PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Boeing could cancel the 737 MAX 10 (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/647680-boeing-could-cancel-737-max-10-a.html)

LandIT 8th Jul 2022 11:28

Boeing could cancel the 737 MAX 10
 
There would be a lot of people who would say to Boeing and the regulators, why isn't this latest aircraft built to the latest standards? What is all this about "grandfathering rights"?

In light of Boeing admitting its a big expensive job to put the latest certification requirements into the "-10" then my view is then there must be something inherently wrong with using the old designs to try and market a new airliner using them. The "-10" will be heavier, larger, longer range and carry more passengers. Surely this deserves the best technology that can reasonably be provided?

I understand the desire to keep product compatibility in the MAX range for pilot flexibility, however its clear Boeing didn't have the foresight to design the MAX fully with that in mind. In fact as we all know it was apparently designed specifically with Southwest in mind for no or minimum extra pilot training over the "-700 and -800". Are Boeing willing to rule out there will ever be a "-11" or an "XLR" or more variants? No, I didn't think so. In that case the old 737 issues incorporated into the MAX-10 and subsequent would go forward for many decades if we let Boeing get away with continuing the grandfathering. What an abomination Mr Calhoun. Then please do not build the "-10", for the sake of all our lives, great grandfathers, grandfathers, fathers, sons and babies to come. Pilots included - I'm sure they would enjoy the very latest glass cockpit too.

If its too hard for Boeing to meet the current regulations with the "-10", then just lets indeed scrap it move on to the next generation aircraft as rapidly as possible please.

https://worldofaviation.com/2022/07/...d-be-scrapped/

WHBM 8th Jul 2022 11:42

Yes, this subject has just been rolling round among aviation geeks, but now Boeing seem to be starting to soften up the investment community, etc, for this to happen.

To the general public, who the politicians represent, they will indeed not understand how some new safety requirement, known to be coming for years, can't be complied with for the 737-10 without an exception, for a type which is not just coming to the end of production, or already built, but hasn't even been made yet, will be built for many years to come, and then operated for years beyond that.

If the (few) carriers who have placed orders/options for the type are not careful they will start to get questions themselves from the general media about why they have ordered an aircraft not compliant with safety regulations, instead of one of a number which is.

It would be useful if someone could give a succinct technical explanation of what the matter entails.

PEI_3721 8th Jul 2022 12:11

Reputation vs Economics
 
If significant reputation has already been lost then its contribution in the economic equation reduces.
The continuing lack of recovery, reflected by low share price, ( increasing certification risk ), then the timescale of ‘short term’ investment and the longer term new aircraft, is more balanced.
A short term hit on an already low reputation vs a viable longer term commercial industry.
The US cannot afford to loose Boeing commercial, thus short term support from the military pacifying investors in the event of bad news.
Also, a new commercial project enables opportunity for new technology to leapfrog the competition - think 20 yrs.

Uplinker 8th Jul 2022 13:12

I don't know the full background, but if all is as the OP reports, then I agree with the OP.

It seems that Boeing got bored with making aircraft some years ago, and concentrated on making money instead. They became blind to what they were doing and thought that a few extra bits and bobs bolted into a 707 fuselage would result in a product to compete with Airbus. (Does the 737 still have the girt bars that have to be manually placed into the brackets on the floor by the CC ?)

Not only that, but then trying to twist and bend the certification rules........ A very sad chapter in a once respected World beating company and products. Was it Boeing's will or did they bow to shareholders?

Come on Boeing; Don't keep flogging a dead horse; Get a blank sheet of paper and design the real next generation short-haul aircraft. Probably cheaper in the long run, and far more satisfactory.

Busbuoy 8th Jul 2022 14:01


Originally Posted by Uplinker (Post 11258294)
Was it Boeing's will or did they bow to shareholders?

Stop thinking "Boeing - Boeing Style" and start thinking "Boeing - McDonnell Douglas Style" and you might find the enlightenment you seek. They didn't bow to the shareholders, they led the shareholder charge!

Denti 8th Jul 2022 14:48


Originally Posted by WHBM (Post 11258247)
Yes, this subject has just been rolling round among aviation geeks, but now Boeing seem to be starting to soften up the investment community, etc, for this to happen.

Well, one could see it that way. I would rather see it as putting pressure on congress to get a special approval to certify the MAX 10 to the old rules (without an EICAS). Apparently Boeing has been putting pressure in that area already for some while and is now upping it by doing it more publicly. And of course it has the added side bonus of informing the stock market so nobody can be "surprised".

