Back to Squawk list
  • 32

Boeing tries to restore confidence in 737 Max in stakeholders' presentation

In a presentation given to stakeholders last week in Seattle, Boeing announced it is not recommending new or additional simulator training for pilots before the grounded 737 Max flies again, according to documents obtained by CBS News. Instead, Boeing, pending Federal Aviation Administration approval, plans to provide airlines with "mandatory computer-based training modules" and other training materials. Among the "next steps" laid out is acknowledging the need to… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

lecompte2 4
Not only the 737 Max has lost the confidence of the public. but knowledgeable aviation people have lost confidence in the 737 Max and Boeing for it's handling of their failures.
Studies show knowledgeable aviation people are wrong on a significant number of occasions.
Jim Zock 1
I would get back on the 737 MAX and it is unfortunate that the media has demonized the plane. If people refuse to fly it they have been tricked again by a news media that is always trying to hype up a story to get ratings. Knowledgeable aviation people have faith in Boeing and have more trust in it than they do with Airbus aircraft that have more software installed and have already gone through several disasters but people get on them every day. When all the face saving and actual reports on these two unfortunate accidents become readily known to the public this plane will fly again with great popularity.
aurodoc 6
It will be very difficult for Boeing to restore confidence in their 737 Max The ultimate customer is the passenger and if they do not have confidence in the product they will look for ways to avoid flying on this aircraft.

Airlines if and when the 737 max is approved are going to need their pilots and cabin crews to reassure the flying public that the plane is safe because if they cannot do that the aircraft roll out is doomed to fail.

Aside I would change the name to something other then 737 max. Optics are everything. Example: Philip Morris changed their name to Altria because the optics of the cigarette company was terrible and the name change altered the company's public perception.
jammen737 0
”The ultimate customer is the passenger and if they do not have confidence in the product they will look for ways to avoid flying on this aircraft. ”

The flying public is not smart enough to know “when an aircraft is safe to fly again”. They only get their info from smeared media outlets.
Chris B 2
If you go down a path and it doesn't work out, repeating the mistake will take you to the same dead end.
Tim Hollars 2
It is fiascos like this that require new management from top down to correct.
When will the media start to address the role Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines played in these two tragic accidents? William Langewiesche's article in the 9/22/19 issue of The NY Times Sunday Magazine is the only piece of journalism addressing the role of the pilots and the two airlines. It appears the investigation of both these accidents has been wrapped around the axle of political and cultural correctness. All one has to do is read the accident reports that have been made public to see the actions and inactions of these pilots, and never mind the fact the Ethiopian copilot had less than 500 hours total time. One glaring inaction: never reducing thrust on the engines, which remained at take-off power settings until impacting the water and ground. It would be too simple to state "pilot error" in the case of these two crashes, since the issue goes far beyond that, and the Langewiesche article addresses this in great detail. Lastly, while Boeing is certainly culpable, to place all the blame on them is unfair and irresponsible.
Jim Zock 3
Peter, You are right about this issue. I do not understand the constant hits Boeing has been getting with the lopsided news media reports. The Lion Air pilots may have been caught by surprise and confusion since they were unaware of the system but still left the power advanced. the pilots of the Ethiopian Airlines plane should have known better since the knowledge of the Lion Air issue with MCAS was passed around in the MAX world that there were three ways to stop MCAS. 1st: Put the flaps back down a notch. 2nd Turn on the Autopilot. and 3rd Place the two hydraulic shut off switches to cutout. Seems that the 500 hour pilot suggested the cutout switches and the situation stopped however they were now going way too fast for the use of the manual trim since they too kept the power advanced and have now exceeded the maximum speed for the plane. In both cases the overspeed clacker was clacking away but they did not respond. It is not all the pilots actions and inactions that caused their ultimate demise there were also other maintenance issues that failed to address the issues with the angle of attack systems that triggered the software of the MCAS system.
ADXbear 3
Already sold my shares... sinking ship..others will follow.. you lied and got arrogant, then offer $155,000 for each passenger you killed.. the debt is far from over, i feel bad for those families and the employees that are about to loose their jobs..
I sold mine also. Boeing failed the airlines and passengers. There is a line between competition and putting out a finished and safe product. Too many lives lost over the dollar. Money saved is now money spent.
Mike Samples 2
I question the 2 level MCAS system going directly to manual trim. I would think a three level system where MCAS is turned off after the first event but maintaining electric control over trim with a cutout for electric trim to full manual control.
Roger Curtiss 1
Time for zMuillenburg to the do the right thing, take responsibility for what occurred on his watch and step down.
Or-time for the Boeing Board to do the right thing and replace him.
Stripping him of his Chairman title was just window dressing.
It'll probably take 6 months, or as long as 2 years, but who knows?
Does anyone know where I can see all the slides in the Boeing presentation?
Richard Haas 2
Looks to be a single slide:

Linked from here:
They missed a big element on the slides; REPLACE TOP MANAGEMENT !!! All nice pretty words, but totally missed the problem: Management with stock options.
Ray Toews 0
Yeah thats going to work, create a whole new layer of borocracy. That works well for the govt.
Face it Boeing! This plane is burnt and will never go to service again.
ian mcdonell 1
Good luck Mr Boeing, I wish you well
Andrew Bunker 2
I wish the passengers well!
Larry Horton 1
You know, I think that once the Max is back in the air it may be the safest plane in the air. What other airplane has gone through the scrutiny this plane has been through. Inspectors have gone through every nut, bolt and software with a fine tooth comb. I suspect much more than normal certification. So pile on if you must but think about it.
Tim Hollars 3
You may be right, but it will still take years of accident free service to restore the lost confidence.
Every plane has problems that are hidden. This will probably be the safest but the scrutiny and media coverage is unbearable. This has led to tv time for many people and celebrity time for others.

Think about why the new airbus plane has the ability to automatically descend on a decompression. When was the last time that was a problem in aviation.
Mike Rasnak 1
We took complex fighters & bombers from design to battle in 36 months in WWII. The skunkworks created the impossible at lightening speed.
To me this looks like a software issue on Weight & balance on a proven design. In my bird, I use a crank for pitch and the throttle for trust.
If the p r flacks can mount a campaign that convinces the public to support a scoundrel in the White House convincing them that the Max is safe should be a piece of cake.
Obama is no longer in the White House.
James Bruton -4
For the consumer, us passengers, we don't want to fly in the Max nor do we want to fly in retreaded 737's. The 737 era of Boeing aircraft should fade away, and soon. Boeing should redesign the new 797's to replace their aging 737 fleet. If that's not doable (1) create a new aircraft either themselves or Embraer or (2) consider merging their commercial aircraft division with Airbus, and keep the Boeing name one for military and space endeavors.
Jim Zock 2
Boeing already had a great single aisle aircraft and many are still flying. Boeing should bring back the B-757.
Mike Rasnak 2
You right, the 737 is a great short hop, the 757, more passengers longer range. Either way they need more efficient engines requiring new Weight& Balance and resulting new software . AND THAT is how this 737 Story began🤗
You guys know more about this than I do. Why was the 757 discontinued? I've read a lot about how airlines felt "betrayed" by this decision.
Number 2 will never happen. Firstly it would be disastrous for the industry in that it would create a worldwide monopoly,with no competitors. There would be no checks and balances, and Airbus would certainly run amick; at the expense of airlines and consumers. Secondly No government would allow such a merger and ensuing monopoly. Thirdly, Americans simply would not tolerate it; and a group of investors would buy the company before Airbus could get its hands on Boeing. This idea truly would be bad for all parties concerned,including Airbus.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.