FREE Aviation NEWS app📲https://www.mentourpilot.com/apps/
Boeing management will likely announce severe cuts and possibly even a complete stop of the Boeing 737MAX production line today. This after the FAA told them that they will NOT certify the MAX to fly before the end of 2019.
How will this affect Boeing and the rest of the Aviation Industry and why is it happening NOW?
This forms part of a new type of Industry analysis videos I am planning to start producing for the channel and the Mentour aviation app.
If you like this, make sure you have downloaded the FREE app and consider becoming a PREMIUM member for access to all features.
To join my Patreon crew, and support the channel, use the link below:
If you want to follow my life on Instagram, use the below link:
A huge THANK YOU. to the featured channels and videos in todays video. To see the full, awesome, versions of the videos, use the links below:
KING 5 (MAX parking)
Sam Chui (How the MAX is built)
Boeing (Boeing 737MAX display flight)
Al Jazeera (Article on the possible stopping of MAX production)
Jay Rule (Boeing 737 delivered by train)
It's just as well that they're stopping production of this airplane. Regardless of what they do "software fixes," etc., the problem won't go away. I would not be reassured until they redesigned the entire airframe - an expensive procedure. If you consider the recent debacle with United Airlines, the idea of flying a United flight using a Boeing 737 Max is going to cause a great deal of concern, no matter what those two organizations say or do. The damage has been done.
Philippe Nachtergal (19 days ago)
I don't understand how they failed to see that the FAA's own credibility as well as Boeing had been damaged around the world once many aviation authorities around the world said that they would not automatically follow the FAA if it lifted the grounding.
In this affair, it looks like the FAA and Boeing did their homework on security only once forced to do so and that will have long lasting credibility damage.
Boeing claims that security always comes first and I understand that this is true on paper and effectively true in many departments but for the whole MCAS affair it clearly was not true.
It is very common for a company of any kind (not limiting myself to aviation here) to claim that security or cyber-security or customer satisfaction or XYZ is "paramount" and "always comes first" but hardly take it into account (if at all) when the time comes to evaluate employees. Sure, the employee that made a mistake than ended-up costing lives or a lot of money might have a problem but the guy that gets the advancement or bonus is the guy that helped make a sale or reach the deadline, not the guy that took the time to double check or imagine what could go wrong...
LaylaGW (24 days ago)
I hear what you say, but the MCAS is not safe until it is a 3 sensor system. Either remove it entirely, or fix it right. What really disturbs me though is the culture at Boeing of adding "shareholder value" at the expense of safety. Between Starliner, KC-46 Pegasus, and 737-Max, it seems everything new Boeing makes is compromised. Executives are waving no problem here and systems are failing across the board. It feels as if Boeing as a company is going down the drain.
Appable (1 day ago)
Doesn't need to be three sensors because MCAS inoperative is not an issue. Three sensors technically decreases reliability in detecting erroneous data because of the chance of two simultaneous sensor failures
N A (27 days ago)
They should stop producing boeing airplanes. AIRBUS should just outsource some of its orders to them.
Jari Kinnunen (1 month ago)
Renton factory - 3000 worker of 12000., from some news.
Zidaru (1 month ago)
Hi. Just seen a 737 MAX in the air on 15th of January. Registration is SP-EXB. Just wondering if you know anything about it?
Saoirse Justice McKenna (1 month ago)
I love your adorable co-pilot in the videos
Stand Alone (1 month ago)
Keep flying boeing buddy good luck!
Dimitris Malamos (1 month ago)
The job of an engineer: to provide a state of the art functional description of a certain machinery function after thorough study of all operational and technical parameters.
The job of IT or automation programmer: to convert that functional description into code and create the RELIABLE software
Those functions should guarantee:
Wondering if this is really happening now days...
Any similarities with the grounding of a state of the art airliner is a coincidence.....
Johnny (1 month ago)
I like how the dog is materializing out of thin air and vanishing again.
JimJ (1 month ago)
This aircraft needs a new airframe to take its new engines. The old airframes will have to be scrapped and move on no lessons learnt. Profit Trump's safety. No executive loses his job for increasing profits no matter how they do it.
MetalTeamster (1 month ago)
Read " Crash course " by " New Republic " .... Pretty interesting read... I think.
Junkyard Buzzard (1 month ago)
I’ve worked on these MAX aircraft. They are High tech aircraft. But after this disaster I don’t think people will want to fly on this airplane. Boeing needs to scrap this model. Boeing needs to clean house. Nobody trusts that companies managers. I suggest they use them as Drones for the military. The military would pay any amount for crap. They pay $1000 for a toilet seat.
