Wall Street rewards Boeing with December MAX delivery forecast

Nov. 12, 2019, © Leeham News: Wall Street rewarded Boeing with a $15 spike in its share price after the company said it expects the recertification of the 737 MAX and the first deliveries to begin in December.

Boeing photo.

Actual return to service is not expected until January, following pilot training, Boeing said.

“Boeing rallied 4.5% today in a slightly down market after the company outlined the remaining milestones for the 737 MAX’s return to commercial service,” JP Morgan’s aerospace analyst wrote in a note after the close of the market.

“Boeing’s messaging has now caught up to Street expectations, which is that the MAX can return in early 2020, though the company’s timeline still allows for FAA certification and potentially deliveries before year-end.”

Top issue from stock perspective

“Returning the MAX to service remains the most important issue for Boeing from a stock perspective and so today’s news allows the market to level set at a time when expectations were diverging,” JP Morgan continued. “It also highlights the potential for progress in the coming weeks and our base case is a return to service in early 2020. Nevertheless, as we have seen before, it’s not done until it’s done, so we will continue to monitor developments.”

Indeed, Boeing has consistently been optimistic in its timing projections, However, this is also the first time it has been this specific.

It’s not clear why customers would want to take delivery of the airplanes in December if RTS can’t begin until January, unless flight tests and pilot familiarization is part of the RTS. There are still few MAX simulators.

Some airline officials said they plan to operate flights with only employees on board as a mechanism to demonstrate confidence in the airplane.

Boeing’s press release

Here is Boeing’s complete press release, issued yesterday:

Boeing’s priority remains the safe return to service of the MAX and supporting our airline customers through this challenging time. We are working closely with the FAA and other regulatory authorities as we work towards certification and safe return to commercial service, and we are taking the time to answer all of their questions. With the rigorous scrutiny being applied, we are confident the MAX will be one of the safest airplanes ever to fly.

While the FAA and other regulatory authorities will determine the timing of certification and return to commercial service, Boeing continues to target FAA certification of the MAX flight control software updates during this quarter. Based on this schedule, it is possible that the resumption of MAX deliveries to airline customers could begin in December, after certification, when the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive rescinding the grounding order.

Subject to strict regulatory approval, we are working towards the Max to be certified, airworthiness directive issued, ungrounded in mid-December. We are targeting pilot training requirements to be approved in January. Those two things mean the plane can return to commercial service, however, we know that our airline customers will need more time to return their fleets to service and to train all 737 pilots, therefore they have announced schedule updates into March.

There are five key milestones Boeing must complete with the FAA before return to service:

      1. FAA eCab Simulator Certification Session: A multi-day eCab simulator evaluation with the FAA to ensure the overall software system performs its intended function, both normally and in the presence of system failures. COMPLETED
      2. FAA Line Pilots Crew Workload Evaluation: A separate, multi-day simulator session with airline pilots to assess human factors and crew workload under various test conditions.
      3. FAA Certification Flight Test: FAA pilots will conduct a certification flight(s) of the final updated software.
      4. Boeing Final Submittal to the FAA: After completion of the FAA certification flight, Boeing will submit the final certification deliverables and artifacts to the FAA to support software certification.
      5. Joint Operational Evaluation Board (JOEB) Simulator Training Evaluation: The Joint Operational Evaluation Board (JOEB), a multi-regulatory body, conducts a multi-day simulator session with global regulatory pilots to validate training requirements. Following the simulator session, the Flight Standardization Board will release a report for a public comment period, followed by final approval of the training.

Boeing and the FAA successfully concluded the first of these milestones this past week, and are now working towards the FAA line pilots evaluation and the FAA certification flight test.

At each step of this process Boeing has worked closely with the FAA and other regulators. We’re providing detailed documentation, had them fly in the simulators, and helped them understand our logic and the design for the new procedures, software and proposed training material to ensure that they are completely satisfied as to the airplane’s safety. The FAA and other regulatory authorities will ultimately determine return to service in each relevant jurisdiction. This may include a phased approach and timing may vary by jurisdiction.

