THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM AVIATION FORUM

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Topics  Hop To Forums  Aviation    737 MAX- what's going on here?
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
737 MAX- what's going on here?
 Login/Join
 
One Of Us
posted Hide Post
Here is the body of an Email I recently received that was titled- "A Bailout for Boeing??"
WOW- what a commentary....


>> All out in the open now!
>>
>>
>>
>> The Coming Boeing Bailout?
>> (Big issue 7-3-2019)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Welcome to Big, a newsletter about the politics of monopoly. If you like it, you can sign up here. Today I’ll discuss how a merger in the 1990s ruined Boeing, and why the government will have to step in to save the company.
>>
>> https://cdn.substack.com/image...b1778_2104x1446.jpeg
>>
>>
>>
>> Let’s start by admiring the company that was Boeing, so we can know what has been lost. As one journalist put it in 2000, “Boeing has always been less a business than an association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines.â€
>>
>> For the bulk of the 20th century, Boeing made miracles. Its engineers designed the B-52 in a weekend, bet the company on the 707, and built the 747 despite deep observer skepticism. The 737 started coming off the assembly line in 1967, and it was such a good design it was still the company’s top moneymaker thirty years later.
>>
>> How did Boeing make miracles in civilian aircraft? In short, the the civilian engineers were in charge. And it fell apart because the company, due to a merger, killed its engineering-first culture.
>>
>> What Happened?
>>
>> In 1993, a Defense official in the Clinton administration, Bill Perry, called defense contractor CEOs to a dinner, nicknamed “the last supper.†He told them to merge with each other so as, in the classic excuse used by monopolists, to find efficiencies in their businesses. The rationale was that post-Cold War era military spending reductions demanded a leaner defense base. In reality, Perry had been a long-time mergers and acquisitions specialist working with industry ally Norm Augustine, the eventual CEO of Lockheed Martin.
>>
>> Perry was so aggressive about encouraging mergers that he put together a strategy to have the Pentagon itself pay merger costs, which resulted in a bevy of consolidation among contractors and subcontractors. In 1997, Boeing, with both a commercial and military division, ended up buying McDonnell Douglas, a major aerospace company and competitor. With this purchase, the airline market radically consolidated.
>>
>> Unlike Boeing, McDonnell Douglas was run by financiers rather than engineers. And though Boeing was the buyer, McDonnell Douglas executives somehow took power in what analysts started calling a “reverse takeover.†The joke in Seattle was, "McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money."
>>
>> The merger sparked a war between the engineers and the bean-counters; as one analyst put it, "Some of the board of directors would rather have spent money on a walk-in humidor for shareholders than on a new plane." The white collar engineers responded to the aggressive cost-cutting and politically motivated design choices with the unthinkable, affiliating with the AFL-CIO and going on strike for the first time in the company’s 56-year history. "We weren't fighting against Boeing," said the union leader. "We were fighting to save Boeing."
>>
>> The key corporate protection that had protected Boeing engineering culture was a wall inside the company between the civilian division and military divisions. This wall was designed to prevent the military procurement process from corrupting civilian aviation. As aerospace engineer Pierre Sprey noted, military procurement and engineering created a corrupt design process, with unnecessary complexity, poor safety standards, “wishful thinking projections†on performance, and so forth. Military contractors subcontract based on political concerns, not engineering ones. If contractors need to influence a Senator from Montana, they will place production of a component in Montana, even if no one in the state can do the work.
>>
>> Bad procurement is one reason (aside from military officials going into defense contracting work) why military products are often poor quality or deficient. For instance, the incredibly expensive joint strike fighter F-35 is a mess, and the Navy’s most expensive aircraft carrier, costing $13 billion, was recently delivered without critical elevators to lift bombs into fighter jets. Much of this dynamic exists because of a lack of competition in contracting for major systems, a result of the consolidation Perry pushed in the early 1990s. Monopolies don’t have to produce good quality products, and often don’t.
>>
>> At any rate, when McDonnell Douglas took over Boeing, the military procurement guys took over aerospace production and design. The company began a radical outsourcing campaign, done for political purposes. In defense production, plants went to influence Senators and Congressmen; in civilian production, Boeing started moving production to different countries in return for airline purchases from the national airlines.
