Boeing resumes 737 Max production following temporary suspension earlier this year

Humza

Posts: 689   +159
Staff member

Boeing and its best-selling 737 Max have had the worst couple of years in recent memory after technical glitches, rooting back to the plane's development cycle, led to two crashes and an indefinite grounding period.

The company's manufacturing facility in Renton, Washington, made for quite a unique sight following these incidents, where it had to park many jetliners in employee car parks as they awaited a software fix and approval from aviation authorities to restart flights.

Although the plane still hasn't received FAA's permission to resume passenger service, likely delayed further due to the discovery of another, unrelated safety issue, Boeing recently announced that it had resumed production of the aircraft at its Renton factory, albeit at a low rate and under the implementation of more than a dozen initiatives focused on enhancing workplace safety and product quality.

"During the temporary suspension of production that began in January, mechanics and engineers collaborated to refine and standardize work packages in each position of the factory. New kitting processes will also ensure that employees have everything they need at their fingertips to build the airplane," noted the company's official statement.

Boeing plans to gradually ramp up production of its 737 program and says that the steps it's taken at the factory will help it in achieving 100 percent quality for customers while ensuring workplace safety.

Things have also been looking up for the company elsewhere. Earlier this year, it successfully completed the maiden test flight of its 777-9X; the world's largest twin-engined jet. Meanwhile, in the military domain, the company's Australian arm recently unveiled the country's first locally made combat drone called the Loyal Wingman.

Permalink to story.

 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 3,089   +2,910
Boeing stock is ultimately a buy. The world needs air travel. Boeing and Airbus have it.

I'm anxious to fly on the 777-9x business class to compare it to the A350-900's business class.

The 737, is more of a "bus" like the A330 where you have short routes, very little luxury and "it just gets you there".

 
  • Like
Reactions: TomSEA

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,535   +849
Imo, the 737 Max 8 is the new DC-10. The model's name is forever associated with being unsafe.

If Bowing was smart, they would push a large enough hardware change to the fuselage, and then use that as an excuse to release it under a new model number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddie159

TomSEA

Posts: 3,250   +1,886
Imo, the 737 Max 8 is the new DC-10. The model's name is forever associated with being unsafe.

If Bowing was smart, they would push a large enough hardware change to the fuselage, and then use that as an excuse to release it under a new model number.
I live in Seattle and have a large number of friends - including my gf who is at the executive level - who work for Boeing. Although what you suggest on the surface makes sense, financially and manufacturing-wise isn't realistic. The smallest change in an aircraft can cost millions in materials, engineering and manpower.

What really needs to happen is people (and especially the press) need to pull their heads out and realize this has been the most scrutinized aircraft in Boeing's history and is as safe as they come. What the media won't tell you is about the recent test run by the independent Pilots Union Association where they ran 50,000 scenarios through the software package that was considered the culprit of the crashes without a single anomaly.

Recently I was talking to an Alaska Airlines pilot and he told me point blank, "I'd fly the 737-MAX in a nano-second. It's the safest commercial aircraft in the world right now."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddie159

Gmachine

Posts: 12   +8
I live in Seattle and have a large number of friends - including my gf who is at the executive level - who work for Boeing. Although what you suggest on the surface makes sense, financially and manufacturing-wise isn't realistic. The smallest change in an aircraft can cost millions in materials, engineering and manpower.

What really needs to happen is people (and especially the press) need to pull their heads out and realize this has been the most scrutinized aircraft in Boeing's history and is as safe as they come. What the media won't tell you is about the recent test run by the independent Pilots Union Association where they ran 50,000 scenarios through the software package that was considered the culprit of the crashes without a single anomaly.

Recently I was talking to an Alaska Airlines pilot and he told me point blank, "I'd fly the 737-MAX in a nano-second. It's the safest commercial aircraft in the world right now."
Yeah it's the safest, because it ain't flying. šŸ˜
 

krizby

Posts: 408   +264
TechSpot Elite
I live in Seattle and have a large number of friends - including my gf who is at the executive level - who work for Boeing. Although what you suggest on the surface makes sense, financially and manufacturing-wise isn't realistic. The smallest change in an aircraft can cost millions in materials, engineering and manpower.

What really needs to happen is people (and especially the press) need to pull their heads out and realize this has been the most scrutinized aircraft in Boeing's history and is as safe as they come. What the media won't tell you is about the recent test run by the independent Pilots Union Association where they ran 50,000 scenarios through the software package that was considered the culprit of the crashes without a single anomaly.

Recently I was talking to an Alaska Airlines pilot and he told me point blank, "I'd fly the 737-MAX in a nano-second. It's the safest commercial aircraft in the world right now."
Well when the scum of a CEO value profit over safety, laying off senior software developers and hiring Indian contractors, everything is at stake...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ax-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers
With the previous CEO gone now I hope Boeing learned their lessons...
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 7,244   +5,649
In order to truly convince the public of the safety of this aircraft I would propose the CEO and all major company officers, Operations officers, and the designers that made all these upgrades go on an around the world trip as ambassadors for the company. This would not only send a convincing message of the planes message but, in case of catastrophic failure, would put all the principles at the immediate scene of the crash in order to conduct a proper investigation .....
 
  • Like
Reactions: dms96960

Freddie159

Posts: 58   +24
I live in Seattle and have a large number of friends - including my gf who is at the executive level - who work for Boeing. Although what you suggest on the surface makes sense, financially and manufacturing-wise isn't realistic. The smallest change in an aircraft can cost millions in materials, engineering and manpower.

What really needs to happen is people (and especially the press) need to pull their heads out and realize this has been the most scrutinized aircraft in Boeing's history and is as safe as they come. What the media won't tell you is about the recent test run by the independent Pilots Union Association where they ran 50,000 scenarios through the software package that was considered the culprit of the crashes without a single anomaly.

Recently I was talking to an Alaska Airlines pilot and he told me point blank, "I'd fly the 737-MAX in a nano-second. It's the safest commercial aircraft in the world right now."
That could all be true but when the lead story is two different sets of pilots not being able to keep the plane from crashing ITSELF then the public will NOT willingly jump back on one. I'm flying and will NOT get on one, I will suffer thru delaysand layovers to avoid being on one. SURE LOTS have been fine, and the software is 'fixed' but the problem is WHY did it take crashes and the loss of hundreds of people to realize there's a problem with the software?!! Maybe Boeing's problem isn't in their ability to build planes, although recent wing cracks are troubling as well, but in the way they make and tweak the software needed to get and keep the thing in the air. Airplanes need to do two things, first take-off safely and then second land safely, everything after that is gravy!! Boeing has failed the first step with the 737-Max!!!

And don't give me that stuff about 'unforseen circumstances' that is NOT AN OPTION in an airplane!!! Bring in more people if you need too to go thru more scenarios, build software to come up with ways things can go wrong and see if the planes software can handle it, the 737-Max software was designed so ANYONE can take-off and land,,,until there was a problem and then it no longer did that!!! It's in the fricking air, it's not an option to wait 10 seconds while it reboots like my pc at home!!
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,535   +849
I live in Seattle and have a large number of friends - including my gf who is at the executive level - who work for Boeing. Although what you suggest on the surface makes sense, financially and manufacturing-wise isn't realistic. The smallest change in an aircraft can cost millions in materials, engineering and manpower.

What really needs to happen is people (and especially the press) need to pull their heads out and realize this has been the most scrutinized aircraft in Boeing's history and is as safe as they come. What the media won't tell you is about the recent test run by the independent Pilots Union Association where they ran 50,000 scenarios through the software package that was considered the culprit of the crashes without a single anomaly.

Recently I was talking to an Alaska Airlines pilot and he told me point blank, "I'd fly the 737-MAX in a nano-second. It's the safest commercial aircraft in the world right now."
It doesn't matter if pilots like it, or whether it actually is safe or not. It only matters whether customers will buy tickets on it. I'm better demand it low if the passengers have any choice.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,535   +849
In order to truly convince the public of the safety of this aircraft I would propose the CEO and all major company officers, Operations officers, and the designers that made all these upgrades go on an around the world trip as ambassadors for the company. This would not only send a convincing message of the planes message but, in case of catastrophic failure, would put all the principles at the immediate scene of the crash in order to conduct a proper investigation .....
It used to be engineers had to be the first to use the projects they built. Imo, bring that back.
 
In order to truly convince the public of the safety of this aircraft I would propose the CEO and all major company officers, Operations officers, and the designers that made all these upgrades go on an around the world trip as ambassadors for the company. This would not only send a convincing message of the planes message but, in case of catastrophic failure, would put all the principles at the immediate scene of the crash in order to conduct a proper investigation .....
They may do that, but I bet they'd rather put on some makeup on an Airbus of similar size and write "737 MAX" on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Al