HOTR: China-US relations continue to dive

By the Leeham News team

Oct. 17, 2022, © Leeham News: The G-7 meeting among the leaders of world’s top countries is next month. There were hopes that the USA’s President Biden and China’s President Xi would meet privately to work out some of the differences between the two countries. Resolving key differences is viewed as key to Boeing’s relationship with China.

The private meeting now is questionable. Biden last week imposed additional sanctions on the microchip industry. China is dominate in this sector. Beijing is now stonewalling setting an agenda for the Biden-Xi meeting.

Easing tensions between the US and China is crucial for Boeing. China historically accounted for between one quarter and one third of Boeing’s deliveries, depending on the year. There are more than 100 737 MAXes in storage built for Chinese airlines and lessors. (At one point, the number was 140. But lessors are allowed to accept deliveries, provided the lessee is not in China.)

Although China’s regulator, CAAC, recertified the MAX nearly a year ago, there were conditions required before the planes could return to service. Compliance has been slow. There were 97 MAXes in service in China in 2019, when CAAC became the first regulator to ground the fleet after the second MAX crash within a five-month period.

Boeing publicly decried the geopolitics between the US and China at one point as a roadblock that must be cleared.  Domestically, China’s passenger traffic remains suppressed in part because of the zero tolerance to COVID infections. Returning the MAXes to service isn’t prompted by the need for the aircraft. Still, there are signs the MAX may return to service soon. However, new deliveries remain in doubt and Boeing is now beginning to remarket the stored aircraft to other operators.

EASA certifies new engine for ATR

Europe’s regulator, EASA, last week certified the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127XT-M turboprop engine for the ATR 42 and ATR 72.

The engine includes the “latest” technologies and materials available, ATR says. Extended time (XT) on wing, 20% lower maintenance costs and a 3% improvement in fuel consumption are advertised.

These improvements will make it more difficult for Embraer to make a good sales case for its proposed next generation turboprop (TPNG). The TPNG concept uses the fuselage from the E-Jet and a proposed next generation turboprop engine from either Rolls-Royce or Pratt & Whitney. (GE has withdrawn from consideration.)

But the TPNG proposes economic improvements of 10%-15% over the legacy ATR and the De Havilland Canada Dash 8-400. This target isn’t enough, a former executive says. The capital cost and stagnant daily utilization requires much higher economic gains of at least 20%, he says. Assuming the PWC data is correct, the economic improvements of the XT-M narrow the targets announced by Embraer.

MHI RJ opens MRO hangar

MHI RJ Aviation Group, the subsidiary of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that owns the former Bombardier CRJ program and the supporting global repair facilities, last week opened its new MRO hangar in Bridgeport (WV).

MHI RJ opened Phase 1 of a planned 100,000+ sf of space. It will be the largest MRO facility in the US, with six lines available for heavy maintenance. More importantly, MHI RJ is preparing for the day when CRJ maintenance declines as aging aircraft are retired. With the production line closed, inevitably the global support system for the CRJ will decline.

The new facilities are sized to service standard narrowbody aircraft.


166 Comments on “HOTR: China-US relations continue to dive

  1. “Although China’s regulator, CAAC, recertified the MAX nearly a year ago, there were conditions required before the planes could return to service. Compliance has been slow.

    Boeing publicly decried the geopolitics between the US and China at one point as a roadblock that must be cleared.”

    Maybe Boeing meeting the CAAC requirements by implementing them on the 737-8 would help? Maybe Boeing is also playing the political card, avoiding having to do their (EICAS) homework..

    The engine upgrade for the ATR’s is probably the one to bridge the time frame towards the more radically upgraded ATR EVO. That likely will have the same engine technology as Embraer’s TPNG.

    It seems Embraer needs to offer additional unique selling points, above new engines and closely related fuel efficiency. E.g. capacity – range – speed, comfort, lower deck luggage/cargo options, gate compatibility..

    I would not be surprised if a TPNG wing mounted engine configuration will pop-up after all. That’s how aeronautical compromises work. Those tail mounted engines could create a very heavy tail, while the Lift is at the wings..

    Keeping OEW as low as possible always proves very important for CASM & ATR’s seem pretty efficient. Ask BBD.

    • “Maybe Boeing meeting the requirements by implementing them on the 737-8 would help? Maybe Boeing is also playing the political card, avoiding having to do their (EICAS) homework.”

      Exactly — CAAC condition No. 3 appears to require EICAS implementation as a condition for green-lighting the MAX in China. BA had 2 years in which it could have provided the MAX with EICAS, in parallel with the project to modify MCAS. But, it instead followed the triple paths of “minimal effort”, “minimal costs” and “don’t upset Southwest”.
      Short cuts make long delays.

      • @Bryce

        Short cuts make long delays, true.

        Short cuts and lies also killed a lot people and is about to bankrupt a company. So many of us tried to tell Boeing leadership when the mad max was announced to do it right and bring the airplane into the 21st century.
        We all heard the same reply; ‘gotta keep costs down’
        How much have they paid out in the past 4 years is reason enough to fire the complete BOD and executive leadership. Some will say China is playing politics, maybe so, but I do think it is about safety with the Chinese….. rightly so!

        But your point about keeping SWA happy is spot on! The good ole boys want to keep flying their ‘60’s relic for the next 40 years.
        And this article proves it:

        • Some interesting takes and a mixing of facts.

          There are four areas, Mechanical, technical, management and management mixing in mechanical/technical areas.

          Mechanically there were no flaws on the MAX. It flies and it flies well.

          Airbus in fact admitted at the Qatar trial the MAX is as good or better than the A320. That was under oath.

          Technically the wondrous EICAS had nothing to do with preventing nor any relevancy to the two crashes. EASA nor any regulator asked for it as one of the fixes.

          One bit of franken software was the trigger. That would be a technical issue (unless we want to add software as a separate area which an argument could be made for)

          The MAX in fact is flying into China and Boeing has had meetings in China to deal with return to service (that may once again be negated by the latest issue with US chips found in Iranian Drones).

          Boeing management clearly has severe issues to incompetent. Its Hi Jack of the FAA (which has gone on far longer than others seem to know) as well as pressure could well have been the trigger into the MCAS debacle.

          The fact that MCAS was easily fixed speaks volumes at the level it was implemented at. Lying to the FAA etc.

          But if you advocated that the EICAS is a magic fix, you fail to look at all the A320/330 Airbus crashes in which pilots flew their aircraft into the ground or sea . The word delusional comes to mind.

          • @TW

            “Some interesting and mixing of facts”
            Where are they? Just you saying something isn’t ‘facts’.

            Pedro already pretty much snubbed your blather.

            But point to any article where Airbus actually said the Mad max was a better airplane. Any fool in the sales world would not say that about their product, and if it was said I’m sure whoever wrote this took the Airbus comment out of context and misquoted.

            Then point to any article that talks about EICAS or ECAM won’t prevent an accident or have any benefits for flight crew resource management.

            You don’t mention that this “Franken software” killed a lot of people. You make this sound so frivolous. So who’s delusional?

            The FACT that Boeing lied to both the regulators and customers says everything! Boeing has no ethics.

          • Airdoc: I love it when someone opens a hole in the line and you can run 100 yards untouched. Well admittedly I did say A320 not A321. The quote is

            “Qatar subsequently ordered the Boeing 737 MAX and this catapulted arguments over the relative merits of the jets into court, with Airbus unusually saying the MAX was as good as the A321 in a bid to avoid being forced to build the jets for Qatar.”

