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.

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.

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?

That's a valid consideration, though I don't see how it's less applicable to medicine. What if someone who takes aspirin instead gets Reye's syndrome?

Investors say... SELL, SELL, SELL.

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."

I believe that the commercial jet industry works a bit differently. It seems that they just rely on the carriers to make that call, though I could be completely mistaken.

Having said that, this is a snippet from AVHerald's post on the crash (https://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a&opt=0) pointing to an AD that indicates an enhancement ("fix") and here's a link to an interpretation of that (https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthread.php?62381-Breaking-n...):

On Mar 12th 2019 Boeing issued following release with respect to MCAS, Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian flight 302:

For the past several months and in the aftermath of Lion Air Flight 610, Boeing has been developing a flight control software enhancement for the 737 MAX, designed to make an already safe aircraft even safer. This includes updates to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law, pilot displays, operation manuals and crew training. The enhanced flight control law incorporates angle of attack (AOA) inputs, limits stabilizer trim commands in response to an erroneous angle of attack reading, and provides a limit to the stabilizer command in order to retain elevator authority.

...

The FAA says it anticipates mandating this software enhancement with an Airworthiness Directive (AD) no later than April. We have worked with the FAA in development of this software enhancement.

It is important to note that the FAA is not mandating any further action at this time, and the required actions in AD2018-23.5 continue to be appropriate.

A pitch augmentation control law (MCAS) was implemented on the 737 MAX to improve aircraft handling characteristics and decrease pitch-up tendency at elevated angles of attack. It was put through flight testing as part of the certification process prior to the airplane entering service. MCAS does not control the airplane in normal flight; it improves the behavior of the airplane in a non-normal part of the operating envelope.

Boeing’s 737 MAX Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM) already outlines an existing procedure to safely handle the unlikely event of erroneous data coming from an angle of attack (AOA) sensor. The pilot will always be able to override the flight control law using electric trim or manual trim. In addition, it can be controlled through the use of the existing runaway stabilizer procedure as reinforced in the Operations Manual Bulletin (OMB) issued on Nov. 6, 2018.

...

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.

Well, they were rattled enough to postpone the global launch of their new 777X which was slated for this week.

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.

I disagree. They’re simply showing enough compassion to know that it’s not appropriate to throw a part while 150 families are mourning.

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.

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.

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.

The drop of a hat?? 2 plane crashes killing 346 people under eerily similar circumstances within 5 months is the drop of a hat?

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.

> 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.

Or maybe it is the case here. We all seem to think it's obvious Boeing should ground this plane and yet they aren't. I hope Boeing aren't idiots and are making their decisions based on engineering factors we don't have.

But if they have information that leads them to a completely different conclusion, why aren't they sharing it? I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario where they have more confident data, but can't share it (or if not what, at least share that they have it).

The idea that at some point the additional cost of trying to save lives is more than the value of the life being saved is incompatible with the beliefs of many people. Yet that reality and trade-offs like that are all around us. For example, OSHA could decide that overhead lifting now requires a safety factor of 15 on everything (IIRC it's 5 but it's been awhile). That would probably save a couple lives because by starting off at 15 you could still have a safety factor >1 with totally clapped out equipment. Would that be worth it? This is the kind of dilemma that gets discussed in the "engineering ethics" course that most of the college graduates here had to take and I'm not going to expand on it because there's plenty of other people who have but the takeaway should be that there exists a point where the return on investment of trying to prevent life lost is negative depending on which externalities you count and how you count them.

Personally I agree with the airlines grounding the aircraft because the air-frame failure rate is too high IMO so clearly something is up with them. I fully disagree with the "every life is precious" + "OMG we have no idea what's going on" sentiment being used to justify that. That's now how you're supposed to make these kind of decisions, especially when the recorders from the second crash are in hand and we will soon have a good idea of the cause.

Based on what we know at present, the first crash would likely have been prevented had the pilots been made aware of the new possible failure mode of MCAS, recognized it and disabled the system, the steps for which are the same they've always been. Any 737 pilot not living under a rock is very aware of that new possible failure mode now. While crashing aircraft and publicity like this might not be as good as retraining it has likely accomplished a similar end so if the cause of these accidents is what we currently think it is then the press it's receiving will go a long way toward solving that albeit at unfortunately high cost.

FWIW I removed that sentence from my comment because I didn't want a self fulfilling prophesy but I've added it back to my comment because it mostly came true. No "I disagree because X" (where X is not an appeal to emotion). Just people mashing the "bury this" button and appeals to emotion. Basically Reddit sans the sarcasm.

You know as well as I that any discussion about trade-offs involving human life (or any other emotional topic) eventually just get drowned out by name calling and general bullshit and an adult discussion isn't really possible.

Your comments imply that the aircraft industry functions in a manner that allows for human life to be calculated as a tradeoff. This shows an ignorance on how aircraft is expected to function and the industry standards for aircraft development and engineering. Given that loss of life of paying clients is the worst-case-scenario of an aircraft it makes total sense for it to be treated with severity, entirely without bringing virtue into the discussion.

> Your comments imply that the aircraft industry functions in a manner that allows for human life to be calculated as a tradeoff.

It's true though, just like in any engineering discipline. If loss of life was 100% unacceptable then the only resolution would be to not fly any aircrafts. The fact that we still use flight technology is a tradeoff in itself.

Unpreventable loss of life may not be 100% unacceptable. But ignoring signs and allowing preventable loss of life is. Not taking action after having reasonable reason to do so is actually criminal negligence [0] in some cases.

> failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness, where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

What's reasonable? Some people refuse to fly altogether due to the risks. Are they reasonable? I don't think so, personally, but it's not a black and white issue like you're implying. Every accident is preventable if you just demand less from the underlying technology.

Your comparison is exaggerated. Two crashes of the same model and similar circumstances in less than 5 months, for a model that's under 2 years old and only 350 built in total raises suspicions. It's not a good record. The very fact that the suspicion exists is enough to back up the reasonable claim. Whatever the problem is (design, pilot training, etc.) it's hurting this model and its passengers so it should be investigated without risking more lives. Precautions are always based on suspicions. Otherwise they're no longer a precaution.

With aviation experts, governments, and even airlines (bearing the costs) agreeing with the grounding measure I think I'm not too far off. The list in the article above just gets bigger. The current situation lends a lot of credibility to the idea that the plane might be to blame. Grounding them could be expensive. Not grounding them could be criminal. Which one would you choose if you had to?

Also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369485

I agree with you in this particular case. What I was arguing against is the grandparent's claim that the aviation industry doesn't make any tradeoffs involving human life. It is absolutely necessary for them to make such tradeoffs as I was trying to show with my hyperbole.

You're making discussion about 350 lives lost potentially due to design failures into discussion about statistics. Such a cold-hearted approach won't find you much support anywhere.

Clearly most people react very differently to this topic compared to you, even purely for-profit companies start to do so.

There are 350 737-MAXs in service

There's about 6500 737s, and a similar number of A320s.

Grounding 2.5% of the world's fleet of mid-size planes isn't really a medium sized wrench.

Personally I'll fly on the 98% of mid-sized planes that haven't had 2% of them crash in the last 6 months.

It’s a solvable problem in the medium term, but a real mess short-term if your fleet has a high proportion of 737 MAXs.

True, but that’s part of the risk equation of deciding to go for a monoculture in the first place (as with most business choices). There are benefits (ease of maintenance and training highest) that need to be judged against potential problems (like in this case where a model is grounded).

Even in my airline’s case, they’re not monoculture, but I’m booked on one of their longest routes. They can only sub another plane if they make a refuel stop (or so it seems by my estimation).

We’ll see what happens.

Which fleets do? Southwest and American don't, 5% and 2% respectively.

Norwegian is 11% and have grounded their planes. Air Canada 10%. China Southern 3%, Air China 3%.

FlyDubai seems the largest, with 14/62 planes (23%).

> haven't had 2% of them crash in the last 6 months

Wait, 7 (= 2% of 350) planes crashed in the past 6 months?!?

The sample size isn't actually 2... It's 2 crashes in tens of thousands of flights of the 737 across the multiple airlines that use the model.

However, that having been said, the crash rate is now very poor (by modern standards) for this plane model, and 2 is enough to raise some serious questions about mere coincidence.

Boeing's taking a real risk because a third crash of a 737 regardless of cause will be a long-remembered black eye.

The existence of a design flaw does not need any crash data to prove that it exists. It like saying that a software vulnerability needs to be proven by successful hack attempts. The issue exists regardless.

What we don't have data on is the effectiveness of recommendations designed to mitigate the risk. A repeated crash is evidence that the mitigation is not sufficient.

You have a poor understanding of stats if you think 2 is always a small sample size. In the case of theoretically rare events 1 event can be exceedingly significant.

The fact that airlines and governments are doing it anyway kind of says this is the right reaction. It's a precaution and you take it even if you don't have the full picture yet.

> People's lives are disrupted, sometimes catastrophically

Not unlike a what happens in a plane crash. As a passenger I'd rather pay more for a ticket or have a delayed/missed flight than accept the current risk of flying with this plane.

> The lives lost already are a sunk cost.

This isn't just cynicism or pragmatism, it's plain wrong. Another crash could happen at any time if the issue is indeed with the plane and your argument is "we can't bring the dead back so we might as well pile some more"?

>The lives lost already are a sunk cost.

You are either Autistic or you work for Boeing.

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how bad another comment is. Please review the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

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