###

 

85 Comments on “Wall Street rewards Boeing with December MAX delivery forecast

  1. I don’t see ground breaking developments to be honest. Boeing still hopes to get FAA certification before year end and seems to somewhat ignore EASA / JATR recommendations and conditions. Hope this isn’t a collision course.

    • They don’t chance their spots.
      Still gaming the system.
      I expect the attributes of learning to be cosmetic. A new fashionable cloak.:-)

    • keesje,

      Several commenters here have repeated this same accusation. Never with any specifics. Exactly what EASA/JATR recommendations and conditions is Boeing ignoring? Vague accusations don’t contribute to the discussion. If you have a specific info, share it with us so we can all be aware.

  2. Scott Hamilton,

    in your article
    “Airlines are looking towards another peak season without the MAX”
    didn’t you write RTS in 2021, according to Calhoun?
    2021, not 2020!!!

  3. The reputation of the FAA has been seriously damaged by the original certification process of the MAX.
    This time, they will not be rushed. The process will take as long as it takes, maybe even a bit longer.
    Boeing is dreaming if they think that the FAA will do them any favors in trying to get the MAX back in service as quickly as possible.

    • I’m beging to think that two authorities should be proactively involved in certification and witnessing. Recall American Eagle Flight 4184 that crashed due to icing. That ATR-72-212 had unpowered servo tab flight controls that could and did reverse and had deicing boots that protected only 6% of chord. personally I view it as too primitive to certify under FAR 25 for an A/C with so many souls on board. The FAA had accepted the French regulators certification without significant oversight or review or independent verification. Reading the BEA response to the NTSB investigation is surreal and feels biased in its defence of the ATR and blaming of the crew. Im neither French nor American and have no bone with either. Cosy relationships are dangerous for all. Likewise the failure to issue Airworthiness directive on the DC10 cargo door and relying on a handshake. I can’t see Boeing getting through a complicated 5 step process that outside parties need to sign of on with only 5 weeks to Christmass. Its 5 days to the November 17 Dubai Airshow. Maybe that’s why this announcement was timed.

    • The way I see it, the FAA is doing Boeing a huge favor by still allowing grandfathering on a number of issues.

      Has Boeing fixed the placement of control rudder cables, or protected the cables in any way?

      • Jan:

        The FAA has alwyas been damaged, we can go back to the rudder issue on the737 and the 787 battery.

        Whats new about this?

        Those who forget (or don’t know) their history are doomed to repeat it.

  4. Sounds like Boeing are confident, replacing their obfuscation of many months with bullet pointed specifics. Carefully worded of course, but nevertheless.

    • Pretty much my take.

      Does not mean things won’t pop up but there is a framework in place to look and and where it occurs to deal with it rather than just the mad scramble before.

      Its almost (gasp) beginning to look organized.

  5. From a stock market perspective I don’t the date aspect is relevant.The simple fact that the aircraft will return to service in the near term is enough.
    In truth had there been any show stoppers in the works Boeing would not have continued to churn that MAX out at 40 a month.
    In fact the only reason they slowed production down at all was the increasing lack of space as to where to park all these aircraft!
    They must have been 100% confident that this could be totally resolved via better software rather than any hardware changes.And better pilot information and training.
    Let’s hope they are right.

    • They continue to be 100% confident that if this cannot be solved by software changes alone, they will go broke.
      The pressure on them must be immense, and it is definitely being passed on to politicians and the FAA by letting them know this little secret. You can bet your ass that they are pusing all kinds of backroom deals.

      • Phil:

        The reason they moved to production at 42 was to allow the supply chain to catch up as there were severe strains on it and the movement will move to the 57 they planned.

        A320 NEO is having its issues there was well.