>>
>> Engineers immediately recognized this offshoring as a disaster in the making. In 2001, a Boeing employee named L. Hart Smith published a paper criticizing the business strategy behind offshoring production, noting that vital engineering tasks were being done in ways that seemed less costly but would end up destroying the company. He was quickly proved right.
>>
>> The first disaster was Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, a test case in how to attempt to cut costs and end up driving up expenses. The company went over budget by something like $12-18 billion. As Sprey put it, “You don't have to be wearing a deer-stalker hat to deduce that the rotten practices bred by DoD procurement have finally infected the executive suite of Boeing's commercial division.†Aside from the offshoring of key capacity, the 787 had significant engineering problems, including electrical systems that caused battery fires on the planes.
>>
>> In 2005, Boeing hired its first ever CEO without an aviation engineering background, bringing in James McNerney, who got his training in brand management at Proctor & Gamble, then McKinsey, and then spent two decades at General Electric learning from Jack Welch how to erode industrial capacity in favor of shareholders. He brought these lessons to Boeing, and greenlit the 737 Max to compete with a more fuel-efficient Airbus model.
>>
>> The key decision was, rather than just build a new plane, was to upgrade the 737 model. That way, airlines would be able to buy the plane and not have to retrain their pilots, as pilots must be re-certified for a new aircraft model but don’t have to be recertified for upgrades of old models. But this choice caused significant problems, because the aerodynamics of the 737 body didn’t fit with the Max’s engine, which was obvious during the first wind tunnel tests.
>>
>> The testing in 2012, with air flow approaching the speed of sound, allowed engineers to analyze how the airplane’s aerodynamics would handle a range of extreme maneuvers. When the data came back, according to an engineer involved in the testing, it was clear there was an issue to address.
>>
>> The old Boeing would have redesigned the plane, but the McDonnell Douglas influenced Boeing new one tried to patch the problem with software. And it was bad software, written by to engineers paid $9/dollar an hour. The Federal Aviation Administration, having outsourced much of its own regulatory capacity to Boeing, didn’t know what was going on, and Boeing didn’t tell airlines and pilots about the new safety elements.
>>
>> This disregard for engineering integrity and safety had come from the Wall Street driven financialization of the 1990s, through General Electric’s McNerney, but also from military procurement culture. Current CEO Dennis Muilenburg, for instance, has presided over a series of problematic projects in the defense division, from the X-32, the losing entry in the F-35 joint strike fighter contract, to the Airborne Laser system. Muilenburg has handled the 737 Max problem the way a defense official would, through public relations and political channels rather than the way a civilian engineer would, which would be through an aggressively honest review of engineering choices.
>>
>> The net effect of the merger, and the follow-on managerial and financial choices, is that America significantly damaged its aerospace industry. Where there were two competitors - McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, now there is one. And that domestic monopoly can no longer develop good civilian aerospace products. Hundreds of people are dead, and tens of billions of dollars wasted.
>>
>> Boeing now has a rocky situation ahead of it. There is little trust in the current leadership of the company, and it will face significant liability from airlines who bought the jet, as well as mass cancelations of orders. There is a criminal investigation into the company, as there should be. This like likely to have significant and severe financial consequences.
>>
>> The right policy path would be Congressional hearings to explore what happened to this once fine company, followed by a break-up of the company into a civilian and military division, or if possible, find a way to create multiple competitors out of this fiasco. Muilenburg should be fired, his compensation clawed back, and the Department of Justice should clean house and indict every relevant executive who empowered what looks like fraud at the core of the 737 Max fiasco. Congress should expand the FAA so it can once again do its job. With a new leadership team in place, Boeing could fix the 737 Max and begin planning great aircraft again.
>>
>> In other words, we should put safety conscience civilian engineers (AND PILOTS) back in charge of both building planes and regulating them. Otherwise, planes fall out of the sky.
>>
>> Thanks for reading, and if you enjoy this newsletter, please share it on social media, forward it to your friends, or just sign up here.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Matt Stoller


