737 Max in the news again

36,636 Views | 346 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by nortex97
Brewskis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not entirely accurate…

Airlines demanded an airframe that wouldn't cost anything extra to train crews (which is not an insignificant cost). And they got what they wanted.

This doesn't alleviate Boeing of responsibility but I feel like worldwide airline management has been able to walk away from that debacle pretty much blame-free.
EX TEXASEX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Feel sorry for the cleaning crews who have to deal with all the " Code Brown " seat covers on the plane.
#FJB
TriAg2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Logos Stick said:

They didn't cut corners. It was a long term versus short term decision with major financial implications for the company given the Airbus competition. They had to put a more fuel efficient engine on the 737. The newer engines were much larger. The larger size resulted in a different engine location. To compensate for the change in the aerodynamics of the plane, they created mcas. America Airlines was a big reason for Boeing revamping the existing 737 aircraft. When AA announced they were buying Airbus for the first time in their history, Boeing was forced to redesign the 737 for them and make it more fuel efficient. It was that or completely scrap the 737, a 50 year old model, and resign a new plane from the ground up.


I'm not saying that Boeing cut corners by choosing to develop the 737 MAX over an all-new airplane. I'm saying that when they developed the 737 MAX, they did a bad job. Had they done their job right - like they did the last two times they re-engined and upgraded the 737 - we wouldn't be having this conversation.
evan_aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
C@LAg said:

Bubblez said:

Aggie95 said:

You'd like to think a company workforce so bought into union mentality would have A LOT more pride in their work and craftsmanship. Instead, it's been about a decades worth of serious issues.


The very European company Airbus is fully unionized and they are producing far higher quality aircraft than Boeing.

The unions aren't the problem
American unions are a problem.


I had been thinking about this a bit. In my field engineers are making $125-$350 at the 90th percentile.

In Paris France it is $54K-$110K 90th.

You can work so many other professions and you make nearly the same. EU salary spread isn't nearly as great as it is in USA. No one who is the top of their field is likely to prefer working in union structure. It's not a performance based meritocracy.
Bubblez
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brewskis said:

Not entirely accurate…

Airlines demanded an airframe that wouldn't cost anything extra to train crews (which is not an insignificant cost). And they got what they wanted.

This doesn't alleviate Boeing of responsibility but I feel like worldwide airline management has been able to walk away from that debacle pretty much blame-free.


The airline industry needs the Airbus / Boeing duopoly to be competitively vibrant. It's up to Boeing to be able to keep up with the competition. Boeing is failing miserably in that regard.

Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brewskis said:

Not entirely accurate…

Airlines demanded an airframe that wouldn't cost anything extra to train crews (which is not an insignificant cost). And they got what they wanted.

This doesn't alleviate Boeing of responsibility but I feel like worldwide airline management has been able to walk away from that debacle pretty much blame-free.


What wasn't accurate? I understand that the airlines wanted improved efficiency and didn't want to retrain/cross train air crews. I especially understand the importance of this for pure 737 operators.

E airlines wanted their came and they wanted to eat it.

Bottom said ok. But didn't tell anyone how they did it, and implemented a poorly written software system with full authority to take control of a flight control surface.

They self certified to the FAA they delivered a plane identical to the 737 and no new training was required. At the very best that was a bold faced lie. To my knowledge the FAA agreed with the perceived grounding and recertification process.
coconutED
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bubblez said:

The airline industry needs the Airbus / Boeing duopoly to be competitively vibrant. It's up to Boeing to be able to keep up with the competition. Boeing is failing miserably in that regard.
The problem is that Airbus' production can't keep up with Boeing. They can take a bite of market share, but they are in no way a threat to Boeing, and Boeing knows that and acts accordingly.
rausr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well I have an emergency exit window seat on a flight from Charlotte to Philadelphia on Tuesday afternoon.

American Airlines Airbus A320.

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fc2112 said:

What we don't know is if Spirit does the plug. They may just deliver standard Sections 45s and Rendon installs the plug.
Quote:

Here's a short excerpt from Reuters's detailed explanation, based on their sources at Boeing:

"The 737 MAX 9, currently Boeing's largest single-aisle, seating up to 220 people, includes an optional extra door to allow for the approved number of evacuation paths whenever carriers opt to install the maximum number of seats.

But most airlines using the jet have chosen a looser layout based on a smaller number of seats and do not need the surplus door, which adds weight and reduces flexibility in the cabin. Instead the door is deactivated before delivery, using a "plug."

Other optional doors or fill-in replacement structures were also offered on a predecessor model, the 737-900ER.

As part of the production process, Spirit builds fuselages for 737s and sends them by train with the special door assembly "semi-rigged", one of the people said.

"They are fitted but not completed," the person said.

