Boeing’s 737 MAX Is Back In The Air But Anti-Chinese White House Action Could Still Endanger The Company

December 8, 2020

The Boeing 737 MAX, grounded in March 2019 after two MAX accidents killed 346 people, will soon fly again in commercial traffic.

Gol Airlines, a Brazilian carrier, said it planned to start flights aboard the Boeing 737 Max on Wednesday, making it the first airline to fly passengers on the plane since it was grounded worldwide almost two years ago.

The first flights will be on domestic routes to and from Gol’s hub in São Paulo, with the company expecting all seven of the Max planes in its fleet to be updated and cleared to fly by the end of the month. A Gol spokeswoman declined to provide further details.
…
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration last month became the first regulator to allow the plane to fly again, after required modifications are made. The agency was recently joined by regulators in Brazil, while the European aviation authority has suggested that it plans to lift its ban within weeks. Relatives of those killed in the crashes criticized the decision to allow the plane to fly again, arguing that it remains unsafe.

Flight safety is always relative. Less than one potential accident in a billion flight hours is the usual design criteria for flight critical systems. The original MCAS trim system that caused the two crashes was designed to a much lower level of safety even though it was a critical system.

As the plane has now been scrutinized by several international safety agencies and has received significant updates I see no reason why the 737 MAX should still be regarded as less safe than any other plane. But that is the rational approach. For many people flying is an emotional issues and those who can avoid to fly on a MAX will probably do so.

The once glorious company Boeing, the creator of the majestic 747, has been ruined by a management that neglected safety and quality to maximize shareholder value.

Boeing has decisively lost its leading rank as biggest global airplane manufacturer. Following the MAX grounding and the bankruptcy of many airlines due to the pandemic orders for and deliveries of new Boeing planes have fallen off a cliff:

Boeing delivered only seven commercial jets in November, just one of them a passenger plane. Data released Tuesday shows the deliveries included no 737 MAXs and no 787 Dreamliners.
…
At the end of November, Boeing’s total 2020 order tally for all commercial aircraft models stood at negative 1,048 orders. That included a new order last month for two 767-based air refueling tankers for the Japanese military.
…
At the end of November, the Airbus backlog of still-to-be-delivered aircraft stood at 7,302 jets. Its A320neo family, the direct rival of the Boeing 737 MAX family, had a backlog of 5,904 jets.

In comparison, Boeing’s total backlog stood at 4,240 jets. And the total backlog for the MAX was 3,290 jets.

Even as the MAX is allowed back into the air, at least in some countries, the trouble for Boeing is far from over:

Boeing and its customer airlines have 837 MAX airliners that shall get back in the air. After the FAA and ANAC, Brazil’s regulator, have stated the conditions, the work can begin. EASA and Transport Canada will follow with eventual modifications on what needs to be done.
…
The rework of a 737 MAX wiring for the trim systems takes about 400 working hours. Special teams are set up at facilities around the world to perform this work.
…
We can expect it will take until early 2023 for the complete fleet of grounded 737 MAX to fly again.

The rework and late delivery will cost Boeing another few billions in dollars. Sixty two of the MAXes Boeing built while the plane was grounded are now white tails which no longer have a customer. Industry observers say that Boeing is now offering these at a 70+% rebate. That likely means that those sales will create additional losses.

The total cost for the MAX disaster for Boeing will reach about $25 billion. That is enough money to design two completely new airplane types. Money that Boeing now lacks to catch up with its competition:

Boeing is studying an equity sale and other ways to ease a debt burden that has soared to $61 billion this year amid the worst slump in aviation history.
…
“When it comes to capital deployment, it will be all about paying down that debt,” [Chief Financial Officer Greg] Smith said at a Credit Suisse Group AG conference. “We’ll continue to invest in the business, but we’ve got to get this debt balance down. And we’ll look at every opportunity to do that in the most efficient way, including equity.”

The unstable financial situation and the 737 MAX are not the only problems Boeing has.

bigger

To cut costs Boeing has moved a final assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner from unionized plants in Washington state to non-unionized South Carolina. Previously the 787 was assembled in both states. The problem is that the non-unionized workforce in South Carolina has a bad reputation for delivering shoddy quality:

While the COVID downturn in air travel is depressing all plane deliveries, especially widebody jets for long-haul routes, manufacturing quality problems at its South Carolina and Utah plants have added to Boeing’s problems with 787 deliveries.

In North Charleston, South Carolina, two manufacturing defects discovered at the join in the aft fuselage have the potential to compromise the jet’s structural integrity and so require intensive inspections and repair work.

In Salt Lake City, another manufacturing quality issue with the assembly of the airplane’s horizontal tail has resulted in the need to inspect hundreds of 787s already in service as well as those in production.

Speaking at the Credit Suisse industrials conference on Friday, Greg Smith, Boeing executive vice president and chief financial officer, said it’s taken “longer than we previously anticipated” to inspect all the airplanes for these potential defects.

As a result of both the slow inspection process and the COVID-related travel restrictions affecting international air travel, Smith said, “We’ve got a large number of undelivered 787 aircraft in inventory.”

More than 70 completed 787 now await delivery, according to a comprehensive online tally updated monthly by Uresh Sheth.

Smith said Friday it could take “through 2021” to clear that backlog of parked 787s.

Other Boeing programs, the 767 based air refueling tanker for the U.S. Air Force and its spaceflight capsule for NASA, are also in trouble. While the company is now likely to survive it may take a decade or longer before Boeing again becomes profitable.

In the short term the highest imminent danger for Boeing comes from the White House.

The Trump administration has sanctioned Chinese technology companies that have some relation with the Chinese military. The sanctions may soon reach a place where they would hurt Boeing:

The first commercial flight of the C919, China’s indigenous twin jet laden with political significance, may be delayed indefinitely due to the US-China tech war.

Beijing has sought to break the Boeing-Airbus duopoly on passenger jets by filling its domestic skies with homegrown airliners made by the state-owned Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac).

The single-aisle C919 is Comac’s aspirant answer to Boeing’s 737 series that currently makes up the bulk of the growing fleets of state-owned carriers like Air China, China Eastern and China Southern.

Now, President Donald Trump’s administration is said to be considering adding Comac to the 89 airframers and aviation companies on a list of Chinese entities restricted from dealing with American companies for dual-use technologies, solutions or products made with American know-how due to their purported ties with the Chinese military.
…
China News Service quoted a Comac executive as saying the company was assessing likely outcomes if Trump put his company on the US’ so-called “entity list”, but claimed current sourcing deals with General Electric (GE), Honeywell and others would continue as normal.

