Back to Squawk list
  • 35

Boeing CEO Says Planemaker Could Be Forced to Cancel 737 MAX 10

Boeing (BA.N) Chief Executive Dave Calhoun told Aviation Week in an interview that the planemaker could be forced to cancel the 737 Max 10 over potential regulatory issues. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Alan Zelt 40
This race to the bottom started with the purchase of MD. It was there they ditched the engineering mindset and adopted the less than great mindset of Jack Welch, which continues to this day.

Oh how different it would have been had they promoted Alan Mulally (Ford's gain).

Prior to going into they might try something they putting off: fire the CEO and entire board. Get back to T basics. And spin off the plane, and move back to Seattle.
mariofer 20
Unfortunately, this happens all too often, and in a lot of other industries. Good company purchases another not so good company, then the good company adopts the culture, policies and retains the leadership that made the purchased company not so good in the first place, instead of the other way around.
John Nichols 8

The child of chaos is failure...
dee9bee 6
I know it's not quite the same, but your comment reminds me of USAirways buying American.
htummond 5
Or even further back USAIR bought Piedmont
21voyageur 5
Interesting perspective I can see the CEO as the sole employee of the Board, being fired, but how/who would fire the entire board? Government? Another can of worms with that in mind. Governance is complicated.
Torsten Hoff 3
The Board of Directors is accountable to and elected by the shareholders. They can call for a shareholder's meeting and replace the board.
21voyageur 3
That I understand but what board (typically hand-picked to support investors and major stakeholders) is going to call a shareholder's meeting to basically be shot? The AGM could be an opportunity but that would require a vote of non-confidence brought forward by a major financial investor who does not have board representation and would be prepared to fire up the investors. I sense that for things to have gotten this bad over time, the board itself is tightly vested in the current strategy. They, after all, have allowed the existing CEO to play the blame game. Perhaps a few high-visibility resignations from the board may trigger some action, especially if held a quarter or two before the AGM. IMHO, if there is no cataclysmic governance/investor revolt, the company will die on the vine (ref earlier comment by someone about Kodak). My 2 cents.
What made this country great in manufacturing was the engineers that understood the business from the factory floor to the needs of their customers. Bean Counters and non-teckies always mess it up. Boeing like so many other manufacturing companies make the fatal mistake of letting the buisness graduates get in positions of control. Just like Lawyers they are and should always be subordinate to the Engineering staff and the Engineering Board members and never should Lawyers or Business graduates ever be allowed on the board of manufacturing companies. Like the CCP Dems they destroy anything they touch. Just had to get that dig in on the biggest threat to all business in the US.
Jim Allen 25
Why do we need to throw politics in there?
John D 8
He was doing okay until the last part. But then...
Mike Boote 4
I agree. It is also stupid he blamed "Bean Counters" as if Accountants actually run Boeing. Accountants simply report results, they don't control the company.
21voyageur 4
In general terms and from a global perspective, the USA is not so much at this point in history a great manufacturing country but it is a great consumer country. Boeing is just a meteor-like reflection of that fact. I am hard-pressed to think of a major manufacturing industry that has the USA as a clear and innovative manufacturing leader.
kherzer 3
Weapons/defense, medical equipment, robotics, satellites/aerospace and the petrochemical industries?
21voyageur 3
World leaders with dominance? I seriously doubt it. Let me suggest that you consider the following in the categories your mention , , ,

Weapons/defense: Yup, give you that one - USA is good at the technology that kills but the EU is all over the USA with growth

Medical equipment: Siemens, Phillips, GE and others imploding

Robotics: Mitsubishi, MBB - clear global leaders

Satellite/aerospace: How about China, Russia, EU? But even at that, , , apart from employing citizens and getting government support , , , what organic business growth exists in this sector? Space tourism? Academia? Not really an economic driver in my opinion.

Petrochemicals: Ever hear of BASF and Sinopec? Dog fight for #1 with Dupont.

The world is much larger and more exciting than the shining city on the hill. Get out much?

