Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 17
Well that's nice, ain't it. Boeing gets to certify its own aircraft. Since this change was made, Boeing introduced two new models - the Dreamliner and the MAX. Both had serious safety problems that were discovered only after the planes had entered operation. At least the 787's Dreamliner burning batteries didn't kill anyone, but that was just pure luck.

The roots of this crisis can be found in a major change the agency instituted in its regulatory responsibility in 2005. Rather than naming and supervising its own “designated airworthiness representatives,” the agency decided to allow Boeing and other manufacturers who qualified under the revised procedures to select their own employees to certify the safety of their aircraft. In justifying this change, the agency said at the time that it would save the aviation industry about $25 billion from 2006 to 2015. Therefore, the manufacturer is providing safety oversight of itself. This is a worrying move toward industry self-certification.

Before this policy was instituted, the agency selected these airworthiness representatives, who may have worked for the manufacturer but were chosen and supervised by the agency. These experts were responsible for guiding the agency’s decisions about whether to ground an aircraft for safety concerns.

This is another example that shows that deregulation doesn't necessarily save costs. Aside from the 300+ lives lost, the long-term damage incurred by Boeing to its reputation, the costs for grounding and fixing its planes (if that is even possible) could easily outstrip whatever savings Boeing realized under this new "oversight" system. The tail risks are substantial. If the 737 Max 8 and 9 are irredeemably unsafe, or perceived to be so, then Boeing will have nothing to offer its customers in this critical segment for years. There's 5000 737 Max planes on order.
Let's be perfectly about what Boeing is doing with the Max 8 and Max 9 - due to its increased engine size, these aircraft are inherently unsafe and rendered safe (or supposed to be rendered safe) only through a (badly designed) software solution.
I would prefer not to fly with such an aircraft. If I was an airline that had any choice in the matter, would I choose such an aircraft?
If I was Boeing, would I want to keep selling them? If another 737 Max crashes two years from now, will I want to pay for grounding a much larger fleet of now 1000 or so planes?
Print the post  


This is a Politics Free Board
Politically charged posts are not permitted on the Metar Board. If you make a political post, and it is alerted, the post will be removed. Thanks!
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.