Sanctioning Comac would in the short term hurt that company. But China has a national ambition to become a full fledged airline manufacturing country and will not be stopped by a denial of U.S. components. Sanctions would only delay the inevitable.

It is estimated that China will need 8.000 new passengers jets by 2040. That is a large enough market to support three global manufacturers.

But in retaliation for sanctions China could dramatically hurt Boeing. The Chinese regulator has not yet re-certified the 737 MAX. There are plenty of issues with the MAX that one could argue are still of concern. Chinese air lines are some of the biggest customers for Boeing's 737.

If the Chinese regulator finds reasons to not certify the 737 MAX or to demand extensive additional rework of the planes Boeing will be in new trouble. A certification hold up with unknown outcome would not only concern its sales to customers in China but also to Asian customers who want to use the planes to fly to and from China.

The MAX is now getting back into the air and Boeing may well survive. But a stab in the back from an anti-Chinese White House could still endanger the company.

—
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 MAX issues:

Boeing, The FAA, And Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed – March 12 2019
Flawed Safety Analysis, Failed Oversight – Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed – March 17 2019
Regulators Knew Of 737 MAX Trim Problems – Certification Demanded Training That Boeing Failed To Deliver – March 29 2019
Ethiopian Airline Crash – Boeing Advice To 737 MAX Pilots Was Flawed – April 9 2019
Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs – May 25 2019
Boeing's Software Fix For The 737 MAX Problem Overwhelms The Plane's Computer – June 27 2019
EASA Tells Boeing To Fix 5 Major 737 MAX Issues – July 7 2019
The New Delay Of Boeing's 737 MAX Return Will Not Be The Last One – July 15 2019
737 MAX Rudder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines – It Was Still Certified – July 28 2019
737 MAX – Boeing Insults International Safety Regulators As New Problems Cause Longer Grounding – September 3 2019
Boeing Foresees Return Of The 737 MAX In November – But Not Everywhere – September 12 2019
14,000 Words Of "Blame The Pilots" That Whitewash Boeing Of 737 MAX Failure – September 18 2019
Boeing Failed To Consider Pilot Workload When It Designed and Tested The 737 MAX – September 29 2019
Boeing's New Problems Reach Beyond The 737 MAX – October 12 2019
737 MAX Produces More Bad News For Boeing – October 21 2019
It Is True That Corruption Caused The 737 MAX Accidents. But It Was Not Foreign. – November 25 2019
Boeing Will Have To Stop Its 737 MAX Production Line. What will Trump Do To Avoid It? – December 13 2019
Can Boeing Survive Its MAX Problems? – January 22 2020
New Boeing CEO Insists On Moving The Company Towards Irrelevance – January 24 2020
A Year After The Second MAX Crashed Boeing Is Faced With Ruin – March 12 2020

Posted by b on December 8, 2020 at 18:27 UTC | Permalink

Comments

In the past few days I have noticed a few “documentaries” about boing in the television that is consumed in my household.
Have yet to see anything that approaches the magnitude of what happened here. Thanks b.

Posted by: Tannenhouser | Dec 8 2020 18:36 utc | 1

“The once glorious company Boeing, the creator of the majestic 747, has been ruined by a management that neglected safety and quality to maximize shareholder value.”
I very much doubt many shareholders believe the corner-cutting added any value.
The people who really benefited were in upper management with share options.

Posted by: Observer | Dec 8 2020 18:52 utc | 2

MCAS was installed on the MAX aircraft to maintain handling characteristics that are similar to previous 737 generations, thus avoiding expensive retraining that would have been required under the rules. The Boeing “solution” is to disable MCAS under circumstances that helped lead to the two crashes (conflicting AoA sensor signals). The question is whether pilots, who at least all know about the system now, are being given enough training to fully understand it, especially in these unusual circumstances.

Posted by: Dave | Dec 8 2020 18:57 utc | 3

The problem with the 737 MAX is not that it is not safe enough, but that it is simply an inferior design. Why risk buying them when you can go to France and order the A320neo?
And that, of course, not taking into account the aforementioned C919, which will come out in 2021 or 2022, plus the Russian model, which is also coming out approximately at the same time. Nobody here doubts both planes will enjoy privileged status in their respective domestic markets, so they represent an additional restriction to Boeing’s freedom.
Plus, the pandemic let China and Russia with time on their side. The airline business practically grounded to a halt in 2020, so nobody is going to need new airplanes. There’s no hurry to re-certify the 737 MAX (Brazil is now essentially an American possession since the rise of Bolsonaro; there’s no Brazilian State anymore).
Comac will not get into the entity list – Trump may put it as he’s on his way out, but Biden will remove it immediately. If the USA wants to get even a glimmer of hope the 737 MAX will ever be re-certified in China, they better leave Comac alone.

Posted by: vk | Dec 8 2020 19:10 utc | 4

Right now China is gritting its teeth and just taking the blows as any extension to the status quo is advantageous to its development. But there’s a limit to that.
If comac goes on the entity list China could call out the hypocrisy on military ties and put Boeing onto its own list and ditch the Boeing fleet for others.
Problem is that airbus is also stuffed full of US controlled components. Side effect of Europe being an US vessel for so long.
In any case sanctions might hurt a small 3rd world country, but as demonstrated by Russia over Ukraine with aviation engines and spaceflight it’s only a minor set back measured in years and not decades.
On the long run the russkies and Chinese will thank uncle Sam for helping them shore up their vulnerabilities before things get noisy.
Note – i believe a lot of the controlled stuff comac needs the west for are to do with making the plane marketable outside China. Like GE engines and some avionics. Its not like they can’t have a fully operational home brewed product, right now.

Posted by: A.L. | Dec 8 2020 19:21 utc | 5

I see no reason why the 737 MAX should still be regarded as less safe than any other plane. But that is the rational approach. For many people flying is an emotional issues and those who can avoid to fly on a MAX will probably do so.

It may not be as simple as an “emotional” issue. People have been educated for years by news of “fixes” by companies that then resulted in even more accidents using said “fixed” equipment. IMO, many people won’t want to fly on the MAX because they simply don’t trust (A) Boeing and (B) the “authorities” – the same authorities that originally cleared the MAX to fly.
Fool me once….

Posted by: anonymous human | Dec 8 2020 19:29 utc | 6

OT – Sorry.
Chuba I posted on the most recent open thread about your post at the saker. Please take a look and respond if you are so inclined. #194

Posted by: visak | Dec 8 2020 19:30 utc | 7

The problem with the 737 MAX is not that it is not safe enough, but that it is simply an inferior design.
Posted by: vk | Dec 8 2020 19:10 utc | 4
Totally agree. The MAX was specifically designed to take advantage of loopholes (which if itself is no crime) but they couldn’t pull it off and instead released a civilian plane that’s inherently unstable.
Yes fighter planes are also unstable to aid manoeuvrability but they don’t have unwitting passengers and the pilots have ejection seats.
Whatever bandaid they put on the MAX will not change the this physical fact.