All, of course, dear friend, IMHO.
Dennis White 0
Elon Musk is the clear and innovative manufacturing leader you are looking for ...both automotive (Tesla) and aerospace (SpaceX).
21voyageur 4
Today, Musk has been exposed as an opportunist with little visionary ethos vis a vis social media (apparent bailing from the purchase of Twitter. Basically, he sees something he likes, as the richest man in nthe word (on paper) he attempts to buy it. That said, , , , one must recognize that 2021 was the first year of profit for Tesla if you back out federal emission credits. So, is he a manufacturing leader, , , I suggest not. As a savant in terms of making money? Yup.
Em Fairley 2
His offer to buy Twitter was based on their attested figures of fake account holders. Once those numbers were proven to be false, he was right to bail. The collapse of the deal is on Twitter, not Musk. Similarly, if a seller falsifies info on the state of their property, the buyer has every right to withdraw from the deal
21voyageur 3
Think global. As for Musk, a bizarre savant with tons of money who is not, IMHO, a medium to long term leader. Look at how he is "managing" the Twitter takeover. Smells very much like a transactional/leverage alpha character. Not a manufacturing leader.
Robert Graham 14
Boeing cancels the 737 Max 10 and is forced to design and engineer a replacement to compete with Airbus. Probably that would be best for the flying public. Maybe Boeing management will eventually get over the idea that they're not in charge of the world.
Mark Kortum 11
Dan Calhoun is playing political chicken.
Jim Allen 12
He’s gonna lose.
Chris B 10
Don't worry about Boeing. They'll continue to get US taxpayer subsidies promoting "cost overruns" of AF1, KC46, various space vehicles, etc.

Max 10 is Boeing'$ best effort to replace the 757-200.
21voyageur 2
Aviation is a global industry. taxpayer subsidies may keep the lights on but the global market will determine if Boeing survives. Boeing must be successful internationally or the company will become but a supplier to the US market. Possible parallel? Russian aircraft manufacturing.
mike moseley 0
and the worst money pit of all the F-15 EX
wannabehocker 17
Boeing is continuing to play the victim here instead of owning up to their systemic failures.....this once great company is quickly heading the way of companies like Sears. Unless they reverse course immediately and make tremendous reforms, they will be totally obsolete within the next 10-30 years......
Derek Vaughn 1
Boeing is going to have to settle in at #2 for the foreseeable future.
21voyageur 2
And considering there is really no #3, that says tons. But watch out , , , COMAC has what it needs to overtake Boeing if it chooses to and makes the right moves to sell a pedestrian product which is the corner in which the Boeing 737 exists and basically eat its lunch as China can put the same type of vanilla product out there as the Boeing 737 line at a much lower cost. All, , , , IMHO. You will note, I have focused on the 737 which should have been sunset decades ago but for greed.
What a fall from grace! Reminds me of Kodak in Rochester, NY. From #1 in the world to.....
Roy Hunte 2
Non-existent? Ooops, too soon?
21voyageur 7
High-stakes poker is being played by the CEO. Positioning regulatory issues as the culprit is simply playing to the stock market. Maybe, just maybe, putting safety, engineering, and investors as peer corporate pillars would be the better play. But they are like a caged animal at this point due to a singular focus on ROI/stock price/personal gain and apparently see no alternative than to blame someone else for their woes. Sad really.
Agreed. They blew it with irresponsible short-cuts on safety and training earlier, and now they are trying to cool out the marks (Congress, workers and investors) by shifting focus from their own irresponsibility and greed, to the regulatory process.
346 people dead from two crashes and now looking forward the CEO still says, "Calhoun told Aviation Week: "I think our case is persuasive enough. ... This is a risk I’m willing to take. If I lose the fight, I lose the fight." So a risk he is willing to take...what about the flying public? Doesn't sound like a sound, safe engineering approach that was any better than before.
James Cox 6
Sure it's some bad software design but if the pilots just flew the airplane they would have been fine. Notice none of the MAX crashes happened with US airlines.
wiregold 2
The planes were grounded in time to prevent a US crew being placed in a no-win situation. MCAS was a disaster waiting to happen because its existence was purposely hidden by management.
Stefan Sobol 4
Without knowing if any unexpected MCAS activations occurred on US airline MAXs, you cannot conclude that US pilots would have done any better than the pilots in the crashed airplanes. Even Boeing said that MAX pilots have to figure out the problem in under 4 seconds on a system that they were not being told even existed.

As far as the public knows, unexpected MCAS activation incidents have only occurred 3 times. One was recovered, the other two were not. The recovered incident was also done by a foreign crew.