LabGorilla (1 month ago)
Over 300 souls lost. Do not forget why. Not 1 inch should be given by the FAA. As a fare paying passenger, I want those souls to be worth something in terms of aviation safety, as I’m sure their families also wish, and to prevent Boeing, or anyone, from ever taking this ethos again.
akronymus (1 month ago)
FAA investigators stated that the pilots of the airlines involved didn't know basic procedures.
And that companies had parts changed without having them tested as the book says.
There is more than one reason.
Benno (1 month ago)
I will give you a thumbs down everytime you have a title that is negative and leads viewers to a bad conclusion. This is called propaganda and is used al over by the media and our wonderful government. Why do you? This title says Boeing quit. The contents says they may quit. Big difference, so stop already
Kiosk14k (1 month ago)
I wouldn't fly in a MAX if you paid me to
Martin Turnbull (1 month ago)
737 should stop production...it outdated and need move on with new build for the future.
Mr. President (1 month ago)
They need to stop production and airlines should not be allowed to fly them ... as for me as a consumer I Will not book flights on that plane .. period!
Nelo (1 month ago)
I will never fly in that plane, ever.
Dividend Income (1 month ago)
So after they make this plane very safe you’ll go fly in another plane that’s not being checked as well and might..... let’s just say “have an issue in the air”
Sounds like you have it all figured out lol smh
simon sharp (1 month ago)
'Fixed' or not, i ain't ever flying in one. Period.
digitaurus (1 month ago)
Would be interested to know what the value of all these stockpiled planes are on the Boeing balance sheet. If the Max never gets approved for flight they would have to be written off (including scrapple costs).
Matt Waterworth (1 month ago)
Hi Mentour, amazing video as always. Is your cellphone ringtone the Mentour theme at the start of your videos? And do you always let it ring until it gets to the excellent lead guitar bit? Thanks.
Uncle Joe S (1 month ago)
An admission you can't keep building uncertified planes forever, whilst every one finished is parked on tarmacs around the world. I note that the Airbus A320 family production line is working extra hours. And you can fly the planes once they are built. A pretty big advantage.
Ali Monique (1 month ago)
I will never fly on one their reputation is dead to me.
Johannes Geense (1 month ago)
An important point should be made. What about pax confidence? Whom amongst us will be willing to travel in the, now very notorius, aircraft?
Pauls Country (1 month ago)
I will never get on one of those death traps.
Jose Caballero (1 month ago)
Max 737,the Pinto of airliners,fly at ur own risk.
Satyabrata Chakraborty (1 month ago)
I also see an aircraft of Jet Airways in your video. One of the leading airlines at one point of time. Sadly the airline is no more operational as it recently suffered huge losses & went bankrupt. This shows that Aviation industry is so much sensitive and how much precision is required in decision making process.
slikkrw444 (1 month ago)
I build the rear bulkhead and im freaking out if we are all losing our jobs... I hope they can figure this out
Yao USA (1 month ago)
The name Boeing it too big to fail
Harr32xis (1 month ago)
You most certainly can stop production if 300 people are dying at a time. Regardless of any problems it causes the suppliers
Elaine Blackhurst (1 month ago)
It’s time for the full macho male corporate elite to step aside. The men have let us down putting another male a Boeing puppet in charge will solve nothing.Its the 21st century and time for a woman to lead Boeing. There is no one better than Veteran Engineer Beth Patzsor head of Safety. At Boeing I congratulate her recent appointment to Safety she has a mammoth job ahead of her dealing with a load of Corporate vultures that put money before Safety. If anyone has the guts to take on this destructive culture at the top of Boeing a safe pair of hands is needed. I trully hope she’s promoted she may temper the male madness that rushed out Max knowing it was faulty. I send her my best wishes ❤️🇬🇧🇺🇸✈️😁👩🎓
Goru Minosyan (1 month ago)
Boeing using $9/hr software engineers on 737 MAX. American Corporate greed will kill you.
triton115 (1 month ago)
The Boeing 737 MAX is not safe to fly. The aircraft is built in a highly inferior way with inferior materials and electronics. The 737 MAX is heavily prone to equipment and mechanical failure which will cause the plane to crash. And the scary thing is, when the big jet crashes, everybody on board dies.