Posted by: A.L. | Dec 8 2020 19:31 utc | 8

One may wonder about Boeing’s military sales and long-term reputation, as well. U.S. sanctions against China are already backfiring with the latter’s plans to cut exports of rare earths, thus impacting a range of military as well as tech industries based in the U.S. Uncle Sam soon will cry “uncle” (privately, diplomatically) in order to avoid accelerated disaster. The Fed can only go so far in propping up a sick patient, and there are many others needing more help beyond the massive 2020 bailout due to their greed and incompetence, in this nation of corrupt racketeers and profiteers.

Posted by: norecovery | Dec 8 2020 19:55 utc | 9

It won’t be long until China is able to produce their own jet motor and then it won’t need Amerika any more. The new Russian passenger jet is close to being able to be put into service. Russia already has orders for the new plane. Bye-Bye boeing and sad for all the union members job loses.

Posted by: jo6pac | Dec 8 2020 20:05 utc | 10

thanks b… the comic you share says it all… regarding your statement here – “As the plane has now been scrutinized by several international safety agencies and has received significant updates I see no reason why the 737 MAX should still be regarded as less safe than any other plane. ” the problem with this is that the FAA has role has been badly damaged.. as the lead dog, the FAA might be able to pressure its euro and 5 eye friends to give the ‘all good to go’ sign, but some people like me have longer memories.. i can’t see it myself and do agree with @ 4 vk quote that @ 8 A.L. shares as well… – “The problem with the 737 MAX is not that it is not safe enough, but that it is simply an inferior design.”
if i have any choice in the matter, i will not be flying on a 737 max…

Posted by: james | Dec 8 2020 20:06 utc | 11

Iran had lots of aeroplane orders, with lots more in the immediate pipeline before being killed off by the most recent years of western psychosis. IMO this more than anything else will influence Biden with Iran.

Posted by: Dim Sim | Dec 8 2020 20:06 utc | 12

My few future airline flights will not be in a Boeing. As with chips and other tech components, when relations with the Outlaw US Empire were normal, its tech products allowed for shortcuts in China’s ability to market new products. But now with bad relations and the tech component chain cut, China will need to master its own tech devices such that it can completely divorce itself from any dependence on the Outlaw US Empire. IMO, it’s taken awhile, but China’s leaders have learnt that lesson. It’s also still possible for Boeing to fail as it faces lots of litigation that will cost it further billions it doesn’t have. Certainly it will need to suspend its dividend, which ought to finally drop its stock price to where it belongs.
The airplane industry also faces other challenges. One potential solution are electric powered airplanes, the current state-of-the-art is detailed in this article. Given the distances between China’s cities, such shorter haul electric planes could solve several issues in the short and longrun. But because of its huge capital problems, I very much doubt Boeing will ever produce an electric plane.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 8 2020 20:08 utc | 13

Thank b for the update on Boeing! I was wondering what had happened to them since your last series of articles. Thanks also for the info that that greedy sod O’Leary has ordered 75 of the Maxes! Isn’t that absolutely typical? and no doubt he will rename them. Just one more good reason to avoid Ryanair.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Dec 8 2020 20:29 utc | 14

“…Bye-Bye boeing and sad for all the union members job losses.” jo6pac@10
There is a Union involved? A Union which allowed the corporation to move its production facilities to a ‘right to work’ jurisdiction, where a mixture of racism (more or less invented in S. Carolina) and neo fascist government makes Union organising almost impossible.
The Unions- facades providing vast salaries for corrupted officials- are a large part of the problem, despite actually organising less than 10% of the workforce, with Boeing and the US economy. Bernie Sanders it might be recalled lost his Primary bid in South Carolina.

Posted by: bevin | Dec 8 2020 20:37 utc | 15

There is a solution for US: do a Huawei / Alstom to Airbus. Arrest one of the top executive of Airbus, charge him/her for bribery in Zimbabwe. Europeans will melt faster than anything. Problem solved.

Posted by: d dan | Dec 8 2020 21:11 utc | 16

I cannot imagine how we are going to re-industrialize our countries.

Posted by: passerby | Dec 8 2020 21:17 utc | 17

Is there a viable Russian competitor? at least to provide a market to the forever sanctioned countries of, well, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela? I recall hearing about this or that model but I’m not up to date on what is available.
I know that one big obstacle is that the Russian design will have to use all Russian / Chinese made parts to be sanction proof and also have to be FAA approved. If it gets one screw from the U.S. or France then an evil guy like Mnuchin (U.S. Treasurer) will be able to ground it.
From the point of view of technology, I don’t see any reason why Russia, China, and Iran would not be able to jointly design and manufacture a very good passenger jet line.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Dec 8 2020 21:28 utc | 18

Christian J. Chuba@18 – Did you see my note to you at #7? I am very curious what you think.

Posted by: visak | Dec 8 2020 21:33 utc | 19

Visak, btw if you want to include a long quote from somewhere else …
<blockquote> “This is a long quote” </blockquote>
will look like

“This is a long quote”

I’ll name some names of who I think is gaslighting …
1. Anti-empire.com – with their emphatic, ‘covid19 is nothing to worry about, breath it in America, breath it in’
2. MoA (sorry just being honest) with his ‘Trump really won the election and still might pull it out.’
3. The saker – (same as #2)
Of the three sites, I stopped reading anti-empire because they just got too weird by posting too much weird anti-Jewish stuff. If anyone remembers my posts, I certainly criticize Israel’s paranoid militancy and I condemn their aggression against Iran but I don’t like making it personal.
MoA and The Saker are great websites, the Saker is the only place that publishes speeches by Nasrallah. This alone makes it worth reading. I can forgive their gaslighting about our elections. We are getting what we deserve.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Dec 8 2020 22:05 utc | 20

@Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Dec 8 2020 21:28 utc | 18
Sukhoi Superjet 100 has also been affected by the USA embargo. Apparently, contrary to the official line, it was not a 100% percent Russian design, and still has a lot of western supplied components. First link on google

Posted by: Tod | Dec 8 2020 22:14 utc | 21

I for one will not trust a cornered MIC giant to play fair and actually fix the problems instead of just bribing/pressuring the regulators. Their attitude from the start was full off arrogance and lies, pretending it’s just a minor problem and everybody should just look away.
IMHO Boeing should be left to die, maybe cut some parts of it and spin it under one of the other historically significant brands, that they have acquired along the years. But they would probably survive on contracts from the military and we will see a big increase in vassal countries that suddenly need military transport planes.

