This is an incredibly weird article. It's basically a prolonged sob-story about how terrible a production halt would be.<p>No doubt there would be an economic impact but the writing is just full of hyperbole and doesn't name any sources for it's claims (like 0.6% of GDP growth rate - note the <i>growth rate</i>, not 0.6% of GDP or 0.6% of GDP growth ...). It also fails to differentiate between the impact of existing planes not able to fly and continued production.<p>This smells like a PR campaign to put pressure on regulators.<p>Only, in this instance, the FAA probably won't risk further embarrassment by declaring the plane safe while EASA is holding out. Most of the world will wait for them rather than go with the FAA.
My (conspiratorial) take is that they’re making noises about this so that politicians can step in and pressure the FAA into approving their modifications. Talking about blue-collar job losses and economic impacts has the amazing effect of cutting through politicians’ radar on both sides of the aisle.
There is also an issue with the 777X engines, as reported by the Seattle Times. This could cause a lot of pain for a lot of people in Renton and Everett. <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-says-737-max-crisis-could-temporarily-shut-down-renton-production/" rel="nofollow">https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...</a>
Probably just trying some way to justify the plane, until they can't. The way they slapped the bigger engines onto the old design should not continue. Neither should their complete outsourcing of plane production. Quality counts and they're missing it.
What if it costs too much to fix?<p>Anything can be made to fly if you spend enough money on it. But Boeing are in the business of making money. So they can't just get the 737 Max to fly at all costs. Even if they went all out the reputational harm is very much deHavilland Comet. They fixed the Comet and it was a lovely plane, but nobody wanted it. With the 737 it needs a full redesign, otherwise it is just an exercise in polishing a turd. Even if the MCAS works perfectly it is still an ugly hack.<p>To Boeing the decision to be selling single aisle short-hop planes might be something they get completely out of. They can finish orders for 737 oeo (old engine option) and just shut the whole thing down.<p>After 2008 the US auto sector was pared down a bit, GM getting rid of Pontiac to shutter it for good was needed to solve the bigger GM venture, similarly 737 MAX might be best closed in order to save the company. Much like how quick they were with the Dreamliner, in 5-10 years time Boeing could be back with another Ryanair grade offering.<p>Ford, GM and FCA decided to give up on making saloons for the domestic market, they let the Germans fill that niche. Similarly, with the 737 it might be better to be realistic about the competition, not just from Airbus but China, Russia and anywhere else. If China has a good plane to rival the 737 in 2-3 years time then it would be hard for Boeing's unionised workers to compete with their robots.
Maybe if we want safety first we should be engineering lead, and only have sales/customer desires as inputs that are considered when creating a design that fulfills market needs.<p>That includes all stages of engineering knowing the big picture, even if they don't happen to be acting upon it, so that there are safety checks possible at every stage of design and implementation.
I personally find odd the wording:<p>>... if the grounding of its most popular plane persists ...<p>as if the grounding was an uncontrollable event, like - say - weather.<p>I would have written it as:<p>"if we (Boeing) cannot soon find a solution that is considered safe enough by the relevant Authorities ..."
Anyone old enough to second guess that McDonnell Douglas and Boeing merger? And 30 years before that, the McDonnell and Douglas merger? Are these really natural monopolies?
I really, really hope this isn't necessary. We're currently in one of the longest (if not <i>the</i> longest) periods of continued economic growth in US history, and the knock-on effects from a halt to 737 production could help put an end to that. (not just from the direct hit which was estimated at of 0.6% of GDP, but the confidence hit that would cause)<p>EDIT: To be clear, I think the best outcome is for the 737 Max to be made safe and to fly again. If it can't be made safe, obviously cancelling production of useless planes is a good idea.