MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jsglow on March 12, 2019, 10:48:39 AM
-
The United Kingdom just grounded 'em. Senators from both sides of the aisle calling for the same. And without mentioning them specifically by name, I'd say the FAA might want to pay attention to the President's tweet.
MUpilot. Talk to us brother.
-
Germany, France, Ireland, and Turkey also grounded them this morning.
Side note: the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of just 30 stocks, Boeing with a $377 price (down from $425 yesterday) has the highest weighting in the index.
Each dollar move in a constituent stock moves the DJIA about 7 points. Boeing is down $23 as a write (now about 161 points) and was down about an equal amount yesterday.
So while the S&P 500 is up big the last two days, the DJIA is about unchanged, all because of Boeing.
-
Germany, France, Ireland, and Turkey also grounded them this morning.
Side note: the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of just 30 stocks, Boeing with a $377 price (down from $425 yesterday) has the highest weighting in the index.
Each dollar move in a constituent stock moves the DJIA about 7 points. Boeing is down $23 as a write (now about 161 points) and was down about an equal amount yesterday.
So while the S&P 500 is up big the last two days, the DJIA is about unchanged, all because of Boeing.
Quick response to your side note - this is a great example of just how bad our temperature gauges of "the economy" are. And then we all get together and politically yell at each other with the assumption that if those meaningless measurements go down, we have to do something. A measurement of the economy that bites it because the world is saving people from dying on a potentially faulty Boeing aircraft is bad measurement of the economy.
-
The United Kingdom just grounded 'em. Senators from both sides of the aisle calling for the same. And without mentioning them specifically by name, I'd say the FAA might want to pay attention to the President's tweet.
MUpilot. Talk to us brother.
From a pilot friend of mine who is as far left as you can imagine....said today. “First time ever I agree with one his tweets”
How in the hell can Boeing build the MCAS (whatever it is called) system and NOT tell airlines. That cannot be true, can it?
-
Quick response to your side note - this is a great example of just how bad our temperature gauges of "the economy" are. And then we all get together and politically yell at each other with the assumption that if those meaningless measurements go down, we have to do something. A measurement of the economy that bites it because the world is saving people from dying on a potentially faulty Boeing aircraft is bad measurement of the economy.
I'm truly amazed anyone pays attention to the Dow at all. Even in terms of the broad picture of the markets, you'd be better off watching the S&P 500, the NASDAQ or even the Russell 2000.
-
How about being on a 737 Max headed to the UK, when the UK decided to prohibit them from its airspace? >:(
From CNN: https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/boeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-airlines-crash/index.html
While waiting for her flight from Istanbul to Birmingham, United Kingdom, Sara Tor heard the airport intercom announce her plane was changing — to a Boeing 737 MAX 8.
"I hate flying as it is," she told CNN. "When I saw it was one of the new ones I was absolutely terrified."
Nevertheless, she boarded Turkish Airways flight 1969 for the four-hour flight.
About two hours into the flight, she says she noticed something odd.
"Well they didn't tell us straight away but I could feel something was different," she says. "And the map on the screens was showing we'd turned back."
The pilot then announced they would be turning back to Istanbul because UK airspace was closed, citing weather conditions. (Around that time, the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK closed the airspace to all Boeing 737 MAX model planes.)
The flight turned around and landed about two hours later at the same airport from where they left.
Tor says Turkish Airways told the passengers they will be put on a Wednesday morning flight instead.
Sounds like a fun flight....
-
Quick response to your side note - this is a great example of just how bad our temperature gauges of "the economy" are. And then we all get together and politically yell at each other with the assumption that if those meaningless measurements go down, we have to do something. A measurement of the economy that bites it because the world is saving people from dying on a potentially faulty Boeing aircraft is bad measurement of the economy.
Might also be a buying opportunity if it turns out that these two crashes were due to the airlines operating them. Claims in this crash that smoke was coming out of rear after take off, which should have nothing to do the anti-Stall system they put in...I would think.
Generally speaking i’m Not sure the stock market is supposed to be an economic gauge of health anyway. Much better metrics for that.
-
Might also be a buying opportunity if it turns out that these two crashes were due to the airlines operating them.
Even if the wrongdoing was totally on BA, it still might be a buying opportunity. The market typically overreacts to a sudden crisis, like the privacy issues at FB.
-
I was on a 737 Max 9 to/from LAX to Maui in the last week.
-
Even if the wrongdoing was totally on BA, it still might be a buying opportunity. The market typically overreacts to a sudden crisis, like the privacy issues at FB.
Maybe, but I wouldn't recommend it. Boeing is setting up for a rough slog. The company will be fine but strictly dealing with the stock itself... Could be a death by a thousand papercuts situation until the investigations are complete. Lion Air is already switching to Airbus, and tons of airlines are currently contracted to receive a 737 MAX. FAA investigations take time. We will learn about the black box soon enough but the likelihood that it completely clears Boeing is probably a fantasy. That will open Boeing up to uncertainty, unable to put it behind them quickly, and then perhaps a small story here and there about further airline defections. Each of which would cause the stock price to fluctuate.
Investing in Boeing prior to the FAA report is a roll of the dice. If you want to live the next year on the edge and dedicate yourself to following every last Boeing update/rumor/etc, then go for it, maybe you could get lucky.
-
I spent 6 years working in aerospace and only left recently. In aerospace, they overtest every single part and system to an impossible degree and redesign stuff until it passes these tests. Wait until the investigation is complete to see what happened first. Could be a coincidence.
-
Even if the wrongdoing was totally on BA, it still might be a buying opportunity. The market typically overreacts to a sudden crisis, like the privacy issues at FB.
Also I meant to add, the Facebook scenario isn't really comparable. Regardless of the crisis that happened, or any future ones, we still put 100% faith in Facebook to figure it out themselves. Our approach to them is entirely hands off... There is no FAA that monitors Facebook, Google etc. The best enforcement we have is the US Congress, most of which struggles to get their printer to work or needs their grandchildren to help them install an app on their phone. All you really had with Facebook is the public outrage... Facebook has no competition, either. There was no teeth.
There is a lot of teeth with this Boeing issue, strictly when it comes to investing. Boeing has direct competition. If this turns out to be a software/automation issue (seems probable), then that will be a further wedge between them and Airbus because Airbus already had a better reputation with software/automation. Airlines will switch to buying Airbus. Where else were people going to go to do Facebook type stuff? Where were advertisers going to go to target people better? Little actually changed for Facebook even with the public outrage, a lot could change for Boeing.
-
I was on a 737 Max 9 to/from LAX to Maui in the last week.
BWI->BOS on Southwest yesterday, reading about the crash in the Times on my phone, check that little backseat pocket thing about the aircraft... sure effin’ enough...
-
If this does turn out to be a software issue worthy of correction, I wonder how hard that will be?
I'm not an engineer but I heard something today that said that the necessary placement of these new super efficient engines has tweaked the 'balance' on the plane under certain circumstances and that the computer helps to deal with that in certain attitudes.
I don't want to start any false rumors and really don't know what I'm talking about but I will tell you that from my seat building a plane with 'perfect' flight characteristics is 100x better than building a plane with crappy flight characteristics that gets another mile per gallon. And engineers do get sh*t wrong. Well, not MU engineers! :o
Again, I'm not all that interested in the stock market impact or even Boeing's competitive position relative to Airbus. I really hope you pilots and engineers can read some technical stuff and come here reporting in English for mortals like me. Obviously, we're VERY early in the investigation. But 2 in the dirt in 5 months ain't nothing. Maybe unrelated, but not nothing.
-
If this does turn out to be a software issue worthy of correction, I wonder how hard that will be?
I'm not an engineer but I heard something today that said that the necessary placement of these new super efficient engines has tweaked the 'balance' on the plane under certain circumstances and that the computer helps to deal with that in certain attitudes.
I don't want to start any false rumors and really don't know what I'm talking about but I will tell you that from my seat building a plane with 'perfect' flight characteristics is 100x better than building a plane with crappy flight characteristics that gets another mile per gallon. And engineers do get sh*t wrong. Well, not MU engineers! :o
Again, I'm not all that interested in the stock market impact or even Boeing's competitive position relative to Airbus. I really hope you pilots and engineers can read some technical stuff and come here reporting in English for mortals like me. Obviously, we're VERY early in the investigation. But 2 in the dirt in 5 months ain't nothing. Maybe unrelated, but not nothing.
From what I've read, the antistall system was put in to deal with this weight distribution issue because if it wasn't there, the operation of the plane would be different enough to require significant additional training for pilots that were previously proficient in flying the 737. I would assume that any FAA directive to remove this system would therefore require that additional training related to the differences in flight characteristics between the 737 and the 737 MAX. But that is pure speculation, I don't actually know.
There are a ton of rumors flying around about the system "rebooting" after the pilot turning it off (as they are meant to in the scenario of runaway trim), I've read all sorts of theories. I only mention this because it illustrates that the fix is totally related to what the actual issue was/is... Since we don't know the issue yet (still entirely possible that it is training, maintenance, or user error, too), it's tough to say what the impact will be.
-
From what I've read, the antistall system was put in to deal with this weight distribution issue because if it wasn't there, the operation of the plane would be different enough to require significant additional training for pilots that were previously proficient in flying the 737. I would assume that any FAA directive to remove this system would therefore require that additional training related to the differences in flight characteristics between the 737 and the 737 MAX. But that is pure speculation, I don't actually know.
There are a ton of rumors flying around about the system "rebooting" after the pilot turning it off (as they are meant to in the scenario of runaway trim), I've read all sorts of theories. I only mention this because it illustrates that the fix is totally related to what the actual issue was/is... Since we don't know the issue yet (still entirely possible that it is training, maintenance, or user error, too), it's tough to say what the impact will be.
1) I like training.
2) I don't let mortals drive my vintage stick shift convertible either.
3) I thought we covered this 'computer taking over everything' stuff in 2001, A Space Odyssey when I was 8 years old.
All kidding aside, I can actually picture POTUS saying exactly that...... and being right.
-
1) I like training.
2) I don't let mortals drive my vintage stick shift convertible either.
Ahaha.
Yeah, I was also thinking about the training impact, if that is the reasoning for why this system was created (to make it more similar to normal 737 flying). I am not a pilot, but I'm wondering about Boeing's bulletin that says they should switch this system off? If they are saying to switch it off in the runaway trim scenario then do the pilots need to be trained in the actual characteristics of the 737 MAX as if it is an entirely new plane?
They are saying that without the antistall system, the nose of the plane has a tendency to tilt up. Would this add to the disorientation to the pilot in the situation of a runaway trim (by turning the antistall system off) - oh crap, now I have to deal with even weirder flight characteristics while I'm trying to save the plane from disaster? I believe I saw that the Lion Air pilot was exerting an extreme amount of pressure on the control column. Again, not a pilot so I could be totally wrong, but seems like just another wrench to throw in by basically making them fly an entirely different plane in a true emergency.
-
I know, hey? I want his job EASY. It is never good up front when a pilot has a wtf moment. Like never.
Where the heck is Eng? I let him hang around with me to answer this stuff!
-
Years ago, a PanAm 747 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
The media went nuts, initially suggesting it was PanAm's maintenance that caused the accident. Thousands and thousands of bookings disintegrated and PanAm went into bankruptcy. There were lots of reasons why PanAm failed, but one contributing factor was the media-induced panic about maintenance procedures after Lockerbie.