Hokie Redneck (1 month ago)
love the inside stuff
ABDULLAH alm alm (1 month ago)
What you boing⚰ people was thinking about..this is not cowboy 🎩market..
its aviation and its Airbus technology unbeatable 👑
lex (1 month ago)
An insensitive video that hand waves away literal disaster capitalism. An angle-of-attack indicator as a paid optional extra?? Are you fucking kidding me. 737 Max should be scrapped because it's an effigy of a greedy company prioritizing pennies over the lives of people
dance rico (1 month ago)
When I heard my friend that works for Boeing saying (this planes are built to be ready on time,no to fly.(I would not fly in one of those)too many safety risks. That's enough for me,will never trust Boeing again. After working 27 years for Boeing he left.I asked why?
His answer: when I start work here was.
Safety first,budget second, delivery time last. Nowadays is:budget first,delivery time second and safety,safety there is no safety,because all the safety and quality engineers been shut up by the company,so they've been pushed aside. Shame
Paweł Lachowicz (1 month ago)
Wasn't that EU that grounded 737MAX and FAA was in fact THE LAST one to do it under the pressure of the rest of the world?
Jedi One (1 month ago)
Thanks for the video and Merry Christmas captain !! 👨✈️
Miss Mimi (1 month ago)
Did they stop for real? Or will they just make a couple changes then rename it...
Gerard Willemsen (1 month ago)
Nobody in their right mind will ever again board a 737 max again! I’d like to live a little longer. Strip the entire fleet and design a new plane from scratch! Your ‘economy talk’ doesn’t ‘land’ too well at us ignorant air travelers.
Mike Girard (1 month ago)
I think it’s arrogance and overconfidence in management. Some senior manager asked the question, “can it operate with a single sensor” and some yes-man project director or product manager said yes to advance their career. I’ve seen it over and over again in corporations. I think it was a well considered, but flawed decision.
Someone just said “well, if their sensor fails, surely the pilot will just flip the breaker, no problem”. They didn’t anticipate undertrained pilots and maintenance crews in foreign emerging markets.
Yves Borgers (1 month ago)
Is this a blessing in disguise for Comac and Irkut or do you think this has little effect on the orders for their aircraft?
fact gasm (1 month ago)
Redhouse 100 (1 month ago)
I wouldn't dare to fly on one of these 737 Max planes.
Victor Matl (1 month ago)
JIGA BACHI (1 month ago)
LOLZ. Take it in the Bum, Boing, that's what happen when you drop the soap.😁
Really sorry for the Hell about to fall some of the workers.😔
Baymax 6 (1 month ago)
I just wanted to let you know that you do provide comfort to me because when I watch your videos, flying seems a lot more fun
E Land (1 month ago)
I love the doggie! John P is absolute correct. Bean counters are devoid of intelligence. Can you talk about the software systems that are being used on planes.
KC Toh (1 month ago)
So long as Boeing wants to continue to use MCAS it must stop production of the 737 MAX. Reason? Because MCAS is a sore thumb. It does not systematically blend with airmen and other instrumentation of the MAX. Examples:
1) in both crashes MCAS deemed aircraft to be stalling. But airspeed indicator showed more than 400 knots. NO PLANE STALLS AT THAT SPEED.
2) None of the four airmen involved agreed that they were imminently stalling. They were desperately fighting MCAS which was diving the planes.
3) The pilots knew the MAX and other planes. Not only from instruments but also their awareness. Like by differentiating airspeed they knew the planes were accelerating, not stalling. Like they could read rate of climb. Even just looking at altimeter they knew they were sinking and tried to pull up.
4) Obviously they were not trained that MCAS could take control away from them. They had no memorized actions on what to do when MCAS took control.
5) Other safety systems were giving warnings. Like Groundprox said "Don't Sink" and "Pull up" loudly enough for whole aircraft of frightened passengers and crew to know what was coming. They did not suffer sudden deaths. They knew what was coming. But MCAS didn't know. It was not integrated to other instruments in such a way that MCAS could change actions because of what pilots and other instruments indicated. It just didn't belong to the system yet it was given control of the plane.
6) So just doing software fixes will not cut it. I guess no pilot would trust any re-incarnation of MCAS. Not with any training. Not even if the FAA rules that because of MCAS training the MAX shall be deemed to require type approval and pilots require conversion. The solution is not to fix MCAS or rule on how many AOA sensors would be enough. The solution is to eliminate MCAS altogether.
Why was MCAS needed in the first place? Because the engines did not have enough ground clearance. They moved the engines forward and higher. Flight characteristics therefore changed particularly during high thrust at take-off, when pilots are most occupied. MCAS was to automatically mind these things so that MAX would not need different type certification and pilots would not need conversion.
There is actually a simpler solution. Make the MAX taller. Engines can still be placed properly under the wings without being moved fore or higher. And the MAX can then quickly continue to be made.
Jolyon Welsh (1 month ago)
They should have stopped production of the Boing 737 max months ago pending the investigation into those 2 incidents.
Darth Tater (1 month ago)
Their new CST 100 Starliner just got lost in space .... ya I’ve lost all trust in their engineering abilities . If it’s a Boeing I am NOT going
barry rudge (1 month ago)
A case of the FAA rubber stamping the fitness of an aircraft to fly well before it had been thoroughly checked out making the FAA look as if it was being pressured by a very large company with Billions of dollars invested in an un airworthy aircraft. I get the feeling the 737 Max is going to head in the same direction as the British Comet did in the early 1950's. By the time it had been fully sorted out aircraft production had moved on and they lost market share.
magzire (1 month ago)
I can smell the burning money from here
kilo whiskey alpha (1 month ago)
This sounds a lot like spin, the plane is inherently unstable requiring a corrective remote input.
Daysman Of the ages (1 month ago)
Nothing wrong with the aircraft. Its who assembled it that's the question. Boeing moved its facility from Everett to North Carolina.
Ali Erikenoglu (1 month ago)
Over 300 cases of criminally negligent homicide by Boeing. Where's the Justice?
Pete S. (1 month ago)
Also, don't the maintenance guidelines call for the engines to be pulled, fluids drained, and basically dried out and mothballed if they are stored over a year? Who is going to bear the cost of that? And anytime you do work like that, you're introducing another opportunity for humans to make mistakes. I also wonder how it feels to be a transport/reposition pilot, knowing the problem still exists and could go rogue at any moment. That takes balls.
Chippermonkey33 (1 month ago)
I'm kind of surprised it took them this long.
Mark IT Geek (1 month ago)
I don't get why it's so hard to fix. Isn't the aircraft itself expertly designed, and as safe as any other... and it's just a software problem?
Greg Siska (1 month ago)
The Boeing CEO HAS to be the first passenger on the 737 Max when it flies again. My wife & I do pay attention to what aircraft we are flying on. Having the CEO prove he has faith in the 737 by flying in it is essential. Nothing else will do.
James Bond (1 month ago)
It's old tech ,should have a complete redesign ?
mapp47 (1 month ago)
do you think that Boeing will overcome this bad period.if the problem with Mcas has been solved with software upgrade and redesign there should be no other issues? we all agree this should never have happened with money being at the root of it,but i am sure the whole industry will learn from this!
Fordsidevalvesforever (1 month ago)
I know nothing about aircraft but still have Interest in them, can the Max be converted back to a standard 737 800 specifications? The smaller engines the aircraft was originally designed for. No need for a computer trying to keep a aircraft to go too nose up?
Do away with the issues of having a oversized cowl engine has caused,
What about redevelopment of existing smaller engines better suited to the airframe design.
Dave Faddel (1 month ago)
Well, it happened. All production suspended ... Boeing need a new CEO ...
MaltaMcMurchy (1 month ago)
I like your videos Mentour Pilot, your doggos and it's always a pleasure to stop by your channel. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and blessings for a wonderful new year!
GUST (1 month ago)
But but but I thought a "software update" would fix the problem... :(
Matthew Richardson (1 month ago)
There isn't enough pitch authority. The aircraft needs a bigger elevator. MCAS shouldn't exist and no software should fix this.
Zickcermacity (1 month ago)
Great! I'm glad this has happened. But I hope, and insist, that all Max plant assignees be redesignated elsewhere within Boeing manufacturing or other departments.
Sci Modeler (1 month ago)
The reason is very simple: lost of trusts.
David Parry (1 month ago)
I'm sorry but this plane is UNFIXABLE.
The CoG and CoE of the plane is f%%%%%ed and cannot be fixed without drastically changing the airframe, changing the engine or making it out of unicorn's toenail-clippings or breaking the planes up and selling the parts as ashtrays. My money's on option3.
Luckily, I have no shares in 'Boing'. If you do... I feel your (laugh) pain!
David Parry (1 month ago)
Luckily, 'Boing' is going to Chapter11 in 2021 so there's a lot to laugh at...
Yushan Yasindu (1 month ago)
Yes please ground it forever. The killing maching
Gordon Lawrence (1 month ago)
I would not want to be in charge of Boeing right now.