470EDDY
 
Posts: 1651 | Location: The Other Washington | Registered: 24 March 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
"Reverse Takeover". That pretty much discribes what happened at my last two airlines.
Porosonik.


Vetting voters= racist. Vetting gun buyers= not racist. Got it?
 
Posts: 403 | Registered: 03 September 2012Reply With Quote
One Of Us
posted Hide Post
YES, and my Corporate career company- WEYERHAEUSER too!! What a disaster!! We are also seeing it in the Luxury Cruising lines as well: Regent, Silver Seas and Seabourn....they all used to be independent, and now are part of the Beer Drinking-Mega ships lines...and the service and food is going in the bucket!!>>>focus on making money, clients be damned!!
OH, for the GOOD Ol' Days!!
Cheers,


470EDDY
 
Posts: 1651 | Location: The Other Washington | Registered: 24 March 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Todd Williams
posted Hide Post
Pretty good and accurate article Eddy. Shame what's happened to Boeing.
 
Posts: 7699 | Registered: 09 January 2011Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I normally don't belive anything this, or other MSM outlet has to say, but it meshes pretty well with with what I've been seeing so far. Oh, and they're still getting it wrong in regards to what the MCAS actually does. It doesn't move the horizontal stab. The horizontal stab running out of authority is the reason MCAS was added. Boeing"s public deception campaign worked so well that even they are beliving it!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...ing-737-max-faa.html

Porosonik.


Vetting voters= racist. Vetting gun buyers= not racist. Got it?
 
Posts: 403 | Registered: 03 September 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Some people should walk the plank over this.


TomP

Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right.

Carl Schurz (1829 - 1906)
 
Posts: 11720 | Location: Moreno Valley CA USA | Registered: 20 November 2000Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
These people should be sent back to the schools of business which created them with the message: "Stay out of areas which you're not qualified to manage".

Porosonik.


Vetting voters= racist. Vetting gun buyers= not racist. Got it?
 
Posts: 403 | Registered: 03 September 2012Reply With Quote
One Of Us
posted Hide Post
Porosinik- Well the halls of Ivory Towers around the country have been stacking the leadership roles with newly minted MBA's from the Ivy League Universities for decades....and this has spelled DISASTER in most places they have "squatted"!! Trust me, it is no fun taking guidance and direction to a "New Lieutenant" who has not earned his bars!! Been there Done That!!
Cheers,


470EDDY
 
Posts: 1651 | Location: The Other Washington | Registered: 24 March 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
It’s actually the stab trim system. Mcas runs the stab trim if certain criteria are met so the horizontal stabilizer is moving. I just talked with our government affairs union rep who is closely involved in the situation and has flown the max (says it’s a fantastic airplane which I believe)and there is a lot to this whole situation but some things are correct on here. Some maybe second hand or here-say. A lot is under wraps. Suffice to say single source failure logic was a bad idea driven by a big compromise on Boeing’s part to meet delivery schedule and eliminate a separate type rating. The plane is different enough (and was envisioned to be much more different) it should of had one but competing with Airbus led to corner cutting. Hence the bean counter pressure. I am not going to post everything I know on this forum but agreed don’t believe everything you read in the media


QUOTE]Originally posted by Porosonik:
I normally don't belive anything this, or other MSM outlet has to say, but it meshes pretty well with with what I've been seeing so far. Oh, and they're still getting it wrong in regards to what the MCAS actually does. It doesn't move the horizontal stab. The horizontal stab running out of authority is the reason MCAS was added. Boeing"s public deception campaign worked so well that even they are beliving it!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...ing-737-max-faa.html

Porosonik.[/QUOTE]
 
Posts: 2324 | Registered: 31 December 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunslinger55:
It’s actually the stab trim system. Mcas runs the stab trim if certain criteria are met so the horizontal stabilizer is moving. I just talked with our government affairs union rep who is closely involved in the situation and has flown the max (says it’s a fantastic airplane which I believe)and there is a lot to this whole situation but some things are correct on here. Some maybe second hand or here-say. A lot is under wraps. Suffice to say single source failure logic was a bad idea driven by a big compromise on Boeing’s part to meet delivery schedule and eliminate a separate type rating. The plane is different enough (and was envisioned to be much more different) it should of had one but competing with Airbus led to corner cutting. Hence the bean counter pressure. I am not going to post everything I know on this forum but agreed don’t believe everything you read in the media


QUOTE]Originally posted by Porosonik:
I normally don't belive anything this, or other MSM outlet has to say, but it meshes pretty well with with what I've been seeing so far. Oh, and they're still getting it wrong in regards to what the MCAS actually does. It doesn't move the horizontal stab. The horizontal stab running out of authority is the reason MCAS was added. Boeing"s public deception campaign worked so well that even they are beliving it!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...ing-737-max-faa.html

Porosonik.
[/QUOTE]



Actually, the MCAS has no connection mechanically, electrically, or any other way, with the horizontal stab. Why would Boeing add a system to control the stab if the stab was already doing what was required of it?