        The US is like a big aircraft carrier. We could park all European , Russian, Chinese and Brazil and Japan production easily (including military)

        • Yes , Boeing has multiple airports outside Renton to park planes, the grounding doesnt apply for for those sort of flights. Just goes to show their financial strength that they can continue production of 42 per month, they are of course all presold and not white tails

          • Assume they get back in the air they actually have a even larger backlog

            Oddly they are still delivering some 737NGs

      • Bernardo,

        politicians can’t force people to fly, that’s a big difference.
        I can imagine politics will certify the MAX in the US but nothing will happen without flight attendants.
        With nearly 5000 orders for the MAX some of them will crash again, it’s just a matter of time. This can only get worse with a 50 year old design. Especially when this MAX2.0 version was rushed again, same old story.
        Who wouldn’t want to spend few $ more to avoid the MAX, it’s a no-brainer.
        There is no business if it involves death.

  6. The issue was incompetent maintenance crew and incompetent flight crew.

  7. Totally hysterical market reaction to a B puffery release!
    Where’s the beef?
    The – FAA only – process barely started and there is many a twist ahead, not least the training requirements which IMO shall be onerous. Additionally I would expect EASA surprises a.o a term requirement to redesign elevators or add second independent trim motor.
    The Fat Lady has not sung. What we heard was a squeak from a B PR hack suffering from a terminal wedgie!

    • DT:

      I have pulled your prediction and put it in a file.

      When it comes to be wrong I will remind you.

      As Philip has shown us: You are now Prey and I am the Lion.

      • Look forward to it as have been wrong before, but rarely when doubting the veracity of B’s management of late😇

        • Can’t argue with that.

          I think there is a sea change (specific to MAX not overall) so will sea (pun intended)

  8. Managing the share price by talk is always a risky enterprise. Let’s hope this is not more smoke and mirrors.

    • It would be good to see but I believe they will do hats needed here but no idea going forward unless there is a sea change in Boeing.

      Vastly preferred is the old Boeing that under talked and over performed.

  9. According to the recent Bloomberg report on the Technical Advisory Board summary to the FAA, they mentioned unspecified recommendations from TAB for items still needed by Boeing and FAA before the MAX returns, as well as “additional future activity.”

    As usual, the public is left in the dark. “additional future activity” could mean the FAA still has
    to approve the pilot training for pilots, or it could mean that Boeing needs to add two more engines
    onto the wings. The details, after months of activity in Boeing, the FAA, the TAB board, being so vague
    and hidden drive me nuts. I really hope the details of what originally went wrong, where, and how the
    fixes have been designed and tested come out. If not, for any other reason, then to help avoid the same
    mistakes being made again by others. If/When the 737-MAS is flying again, the next step would be if the flying public will board it. If the FAA and Boeing say “trust us” and EASA is still evaluating the changes, it will prove interesting to see how the public responds.

    “In its summary to Congress, the FAA said it is still in the process of determining how much training pilots on the plane will need before it returns to service. An FAA pilot group, as well as a Joint Operations Evaluation Board, made up of representatives from the FAA, Europe, Brazil, and Canada, will evaluate the need for training, according to the summary to lawmakers.” I wonder if Boeing and SW Airlines are watching this with the potential $750 million dollar payout for Boeing to SWA, if more
    training is required for the 737-MAX?

    Is the FAA going to move on certification without the TAB recommendations yet given to them? From what I hear, they have only given the FAA a summary of their upcoming report.

    • Still allows a step by step and a hold on approval while the others take place.

      Me, I am taking it one event release at a time.

      I neither believe nor disbelieve but also maintain skepticism it will go smoothly.

      As noted there is huge ops going go behind the curtain we do not know about.

      It could be complete Chaos, all in hand or more likely in between and hopefully verging to more in hand.

  10. “Totally hysterical market reaction to a B puffery release!”

    Apparently yes. Maybe thinking that the worst can happen is “too big to fail” and Government intervention.

    • Whatever, don’t have them but imagine a 13 year old girl eye roll here (they do it so well)

  11. Another Boeing stunt to entice the DOW in their Stock promotion
    Boeing’s propaganda Machine at work for the upcoming of the
    Important DUBAI AIRSHOW in trying to convince airlines of an earlier release of the B737 MAX by the FAA.
    Boeing still has to take into consideration that the World Aviation Authorities have to approve whatever the FAA approves, and this Hype announcement by Boeing may be fine for their Stockholders but detrimental if Boeing gets their predictions Again Wrong.
    Time will tell!