BFSGrad 8th Jul 2022 15:33


Originally Posted by Denti (Post 11258336)
Well, one could see it that way. I would rather see it as putting pressure on congress to get a special approval to certify the MAX 10 to the old rules (without an EICAS).

Agreed. That is the better explanation.

Regarding the question, why can’t Boeing meet current certification standards with the -10 MAX (and -7 MAX)? The answer is that Boeing can, but not at the price point for the -10 MAX as currently designed.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Less Hair 8th Jul 2022 15:39

What would a possible end of the MAX 10 mean for the MAX family and 737 program?

Jonty 8th Jul 2022 16:16

The 737 has nowhere to go now. It’s the end of the line for it.
Boeing need a “clean sheet” design, but I’m not sure they can deliver or afford to deliver one.

DaveReidUK 8th Jul 2022 16:33

I haven't been following this particularly closely, but I would guess that the part of the 2020 Aircraft Safety and Certification Reform Act that's giving Boeing sleepless nights is the bit that requires the FAA to


review and reassess assumptions related to Human Factors when certifying aircraft, particularly those situations involving multiple cockpit alerts and automation
If the Max 10 misses the end-of-2022 deadline, and the lawmakers refuse to extend it, then fleet commonality with the rest of the Max family goes out of the window.

Less Hair 8th Jul 2022 17:42

Wasn't the MAX 10 supposed to contribute most of the technical updates for the rest of the family?

PAXboy 8th Jul 2022 17:44

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....eb019fdd02.jpg

tdracer 8th Jul 2022 18:12


Originally Posted by Less Hair (Post 11258360)
What would a possible end of the MAX 10 mean for the MAX family and 737 program?

Not much. The MAX 8 and 9 are the mass market aircraft, which Boeing expects to sell in the thousands. The MAX 10 is expected to sell in the hundreds - it's intended to take market from the A321 NEO, but mainly for those who already have 737s.
It's pretty simple math really - it'll cost well north of a $Billion to implement an EICAS system into the 737, plus recurring costs. If Boeing sells 500 MAX 10s, then they need to make an extra $2 million plus per aircraft just to pay for EICAS. Given Boeing might make a total profit on a 737 MAX sale of between $1 million and $2 million per aircraft, it simply doesn't make economic sense to produce the MAX 10 with EICAS. Better to save the money and devote it to a proper 737 replacement somewhere down the line.

Given that the 737 NG is statistically just as safe as an A320 with ECAM (that over hundreds of millions of flight hours), and given that the MAX 8 and 9 are considered "safe enough" with the same basic flight deck as the NG, it's difficult to argue a case for spending an extra couple $billion to make it 'safer'.

Less Hair 8th Jul 2022 19:14

I had seen the MAX 8 and MAX 10 as the most promising. Especially to counter the A321neo on shorter distances.

WHBM 8th Jul 2022 20:49

As I understand it, the A320 had this kit when it first flew in 1987. Boeing had the chance, when they completely re-engineered the 737, in (I'm approximating) around 1997 for the 737NG, and again around 2015 for the 737Max. They didn't. A drop dead date was then set for 2023 for this to finally be there, and that is only for type certification, not for service or withdrawal date. They haven't meet any of that either. Talk about bending over backwards to help Boeing. But they just don't help themselves.

tdracer 8th Jul 2022 21:54


Originally Posted by WHBM (Post 11258528)
As I understand it, the A320 had this kit when it first flew in 1987. Boeing had the chance, when they completely re-engineered the 737, in (I'm approximating) around 1997 for the 737NG, and again around 2015 for the 737Max. They didn't. A drop dead date was then set for 2023 for this to finally be there, and that is only for type certification, not for service or withdrawal date. They haven't meet any of that either. Talk about bending over backwards to help Boeing. But they just don't help themselves.

When Boeing did their original EICAS (757/767, certified 1982), they had to get an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) since the regulations at the time didn't allow such a system. That was still true in 1989 when Boeing certified the 747-400 with EICAS. So no first hand knowledge, but I assume Airbus had to also get an AMOC to certify the A320.
If the regulations technically did not allow an EICAS type solution, then the regulators obviously didn't feel there was a big safety advantage to going to the EICAS style glass flight deck. I don't recall when the regulations were changed to allow an EICAS/ECAM type system without an AMOC, but it's not exactly bending over backwards to allow Boeing to certify a new aircraft type that follows the regulations as they are currently written in instead of forcing them to spend big bucks to implement a system that doesn't technically meet the regulations.

GlobalNav 8th Jul 2022 21:58


Originally Posted by Denti (Post 11258336)
Well, one could see it that way. I would rather see it as putting pressure on congress to get a special approval to certify the MAX 10 to the old rules (without an EICAS). Apparently Boeing has been putting pressure in that area already for some while and is now upping it by doing it more publicly. And of course it has the added side bonus of informing the stock market so nobody can be "surprised".

