SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Boeing takes $5 billion hit as Indonesian airline cancels 737 MAX order
Indonesia's largest air carrier has informed Boeing that it wants to cancel a $4.9 billion order for 49 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft. Garuda Indonesia spokesperson Ikhsan Rosan said in a statement to the Associated Press that the airline was cancelling due to concern that "its business would be damaged due to customer alarm over the crashes."
Garuda had originally ordered 50 737 MAX aircraft, and Boeing delivered the first of those aircraft in December of 2017. The airline already operates 77 older Boeing 737 models; two of the aircraft ordered were conversions from earlier orders for 737-800s. Garuda also flies Boeing's 777-300 ER, and the company retired its 747-400 fleet in the last few years—so the airline was looking for an economical long-range aircraft to fill in gaps.
Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras
As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their cockpits. One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.
For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons. Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane's operations.
Many airlines, especially low-cost carriers like Indonesia's Lion Air, have opted not to buy them — and regulators don't require them. Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.
See also: They didn't buy the DLC: feature that could've prevented 737 crashes was sold as an option
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:07AM (5 children)
> No safety feature should be optional.
Any absolute statement is automatically suspect. A car analogy is perfect here. There are lots of car safety features that are standard and required, for example seatbelts and airbags. There are also lots of safety features that are optional, for example cruise control distance sensor, lane departure warning system, backup camera, traction control system, emergency brake assist, the list goes on.
Are you seriously claiming that all of these safety features should be required on all vehicles? I suspect you own a car or two that lacks many of these features and would get quite uppity if someone suggested that you should be required by law to upgrade all of your current vehicles to have these safety features.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 24 2019, @04:25AM (2 children)
Fair enough - but not fair either.
Fair, because not all safety features are required on all vehicles. An air dryer, found on many vehicles with air brakes, would be redundant and wasteful on virtually all family cars. But, on family cars, it is required that the master cylinder for the braking system control two separate systems so that a leak in one of them doesn't make all of the vehicle's brakes inoperative. That safety feature is even required on motorcycles.
Now where you are being unfair, is by pulling in new, untested, technology, which the auto manufacturers are trying to test right now. None of those should be mandatory on vehicles based on older technology.
Now, we both know that over the next few decades, our current established tech will be phased out, and maybe even outlawed. The new tech will be phased in, and made mandatory for all new drivers. The question of mandatory and optional equipment will be decided within the next 20 years or so. And, I'll go on record right now, by stating that no autonomous vehicle should rely on only one type of detection. I'll go a bit further, and say they probably shouldn't rely on only two types of detection. Autonomous vehicles should have three (or more) means of detecting obstructions, and they should default to evasion maneuvres if any of those three detection systems sees an obstruction.
No, I'm not going to try to itemize every group of safety features, and I'm certainly not going to offer an opinion on each group. But, I'll stand by the above. If you're going to rely on an autonomous machine for your life and safety, that machine must have redundant backup systems to ensure that the machine doesn't routinely kill it's occupants.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:48AM
As an example of this in AU, all the old cars are still legal to drive, but all new cars must have ESC (traction control). It was an optional extra for a while, but now it is mandatory.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:04PM
This is a circular argument. Automakers and airplane manufacturers aren't in the habit of leaving required safety features off of a vehicle. What should make a safety feature a required safety feature?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:24PM
>Any absolute statement is automatically suspect.
why did you say that? -.-
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:29PM
I think he is claiming that if your safety feature is itself a safety risk, the safety risk's mitigator should NOT be sold separately, nor at a premium.
Account abandoned.