Boeing CEO says he expects to resume 737 MAX production before mid-year

[webfact]

Boeing CEO says he expects to resume 737 MAX production before mid-year

By David Shepardson and Tracy Rucinski

 

FILE PHOTO: Aerial photos showing Boeing 737 Max airplanes parked at Boeing Field in Seattle, Washington, U.S. October 20, 2019. Picture taken October 20, 2019. REUTERS/Gary He/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO (Reuters) - Boeing Chief Executive Dave Calhoun told reporters on Wednesday the U.S. planemaker expects to resume 737 MAX production months before its forecasted mid-year return to service and said it did not plan to suspend or cut its dividend.

 

The company announced a production halt in December, when the global grounding of the fast-selling 737 MAX following two deadly crashes in five months looked set to last into mid-2020.

 

Calhoun said the company is not considering scrapping the MAX and expects it will continue to fly for a generation. He also said it will not launch a marketing campaign to get customers to get back on 737 MAX planes.

 

He also disclosed Boeing is starting with a "clean sheet of paper" on a New Midsize Airplane but it is not clear if the company is scrapping the existing design.

 

The company said on Tuesday it now expects regulators to approve the plane's return to service in the middle of the year. Calhoun said he did not see recent issues raised about wiring or software as "serious problems."

 

Boeing shares were down 2% on Wednesday.

 

Calhoun said Boeing is not planning to cut or suspend the dividend because Boeing has the "financial capacity and capability to do the things we need to do." Calhoun said he "will stay on that path unless something dramatic changes."

 

Calhoun declined to provide a specific date for resumption of production, but said it "will be reinvigorated months before that moment in June because we have to get that line started up again." He also said the company would make some changes to the 737 MAX production line to make it more efficient.

 

The CEO said the company "will slowly, steadily bring our production rate up a few months before that date in the middle of the year." He said the company was not planning to lay off any employees because of the latest delay in the MAX.

 

The latest push back in the forecasted return to service is due to the company's decision to endorse simulator training for pilots before they resume flights, Calhoun said. "We can get this thing back on its horse and we will," he added.

 

Calhoun was a director at Boeing for a decade before taking over as CEO earlier this month. The board ousted Dennis Muilenburg in December amid rising anger by regulators, politicians and customers.

 

He said the company should have not have repeatedly revised the plane's forecasted return. "It was hard for anybody to trust us," Calhoun said.

 

Calhoun said before certification there will be "a few more things somewhere along the way that the FAA and us will determine need a little extra work and we'll do it. They won't be big emergencies things, they won't be things that take the airplane down."

 

(Reporting by David Shepardson and Tracy Rucinski; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-23

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[observer90210]

Really ?

I will check before, but on check-in, if it's a 737, I just won't set foot in the flying coffin. No matter what it costs to change the ticket, better then to cost me life !!!

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, observer90210 said:

Really ?

I will check before, but on check-in, if it's a 737, I just won't set foot in the flying coffin. No matter what it costs to change the ticket, better then to cost me life !!!

I was wondering the same,

could airlines now risk that passengers quite simpy avoid buying tickets if the plane is a 737 MAX?

 

[jastheace]

20 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

I was wondering the same,

could airlines now risk that passengers quite simpy avoid buying tickets if the plane is a 737 MAX?

 

old plane 737 no probs.

new one no way i'd be happy booking a flight .....

[SkyFax]

It will be interesting to see, at least in the US, what the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) would have to say about putting the 737MAX back in regular service.

[GinBoy2]

Ironically, and probably tragically, after this amount of scrutiny the MAX is gonna be one of he safest aircraft in the air.

 

It's true that the first real modern age aircraft tragedy was the de Havilland Comet. 

 

First jet airliner, but flawed. But it did result in what we now expect in regulatory oversight, and incident investigation.

 

It's arguable that then the Mark IV entered service after all the redesigned it was one of the best aircraft in the world at the time 

[ukrules]

Airbus all the way for me in the future. Boeing is dead to me.

 

I will choose my airlines based on their fleet.

[mrfill]

Ryanair have solved the problem of the reluctant customer not wishing to book on a 737MAX - they renamed it the 8200...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995509

 

 

[Tug]

I’d fly Boeing anytime it will be fixed and safe

[Nigel Garvie]

3 hours ago, mrfill said:

Ryanair have solved the problem of the reluctant customer not wishing to book on a 737MAX - they renamed it the 8200...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995509

 

 

Ryanair come last in the customer satisfaction survey. At one point they were considering charging customers to go to the plane toilet. There is cheapo, mucho cheapo, then Ryanair. When you fly the MAX  with them you will probably be charged extra for the excitement factor - though others would call it raw fear. 

 

MAX should have been re-designed from scratch, but Airbus would have had a head start with the 320 Neo. As it is, it's like putting a Rolls Royce engine in an old pick up.

 

If I had more choice I would fly the amazingly quiet A350 on long haul, but to be fair the 787 is a good plane as long as the batteries don't go on fire.  

[zydeco]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

Calhoun said Boeing is not planning to cut or suspend the dividend because Boeing has the "financial capacity and capability to do the things we need to do." Calhoun said he "will stay on that path unless something dramatic changes."

Right. And that's why they're taking a $10 billion loan.

  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/737-max-crisis-boeing-seeks-to-borrow-10-billion-or-more.html

[GinBoy2]

10 hours ago, zydeco said:

Right. And that's why they're taking a $10 billion loan.

  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/737-max-crisis-boeing-seeks-to-borrow-10-billion-or-more.html

Well there is no debate that this has, and will continue to be a huge financial drag on the company.

 

But it's a failure of regulatory oversight and commercial hubris.

 

The rather obvious analogy would be with the Volkswagen diesel debacle.

 

In both cases the companies used software to hide design flaws and commercial expediency.

 

MCAS is not new, in fact it's used on the KC-67. The difference being, in that implementation if the AOA sensor fails, the pilot always wins over MCAS. Exactly the opposite was true with MCAS on the MAX.

 

So why was that done? Commercial greed.

 

Been a while since I was involved in aeronautical design, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

 

The airframe is larger, and to accomodate the larger CFM engines they needed to be mounted further forward on the wing. That in itself makes it a fundamentally different aerodynamic aircraft than previous versions of the 737. Thats why MCAS was installed to 'protect' the aircraft if an unsafe Angle of Attack was detected.

 

But what the commercial division marketed was an aircraft that required no additional simulator training, and a simple DVD CBT course would address the differences. 

 

In point of fact, the training didn't even address the fact of what MCAS was and how it could affect flight parameters, because I think that would have exposed the aerodynamic differences to the end user.

 

Therein lies the problem. This is not a varient of the 737, but in reality a new aircraft which should have been marketed as such, and required the same simulator training as for any new plane

Edited January 23, 2020 by GinBoy2

[TheDark]

23 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Well there is no debate that this has, and will continue to be a huge financial drag on the company.

 

But it's a failure of regulatory oversight and commercial hubris.

 

The rather obvious analogy would be with the Volkswagen diesel debacle.

 

In both cases the companies used software to hide design flaws and commercial expediency.

 

MCAS is not new, in fact it's used on the KC-67. The difference being, in that implementation if the AOA sensor fails, the pilot always wins over MCAS. Exactly the opposite was true with MCAS on the MAX.

 

So why was that done? Commercial greed.

 

Been a while since I was involved in aeronautical design, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

 

The airframe is larger, and to accomodate the larger CFM engines they needed to be mounted further forward on the wing. That in itself makes it a fundamentally different aerodynamic aircraft than previous versions of the 737. Thats why MCAS was installed to 'protect' the aircraft if an unsafe Angle of Attack was detected.

 

But what the commercial division marketed was an aircraft that required no additional simulator training, and a simple DVD CBT course would address the differences. 

 

In point of fact, the training didn't even address the fact of what MCAS was and how it could affect flight parameters, because I think that would have exposed the aerodynamic differences to the end user.

 

Therein lies the problem. This is not a varient of the 737, but in reality a new aircraft which should have been marketed as such, and required the same simulator training as for any new plane

The problem with Boeing is constructional from top to bottom. Boeing, after merging with McDonnell Douglas, became unbalanced company when it came to manufacturing airplanes. The management structure shifted from engineering point of view towards purely financial point of view. 

 

When the engineers would have wanted to make good planes, which are properly tested and tested again, the financial ideology aka greed, dictated shortcuts, pushing manufacturing to subcontractors, who also wanted to cut costs and therefore quality and checks. 

 

The problems with Boeing started before 737-Max was even on a planning table. 

 

Once the plane was designed and prototypes build, one of the cost saving measurements was not to offer pilots proper training of this airplane. Few hours doing a quiz on a iPad was enough. Enough for Boeing, enough for airliners, enough for FAA. 

 

While Boeing has produced quality airplanes in the past, after all these cost cuttings, who can anymore be sure, their new airframes and embedded technologies, are really safe? As they were not anymore safe as proven by these accidents. 

 

 

[sirineou]

The 737 brand is irreversibly damaged IMO and needs to be rebranded.  

[GinBoy2]

2 minutes ago, TheDark said:

The problem with Boeing is constructional from top to bottom. Boeing, after merging with McDonnell Douglas, became unbalanced company when it came to manufacturing airplanes. The management structure shifted from engineering point of view towards purely financial point of view. 

 

When the engineers would have wanted to make good planes, which are properly tested and tested again, the financial ideology aka greed, dictated shortcuts, pushing manufacturing to subcontractors, who also wanted to cut costs and therefore quality and checks. 

 

The problems with Boeing started before 737-Max was even on a planning table. 

 

Once the plane was designed and prototypes build, one of the cost saving measurements was not to offer pilots proper training of this airplane. Few hours doing a quiz on a iPad was enough. Enough for Boeing, enough for airliners, enough for FAA. 

 

While Boeing has produced quality airplanes in the past, after all these cost cuttings, who can anymore be sure, their new airframes and embedded technologies, are really safe? As they were not anymore safe as proven by these accidents. 

 

 

I would agree with you on many of those points.

 

But as with so companies when they suffer a catastrophic incident, the pendulum swings in the other direction.

 

The MAX was never a 737 airframe and shouldn't ever have been marketed as such.

 

Shame on Boeing, FAA and indeed the customers who should have known better

[TheDark]

20 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

I would agree with you on many of those points.

 

But as with so companies when they suffer a catastrophic incident, the pendulum swings in the other direction.

 

The MAX was never a 737 airframe and shouldn't ever have been marketed as such.

 

Shame on Boeing, FAA and indeed the customers who should have known better

Boeing's problem was never just the latest Max problems. The root cause is embedded deep inside of Boeing manufacturing and management culture. 

 

That is something what can not be fixed overnight. To fix the root cause, requires full top management shakedown, kicking out most of the people who loved money so much that they forgot safety and quality. 

 

 

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, TheDark said:

Boeing's problem was never just the latest Max problems. The root cause is embedded deep inside of Boeing manufacturing and management culture. 

 

That is something what can not be fixed overnight. To fix the root cause, requires full top management shakedown, kicking out most of the people who loved money so much that they forgot safety and quality. 

 

 

And let's not forget that they tried to get away with not taking any responsibility. Their initial response was appalling.

[observer90210]

On 1/22/2020 at 11:52 PM, melvinmelvin said:

I was wondering the same,

could airlines now risk that passengers quite simpy avoid buying tickets if the plane is a 737 MAX?

 

Cannot say for the airlines, but definately passengers would not want to take a risk...those who keep themselves informed.

[Nigel Garvie]

On 1/24/2020 at 2:28 AM, TheDark said:

Boeing's problem was never just the latest Max problems. The root cause is embedded deep inside of Boeing manufacturing and management culture. 

 

That is something what can not be fixed overnight. To fix the root cause, requires full top management shakedown, kicking out most of the people who loved money so much that they forgot safety and quality. 

This has long been a problem with the Capitalist free market that it seems many people are uncritically wedded to. I am not anti-capitalist, that is just silly, human progress has been built on trade and barter, and if you save enough and invest, that is capitalism. However it is "The unacceptable face of Capitalism" to quote Ted Heath UK PM in the 70s, that is responsible for the sort of behaviour that Boeing has been guilty of - profits before customers. No doubt the senior members of companies who have a large shareholdings as part of their remuneration package, are highly motivated to maximise the dividends, at the expense of whatever. This is inherently not a healthy system. 

 

The problem for Boeing is that aircraft fatalities attract huge public attention. If they were a big Pharma company encouraging opioid consumption, and responsible for many 10s of 1000s of individual deaths, you could get away, and indeed have already got away, with murder.

[candide]

On 1/23/2020 at 8:28 PM, TheDark said:

Boeing's problem was never just the latest Max problems. The root cause is embedded deep inside of Boeing manufacturing and management culture. 

 

That is something what can not be fixed overnight. To fix the root cause, requires full top management shakedown, kicking out most of the people who loved money so much that they forgot safety and quality. 

 

 

I saw recently a presentation about the financialisation of the economy. There was a comparison between Boeing and Airbus: in brief Boeing used a much larger share of its revenues for shareholder returns and share repurchase than Airbus.

[zydeco]

1 hour ago, candide said:

in brief Boeing used a much larger share of its revenues for shareholder returns and share repurchase than Airbus.

Absolutely.  A big part of the problem. These are wicked people at Boeing. They intend to force that airplane down everyone's throat no matter what. If that means intentionally hiding its identity, that's what they'll do.

[GinBoy2]

34 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Absolutely.  A big part of the problem. These are wicked people at Boeing. They intend to force that airplane down everyone's throat no matter what. If that means intentionally hiding its identity, that's what they'll do.

In someways I would agree with hiding it's identity, or be honest and admit it was never a 737!

 

The MAX isn't a bad airframe, in fact it's a great aircraft badly marketed, and with an inherent lie built into it.

 

I go back to the analogy with VW where hubris and commercial arrogance meant both companies they thought they could hide the truth with a little software skullduggery.

 

The KC-46 Pegasus refueller which is a re purposed B767 has essentially the same MCAS control system as the MAX.

The difference being in simulator training crews are trained to acknowledge AoA sensor erroneous data and can override the system, and actually fly the plane.

 

That's the cardinal sin here. The MAX crews had no training on how, or indeed if they could override MCAS.

 

I've spoken to a few guys I know back in the USAF who fly the Pegasus, and their understanding is that on the MAX it was practically impossible to override MCAS compared to the version of MCAS that they use

[tomacht8]

He also said the company would make some changes to the 737 MAX production line to make it more efficient.

That is not the job.
The task is to deliver an aircraft with a clean weight/balance distribution that also flies without design error correction software.

Edited January 25, 2020 by tomacht8

[tifino]

 

yeah, just dump the VW Sports Performance chip, and go back to carbies, and cables  ( 707, with 2 engines)   

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 1/23/2020 at 6:30 AM, ukrules said:

Airbus all the way for me in the future. Boeing is dead to me.

 

I will choose my airlines based on their fleet.

 

I probably wouldn't fly on a 737 Max for a good long line into the future, giving the plane a solid chance to prove itself.

 

But as for Boeing's other jets, the 747 and 777 series are proven workhorses, and the current 777-ER AFAIK has a pretty sterling safety record. I fly on 777-ERs all the time and would have no qualms doing so in the future.

 

[ballpoint]

On 1/23/2020 at 3:42 AM, webfact said:

He said the company should have not have repeatedly revised the plane's forecasted return. "It was hard for anybody to trust us," Calhoun said.

I'd suggest that killing hundreds of people in two aircraft crashes while doing their best to cover up the, at least internally to Boeing, known flaws of the 737 Max - essentially treating human beings as collateral damage in their little race for market share with Airbus, is the actual reason why it's "hard for anybody to trust" them.  Pure arrogance to suggest it's due to any other reason.

[GinBoy2]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

He also said the company would make some changes to the 737 MAX production line to make it more efficient.

That is not the job.
The task is to deliver an aircraft with a clean weight/balance distribution that also flies without design error correction software.

Well every aircraft has a load/balance characteristic.

 

Some like the B717 are always nose heavy, the A320 tail heavy. Thats when the load planner comes in to determine how you load cargo bins from forward to aft. I do this every day for a living.

 

What Boeing tried to hide was that the MAX had a totally different load balance to the previous versions of the 737 primarily because of the placement of the CFM engines forward of the wing spar.

 

In that respect you are totally right, that MCAS was implemented to try to hide that fact

[Nigel Garvie]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I probably wouldn't fly on a 737 Max for a good long line into the future, giving the plane a solid chance to prove itself.

 

But as for Boeing's other jets, the 747 and 777 series are proven workhorses, and the current 777-ER AFAIK has a pretty sterling safety record. I fly on 777-ERs all the time and would have no qualms doing so in the future.

 

As a European I've always been pro Airbus, but wherever my loyalties lie I try to have a balanced view. This is about competition between monster companies. Actually both companies have been huge successes over the years, with overall a very good safety record. Flying is much safer than driving for example. 

 

Airbus goofed up with the A380 and misjudged the market. Boeing wisely didn't try to compete, and the 777 and 787 have dominated the long range sales, though the excellent A350 is gaining a respectful share despite being late to the table. In reality it is better to have two companies in competition rather than one monopoly. 

 

I expect Boeing will eventually recover from the awful mistakes with the MAX, though they will definitely lose some of their short haul market. I will never fly on one I hope, though to rule out all other Boeing planes is neither practical nor justified.

 

The real issue is whether Joe Punter, will ever bring the vile titans of corporate greed to heel, I'm not optimistic. 

[balo]

The damage already done, I will make sure to never fly in a 737 MAX again if I can. 

[candide]

3 hours ago, zydeco said:

Absolutely.  A big part of the problem. These are wicked people at Boeing. They intend to force that airplane down everyone's throat no matter what. If that means intentionally hiding its identity, that's what they'll do.

It's a much broader problem of the financialisation of the economy as it may lead to insufficient investment. That how the North-american Telecom industry failed, while European and Chinese companies went on investing.