7 ms·

I honestly don't understand why Boeing themselves don't ground the airplane. Having individual countries and airlines slowly doing it for them, just generates a

I honestly don't understand why Boeing themselves don't ground the airplane. Having individual countries and airlines slowly doing it for them, just generates a ton of negative news stories. And the longer they wait, the more it will seem like they only did it because of pressure. And God forbid there was another crash, Boeing would be history.

mtw 8y ago
If they ground the plane, maybe this allow the airline to cancel orders and get deposits back?
chvid 8y ago
This is an important point. Boeing is being reckless with their whole business and showing bad leadership. Regardless if they are sure that there is no real risk with their planes; their reputation surely is at risk.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  Well, they were rattled enough to postpone the global launch of their new 777X which was slated for this week.
  - chvid 8y ago
    That is even worse; they are sorta implying whatever is wrong with the max is also wrong with the 777x. They need to ground the max so they control for how long for and what is needed to clear them.
    - realityking 8y ago
      I disagree. They’re simply showing enough compassion to know that it’s not appropriate to throw a part while 150 families are mourning.
      - stevehawk 8y ago
        believe he'd like a s/part/party/ in there. That said, it's more realistic they're delaying it because they don't want the bad press of the 737MAX to bring down the announcement of the new plane.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Considering we don't yet have much information on the cause of the most recent crash this is a hell of an assertion to make. If they ground things at the drop of a hat that is also reckless. They'll know in a couple of days what happened since they already have the recorders. With one crash every ~6mo (someone can crunch the numbers and get the naive probability of a crash per flight) and every pilot of a MAX8 now on the lookout for possible problems the public is not seriously put in danger by another week or so of these aircraft flying. Imagine if Boeing grounded these and it turned out the second crash was pilot error. That would be a footnote that would get 10sec in the news months from now. Do you want to be forever known as the guy who tanked Boeing's reputation over a false positive? That has costs to society too. And before you say yes remember that it's much easier to say you'll give your lottery winnings to charity before winning the jackpot.
  - joekrill 8y ago
    The drop of a hat?? 2 plane crashes killing 346 people under eerily similar circumstances within 5 months is the drop of a hat?
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      Would you be happier if I called it a knee jerk reaction? The fact of the matter is that 2 is a pretty bad sample size to draw conclusions from and we don't yet have ANY idea what caused this most recent crash. It's easy to say "just ground them" when it's not going to affect you. Throwing medium sized wrenches into the global transportation network has very real costs and shouldn't be done lightly. People's lives are disrupted, sometimes catastrophically. The lives lost already are a sunk cost. It comes down to a calculation of risk vs the cost (in human terms, in case that wasn't obvious) of the disruption. Unfortunately it's impossible to have an adult discussion about that kind of thing on the internet.
      - joekrill 8y ago
        I disagree that it's a knee-jerk reaction, drop of the hat, or whatever you want to name it. We are talking about hundreds of human lives. We are talking about an industry that consistently chooses safety above all else, regardless of profits and minor inconveniences. And for some reason that just doesn't seem to be the case here. > Unfortunately it's impossible to have an adult discussion about that kind of thing on the internet. So unless everyone agrees with you it isn't an adult conversation? Entire countries are grounding these planes. The evidence is pretty clear that folks are worried and aren't interesting in risking the loss of a few hundred more lives because a bit of money may be on the line, or there may be a minor travel disruption. Edit: I see the original poster has since removed the bit about not being able to have an adult conversation on the internet. I quoted and responded to that before it was removed.
- js2 8y ago
  I hope they are putting the safety of their passengers ahead of their reputation. Maybe grounding the plane is the right PR decision but the wrong safety-first decision.
Reason077 8y ago
If Boeing were to ground the aircraft, wouldn't that be seen as admitting there is a fault/safety issue with the design, and put Boeing on the hook for compensation payments to airlines? A number of Boeing 787s were grounded last year due to faulty Rolls-Royce engines, and it has cost RR hundreds of millions in compensation - to cover the airlines costs of leasing replacement aircraft, for example. However, you're quite right that if Boeing knows about an issue and aren't taking the boldest possible steps to ensure the safety of passengers, then the potential reputational risk is even greater.
- braythwayt 8y ago
  It has been done. It can be done. “We’re asking our customers to ground the airplane as a precautionary measure. We have the utmost confidence in our engineers, processes, blah blah blah, and are confident that the 787 Max will be flying again as soon as the investigation is completed.” Advil did this, and their brand was just fine, possibly better because they were aggressive about putting lives ahead of this quarter’s cash flow.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
    Investors say... SELL, SELL, SELL.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - braythwayt 8y ago
      Investors also say, "Charge $900 for insulin," and, "All I want are dividends, I don't care if you're dumping pollution into the Love Canal. Management's difficult job is to know when to say to investors, "Sorry."
  - js2 8y ago
    Advil pulling medicine is different than Boeing grounding planes. What if grounding planes cancels flights forcing passengers into cars? Should that factor into the decision to ground the plane?