Today, we know the PanAm 747 was brought down not by bad maintenance but by a bomb in what became a case of premeditated murder by Libyan-sponsored terrorists. That eventually was covered but the damage had been done.
In the early days of the 727, the unique "T" tail arrangement created problems that led to stalls and crashes, including a big one outside Cincinnati. In time, pilots learned how to fly the 727. There wasn't anything wrong with it; rather the ops and some procedures needed change. There was no mass hysteria and now grounding. Pilots became more careful.
In case of the 737 Max, the groundings and hysteria are premature. It's significant that both planes crashed in third-world countries where aviation safety and oversight are nowhere near what it is in the United States. United, American and Southwest all operate the same plane and, as best I know, have had no problems. To some degree, I wonder whether some of this is political, especially in the European Union where the major member countries are manufacturing the Airbus A320 family, which is a direct competitor of the 737 Max.
-
FWIW, Ethiopian Airlines has an incredibly high safety and maintenance record, third world country or not. Generally regarded as the safest and best airline to fly on the African continent.
-
Years ago, a PanAm 747 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
The media went nuts, initially suggesting it was PanAm's maintenance that caused the accident. Thousands and thousands of bookings disintegrated and PanAm went into bankruptcy. There were lots of reasons why PanAm failed, but one contributing factor was the media-induced panic about maintenance procedures after Lockerbie.
Today, we know the PanAm 747 was brought down not by bad maintenance but by a bomb in what became a case of premeditated murder by Libyan-sponsored terrorists. That eventually was covered but the damage had been done.
In the early days of the 727, the unique "T" tail arrangement created problems that led to stalls and crashes, including a big one outside Cincinnati. In time, pilots learned how to fly the 727. There wasn't anything wrong with it; rather the ops and some procedures needed change. There was no mass hysteria and now grounding. Pilots became more careful.
In case of the 737 Max, the groundings and hysteria are premature. It's significant that both planes crashed in third-world countries where aviation safety and oversight are nowhere near what it is in the United States. United, American and Southwest all operate the same plane and, as best I know, have had no problems. To some degree, I wonder whether some of this is political, especially in the European Union where the major member countries are manufacturing the Airbus A320 family, which is a direct competitor of the 737 Max.
A thought that has crossed my mind.
-
FWIW, Ethiopian Airlines has an incredibly high safety and maintenance record, third world country or not. Generally regarded as the safest and best airline to fly on the African continent.
Exactly. The Lion Air flight was one thing as low cost Asian characters have always been points of concern (hence why airports like HKG have secondary security checkpoints before boarding cause they don't trust connecting flights).
But Ethiopian is a fantastic airline, Star Alliance member, new planes, thought of as a jewel of the continent airline wise.
-
Years ago, a PanAm 747 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
The media went nuts, initially suggesting it was PanAm's maintenance that caused the accident. Thousands and thousands of bookings disintegrated and PanAm went into bankruptcy. There were lots of reasons why PanAm failed, but one contributing factor was the media-induced panic about maintenance procedures after Lockerbie.
Today, we know the PanAm 747 was brought down not by bad maintenance but by a bomb in what became a case of premeditated murder by Libyan-sponsored terrorists. That eventually was covered but the damage had been done.
In the early days of the 727, the unique "T" tail arrangement created problems that led to stalls and crashes, including a big one outside Cincinnati. In time, pilots learned how to fly the 727. There wasn't anything wrong with it; rather the ops and some procedures needed change. There was no mass hysteria and now grounding. Pilots became more careful.
In case of the 737 Max, the groundings and hysteria are premature. It's significant that both planes crashed in third-world countries where aviation safety and oversight are nowhere near what it is in the United States. United, American and Southwest all operate the same plane and, as best I know, have had no problems. To some degree, I wonder whether some of this is political, especially in the European Union where the major member countries are manufacturing the Airbus A320 family, which is a direct competitor of the 737 Max.
Great post btw, nothing that I disagree with.
However, are we sure that the bolded is actually the case? From a spectator's perspective it would seem most likely that the actual reason these flights ended in disaster was that the pilot did not have enough altitude to pull the plane's trajectory up out of a nosedive. At a higher altitude there would have (possibly) been enough vertical distance to recover (by gaining enough speed/averting an aerodynamic stall) and land the plane safely. If you take this perspective, which is entirely theoretical on my part by the way because it assumes there wasn't a mechanical issue, then it is entirely possible (if not likely) that several other airlines have experienced sub-disaster issues that haven't yet entered the public discussion.
If my memory serves, one flight had this occur around 6 minutes in, and the other was like 13 minutes (somewhere around there). Who is to say that if it happened 20 minutes in, or 2 hours in, that it would have also led to disaster? The issue may have been that the pilots did not have enough time to get through all of their checklists and make the adjustments... If they had more height, maybe we aren't even talking about 737 MAX's today.
-
In the last 30 minutes ...
*FAA FINDS NO BASIS TO GROUND BOEING 737 MAX AIRCRAFT THUS FAR
So every country that allows the 737 MAX to fly has grounded it EXCEPT the US and Canada.
-
Boeing changing the software....
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-make-key-change-in-max-cockpit-software-11552413489
-
Generally regarded as the safest and best airline to fly on the African continent.
That's like being the most profitable train operated by Amtrak.
I'm sure they're committed to safety and professionalism. But the level of oversight in any African country is NOTHING like that faced by a U.S. carrier.
-
I was on a 737 Max 9 to/from LAX to Maui in the last week.
Max 9 is a different plane. AFAIK, no issues known with the 9.
-
There is a lot to unpack here, one of which is the absolute sensationalism of the media these days. There very well may be something to the Max 8 that contributed(very key word) to the crash but there is no way that the Max 8 is at "fault" for the crash. The media is treating this like it's some sort of rogue aircraft.
In any commercial aviation accident it is almost always what's called a cascade of catastrophe where there isn't one thing that results in the accident it's a series of events that each step must happen when/how it happened to result in the accident. Classic example is the Air France 447 that crashed in the Atlantic. The pitot tube froze up which was problematic but the air crews contact management exacerbated the situation to the point of a mid-air stall and resulting crash.
The Max 8 very well may have a flaw in its anti-stall capabilities but it is very unlikely to be the sole cause of the crashes or is in any other way directly responsible, but we'll see.
Glow, you are referring to the Center of Gravity(CG) of the aircraft. My understanding is the Max 8 has a rearward CG at take-off so the aircraft has a tendency to go noise up and in modern cockpits instead of using things like manual trib tabs the computers trim the aircraft. As the Max 8 flies the CG moves forward depending on the fuel tanks they're burning up first so the noise up condition goes away and the computer adjusts.
We'll know in about a month here what happened with the Lion Air flight and that'll tell the tale. Unless you are Europe (Airbus) and/or the media.
-
That's like being the most profitable train operated by Amtrak.
I'm sure they're committed to safety and professionalism. But the level of oversight in any African country is NOTHING like that faced by a U.S. carrier.
I respectfully disagree here. I have nothing to gain by sticking up for Ethiopian Airlines, but they are one of the largest Star Alliance partners, the FAA in the US gives Ethiopian Air a Category 1 rating for safety (highest possible), likewise the EU’s Aviation Safety Agency gives them the same. The airline regularly updates their fleet at a higher percentage than most US airlines. Their fleet includes new 787’s and 737’s, so they’re investing in capital. AirlineRating.com is an independent highly regarded site, and gives Ethiopian Air 6 out of 7 stars.
I know it’s easy to hear Ethiopian Air and think it’s a patchwork of used planes piecemealed together with spare parts, but this is a very well respected company that is well run, flying new planes.
-
Exactly. The Lion Air flight was one thing as low cost Asian characters have always been points of concern (hence why airports like HKG have secondary security checkpoints before boarding cause they don't trust connecting flights).
But Ethiopian is a fantastic airline, Star Alliance member, new planes, thought of as a jewel of the continent airline wise.
Asians are nasty
-
Asians are nasty
I thought they were crazy and rich......
-
I thought they were crazy and rich......
I don’t know. There are a couple I work with on work visa from Taiwan and S Korea that are so rude. They have have terrible hygiene. I’m venting after a long week.
-
Asians are nasty
Just don't let anyone call you a bigot cuz you are characterizing an entire race based on two people.
-
I have over 8,000 hours in command of tactical aircraft. I would get on a Boeing aircraft without a second's hesitation.
-
Airbus because Airbus already had a better reputation with software/automation
Where did you get this from? Because it is wholly incorrect.
-
FWIW, Ethiopian Airlines has an incredibly high safety and maintenance record, third world country or not. Generally regarded as the safest and best airline to fly on the African continent.
In virtually every case, maintenance programs in the developing world are outsourced.
Swiss Air, Lufthansa, JAL, etc... actually run the PMS programs for other airlines. I guarantee you that there is a German or Japanese speaker running the Ethiopian airlines maintenance program.
-
Asians are nasty
What the f#ck is your problem?
-
I don’t know. There are a couple I work with on work visa from Taiwan and S Korea that are so rude. They have have terrible hygiene. I’m venting after a long week.
My town is mostly Asian...lovely people for the most part. Hard working, polite, smart, super mellow on the outside but serious on the inside. But that is merely my experi nice.
The crazy rich was a spoof on the movie.....bad attempt on my part.
-
:'(
My town is mostly Asian...lovely people for the most part. Hard working, polite, smart, super mellow on the outside but serious on the inside. But that is merely my experi nice.
The crazy rich was a spoof on the movie.....bad attempt on my part.
I try to ignore you if at all possible, but gotta say that your “crazy rich” comment was in no way offensive. I would guess everyone here knew that it was a play off the movie.
-
I have over 8,000 hours in command of tactical aircraft. I would get on a Boeing aircraft without a second's hesitation.
346 victims apparently felt the same way.
-
What the f#ck is your problem?
No problem at all, it can't be offensive if her and her friends don't find it offensive...right?
-
I don’t know. There are a couple I work with on work visa from Taiwan and S Korea that are so rude. They have have terrible hygiene. I’m venting after a long week.
Whoa, deltagurl. You're an educated, respected young physician. Comments like that are beneath you.
-
There is a lot to unpack here, one of which is the absolute sensationalism of the media these days. There very well may be something to the Max 8 that contributed(very key word) to the crash but there is no way that the Max 8 is at "fault" for the crash. The media is treating this like it's some sort of rogue aircraft.
In any commercial aviation accident it is almost always what's called a cascade of catastrophe where there isn't one thing that results in the accident it's a series of events that each step must happen when/how it happened to result in the accident. Classic example is the Air France 447 that crashed in the Atlantic. The pitot tube froze up which was problematic but the air crews contact management exacerbated the situation to the point of a mid-air stall and resulting crash.
The Max 8 very well may have a flaw in its anti-stall capabilities but it is very unlikely to be the sole cause of the crashes or is in any other way directly responsible, but we'll see.
Glow, you are referring to the Center of Gravity(CG) of the aircraft. My understanding is the Max 8 has a rearward CG at take-off so the aircraft has a tendency to go noise up and in modern cockpits instead of using things like manual trib tabs the computers trim the aircraft. As the Max 8 flies the CG moves forward depending on the fuel tanks they're burning up first so the noise up condition goes away and the computer adjusts.
We'll know in about a month here what happened with the Lion Air flight and that'll tell the tale. Unless you are Europe (Airbus) and/or the media.