MCAS was added because, in certain attitudes the stab could not generate enough moment to trim the aircraft. This is mostly the result of using tail feathers which were originally designed and intended to be used on a much lighter, better balanced airplane. MCAS was the band aid Boeing used to deal with the embarrassing truth that they'd designed an aircraft that wasn't fully airworthy in all situations. And it bit them. Badly.

I pose a question: on the MAX, on the P5 overhead, captain's side (I can't remember the exact panel number), there is a switch labeled "JAMMED STABILIZER LANDING ASSIST". This switch is connected directly to the MCAS. If the MCAS controls the stabilizer, how can it rectify a jammed stabilizer?

By the way, my airline has now rolled the return of the MAX to late fall at the earliest. That must be some software fix they're working on.

Porosonik.


Vetting voters= racist. Vetting gun buyers= not racist. Got it?
 
Posts: 403 | Registered: 03 September 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Well, it's now mid-March in 2020... the MAX has been grounded for more than a year now. I wonder how that "software fix" is coming along?

Porosonik.


Vetting voters= racist. Vetting gun buyers= not racist. Got it?
 
Posts: 403 | Registered: 03 September 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
A Year After The Second MAX Crashed Boeing Is Faced With Ruin

On top of the damage that misguided shareholder value policy caused to Boeing will now come the effects of an unprecedented pandemic. Together they may well signal the end of a once great company.

On March 10 2019 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed shortly after taking off in Addis Adaba. All 157 people on board died. It was the second crash of a Boeing 737 MAX airplane six months after Lion Air Flight 610 had crashed and killed all 189 people on board.

Exactly a year ago Moon of Alabama published its first piece about the MAX. At that time all MAX planes were grounded except in the United States. We described Boeing's shoddy implementation of the plane's maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) and concluded:

Today Boeing's share price dropped some 7.5%. I doubt that it is enough to reflect the liability issues at hand. Every airline that now had to ground its planes will ask for compensation. More than 330 people died and their families deserve redress. Orders for 737 MAX will be canceled as passengers will avoid that type.
Boeing will fix the MCAS problem by using more sensors or by otherwise changing the procedures. But the bigger issue for the U.S. aircraft industry might be the damage done to the FAA's reputation. If the FAA is internationally seen as a lobbying agency for the U.S. airline industry it will no longer be trusted and the industry will suffer from it. It will have to run future certification processes through a jungle of foreign agencies.

Congress should take up the FAA issue and ask why it failed.

The MAX was developed and built as cheaply and is therefore not as safe as possible. Boeing cut corners and deceived its customers and regulators. Its management had only one thing in mind - the stock price of Boeing and its so called shareholder value.

All MAX planes, the 400 that existed at that time plus the 400 Boeing has since built are still grounded. The accident investigation reports for the Lion Air flight and the Ethiopian jet (pdf) make it clear that Boeing's penny wise but pound foolish MCAS implementation was the root cause of both accidents.

A reasonable fix for MCAS, which was first promise for April 2019, is still not working. A re-certification of the type is still months away. After pressure from the European regulator EASA additional fixes will have to be applied to wire bundles under the cockpit which in case of a short circuit could cause another crash of a plane.

There are still dozens of open court cases and criminal investigations against Boeing. It will have to pay more billions of dollars for compensations.

During the first two months of this year total orders for Boeing commercial planes were negative. There were 25 more cancellations, or conversions of multiple MAX orders to fewer 787 order, than total new orders. During the same time its competitor Airbus won net orders for 274 commercial jets.

Since last year Boeing's share price has dropped from $440 in February 2019 to today's opening price of $160 per share. The company has developed a serious cash flow problem. It is now drawing down all credit lines it has with its banks. It is cutting all noncritical spending, instituted a hiring freeze and limits overtime.

The commercial airline business is not the only part of Boeing which is in deep trouble. Its military and space programs have similar problems.

The root cause for all this is Boeing's shareholder value mentality:

This mad scramble for cash and the existential urge to “preserve cash in challenging periods” comes after this master of financial engineering – instead of aircraft engineering – blew, wasted, and incinerated $43.4 billion on buying back its own shares, from June 2013 until the financial consequences of the two 737 MAX crashes finally forced the company to end the practice. That $43.3 billion would come in really handy right now.
The sole purpose of share buybacks is to inflate the stock price because they make the company itself the biggest buyer of its own shares. But those $43 billion of share buybacks cost the company $43 billion in cash. Now those buybacks have stopped because Boeing needs every dime of cash to stay liquid and alive, and shareholders, who’d been so fond of those share buybacks, are now getting crushed by the damage those share buybacks have done to Boeing’s financial position.