            And of course here is the link to the Article as the next assertion is I made it up.


            You might want to check your facts next time.

          • @TW

            Reality distortion field!
            What you quoted is an agency report, not *exact words* from Airbus. (You better quote directly from court transcript.) Apparently you also fail to understand the context of AB’s argument in court.
            Roll eyes.

          • @TW

            The obfuscation you’re spewing is annoying.
            The NG has its problems too, stab trim isn’t an issue because the CG isn’t screwed up.
            Big deal, you’ve coded SW and flew an MD11 in the sim. Many people have.
            Stay on topic about China.

            Captain Sully should be honored for what he and his FO accomplished that day on the Hudson.
            We need to listen to his kind more often.
            I will stick to my opinion that the Chinese don’t trust the mad max fixes.

          • Airdoc:

            As so often done by politicians, when proven wrong they just deflect as you have done.

            The MAX does not have a CG problem (and in fact if you read aviation tech area, the A320 does, it has to be loaded carefully in order to avoid a CG problem, which the NG or the MAX does not)

            I have the same issue with the NG on the trim wheel as I do the MAX and that should have been corrected.

            EASA did not address it. Nor any other regulatory agency though it was the second factor in the Ethiopian MAX crash as they lost speed control while dealing with MCAS.

            That in turn meant they could not do manual trim as it was locked up by speed.

            So you really need to deal with facts or it just spirals off into never never land.

            I never soled a machinery problem by trying to BS it.

        • -> Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger isn’t satisfied that the fixes for Boeing’s 737 MAX proposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are enough.

          -> Sullenberger’s other main concern is that Boeing do something about the cacophony of false alerts that were triggered erroneously on the crash flights by one failed sensor.

          -> In June 2019, at the invitation of Dave Calhoun, now Boeing CEO, Sullenberger tried out both the original and the updated MCAS software in one of Boeing’s flight simulators in Miami, replicating what happened on the crashed flights. There, he experienced “the multiple, compounded alerts and the ambiguity of the events and the physical workload and the distraction.” “It was clear to me how the accident crews could have run out of time and altitude,” he said.

          -> He contrasted his own experience in 2009 — when he saw the geese approach seconds before they hit and felt the shudder as they were drawn into the engines, leaving little mystery about what was happening to his airplane — with that of the crew of Lion Air Flight JT610 in 2018. On that flight, one sensor failure set off “rapidly cascading effects through multiple systems that quickly became ambiguous and confusing,” he said. “It’s likely the crew never fully comprehended what was killing them, especially since they had never heard of MCAS.”

          -> More broadly, Sullenberger wants updates to bring the 737 crew alerts up to the standards on later aircraft. When certifying the MAX, the FAA at Boeing’s request allowed an exception to the latest crew alerting safety regulations.

          “Neither the MAX nor the 737 NG have a modern crew-alerting system,” he said.

          • So, are you contending the NG should also be changed?

            It not that is leaving 5000 or so death machines in the skies.

            Should the MAX have been brought up to modern standards? Me, I am far more worried about the manual wheel trim issue.

            The so called cascading alerts were a result of the program and its easy to program those out and its been sorted in MCAS 2.0 that ALL aviation authority in the world (sans Russia) has approved.

            Sullenberg is an icon, but he is not perfect nor on a pedestal. I prefer the old systems.

            And I have flown an MD-11 simulator into a sweet landing, so I am good at what I do and did. The CFI was impressed to say the least.

            Sadly there are few pilots in the commentators. I am the first to admit I am lousy at writing software, but I at least have done some of it. I have collaborated on writing some really good software (my genius for how it needed to work meshed with the software writers write the code.

            I worked with one software writer who had no clue on how mechanical system worked and I had to draw a software chart of what had to happen when and why.

            If you have not flown an aircraft then you really do not understand the issues. That is confirmed by the fact that you ignore the crashes on the A320/321 that the alert system told the pilots exactly what the issues were and they messed it up.

            You still have to be able to fly the aircraft and as Wolfgang Langewiesche put it, its still Stick and Rudder (I suggest you get the book and read it.

        • The first commercial MAX flight in 3.5 years entered China last week, from Mongolia.
          One swallow doesn’t make a summer.

          • Ahh, the ever spiral of denial. Frankly a swallow is an organic entity that flies and a MAX is a mechanical machine that flies.

            That does refute that the MAX is not certified to fly in China despite how much you deny it.

            An Ostrich sticking its head into the sand comes to mind.

            Or as they told us in flight school, if you loose power over rugged terrain, turn on your landing light. If you don’t like what you see turn it off.

          • @ TW
            For the record, from the Chinese press:

            “China, the first country to ground the 737 MAX after two fatal accidents, has maintained that for the plane to resume commercial services, aircraft modifications must be approved for airworthiness, and pilots must be fully retrained to fly the model. **The authority also demanded that the findings of investigations into the two fatal air tragedies must be made available and the defects, which caused the incidents, must be addressed.** “

          • @ TW
            The Mongolian Airlines flight from UBN to CAN using a MAX 8 will occur just 7 times before the service is ended (which will be in November).
            Looks like a limited waiver rather than a re-cert 😉

        • Well unlike most here, SWAPA got skin in the game because they fly the Max, not just simulators.

          The airline flying this 60s relic has an outstanding safety record so far and profitability.

          • The recent MITRE report implicates the outdated 737 CAS in 5 crashes of that “60s relic”.
            Time to drag that dinosaur into the 21st century.

          • Ahh yes, the wisdom of one vs all the well versed regulatory agencies across the planet.

            The boy who cried wolf comes to mind

          • “Ahh yes, the wisdom of one vs all the well versed regulatory agencies across the planet.”

            For the record, the MITRE report was commissioned by FAA. Regulators around the world would listen to experts rather than amateurs online.

        • ABC: Southwest Faces $10.2 Million Fine From FAA

          Southwest Airlines is facing the largest fine ever imposed on a passenger airline by the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA announced Thursday that it is proposing a $10.2 million fine against Southwest because the airline failed to do required safety checks on its older aircraft.

          Routine checks ensure airplanes are fit to fly, but Southwest failed to inspect 46 older Boeing 737s, six of which were later found to have cracks in them.

          Furthermore, gives Southwest only four out of seven possible stars — the lowest rating of any American carrier — on the basis of past fatalities and a failure to complete a special international safety audit.

          • And yet they have not had a fatal crash………Dang statistics

          • @Williams

            To be clear no one wants to see an accident. No one!
            But, one only doesn’t have to research very hard to find out that SWA safety record is one of the worst for a US 737 operator. And yes, unfortunately, they have had fatalities including people on the ground in the case of the MDW runway overrun.

            It’s not good to be smug.

          • No crash but one on board fatality in 2018 for WN. The *only* one among U.S. major airlines in the last decade or so IIRC. Not anything to brag about, right??

            What may happen eventually will happen. A matter of time. No one with a head would play Russian roulette, not going to speak for those who don’t.

          • @AirDoc, no one is being smug, this aviation, and anything can happen today, tomorrow, or a year from now. At present on SWA a person died in a the MDW overrun and the poor lady who almost got sucked out when the window blew because of hit by engine shrapnel. Over 50 years of flying millions two deaths. That is no consolation to the loved ones left behind.

            Flying a fleet of what some here condescendingly say is a 60s relic.

            Stating those facts is not being smug, its stating facts. Superstition has no place in the business of flying people.

          • Look at the number of safety fines imposed by FAA on Southwest, including one within the last week.