At its Renton, Washington, plant, Boeing typically removes the pop-out, or non-functioning, door and uses the gap to load interiors. Then, the part is put back and the installation in completed. Finally, the hull is pressurized to 150% to make sure everything is working correctly, the person said.

The process means that finding out where any flaw was introduced during assembly may not be clear-cut, said the sources, who asked not to be named as details of the probe are confidential.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spirit-aero-made-blowout-part-boeing-has-key-role-sources-2024-01-07/

All the 737 fuselages that can take the extra door (-8200, -9 & -10) are manufactured to be exactly the same, i.e. there's a hole in the fuselage for a door in that position. How that hole is then configured is a customer choice. In the case of AS and their 737-9s, they plug the hole as they don't need the door. FR, for example, want as many seats as possible, so they have an active door on their 737-8200s.

This is a long video, but lots of information about 737 doors.



http://www.b737.org.uk/737max.htm

That guy…knows a lot about the 737.
fc2112
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, could be a defect with the plug or the installation. It's Boeing's problem one way or another.

Unusual in that, as others have noted, the cabin pressure loading is reacted by the door (or plug, in this case) bearing out against some type of lip on the inside of the fuselage opening. It's what makes doors opening in flight impossible. (As an aside, if someone goes crazy and is trying to open a door in flight, just stand there and look at him wear himself out on it).

This leads me to suspect there was some type of mistake in the manufacturing of that particular plag. Hopefully they find it.
redcrayon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
rausr said:

Well I have an emergency exit window seat on a flight from Charlotte to Philadelphia on Tuesday afternoon.

American Airlines Airbus A320.


This didn't happen at an emergency exit or on an Airbus.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Really makes you think
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
coconutED said:

Bubblez said:

The airline industry needs the Airbus / Boeing duopoly to be competitively vibrant. It's up to Boeing to be able to keep up with the competition. Boeing is failing miserably in that regard.
The problem is that Airbus' production can't keep up with Boeing. They can take a bite of market share, but they are in no way a threat to Boeing, and Boeing knows that and acts accordingly.
Airbus is going to rate (monthly production) 73 I believe on the A320 next year, and Boeing is right now trying to ramp up past 35 or so 737 new builds per month (and still trying to deliver around a hundred from storage/production during the max grounding this year).

Airbus is also getting Euro subsidies on a replacement for the A320 now of around $300 million a year, and the Chinese have filed with EASA for certification of their C919, production of which is expected to ramp up significantly in the next few years. Boeing's NB market share is no more than around 40 percent and likely do drop to 35 or so over the next 5 or so years due to both China and Airbus as well as travails with the max program, and a lack of a real competitor to the A321LR and XLR.

Boeing is trying to hang onto that 35 percent through at least 2035 with the max, hoping to launch a truss braced wing open rotor successor but the tech readiness levels aren't there for those yet. We can talk about the widebody market share as a rough split/more favorable to Boeing, but the cash cow that is the 737 is key to them;

Quote:

RBC analyst estimates ~380 737 deliveries in 2023, in line with the most recent 375-400 guidance and models 535 737 deliveries for 2024.

The analyst notes that the production rates from Boeing would suggest a number over 600, but they expect ~100 from inventory and stabilization at ~38/month for deliveries from production.

According to the analyst's cash flow analysis for 2023, the 737 MAX is expected to contribute an additional estimated $2.8 billion to the 2025 free cash flow. Following that, the 787 is expected to contribute approximately $1.7 billion. However, it's important to note that within the commercial portfolio, there are lingering uncertainties related to the 777X, particularly concerning the associated risks and the schedule for its entry into service.
The good news is that they now have approval to deliver them again to the CCP and that probably means some more orders for 737's from China this year (subject to the politics etc.)
evan_aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One thing I don't understand is how it is installed.

There are mounting points that all probably had bolts through them. And those mounts have NOT broken off on the airframe, but the plug is gone. If you look at the plug side, they are all riveted. So I'm perplexed.


Also when they install, the plug side has to make it around those mounts and still eventually be flush on the exterior? Hard to imagine how that works unless it's somehow partially inserted and then slides into alignment and finally tightened.



AustinScubaAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
evan_aggie said:

One thing I don't understand is how it is installed.

There are mounting points that all probably had bolts through them. And those mounts have NOT broken off on the airframe, but the plug is gone. If you look at the plug side, they are all riveted. So I'm perplexed.


Also when they install, the plug side has to make it around those mounts and still eventually be flush on the exterior? Hard to imagine how that works unless it's somehow partially inserted and then slides into alignment and finally tightened.




My guess from the beginning is this was a faulty installation and bad quality control. This is unlikely to be a design flaw.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's the same design as used on the NG 900ER's. Almost definitely an assembly/manufacturing issue.
evan_aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hopefully they'll find the door based on location of emergency declared. That'll tell them very quickly what failed.
DDub74
How long do you want to ignore this user?