Posted by: Tod | Dec 8 2020 22:20 utc | 22

Christian J. Chuba@20 – Thanks for responding and thanks for the tip. I usually try to avoid posts that long as I dont really like to read other posts that long (I am guilty of tl;dr), but it was necessary this time.
Never read the first one you mention, and I dont feel b has taken trumps side, I think he was merely pointing out possible ways he might still win, but we are in agreement concerning the saker.
This is my suspicion/opinion, I cant really claim that I know, as I dont know what motivates these people to write the things they do.
Reading something you know to be propaganda takes away the strength of that propaganda, but if you dont know that it is, it can be quite powerful.
If there are some who are sowing divisiveness intentionally, I would tend to agree that as a country it is well deserved. Sucks for all the plebes, myself included, who are unable to control anything our leaders do, but must suffer the consequences anyway.

Posted by: visak | Dec 8 2020 22:31 utc | 23

to be honest very few people ever know what kind of airplane they are in and even after glancing at the egress instructions on the seat back it is doubtful that the fact that two 737 Max airplanes crashed in Indonesia and some other place that I can’t remember will register. None of them crashed in North America or Europe.
Airbus has crashed airplanes in the US, there was one that lost the entire vertical stab on takeoff out of NYC killing all on board. Who remembers that? Who says no, I won’t fly Airbus?
What is important to most people is the ticket price. I am not wealthy enough to pay 3 to 10 times more for a ticket so I can fly in a certain model airplane or with a specific carrier. For me Ryanair has been a wonderful experience. I have flown many times where I paid more for parking at the airport than I did for the round trip flight.
that said, I have no sympathy for the management of Boeing. They have a virtual monopoly on passenger aircraft in North America and have several military aircraft as well. What was once the pride of Seattle has turned into a money grubbing union busting meat grinder. I feel bad for the good people who made pretty darn good airplanes for a long time and have got kicked in the teeth for it.

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 8 2020 22:35 utc | 24

And now for something completely different…
Headline:
US signed deal with Alien Galactic Federation to experiment on humans, claims Israeli ex military space chief in bizarre interview
Fool’s Day is April 1st in the USofA
Is there something analogous in The State of Israel?
Or, for Mossad, is every day ok for messing with you?
https://planetfreewill.news/us-signed-deal-with-alien-galactic-federation-to-experiment-on-humans-claims-israeli-ex-military-space-chief-in-bizarre-interview/

Posted by: librul | Dec 8 2020 22:37 utc | 25

I was under impression that the NYC Airbus crash was largely due to pilot error, and the problem ensued in the first place because the busy airport was clearing planes to take off into the wake turbulence of jets which had taken off just ahead them. The Boeing MAX was built with a serious design flaw.

Posted by: jayc | Dec 8 2020 23:03 utc | 26

Another problem for Boeing is that they have a 737 final assembly/fitting out operation in China. They fly shell aircraft in without interiors etc. This was just starting operation when the aircraft crashed.

Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 8 2020 23:06 utc | 27

The problem is that the non-unionized workforce in South Carolina has a bad reputation for delivering shoddy quality:

I wonder why they just didn’t just give up, and off-shore manufacturing to China?

Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Dec 8 2020 23:24 utc | 28

jayc | Dec 8 2020 23:03
NYC Airbus crash was largely due to pilot error
inadvertently yes, the co-pilot was over correcting yaw and put a lot of stress on the rudder which resulted in the vertical stabilizer breaking off.
Pilot error can be blamed for the two 737 Max crashes as well because had they disengaged the MCAS they could have easily recovered the airplane.
just sayin. Boeing should have done a better job. It is tough to have a perfect record, millions of miles were flown without incident but a spectacular crash erases all that.

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 8 2020 23:38 utc | 29

The Russians have two of their own single isle narrow body jets, the Sukhoi Superjet 100 and the MC-21, as well as an involvement in the Chinese C919.
The main effort is going into the MC-21, a 737 class aircraft but with a slightly wider fuselage. It started out with major western components like engines and composites for the wings but due to sanctions they have now completed work on Russian composites and Russian engines should be certified next year. The sanctions and threat of more have really concentrated efforts in Russia and cost EU companies in particular dearly. Those efforts could pay off if China has to turn to Russia for more of the C919 if it can’t buy western.
Russia’s biggest problem is production capacity. It doesn’t look if it can produce much more than for their domestic market. This applies to everything from new 50 seat turboprops to updated widebodies. More joint deals with the Chinese could be a solution but caution over Chinese copying is a serious issue.
On top of the civilian aircraft, they are struggling to manufacture enough military transports as they have many hundreds of ex Soviet Union aircraft heading towards the end of their lives.
In an ideal world Antonov in Ukraine would have been cranking them out as well but they are a shell of a company now in a basketcase of a county.

Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 8 2020 23:41 utc | 30

Hmn, I live in Brazil and will no way step up a ladder of a Max 737 to fly anywhere.
And will post this news of resumed flight as a warning in a few social media. We have already lost a pack of technical plans and tech ideas to this slaughter friendly Boeing earaly this year (because Brazil s plane producer Embraer was stupid enough as led by psychopat Bolsonaro to start a ”merger” with them. Result they peeped and pestered everything they wanted in the company for three months– before declaring they had no interest to conclude the deal…

Posted by: augusto | Dec 8 2020 23:55 utc | 31

JohninMK @30–
Rarely covered are the ongoing discussions between China and Russia to find solutions for the shared shortcomings we’ve both mentioned. Also unmentioned is the participation of other nations in these solutions. It’s going to take several more decades to attain, but there’s going to be a fusion of the key Eurasian nations’s political-economies, with the West acting as catalyst.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 9 2020 0:30 utc | 32

B <=did the audits reports on Boeing fail to alert investors that the aircraft design was inferior, that management was negligent, that a Trojan was in charge, that FAA did not do its job, or that management was a emotional victim of greed? If the FAA had objected to the design the problematic fix would not have happened. covid 19 vaccine<=experimental?
link credit to librul @ 25

Posted by: snake | Dec 9 2020 0:33 utc | 33

I would like to know in business figures who are the largest buyers of Boeing. Is China one of them, who else?

Posted by: Virgile | Dec 9 2020 1:11 utc | 34

bevin @15
The Machinist’s Union fought long and hard to prevent work from being outsourced to South Carolina. Google “machinists union fights Boeing” for dozens of stories about how much time, money and effort was expended to make sure that those planes were built by Unionized workers. And look up how many quality control problems occurred when non Union workers were involved in the assembly of the planes manufactured in S. Carolina. Unfortunately, the US has the worst legislation in the OECD for protecting workers’ rights. Far too much of their population buy into the “self made man” propaganda that has been foisted on their public for decades and are ignorantly anti-Union. I’m not sure why you would think that the Union would willing give away jobs when their sole source of income comes from dues paid by their members…few members = less money for the Union.

Posted by: Victor | Dec 9 2020 1:57 utc | 35

Will there be a market for flying? I used to fly internationally, but TSA and tight seats drove me away. . .For vacationing there’s a lot to see in this country, land-based. .. .Mr. Coronavid may also have shown a lot of people that digital connection is sufficient, no? . . .Hey, how about some high-speed rail like China has? . .just kidding

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 9 2020 2:26 utc | 36

Is there a viable Russian competitor? at least to provide a market to the forever sanctioned countries of, well, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela? I recall hearing about this or that model but I’m not up to date on what is available.
I know that one big obstacle is that the Russian design will have to use all Russian / Chinese made parts to be sanction proof and also have to be FAA approved. If it gets one screw from the U.S. or France then an evil guy like Mnuchin (U.S. Treasurer) will be able to ground it.
From the point of view of technology, I don’t see any reason why Russia, China, and Iran would not be able to jointly design and manufacture a very good passenger jet line.
Yes, there is, three in fact Sukhoi Superjet 100R, IL-96, MC-21 / 310 all use no NATO components. They cover the entire jetliner range. China can have them NOW!
INDY

Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Dec 9 2020 2:36 utc | 37

@ Posted by: Virgile | Dec 9 2020 1:11 utc | 34
Yes. China’s re-certification is essential for Boeing:
Boeing needs China to approve the 737 Max. But that won’t end its epic sales drought

Before the trade war, China was a big market for Boeing. In 2015 and 2016, China sales accounted for 13% and 11% of the company’s total revenue, respectively, according to its annual reports. In 2015, China was Boeing’s largest export market, and it was the third largest in 2016.
[…]
Boeing is upbeat about the Chinese market, though. Last week, the company issued a positive outlook, saying that it expected industry-wide sales of new airplanes to total 8,600 in China over the next 20 years. That estimate, valued at $1.4 trillion, is even higher than where it stood before the Covid-19 pandemic — notably, China’s economic recovery this year has outpaced the rest of the world.
“Boeing remains compelled to grow its footprint in the China civil aviation market for economic and strategic reasons, alone,” said Alex Capri, research fellow at Hinrich Foundation and visiting senior fellow at National University of Singapore. “Failure to do this will cost the company [research and development] revenue and future opportunities to collaborate with strategic partners.”

Posted by: vk | Dec 9 2020 2:59 utc | 38

…
Speaking at the Credit Suisse industrials conference on Friday, Greg Smith, Boeing executive vice president and chief financial officer, said it’s taken “longer than we previously anticipated” to inspect all the airplanes for these potential defects.
That was a clumsy admission from the Head Honcho of a highly professional manufacturer adept at setting and achieving targets. People within Boeing would know the time/cost of every routine maintenance procedure right up to major air-frame overhaul. All he had to do was ask them for a Best Case/Worst Case scenario and then spin that with a bit of wriggle room.
To me, it says “dysfunctional internal communications.”

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 9 2020 3:27 utc | 39

Cotton: Wall Street CEOs are effectively ‘lobbyists for communist China’
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cotton-business-leaders-china-wall-street
Including Boeing: private profit over patriotism too!!

Posted by: Antonym | Dec 9 2020 3:46 utc | 40

Pilot error can be blamed for the two 737 Max crashes as well because had they disengaged the MCAS they could have easily recovered the airplane.
just sayin. Boeing should have done a better job. It is tough to have a perfect record, millions of miles were flown without incident but a spectacular crash erases all that.
Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 8 2020 23:38 utc | 29
The first crash in Indonesia the crew are unaware of the new features at all.
How is that the pilots fault ?
The second crash proved that Boeing then new directives to recover the aircraft from the same trouble doesn’t work.
Additional investigation reveals that there’s almost no training manual exist that can recover the plan on both situation. The only one that can plausibly recover them is an extinct novel unusual recovery techniques the roller coaster that were no longer taught much less mandated in flight simulation training.

Posted by: Lucci | Dec 9 2020 3:48 utc | 41

Posted by: Antonym | Dec 9 2020 3:46 utc | 40
You’re a troll that everyone purposefully ignores but just for once I’ll put some sense in your mouth.
Lobbying and lobbyist are common in USA political culture. If you have senator or government official that sells to Israel, Russia, Cuba, Iran and China favorable terms their source problem is definitely not China or Israel or Russia etc.

Posted by: Lucci | Dec 9 2020 3:57 utc | 42

The first crash in Indonesia the crew are unaware of the new features at all.
Posted by: Lucci | Dec 9 2020 3:48 utc | 41
I wouldn’t call flight critical system a feature. A feature is a value add. Not something that kills you when it’s not working. 🙂
Also in the beginning the MSM and western aviation communities insinuated the indo pilots were inferior and at fault.
Such hubris.
More joint deals with the Chinese could be a solution but caution over Chinese copying is a serious issue.
Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 8 2020 23:41 utc | 30
And pray tell, how did the Russian/Soviet jet program start? Something to do with the British Rolls Royce Nene engine perhaps?

Posted by: A.L. | Dec 9 2020 5:27 utc | 43

@ Lucci | Dec 9 2020 3:57 utc | 42
In my book people who call others trolls are usually full of it themselves, and therefore believe others are too.
Only the China lobby managed to de-industrialize America, not any other. They undermined their own country for personal profit; later on they migrate and settle in some Caribbean tax-heaven, leaving many real Americans jobless.
Unintentionally they did the world a favor: undermine US supremacy which became the world’s bully. The only problem is that they build up another bully in the process, CCP China, not a benign dragon. A Biden is needed as the US still has the upper hand.

Posted by: Antonym | Dec 9 2020 5:48 utc | 44

The Boeing 737 debacle is another excellent example of this:
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/11/20/an-epitaph-for-the-west/
Worth a read. Here’s a clip:

In the West today competence always comes second. It used to be normally first and occasionally second; now it is always second.
Second to what? Second to diversity.
The list of diversity categories that must be satisfied is ever-changing and ever-growing: race, language, gender, sexual preference, transgender – always expanding. And all of these categories have to be filled first. By competent people, of course. But only by whatever competency is left over after the primary demands are satisfied.

Posted by: bart1 | Dec 9 2020 5:53 utc | 45

No frauds here?

Posted by: Zico the Musketeer | Dec 9 2020 9:21 utc | 46

never in a million years will i sit in that s hole planes. i am sorry i hope these criminals go bankrupt and another new organisation can come. no one will buy the ticket in airlines if they get 737 max.. i can guarantee no one if trump himself will not sit..

Posted by: ad | Dec 9 2020 9:55 utc | 47

Yes, there is, three in fact Sukhoi Superjet 100R, IL-96, MC-21 / 310 all use no NATO components. They cover the entire jetliner range. China can have them NOW
Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Dec 9 2020 2:36 utc | 37
All those aircraft WILL be all Russian. China cannot have any of them NOW as there is no free production. Unlike Boeing they do not have 60+ sitting on an apron awaiting a customer. I estimate that it would be at least 2/3 years before recertification and free capacity is there.
Russia’s priority in its aviation industry is still military defence aircraft. Whilst the money would be useful, their income from oil, gas and agriculture is all they actually need.

Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 9 2020 10:20 utc | 48

And pray tell, how did the Russian/Soviet jet program start? Something to do with the British Rolls Royce Nene engine perhaps?
Posted by: A.L. | Dec 9 2020 5:27 utc | 43
Exactly. They know from their own experience how copying can be a very useful jump start. In that case it then took the Russians many years to develop the conservative Nene into the stunning Mig-15 engine.
They also have prior experience with their Su-27 being copied by the Chinese after sale. But it doesn’t stop them selling high tech, like the Su-35 and S-400 to the Chinese. Mind you, the Chinese are having big problems with ‘evolving’ Russian aircraft engines into indigenous versions.

Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 9 2020 10:31 utc | 49

karlof1 | Dec 9 2020 0:30 utc | 32
Spot on. If the Russians and Chinese can evolve a proper enforceable licensing arrangement between themselves allowing Russian R&D to be profitably and fairly exploited using Chinese production then the West has a serious problem. The aviation industry, as it was in the US since 1940, is the biggest most effective driver to up their GDPs.
The West has already given them Phase 1, the groundwork for this by exporting product and production knowhow and paying for the industrial base. This is what Trump seems to be almost desperately trying to bring to a halt.
Phase 2 will be when Russia and China get together as equal partners, when the Chinese realise what the opportunity is, and exploit the infrastructure with new products.
Phase 3 will be when Germany can no longer ignore the opportunity and joins in.
This is the population in the Euro/Asian landmass starting to properly exploit their assets, the biggest fear of the marine based Anglo/American empire. We are looking at the potential repeat of the American Dream, especially if the reserve currency moves east as well.

Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 9 2020 10:48 utc | 50

Several of you have mentioned the pilots responsibility in this debacle.
This can again be laid at the door of Boeing as they insisted that the Max was just another 737 and could be flown by any current 737 qualified pilot without significant training. This of course was to remain competitive by taking big training costs out of their sales pitch.
It looks like this is another cost that Boeing are absorbing. In the press release on the Ryanair extra order for 75 Max’s (to go with their other 210) there is the comment that Ryanair now have three 737Max simulators spread between Dublin and Stansted. I assume that all 737 pilots around the World are now going to have to be processed through simulators as part of the permission to fly.
This cost, which Boeing is likely to have to fund, plus the 10 man weeks upgrade on every aircraft, is going to be a big drain on Boeing for years.
Add to that the KC-46 (767) tanker refueling debacle mentioned in passing by b will compound that drain. When the US stock market has a correction, expect Boeing, under cover of that move, to be one of the biggest fallers.
Sad to see such an iconic company stripped to the verge of collapse (to big to fail for the US economy) by financial engineering.

Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 9 2020 11:04 utc | 51

Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 9 2020 10:48 utc | 50
The tech gap is mainly to do with blade material and production secrets on turbine blade heat dissipation.
Problems that will be solved in time. Its just that the state of the art is also evolving so it’s always about catching up faster than the leading edge* is progressing.
In the past Chinese labs are just so underfunded promising scientists and engineers can only play with fun toys in the west. And invariably some will never return.
This created a vicious circle that indigenous developments and labs remain under-equipped and never staffed by the best. And USA knows it and this worldwide brain drain plays a large part in US keeping its technological lead.
But this is changing. Funding is not so much an issue anymore in China and in fact with the exception of may be postgrads in the very best US universities most of the overseas students from China are no longer the cream of the crop.
The top kids are being snapped up by local universities. Those that venture overseas are still no dummies but they just happen to be able to afford to go abroad, mostly just to have a great time holidaying on their parents dime. Living in posh apartments and driving nice cars.
Ask any STEM professors and lecturers to compare the quality of Chinese overseas students of now and 20 years ago and they’ll tell you the same.
With more US sanctions academic witchhunts this will actually keep even more STEM smarties in China and accelerate the catch up.
*why keep catching up when you could leap frog a la 5g, that’s why Russians and Chinese are both going all in with hypersonic tech.

Posted by: A.L. | Dec 9 2020 11:13 utc | 52

bart1 @45
Modern hiring:
Director of Diversity: “I see we got 500 applicants for this engineer opening. “
Engineering Supervisor: “Yes, it looks like there is some good fresh talent here.”
Director of Diversity: “How many are Black?”
Engineering Supervisor: “Umm, just this one.”
Director of Diversity: “Ah, that makes this easy. Hire that one.”
Engineering Supervisor: “But… he has no experience. He’s not even qualified.”
Director of Diversity: “What do you mean? It says right on the application that his last job was engineer!”
Engineering Supervisor: “Sanitation engineer, not mechanical engineer. He stood on the back of a garbage truck.”
Director of Diversity: “On the back? That’s so racist!”
Engineering Supervisor: “Anyway, he has no experience.”
Director of Diversity: “I had no experience when I got this job and look how far I have gone. This is you man to hire.”
Engineering Supervisor: “He doesn’t have a college degree at all, much less one related to Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics.”
Director of Diversity: “That’s OK. You can provide him some On-the-Job training.”
Engineering Supervisor: “You want me to teach him twelve years of mathematics? Are you out of your mind?”
Director of Diversity: “Just give him a calculator.”
Engineering Supervisor: “You can’t replace more than a decade of honing someone’s mind on difficult tasks with a calculator!”
Director of Diversity: “You know, you are starting to sound racist here. I think you need some identity sensitivity training.”
Engineering Supervisor: “What the…???”
Director of Diversity: “Hire the Black guy and shut up.”
This is not the whole story behind the collapse of competence in the imperial core but it is a significant part of it.

Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 9 2020 11:31 utc | 53

Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 9 2020 11:31 utc | 53
Funny because it cuts so close to the bone!
The NASDAQ is also requiring listed companies to specifically include woman, LGBTIQXYZ and other “diverse” directors. Wow, WTF does that have to do with competence I have no idea. If someone is competent i couldn’t care less if they’re from Mars.
I have no problem with affirmative action (or call it whatever you like) if it means giving disadvantaged groups a fair crack in obtaining universal education, but from that point on it should be a level playing field. Displacing a more studious kid from a worthy college place, Shoehorning a token in when competence is called for… Well what could go wrong?
But it’s happening everywhere, even the west’s favourite Chinese cat nip the ugyhurs get a special look at Chinese colleges. So the question is how far you go with it.
I don’t think we’ve reached “peak woke” yet, god help us.

Posted by: A.L. | Dec 9 2020 12:08 utc | 54

As the plane has now been scrutinized by several international safety agencies and has received significant updates I see no reason why the 737 MAX should still be regarded as less safe than any other plane. But that is the rational approach.
How can that statement be reconciled with the positions adopted by brilliant investigative journalist Bernhard in what was certainly the prime of MoA from March 2019 to January 2020 (links provided at top)?
For example (just one of many in that long chain of outstanding cutting edge reports) here:

MCAS was a band aid. Due to the new engine position the 737 MAX version had changed its behavior compared to the older 737 types even though it still used the older types’ certification. MCAS was supposed to correct that. The software fix for MCAS is another band aid on top of it. The fix for the software fix that Boeing now promises to solve the problem the FAA pilot found, is the third band aid over the same wound. It is doubtful that it will stop the bleeding.

(Incidentally, the quality of comments at MoA was also arguably at it’s all-time peak in 2019. Unquestionably it has gone down since then, not just from the flooding from trolls and yes-men, but also because many readers have either reduced their presence or given up entirely as a result of changes in editorial policy and article quality since the start of 2020.)
Basically, what it comes down to is that the MAX was a flying brick that should never have made it further than the drawing board, but for the greed and corruption of Boing(*) management combined with the corruption and incompetence of the FAA in a neoliberal environment that rewards those qualities generously. The MCAS issue which was precipitated by the two crashes was just the tip of the iceberg, as those incisive exposés by Bernhard made clear (indeed, also the many incisive comments on the Boing issues from highly qualified contributors). MCAS was just part of the cover-up for neoliberal-motivated criminally bad design. Irrespective of MCAS, the MAX should never have been approved by the FAA in the first place, as the unstable design is both too far from the earlier models from which it claimed grandfather-benefits in reduced compliance with the law, and too far from any rational assessment of safe design. There is nothing rational in claiming the MAX should fly again (ever, and irrespective of whatever minor fudges might be made to address the catalogue of issues) – it is pure neoliberal bulldozing and deception.
Indeed, arguably the worst of the misrepresentation is in claiming:

As the plane has now been scrutinized by several international safety agencies

– since the only meaningfull things uncovered by the said scrutiny by several international safety agencies are (a) yet more design deficiencies previously undiscovered; (b) exposure of the corruption on which the original certification was utterly contingent; (c) the breathtaking extent of the inadequacies of the FAA certification process in the entirety of that certification process; and (d) the inevitable conclusion that there has in reality – up until today – never been any real certification of the Boing 737-MAX – or of any other recent Boing model – in the sense of a genuine investigative process dedicated to the comprehensive and independent analysis of all safety issues to ensure that the aircraft is indeed both safe and conforming to legislative/prescribed requirements, the Boing approach to the certification process has been deliberately perverted expressly to evade dependence on any such requirements.
Arms-length “scrutiny” by foreign agencies cannot replace that certification to any extent whatsoever, as they do not have the first-hand hands-on scrutiny of every process, procedure and aspect of design, manufacturing and testing that is essential to that process. It is rather like saying – after a scientific paper has been peer-reviewed by eminently qualified reviewers and totally shredded in their rejection of it as massively fraudulent, massively incompetent, wrong in manifold respects, and totally unworthy of publication – that the said paper is thereupon purified and ready or publish, purely on the basis of the said scrutiny by eminent scientific peers (irrespective of their conclusions)!
In addition to Bernhard’s brilliant investigative journalism, what significantly contributed to the rise of MoA to it’s well-deserved success in 2019 and the run-up to 2019 was the rigorous editorial independence demanded and practiced by Bernhard, who unlike many alternative news outlets steadfastedly refused to accept any advertising nor any remuneration other than donations from readers freely given with no strings attached.
One can hardly fail to wonder at the disjunction between the aforesaid articles on Boing up to and including that of 24th January 2020, and the current article. One can hardly fail to wonder at the coincidence of the other changes in MoA since sometime in January 2020 (article quality, editorial policies, comment moderation policies, and censorship policies). What is the cause of these differences?
(* Use of the spelling “Boing” is no typo. Rather, it more accurately reflects the financialised nature of the way the corporation was run in recent times.)

Posted by: BM | Dec 9 2020 15:21 utc | 55

I’ve just decided to go by train in the future!

Posted by: Den lille abe | Dec 9 2020 15:48 utc | 56

“All those aircraft WILL be all Russian. China cannot have any of them NOW as there is no free production. Unlike Boeing they do not have 60+ sitting on an apron awaiting a customer. I estimate that it would be at least 2/3 years before recertification and free capacity is there. “,/I>
Wrong…. The SU100 and IL-96 are certified. The CR-21 completes certification mid 21 in the EU.
China can simply accept existing certifications and approve the planes……….. NOW!
China can offer to jointly produce the planes………. NOW!
China and Russia are working together on the C919……… NOW! They can put Russian avionics and engines on it… NOW!
China and Russia can refuse to certify the 737 and all other Boeing planes…….. NOW! This effectively closes their airspace to Boeing planes….
China and Russia can de-certify AirBus planes……… NOW! Unless, the EU certifies their planes….. NOW! That would close their airspace to AirBus planes…
So, it’s up to them….
INDY

Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Dec 9 2020 16:11 utc | 57

@ Posted by: Antonym | Dec 9 2020 3:46 utc | 40
Didn’t know Tucker Carlson Tonight show was a valid source in this blog.
Either way, here’s the true story behind the fake news of Fox:
US partisan struggle pitifully uses scholar’s speech as ‘smoking gun’

On November 28, Di gave a speech under the topic “Will China’s financial opening-up bring in the wolf of Wall Street?” at a year-end forum organized by guancha.cn. About 10 days later, part of Di’s speech was maliciously described by Fox News host Tucker Carlson on the Monday edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” as “a smoking gun” to prove his point that “top leaders in American government and business have been compromised by a foreign power that seeks to undermine our country and democratic system.”
[…]
On Carlson’s program, video of an interview between Carlson and a man named Tony Bobulinski, who Carlson claimed to be “a business partner of the Bidens,” was played. In the interview, guided by Carlson, Bolbulinski said, “Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised [to China].” The video clip ends there abruptly.
What Carlson wanted was crystal clear. Fox News, which has almost turned into Trump’s household troop, aims to use Di’s speech to attack the Democratic opponents. American politicians and media are always guided by their own interests. In Di’s case, they have totally ignored China’s long-standing will to avoid conflicts with the US. To meet their own interests, these people took out of context a Chinese scholar’s personal opinions, in an attempt to continue to poison American society’s perception of China.

