big companies like their peanuts. It sounds like it's far cheaper to bolt new engines to the wing and iron out the details rather than design and build a entire new air frame. I'm guessing anyway, I'm not a pilot nor do I build planes.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, if you have a whole bunch of these aircraft, it's easier to train the pilot with its characteristics and potential problems. I also expect Boeing to come out with an improved sensor/software package before the order of aircraft is delivered.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You deserve your insightful mod just for uses "comprises" correctly.
Southwest are surely smoking something... (Score:2)
"It's a very good airplane, but Boeing has acknowledged that they've got some things they need to address with the software in that airplane,"...
They say this about a plane that has been withdrawn from service due to technical [safety] issues!
A plane that kills passengers when used as intended; at least currently. I just don't get it!
Re: (Score:2)
So nothing new, the 737 has killed a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get it!
Well, stop waving your hands around and spouting shrill nonsense then, and buckle down to learning about the problem, and understanding what you learned. Fuck-an-A Deity-Deified and all that stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
The southwest pilots are better than pilots in other countries.
Citation needed...
Crashed Boeing 737 Max pilots did whatever they could have done and still did not survive. Look Boeing admitted grave problems with [all] training and the aircraft, not just for the crashed planes.
It's for that reason that the planes are grounded. Had planes not been grounded, there perhaps would have been another crash. And there's nothing pilots could have done to save the plane. So your assertion that SW pilots are better trained is moot especially is the plane is defective.
So please be
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a pilot. But in order to recover you have to very quickly diagnose the problem, turn off the motorized trim adjust, and manually undo the incorrect trim put on there by the faulty MCAS system. You don't have a lot of time to do all this stuff. It is a DEFECTIVE AIRPLANE. But it can eventually be fixed, and now that the problem is being scrutinized properly, I believe the planes can be flown safely by experienced and vigilant pilots, even without any software fix. The probability of diagnosing the p
Discount fares (Score:2)
Do Southwest execs let their families fly on this?
Southwest doesn't have much of a choice (Score:2)
"By flying just one aircraft, Southwest knows ... (Score:2)
... that almost any of its pilots can fly any of its planes".
Can somebody explain that logic to me?
If they only fly one type of plane (which the article claims), how come it's not the case that 100% of their pilots can fly any plane?
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), a big part of the certification for the 737 Max was that it's "close enough" to other 737s that pilots of older 737 variants can switch to it fairly easily, vs going to something completely different like an A350 or such. Thus Southwest may not be strictly on the 737 Max, but 737s in general.
I should hope they're not on strictly 737 Max, because their entire fleet would be grounded right now and thus making almost no income.
(And as should be obvious, this "close
Re: (Score:3)
That may in fact be part of the problem with the two crashes. Boeing sold the 737 Max as a short training session to get 737 pilots up to speed on the new plane. Apparently the MCAS system on the Max is substantially new and different, and could lead to confusion
Translation: "Keep the cheap stuff coming, Boeing" (Score:3)
If it's Boeing... (Score:2)
Known wiremess, less space than an Airbus. Lame.
darwin! (Score:2)
They will learn or face extinction!
Probably they also believe that God will protect then from failure, as their brain probably will not
Everything have teach us that having a single variant is a bad idea, if there is a problem with it (say some bad software make you ground all planes), that also mean that you have no planes to fly. Just like if every animal is cloned, a single disease may kill all your animals, while some mixed races may save you half of the animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, all your eggs in one basket. Here is corporate stupidity.
The 737 max got grounded. That's all of them. If southwest was already 100% max, then that would basically be byebye from them (as every other airline with max' aircraft would also be scrabbling to reschedule other planes, so lets hazard that SW would have no replacement service).
Stupidity at it's finest, right here. Especially when you have a front seat example of "This plane is grounded for a few months".
If I was a shareholder, I'd be asking WTF.
Southwest has been profitable almost every single year since it started operating. I would not be so quick to dismiss the top brass as being stupid. If you were a shareholder, you would probably be grateful that the company is so well run.
Re: (Score:2)
40 years of consecutive profits is not luck. Maybe the first 10 years were luck. Who knows. They also weathered 9/11 much better than many other airlines. Airplanes don't get grounded forever. They get grounded for days, weeks, maybe months this time, and then when the problem is fixed they are allowed to fly again. The MCAS system is a huge blunder. But they will fix it and everything will be fine for Southwest. Probably everything will be fine for Boeing, too.
Re: (Score:2)