We were sitting in Orlando waiting for 3:00 flight yesterday when the FAA grounded them. Guess what type of plane we were on?

Yep, got home via Southwest last night at 1. Cost me $$$$ to get family home. United said they could get us home on Monday! GTFO.

They said they have to take those panels off to check door so each plane will be inspected and grounded for several days/week.

But they did offer free nights at Comfort Inn and $45 food vouchers

Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AustinScubaAg said:

evan_aggie said:

One thing I don't understand is how it is installed.

There are mounting points that all probably had bolts through them. And those mounts have NOT broken off on the airframe, but the plug is gone. If you look at the plug side, they are all riveted. So I'm perplexed.


Also when they install, the plug side has to make it around those mounts and still eventually be flush on the exterior? Hard to imagine how that works unless it's somehow partially inserted and then slides into alignment and finally tightened.




My guess from the beginning is this was a faulty installation and bad quality control. This is unlikely to be a design flaw.
Go watch the last 5 minutes of the video posted above. He goes over this. What you've circled are guides. The door plug only has 4 bolts that hold it in place. Two are in the traditional door hinge pin locations (they are the actual hinge pins) and two more at the top.

I didn't follow everything in the video, but it appears that when this is installed as a functional door there is an up then out motion to the opening. I think that's where all of those guide posts might be coming into play.

The video also mentions that there are TWO door deactivation offers from Boeing. There is the method that was used by Alaska where the door is completely 100% deactivated and replaced by a plug that includes a standard PAX window. The option pictured above retains a functional door with it's standard porthole but it is then blanked over inside and out. So if you remove the wall panel, as pictured, there's the door handles. The exterior handles are also blanked to prevent ground service personnel from opening it.

EDIT.. Specifically he discusses how the plug is secured starting at 23:58
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jock 07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reminds me of that tweet about the F-16, I think, that went down a few months ago saying that it was missing and asking to call BDOC if you'd seen it.
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Finders keepers!!!
Psycho Bunny
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:


If something lands in my yard, I'm keeping it unless it's a liberal political sign. They can have that back.
Decay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IN THIS HOURS WE BELIEVE IN PROPERLY SECURED DOORS
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UAS Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kenneth_2003 said:

Finders keepers!!!
Facebook Marketplace:

1 Boeing 737-900 door plug

Slightly used condition

$10,000,000

No low ball offers, I know what I got
TX_COWDOC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bjorn said:

The plane was only 10 weeks old how is this on the maintenance people?


Not maintenance per se but a culture of kicking the can as previous crews reported issues with pressurization and it was getting deferred.

These asshats are lucky someone wasn't sucked out the hole.
www.southpawprecision.com
Type 07 FFL / Class 2 SOT
Nightforce Optics Dealer
AGM Night Vision Dealer
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NTSB giving this the full court press including sending a go-team with the NTSB Chair being the spokesperson for it. Usually only see that when it is something far worse.




"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TX_COWDOC said:

bjorn said:

The plane was only 10 weeks old how is this on the maintenance people?


Not maintenance per se but a culture of kicking the can as previous crews reported issues with pressurization and it was getting deferred.

These asshats are lucky someone wasn't sucked out the hole.
what are the odds the two closest seats were empty.

I fly Alaska all the time, and that is rarely the case.
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

NTSB giving this the full court press including sending a go-team with the NTSB Chair being the spokesperson for it. Usually only see that when it is something far worse.





Likely flagging all planes for inspections?

Not sure why Boeing did not do this preemptively.

Given the bad rep the Max has, they should do EVERYTHING to assure the public about these models.
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Decay said:

IN THIS HOURS WE BELIEVE IN PROPERLY SECURED DOORS
what will you do in later hours? Leave them unsecured?
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wait! This particular plane was having trouble maintaining cabin pressure on previous flights?

Were the top two bolts even put in this plug???

Before I throw the Alaska maintenance shop under the bus, let's look at the manuals they have (written off close by Boeing). Cabin pressure systems are likely going to look at engine compressor bleed valve systems and cabin pressure vents and the associated valves. Actually, does the Mex have bleed air out it it a separate electric pump driven?

I doubt there's a step in the procedure to peel the paneling off and check the door plug to see if Boeing remembered to bolt it in place!
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Boeing 737 max is an absolute train wreck caused by short term profits which has cost them long term profits and reputation.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The FAA grounded the planes and mandated the inspections almost immediately. Not much for Boeing to do since they can only recommend inspections; the FAA has to require them, and did so.

Boeing's job will be to check all planes under construction, or awaiting delivery; and provide any technical assistance to the airlines and the NTSB as needed.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Furlock Bones said:

The Boeing 737 max is an absolute train wreck caused by short term profits which has cost them long term profits and reputation.
Except this incident had noting to do with the designed of the aircraft.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.