Posted by: vk | Dec 9 2020 16:11 utc | 58

The Chinese / Russians do have a very large, though solvable problem, however.
It’s the reason the Sukhoi SuperJet failed in Mexico………..
MAINTENANCE………
To succeed, they need to establish maintenance depots at key locations worldwide.
Provision of this capability will most likely, be China’s value add to the JV.
That is,
Russia builds the planes…
China maintains them….
INDY

Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Dec 9 2020 16:19 utc | 59

As the plane has now been scrutinized by several international safety agencies and has received significant updates I see no reason why the 737 MAX should still be regarded as less safe than any other plane.

So the memo was received on this issue as well. Never mind the engines that are too big and totally unsuitable for the 737 body and the two crashes that proved it. Just an MCAS software fix and all is well, eh?

Posted by: Norwegian | Dec 9 2020 17:54 utc | 60

BM | Dec 9 2020 15:21 utc | 55
Agreed.

Posted by: Norwegian | Dec 9 2020 18:39 utc | 61

As the plane has now been scrutinized by several international safety agencies and has received significant updates I see no reason why the 737 MAX should still be regarded as less safe than any other plane. But that is the rational approach. For many people flying is an emotional issues and those who can avoid to fly on a MAX will probably do so.

I’ll extend the quote a bit. If EASA rubber stamping pending is worth anything (still it might not), Boing’s trouble is not quite over and not merely in terms of financials. I think B here is betting on that and that is definitely possible. Indeed a good indicator is the amount of man hours put into recertification (reportedly 400 for a the trim system alone – and subordinate MCAS), which should attest to the technical resolution of the underlying problem.
There simply is not any room left for error and a possible 3rd accident with a 737 Max (even with different main cause), it would mean certain death for Boeing. In addition a 3rd accident would also put into jeopardy the certification agencies reputation, which makes mere rubber stamping unlikely in my view. The burden has been further shared with pilots and additional training, whom are apparently on board with it (no wonder given current shrinking job market).
I disagree with B, 737 Max can still be regarded as less safe simply because the solution is still mostly a digital patch over an underlying physical issue. A physical issue which should not be there since we knew better. Money talks and the plane will be made to fly, only until the next surprise.
The next hero won’t be the pilot that lands a blown engines plane in the Hudson, it will be the one that successfully negotiated the LEAP engine against MCAS stabs in some outlier circumstance, that which was the job of the Design Engineer from concept board.

Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Dec 9 2020 19:47 utc | 62

BM@55- What you say about the airplane, certification, etc., I certainly agree with.
I wanted to ask about the part I quoted below.

(Incidentally, the quality of comments at MoA was also arguably at it’s all-time peak in 2019. Unquestionably it has gone down since then, not just from the flooding from trolls and yes-men, but also because many readers have either reduced their presence or given up entirely as a result of changes in editorial policy and article quality since the start of 2020.)
In addition to Bernhard’s brilliant investigative journalism, what significantly contributed to the rise of MoA to it’s well-deserved success in 2019 and the run-up to 2019 was the rigorous editorial independence demanded and practiced by Bernhard, who unlike many alternative news outlets steadfastedly refused to accept any advertising nor any remuneration other than donations from readers freely given with no strings attached.
One can hardly fail to wonder at the disjunction between the aforesaid articles on Boing up to and including that of 24th January 2020, and the current article. One can hardly fail to wonder at the coincidence of the other changes in MoA since sometime in January 2020 (article quality, editorial policies, comment moderation policies, and censorship policies). What is the cause of these differences?

I had a similar conversation yesterday here about another website. Since the beginning of the year I have paid extra attention looking for similar things to those you mention. I have not detected that here.
You specifically mention these four things: article quality, editorial policies, comment moderation policies, and censorship policies.
I have not noticed the article quality reduction.
Editorial policies – this is confusing, as b is the sole author at this site. I dont understand how editorial policies could even be applied to this situation.
Comment moderation, is, and as far as I know, has always been non existent, with the exception of 1 or 2 commenters that have been banned. AFAIK it is a very ineffective ban, as all one would need to do is change their email address and username.
Concerning donations, it seems to me that there is a not very subtly accusation him of being paid off, and under someone elses control. B has not censored this comment, nor banned the commentor for saying this.
I wonder if you could expand on any of these things? Have I not looked close enough to see any of it?
Please take this comment in the spirit in which it is intended, that is to say, I am not trying to contradict you, but I want to understand more clearly what you mean.

Posted by: visak | Dec 9 2020 20:35 utc | 63

BM @55 There was an old Benny Hill joke that ran something like this: “You know how Boeing got its name? That’s the sound you hear when a part flies off the airplane- Boe-ing!”
Great comment, btw.

Posted by: robjira | Dec 9 2020 21:05 utc | 64

CR929 jetliner to hit global market in 2023

Nearly 1,000 CR929 long-range wide-body jetliners, the largest joint endeavor between China and Russia in the aviation industry, are expected to be sold globally from 2023 to 2045, said a key project leader at Commercial Aircraft Corp of China.
[…]
Compared with today’s jetliners, the new-generation model will be safer, smarter, eco-friendlier, more economical and more comfortable, he said.
[…]
With an initial targeted market in China and Russia, the first, standard version of the aircraft-the CR929-600-will be able to fly 12,000 kilometers and carry 280 passengers, according to COMAC.
[…]
Speaking of the C919’s developments, the designer said that six prototypes are conducting flight tests in China and that his company has received 815 orders for the jet from 28 buyers.

Also:

The designer said that China is now the world’s second-largest air transportation market, behind the United States. About 660 million flights were made on the mainland in 2019, with around 28,000 planes taking off from or landing at mainland airports each day.
The nation is expected to become the world’s largest air transportation market by 2023, he added.

Posted by: vk | Dec 11 2020 11:49 utc | 65

Back to Main