          • Williams,
            You make an excellent point about superstition. When statements like “60s relic”, or “drag that dinosaur into the 21st century”, or “it’s too out of date to be safely updated” are made in the absence of facts, the appeal is really to people’s superstition or fears. It’s typically a hallmark of politicians, desperate sales people, or fanatics, not people trying to have rational discussions.

          • Not to mention none of those safety fines had anything to do with piloting the aircraft.

          • Cherry-picking is the rule of the game for our obfuscators here.

            WN is only one amongst many airlines around the world that fly the NG and the MAX. BA would went out of business long ago if it only limit what it sells to Americans.

            The aircraft has to be good enough for pilots around the world, not just a selected few.

          • @ Mike Bohnet
            No “superstition” at play here: just cold, hard reality.
            Plenty of facts available: NTSB reports, MITRE report, NASA report, FAA re-cert AD (several paragraphs dedicated to runaway stabilizer / manual trim wheel), EASA re-cert AD (re-cert is only provisional, pending AoA input supplement), lack of China re-cert (CAAC condition number 3), the 60 recent incidents reported by ABC,…

            Looks like some prefer to stick their heads in the sand 😉

          • Bryce,
            Did you even read the MITRE report?

            Verbatim from Page 5-3: “The 737 MAX was closer to a new TC than many understand. This finding dispels the argument that the 737-NG and 737 MAX designs, from a certification perspective, are “old designs” from the late 1960s. Manufacturers choose to exceed the certification requirements for a derivative aircraft for a variety of reasons, including improvements to safety, reliability, and manufacturing processes.”

            Notice what the MITRE report clearly states. The report may disagree with most worldwide regulators regarding mandating EICAS, but along with the regulators, MITRE does not believe that the 737 is too old to be made safe. What you call cold, hard reality by listing all those reports, is really just your interpretations of what those reports say chosen in such a way to bolster your superstition.

            If my head is in the sand like you say, then so is the FAA’s, EASA’s, Transport Canada’s, and ANAC’s just to name a few. Interesting that only you, your fellow Airbus fans on this forum, and China see reality clearly.🙄

          • @ Mike Bohnet
            You need to re-adjust your final sentence to include.
            – EASA (re-cert is only provisional, pending modifications).
            – The US Congress (requires EICAS).
            – Sully (MAX “not up to modern standards”).
            – The pilots union at AA.

            Looks like a LOT of people have had enough of that 60s relic.

            Maybe the FAA also: I doubt that the MAX-7/-10 will be certified any time soon, due to the FAA’s ongoing safety concerns.

            Next up: the concept of both pilots having to labor over a manual trim wheel, thereby leaving nobody to actually fly the plane — wow, that’s modern!

          • -> The independent report from the MITRE Corp. […] *concludes that exemption from the crew-alerting standard contributed to the two MAX crashes that killed 346 people, and also influenced Boeing to suppress information about the new flight control software on the MAX* — known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS — that was the main cause of the crashes.

            -> The [MITRE] report identifies the crew-alerting system as one of those “safety-critical features” that must be negotiated with the FAA, and delves deeply and scathingly into the specific exemption the agency granted Boeing on the MAX.

            *The modern systems in all Boeing planes besides the 737 have a color-coded hierarchy of alerts for failures, from minor to potentially catastrophic, and alphanumeric messages on a central screen tell the pilot exactly what the problem is*.

            *The older 737 design has a more complicated system with initial warnings lighting up on the glare shield at the top of the instrument panel and further diagnosis provided by clusters of various switches, dials and lights on an overhead panel*.

            -> MITRE found the FAA’s decision to exempt the MAX flight crew-alerting system from the current safety regulation was “inherently flawed.”

            In a strange argument for the claim that a new crew-alerting system was unnecessary, *Boeing had identified three fatal 737 accidents in the previous decade where investigators found the crew-alerting system was a factor* — but pointed out that in each case it had made a specific change to fix the problem.

            The MITRE analysts were unimpressed. They concluded that the fixes Boeing retroactively provided in each of those crashes *merely “patched the inadequacies of the 737 pilot-warning system rather than proactively implementing better human factor designs and pilot-alerting systems that the company was already installing on other aircraft*.”

            Subsequently, the pilots on the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines MAX crash flights were confused and distracted by a cacophony of crew alerts that failed to help them understand what was causing the planes to nosedive.

            The report said its analysis of the three earlier crashes plus the two MAX crashes “strengthens our focus on the *need to hold flight deck, crew-alerting, and other safety-critical systems to a higher level of scrutiny*.”

          • Bryce,
            – EASA’s conditions don’t include EICAS.
            – Congress’s original intention was not to force Boeing to have to implement EICAS on the 737.
            – Sully is one celebrity pilot (I do respect him, though)
            – Does AA not compete with WN?

            None of the regulators, or reports, or congress, or any of the pilots unions, think the 737 is a lost cause. Do some think it could be made safer? Yes. But there is definitely disagreement about the extent of changes that are required. And, yes, that’s different than thinking it’s too old to be made safe. But you go ahead and do your superstitions.

            What does the FAA, EASA, Transport Canada, ANAC, and even China say about the manual trim wheel? …. Crickets … It seems that ignorance of the manual trim switches is a thing.

          • @ Mike Bohnet
            You (conveniently) omitted the piece of text that comes immediately after your quote above:
            “Our review of the 737 MAX’s exceptions to 14 CFR 25.1322 and other loss-of-life accidents strengthens our focus on the need to hold flight deck, crew alerting, and other safety-critical systems to a higher level of scrutiny and properly balance the inherent risk associated with the CPR.”

            Further: Adding to Pedro’s list above:

            “D.1.2 Summary of Hazards and Consequences of the Exceptions

            Boeing acknowledged that each airworthiness regulation has a purpose to address a known hazard. Therefore, the exceptions have the potential to allow those hazards to occur and could lead to consequences such as:
            1) Not recognizing a non-normal event
            2) Not responding to the non-normal event with the appropriate response
            3) Not responding in a timely manner

            The findings of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines MAX accidents noted that the flight crews did in fact experience all of these hazards and consequences. They did not fully understand what failure and non-normal situation was occurring, and they did not respond correctly or in a timely manner.”


          • @ Mike Bohnet
            EASA’s re-cert AD certainly does refer to the CAS (appendix, page 9), including it in the planned 2-year review w.r.t. addition of a third AoA input.

            Not sure how you’re privy to Congress’ “intention”, but please do share a link with us.

            The EASA re-cert AD devotes several paragraphs to the manual trim wheel: it makes for some amusing — but shocking — reading.

            Nobody else here is talking about a “lost cause”: we’re currently discussing the concept that the MAX is an outdated “60s relic”.

          • “Nobody else here is talking about a “lost cause”: we’re currently discussing the concept that the MAX is an outdated “60s relic”.”

            You seem to be constantly talking about the 737 being a lost cause in this forum. You don’t directly use those words but you certainly seem to be strongly implying it with arguments to support that notion along with various disparaging remarks.

            An example is earlier this year I made the following statement in response to jbeeko:
            “I’ve never seen any credible arguments that the 737 was too “out of date” to be safely updated (Airbus marketing talking points don’t cut it).”
            You then proceeded to present your evidence to counter my statement, i.e. present evidence the the 737 is indeed too out of date to be safely updated. For any aircraft, if it is too out of date to be safely updated, then isn’t it a lost cause?