    • Dubai definitely in play with the timing of these delivery projections. Please don’t talk to AB we (Boeing) will deliver your’e MAX’es Mr Walsh and others.

      The Boeing cashbook and share price is good enough to handle another few incidents?!!!

  12. An article appeared in Bloomberg last Friday where remaining issues with recertification of the 737 MAX are discussed. Here are a few excerpts (edited for clarity) from this article:

    Changing the architecture of the jet’s twin flight computers, which drive autopilots and critical instruments, has proven far more laborious than patching the system directly involved in 737 Max crashes.

    As recently as this week, the FAA and European Aviation Safety Agency asked for more documentation of the changes to the computers.

    The 737 Max had two separate computers. One operated the flight systems and another was available if the first one failed, with the roles switching on each flight. But they interacted only minimally.

    Boeing decided to make the two systems monitor each other so that each computer can halt an erroneous action by the other. This change is an important modernization that brings the plane more in line with the latest safety technology but raised highly complex software and hardware issues.

    Simply introducing a new wire that connects the two computers, for example, raises potential safety issues. If a short circuit in one computer occurs, could the wire cause it to disable the second computer?

    And if flight data arrives in one computer a fraction of a second before or after it reaches the second one, that could create confusion for each system.

    As Boeing and the subcontractor that supplied the flight-control computer, the United Technologies Corp. division Collins Aerospace Systems, worked through these changes, it has at times created tension.

    Officials from the FAA and the European safety agency expressed frustration with Boeing at a meeting last summer when company representatives didn’t supply a detailed enough explanation of the changes.

    A similar issue arose in early November when an audit describing work on the changes wasn’t complete and the agencies ordered Boeing and Collins to revise it.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-08/delays-in-boeing-max-return-began-with-near-crash-in-simulator

    • some one traced a non negative expectation by Boeing in there though, and that was all an exhausted Wallstreet needed.

      As share holder, I would have financial specialist have a quick look here, if their are no investors planning to step out, letting others bump the stock, temporary, to soften their sale..

  13. Great article,

    Can’t argue with the 5 steps to approval.

    So the first step is simulation. But, that means what the airplane should do. It doesn’t mean what the airplane will do. We can all simulate what can airplane should do.

    The basic issue is that Boeing have been saying and are saying is not proving to be true.

    Boeing need to prove their simulations are reality. As it stands their simulation are not true.

    So technically why the confidence. All they have demonstrated is what they want to achieve. Not what they have achieved.

    But the other more important steps will be achieved in a month, according to Boeing. Such confidence, given the history.

    I think this is going to the courts. Boeing are trying to circumvent FAA/EASA regulations by redefining terminology such as the word ‘safe’.

      • “Nope, its going to AHJ and stay tuned”
        For us unintiated – what is AHJ- ??

        • Authority having jurisdiction.

          TransWorld doesn’t know that ultimately the courts decide whether regulations are being adhered to and whether something is safe.

          The courts can overrule the FAA.

  14. “If something is hard, then it’s not worth doing” – Homer Simpson/Boeing Aircraft . I don’t know if there is a statistical case to be made for the rudder cable arrangement on the MAX, but if there is there is no need for rules preventing it. The argument that its just too difficult and the previous engines were very reliable (although not to start with) could be used to get away with almost anything. Why should Airbus and Comac take the FAA seriously from now on?

  15. Ayup, ‘creeping delay”.

    Pacific Western finally put a stop to the uncertainty for most people, pax and employees, with a rule:

    Maintenance has 15 minutes (IIRC) to fix the beast or make a solid estimate of when, otherwise a four-hour delay is called.

    That lets everyone plan their lives, even if it is bad news.

    (Benefits that come to mind include:
    – Pax can go home and try another day.
    – Pax can switch airliners.
    – Or at least have a meal and relax.
    – Crew scheduling can get another crew in for the now forecast time.
    – Maintenance has time to do a good job or make other arrangements.