Boeing tried the same argument, successfully if you can call it that, with the original MAX certification. Whenever regulators, mostly FAA, debated the need to comply with current amendments Boeing repeatedly countered with the cost and relatively safety enhancement. FAA relented then, at the insistence of the highest executive level, and is having its arm twisted with the same argument. FAA should have held its ground then, as hindsight so tragically revealed, and must, finally, hold its ground now.

To hell with the MAX 10, if Boeing does not accept an improved certification basis. It’s their choice to establish this ultimatum, let them live by it. 14 CFR 21.101, The Changed Product Rule, needs substantial revision, simplification and a harder-nosed safety philosophy. The cost of human life proves it.

PEI_3721 8th Jul 2022 22:07

The world needs a level playing field
 
“… putting pressure on congress to get a special approval to certify the MAX 10 to the old rules (without an EICAS)”

But that might not help with other authorities, who have already indicated their independence by re-examining the Max return to service.

WillowRun 6-3 9th Jul 2022 03:02

At the time Congress passed the 2020 Aircraft Safety and Certification Reform Act it was evident the legislation was only a partial answer to the several different issues which had accumulated, were plaguing FAA in fulfillment of its basic statutory roles and responsibilities, and which the 737 MAX debacles had revealed. The legislation was a good beginning but I recall little if any informed commentary suggesting that the set of problems had been addressed fully.

What exactly the second component of a legislative response to these issues should contain . . . this SLF/atty isn't claiming capability to define that, at this time. But it does seem sensible to say first, that extending the applicable timelines for the MAX-10 would be a big step in the wrong direction (following on the explanations offered in several posts upthread). And second, I'm trying to keep an open mind on whether significant aviation experience actually is, or should be, a prerequisite for service as FAA Administrator. The nominee, by all accounts, has been an excellent public or administrative-type servant. Still, with what needs to change at FAA, one must wonder how much straight-up experience with and knowledge of various subject matter areas of aviation will be needed for high-performing leadership at FAA..

A possible indicator: consider the many and varied published materials on the 737 MAX accidents, found on all types of media and in many formats. Compare the written outputs of aviation professionals with outputs of people professional in other fields (let alone the many wannabes, amateurs, publicity seekers, and so on).


It's not that I'm advocating for a Senate confirmation battle. Yet a cynical observer would note, with an ironic or wry tone, the coincidental timing of the very recent announcement of about a billion dollars (U.S.) in federal airport project grant funds.

WideScreen 9th Jul 2022 08:01


Originally Posted by tdracer (Post 11258570)
When Boeing did their original EICAS (757/767, certified 1982), they had to get an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) since the regulations at the time didn't allow such a system. That was still true in 1989 when Boeing certified the 747-400 with EICAS. So no first hand knowledge, but I assume Airbus had to also get an AMOC to certify the A320.
If the regulations technically did not allow an EICAS type solution, then the regulators obviously didn't feel there was a big safety advantage to going to the EICAS style glass flight deck. I don't recall when the regulations were changed to allow an EICAS/ECAM type system without an AMOC, but it's not exactly bending over backwards to allow Boeing to certify a new aircraft type that follows the regulations as they are currently written in instead of forcing them to spend big bucks to implement a system that doesn't technically meet the regulations.

I think, the difference is, in 1982/1989, the "new" EICAS was seen as "the future", whereas Boeing now tries to keep a dino on oxygen alive with the attempts to certify the MAX 10 without EICAS. The only ones wanting that, are the stock-holders (Boeing as well as some US airlines).

Actually, I don't think, it's a matter of "certification along the rules as they are currently written", since that is no longer applicable, once it has becomes 2023 and the MAX 10 certification isn't finished. There was a timely announcement of these changes. And Boeing is just late, due to delays, which are 100% on the Boeing plate, having to spend their engineering time on the MAX revive and the ongoing 787 disaster, not to say, the ostrich approach to deny Boeing should be an engineering company, vs. just stocks.

Not to say, there are very legit safety reasons to just drop the currently existing 737 (body), since it does give little break-up protection, on more than a "hard-landing". A B737 Hudson bay landing could have easily ended up as a Transair 810, sinking within minutes, instead of keeping afloat -permanently- like the A320 did, probably costing many lifes. It is even pretty likely, the Turkish at AMS would have happened at all with an A320, not to say, the overhead cockpit goodies landing on the pilots and killing them all, was/is a typical B737 item. Historic certification does have its end, somewhere.


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:04.


Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.