Arden David (1 month ago)
What aircraft are you using???
Crew: 737 max
Can you send me to another flight? Thank you!
Aviation Accident Clips Indonesia (1 month ago)
Retired those 737 MAX we say its impossible to call 737 safe with a MCAS or bankrupt the boeing steal or rob those economical yeah the boeing is a mother****** so whatever the condition, please stoppp all production and retire 737 max
hoppynaki (1 month ago)
These may be really stupid questions but here goes. Why does the max need the MCAS system? I understand that the engines configurations can cause a dangerous high nose up attitude but why can't the pilots hold the aircraft at a safe climb attitude and climb rate manually. I can't understand how software can keep the nose down while the pilots flying manually can't. If the max is so poorly designed that the pilots can't control it manually, how on earth is software control going to do it?
shoersa (1 month ago)
@Appable Thank you for posting this great comment! Good explanation of swept wing & static margin & yoke force. Fantastic! Why didn't Boeing put this into the flight manual?
hoppynaki (1 month ago)
@Appable Thank you for your explanation. Very much appreciated.
Appable (1 month ago)
It's a good question! MCAS addresses one particular issue, which is that at high angle of attack the aerodynamic characteristics of the plane change so that the static margin (a measure of stability) decreases a bit (this actually happens to some extent on all swept-wing underwing engine aircraft, but for MAX it's a particularly strong effect). The plane is still stable, but the effect of this drop in static margin is that the yoke force decreases somewhat once the angle of attack gets to a high enough value (higher than any normal flight — this really shouldn't happen except on emergency maneuvers). Pilots can still control it, but if they're pulling back and suddenly the yoke lightens they might inadvertently get into a stall. MCAS recognizes these situations and applies trim down, which provides a pitching moment downward. Since the pilot still is pulling the yoke back the plane keeps pitching up, but the yoke forces feel correct so the pilot is in control. The issue is that for low speeds MCAS has to apply a lot of trim down to keep stick forces correct – so if there is an angle of attack failure at relatively low speeds, like in the case of both crashes, MCAS will attempt to apply a ton of trim downward when the plane is trimmed correctly, which is obviously very bad.
It is worth noting that some military aircraft aren't stable at all, unlike 737 MAX which is still statically stable despite those handling issues. Software can keep those planes flying properly for the pilot because modern control algorithms are very good. This isn't considered safe enough for commercial airplanes though.
James Anagnos (1 month ago)
US Mail service might use them to deliver mail but no sane person would get in one of those again lol
Rebel N Dirt (1 month ago)
So lets stop the production of the aircraft... Sounds reasonable... Or not!!
So there is not any redundancy in the pitch sensor which is the core of this problem. Also training of the pilots to override the anti stall feature, and to actually fly the aircraft. Now call me ignorant or what you want but I know that it is possible to engineer the hardware to read from 2 or 3 pitch sensors. This may require a complete replacement of the MCAS system, but it is possible. Another issue is pilot training, they should be able to fly the aircraft without the augmentation. Pilots were flying aircraft well before all of this computer assistance that modern aircraft seem to be so fond of using.
Whoever decided to design a system so critical in the safe operation of this aircraft and have only one sensor as a key component. I remember being told something once before. It was on the subject of endurance racing and tires and it said this. If you have 3 spares then you really only have 2, if you have 2 you really only have one, and if there is only one, you are out of luck. This should be applied to any critical one part on any aircraft.
Appable (1 month ago)
MCAS is not anti-stall; it's addressing maneuvering stability deficiency at high angle of attack. You're correct that reading from multiple angle of attack sensors is rather difficult for 737 due to ancient system design, but it is possible and Boeing has done it on the MCAS upgrade. Pilots can fly without augmentation, the difficult part is correctly diagnosing MCAS failure (especially since there was no indication of angle of attack sensor disagreement) and then executing the runaway trim procedure and re-trimming the aircraft manually. MCAS only correctly activates in a few specific flight regimes that shouldn't happen on a typical flight, so pilots wouldn't even notice a difference except in some emergency maneuvers.
Brpwn dood (1 month ago)
New hairstyle and colour looks good!
Khan Ali (1 month ago)
Some country in Asia dare not even take up the matter with US! Guess which country?