            Now you’re saying you don’t think the 737 is a lost cause? Hmmmm

            As far as congress goes, it’s obvious I’m not privy to their true intentions. However, I can observe what they did, what they are currently doing, and what observers say about it. Congress chose a date to start requiring EICAS. Many observers think this date was chosen to allow Boeing to get the -7 and -10 certified before EICAS is required. Congress is also currently considering a extending the deadline to allow Boeing extra time. My conclusion is that congress didn’t want to force Boeing to implement EICAS on the -7 or -10. You can come to your own conclusions.

            So in 2 years EASA wants to discuss requiring EICAS on the 737. Good for them! I mean this truly. However, that’s a far cry from requiring Boeing to do it immediately because there is an imminent unacceptable safety risk.

          • Nice diversion. How about the MAX’s 60s relic flight-crew alert system??

          • Pedro,
            We are talking about the CAS and the fact that the MIRE report recommends that updating should be required and that the FAA is considering it but as of now has not required it. Pay attention!

            FYI the MITRE report is not independent. The law instructed the FAA to have an appropriate FFRDC evaluate two proposed changes to the certification process giving consideration to investigations, reports, and assessments of the 737 MAX incidents. The FAA chose and hired MITRE.

            “WN is only one amongst many airlines around the world that fly the NG and the MAX. BA would went out of business long ago if it only limit what it sells to Americans.

            The aircraft has to be good enough for pilots around the world, not just a selected few.”

            Are you now saying that American pilots are somehow better, i.e the “selected few”?

          • @ Mike Bohnet

            “So in 2 years EASA wants to discuss requiring EICAS on the 737. Good for them! I mean this truly”

            The 2-year period started when EASA gave its preliminary re-cert of the MAX — so it’s almost expired now.

            As regards “lost cause”, that’s your term, not mine. However, we know for sure that the MAX program will never make a profit for BA — so, doesn’t that make it a lost cause?
            But, as long as some airlines are willing to buy/lease it, then it can still generate some (token) revenue, can’t it? So not all is lost.

            That having bern said: it’s still a 60s relic with outdated systems and an apalling safety record. Where that’s concerned, Airdoc’s comment above was very pertinent.

          • Bryce,
            Yes, “lost cause” is my term. But, I defined it for you by asking a leading question when I said above:

            “For any aircraft, if it is too out of date to be safely updated, then isn’t it a lost cause?”

            So my definition is obviously: “lost cause” = “too out of date to be safely updated”

            By asking that leading question, I was also asking by implication whether or not you agree. In your latest reply you avoided answering my question, instead opting to discuss two other options of what “lost cause” could mean according to you. So I’ll ask you directly.

            Do you think that the 737 is too out of date to be safely upgraded?

            From what I’ve posted here over the years it is obvious (to me at least) that my answer is no. This is my answer.

            What is your answer? I would guess by what you’ve posted since 2019 that your answer is yes. I admit I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.

          • What makes you think MITRE is not independent?? Because FAA commissioned them for the report?? 🙄

            -> The Aircraft Certification Safety and Accountability Act passed in 2020 *requires the FAA to commission an independent study* to assess two proposed reforms in how it certifies derivative airplanes

            The report came out this year, FAA hasn’t made any announcement of decision, yet.

            The problem goes back to BA asked for an exemption not to update the MAX’s flawed and outdated flight-crew alert system.

            Who’s not paying attention??

          • @ Mike Bohnet
            Your term, your definition.
            That isn’t my definition.
            A “lost cause” can be technical, commercial, financial, reputational or regulatory in nature: you seem to be concentrating solely on the technical aspect, whereas I’m not.

            Regarding upgrading: BA could easily have upgraded the 737 as it went along, but it instead chose profit over product. EICAS could easily be implemented, even today. The undercarriage could also have been raised with relative ease, allowing larger engines. Too late to switch to FBW at this stage.

            I think we all know that one more crash will probably kill the program.
            Non-cert of the -7/-10 will weaken it.
            But BA is stuck with it now because it doesn’t have the money or market timing / engine to come with a replacement any time soon.

            An outdated relic.

          • @Bryce Everyone knows one more crash means the end of BCA as we know it

          • Bryce,
            Yes, we can all see that “lost cause” was my definition. But you see, that’s not what I asked you. I asked you directly:
            “Do you think that the 737 is too out of date to be safely upgraded?”

            And…. you weaseled out. I can’t really say I’m surprised, because you seem more interested in pushing a fan type of narrative than having a rational discussion on the real pros/cons of the 737 regarding safety, or really any other aspect of it.

            Just for the record, my definition of “lost cause” obviously covers more than just the technical, it also covers regulatory and commercial concerns. This is obvious because my definition involves safety. I admit that I don’t really include financial, mostly because that is not my area of expertise. The reputational part is obvious to everyone, and really doesn’t require constant harping.

            You said to me in one of last week’s comment sections that you have a technical background. “I’ve worked in advanced optics and mechatronics for more than 2 decades”, you said. If that’s true, why don’t you actually apply that expertise in this forum with some real worthwhile insights. We would all really benefit. Including me! You seem like a pretty intelligent person, and you write well.

            Instead, though, you choose to, somewhat mindlessly, hammer on Boeing and all its products, and the 737 in particular by perpetuating this fan-like superstitious narrative that somehow, just because the 737 has aspects dating back to the 1960’s, that it’s somehow unsafe because it’s “old”. I find it funny that the MITRE report, that you’ve used to push your narrative, actually comes out against that narrative in a direct statement:

            “The 737 MAX was closer to a new TC than many understand. This finding dispels the argument that the 737-NG and 737 MAX designs, from a certification perspective, are “old designs” from the late 1960s.”

            Now the MITRE report obviously advises the FAA to require the 737 CAS to be updated for safety reason that they lay out, but currently at least, no regulators are requiring it. I personally find a few of their arguments lost in the past and not useful moving forward, but that’s just me.

            If you really think that EICAS could easily be implemented, even today and the undercarriage could also be raised with relative ease, then you are either ignorant of these issues, or don’t really understand them. These very issues have been explained/discussed/debated ad nauseam in past LNC articles and comment sections. The vast majority of this was done before 2019 when you showed up.

            I admit, it bothered me when you disparaged Boeing and its products. Heck, Boeing deserves a lot of criticism, and serious changes need to happen there. Everyone in this forum knows. It won’t bother me anymore, though, since I now have a much better idea of where it’s coming from.

          • @ Mike Bohnet
            Just because you have a need to put things into simplified boxes doesn’t mean that everyone else does 😏

            As regards modifications: stop deceiving yourself.
            – An ex-BA and ex-FAA engineer recently published an article on how BA could implement EICAS with relative ease.
            – AB put new engines and a new wing on the A330 neo for just $2B. BA managed to put new rear landing gear on the MAX-10. So BA could certainly have increased the ground clearance when developing the MAX. But that would probably have upset Southwest…

            Both mods would have cost money — but not implementing them has cost a lot more money, hasn’t it?

            It seems that, thanks to the ongoing braindrain, even the basics are becoming a daily puzzle at BA. Maybe that’s the reason why you try to quality every engineering challenge as Herculean — including the development of an RVS for the KC-46A. Time for a Damascene conversion: look at how the competition is managing to do it — faster and better.

            Less whining, more engineering.

          • @ Mike Bohnet
            Here’s an interesting discussion on the 737 landing gear — more specifically, in response to a question as to why it wasn’t lengthened.
            Lots of good engineering detail.
            Notice that nobody says that the task was impossible? Notice how many people indicate that it was purely a matter of cost?