The idea that US pilots would do any better in this scenario is pure speculation.
Not happening to US pilots. One Southwest airlines 737 MAX being ferried out to the dessert from Orlando (MCO) had to return back because the system started to kick in. And it would NOT stop. So the flight crew ferrying the aircraft made the decision to return.
Thomas Clark 6
It looks like it's unanamous "The Boeing Big Boy's have got to go" or the company will go down the tubes!!!!
belzybob 14
Hurry up FAA, we need to beat the new standards......Seems little has changed at Boeing.
Jim Allen 5
My heart bleeds - for the people in South Carolina that are just about to screwed over by those MD/Jack Welch wannabes. Boeing originally approved it and now they’re complaining?
The Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System, EICAS, is not a regulatory issue as referenced by Boeing, it is a safety issue and Boeing again wants to cut corners. Sounds like the same old story.
sharon bias 9
If our fractured government could agree on a policy and pass it into law, then there must be a reason for it. For Boeing to try and play the fear card now just shows how little they care about America and American lives.
This is so ridiculous. He refuses to improve the safety of the airplane, and. if he does not get his way he cancel? How many MAX should go down before these people get serious?
Mike Boote 3
Am I the only one who thinks it bizarre that Boeing is threatening to cancel the MAX 10 rather than make safety changes? To that I say: Please Boeing - cancel it.
wigmore hoover 17
It's a crap airplane that should never have been built . The airframe is 50 years old . Airbus is way ahead of the game in my view sorry to say .
James Cox 5
And the A320 is almost a 40yo design...
Mike Boote 1
First flight B737 - 1967 - 55 years ago
First flight A320 -1987 - 35 years ago
ko25701 9
It's a proven airframe being built with new technology.
w2bsa 7
Yes, but it’s time has come. It’s time for Boeing to design and build a new airplane to replace the 737.
The ground clearance of the 737 cannot be improved due to the landing gear design and placement. This limits any improvements to the current airframe.
Mike Boote 1
Which, IMHO, obsoletes it.
trentenjet 6
The 737 Max is nothing but Band-Aid's to Compete with Airbus
The only way for them to install the LEAP engine with a larger fan was to raise up the engine. Could not do that because of the engine going up into the wing. So move it forward and up. That's how you got the center of gravity shifted. So that's why they came up with this system. I and a couple of my coworkers agree that Boeing should have kept making the 757 instead.
Orders for the 757 dropped from 37 in 2001 to zero in 2002, 2004 and 2005. For financial reasons, Boeing could not continue making the 757. The same has happened currently with the 747-8. All the armchair CEO's are ignorant of the huge fixed costs keeping an airplane production line open not only at the final assembly line but also at the sub-assembly steps and sub-suppliers.
21voyageur 2
But they should never have chosen to continue investing in the 737. It is exactly at that time (early 2000's) that they should have started with a clean sheet design which is what Bombardier did. However, a lack of long-term vision and short-term return/greed blinded them and well, we have we we have now. Nobody to blame but executive management and what was important to them, , not the market, , , not the passangers. IMHO.
jeff slack 4
No paywall (if you reached your FREE Reuters allowance) on this link;
Steven Sims 2
You know what? To hell with Boeing. They ran down the sidelines to unscrupulously attain certification on the Max and now they're playing the same game with the Max-10.
As far as I'm concerned the entire C-suite of Boeing should have been jailed over the Max's certification. And the Max-10 is just another extension of an airframe that shouldn't have been certified in the first place.
I'm glad to see the USA still has the best regulatory system money can buy.
Sounds like management has the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." Too bad because Boeing was a leader once upon a time (before they left Seattle).
Jim Allen 1
Before they merged/bought Douglas. Imagine the hubris: “An aircraft is a commodity like a toaster and it’s about time you engineering people see that”.
aurodoc 2
I agree with the opinions that Boeing has made a lot of errors and should be accountable, especially the leadership. The problem is that there is a duopoly in commercial aircraft production and with little real competition Boeing can give everyone the finger because there is only one other alternative. If you had 4 or 5 major competitors, Boeing would have been gone a longtime ago or forced to change to stay in business.
DesertFlier 1
I couldn't agree more... and the majority of the comments below are spot on as well.

It won't much matter, there is a larger gorilla in the room (or was it a chicken or and egg)... I recently made a trip across country on 2 Embraers... when the airline I took had both 737's and 320's in their fleet... just no pilots to fly them.
trentenjet 5
The truth Boeing will be forced to go bankrupt soon The major stock holders are all part of the swamp Just watch the process take place. the 737 Max was a mistake to star with It should have been a clean slate design starting in the early 80s it's been nothing but Band-Aids ever since to Compete with Airbus
21voyageur 2
I believe you are not too far from the truth. Due to greed and poor executive decisions, it is the market will determine Boeing's fate. The tipping point may have just recently happened.
Phil Howry 3
To date, has there been a "domestic" Boeing 737 Max incident?
Properly trained and qualified pilots can fly the airplane fine.
I’ve never understood why the engineers and regulators decided we need a computer to automatically reduce the pitch of an aircraft that is slow, clean, flaps retracted, and in a high g turn. (MCAS)
Stefan Sobol 3
Boeing needed to add MCAS to keep the MAX in compliance with the regulations regarding longitudinal stability of the aircraft.
Jim Allen 1
MCAS was on the shelf already and solved the problem for them. Refer to “Flying Blind”
wiregold 4
The one recovery of an MCAS failure was a foreign crew. The sample size for proving US crews would recover is insufficient. Blaming 'foreigners' for Boeing's poor design and implementation is weak.
James Cox 2
No, domestic pilots know how to fly.
wiregold 3
That's a pretty broad brush you're using. A foreign crew recovered one of the MCAS incidents.
How much Boeing stock do you own?
21voyageur 0
Are you implying that only domestic lives count?
Phil Howry 1
"Domestic lives" of appropriately trained/experienced airline pilots "count"!
21voyageur 1
So you are then saying that the hundreds that died due to poor design are just not worthy of counting? Last time I checked, Boeing does sell internationally (ie: not domestic) and as such is responsible for its technology wherever it is sold. Please stop hiding behind quotation marks and if you don't care about any deaths outside of the USA, just say so.
Phil Howry -3
You answered your own question; your mainstream media influenced "poor design" brainwashing assumes two levels of FAA inspection criteria (i.e. domestic/foreign) exist. The fact remains there are definitely two types of pilot training criteria (i.e. foreign/domestic); therefore, you should address your pious "caring" for foreign deaths to the foreign airline owners/operators. If they cared they would properly train and maintain their aircraft. No domestic incidents to date.
21voyageur 4
BUT, , , , Boeing as an international vendor - upon which it depends - must address all markets into which it sells. Full stop.
wiregold 1
How does any airline train for a 'non-existent' flight control system? You should address that Boeing chose not to offer "training" to anyone regarding MCAS. They hid it from both foreign and domestic airlines. That no domestic crashes occurred was only because the FAA grounded the MAX in time.
Almost did, a Southwest airlines 737 MAX being ferried out to the dessert from Orlando (MCO) had to return back because the system started to kick in. And it would NOT stop. So the flight crew ferrying the aircraft made the decision to return.
WD Rseven 1
Extreme arrogance is displayed once again by Boeing upper management as they destroy the company
John Nichols 1
The 737 design was new 50 years ago. Comes a time.....
Mike Boote 2
You're being generous. The first flight of a 737 was 55 years ago in 1967. Work on it began in 1964 - 58 years ago.
John Nichols 1
That Boeing was concerned pilots would likely Stall on take off tells it all.

MCAS as a required system? Because the aircraft is a handful?

MCAS dependent on sensing from a sole source activation ? Recovery means shut down trim?

Airbus uses Alpha Prot to fend off the dummies...

Boeing got it wrong...
SkyAware123 2
The system designed around a sole source is the biggest fuck up of them all. With so many redundant systems why was this ever thought of as a good idea?
John Nichols 1
If disabling MCAS requires a supposedly straightforward plan, eg disabling trim, does the crew continue handflying 2000 miles to complete the trip? Or land at first available?

If, like Airbus, Boeing thinks so little of crew competency, then giving the pilot flying three seconds to reach around and disable the trim motors?

MCAS needs to be way more benign; shaker and pusher have been the last resorts.

One in ghe water, another a smoking hole. An amazing aircraft is teetering on fail...

John Nichols 1
Well. It takes at least two to "pull shit". imo
tchartman 1
Is this a threat??
Before any new planes come from Boeing, I think there needs to be a independent review of their quality manual(s) to ensure compliance, and for all products not just the MAX. Engineering needs to have a much greater say in the readiness of an aircraft. Boeing NEEDS to show the traveling public how well they can design and build and how they have risen the bar.
What educated passenger wishes to fly on an aircraft that can only stay in the air , fly , with the aid of constant computer oversite and input ? In other words it cannot fly , glide without engine power and becomes unstable as far as I am aware . This all because Boeing took the gamble of overly stretching the existing B737 beyond its original stable design parameter.
wiregold 2
Exactly. Boeing radically altered the COG on the MAX 8. It physically looks unbalanced, ready to drop out of the sky when compared to virtually all other aircraft.
Bruce Knight 1
So, I’m not sure how pilots manage the MAX10 without an EICAS ?
Peter Fuller 3
Answer: the same way pilots fly/manage the certified and in-service MAX8 and MAX9 without an EICAS.
SkyAware123 0
After all the shit they've pulled we could care less.
Norris Bettis 0
Bean counters are deadly to the companies in which they seize control. I saw it in my own company.
Mike Boote 1
Accountants do not run companies. They simply report results.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Cheaper airfare has always won out over faster travel. Boeing would be much better investing $ 20 billion in a composite replacement for the 737 which can carry 120 to 230 passenger and sells 200 copies a year and unlimited market growth than an SST which has annual sales of 10 and a market cap of 200 planes.
21voyageur 2
I just think it is too late. A clean sheet build will take a decade if not longer. The signs of a spiral to a terminal fate are coming to the forefront. Sad.
John Nichols 1
So. Boeing did clean sheet in longitudinal stability copying Airbus' "Alpha Prot". They retained "manual reversion" which creates a flight emergency. What could go wrong???
Its easy to be negative as all of your comments.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
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.