Boeing's new CEO David Calhoun, who had been on Boeing's board for ten years before taking up his new position, still does not get it. In a January media call he demonstrated no change of mind:

Calhoun said that nothing was wrong at Boeing. It is just that foreign pilots are incompetent, that Boeing workers lack practice and that its customers have no idea what they are talking about. Safety, he says, is just a prerequisite for shareholder value, not an inherent value in itself. Dividends must continue to flow, even when that requires the company to take on more debt. Boeing should not develop new airplanes as its derivatives of old ones can beat the competition. Calhoun also wants to stay in his new positions as long as possible even though he lacks the competence to fill it.
In short - Calhoun said all the wrong things he possibly could have said.

In a recent interview with the New York Times Calhoun blamed his predecessor for Boeing's trouble:

In a wide-ranging interview this week, Mr. Calhoun criticized his predecessor in blunt terms and said he was focused on transforming the internal culture of a company mired in crisis after two crashes killed 346 people.
...
Before becoming the chief executive, he vigorously defended Mr. Muilenburg, saying in a CNBC appearance in November that Mr. Muilenburg “has done everything right” and should not resign. One month later, the board ousted Mr. Muilenburg and announced Mr. Calhoun as his replacement.
Calhoun was forced to apologize after his attack on his predecessor. He has still to apologize for again blaming foreign pilots for crashing Boeing's badly engineered planes:

When designing the Max, the company made a “fatal mistake” by assuming pilots would immediately counteract a failure of new software on the plane that played a role in the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents. But he implied that the pilots from Indonesia and Ethiopia, “where pilots don’t have anywhere near the experience that they have here in the U.S.,” were part of the problem, too.
Asked whether he believed American pilots would have been able to handle a malfunction of the software, Mr. Calhoun asked to speak off the record. The New York Times declined to do so.

“Forget it,” Mr. Calhoun then said. “You can guess the answer.”

The reduction of air travel due to the Coronavirus pandemic will cause many airlines to go bankrupt. Many more Boeing and Airbus orders will get canceled. Global air travel and orders for new airplanes will take several years to crawl back to the pre-pandemic level. Five workers at Boeing's widebody production line in Everett have come down with the Coronavirus disease and the production may have to be stopped.

The greedy mismanagement of previous years at Boeing brought the once leading company to the brink of ruin. The pandemic, and the global depression it will cause, now make it certain that Boeing will have to ask for a gigantic government bailout or go into bankruptcy.
 
Posts: 1007 | Registered: 21 December 2008Reply With Quote
One Of Us
posted Hide Post
What's the source of this article?
Seems pretty left wing,radical to me....pandemic-...global depression....??
Very Far Fetched and alarmist!!


470EDDY
 
Posts: 1651 | Location: The Other Washington | Registered: 24 March 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 470EDDY:
What's the source of this article?
Seems pretty left wing,radical to me....pandemic-...global depression....??
Very Far Fetched and alarmist!!


Bottom Line, Boeing fucked up big time, some people should go to jail for this.

Grizz


When the horse has been eliminated, human life may be extended an average of five or more years.
James R. Doolitle
 
Posts: 491 | Location: Central Alberta, Canada | Registered: 20 July 2019Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
With every incident/accident there is a chain of factors, no “one thing” results in a crash.

Not my original quote but it applies here:
“The closer the airline originates to the equator, the farther away you stay from that airline”
 
Posts: 296 | Location: Colorado, USA | Registered: 13 April 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
“The closer the airline originates to the equator, the farther away you stay from that airline”
Oh, so it's all the pilots fault? Just like the "experts" on this forum a year ago were prognosticating! JACKASS! Read this:

Retired Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger told a congressional subcommittee Wednesday that an automated flight control system on the 737 Max "was fatally flawed and should never have been approved."

Sullenberger, who safely landed a damaged US Airways jet on the Hudson River in New York in 2009 after a bird strike disabled the engines, says he understands how the pilots of two 737 Max planes that recently crashed would have been confused as they struggled to maintain control of the aircraft, as an automated system erroneously began forcing the planes into nosedives.