            What a shocker for you: it appears that @Bryce isn’t the only person making “disparaging” comments about BA engineering…


            And here’s another nice article for you:

            Note the red quote:
            “Everything about the design and manufacture of the Max was done to preserve the myth that ‘it’s just a 737.’ Recertifying it as a new aircraft would have taken years and millions of dollars. In fact, the pilot licensed to fly the 737 in 1967 is still licensed to fly all subsequent versions of the 737.”

          • Bryce,
            No need to put things in boxes here. I’m a details guy, and my world is rarely black or white. Perhaps you were just feeling boxed in by my question, which you still haven’t answered. Why could that be?

            Anything can be done if one is willing to spend the money. However, the increase in benefit of doing the thing is not necessarily proportional to the increase in money spent. Yeah, Boeing could’ve completely redesigned the NG wing, to widen the engine spacing to allow sufficiently longer main gear to keep the larger engine installation exactly proportional to the NG installation. Most credible experts (people who put their name on their analysis, not some anonymous people on the internet) that I’ve seen would say doing that would cause so many ripple changes that it would no longer be a 737 derivative but a new airplane. Modifying the gear to get a few more inches to help takeoff rotation is one thing, clearing large engines is entirely another. It’s funny how Airbus fans poo-poo a software solution here, when no Airbus aircraft could fly without software.

            I chuckled at your example of the A330neo new wing. I bet you don’t even know what changes Airbus actually made. Hint, they didn’t make significant structural or planform changes, and they certainly didn’t move the engines. Your comparison here is typical fandom, very broad brush so that if anyone tries to pin you down in a direction, you have the freedom to move in another direction to weasel your way back out.

            The ex BA and FAA engineer’s plan for an “easy” and “inexpensive” EICAS seems to boil down to an EICAS very light, where the primary change is to add the ability to turn off warnings. If I recall correctly this is already in the works on the MAX 10 to satisfy Transport Canada.

            Like I said previously, you don’t know anything about the set of requirements Boeing had to meet for the KC-46 RVS. If the competition is so much better and the problem is so straightforward, why was the KC-30 6 years late, and why did EADS want Billions to develop the KC-45. So much for an off-the-shelf straightforward solution. Yet another piece of broad brush fandom.

            The links you provided, while somewhat interesting, really just amount to a bunch of anonymous people trying to discuss a complicated and nuanced design problem. I’ll take their opinions with a grain of salt.

          • @ Mike Bohnet
            Keep chuckling all you want.
            While you’re doing that, the rest of the world is chuckling at BA’s sub-standard product line, and lack of engineering wherewithall.
            Airbus, in particular, is chuckling all the way to the bank 😏

          • Mike Bonnet:”
            It’s funny how Airbus fans poo-poo a software solution here, when no Airbus aircraft could fly without software.”

            All the Airbus FBW types are integrally designed for being SW driven.
            And that Software is part of an excruciating qualification process.
            There is nothing of that onion layered afterthoughtish quickfix bag around as it appears to be on Boeing products. ( IMU this deficiency is not limited to the 737. )

          • “Keep chuckling all you want.
            While you’re doing that, the rest of the world is chuckling at BA’s sub-standard product line, and lack of engineering wherewithall.
            Airbus, in particular, is chuckling all the way to the bank.”

            There we have it, folks! Bryce is the authority on what the rest of the world is up to. Bravo! You don’t disappoint. I’m not really surprised though. This isn’t the first time this was claimed by someone of your ilk.

          • “.. authority on what the rest of the world is up to..”

            Hmm, is this a jovi non bovi thing?

            Afair the knowitall faction is strongly dominated by posters from the “all American” continent.

          • “Afair the knowitall faction is strongly dominated by posters from the “all American” continent.”

            Makes sense that this is your perception. You’ve been firmly on the anti-US team since well before I started posting on LNA. I perceive things differently.

          • “I perceive things differently.”

            perception has wide scope. obviously.

            But this is neither a fan event nor a party rally.
            Factual observation counts.

          • “perception has wide scope. obviously.

            But this is neither a fan event nor a party rally.
            Factual observation counts.”

            You pay lip service to factual observations, but say:

            “Afair the knowitall faction is strongly dominated by posters from the “all American” continent.”

            You’re talking about you recollections, which are your perceptions of the facts. Well, in my recollections this faction that you speak of is strongly dominated by posters east of the Atlantic.

            Who’s “factual observations” are actually factual. I’m certainly not going to concede yours are. I’m sure you’re not going to concede mine are either.

            If this is not a fan event or a party rally as you say, then stop behaving like it is.

  2. As long as the US and China are at loggerheads, one should not expect an Boeing order. Aircraft orders is an effective weapon for China and has served them well in the past years.

    If the EU ticks of China (will never happen) then it will feel China’s order wrath too.

    • William:

      Its effective in giving Airbus a boost, but it in fact is not going to change US policy. So as a weapon its failed.

    • And the elephant in the room…giving China’s Comac the green light and assurances the US will not block key supply chains (e.g. engines) in the future And to seal the deal….you support FAA cert (US content justifies it) of C919 and will take 737 on order and give you a new order for Boeing aircrafty

      • David P:

        Telling the FAA to certify the C919 is exactly what people have said went wrong with the FAA and Boeing (and to a large degree correctly)

        Certification is not a card to be played in a game. Either you meet the documentation and the standards that go with it or you do not and that is what independent agencies are all about.

        China has told its agency that the C919 will be certified and they have done so.

        Mr. Biden can not call up the head of the FAA and tell him to certify the C919. That is not how it works not should it.

        Yes we can hold up tech component sales to China and kill the C919 for now and we should. You want to play hard ball, we can as well.

        In 10 years China can work around it. In the meantime no production of C919.

        • Who is this “China” that’s telling what its agency to do?? Funny.

          China has not certified the MAX. Period.

        • So the 2nd largest global economy (almost 20% of the global GDP) shouldn’t be allowed to build their own commercial aircraft to meet western standards with western subsystems? (so maybe EASA will do it) As for FAA, can the proposed shadow certification process done on in the early 90s work… was it TU204 or IL96?

          • I think the EASA will be willing to cooperate in getting EU certification for the C919.
            Politics / hubris will most likely prevent the FAA from doing the same.

          • @DP

            The C919 was produced on stolen IP both from Boeing and Airbus, period! That jet looks pretty close to an A320….. hmmm.
            The FAA isn’t interested with certification of this jet as basically no US operator wants it. EASA probably will.

            You and I worked together in a formal life. It’s always good to see your feedback.

          • “The FAA isn’t interested with certification of this jet as basically no US operator wants it. EASA probably will.”

            Just a fyi, the US has only 5% of the total global population. US content on C919 not the US travel market for FAA to get involved Boeing and Airbus agree, the next 20 years of 40% of commercial aircraft deliveries with be in Southeast Asia

            For marketing to the rest of the world a EASA and FAA cert would be the best strategy for China But EASA would work for global leasing companies

          • David P:

            You need some background on the overall and situation.

            The FAA worked extremely hard to not just certify the C919, as part of the process they tried to get China to put in place both the standards and the documentation required to prove a standard has been met (read Bjorn’s article on certify a 19 pax aircraft) .

            EASA tried as well and walked away. The problem was that China would be half a mile down the road in build and not documented the process nor proven that the build met the specs.

            Bryce contends that we can’t take Boeing word on it (correctly) but that we can believe China who has total dictatorial control of not just Comac but CAAC.

            There is no question the C919 will fly, but you can’t prove its safe or met any standards.

            China shot itself in the foot not the FAA or EASA as they refused to comply with the standards and the documentation that proved they had.

            You should also be aware that Mitsubishi had the same problem on their MRJ. They had not built a civilian aircart in so long they got lost. They tried to recover by moving to the US but then it all came to naught as there was no market. They recognized though that to get either Japanese Certification’s (yes its recognized ) or FAA, it had to be done right and they were redoing it all to get it.

            First and foremost as the US and Western Europe were in the forefront of Aviation, they began to develop mechanisms to deal with the design issues (failures) and requirement for safe aircraft. Those in turn eventually became the FAA in the US and EASA when the EU was formed (prior each country had its own agency)

            The next is that agencies and bureaucracies are far from perfect. In the US you can add in regulatory capture.

            Generally as the original agencies, they developed standards and documentation practices that are the world standards for aviation (and do not conflict mistakes and regulatory capture as negating the standards, they can be and have been bypassed but the standards are still there.

            And Canada builds certified aircraft that are recognized as does Brazil.

            They went through the process and documentation to prove it and they have standing at the table for discussion on future changes to ensure safety.

            To flip a proverb around, Verify before you Trust.

          • When a major U.S. airframer has difficulty to certify “variants” *repeatedly*, it’s still considered at the forefront of aviation?? The writing is on the wall, open your eyes plz!!

  3. ATR New Engine versus Embraer new project : IMO minus 3% in sfc + minus 20% engine maintenance cost means about 5% ( 1+4) of total operating cost decrease which means that a 10-15% total economic cost improvement per ASM ( including acquisition cost) is already a major step . Cost of acquisition should be key to reach such large improvement . OEM Production cost is the logical next step for such target . your opinion

  4. 120% of the market vs. 80%.
    Duopoly no more??

    Another point:
    Some say BA is preparing for a “long” freeze, but a year or two is hardly one IMO.

  5. not a lot of good reasons to be in a hurry to make nice with China.

    they are supporting Putin
    they are threatening Taiwan
    they are trying to intimidate Japan
    they make open threats at Guam
    they are attempting to steal the entire SCS
    they have enslaved Hong Kong.

    we would be better off shipping our manufacturing to Mexico (in many ways, not least increasing economic opportunities there and reducing crime)

    • Please read my post further down quoting the EU Trade Minister regarding China.

      • The US is continuing to import $60B of goods from China *per month*.
        If it’s so put off by China, then why doesn’t it end its addiction to Chinese products?

        • US GDP is roughly $2 trill per month.
          Or $2000 billion pm

          Those goods from China are say 3%.

          • That’s not the point: if China’s behavior is so objectionable to the US, then why is the US continuing to buy copious quantities of Chinese goods? That’s just supporting China’s “aggression”, isn’t it?
            @William seems to be suggesting that the EU somehow has “unclean hands” by continuing to trade with China — but the US is no different in that regard. Moreover, Australia (his home country) imported $72B worth of Chinese goods in 2021.

          • U.S. can’t make its own chips; U.S. has a trade deficit reaching $1 trillion a month.
            All speak volume.

          • @Bryce, because like the US like the EU are addicted to the profits that come from doing business with China. And China needs markets send their products. But when disagreements arise, trade is used as message sender. China has spoken and Boeing is screwed in the China market no matter what the CAAC says until their is a thaw about Taiwan.

          • @William

            Who started the trade conflict? Who think it’s easy to win the trade war?? Damn those who forget/fail to learn their history.

            Action speaks louder than words. Shouldn’t the Aussies be the first to stop trading with this “big bad wolf”?? What do you think???

          • China is 3rd in Aug 2022
            ‘It marks the first time Mexico has been the No. 1 trading partner of the U.S. since January. Canada ranked No. 2, as its total trade with America was $70.04 billion in August, and China rated third with $63.2 billion.’
            Im sure the US trade is only a minor part of Chinas GDP as well. They have many other trading partners just like the US.
            The electronics , especially phones and computers are a bigger deal as most are assembled in China. My phones and computers are and Im very happy with them. I hope it continues

          • Interesting. In Septmber:

            Shipments from China represent 21 percent of the total imports followed by Mexico (14 percent), Canada (13 percent), Japan (6 percent), and Germany (5 percent).

        • I am saying, I do not expect the EU to antagonize China the way the US has. For as how uncomfortable the words of the EU Trade Minister may make you feel, I find it refreshingly honest.

          The EU is not going to rock the boat with China and will gladly let the US do it and reap the rewards. Congrats Airbus

  6. ” … reducing crime”??

    Stop gun export/smuggling out to MX. Stop nonsensical War on Drugs etc. So many things better to do.

    • agree. crime in mexico is largely a result of US policy on drugs and economics.

      there need to be good paying stable jobs (which moving currently china based manufacturing there would provide) and sensible drug and immigration policies. but that will never happen because politics.

  7. @Scott

    IIRC, that’s the G20 meeting next month. China is not part of the G7, even though its GDP is larger than most of its members.

    • -> Boeing Chief Executive Dave Calhoun in March urged the United States to keep human rights and other disputes separate from trade relations with Beijing.

      A year or so ago, BA stock price: $218.41.
      Well done mate.

      In Sept 2021:
      -> Boeing last week raised its forecast slightly for China’s aircraft demand for the next 20 years, betting on the country’s quick rebound from COVID-19 and future growth in its budget airline sector and e-commerce.

      Boeing estimated that Chinese airlines will need 8,700 new airplanes through 2040, 1.2% higher than its previous prediction of 8,600 planes made last year. Those would be worth $1.47 trillion based on list prices, Boeing said.

      • Boeing does not control foreign policy that in turns effects its potential customers.

        • Where have BA’s political donations and lobbying gone? It’s the world of capitalists. Never underestimate the power of $$$!


            -> More importantly, compared with Airbus, Boeing’s frustrating performance in the Chinese market is not mainly due to China-US geopolitical differences, but economic factors such as product performance, safety and cost-effectiveness, especially amid the earlier grounding of Boeing 737 MAX planes due to safety concerns. In addition to safety concerns, disruptions to the US domestic supply chain have also affected Boeing’s ability to deliver, with reports saying it had to temporarily suspend 737 production in May. Judging from the global market, since 2019, Airbus has been ahead of Boeing in terms of competing for passenger aircraft orders and market share. If the US doesn’t look at Boeing’s frustration objectively from a market and economic perspective, it will be hard to reverse Boeing’s competitive disadvantages against Airbus, whether in the Chinese market or across the world.

    • @ Williams

      “But please, continue arguing the CAAC’s talking points.”

      The CAAC has every right to use whatever criteria it wants in relation to the certification of aircraft.
      The 3 CAAC pre-conditions for re-cert were published in the Chinese press more than a year ago — it’s not China’s fault if BA decided to read them selectively.

      • True, but like I stated above, the CAAC has no bearing on whether Boeing will receive orders from the various Chinese airlines. When China’s government and the US trade and geo political situation cools down, there will be no Boeing orders, irrespective what CAAC says or do.

        When China is ready to signal a thaw and places a MAX order, watch the CAAC have everything they need to resume MAX operations.

        • Why should Americans continue to sell to this “big bad wolf”?? You can’t argue both ways.

          • How simplistic and naïve. Do not know if you are being sarcastic or not. Would be nice if the world was black and white.

            To answer your question, because there is money to be made. Hate to break it to you but the US and EU sell to many Big Bad Wolves around the world. Pick a Defense Weekly and read it.

          • Didn’t you take a jab at Europeans’ trade policy?
            Intelligence, knowledge and consistency are NOT strong points of our posters. Roll eyes.

          • It was not a jab at EU trading policy, but more proof that the EU is not going to do anything to rock the boat with China, congrats for you, Airbus is the beneficiary. The US on the hand, right or wrong, depends upon you has taken a stand on China to the detriment of Boeing.

            The EU is beneficiary of such stance. Now if stating that is considered a jab to you…………

          • “Hate to break it to you but the US and EU sell to many Big Bad Wolves around the world.”

            Didn’t the toothless tiger say he’s going to reevaluate his relationship with an oil pump? Not even you would take his words seriously?? Oh no. 🙄

            “To answer your question, because there is money to be made.”

            Who lectured others not to ‘over estimate” the power of $$$?? ROFLOL

          • I guess that makes Airbus even a bigger bad wolf?

            Or you can try being rational that selling aircraft or cars is not an application that is a threat.

            Sure they can reverse engineer stuff (to a degree) but then its reverse engineered a generation behind the times.

            Try trouble shooting a simple circuit without a schematic and you get an vague idea of how hard it is.

    • From Reuters:

      In an Oct. 12 letter to Boeing from FAA official Ian Won seen by Reuters, the agency asked Boeing to reassess some assertions that hazards classified as catastrophic “do not contain human factors assumptions.”

      The FAA also said it was unable to complete some reviews of Boeing submissions “due to missing and incomplete information regarding human factors assumptions in catastrophic hazard conditions.”

      Human factors analyses refer to how pilots respond to cockpit emergencies. The FAA letter said Boeing must as part of its review assure the agency “that those safety assessments do not contain human factors assumptions” and if there are others it must identify them and submit them for review.

      A December 2020 Senate report into the MAX concluded the FAA and Boeing “had established a pre-determined outcome to reaffirm a long-held human factor assumption related to pilot reaction time … It appears, in this instance, FAA and Boeing were attempting to cover up important information that may have contributed to the 737 MAX tragedies.”

      • WSJ:
        -> A focus of air-safety legislation passed by Congress in 2020, which included the deadline, is so-called human factors engineering, which deals with how pilots respond to cockpit emergencies. The fatal 737 MAX 8 accidents involved a flawed Boeing assumption about how pilots would respond to a flight-control system’s misfire. […]

        The Oct. 12 FAA letter regarding the MAX 7 was signed by Ian Won, acting manager of the agency’s Boeing oversight office. It cites examples that, he wrote, show Boeing inadequately addressing pilots’ roles in certain cockpit emergencies, such as avoiding ignition of the plane’s fuel tanks.

          • No, the question that is asked is do you force airlines to spend billions on an aircraft that is certified?

            Really? Read the Quantas engine blow up out of Singapore on the A380. That EICAS helped them a lot (not).

            Bottom line was to put the thing on the ground not dither playing with alarms. They got away with it but a hair the other way and you would have had an A380 crash.

            EICAS did not help AF447 either. It all goes back to the pilots.

          • That is truth when the system is sound, every incident is investigated in an objective, non predeterment way and there’s no pressure on anyone to avoid unwelcome outcomes. Or dismiss / hide them.

            If you give a good pilot a confusing alert system, irrealistic responds times, incomplete training and berate them in advance if they aren’t born trained in the USA, you’ll be in trouble.

            It seems SouthWest has been putting a lot of pressure on Boeing & FAA to get the thing certified. They weren’t on the sideline.

          • keeje:

            Read the article on the pilots who had multiple critical events. They had to ignore all of the stuff because they understood they had to get it on the ground.

            While Sully did an overall outstanding (and even inspired) job, he missed stuff as well.

            He also VIOLATED the list and fired up the APU which gave him full control (vs minimal on battery and RAM and note Airbus was asleep at the controls for a dual engine loss, dumb)

            The list that should have been followed also configured the A320 for controls wise for a ditching. They did not do that.


            Its lovely to think there is a simple answer but there is not. Reality always rears its ugly head.

        • Back on the 737 MAX saga

          AirInsight asks for outside opinions with these questions:

          Do you think Boeing will cancel the MAX 10? Or are they bluffing?
          Delta says they have a Plan B – probably the other MAX 10 customers also have this. I think that would be a MAX9 – agree or not?


          • Richard Aboulafia, Managing Director at AeroDynamic Advisory responded: “It was a bluff, probably. An extremely ill-advised bluff. I presume Boeing has its own plan B if they don’t get Congress to grant them an exemption. At least I hope that’s the case. As for the airlines, yes, I presume the MAX 9 is their backup plan, if only because the A321neo will be supply constrained for years.”


          • Bob Mann from RW Mann & Co.: “First thing is, it came up on the Delta earnings call yesterday and so it’s obviously an issue of some importance, the idea of either, you know, new Boeing MAX airplanes or some kind of Plan B, you know, it’s not clear. You can’t go to another manufacturer and do anything in the same time frame. So that’s kind of off the table. There’s still a lot of Northwest Airlines thought, planning, and management at Delta. And I guess if I were going to put on my Don Nyrop hat, it would be to use up the remaining “green time” on what you got and see how far it goes.  See what else is available on the used market and press on. Then I think there’s there’s a strategic plan which is maybe to settle on a slightly smaller MAX 9 version.  Which, *given the likely performance limitations on a MAX10*, is probably not the worst choice. You just get less gauge out of it and hence you get slightly higher unit costs. I’m not sure it’s a bad choice, but it’s just going to be slightly different and I think it would be a far more flexible airplane than a MAX 10.”


          • Sash Tusa Agency Partners, A&D analyst: “We don’t think Boeing can afford to cancel the MAX10: that would leave the entire [narrowbody] middle of the market to the A321. Unless, that is, it is so close to launching its own MOM that starts at 200 seats single-aisle and moves up from there. But this does not seem terribly likely. In which case, they are bluffing: MAX9 is no competition to the A321neo, except on very short-range routes. A particular problem is that, *whichever of these outcomes, MAX residuals get clobbered*:

            * new EICAS, and that damages all existing aircraft in service
            * New MOM, and MAX is an orphan aircraft
            * Scrap MAX10 and Boeing (and its operators) have a truncated product range with limited longevity“.


        • -> Boeing’s system safety analysis of MCAS, in working out the failure probabilities, *assumes that the pilots will take steps in response to anything that arises, and will do so quickly*. The pilots’ struggles to control their planes before both MAX crashes suggest that the FAA’s *three-second guidance* for expected pilot response time, upon which part of Boeing’s system safety analysis was based, needs to be carefully reassessed. “If the three seconds is not an appropriate amount of time to be able to catch a runaway stabilizer, and it actually takes seven seconds, then … we need to understand that,” said the person familiar with the details of MCAS.

          -> The person familiar with MCAS said *the wheel will spin noisily and fast, 30 or 40 times, for each activation*. Meanwhile the stabilizer movement will increase the force needed to hold the control column, by about 40 to 50 pounds for a 2.5 degree movement. Such uncommanded movement that won’t stop is referred to as a “runaway stabilizer.”

          -> Boeing has said that to deal with this, pilots need first to have basic hand-flying skills — pull the nose up to where you want it, then use the thumb switches on the yoke that connect electrically to the stabilizer to neutralize the forces — and then shut off MCAS with a pilot checklist procedure on how to handle a “runaway stabilizer.”

          However on both accident flights, *the angle-of-attack sensor failure set off multiple alerts causing distraction and confusion* from the moment of takeoff, even before MCAS kicked in.

