[allengeorge]

My (conspiratorial) take is that they’re making noises about this so that politicians can step in and pressure the FAA into approving their modifications. Talking about blue-collar job losses and economic impacts has the amazing effect of cutting through politicians’ radar on both sides of the aisle.

[rsynnott]

That would probably be the worst thing they could do. The FA has already lost a lot of credibility; if there was even a hint that this had happened, other regulators would be extremely cautious of it and any other Boeing plane.

[JMTQp8lwXL]

There may be some degree of regulatory capture going on. It was European aviation bodies that halted the 737 Max before the FAA did. (We should all be thankful there's multiple regulatory bodies).

[AmVess]

Some degree? That's putting it very lightly. FAA lets Boeing certify their own jets.

[JMTQp8lwXL]

Because the FAA doesn't have the resources to do it themselves. It's quite different from, e.g., the FCC.

[chii]

Then why isn't the cost of certification borne by the company asking to be certified?

[std_throwaway]

If you think they could pressure the FAA, do you also think they could pressure the EASA and CAAC?

[PaulHoule]

They could, but not as easily. On the other hand, the FAA will look very bad if the EASA and CAAC don't agree with them.

This is what I think is going on:

Part of the 737MAX fundamentally is that 737 NG pilots did not need retraining to fly it.

That's a nice goal, but it is not compatible with MCAS. With MCAS in the picture, pilots need to fly out two situations in a simulator: (1) MCAS goes bezerk and they have to manually disable it, and (2) they get into the kind of trouble that MCAS is supposed to stop and then MCAS doesn't stop it.

I think Boeing is hoping they can do a software fix but not add a training requirement and I think that's a major reason why the fix is taking so long. I can't believe that regulators will clear the MAX to fly again without the training requirement. If Boeing is trying to avoid simulator training, they are doing a lot of harm to themselves, their shareholders, their employees, airlines, their suppliers, the U.S. Economy, etc. If they bite the bullet and accept the simulator requirement they can probably get back in the air soon -- they might have to pay for the simulator training that they promised airlines wouldn't have to pay for, but that's probably less than what they are going to pay because of delays.

Another problem with their foot dragging is that delays beget more delays. The more time they waste, the more new problems will be discovered, the more it will cascade. The fast way out is the way through, but from the beginning to this moment, Boeing has not appeared to recognize the gravity of this situation.

[darkpuma]

Could it be the case that Boeing is behaving obstinately as a negotiation tactic, perhaps to negotiate more favorable terms concerning who pays for the re-training? Maybe they recognize that retraining will be necessary, but fear if they admit it they'll have no leg to stand on when airlines demand Boeing pays for it. Or maybe they realize retraining to some degree is an inevitability but they're trying to minimize the breadth of that retraining?

[Dylan16807]

But here's the thing, is it possible under current regulations to add on that training to existing pilots, without making them do everything else over again?

If they would have to treat this plane as completely unrelated to any existing model, doing an entire training program from scratch, then there is a legitimate need for regulatory compromise.

[paganel]

If somehow the FAA approves it while the EASA does not I can see the current US administration using the "Europe is protectionist" rhetoric. Nobody knows where we will go from there, I can only tell that then it came to car tariffs similar tactics used by the US seem to have "won", as I read yesterday that the EU is ready to eliminate tariffs on US car imports.

[mantap]

EASA is not going to approve the MAX for political expediency, the resulting scandal would end the existence of EASA. There is no tariff in the world that the US can apply that would convince the EU to commit such an act of self-harm.

[riffraff]

> as I read yesterday that the EU is ready to eliminate tariffs on US car imports.

where did you read this? The latest I've heard, the EU was ready to go further with the tariff wars[0].

[0] https://www.financial-world.org/news/news/business/2659/eu-p...

[tropo]

At this level of international politics, sure.

Airbus just had an excessive pitch problem in the A321neo, nearly the same as the 737-MAX troubles. https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321neo-pitch-problem/ Suddenly, the FAA might take aggressive action to ban that aircraft. Maybe the EASA doesn't really object to the 737-MAX as much as they thought they did.

CAAC would like smooth approvals for Chinese aircraft. Huawei is also having issues. Things could suddenly change after a day of golf at Mar-a-Lago. Lots of things could change, some quietly and some publicly.

[the_duke]

The article you linked does not suggest "nearly as bad as the 737-MAX".

[tropo]

I didn't say that either, and it doesn't matter. The problem is of the same general type. It's more than close enough. The FAA should be extra-careful, so maybe the A321neo will get banned. If the EASA wants to take a hard line on safety, they can hardly object.

After a bit of high-level discussion using that leverage, things may change.

These decisions, in all countries, are being made with consideration for international economic implications. The resulting decisions will be given technical justification as required.

[salex89]

But it does matter. This A321neo issue is identified during internal simulated tests, never happened or reported on any commercial or test flight.

The issue consists of the anti-stall protection not being aggressive enough under SPECIFIC circumstances:

- Airplane is in Flare mode - Pilot applies sudden and excessive pitch up - Keeps the pitch during pre stall and stall period

Source: https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/19/bjorns-corner-airbus-a321n...

[tropo]

If it didn't happen on any test flight, the aircraft wasn't adequately tested. That sounds unsafe.

"anti-stall protection not being aggressive enough under SPECIFIC circumstances" means "not enough MCAS in the A321neo"

(there is no leeway for "SPECIFIC circumstances" unless to grant that to the 737-MAX as well)

The FAA could require more MCAS in the A321neo, and of course more testing.

[mhkool]

Airline security must never be a matter of putting pressure on an organization.

off topic: you sound like a president who thinks that "maximum pressure" is good, but it has not been proven to work.