"I can tell you firsthand that the startle factor is real and it's huge. It absolutely interferes with one's ability to quickly analyze the crisis and take corrective action," he said.

This is Boeing's fault. They built a new airplane and tried to pass it off as a modification to an existing plane. The FAA is going to have some culpability as well!
What do American pilots say about the 737 Max?
Peter


Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong;
 
Posts: 10248 | Location: Jacksonville, Florida | Registered: 09 January 2004Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
“JACKASS” huh?
I’ll be happy to compare hours, years, type experience with you.
I stand by that somewhat snarky and un-PC quote. 3rd world pilots often (not always) do not measure up by any metric.

Happy to agree with this statement of yours tho:
“... They built a new airplane and tried to pass it off as a modification to an existing plane. The FAA is going to have some culpability as well!...”


So put up or shut up numbnuts, or go back to your pretend fighter pilot online games.....
 
Posts: 296 | Location: Colorado, USA | Registered: 13 April 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
go back to your pretend fighter pilot online games.....

Hmm, haven't played anything since the original Flight Simulator came out on my friend's Trash 80. But, if you know of any good fighter pilot games (free) please let me know your recommendations. Windows 10.
But, I want to fly against pilots from close to the equator. According to you they are not very good.
Peter.


Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong;
 
Posts: 10248 | Location: Jacksonville, Florida | Registered: 09 January 2004Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Watched a documentary last night on the Volkswagen TDI scandal. Another case of a hardware problem being fixed with software manipulation. The Arrogance of Big Business at work. Didn't end well.

Grizz


When the horse has been eliminated, human life may be extended an average of five or more years.
James R. Doolitle
 
Posts: 491 | Location: Central Alberta, Canada | Registered: 20 July 2019Reply With Quote
One Of Us
posted Hide Post
Here is a new announcement posted today by Boeing on MAX and ops after corona virus-



Interesting back story about Boeing’s logic in how, when and why they’ve decided to startup the three assembly lines at the Renton, WA facility

Boeing to Restart Production of 737 MAX Aircraft in May After Four Months of Halt


Boeing ceased production of the jet in January as it struggled to win regulatory approvals and accrued a backlog of 400 undelivered jets.

Boeing Co (BA.N) plans to restart 737 MAX production by May, ending a months-long halt triggered by a safety ban on its best-selling jet after fatal crashes, people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. Boeing's planning hinges on the scale of disruptions from the fast-spreading coronavirus, and U.S. regulators clearing the 737 MAX to return to service, a milestone Boeing still expects to reach in mid-2020.

One industry source said Boeing has asked some suppliers to be ready to ship 737 parts in April. Another person said production was planned to restart in May. A third person said coronavirus is throwing a wrench in Boeing's plans - they had initially hoped for April, but that fell to May.

"It'll be a very slow, methodical, systematic approach to warming the line-up, and getting crews back in place," Boeing Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith told Reuters on Tuesday when asked about the May restart goal.

"Priority number 1 is getting customers' fleets back up," Smith said, adding that a production ramp-up will be paired with clearing the MAX backlog. "We don't want to add to inventory."

Boeing ceased production of the jet in January as it struggled to win regulatory approvals and accrued a backlog of 400 undelivered jets.

The coronavirus pandemic has shattered global travel demand, upended lives for millions and wiped billions off Boeing's market value, compounding a year-old crisis over the grounding of the 737 MAX after crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia killed 346 people.

Boeing said on Monday that it would halt production in its Washington state facilities, beginning on Wednesday, to reduce coronavirus risks.

Boeing has reported dozens of cases across its Seattle-area facilities, many of which were at its Everett hub north of Seattle. One worker died from the coronavirus, according to a friend's Facebook tribute on Monday.

Boeing has told suppliers to halt shipments to its Seattle-area facilities, and has frozen hiring among other cash-saving measures.

Boeing is seeking $60 billion in U.S. government aid to prop up its finances and the embattled American aerospace supply chain.

Boeing has used the production lull to curb inefficiencies, improve quality and ease the plane's re-entry to the market.

https://www.news18.com/news/au...ax-aircraft-in-may-a fter-four-months-of-halt-2550151.html


470EDDY
 
Posts: 1651 | Location: The Other Washington | Registered: 24 March 2003Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Topics  Hop To Forums  Aviation    737 MAX- what's going on here?

Copyright December 1997-2020 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia