Boeing Update, for Air Canada Pilots — News and Views

[Raymond Hall]

From today's Washington Post:

Boeing finds debris in fuel tanks of undelivered 737 Max jets

The finding means the several hundred planes will have to inspected.

Boeing found debris in the gas tanks of some of several hundred undelivered 737 Max jets, a potential safety hazard and yet another problem for the company as it tries to get the planes airborne again after two deadly crashes.

Mark Jenks, a Boeing vice president and general manager of the 737 program, sent an email to all employees on the 737 program, addressing the problem, known as foreign object debris or FOD.

“FOD is absolutely unacceptable,” Jenks wrote in the email, which was shared by a Boeing spokesman. “One escape is one too many.”

The message didn’t describe the debris, but it often includes tools or parts left behind when planes leave the production line. The Boeing spokesman said dealing with the debris is not likely to further delay the work of getting the planes off the ground.

==================

The new problem with the so-called foreign object debris was first reported by aviation industry news site Leeham News.

Issues with debris have caused headaches for Boeing and its customers before, and were part of a 2015 settlement between the company and the FAA. Last year, the Air Force temporarily halted delivery of tanker aircraft from Boeing because it was concerned about debris.

In the email to staff, Jenks described new checklists, inspections and signage designed to stem the problem.

“We need our entire team to make this a priority,” he wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-v ... -max-jets/

[derateNO]

Lol

[bcflyer]

Definitely having some quality control issues at Boeing.

[Raymond Hall]

From today’s New York Times:

Federal Prosecutors Investigating Whether Boeing Pilot Lied to F.A.A.

In questions before a grand jury, prosecutors have focused on whether a top pilot misled regulators about new flight control software in the 737 Max plane.

Federal prosecutors investigating Boeing are examining whether the company knowingly misled the Federal Aviation Administration while it was seeking the regulator’s approval for its 737 Max plane, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an active inquiry.

In recent months, prosecutors have questioned several Boeing employees in front of a federal grand jury, with some of their queries focusing on whether Mark Forkner, a top pilot at the company, intentionally lied to the regulator about the nature of new flight control software on the jet, the people said. That software, which is known as MCAS and automatically pushes the nose of the plane down, played a role in two crashes that killed 346 people.

The Department of Justice has been investigating Boeing for months, but the information about the grand jury testimony provides some clarity about how prosecutors could be aiming to hold the company accountable for errors that led to the crashes. Mr. Forkner could face criminal charges of lying to the government. The company could also be held liable for potential wrongdoing by Mr. Forkner, because he was a senior employee responsible for Boeing’s interaction with the F.A.A. group that determined the kind of training pilots would need before flying the Max.

Last year, the company made public an instant message chat between Mr. Forkner and his colleague Patrik Gustavsson. In the exchange, from November 2016, months before the F.A.A. certified the Max, Mr. Forkner said MCAS was acting unpredictably in a flight simulator. “I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly),” Mr. Forkner said.
--------
Prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Forkner knew about a key change that allowed MCAS to trigger in almost all phases of flight and then did not give that information to the F.A.A.MCAS was designed to activate only when the plane was making sharp turns at high speeds. But late in the development of the Max, Boeing engineers decided they needed MCAS to operate when the plane was flying at low speeds, too. To have the same effect on the plane at low speeds that it had at high speeds, the engineers gave the system more power.

In the messages from November 2016, Mr. Forkner seems to note that MCAS was triggering at low speeds.
“Oh shocker alert!” he wrote. “MCAS is now active down to M .2,” he added, using a technical term that denotes a relatively slow flying speed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/busi ... ation.html

[co-joe]

From today's Financial Post:

Air Canada profit misses as costs rise amid 737 MAX grounding

Airline spent more on maintaining older aircraft in its fleet amid the grounding of the Boeing jet

...
https://business.financialpost.com/tran ... -grounding

Say what you will about the Max but at least its wheels don't keep falling off.

[yycflyguy]

From today's Financial Post:

Air Canada profit misses as costs rise amid 737 MAX grounding

Airline spent more on maintaining older aircraft in its fleet amid the grounding of the Boeing jet

...
https://business.financialpost.com/tran ... -grounding

Say what you will about the Max but at least its wheels don't keep falling off.

They are getting rather square, however.

[Fanblade]

Air Canada in discussion with Airbus


https://www.wingsoverquebec.com/?p=9150

737 grounding solved?

[jpilot77]

Not buying it till I see it in another publication such as Aviation Week or the like.

[rudder]

A321XLR is basically a B757-200 burning 25% less fuel.

Pretty obvious that AC has recognized the error of its ways with some of the Boeing products. No more 787’s on order. Looking to extricate from some of the firm MAX orders.

Airbus seem keen to sell planes to AC. CR never wastes an opportunity to leverage a situation. Combined with the AT transaction, AC seems headed home to Airbus.

Cannot wait to see where AC goes for B777 replacement. A350-900/1000?

[Fanblade]

A321XLR is basically a B757-200 burning 25% less fuel.

Pretty obvious that AC has recognized the error of its ways with some of the Boeing products. No more 787’s on order. Looking to extricate from some of the firm MAX orders.

Airbus seem keen to sell planes to AC. CR never wastes an opportunity to leverage a situation. Combined with the AT transaction, AC seems headed home to Airbus.

Cannot wait to see where AC goes for B777 replacement. A350-900/1000?

Makes sense to me.

For me as soon as AC decided the Max 9 was not for them, and changed their order as such, it was the first strike against the Max. It meant AC would probably need to keep the 321. Two types rather than the single type envisioned. Then the 220 purchase turned the NB fleet into 3 types.

With a fleet of 45 A220’s arriving nearly the size of an A320, and an increasing number of 321’s, the 737 is looking more and more like a third wheel rather than the future. Never mind it is still grounded.

[boeingboy]

A321XLR is basically a B757-200 burning 25% less fuel.

Thats the most laughable thing I've heard in a long time.

The A321XLR is NO 757!
Have you seen all the gas tanks they have to cram in that thing to get it that far? The biggest problem is that you get the passengers there but half their bags don't because there is no room.

The only reason it has sold is because there is no real replacement for the 757....if the 797 had come to market 2 or 3 years ago - the XLR wouldn't even exist. It's simply a stopgap right now - and a poor one at that.

[rudder]

757 used to burn around 3600kg/hr (8000lbs/hr). The 321NEO burns around 6000lbs/hr.

757 had payload issues as well depending on whether it had the increased MGTOW supplement (250,000lbs vs 225,000lbs).

757-200 could be operated as a sardine can at 231 seats. Most operators flew it around at lower density seating configuration (see payload issues above). I used to see single class configurations of 211/217.

Assuming the 321XLR is operated at 200 seats, a range of 6 hours with passenger bags should be easily doable. This would be critical if destinations like Hawaii are being considered. However, if an operator wants to look at 7-9 hour routes then things may get complicated.

Boeing sadly refused all requests to restart 757 production. The 321XLR is a closer facsimile to the 757 than the MAX9/10 ever will be. Then there are the 737 braking issues, brake cooling, and turnaround times (main reason that AC converted MAX9 positions to MAX8).

Oh, and I doubt that you will ever see a 321XLR with a pogo stick attached.....

AC would be well served to continue the migration back to Airbus. The MAX selection over the NEO will be remembered as one of the less fortuitous fleet decisions.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The 320 series production is, pardon the pun, maxed out so even if AC wanted to go back to a all Airbus NB they are no slots available for several years. In any case AC won't buy the best airplane they will buy the cheapest. AC is just whip sawing Boeing with the threat of going back to Airbus for NB aircraft to up the pressure. AC will take all 50 Max's and leverage that for a killer deal on more 787's and 777-9's. There is IMHO, zero chance of 330 NEO or 350 buy. The 320 XLR is a 757 replacement which is fine except AC has never had any 757's so I don't see why they have to replace a segment type they have never had.

The good news is the Max will be the most tested NB flying. Even the clueless bean counter MBA's executives in Boeing understand one more crash for any technical reason and the company is done like dinner.

[Fanblade]

A321XLR is basically a B757-200 burning 25% less fuel.

Thats the most laughable thing I've heard in a long time.

The A321XLR is NO 757!
Have you seen all the gas tanks they have to cram in that thing to get it that far? The biggest problem is that you get the passengers there but half their bags don't because there is no room.

I agree with you at 230 pax. But at common sense passenger number the 321 XLR is very capable.

[Fanblade]

The 320 series production is, pardon the pun, maxed out so even if AC wanted to go back to a all Airbus NB they are no slots available for several years.

Not true. Manufacturers always retain slots on the production line. Often through leasing companies to leverage other sales.

The sales pitch goes like this.

So you want a 321 eh? Sorry no slots until star date 20235. However we have retained some slots for customers purchasing 330/350’s. Can I interest you in one of those?

Case in point the Max order from Boeing. WestJet ordered the Max well before AC. The wait time was pushing 5 years. 35 787 orders? Imagine that suddenly 61 Max slots are available.

[BTD]

The 320 series production is, pardon the pun, maxed out so even if AC wanted to go back to a all Airbus NB they are no slots available for several years.

Not true. Manufacturers always retain slots on the production line. Often through leasing companies to leverage other sales.

The sales pitch goes like this.

So you want a 321 eh? Sorry no slots until star date 20235. However we have retained some slots for customers purchasing 330/350’s. Can I interest you in one of those?

Case in point the Max order from Boeing. WestJet ordered the Max well before AC. The wait time was pushing 5 years. 35 787 orders? Imagine that suddenly 61 Max slots are available.

Yup.

And if the Transat deal goes through there is a handful of 321neos on order from them already. Not to mention 20 330s, some of which may need to be replaced in the not too distant future. We are already showing 17, 330s by end of 2021 on the annual report fleet page. Up from 8 2 years ago. After all that, a few 330 Neo’s to secure earlier slots for 320s is a possibility. Not to mention the 330s haven’t been selling great yet, airbus may want a few more on the order books. We also need to pick up some capacity for the 11 -9 Maxes we aren’t getting.

I don’t know what is going to happen, could go either way, but this is a possibility. I had heard rumours previous to this article.

[fish4life]

757 used to burn around 3600kg/hr (8000lbs/hr). The 321NEO burns around 6000lbs/hr.

757 had payload issues as well depending on whether it had the increased MGTOW supplement (250,000lbs vs 225,000lbs).

757-200 could be operated as a sardine can at 231 seats. Most operators flew it around at lower density seating configuration (see payload issues above). I used to see single class configurations of 211/217.

Assuming the 321XLR is operated at 200 seats, a range of 6 hours with passenger bags should be easily doable. This would be critical if destinations like Hawaii are being considered. However, if an operator wants to look at 7-9 hour routes then things may get complicated.

Boeing sadly refused all requests to restart 757 production. The 321XLR is a closer facsimile to the 757 than the MAX9/10 ever will be. Then there are the 737 braking issues, brake cooling, and turnaround times (main reason that AC converted MAX9 positions to MAX8).

Oh, and I doubt that you will ever see a 321XLR with a pogo stick attached.....

AC would be well served to continue the migration back to Airbus. The MAX selection over the NEO will be remembered as one of the less fortuitous fleet decisions.

the bag issue with the XLR isn't payload related it is space related, AT is running into issues with this with their 321LR's and the XLR's remove more pit space from baggage to add fuel.

[rudder]

I believe that Airbus had acknowledged this problem on the LR and has indicated that the extra fuel tanks will be repositioned on the XLR to maximize cargo space,

[Fanblade]

I believe that Airbus had acknowledged this problem on the LR and has indicated that the extra fuel tanks will be repositioned on the XLR to maximize cargo space,

Fuel tank going into the tail like the 330 I believe.

[rudder]

FWIW - I don’t believe that the XLR is optimal as an overseas aircraft (North Atlantic).

Flying back in a strong headwind it does not have the ability to operate at M.84-87 to reduce the block time impact and the extra 30-60 minutes of fuel burn might affect payload on longer stage lengths particularly if the aircraft is being operated in a high density seating configuration.

I see the XLR being optimized in a multi-class configuration on sub-7 hour stage lengths. Not sure where AC commercial would see it fitting in, particularly since there is no clarity yet on what the post TS merger entity will look like.

[co-joe]

...
They are getting rather square, however.

I guess square, or at least rather flat on one side anyway.

[Raymond Hall]

From Reuters:

Boeing scours idle 737 MAX plant for industrial snags

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Insiders note an “eerie” calm at Boeing Co’s (BA.N) 737 MAX factory, formerly a bustling hub that has helped fuel the aviation industry’s record growth over the last two decades.

Weeks after halting production of the 737 MAX, which has been grounded for almost a year over fatal crashes, Boeing is seizing on the lull to conduct an overhaul at its Seattle-area factory to curb inefficiency, improve quality and ease the plane’s re-entry to the market, four people familiar with the matter said.

Backed by engineers from roughly a dozen suppliers such as fuselage maker Spirit AeroSystems (SPR.N) and robot maker Electroimpact Inc, Boeing is fixing inventory management, upgrading automated tooling, and addressing “high-defect” areas, three of them said.

Boeing is also working to reduce instances where workers leave tools, rags and other debris inside jetliners as they build them, a problem at multiple Boeing factories. On Friday, Boeing said it found “foreign object debris” inside dozens of stored 737 MAX jets, and was investigating the cause.

A Boeing spokesman said the company was using this time to work closely with suppliers on a dozen initiatives to improve the overall health of its production system.

“The objective is to ensure a healthy and stable system that is ready for resuming production and increasing rates at the appropriate time,” the spokesman, Bernard Choi, said.

While Boeing has long said the Renton plant is already the most efficient in aviation, such longstanding problems were viewed as too risky to address during years of helter-skelter production to meet record jet demand.

======

‘HIGH-DEFECT’ AREAS

Part of the effort involves reducing “high-defect” areas, or situations where the quality of a part deviates from airline specifications - which can result in costly rework.

If the defect is bad enough to require changes, Boeing must flag that the airplane has been repaired and the airline customer pays less - akin to a discount for a scratch on a new car, one of the people said.

“Defects and rework are a big deal, they are extremely parasitic to factory efficiency and part quality,” he said. “Now they have the down time, so this is the time to deal with it.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN20I1A5

[goleafsgo]

If they did end up going airbus for more NB's, could they switch the Max's to rouge to avoid 3 NB types at mainline? Max at rouge and 320s and 220s at mainline?

[derateNO]

Honestly that makes the most sense. You can't turn the Max in any reasonable amount of time. Send it to all the vacation destinations where you don't need to turn it in 45 min and it solves a lot of problems.

Then bring all the 319/320/321 back to mainline and have two separate types on each OC.

[aerodude]

321XLR and 330NEO order would be perfect. Actually genius.

Start shifting flying to Transat with no crew training required, reduce mainline flying at higher pay.
Im sure ACPA will bend backwards, AC will eliminate rouge and in return allow separate seniority lists and the low payscales at TS. Ofcourse with a 10k signing bonus.

Can't wait for next recession boys and girls, I feel another FOS!!!!