I told you I keep this guy around for a reason. Thanks Phil.
-
I don’t know. There are a couple I work with on work visa from Taiwan and S Korea that are so rude. They have have terrible hygiene. I’m venting after a long week.
You seem like a nice co-worker.
-
I respectfully disagree here. I have nothing to gain by sticking up for Ethiopian Airlines, but they are one of the largest Star Alliance partners, the FAA in the US gives Ethiopian Air a Category 1 rating for safety (highest possible), likewise the EU’s Aviation Safety Agency gives them the same. The airline regularly updates their fleet at a higher percentage than most US airlines. Their fleet includes new 787’s and 737’s, so they’re investing in capital. AirlineRating.com is an independent highly regarded site, and gives Ethiopian Air 6 out of 7 stars.
I know it’s easy to hear Ethiopian Air and think it’s a patchwork of used planes piecemealed together with spare parts, but this is a very well respected company that is well run, flying new planes.
Brother Dish, I understand what you are saying. This is not a post-Soviet airline operating Tupolevs and Illusyhns left over from the 1970s. I'm aware they're a big Boeing customer and they're fleet is new. One of their Dreamliners was one of the Dreamliners with Lithium battery problems.
What I do feel and continue to feel is that the regulatory oversight of this airline may be OK by African standards. I doubt seriously the Ethiopian equivalent of the FAA is anywhere near as comprehensive and demanding as the FAA. I'm sure they run a safe and sound airline but there are degrees of safety and soundness.
Regardless, I do hope this is solved quickly. For the people who fly and the people who build airliners.
-
Brother Dish, I understand what you are saying. This is not a post-Soviet airline operating Tupolevs and Illusyhns left over from the 1970s. I'm aware they're a big Boeing customer and they're fleet is new. One of their Dreamliners was one of the Dreamliners with Lithium battery problems.
What I do feel and continue to feel is that the regulatory oversight of this airline may be OK by African standards. I doubt seriously the Ethiopian equivalent of the FAA is anywhere near as comprehensive and demanding as the FAA. I'm sure they run a safe and sound airline but there are degrees of safety and soundness.
Regardless, I do hope this is solved quickly. For the people who fly and the people who build airliners.
I think what you are missing is that Ethiopian Airlines flies in European airspace so has to meet oversite of the EASA(EU's FAA equivalent), they aren't just having to comply with Ethiopian and/or African safety standards. For a flagged carrier to operate in a countries airspace they have to meet regulations provided by that country. That airline flies all over Europe so it complies to all of the same safety standards that BA or Luftansia do.
-
This story is definitely not over and I pray that there will be no incidents as the incompetent leaders in this country oversee things.
Number 1, we have no FAA administrator to oversee this affair. The prez does not consider it an important enough position to even nominate someone for the job. The Transportation Secretary who could shut down all flights of this plane is utterly impotent and useless. When there was a situation with Boeing 787's Lithium batteries catching fire back in 2013, they were grounded immediately by the then Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
Number 2, the ACTING FAA administrator said today that their review of “aggregate safety performance from operators and pilots of the Boeing 737 MAX . . . shows no systemic performance issues and provides no basis to order grounding the aircraft.” In truth, pilots in this country have reported this flaw in the plane over and over (at least 8 reports) within the last several months.
Number 3, Boeing has been working on this fix for months (i know, it seems silly they would be working on a fix for a non-problem) and expect to implement it within the next two months. It would have been done before the end of this month, but work was shut down completely for 5 weeks in January when somebody decided to shut down the gov't for a vanity project.
Number 4, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg reassured the president today that the Boeing 737 MAX is safe (again, makes one wonder why they are preparing a fix and denying that pilots have been complaining).
A cynic might conclude that someone who is a frequent guest at Mar-A-Lago may have other motives ($$$$).
As I said, I pray that no one else dies. It's probably not unusual for there to be glitches when a new jet hits the market. And, maybe Boeing didn't know about them when the planes were first released, but in the past there were people in charge who were competent and who acted when there was a problem. We don't have people like that in place now.
A case could be made for grounding the Max 8, but it would be a very stretched case and very hysterical. The 787 issue was very different on two counts: there were only a handful of those airframes in the commercial fleet at the time and a fire on an aircraft is a demonstrable flight hazard.....there are hundreds of Max 8s in the civilian fleets and if we're talking about a single automated system that pilots can override it's not an immediate flight hazard. As an example, the Airbus 330 had a known issue of pitot tube freezings that they were working to replace the components, however no one called for the grounding of the 330 before or after the Air France 447 crash because while the pitot tube failure initiated the cascade that resulted in the crash it should have easily been overcome by proper crew management, training, and situational awareness. I suspect if this anti-stall system is found to have contributed it'll be a similar cascade.......
My guess (warning that this is both highly speculative and technical in nature with limited direct knowledge) is that since the current Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS) for the anti-stall (fly by wire if you will) depends on a single sensor if that sensor is bad or if it gives conflicting data with other sensors (altimeter, air speed indicator, etc) the EFCS deconflicts by reverting to a different state of operation. What most people don't realize is that in commercial aviation, the fly by wire design the normal flight mode does not allow the aircraft to put itself(auto-pilot) or the pilot(manual control) into a flight configuration that is dangerous or inappropriate. However knowing that situations might occur that would require an aircraft to be in an extraordinary situation they have a secondary flight mode(Boeing) or Alternative Law(Airbus). When the aircraft goes into secondary mode it is more "traditional" flying where what ever input you give the aircraft will happen as opposed to primary control where you give it an input and it'll do it until the max point allowed by the flight envelope protection. What I suspect happened is that the anti-stall system caused a conflict that the aircraft went into secondary mode and the pilots did not realize that they were "overcontrolling" the aircraft which resulted in them chasing stability and given it occured at low altitudes just after they cleaned up the aircraft from take-off they didn't have the vertical space to recover properly.
But a good conspiracy theory makes sense too ;D
-
I don’t know. There are a couple I work with on work visa from Taiwan and S Korea that are so rude. They have have terrible hygiene. I’m venting after a long week.
Wow.... I cannot overstate how much you chose the wrong line of work if rudeness, poor hygiene and long weeks bother you.
-
I also cannot overstate the amount of misinformation and ignorance in this thread.
Let's refer to Bit #6 of Benny's Bits of Scoop Wisdom:
6-When Air Force and Navy are aligned, play the antagonist at your own peril.
If that's not good enough, consider that Boeing is one of the most sophisticated, technologically advanced companies in the entire world... their reputation is everything. If something was genuinely wrong with their metal, they would be issuing the grounding order themselves; otherwise, they are putting their entire company at risk.
IOW: A critical oversight and cover-up by the Max 8 team could result in the death of a few hundred, maybe a few thousand... an oversight and cover-up by the team a few cubicles over could result in the death of millions. Boeing isn't going to risk anything that calls their ability to assess and correct in real time into question.
-
I also cannot overstate the amount of misinformation and ignorance in this thread.
Let's refer to Bit #6 of Benny's Bits of Scoop Wisdom:
6-When Air Force and Navy are aligned, play the antagonist at your own peril.
If that's not good enough, consider that Boeing is one of the most sophisticated, technologically advanced companies in the entire world... their reputation is everything. If something was genuinely wrong with their metal, they would be issuing the grounding order themselves; otherwise, they are putting their entire company at risk.
IOW: A critical oversight and cover-up by the Max 8 team could result in the death of a few hundred, maybe a few thousand... an oversight and cover-up by the team a few cubicles over could result in the death of millions. Boeing isn't going to risk anything that calls their ability to assess and correct in real time into question.
Unless they think they can get away with it.
-
Ok - so how do you manage out of this if you're Boeing?
The MAX 8 has already been grounded by 40 countries; and short of pilot suicide, terrorism or some other cause grounded in external forces, your plane isn't going to be completely vindicated in either the Lion Air or Ethiopian cases.
Admitting a technical fault and pushing through a fix creates massive liability in the case of the two previous crashes... but what happens if a 3rd jet goes down?
MAX 8 orders are already getting canceled by skittish buyers - I'm not sure there's any path they can realistically take to sell more of them in the next 12-18 months.
What's the next step?
-
A case could be made for grounding the Max 8, but it would be a very stretched case and very hysterical. The 787 issue was very different on two counts: there were only a handful of those airframes in the commercial fleet at the time and a fire on an aircraft is a demonstrable flight hazard.....there are hundreds of Max 8s in the civilian fleets and if we're talking about a single automated system that pilots can override it's not an immediate flight hazard. As an example, the Airbus 330 had a known issue of pitot tube freezings that they were working to replace the components, however no one called for the grounding of the 330 before or after the Air France 447 crash because while the pitot tube failure initiated the cascade that resulted in the crash it should have easily been overcome by proper crew management, training, and situational awareness. I suspect if this anti-stall system is found to have contributed it'll be a similar cascade.......
My guess (warning that this is both highly speculative and technical in nature with limited direct knowledge) is that since the current Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS) for the anti-stall (fly by wire if you will) depends on a single sensor if that sensor is bad or if it gives conflicting data with other sensors (altimeter, air speed indicator, etc) the EFCS deconflicts by reverting to a different state of operation. What most people don't realize is that in commercial aviation, the fly by wire design the normal flight mode does not allow the aircraft to put itself(auto-pilot) or the pilot(manual control) into a flight configuration that is dangerous or inappropriate. However knowing that situations might occur that would require an aircraft to be in an extraordinary situation they have a secondary flight mode(Boeing) or Alternative Law(Airbus). When the aircraft goes into secondary mode it is more "traditional" flying where what ever input you give the aircraft will happen as opposed to primary control where you give it an input and it'll do it until the max point allowed by the flight envelope protection. What I suspect happened is that the anti-stall system caused a conflict that the aircraft went into secondary mode and the pilots did not realize that they were "overcontrolling" the aircraft which resulted in them chasing stability and given it occured at low altitudes just after they cleaned up the aircraft from take-off they didn't have the vertical space to recover properly.
But a good conspiracy theory makes sense too ;D
I have 2 observations, my friend.
1) You're super smart and know what the hell you're talking about.
2) How the sam hill could a guy that smart marry and procreate with a Bucky chick! (Teasing, teasing!!!) ;D
-
Lots of mental masturbation here. I caution everyone to let the investigation play out. My bold prediction: this was ultimately human vice system error.
Which means it was a pilot making a bad call or a wrench turner did something stupid.
I am probably the only person on Scoop who has sat on a Class A mishap investigation board. These two events are being investigated by really talented experts. Let them do their job.
The funny thing about aircraft is that they are sophisticated marvels of engineering. A million things can and will go wrong. It is never just one thing but, rather, the cascading effects which terminate controlled flight.
Automated flight systems were designed with one outstanding feature: the flight deck dudes ALWAYS have command override. If a flight control sequence is initiated the two swinging richards up front can and must either accept or abort the sequence.
My personal experience from sitting on Class A mishap investigation boards it is always a series of events, actions, and decisions which put the aircraft into extremis from which controlled flight is no longer possible.
Unfortunately, pilots have a split second in which to make that correct decision to overcome a mechanical failure or faulty avionics. Make the wrong call and you compound an already bad situation.
And let me point something out: speed, thrust, and altitude are life. A mechanical failure at Angels 36 with the wings straight and level is vastly different than one on recovery where sink rate, deceleration, and flying dirty are now a major problem. (I won't even get into how an F 16 or A 10 flying a tactical profile in combat is exponentially more difficult.)
Boeing is an impressive engineering firm. And their safety record is stellar.
Let the mishap investigation play out. Frankly, I take great comfort when reading these reports because, with Boeing gear, though it may involve system issues, at the end of the day it is a human who made the bad call.
-
Ok - so how do you manage out of this if you're Boeing?
The MAX 8 has already been grounded by 40 countries; and short of pilot suicide, terrorism or some other cause grounded in external forces, your plane isn't going to be completely vindicated in either the Lion Air or Ethiopian cases.
Admitting a technical fault and pushing through a fix creates massive liability in the case of the two previous crashes... but what happens if a 3rd jet goes down?
MAX 8 orders are already getting canceled by skittish buyers - I'm not sure there's any path they can realistically take to sell more of them in the next 12-18 months.
What's the next step?
If it truly is at worst a contributing factor and not a total design/implementation flaw that caused the crash, they just have to maintain. Again there is a lot of sensationalism going on right now that will go away as soon as the next shiny object flashes in front of the media. If the way the system works was a contributing factor they will have no more liability than any other aircraft crash that's occurred in the past for both Boeing and Airbus. If the EASA or FAA reports come back with the phrase "due to pilot error" anywhere in them Boeing is well in the clear from a liability standpoint and the media focus will have moved on a year from now and hardly anyone will remember this......again assuming that there isn't some massive design flaw that is crashing the planes.
-
I have 2 observations, my friend.
1) You're super smart and know what the hell you're talking about.
2) How the sam hill could a guy that smart marry and procreate with a Bucky chick! (Teasing, teasing!!!) ;D
1) Experience and shouting the loudest don't equate to intelligence, but thanks ;)
2)Clearly she has a character flaw, I mean how can someone as smart and interesting as her choose to go to Bucky school not once but twice??!?!?!
-
Lots of mental masturbation here. I caution everyone to let the investigation play out. My bold prediction: this was ultimately human vice system error.
Which means it was a pilot making a bad call or a wrench turner did something stupid.
I am probably the only person on Scoop who has sat on a Class A mishap investigation board. These two events are being investigated by really talented experts. Let them do their job.
The funny thing about aircraft is that they are sophisticated marvels of engineering. A million things can and will go wrong. It is never just one thing but, rather, the cascading effects which terminate controlled flight.
Automated flight systems were designed with one outstanding feature: the flight deck dudes ALWAYS have command override. If a flight control sequence is initiated the two swinging richards up front can and must either accept or abort the sequence.
My personal experience from sitting on Class A mishap investigation boards it is always a series of events, actions, and decisions which put the aircraft into extremis from which controlled flight is no longer possible.
Unfortunately, pilots have a split second in which to make that correct decision to overcome a mechanical failure or faulty avionics. Make the wrong call and you compound an already bad situation.
And let me point something out: speed, thrust, and altitude are life. A mechanical failure at Angels 36 with the wings straight and level is vastly different than one on recovery where sink rate, deceleration, and flying dirty are now a major problem. (I won't even get into how an F 16 or A 10 flying a tactical profile in combat is exponentially more difficult.)
Boeing is an impressive engineering firm. And their safety record is stellar.
Let the mishap investigation play out. Frankly, I take great comfort when reading these reports because, with Boeing gear, though it may involve system issues, at the end of the day it is a human who made the bad call.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/a1b9877b40e0221cc971ce3b65329f8d/tenor.gif?itemid=5016662)
-
Interesting that Canada just grounded all Max 8's.
-
I also cannot overstate the amount of misinformation and ignorance in this thread.
Let's refer to Bit #6 of Benny's Bits of Scoop Wisdom:
6-When Air Force and Navy are aligned, play the antagonist at your own peril.
If that's not good enough, consider that Boeing is one of the most sophisticated, technologically advanced companies in the entire world... their reputation is everything. If something was genuinely wrong with their metal, they would be issuing the grounding order themselves; otherwise, they are putting their entire company at risk.
IOW: A critical oversight and cover-up by the Max 8 team could result in the death of a few hundred, maybe a few thousand... an oversight and cover-up by the team a few cubicles over could result in the death of millions. Boeing isn't going to risk anything that calls their ability to assess and correct in real time into question.
On 8 different occasions, US pilots reported a problem similar to the one that the crashed planes had when they went down. They were able to compensate manually to deal with the issue. I would "assume" the first crash plus these reports were why Boeing started working on a fix last year.
I don't know how these things work - maybe you or Eng or Crash would know - but would Boeing inform pilots in all countries who flew these jets about the problem and how to deal with it when it happens?
-
It's the easy way out to blame the media, but this is from the Wall Street Journal:
'Boeing is making an extensive change to the flight control system in these 737 MAX aircraft, going beyond what many industry officials familiar with the discussions anticipated. The change would mark a major shift how Boeing originally designed a stall prevention feature in the aircraft. The company spokesman confirmed the update would use multiple sensors and data feeds in the stall prevention system instead of the current reliance one one sensor and prompted investigation results indicated that erroneous data from a single sensor that measures the angle of the plane's nose caused the stall prevention system to misfire and a series of events put the aircraft into a dangerous dive. The anticipated software fix from Boeing will limit the extent of the flight control systems downward push on the plane's nose.'
This seems like a design flaw to me, but I would like the opinion of someone who actually knows something about this.
-
On 8 different occasions, US pilots reported a problem similar to the one that the crashed planes had when they went down. They were able to compensate manually to deal with the issue. I would "assume" the first crash plus these reports were why Boeing started working on a fix last year.
I don't know how these things work - maybe you or Eng or Crash would know - but would Boeing inform pilots in all countries who flew these jets about the problem and how to deal with it when it happens?
Yes, they would send out an safety/airworthiness notification to the operators if there was a known impact to flight procedure with instructions on how to work around the issue until a fix could be implemented. These are supremely complicated machines and they aren't going to find every "bug" that exists at the time of deployment, simply because of things like unknown unknowns (never imagined flight scenario, or just the right sequence events that has never happened before, etc) so there is a process to create work arounds/update procedures to avoid issues as they become known, with the permanent fix following up. If there is an issues it would be absolutely normal to not have a "fix" in place for multiple months after the issue is discovered.
I will say it is a little surprising that any system that would impact the flight envelope would depend on a single sensor. Redundancy in data is critical to could control decisions, anywhere, not just aviation. You have to first know if the data you are basing a decision on is good data or not....and using a single "data point" is a bad way to know whether you have good or bad data. We'll see if these early reports turn out to be true in that regard.
-
Let the mishap investigation play out. Frankly, I take great comfort when reading these reports because, with Boeing gear, though it may involve system issues, at the end of the day it is a human who made the bad call.
Could not agree with you more.
Inherently, I believe Boeing will do the right thing, whatever it is. There's too much at risk not to.
I'm reminded of the DC-10 cargo door incident back in the 1970s. The DC-10 had a cargo door that worked, as long as the cargo personnel managed the process of closing the door properly. There was a peep hole and if the pins were aligned correctly, you saw them in a certain position.
When the pins weren't aligned properly, the door wasn't latched. An American DC-10 flying to Detroit one night lost its cargo door over Ontario, blowing a huge hole in the fuselage because the door wasn't latched. An Airworthiness Directive went out to fix the door but the folks at what is now Turkish Airlines (THY) were new operators of the DC-10 and didn't act quickly enough. A fully loaded DC-10 took off at Paris, the door blew out and 346 people were killed.
Between that and the disposable engine problem (which again, was not following maintenance procedures coupled with bad flight manuals), the DC-10 was killed in the market.
Was there a design flaw? Probably not, but McDonnell Douglas kinda figured people would follow instructions.
We'll see if Boeing thought the same thing!
-
I thought they totally redesigned that DC-10 door.
-
MAX fleet now grounded in the US
-
Seems as if the order is directly from the White House. Reading this correctly?
-
I thought they totally redesigned that DC-10 door.
After the THY incident, yes, it was.
-
Yes, they would send out an safety/airworthiness notification to the operators if there was a known impact to flight procedure with instructions on how to work around the issue until a fix could be implemented. These are supremely complicated machines and they aren't going to find every "bug" that exists at the time of deployment, simply because of things like unknown unknowns (never imagined flight scenario, or just the right sequence events that has never happened before, etc) so there is a process to create work arounds/update procedures to avoid issues as they become known, with the permanent fix following up. If there is an issues it would be absolutely normal to not have a "fix" in place for multiple months after the issue is discovered.
I will say it is a little surprising that any system that would impact the flight envelope would depend on a single sensor. Redundancy in data is critical to could control decisions, anywhere, not just aviation. You have to first know if the data you are basing a decision on is good data or not....and using a single "data point" is a bad way to know whether you have good or bad data. We'll see if these early reports turn out to be true in that regard.
Thanks, Eng.
I don't blame Boeing in this - so far. Like you said, "bugs" can slip through. I guess it all depends on what they did after the first crash when they realized the cause. Did they try to hide the cause or did they send out notice to all of the airlines involved?
Apparently, their redundancy was the pilot. :-\
-
Boeing stock (ticker: BA) has held up quite well despite this, a sign of a very strong company.
Down about 12% since the crash over several days, with more "bad news" coming every day. Its price actually went up today after the plane was grounded in the U.S.
Weaker companies might have seen price plummet 30-40-50%.
-
Boeing stock (ticker: BA) has held up quite well despite this, a sign of a very strong company.
Down about 12% since the crash over several days, with more "bad news" coming every day. Its price actually went up today after the plane was grounded in the U.S.
Weaker companies might have seen price plummet 30-40-50%.
Grounding by order of the president gives them "political" cover that's going to preserve the stock price. With no Max 8s in the air none can crash for whatever cause (assuming the two crashes were related) which means there is no liability risk to price into the stock. Further, since Boeing didn't do the grounding they can explain it away (assuming it isn't a major design flaw) as over precaution by governments that allows them to get it back in the air as soon as practical.
Unless there truly is a significant design flaw, this is the best outcome that Boeing could ask for.
-
Seems as if the order is directly from the White House. Reading this correctly?
Yep.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/politics/donald-trump-boeing-faa/index.html
-
Whether or not this is overblown, there's few enough of these things flying in US skies that we'll be able to absorb in the short term. Heck, I can even see SWA getting some 700 series jets back out from the desert parking lot while this gets hammered out. They only operate 34 Max-8 at this time. AA drives only 24 and they are #2.
One problem they might have. I wonder if it was Max-8s that were kicking off SWA's Hawaii service next week? That could leave a little mark.
-
Grounding by order of the president gives them "political" cover that's going to preserve the stock price. With no Max 8s in the air none can crash for whatever cause (assuming the two crashes were related) which means there is no liability risk to price into the stock. Further, since Boeing didn't do the grounding they can explain it away (assuming it isn't a major design flaw) as over precaution by governments that allows them to get it back in the air as soon as practical.
Unless there truly is a significant design flaw, this is the best outcome that Boeing could ask for.
I actually said something very similar in the comment stream of a Boeing thread on an investing site I visit. People were freaking out that BA was gonna plummet right after today's announcement ... but then the opposite happened.
A big part of it is the reason we both espouse.
Another big part of it is that, even after the crash, Boeing is a very strong company and the better half of a world-wide duopoly.
-
Boeing stock (ticker: BA) has held up quite well despite this, a sign of a very strong company.
Down about 12% since the crash over several days, with more "bad news" coming every day. Its price actually went up today after the plane was grounded in the U.S.
Weaker companies might have seen price plummet 30-40-50%.
Time to buy!
-
Time to buy!
BA is still pretty richly valued, but not all that bad compared to some industrials. Plus, the dust obviously isn't settled on what is going on, and what Mr. Market likes the least is uncertainty.
But as far as the quality of the company and the long-term investment thesis of the stock, one could do a lot worse.
-
BA is still pretty richly valued, but not all that bad compared to some industrials. Plus, the dust obviously isn't settled on what is going on, and what Mr. Market likes the least is uncertainty.
But as far as the quality of the company and the long-term investment thesis of the stock, one could do a lot worse.
That's how I view it. Kinda like FB during its privacy thing. It was a good deal when it dropped, but it wasn't a "get rich quick" steal either. It just made a solid stock stock just a little more affordable.
BA has been on my watchlist for a little while, and I might pull the trigger soon. Whether I buy or not, I suspect it will continue to be a solid long-term holding for those who own it.
-
I rode a max 8 last evening on American Airlines from Puerto Plata Dominican Republic to Miami...once we landed it took about 15 minutes to have a gate available. The pilot came across the intercom and said this was one of the best airliners he flew and that to have no worries. I read about both crashes on the news but did not put two and two together. I saw today that my same flight today has been cancelled after it was announced they’re grounded. Makes me feel grateful yet wishing I had another day in 85 and sunny.
-
Seems as good a time as any to use my favorite "line" of my fathers....I told Orville, I told Wilber, and now I'm telling you, that sumbitch is never gonna fly
-
Could not agree with you more.
Inherently, I believe Boeing will do the right thing, whatever it is. There's too much at risk not to.
I'm reminded of the DC-10 cargo door incident back in the 1970s. The DC-10 had a cargo door that worked, as long as the cargo personnel managed the process of closing the door properly. There was a peep hole and if the pins were aligned correctly, you saw them in a certain position.
When the pins weren't aligned properly, the door wasn't latched. An American DC-10 flying to Detroit one night lost its cargo door over Ontario, blowing a huge hole in the fuselage because the door wasn't latched. An Airworthiness Directive went out to fix the door but the folks at what is now Turkish Airlines (THY) were new operators of the DC-10 and didn't act quickly enough. A fully loaded DC-10 took off at Paris, the door blew out and 346 people were killed.
Between that and the disposable engine problem (which again, was not following maintenance procedures coupled with bad flight manuals), the DC-10 was killed in the market.
Was there a design flaw? Probably not, but McDonnell Douglas kinda figured people would follow instructions.
We'll see if Boeing thought the same thing!
Actually, the truth is that THY had already installed the peep holes in the wake of AAL 96.
Incidentally, THY tried to blame it on MD saying the warning placard that shipped to them (that was supposed to warn against improper closure) wasn’t readable by their employees, despite it being printed in English and Turkish.
-
Asians are nasty
You have no business being a doctor. Or a Marquette alum.
-
That's how I view it. Kinda like FB during its privacy thing. It was a good deal when it dropped, but it wasn't a "get rich quick" steal either. It just made a solid stock stock just a little more affordable.
BA has been on my watchlist for a little while, and I might pull the trigger soon. Whether I buy or not, I suspect it will continue to be a solid long-term holding for those who own it.
In 2016, BA went under SEC investigation for an "accounting irregularity." The price dropped like a rock. I bought at 110. It turned out to be my single best investment during that time span, as the investigation turned up nothing of note. I've had my share of clunkers -- every investor has -- but BA sure hasn't been one of them!
-
The United Kingdom just grounded 'em. Senators from both sides of the aisle calling for the same. And without mentioning them specifically by name, I'd say the FAA might want to pay attention to the President's tweet.
MUpilot. Talk to us brother.
Sorry for the delay glow.
The only thing I’ve heard is it’s more then likely a “computer” issue.
All newer jets now are “fly by wire” meaning there is no actual pulley and crank systems, but all operated by sensors and actuators. I know the Boeing 777 is fly by wire but also has manual backup controls
It will be very Interesting to see what was discovered.
It could also be faulty information given to the pilots. I recall before the lion air crash, the pilots were saying the AOA gauge (angle of attack) was faulty. If this happens, the plane would automatically try to correct itself because the computer is telling it (hey dummy, the plane is about to stall). So the plane will then try to trim the nose down so the aircraft will gain airspeed. The autopilot could also automatically disconnect because the airplane is thinking it’s about to stall, so it gives all control inputs to the pilot at that point. (I’m not sure how the 737 works, but most aircraft are like that). The problem with eronious information is the plane is thinking it’s stalling, trims the nose down, automatically disengages the autopilot, and the pilots maybe caught off guard by the event that’s taking place
Those are really my only thoughts, I’ve never flown a 737 and I’m not sure on the systems on that plane. If I hear anything from some friends who do fly them, I’ll let you know
I don’t want to Monday morning quarterback the pilots, Boeing, etc. the engineers at Boeing are much smarter then I could ever dream to be. I do think American pilots are the most knowledgeable, and best trained you can get in the world though. (Not at all including myself in that statement)
-
Thanks pilot! I think between you and Eng we can get proper interpretations of the facts as they present themselves.
I will comment on one thing that I find universally annoying; the media's obsession with hyperventilating over EVERYTHING. Obviously we see our political discourse every day. No need to use that example. So lets try this topic.
Channel 5 Chicago was out at Midway reporting on the story. They breathlessly mentioned that ALL SWA MAX-8 planes were grounded and that 140 flights nationwide were ALREADY canceled today and to call ahead! The clear implication was that the overall airline system is about to crater.
Obviously that's ridiculous. SWA has 34 of these planes out of a fleet of over 750, representing about 5% of their overall service but none of that was even mentioned so the public gets easily misled. They also didn't mention that SWA has already flown 41,000 flights without incident to give the traveling public some context about this. Nope, just more #fakenews narrative to drive eyeballs.
-
Asians are nasty
Comments like this would put you into that category as well.
-
Thanks pilot! I think between you and Eng we can get proper interpretations of the facts as they present themselves.
I will comment on one thing that I find universally annoying; the media's obsession with hyperventilating over EVERYTHING. Obviously we see our political discourse every day. No need to use that example. So lets try this topic.
Channel 5 Chicago was out at Midway reporting on the story. They breathlessly mentioned that ALL SWA MAX-8 planes were grounded and that 140 flights nationwide were ALREADY canceled today and to call ahead! The clear implication was that the overall airline system is about to crater.
Obviously that's ridiculous. SWA has 34 of these planes out of a fleet of over 750, representing about 5% of their overall service but none of that was even mentioned so the public gets easily misled. They also didn't mention that SWA has already flown 41,000 flights without incident to give the traveling public some context about this. Nope, just more #fakenews narrative to drive eyeballs.
And I'm guessing no context that some of those cancelled flights had to do with weather and not the Max 8
-
[...] I do think American pilots are the most knowledgeable, and best trained you can get in the world though. (Not at all including myself in that statement)
I've heard extremely high praise of Australian and Australian-trained pilots as well.
-
And I'm guessing no context that some of those cancelled flights had to do with weather and not the Max 8
Of course not. Moreover, I wonder how many folks out there genuinely think that every (or the vast majority) of 737s are impacted? I mean seriously through no fault of their own in casual consumption of the news.
Journalism today is simply horrible. I know, different thread. But I think this can be instructive for all of us on a completely apolitical topic.
-
Channel 5 Chicago was out at Midway reporting on the story. They breathlessly mentioned that ALL SWA MAX-8 planes were grounded and that 140 flights nationwide were ALREADY canceled today and to call ahead! The clear implication was that the overall airline system is about to crater.
Obviously that's ridiculous. SWA has 34 of these planes out of a fleet of over 750, representing about 5% of their overall service but none of that was even mentioned so the public gets easily misled. They also didn't mention that SWA has already flown 41,000 flights without incident to give the traveling public some context about this. Nope, just more #fakenews narrative to drive eyeballs.
Brother Glow, do you believe that any "news" show anchored by Allison Rosati is "news?"
Channel 5 news is sensationalism to the max. On any given night, a 13-15 minute news hole will have 10-12 minutes of "public safety" news -- shootings, fires, traffic accidents, weather problems etc. To get viewers, they need attractive people sensationalizing to the extreme. The remaining news will be some type of "soft" story about cute puppies, sad babies etc.
Look at their field reporters. Do any of them have any intellectual capability whatsoever to explain to Chicago and the Midwest what's happening with the 737 Max? The only thing any of them seem to know how to do is stick a microphone in someone's face and ask, "how does it feel?"
Under these circumstances, of course they're going to get it wrong.
-
Unless they think they can get away with it.
Looks like they may have ignored some complaints: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-software-in-boeing-737-max-planes-under-scrutinty-after-second-crash/2019/03/13/06716fda-45c7-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html?utm_term=.53c0ae357332 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-software-in-boeing-737-max-planes-under-scrutinty-after-second-crash/2019/03/13/06716fda-45c7-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html?utm_term=.53c0ae357332)
-
Brother Glow, do you believe that any "news" show anchored by Allison Rosati is "news?"
Channel 5 news is sensationalism to the max. On any given night, a 13-15 minute news hole will have 10-12 minutes of "public safety" news -- shootings, fires, traffic accidents, weather problems etc. To get viewers, they need attractive people sensationalizing to the extreme. The remaining news will be some type of "soft" story about cute puppies, sad babies etc.
Look at their field reporters. Do any of them have any intellectual capability whatsoever to explain to Chicago and the Midwest what's happening with the 737 Max? The only thing any of them seem to know how to do is stick a microphone in someone's face and ask, "how does it feel?"
Under these circumstances, of course they're going to get it wrong.
I think the problem goes well beyond Channel 5.
-
Domestically, the Max 8/9 groundings affect only:
4% of SWA flights
1% of UAL
1% of AAL
CNBC also reporting that at LGA this morning, ticket agents are consistently being asked by passengers what plane they are booked on, which in and of itself is unusual, with some passengers booked on 737NG's - or any Boeing airplane for that matter - even asking to be rebooked on other metal.
The media isn't doing any favors to anyone; nevertheless, if anyone needs yet another example of just how dumb Americans can be, look no further than those aforementioned asking to be re-booked (assuming CNBC's reports are accurate, of course).
--------------
That being said, I'm getting on a plane with my daughter next week; we won't know where until Sunday evening, but it's a pretty safe bet it's going to be a 737NG variant. The reason I know this is because I always check what metal I'm on (not for safety reasons, but to identify seat configuration ala SeatGuru), and AAL flies a bunch of 737NG's out of ORD. Assuming so, my AAL reservation might say "738" which is shorthand for the 737-800 (most popular)... I'm curious as to how many people are seeing "738" this morning and misinterpreting as the Max 8 (which is abbreviated as "7M8").
Whatever the case may be, she and I are getting on whatever metal we're booked on, whether it starts with a 7, A, M, E or C.
If it's a DH3, different story.
-
Good stuff Benny. I always check my SWA metal because a 700 has 143 seats and an 800 has 175. That way I know if my B-48 boarding position is 'fine'.
I admit to being an airline geek guy. When I was a little boy, my mom would take me out to Mitchell where I would watch the planes from the old outdoor observation deck.