  16. In November, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, which represents employees at United Airlines Holdings, said : “We’re not good with that, … If we’re not confident it’s safe, we’re not going to work it and the planes don’t fly. We’ve been clear with the FAA, the airlines and with Boeing that we need to see that – we need to see EASA, Canada, Australia, on board. We need all these assurances because there was a break in public trust here.” The AFA-CWA represents 50,000 flight attendants at 20 carriers, including United Airlines and Alaska Air Group.

    • If its legally cleared to fly, there is what is known in the US as a Bargaining Agreement.

      Its a legal document that says that both side will abide by the agreement.

      Violation of the agreement would lead to huge fines. More than one union has defied that, for a very short time.

      With all due respect to EASA, they have no jurisdiction in the US. Or to put it another way, their only legal aspect is we recognize their certification’s.

      To put it in unfortunate terms under the circumstances, if anyone strikes if the FAA has certified the MAX, they will go down in flames.

      Yes you can sometime get away with this sort of thing, but you have to have the public on your side and the public is not up in arms over this.

      Previous various airlines pilot associations in the US have said we can drive this bird if we know whats going on. They will know and the FAA will have spoken. Some may negotiate for more or training if not mandated and I suspect the airlines will fully go along with that.

      Now SW pilots are saying too fast.

      People are trying to climbing on the wagon to leverage it for their agenda (in the US).

      I am not speaking of what happens in Europe, Indonesia etc. Just the US.

      • Everything which is based on cheating is not legal.
        I have a bridge for you to sell
        I wonder why VW wasn’t laughing.

        You think you can force flight attendant Mary Goround on a MAX … good luck with that.

        This is such a big topic,
        headlines everywhere,
        even the deaf Joes will know.
        It will be fashion not to bord a MAX
        what then?
        Everybody will be happy to pay $10 more to be fashion too

        • Leon/TW – I think many folk will sympathise with the main point, which seems to be AFA-CWA doesn’t want to go with FAA approval alone. Jurisdiction is not the point, especially if other regulators don’t rescind withdrawal of the CofA. But latest reports suggest FAA is being properly circumspect.

  17. Stand by for aerospace-magazine pilot-journalists’ Max hands-on reports from Seattle before Christmas?

    • Don’t do it Bjorn, it’s too dangerous!
      At least don’t do it unless they let you fly to the edge of the envelope without MCAS and answer Philip’s question once and for ever.

      • If he does do it, then it must be at night in a storm. I’ve always said good pilots like Bjorn can just about manage on a clear, calm day with a clear horizon provided the elevators work and manual trim isn’t necessary. But the elevators must work. We are being told they will always work. And manual trim must never necessary.

        We do have to go way back. Boeing did originally say that MCAS couldn’t be turned off without using the trim runaway procedure. That means manual trim. In turn, that means the Incredible Hulk must fly the airplane.

        That has shifted, I think. I think MCAS can be turned off very easily and without the need for manual trim. But I may have got completely lost because of all of the obscuration.

        • Philip, There was no OFF switch for MCAS 1.0. You’d have to slow the aircraft down, add in a notch of flaps, and then you could activate the trim motor again without MCAS firing off. You’d be limited in speed and height, but, you’d then have the manual-electric yoke trim switch available again. The A/P I imagine would still trip off because of the weird AOA? This is a rotten way to turn MCAS off. A simpler method, would be to include an OFF switch for MCAS in the first place. Why there isn’t more discussion of FAR 23.672 (Stability augmentation and automatic and power-operated systems) being violated with MCAS surprises me. MCAS didn’t have a warning indicator, and it didn’t have an immediately, easily controlled “plan B” if it failed. (search down for “23.672” in the linked PDF below) .. Maybe it’s because this FAR was put in after 1967, and it falls under the grandfather category? I hope not.
          =================
          http://www.faraim.org/faa/far/CFR-2016-title14-vol1-part23.pdf
          ===================

          • Philip, I made a big typo … I put up the Part 23 section of the FAR’s in the link .. that is for commuter type aircraft .. Part 25 deals with Airline Transport Category aircraft (737’s etc)

            sorry about that .. the stall barrier section doesn’t seem to be in Part 25 .. let me do some more looking
            there is a 25.672 for the augmentation portion
            Part 25
            ============
            http://www.faraim.org/faa/far/CFR-2016-title14-vol1-part25.pdf
            ==========

      • Oops, didn’t finish.