Rudi Coetzee (1 month ago)
Quite frankly, the 737 Max is doomed. The problem is not MCAS. Yes, there is a severe bug in that a single AoA sensor was used to override the pilot, but the real problem is the fact that the 737 body cannot accommodate the larger engines without changing the inherent handling dynamics of the plane. Furthermore, what happens if both AoA sensors give incorrect readings? You ideally need a system that has at least two thirds majority consensus when a system have this much power over decision making. Add the wind speed sensors that influences the system as well as the fact that the 2 computers in the plane did not cross check each other and you have a recipe for disaster. Again - for something that has this much responsibility, you need to add a 3rd computer to attain the minimum 2/3 consensus.
Appable (1 month ago)
You only need consensus if the system cannot be disabled without compromising the flight to some extent on its own. MCAS is not flight-critical; the plane can fly safely without it, because it only addresses stall characteristics deficiencies in non-typical angle of attack ranges. Dual channel and dual CPU (i.e. two sensors and computer cross checking) provide a reasonable option because detecting an AoA disagreement and disabling MCAS is all that is required.
spybaz (1 month ago)
surely they are still allowed to fly for testing as well, no?
longbeach225 (1 month ago)
I would never fly on the Max. Too dangerous.
Little Star (1 month ago)
Boeing could go bankrupt. Scary.
Aykut Gumus (1 month ago)
Can't believe why they are insisting on old & scrap design. Most people lost their confidence and will not like to fly will this machine. They have have a state of art 757 design on their drawing boards can't understand why they are not modernizing this aircraft with the new leap engine and putting it as replacement. If they insist they will end up being another Nokia, swimming against current
Jack Tate (1 month ago)
For the love of God someone please get a sword for their CEO to fall on as this is getting embarrassing.
Хвърчил Хвърчилков (1 month ago)
Old Boeing 737 - 800 the best ..
Tim Goodall (1 month ago)
Mentor, your analysis is as always very informative and detailed. I love how much information you provide and get a complete picture on whatever you're discussing. Brilliant as always! Thank you!
Russ Gallagher (1 month ago)
'Bout friggin' time. Boeing stockholders should be outraged. All the stockpiled aircraft represent costs that may never be recovered. This looks like a plot by Boeing executives to pressure the FAA into certifying the plane.
augenbutter (1 month ago)
Trump, you can sanction all the travelers who will never want to step on this plane!
Murat T (1 month ago)
A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A BAND AID SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.
737 MAX has a design flaw: Engine wing configuration.
Structural construction of Boeing 737 Max is wrong. Engine is installed under the wing a little forward and up so that to keep enough distance between engine and ground. This installation in flight makes tendency of turbulence over the wing which result in stalling the aircraft which means in other words nose up. Boeing knew that this will happen during the flight. In order to compete with Airbus they quickly decided to install a system called MCAS. MCAS system makes the nose down in case of nose goes up. But not always. In case of failure of MCAS pilots can not rescue the aircraft. A well design aircraft should stay in balance inherently without needing a system like MCAS.
This is a design flaw on the Aircraft and it can not be corrected by a software modification. It is something like a band aid. Real cause of the problem is going to continue to stay on board. 2 or more sensors or other modifications just eye painting from Boeing. So this aircraft cannot be considered as a safe aircraft even if after software modification.
In order to solve the problem structural changes must be done on the aircraft.
737 MAX is not going to fly any more. Boeing may be attempt to have it fly but general public is not going to accept to fly with 737 MAX. So it will go to the scrap.
WHY BOEING STOPPED PRODUCTION? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SURE TO GET CERTIFICATION FROM FAA. IT MEANS THAT THERE İS HIGH POSSIBILITY THAT 737 MAX NOT TO FLY ANYMORE. SO THEY ARE TRYING TO NOT WASTE MONEY.
mike naughton (1 month ago)
Boeing has become a cut throat save money company since they merged with Lockead....
safety is no longer on theyre mind
mike naughton (1 month ago)
this is fucking ridonkulous wat Boeing has become,,,
mike naughton (1 month ago)
stick me on an OLD BOEING aircraft or an AIRBUS please
Kenneth Burns (1 month ago)
Sam Ford (1 month ago)
I worked at an aircraft plant and there were rumors of 900 being laid off,managers told us don't worry,no layoffs,a month later 5000 people got laid off.
Eyal Ziv (1 month ago)
Why don't they just bring the engines back to their original position and raise the landing gear?
Sam Ford (1 month ago)
How can Boeing not have a huge layoff,there are thousands of people that work on that program,is Boeing going to pay people to stand around or play cards,there is not enough work on other lines for thousands of people.
Marty Szudera (1 month ago)
You couldn’t pay me enough money to get on that plane