-
I think the problem goes well beyond Channel 5.
Concur but I'll admit they're an easy target.
The days of Bill and Walter at Channel 2 or Dan Miller and Carol Marin at Channel 4 in Nashville are so far in the rear view mirror that they're barely visible.
-
Domestically, the Max 8/9 groundings affect only:
4% of SWA flights
1% of UAL
1% of AAL
Brother Benny, in the case of United, the 737 Max affects a very small number of flights operated from Houston, Orlando and Los Angeles. I'm a 1K on United and I've had exactly one flight on a Max, from LA to Orlando. As somebody else suggested for Southwest, my guess is that fleet planning called Marana (Arizona) or Victorville (CA) and checked to see what's sitting in the desert and available on the short term.
There's probably a few 737s rolling into Orlando, Lake City or elsewhere for maintenance whose visit to the hanger may be delayed.
United's fleet has migrated in recent years toward the 737-800 and 737-900, neither of which is covered by the grounding.
-
Brother Benny, in the case of United, the 737 Max affects a very small number of flights operated from Houston, Orlando and Los Angeles. I'm a 1K on United and I've had exactly one flight on a Max, from LA to Orlando. As somebody else suggested for Southwest, my guess is that fleet planning called Marana (Arizona) or Victorville (CA) and checked to see what's sitting in the desert and available on the short term.
There's probably a few 737s rolling into Orlando, Lake City or elsewhere for maintenance whose visit to the hanger may be delayed.
United's fleet has migrated in recent years toward the 737-800 and 737-900, neither of which is covered by the grounding.
I doubt there are any mothballed 737's, let alone any mid-hauls, at Pinal... mostly 747's, maybe a few DC-10's, neither for which I think the economics would be favorable (not to mention the irony of dusting off the DC-10 because of a potential design flaw in another plane). When any narrow bodies end up at the boneyards, I think they're pretty much salvage, not storage, jobs.
UAL and AAL have enough of a fleet to cover short-term disruption, as well as their regionals who can pick up the slack... maybe even their partners (Star, OneWorld) on a one-off basis.
SWA is a different story... they only fly variants of the 737, so they can't simply augment with other equipment because they don't have the mechanics, let alone the pilots, to service them.
As long as the grounding order doesn't last more than a few weeks, everyone will be find.
-
Brother Benny, in the case of United, the 737 Max affects a very small number of flights operated from Houston, Orlando and Los Angeles. I'm a 1K on United and I've had exactly one flight on a Max, from LA to Orlando. As somebody else suggested for Southwest, my guess is that fleet planning called Marana (Arizona) or Victorville (CA) and checked to see what's sitting in the desert and available on the short term.
There's probably a few 737s rolling into Orlando, Lake City or elsewhere for maintenance whose visit to the hanger may be delayed.
United's fleet has migrated in recent years toward the 737-800 and 737-900, neither of which is covered by the grounding.
Less so for the 34 SWA planes now parked but for the next batch of orders. I'm assuming Boeing is still making (or can easily make) 800s and 900s. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some of those roll off the line in the next year as 're-engineering' takes place on the Max. Boeing may need some time and distance on this little PR problem (at a minimum). If any of you know, is there an inventory out there on the interwebs where we can all see the 'recently retired' fleet?
Edit: Thanks for the update Benny.
-
If any of you know, is there an inventory out there on the interwebs where we can all see the 'recently retired' fleet?
Nothing up-to-date AFAIK. Some of the data aggregators (e.g. FlightAware) might be able to put together a custom list of what planes have landed at the boneyards (but not taken off), but that's not going to be free. Otherwise, best I could come up with is the last 80 landings at the boneyards (turns out there is at least one 737-700 that landed at Pinal last week - looks like it might be an old Icelandair plane).
-
Nothing up-to-date AFAIK. Some of the data aggregators (e.g. FlightAware) might be able to put together a custom list of what planes have landed at the boneyards (but not taken off), but that's not going to be free. Otherwise, best I could come up with is the last 80 landings at the boneyards (turns out there is at least one 737-700 that landed at Pinal last week - looks like it might be an old Icelandair plane).
Not sure this makes a heck of a lot of sense. If you are American, United or SWA, you have to recondition and repaint the planes and get crews up to speed. That's going to take some time and I think we're all hopeful the grounding of the Max planes are very short-term.
If I was United or American, I'd be looking to see how many of my 757s are immediately airworthy. I have the crews and the capability to fly this airplane now.
-
Nothing up-to-date AFAIK. Some of the data aggregators (e.g. FlightAware) might be able to put together a custom list of what planes have landed at the boneyards (but not taken off), but that's not going to be free. Otherwise, best I could come up with is the last 80 landings at the boneyards (turns out there is at least one 737-700 that landed at Pinal last week - looks like it might be an old Icelandair plane).
That's great. What's the boneyard airport code?
-
Looks like they may have ignored some complaints: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-software-in-boeing-737-max-planes-under-scrutinty-after-second-crash/2019/03/13/06716fda-45c7-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html?utm_term=.53c0ae357332 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-software-in-boeing-737-max-planes-under-scrutinty-after-second-crash/2019/03/13/06716fda-45c7-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html?utm_term=.53c0ae357332)
Fodder for lawsuits? As I wrote earlier, there were at least 8 anonymous complaints by pilots in the US who had experienced the same problem, but were able to deal with it. So, this was a problem Boeing was well aware of.
But the main point of this post is to ask some of the experts here why Ethiopian Airlines refused to let US experts analyze the black Box - instead sending it to Europe for analysis. According to reports I have read, it is a matter of distrust. But really just looking for opinions from some in the know.
-
Sorry for the delay glow.
The only thing I’ve heard is it’s more then likely a “computer” issue.
All newer jets now are “fly by wire” meaning there is no actual pulley and crank systems, but all operated by sensors and actuators. I know the Boeing 777 is fly by wire but also has manual backup controls
It will be very Interesting to see what was discovered.
It could also be faulty information given to the pilots. I recall before the lion air crash, the pilots were saying the AOA gauge (angle of attack) was faulty. If this happens, the plane would automatically try to correct itself because the computer is telling it (hey dummy, the plane is about to stall). So the plane will then try to trim the nose down so the aircraft will gain airspeed. The autopilot could also automatically disconnect because the airplane is thinking it’s about to stall, so it gives all control inputs to the pilot at that point. (I’m not sure how the 737 works, but most aircraft are like that). The problem with eronious information is the plane is thinking it’s stalling, trims the nose down, automatically disengages the autopilot, and the pilots maybe caught off guard by the event that’s taking place
Those are really my only thoughts, I’ve never flown a 737 and I’m not sure on the systems on that plane. If I hear anything from some friends who do fly them, I’ll let you know
I don’t want to Monday morning quarterback the pilots, Boeing, etc. the engineers at Boeing are much smarter then I could ever dream to be. I do think American pilots are the most knowledgeable, and best trained you can get in the world though. (Not at all including myself in that statement)
Aren’t you a private jet pilot? I recall you flew Dwayne Wade to Milwaukee a few weeks ago.
-
Okay, this is weird. I just did a search on Flightaware and there's Max-8s in the air. Could this be a mislabeling thing?
-
I had to step in and agree that Channel 5 news (for a long time, even before the media has been scrutinized to the degree it is today) is far and away the worst. I remember probably 7-10 years ago, noticing with them that every single story was "Breaking News". Even if there was a house fire from the night before, the next night it was still "breaking". It's comical how bad that show is. This isn't even a political thing, it's just flat out produced horribly.
-
That's great. What's the boneyard airport code?
As always, TPG has it covered...
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/guide-to-aircraft-boneyards/
Okay, this is weird. I just did a search on Flightaware and there's Max-8s in the air. Could this be a mislabeling thing?
Deadheading maybe? The grounding order allows exceptions for non-passenger transport (otherwise, how will they get them to the maintenance hangars for any software updates, additional hardware, inspections, etc.)
EDIT: I just checked FlightAware, and those are not deadheads. No idea what's going on... best I can fathom is that these were flights originally scheduled with the Max but metal was changed after the flight plan was filed.
I can't speak for the other airlines, but I just learned that AAL's re-positioning flights are numbered in the 9000's. So at least the three Max 8's AAL has in the air are all 9000's (i.e. they are being deadheaded). Also learned that AAL's primary maintenance facilities are Tulsa and Melbourne, which happens to be where 2 of those 3 are going.
-
As always, TPG has it covered...
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/guide-to-aircraft-boneyards/
Deadheading maybe? The grounding order allows exceptions for non-passenger transport (otherwise, how will they get them to the maintenance hangars for any software updates, additional hardware, inspections, etc.)
EDIT: I just checked FlightAware, and those are not deadheads. No idea what's going on... best I can fathom is that these were flights originally scheduled with the Max but metal was changed after the flight plan was filed.
Yeah, they were real flights for sure. Had to be metal changing without the designation being updated.
-
Brother Glow, do you believe that any "news" show anchored by Allison Rosati is "news?"
Channel 5 news is sensationalism to the max. On any given night, a 13-15 minute news hole will have 10-12 minutes of "public safety" news -- shootings, fires, traffic accidents, weather problems etc. To get viewers, they need attractive people sensationalizing to the extreme. The remaining news will be some type of "soft" story about cute puppies, sad babies etc.
Look at their field reporters. Do any of them have any intellectual capability whatsoever to explain to Chicago and the Midwest what's happening with the 737 Max? The only thing any of them seem to know how to do is stick a microphone in someone's face and ask, "how does it feel?"
Under these circumstances, of course they're going to get it wrong.
No all local news is bad, some is just funny.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/btAbU1sPqIM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
(Somebody embed this ish.)
-
i heard someone tried to light one up and the smoke alarms malfunctioned
-
Son is heading back to MKE on SWA on Sunday, but SWA sent us an email today that flight unlikely to be canceled.
I’m also a airplane geek like Glow, but no expert...just dig planes. I used to listen to air traffic control a lot when I lived by LAX and could see the planes coming in. Friends with a Globemaster 3 pilot and I have some amazing videos of them doing flyovers. Flightradar24 sub for years.
Been on everything from a Tr Star L1011, Ford Trimotor (stopped production in early 30’s), DC3, DC8, DC10, 707 and every Boeing plane since except 787, Cessnas, Gulfstreams, piper cub, every Airbus except the 380, Bombadiers, MD80, Embraers, ATR, even a Hawker.
-
No all local news is bad, some is just funny.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/btAbU1sPqIM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
(Somebody embed this ish.)
Here you go
https://www.youtube.com/v/IvE84AGMWpE
-
No all local news is bad, some is just funny.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/btAbU1sPqIM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
(Somebody embed this ish.)
I hope he won!
-
John Oliver has a fairly regular bit on some of the dopey, crazy, idiotic, hilarious stuff that goes on during local newscasts. Always one of the funniest things on that week's episode when he does it.
-
John Oliver has a fairly regular bit on some of the dopey, crazy, idiotic, hilarious stuff that goes on during local newscasts. Always one of the funniest things on that week's episode when he does it.
Way OT, but John Oliver has to be the best of the Johnny Carson "clones" in the industry right now. Yes he has it easier than say a Jimmy Kimmel in that he is producing one show a week and only about 30 a year total, but he is consistently funny while being educational. Even if you don't take his view point he's funny about it and it makes you think without being a jerk about. Especially love his vendetta's against Brexit and the FCC.
-
Way OT, but John Oliver has to be the best of the Johnny Carson "clones" in the industry right now. Yes he has it easier than say a Jimmy Kimmel in that he is producing one show a week and only about 30 a year total, but he is consistently funny while being educational. Even if you don't take his view point he's funny about it and it makes you think without being a jerk about. Especially love his vendetta's against Brexit and the FCC.
All of them do politics and Johnny Carson was the best of staying away from it. Turning off many viewers in my opinion.
On the 737 Max, new evidence found. Jackscrew position indicates the jet was in nose down "dive" setting. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/piece-found-at-ethiopian-airlines-crash-site-shows-jet-was-set-to-dive-2008100
-
All of them do politics and Johnny Carson was the best of staying away from it. Turning off many viewers in my opinion.
Colbert zoomed up the ratings when he got overtly political.
-
Bordering on political discussion, chicos. Nobody here mentioned politics in regards to talk-show hosts. You went out of your way to bring it up.
Meanwhile, back to the subject of Boeing ... this just in ...
Boeing (BA) shares spike higher to turn positive following reports that the company could roll out a software upgrade for its 737 MAX 8 jets in 10 days.
The report from Agence France-Presse comes after all 737 MAX jets were grounded following two fatal crashes; Boeing shares had slumped more than 10% as a result.
A Boeing spokesperson denies the AFP report, saying the software upgrade timeline has not changed and that it will be rolled out "in coming weeks."
Boeing is up 2.3% today as I write this. Much closer to its all-time high than the low it hit on Xmas Eve, a low that was due to nothing more than worldwide macroeconomic conditions.
Very well-regarded company on Wall Street.
-
Didn’t realize a video of Carson saying he stayed away from politics because he was an entertainer was a problem, but I guess the Colbert post is ok.
-
Bordering on political discussion, chicos. Nobody here mentioned politics in regards to talk-show hosts. You went out of your way to bring it up.
Meanwhile, back to the subject of Boeing ... this just in ...
Boeing (BA) shares spike higher to turn positive following reports that the company could roll out a software upgrade for its 737 MAX 8 jets in 10 days.
The report from Agence France-Presse comes after all 737 MAX jets were grounded following two fatal crashes; Boeing shares had slumped more than 10% as a result.
A Boeing spokesperson denies the AFP report, saying the software upgrade timeline has not changed and that it will be rolled out "in coming weeks."
Boeing is up 2.3% today as I write this. Much closer to its all-time high than the low it hit on Xmas Eve, a low that was due to nothing more than worldwide macroeconomic conditions.
Very well-regarded company on Wall Street.
Really? Brexit isn’t political and the discussion was about Oliver and late night topics which absolutely have differed than Carson...which was also brought up....I think I stayed in the same lanes as others.
-
The early model 727-100s also had their share of serious accident problems due to pilot unfamiliarity with a new model aircraft. In August 1965, a United 727 crashed into Lake Michigan on approach to O’Hare. On November 8, 1965, an American 727 crashed on approach to Cincinnati and three days later, a United 727 crashed on approach to Salt Lake City. A few months later, yet another 727, an All Nippon flight, crashed into the sea on approach to Tokyo.
Each was a controlled flight into terrain ("CFIT"). However, the FAA found the accidents’ common thread was high-speed approaches in excess of the maximum allowed. It was later suggested the reason was the “T” tail design, of which the 727 was the first to fly.
What happened: no grounding. The FAA and NASA reviewed the designs of the 727 and determined it to be airworthy and properly certified. What happened next was interesting. The FAA convened a meeting of 727 operators and went over operations and training. The airlines made modifications to training and flight manuals and the rest, shall we say, was history.
The short answer is like in 1965 and 1966, we had tragedy with a new airplane that was different from what pilots were used to flying. There was a right way to fly these planes and when they were flown correctly, CFIT generally was and is not a problem. You can say there is a design error all you want, but if the Max is flown correctly, the software problem should not be an issue.
Some of the specifics of this story came from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5e7f072b-c5e7-42f8-9b15-1a2e94781766.
-
I bought small amount on Wednesday. It is a good company over the long haul, though I do worry about the Chinese entrants especially with Boeing now having their own planes built in China. Nothing like teaching others how to slowly kill off our most important industries.
-
I bought small amount on Wednesday. It is a good company over the long haul, though I do worry about the Chinese entrants especially with Boeing now having their own planes built in China. Nothing like teaching others how to slowly kill off our most important industries.
Eh, building the metal and writing the code/designing the metal are two VERY different things. No doubt there is IP that can be lost on the build side but it doesn't matter if you don't have the code and/or design
-
Really? Brexit isn’t political and the discussion was about Oliver and late night topics which absolutely have differed than Carson...which was also brought up....I think I stayed in the same lanes as others.
Brexit not political? Chicos... come on
-
Eh, building the metal and writing the code/designing the metal are two VERY different things. No doubt there is IP that can be lost on the build side but it doesn't matter if you don't have the code and/or design
Masters of reverse engineering. We have been burned too often in the past, but we continue to make the same mistakes.
-
Didn’t realize a video of Carson saying he stayed away from politics because he was an entertainer was a problem, but I guess the Colbert post is ok.
Different era. Politicalization draws now.
-
Guys. This topic actually interests me and several have contributed thoughtfully. Your political discussion doesn't. Start your own thread.
-
I'm honestly surprised by the optimism about buying into Boeing (stock) at this specific time. It's mostly just buying into the headlines being wrong and, basically, contrarianism. There will be more buying opportunities as this rolls along. It wasn't even that great of a buying opportunity following the dip. It is fairly priced, assuming that they lose no business. If you weren't already bought into it, what in the world would make one buy into it now?
The issues facing Boeing are not purely dollar signs any more, this is now opened up to a large, international political issue as well. I'd rather not invest in a stock where I also have to consider the political headlines and other nebulous factors. How does one go about projecting that stuff out...?
-
So I didn't know until this week that the Chinese were making a plane intended to compete. Mark me down as a NO.
-
So I didn't know until this week that the Chinese were making a plane intended to compete. Mark me down as a NO.
Yup
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-14/boeing-737-max-8-troubles-could-help-china-s-comac-c919
-
I'm honestly surprised by the optimism about buying into Boeing (stock) at this specific time. It's mostly just buying into the headlines being wrong and, basically, contrarianism. There will be more buying opportunities as this rolls along. It wasn't even that great of a buying opportunity following the dip. It is fairly priced, assuming that they lose no business. If you weren't already bought into it, what in the world would make one buy into it now?
The issues facing Boeing are not purely dollar signs any more, this is now opened up to a large, international political issue as well. I'd rather not invest in a stock where I also have to consider the political headlines and other nebulous factors. How does one go about projecting that stuff out...?
It's a risk, like any of this stuff, but a small one I thought was worth taking. After the financial meltdown I bought a bunch of Citibank because I was convinced the gov't would not let them fail, that worked. Bought Sirius when it was about a $1...worked out. Bought a little bit of GE recently....more nervous about that one, but think they can recover at least some of what they lost the last five years. Doesn't always work, but when headlines drive a stock down if it looks like it might be media overreach, I'll consider swooping in.
-
I'm honestly surprised by the optimism about buying into Boeing (stock) at this specific time. It's mostly just buying into the headlines being wrong and, basically, contrarianism. There will be more buying opportunities as this rolls along. It wasn't even that great of a buying opportunity following the dip. It is fairly priced, assuming that they lose no business. If you weren't already bought into it, what in the world would make one buy into it now?
The issues facing Boeing are not purely dollar signs any more, this is now opened up to a large, international political issue as well. I'd rather not invest in a stock where I also have to consider the political headlines and other nebulous factors. How does one go about projecting that stuff out...?
There are always risks in investing. There is no such thing as a "safe" stock. You play the probabilities. Boeing is in a cyclical industry, so there can be (and will be and have been) major price swings, but it is part of a duopoly -- and the better part of it, as it has been a far superior company to Airbus -- so it has what Warren Buffett would call a "wide moat."
Although I do quite a bit of financial writing these days, I am not a financial adviser, I do not pretend to be an expert, and I do not tell people what to invest in. I don't even make recommendations.
The best advice I always give is for investors to know themselves -- their goals, their risk-tolerance levels, their comfort zones. If you are uncomfortable investing in a cyclical company that faces the issues you correctly point out, then you shouldn't buy it. There are thousands of companies to invest in.
This kind of Boeing situation is why most people don't have 1-stock or 3-stock portfolios. Boeing is my 21st-largest position. My top 10 holdings are much, much larger. If Boeing were to go out of business next week, that would suck but it wouldn't materially affect my wealth or my income stream (I primarily practice Dividend Growth Investing, and BA pays a very nice, growing dividend).
So is it a "risk"? Sure. But it is not one that puts my financial future in much jeopardy.
Happy investing!
-
Just buy a few April 400 calls like Benny did if you don’t want to take the risk.
Full disclosure, I’m playing with house money right now having just sold the July 360 puts I purchased last month (so my risk tolerance is completely different right now).
-
There are always risks in investing. There is no such thing as a "safe" stock. You play the probabilities. Boeing is in a cyclical industry, so there can be (and will be and have been) major price swings, but it is part of a duopoly -- and the better part of it, as it has been a far superior company to Airbus -- so it has what Warren Buffett would call a "wide moat."
Although I do quite a bit of financial writing these days, I am not a financial adviser, I do not pretend to be an expert, and I do not tell people what to invest in. I don't even make recommendations.
The best advice I always give is for investors to know themselves -- their goals, their risk-tolerance levels, their comfort zones. If you are uncomfortable investing in a cyclical company that faces the issues you correctly point out, then you shouldn't buy it. There are thousands of companies to invest in.
This kind of Boeing situation is why most people don't have 1-stock or 3-stock portfolios. Boeing is my 21st-largest position. My top 10 holdings are much, much larger. If Boeing were to go out of business next week, that would suck but it wouldn't materially affect my wealth or my income stream (I primarily practice Dividend Growth Investing, and BA pays a very nice, growing dividend).
So is it a "risk"? Sure. But it is not one that puts my financial future in much jeopardy.
Happy investing!
Cyclical? You must be kidding. Hundreds of people dead under suspiciously similar circumstances and a litany of prior complaints. This is a total one-timer. IMO, you are focusing too hard on traditional investing and the fundamentals here, and missing what will be the much bigger drivers of the stock's performance over the next year - headlines, politics, lost customers, etc.
What I'm saying is that betting on Boeing now is betting on those things I mentioned not hurting the stock. The primary driver of the stock doing well or not will be those things. Beating earnings by 4 cents will be nice and maybe they will but that won't be the most important thing... At all.
My judgment thus far is that the international sentiment is nowhere near as rosy as it is within the States. A lot of companies now combing over the fine print in their contracts.
-
Cyclical? You must be kidding. Hundreds of people dead under suspiciously similar circumstances and a litany of prior complaints. This is a total one-timer. IMO, you are focusing too hard on traditional investing and the fundamentals here, and missing what will be the much bigger drivers of the stock's performance over the next year - headlines, politics, lost customers, etc.
What I'm saying is that betting on Boeing now is betting on those things I mentioned not hurting the stock. The primary driver of the stock doing well or not will be those things. Beating earnings by 4 cents will be nice and maybe they will but that won't be the most important thing... At all.
My judgment thus far is that the international sentiment is nowhere near as rosy as it is within the States. A lot of companies now combing over the fine print in their contracts.
Don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape here, D'Lo.
The beautiful thing about stock investing is that it's OK for folks to disagree. They do that by buying something else. There are thousands of publicly traded stocks; I highly recommend you buy any of them except BA.
And yes, Boeing is a cyclical stock. It's how it is defined.
-
Too big to fail
Buy buy buy
https://apple.news/AY7aeGGw7RrudQ14vXbgnwA
-
Too big to fail
Buy buy buy
https://apple.news/AY7aeGGw7RrudQ14vXbgnwA
Or too big to manage, sell, sell, sell
-
Or too big to manage, sell, sell, sell
Up another $5 today
-
Whoops: https://thepointsguy.com/news/both-crashed-737-max-8-jets-lacked-2-safety-features-boeing-charged-extra-for-them/ (https://thepointsguy.com/news/both-crashed-737-max-8-jets-lacked-2-safety-features-boeing-charged-extra-for-them/)
-
Whoops: https://thepointsguy.com/news/both-crashed-737-max-8-jets-lacked-2-safety-features-boeing-charged-extra-for-them/ (https://thepointsguy.com/news/both-crashed-737-max-8-jets-lacked-2-safety-features-boeing-charged-extra-for-them/)
Not sure if this is a whoops. Not regulated as mandatory to do so.
Southwest bought both options, United didn’t.
-
So now we get the rest of the story. Very sad story when they add a dangerous feature then charge extra for a safety over ride. Market driven capitalism at its worst. I try not to invest in unethical companies no matter the ROI.
Such companies are hard to find these days. They can't blame this on the union, but I would not he suprised if their PR department doesn't try. Or we could blame it on the government or the customer, the victim is guilty again.
-
So now we get the rest of the story. Very sad story when they add a dangerous feature then charge extra for a safety over ride. Market driven capitalism at its worst. I try not to invest in unethical companies no matter the ROI.
Such companies are hard to find these days. They can't blame this on the union, but I would not he suprised if their PR department doesn't try. Or we could blame it on the government or the customer, the victim is guilty again.
Is that the rest of the story, or are you jumping to conclusions? My guess is a lot more of the story will come out, including Boeing's side. Boeing is not going to put their company future or safety in jeopardy for that. End of the day, if they don't have safe products they are in a world of hurt. If Boeing thought they were making an unsafe plane, they wouldn't be selling it nor would the government allow it. This jet was approved in 2011, by the way, so not something recent. They clearly messed up on the training side.
Good for you to review an article earlier this week where Boeing had 4 planes crash in one year, two in a couple of days of each other...the 727...which almost crippled the company and ultimately became the best selling jet of all-time. The reason for the crashes, training or lack of it. If it turns out Boeing has a design flaw, they'll fix it. If there is criminality, people will be prosecuted. The options that were not purchased were not required by the regulators, and many purchasers buy them anyway.
-
Is that the rest of the story, or are you jumping to conclusions? My guess is a lot more of the story will come out, including Boeing's side. Boeing is not going to put their company future or safety in jeopardy for that. End of the day, if they don't have safe products they are in a world of hurt. If Boeing thought they were making an unsafe plane, they wouldn't be selling it nor would the government allow it. This jet was approved in 2011, by the way, so not something recent. They clearly messed up on the training side.
Good for you to review an article earlier this week where Boeing had 4 planes crash in one year, two in a couple of days of each other...the 727...which almost crippled the company and ultimately became the best selling jet of all-time. The reason for the crashes, training or lack of it. If it turns out Boeing has a design flaw, they'll fix it. If there is criminality, people will be prosecuted. The options that were not purchased were not required by the regulators, and many purchasers buy them anyway.
I never commented on the 727, good plane, 3 pilot's. Good PR case, see you in court.
-
AoA indicator is a non-standard indicator on all commercial aircraft (though that is likely to change because an AoA indicator may also have prevented the Air France crash I cited). Boeing nor Airbus deploy AoA indicators as part of their cockpits, largely because that data should be available through other standard instruments. Further both crashes where were during VFR conditions, meaning the pilots easily knew that the AoA was off. Now they may not have known how to disable the MCAS, but having an AoA indicator would have done nothing for them in this case.
-
I never commented on the 727, good plane, 3 pilot's. Good PR case, see you in court.
I did and there were four crashes in a year in 1965. The crashes were largely due to training issues associated with the 727 sink rate on approach. You had a boatload of propeller liner pilots who were flying these things and, well, it was a different animal. Neither Boeing nor the airlines understood how different.
-
I did and there were four crashes in a year in 1965. The crashes were largely due to training issues associated with the 727 sink rate on approach. You had a boatload of propeller liner pilots who were flying these things and, well, it was a different animal. Neither Boeing nor the airlines understood how different.
Yup.
-
I did and there were four crashes in a year in 1965. The crashes were largely due to training issues associated with the 727 sink rate on approach. You had a boatload of propeller liner pilots who were flying these things and, well, it was a different animal. Neither Boeing nor the airlines understood how different.
Vogue 65 was flying the 727 a lot in 1965. That is when cars were still cars and men were men.
From those ashes have come Marquette 2019 and and the 737 MAX 8. You connect the dots.
-
Vogue 65 was flying the 727 a lot in 1965. That is when cars were still cars and men were men.
From those ashes have come Marquette 2019 and and the 737 MAX 8. You connect the dots.
Men were men....connect the dots on that one. The SJWs here will be circling for blood on your answer.
-
Back on point, BA down 2% today after 1 1/2 hours and falling. This is how it starts. Although the stock may only lose 10%, it will never be the same again. The rest of the world has taken notice. Our ethics or culture is not shared by everyone.
On subject no. 2, you connect the dots.
-
Vogue 65 was flying the 727 a lot in 1965. That is when cars were still cars and men were men.
From those ashes have come Marquette 2019 and and the 737 MAX 8. You connect the dots.
Cars were cars?
Uh, metal dashboards, minimal seatbelts, no airbags, AM radios, body on frame construction, flammable materials, high-test gasoline and about 12 miles to the gallon.
In what world is that better than a 2019 automobile?
-
Cars were cars?
Uh, metal dashboards, minimal seatbelts, no airbags, AM radios, body on frame construction, flammable materials, high-test gasoline and about 12 miles to the gallon.
In what world is that better than a 2019 automobile?
My, my you are so literal and argumentative, lighten up, it is only an expression.
-
Back on point, BA down 2% today after 1 1/2 hours and falling. This is how it starts. Although the stock may only lose 10%, it will never be the same again. The rest of the world has taken notice. Our ethics or culture is not shared by everyone.
On subject no. 2, you connect the dots.
Nope, need help. I used to say when men were men, and attacked here. I'm curious what your version of it is, and what it means.
-
What the f#ck is your problem?
I forgot I posted this after a long day of watching those two men at work. They have since been fired for getting into a physical altercation in the parking lot at work. They were just horrible people to work with. Not only were they rude and argumentative with staff but with patients and their families too.
-
I forgot I posted this after a long day of watching those two men at work. They have since been fired for getting into a physical altercation in the parking lot at work. They were just horrible people to work with. Not only were they rude and argumentative with staff but with patients and their families too.
Which has nothing to do with the ethnic group to which they belong.
-
Nope, need help. I used to say when men were men, and attacked here. I'm curious what your version of it is, and what it means.
When men didn't need to go around with a gun to prove their manliness.
When men didn't need to ink up.
When men didn't need to drive 4X4 picknup trucks even though they had desk jobs.
When men didn't need ear plugs and knee pads at the range and then sue the V.A. when they still lost some hearing.
When men could fly a plane without a computer.
When men could driven in snow without 4 wheel drive.
When men could fix a car without a computer.
When men could talk with strangers without hiding in a cellphone.
When men could wear colorful clothes.
When men could play musical instruments and not think D.J.'s or mixers were musician's?
When men got drafted, and showed up for service.
The list is very long.
-
So what exactly is wrong with tatoos and pickups? I have both.
-
Which has nothing to do with the ethnic group to which they belong.
Perhaps a cultural thing where it’s acceptable in other cultures to behave a different way than we are accustomed to in America.
-
Which has nothing to do with the ethnic group to which they belong.
Do not. Feed. The troll.
-
flew swa last night mke to phx. got my favorite seat-emergency exit sans seat in front of you. flight attendant pulls out card to review the process and it had 737-800 and 737-max8 on it. their were a few gulps, but she quickly pointed out that we are not on a max
great buying opportunity though and grabbed only one of those small carts-they will come out with some perfectly acceptable diagnoses and fixes-carry on
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-01-08-Boeing-Sets-New-Airplane-Delivery-Records-Expands-Order-Backlog
-
So what exactly is wrong with tatoos and pickups? I have both.
Nothing wrong, whatever it takes to feel like a man. Some old guys grow beards, hit on young women, and ride 4 wheel motorcycles.
-
Perhaps a cultural thing where it’s acceptable in other cultures to behave a different way than we are accustomed to in America.
Ah yes I'm sure those two people represent an entire continent of 4.463 billion and 48 countries, not to mention the millions more who claim ancestry from there.
You don't experience a wide variety of cultures even in America do you?
-
Very informative story in todays NYT about the MAX and "business decisions".
Larger, faster, heavier engines cause a C.G. problem. The solution was/is a software fix rather than a redesign.
I'm not a piolt, but have flown simulators and even knowing it is a simulator I had the sweats.
Cost cutting on pilot training seems foolhearted at this point, but that's business.
The investigation might uncover other issues surrounding the wings, lift, assembly procedures, repair manuals, etc..
The findings might be like my VW Diesel, lots of top down pressure to fix the numbers. Good luck Boeing. As I have been saying for years, as BA goes so goes America.
-
Just keep repeating to yourself, its only the media. We don’t always know the “rest of the story”. Too may are trying to “outscoop” the others. When Boeing is ready to talk, I will listen
-
Perhaps a cultural thing where it’s acceptable in other cultures to behave a different way than we are accustomed to in America.
Basedon your comments in this and other threads, do non-white people bother you? Or is it just the "nasty Asians" that set you off?
-
mudeltaforcegurl banned
-
Just keep repeating to yourself, its only the media. We don’t always know the “rest of the story”. Too may are trying to “outscoop” the others. When Boeing is ready to talk, I will listen
The crashes are the media's fault.
Or Wojo's.
-
Just keep repeating to yourself, its only the media. We don’t always know the “rest of the story”. Too may are trying to “outscoop” the others. When Boeing is ready to talk, I will listen
Listen to whom? The Boeing lawers and P.R. people. Read the article, the problem is systemic and goes back ten years to a business decision. The immediate problem can be solved, the longer term issue is another problem and that is Airbus.
-
The crashes are the media's fault.
Or Wojo's.
Bad bad bad day for the media....lots of reckoning ahead.
-
Bad bad bad day for the media....lots of reckoning ahead.
I'm proud of our nation's heroic reporters and editors.
-
I'm proud of our nation's heroic reporters and editors.
Lots of reckoning ahead, they have done it to themselves. Horrific performances and nothing but stunned faces and tears now.
-
Lots of reckoning ahead, they have done it to themselves. Horrific performances and nothing but stunned faces and tears now.
Rachael madcow reporting live from Tennessee.
liberals are the best. 😂
-
Lots of reckoning ahead, they have done it to themselves. Horrific performances and nothing but stunned faces and tears now.
Why?