        There is no external reference point at night with no moon in a storm. So Bjorn will need to rely on instruments. But if there is an AoA disagree the instruments are useless because the left side and the right side show different values and there is no means of knowing which is right. So Bjorn will need to rely on his bottom.

        I’ll post the Peru accident again. It’s the nearest I’ve found. It involves a 757. But the 757 does not have a pitch up tendency. The 757 is well behaved like all other Boeing airplanes, except the MAX

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroperú_Flight_603

        • philip:

          I have previously y posed on how a pilot is trained to handle an instrument failure. this is a full backup FD (the co pilot also has a full fledged separate inputs and stand alone display

          https://aspenavionics.com/products/evolution-backup-display

          Once again you stun me. Bjorn not only flew fighters, he flew them in Europe. The only place worse weather wise is AK. In aircraft terms that is like Einstein squared. In short I would class him in the Chuck Yeager league.

          Flight 603: You miss what was messed up. Static Ports (all) were covered.

          That takes out a lot of the basic instruments though I am willing to bet my whole savings Bjorn could have landed that on the PFD which displays an attitude irrelevant to the static ports.

          Please read this an understand the aircraft has the extra port

          https://www.thebalancecareers.com/aircraft-systems-pitot-static-system-282605

          A huge question is why they took off in the first place as their air speed would have been alarming from the start.

          By your awareness, this would have been pretty close to all 3 computers on an FBW failing (and the pilots still taking off)

          Bad bad bad example.

          • An ‘alternate static port’ is common on jet airliners, usually well away from the primary ports. (IIRC the original 737 with its combined pitot-static probes – rather than flush static ports as on 707s, was triplicated.)

  18. accelerated tax depreciation . . .

    “It’s not clear why customers would want to take delivery of the airplanes in December if RTS can’t begin until January, unless flight tests and pilot familiarization is part of the RTS. There are still few MAX simulators.”

  19. Rob, Mike et al

    Before you arrive.

    Yes I know, there isn’t any evidence to suggest people should be concerned. After all the JATR report and the Lion Air crash report don’t represent evidence even though they provide the most damning evidence in the entire history of aviation.

    • philip:

      Left me off he list? I am hurt, my inner child is just wailing.

      You conflate the shooting down of your unfounded missives with what others know happened.

      Boeing created a lethal piece of software. While I think the pilots should have been able to deal with it, I also concur 100% that they should never have been put in that position.

      The process of how it got there is also an issue (and frankly a crime).

      Nothing in any report lends any credence to any of your assertions (which have gotten so bewildering I am not even sure what they are)

      One was that a 737 (MAX only?) cannot fly in in weather on instruments which is Patently absurd, aircraft have done so for the last what (80 years?) – I look at a PFD now and cannot fathom loosing control of an aircraft with one.

      Flight Deck is useless? Not sure how you are supposed to fly an aircraft without one? Remote control? Now that would take some regulation changes!

      What we do have is people with pretty good technical knowledge on aircraft, dynamics (and in the case of Bjorn great access to a highly qualified aircraft engineer and a former fighter pilot (if anyone knows extreme behavior its those guys)

    • Conrad Chun, hope that goes right. If he’s a follow the order, do the job, go for the kill Navy guy, he will be half informed / used by senior mngt & won’t make it long..

        • TW – not sure what you want readers to infer: could a PR not leave because they didn’t want to be (further?) disingenuous, especially if they are fully acquainted with the matter and decline to be economical with the reality? Of course, you might know Boeing better than others of us…

    • Maybe this is only because of the Dubai Air Show. Scott Hamilton mentioned in his article ANOTHER SEASON WITHOUT THE MAX that Calhoun said RTS will be in 2021. If they want to make it right it should take another year. They made stabilizers and elevators stronger on the MAX but obviously forgot about the weak jackscrew and FAA forgot about that too. Boeing … good joke.

      Or Trump agreed to certify it next month. Then only the FAA and Brazil might certify it. It doesn’t matter when, it will still be an interesting year.

      But who with a right mind would be interested in the MAX at the Dubai Air Show. Will Muilenburg show up in Dubai or is he affraid to get handcuffed?

      • Leon:

        I think you insult the nation of Brazil, they were the first to see the MCAS as an issue.

        As for Trump, the FAA knows he will be gone soon (worst 4 years) and they have to live with congress forever.

        He no longer can influence the FAA

        Jackscrew is extremely strong, worked with gear systems for 45 years. Amazing failure tolerant.

        Yes you have my full agreement that DM should be in handcuffs.

        You might read how eager many airlines are to take the MAX as soon as its legally clear to fly.

        • TransWorld,

          Brazil was the first, but it was reported on Oct 28, 2019:
          “” According to the first Brazil’s government statement on the MAX issue, the National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil (ANAC) has been working closely with the FAA on getting the airplane back into service by the end of 2019. It is worth noting that Brazil’s largest domestic airline, Gol Transportes Aéreos, is a major MAX customer with an order over 100 aircraft. “”

          You mean Trump has no power, give me a break

          Everybody would think if they want to make stabilizers stronger (obviously because of increased forces) they would need a new certification too and then it would be demanded to make the elevators bigger (so elevators are usable), therefore everything should be recalculated, everything. This should be normal for every engineer, just not for Boeing. Makes me question what Boeing can engineer right. Who would step into a Boeing ever again when knowing that Boeing can’t engineer the simplest things. Unusable elevators … how is that even possible!!!

          If airlines are so foolish not to do everything to give customers a safe feeling they will be out of business soon. I remember on radio that one airline said on March 12 that they have full trust in the MAX and will keep flying. Such a great PR that was, unforgetable LOL

          United Airlines and Southwest Airlines announced their back-to-service policies, allowing passengers who do not feel comfortable flying on a MAX to be put on another flight if “it’s not an airplane you want to fly on for whatever reason”. Fear The Walking Dead …

          Besides that everybody knows now that the 737 certification is based on cheating and since politics are involved nobody can expect a true certification for decades. For the public, Boeing is done.

      • Anton:

        Previous they said they were more than fine as long as they knew about the system, it worked right and they had the training.

        I believe this is posturing for other reasons.

        Or as my younger brother would say, what its about is not what its about.

        • Flying was always an experience looking forward to, especially when going on holiday with the family. The MAX has changed that landscape for many, me personally is not booking tickets (long term) with airlines that have MAX’es in their fleet or on order.

        • “pushes back on pressure” – terrible English, at least for me.

          Dickson must be crazy to put his own family in a MAX and I don’t trust him too, it seems FAA certified step 1 of 5 when EASA did not.

          No, if I were an airline I wouldn’t be interested in the MAX. So much is wrong there and why should I upset my customers. I think I can’t earn money with the MAX.

          The only way would be to get 787 cheaper later in the process, if I were even interested in widebodies. Then my order would need to kept secret, not to alienate the public like IAG did.

  20. Looks like B’s ploy in declaring its own timetable for MAX RTS has now backfired badly, with FAA awowing to take its own sweet time for the process.
    B is apparently backpedaling like crazy.
    Will Wall Street back off too?
    Logically it should, but… what has logic to do with either B or the markets?

    • “I know there’s a lot of pressure to return this aircraft to service quickly, but I want you to know that I want you to take the time you need and focus solely on safety. I’ve got your back,” he said in a video address seen by Bloomberg.

      Boeing shares surged earlier this week after the company said the FAA was on track to certify the jet’s redesigned flight-control software by mid-December, which could allow the company to resume deliveries to the grounded 737 Max once again.

      In the memo, Dickson said the FAA’s work on the 737 Max “is not guided by a calendar or schedule.”

      • I”m wondering if this pushing back of the proposed solutions / certification, 3 months at a time is not done more for the GAAP accounting of inventory or proposed delivery within the current quarter, to make the accountants happy, rather than for airline planning return to service. If Boeing came out and said they think it will take 4 months, into next quarter, then they’d have to account for the undelivered planes sitting on the tarmac’s differently in their quarterly results?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *