Ethiopian 737-800 Max crash - No survivors

[facthunter]

 To keep on manufacturing them when under the cloud they are could be seen as arrogant and at least very risky. The FACT they are still grounded is a healthy sign that enough involved people KNOW that "more of the same" is not good enough. Signs of Boeings  managerial "Policy Change" have been obvious for MANY years in all branches of their operations for those that cared to look. Many would have thought it was a good idea as "profit" was the key motive, but now survival might be an issue. The share value took a tumble today (or yesterday) THIS is a big DEAL in aviation circles. Never a place to make money easily. A few airlines that jumped in with a pile of orders recently might be better to play pokies or Russian Roulette. Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

The problem is that Boeing has decided they have a perfectly good aircraft that they can keep manufacturing (and have done), on the basis that it only needs a bit of modification and everything will be O.K., and the general flying public and the FAA will accept Boeings line.

 

The reality is, the FAA doesn't believe anything Boeing tells them now, they are going to be grilled and checked on every single thing from here on in - and the general flying public is not going to be easily convinced that a particularly flawed design which has killed a lot of innocent people, can be fixed with a few software upgrades, and soothing noises from Boeing.

 

Those 737MAX's lined up everywhere, look like car yards full of 1958 Ford Edsels, in 1960, to me.

 

The sheer cost burden of producing, storing, and preserving, 380 aircraft that no-one wants now, and no-one is very likely to still not want in the future - even after Boeing claim to have fixed all the MAX problems - is a burden that will weigh on Boeing for decades to come.

 

 

[facthunter]

 This has already had a measurable effect on the US economy. Can an  organisation which is effectively a  monopoly US company be allowed to suffer the market forces and fail? GM went effectively Broke a few years ago and technically was owned by the US government. Is it too big to fail.? Is it too valuable in the military Industrial complex to fail?  Are US military designs and products superior? They spend gazillions on arms Talk as if they are the best. Has the moment of truth arrived? Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

Nev, I am sure the U.S. Govt sees Boeing as too big to fail, they are a National Icon - and to most Americans, Boeing represent the pinnacle of American and global technology in aviation.

 

However, I can see a possible U.S. Govt bailout scenario arising soon, purely and simply because Uncle Sam is very reliant on Boeing for their military products. Could be a real test for Trump.

 

 

[facthunter]

They are pure capitalist until it fails then they do what socialists do. No one from Wall street went to Jail for the GFC but it WAS fraud.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

They are pure capitalist until it fails then they do what socialists do. No one from Wall street went to Jail for the GFC but it WAS fraud.. Nev

 

I'm not sure why anyone from the Wall Street Securities precinct would have needed to go to jail or committed any fraud.

 

The problem was caused by lending institutions not applying enough safeguards to their loans, and being more focused on selling loans than checking whether borrowers could service them.

 

 

[Garfly]

Maybe it was a bit more complicated than that:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/

 

 

[onetrack]

M16A1 - The problem was fraud - they were called CDO's - rubbish, unrealisable debts from the portion of the population who had virtually no hope of ever repaying those debts, bundled up and presented as a viable, reliable product.

 

Kind of like a seller of supposedly-good tools, selling you a closed box of tools marked as such, then you opening the box and finding a bunch of broken, obsolete, and unusable tools.

 

In any other area of commerce, you'd have a right to get your money back immediately, as the product was not as described. In the case of the CDO's, the suckers had to fight through the courts to gain some compensation, and they rarely got full compensation for their losses.

 

We won't even start on the bank interest rate rigging, currency rigging, the selling of worthless insurance products to clients, and the endless list of white-collar crime committed by bankers, that never seems to reap any penalties.

 

 

[turboplanner]

M16A1 - The problem was fraud - they were called CDO's - rubbish, unrealisable debts from the portion of the population who had virtually no hope of ever repaying those debts, bundled up and presented as a viable, reliable product.

 

Kind of like a seller of supposedly-good tools, selling you a closed box of tools marked as such, then you opening the box and finding a bunch of broken, obsolete, and unusable tools.

 

In any other area of commerce, you'd have a right to get your money back immediately, as the product was not as described. In the case of the CDO's, the suckers had to fight through the courts to gain some compensation, and they rarely got full compensation for their losses.

 

We won't even start on the bank interest rate rigging, currency rigging, the selling of worthless insurance products to clients, and the endless list of white-collar crime committed by bankers, that never seems to reap any penalties.

 

Well I was  wrong; one Wall St banker was convicted and went to jail.

 

The Wall St I was talking about was where the New York Stock Exhange is based and where shares, derivatives, futures, commodities, options atc are bought and sold. The securities market took about a 30% hit, but if you held on to your investment all of that was recovered and the market has continued to rise since, so no crimes there.

 

What happened was people got comfortable with the heated market where noting went downand:

 

People borrowed  for hsoues they were going to flip

 

Property developers borrowed to expand stock houses for the buyers

 

Mortage loans were writte for values above the price of the house (because everyone knew "houses would always go up"

 

Mortgage loans were written for people who normally would be loan risks because lenders could foreclose above curret market price if things went bad.

 

Lenders onsold loans to investors which included large banks

 

Banks and investors increased short term borrowings

 

Then the markets collapsed

 

Despite the blame game the single conviction says it all about the legality of what happened.

 

The same thing could happen again when the next superheated market occurs.

 

 

[onetrack]

And substantial numbers of Councils put their investment monies into CDO's, because they were told they were a solid investment, backed by some of the biggest banks in the world. 

 

But collectively, they still lost about a third of their huge investment, and I don't think I'd be too far wrong, to state we're all still paying for those losses.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-14/armidale-dumaresq-council-expects-243m-from-lehmann-case/5157128

 

The greatest single problem is a lack of tight financial regulation, allowing banks and other financial entities to create "financial products", that not even half the banking fraternity understand - nor do they understand the ramifications when values go down, instead of up, as values tend to do, over periods of time.

 

In essence, the worlds major banks and finance houses created a great big investment casino up to 2008, betting our money in the great gambling institution they created - and for which creation, they paid themselves mind-boggling sums of money, in the form of exorbitant salaries and bonuses.

 

https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_chapter8.pdf

 

The worrying part today is, it appears CDO's are making a comeback. Talk about needing a silver dagger.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Gee turbo,

 

The weight of history and the real population getting ripped off sure seems illegal. But you have a very selective view if culpability.

 

But we expect no less

 

 

[turboplanner]

Gee turbo,

 

The weight of history and the real population getting ripped off sure seems illegal. But you have a very selective view if culpability.

 

But we expect no less

 

My point was the US then Global Financial Crisis wasn't triggered by the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street.

 

Shares went down and the same shares came back up again which has been happening on the NYSE since the 1800s.

 

I had friends and relatives here in Australia who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because they sold their shares when the market was going down and didn't wait for it to correct. 

 

And the point was that the people on Wall St, the NYSE, didn't need to go to jail as Facthunter said because it wasn't fraud.

 

My post #359 outlined that basics of how the GFC started.

 

OneTrack's post showed some of the things lenders did, such as creating CDOs ,ut they weren't illegal, just bad judgement, relying on a continually rising housing market.

 

It was the banking sector that began to collapse.

 

Lehman Bros certainly had a Wall St office but they originated in Montgomery, Alabama

 

Wells Fargo Bank, with  8,000 branches received $25 billion from the US Government Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

 

and so on, financial lenders from alll over the US.

 

The big Australian Superannuation Funds all seem to have resisted getting into dodgy loan practices, and as I mentioned earlier went down around 30% then came back up again.

 

I don't have a selective view on culpability, and it wouldn't make any difference if I did.  Facthunter and others said fraud was committed, and one person was convicted of fraud, but that was it, the rest was just people making the mistakes they make with investments, and plenty of them make mistakes every day.

 

 

[Yenn]

Back to Boeing. I hear that they have only just stopped manufacture of the Max and have 400 sitting in storage.

 

They don't seem to be getting any nearer to solving the basic problem, FAA has had its nose put out of joint and Boeing are proving to be arrogant. They consider they are above scrutiny.

 

I would not like to bet on all those aircraft ever finding buyers.

 

In the meantime Airbus are looking good, I never considered them to be as safe as Boeing but that was a mistaken outlook. Airbus seem to be more comfortable from the passenger point of view, also quieter. Qantas are looking more and more to Airbus for its future fleet. I don't think I will be buying Boeing shares even if they do drop to affordable levels.

 

 

[onetrack]

Airbus are certainly sitting in the sweet spot at present - but it will be interesting to see what happens, when Brexit occurs.

 

The fracturing of the EU by Britain leaving, is going to assist in fracturing the current cosy engineering/manufacturing arrangements between the British and the Europeans.

 

I'm not sure how this might play out in the long run. The wing design and manufacture of the Airbus wings is largely done in the U.K. - and the reason for this is the British competence in wing design, that goes back to WW2 and even before that time. Only the wings for the Chinese A320's are built in China.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_UK

 

 

[facthunter]

It's interesting the the long haul Qantas non stop flights are planned to be done using Airbus planes, even though the trials have been with Dreamliner. Nev

 

 

[Methusala]

A-350's are around 300mm wider in the cabin. This adds around 25mm width to economy seats. It doesn't sound much but is very noticeable. They are almost uncannily quiet in the cruise.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't think there's any economy seats envisaged on those ops.  They would want to be VERY sure of the fuel usage charts being able to be relied on.  I'm not a big fan of Dreamliner..  Nev

 

 

[Methusala]

I don't see any joy in doing 19+hrs in any configuration. Alright if you are a "Slave to the Money" and want to be there. A-350's are relatively comfortable and NOT Boeing.

 

 

[kgwilson]

How things turn around. When Airbus cam on the scene with their fly-by wire and side stick concepts, armchair experts around the world were quite vocal in their condemnation. Their catch cry was "If it's not Boeing I aint going". Now all modern designs are fly by wire with the 737 the only passenger jet left with cables going all the way to the cockpit.

 

 

[facthunter]

 They are full hydraulic systems . with 2 alternative systems backup. The early types may have a manual reversion mode (the B 727did) but you can barely manage to fly one in that mode. A 190,000Lbs aeroplane is hard to manage with just two human arms and no hydraulic power. You can JUST do it. Most jets have NO manual reversion.  The B 727 has a lot of redundancy. Nev

 

 

[derekliston]

I think I am correct in saying that the first airliner with fully hydraulic controls and no manual reversion was the  Vickers VC10. It actually had (I think!) eleven self-contained hydraulic actuators, two on each aileron, four on the elevators and three on the rudder. Each one had it’s own hydraulic system so there was a lot of redundancy built in. Because it was fully hydraulic with no manual reversion there was no natural feel in the controls and so it had a device called a feel simulator which also had dual self-contained hydraulic systems. For the era in which it was built it really was a technological marvel even if it was not a commercial success. I was lucky enough to fly down from London to Nairobi on an East African Airways Super VC10 in 1973. Due to the tail mounted engines it had a remarkably quiet cabin.

 

 

[derekliston]

 They are full hydraulic systems . with 2 alternative systems backup. The early types may have a manual reversion mode (the B 727did) but you can barely manage to fly one in that mode. A 190,000Lbs aeroplane is hard to manage with just two human arms and no hydraulic power. You can JUST do it. Most jets have NO manual reversion.  The B 727 has a lot of redundancy. Nev

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that on the B707 the only powered controls were the rudder and the stabiliser trim jack. I seem to recall (bloody long time since I worked on them so I could be wrong!) that the controls, aileron and elevator operated with servo tabs? 

 

 

[M61A1]

Their catch cry was "If it's not Boeing I aint going".

 

Or....I'm OK with fly by wire, as long as it's 7 x 19.

 

 

[facthunter]

The DC-9 had only servo tabs ailerons and elevators with a powered downpush on  the elevators for recovery from a deep stall, I doubt the 707 was not powered. It's not a small aeroplane and you need good roll rates. I can't say for sure. I only know the ones  I was endorsed on, but 707 727 and 737 use a lot of common features The later DC9 s became B 717's. Very little commonality as they were Douglas and stretched. Long and thin. Nev

 

 

[derekliston]

The DC-9 had only servo tabs ailerons and elevators with a powered downpush on  the elevators for recovery from a deep stall, I doubt the 707 was not powered. It's not a small aeroplane and you need good roll rates. I can't say for sure. I only know the ones  I was endorsed on, but 707 727 and 737 use a lot of common features The later DC9 s became B 717's. Very little commonality as they were Douglas and stretched. Long and thin. Nev

 

Pretty sure I am right although it was a long time ago! I also remember BOAC management refusing additional training for us engineers when the 747 arrived. We were told it was just like a bigger 707 which of course it wasn’t!