          On the Ethiopian Airlines flight, for example, a “stick shaker” noisily vibrated the pilot’s control column throughout the flight, warning the plane was in danger of a stall, which it wasn’t; a computerized voice repeating a loud “Don’t sink!” warned that the jet was too close to the ground; a “clacker” making a very loud clicking sound signaled the jet was going too fast; and *multiple warning lights told the crew that the speed, altitude and other readings on their instruments were unreliable*.

  8. Rejoice EU companies (Airbus), you can breathe a sigh of relief……. The money factory from China will keep printing.

    “Decoupling from China not an option for EU firms – Dombrovskis ”

    “BERLIN – Decoupling from China is not an option for companies in the European Union, EU trade commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told an engineering conference in Berlin on Tuesday, as the Ukraine war redefines how the bloc sees its important trade partners.

    “The EU should continue engaging with China with pragmatism and without naivety. Our trading relationship needs more balance and reciprocity,” he said, calling for more focus on better risk management and diversification instead of pulling away.

    Besides China, the EU’s relations with its other important trade partner, the United States, have also changed, he said.”

    Mr. EU trade minister, I do not think you are Naïve at all. Let your other “trading partner” keep poking the bear, while you get the honey. Smart play on EU’s part. Boeing is locked out of China until the “macro” situation changes.

  9. What? Not sold-out yet???
    Dreamers said airlines are going to start a bidding war for those 140 MAX leftovers.
    Can’t stop laughing.

    • The whole idea of ’50 seat jets’ is bizarre.
      Even the 75 seat version is a carbuncle when the likely sweet spot for the smallest jet is 85-95 seats
      See, the problem goes away when you change ‘current thinking’

      • Does U.S. sell any LNG at a discount to “friends”/”allies”? Not a chance!

      • -> Shares of semiconductor companies fell Monday, with the industry selling off globally after fresh US curbs on China’s access to American technology added to a disappointing start to the earnings season, stoking concern that the industry’s downturn is far from over.

        The Philadelphia Stock Exchange Semiconductor Index fell 3.5%, closing at its lowest level since November 2020. The index dropped nearly 10% over the past three trading days, and is now down more than 40% so far this year

        Thanks Tiger.

    • @ Williams
      “US Chip Sanctions ‘Kneecap’ China’s Tech Industry”

      China’s semiconductor manufacturing industry is currently more advanced than that of the US: China is manufacturing at the 7nm node, and it has its own lithography manufacturer (SMEE), whereas the US is currently stuck at the 10nm node, and has no domestic lithography industry.

      Various Chinese firms have also designed chips at the 5nm node.

      So the “kneecap” assertion can be dismissed as propaganda / wishful thinking. On the contrary:

      “Zhong Xinlong, a senior consultant at the China Center for Information Industry Development Consultancy, said the restrictions are targeted at chips used in high-performance computing, which will accelerate the development of domestic AI chip companies.

      “”Several Chinese firms have already unveiled mature high-end AI chip products. Though it will take time for high-performance computing projects to shift from US-made AI chips to domestic ones, given the latter’s relative weakness in software compatibilities, the US restrictions will in fact fuel the development of high-performance AI chips in China,” Zhong said.”

  10. Bloomberg: Ryanair Says Boeing Delays Threaten Plan to Expand During Slump
    -> O’Leary said Tuesday he’s concerned the US planemaker may ship only 12 or 13 of the 21 Max aircraft that Ryanair is due to get before Christmas

    Production rate @31/mth ?? 🙄

  11. @TW says above:
    “EICAS did not help AF447 either. It all goes back to the pilots.”

    Well, TCAS didn’t prevent the Überlingen collision in 2002 — so, by equivalence, are you suggesting that TCAS shouldn’t be mandatory?

    Hint: check out the difference between “possibility” and “probability”.

  12. Remarkable:

    “Earlier Wednesday, United Airlines Chief Executive Scott Kirby also backed the extension, saying it makes sense to have a common 737 alerting system.

    “We should all be rooting for Boeing,” Kirby added, citing its impact on the U.S. economy and exports.”

    Mr. Kirby might better spend his time rooting for enforcement of international CAS safety standards, as opposed to rooting for a company that has flushed safety and quality in the pursuit of easy dollars.
    If he wants a “common 737 alerting system”, then he can demand that BA retrofit EICAS on the MAX-8 and -9.

  13. Interesting article in China’s Global Times news outlet:

    “Boeing’s predicament shows US manufacturing can’t leave China market”

    “More importantly, compared with Airbus, Boeing’s frustrating performance in the Chinese market is not mainly due to China-US geopolitical differences, but economic factors such as product performance, safety and cost-effectiveness, especially amid the earlier grounding of Boeing 737 MAX planes due to safety concerns.

    “In addition to safety concerns, disruptions to the US domestic supply chain have also affected Boeing’s ability to deliver, with reports saying it had to temporarily suspend 737 production in May.

    “Judging from the global market, since 2019, Airbus has been ahead of Boeing in terms of competing for passenger aircraft orders and market share. If the US doesn’t look at Boeing’s frustration objectively from a market and economic perspective, it will be hard to reverse Boeing’s competitive disadvantages against Airbus, whether in the Chinese market or across the world.”

  14. More (bad) records for BA:

    “Boeing’s claim from losses relating to the 737 Max planes has soared to around $3bn, an increase of ~$1.3bn, Insurance Insider can reveal.”

    “Sources said the manufacturer’s claim is now the largest in the history of the aviation market in nominal terms having exceeded the $2.5bn paid out after 9/11, with even the recent deterioration equivalent to one of the five biggest losses ever to impact the market.”

    “The loss to the Boeing manufacturers’ policy, which is led by Global Aerospace and brokered by Marsh, is comprised of three elements: 1) the cost of the grounding of the faulty planes; 2) costs relating to the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018; and 3) costs relating to the loss of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019.”

    “Market sources said that the liability portion of the loss relating to the Ethiopian Airlines crash is what has moved out, with the market informed this has increased from $990mn to $2.25bn.”

    So, the insurance claims relating to the Ethiopian Airlines MAX crash have increased by 127% to a new total of $2.25B…

    • I guess insurers would want to get their money back as soon as BA’s policies are renewed.

  15. Hawaiian will initially operate up to 10 A330Fs from fall 2023

    Proof that BA’s historic grasp of freighter market is ending.

  16. Read online regarding BA’s repeated failure to certify the MAX 7 & 10 on time:

    -> ” … with 3 years of work to make the MAX safer”

    Proof that BA’s back office is hard at work!!

  17. Wow!
    “Families of Passengers Killed in Boeing MAX Crashes Are Crime Victims, Texas Judge Rules”

    “A federal judge in Fort Worth ruled Friday that relatives of people killed in the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max planes are crime victims under federal law and should have been told about private negotiations over a settlement that spared Boeing from criminal prosecution.

    “The full impact of the ruling is not yet clear, however. The judge said the next step is to decide what remedies the families should get for not being told of the talks with Boeing.

    “Some relatives are pushing to scrap the government’s January 2021 settlement with Boeing, and they have expressed anger that no one in the company has been held criminally responsible.”

    “The Justice Department, in explaining why it didn’t tell families about the negotiations, argued that the relatives are not crime victims. However, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, said the crashes were a foreseeable consequence of Boeing’s conspiracy, making the relatives representatives of crime victims.

    ““In sum, but for Boeing’s criminal conspiracy to defraud the FAA, 346 people would not have lost their lives in the crashes,” he wrote.”

Leave a Reply

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