mtw 8y ago

If they ground the plane, maybe this allow the airline to cancel orders and get deposits back?

chvid 8y ago

This is an important point. Boeing is being reckless with their whole business and showing bad leadership. Regardless if they are sure that there is no real risk with their planes; their reputation surely is at risk.

cyberferret 8y ago
Well, they were rattled enough to postpone the global launch of their new 777X which was slated for this week.
- chvid 8y ago
  That is even worse; they are sorta implying whatever is wrong with the max is also wrong with the 777x. They need to ground the max so they control for how long for and what is needed to clear them.
  - realityking 8y ago
    I disagree. They’re simply showing enough compassion to know that it’s not appropriate to throw a part while 150 families are mourning.
    - stevehawk 8y ago
      believe he'd like a s/part/party/ in there. That said, it's more realistic they're delaying it because they don't want the bad press of the 737MAX to bring down the announcement of the new plane.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Considering we don't yet have much information on the cause of the most recent crash this is a hell of an assertion to make. If they ground things at the drop of a hat that is also reckless. They'll know in a couple of days what happened since they already have the recorders. With one crash every ~6mo (someone can crunch the numbers and get the naive probability of a crash per flight) and every pilot of a MAX8 now on the lookout for possible problems the public is not seriously put in danger by another week or so of these aircraft flying. Imagine if Boeing grounded these and it turned out the second crash was pilot error. That would be a footnote that would get 10sec in the news months from now. Do you want to be forever known as the guy who tanked Boeing's reputation over a false positive? That has costs to society too. And before you say yes remember that it's much easier to say you'll give your lottery winnings to charity before winning the jackpot.
- joekrill 8y ago
  The drop of a hat?? 2 plane crashes killing 346 people under eerily similar circumstances within 5 months is the drop of a hat?
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Would you be happier if I called it a knee jerk reaction? The fact of the matter is that 2 is a pretty bad sample size to draw conclusions from and we don't yet have ANY idea what caused this most recent crash. It's easy to say "just ground them" when it's not going to affect you. Throwing medium sized wrenches into the global transportation network has very real costs and shouldn't be done lightly. People's lives are disrupted, sometimes catastrophically. The lives lost already are a sunk cost. It comes down to a calculation of risk vs the cost (in human terms, in case that wasn't obvious) of the disruption. Unfortunately it's impossible to have an adult discussion about that kind of thing on the internet.
    - joekrill 8y ago
      I disagree that it's a knee-jerk reaction, drop of the hat, or whatever you want to name it. We are talking about hundreds of human lives. We are talking about an industry that consistently chooses safety above all else, regardless of profits and minor inconveniences. And for some reason that just doesn't seem to be the case here. > Unfortunately it's impossible to have an adult discussion about that kind of thing on the internet. So unless everyone agrees with you it isn't an adult conversation? Entire countries are grounding these planes. The evidence is pretty clear that folks are worried and aren't interesting in risking the loss of a few hundred more lives because a bit of money may be on the line, or there may be a minor travel disruption. Edit: I see the original poster has since removed the bit about not being able to have an adult conversation on the internet. I quoted and responded to that before it was removed.
js2 8y ago
I hope they are putting the safety of their passengers ahead of their reputation. Maybe grounding the plane is the right PR decision but the wrong safety-first decision.

Reason077 8y ago

If Boeing were to ground the aircraft, wouldn't that be seen as admitting there is a fault/safety issue with the design, and put Boeing on the hook for compensation payments to airlines? A number of Boeing 787s were grounded last year due to faulty Rolls-Royce engines, and it has cost RR hundreds of millions in compensation - to cover the airlines costs of leasing replacement aircraft, for example. However, you're quite right that if Boeing knows about an issue and aren't taking the boldest possible steps to ensure the safety of passengers, then the potential reputational risk is even greater.

braythwayt 8y ago
It has been done. It can be done. “We’re asking our customers to ground the airplane as a precautionary measure. We have the utmost confidence in our engineers, processes, blah blah blah, and are confident that the 787 Max will be flying again as soon as the investigation is completed.” Advil did this, and their brand was just fine, possibly better because they were aggressive about putting lives ahead of this quarter’s cash flow.
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
  Investors say... SELL, SELL, SELL.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    Investors also say, "Charge $900 for insulin," and, "All I want are dividends, I don't care if you're dumping pollution into the Love Canal. Management's difficult job is to know when to say to investors, "Sorry."
- js2 8y ago
  Advil pulling medicine is different than Boeing grounding planes. What if grounding planes cancels flights forcing passengers into cars? Should that factor into the decision to ground the plane?