Back to Squawk list
  • 42

Exclusive: Boeing hires pilots for airlines to help relaunch 737 MAX - sources

تم الإرسال
 
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Boeing Co is hiring up to 160 pilots to be embedded at airlines in its latest bid to ensure its 737 MAX has a smooth comeback after a 20-month safety ban, according to a recruitment document seen by Reuters and people familiar with the move. (www.reuters.com) المزيد...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


phowry
Phil Howry 5
With this reported direct "pilot hire" and real-time inflight operations review, it appears Boeing has decided to take full control oversight of the 737 MAX relaunch to assure the integrity of a legitimate return-to-service program.

If the FAA would take a similar move with a focus on hiring actual "field-trained" ground and inflight personnel, perhaps the federal regulatory oversight would be a less "friends and family hire" bloated federal bureaucracy and become a lean, industry literate, effective oversight agency. The media should conduct a thorough "nepotism" review of federal government agencies.

From my armchair observations, most of the "after the fact" 737 MAX manufacturer issues, the FAA accused Boeing of, should have been addressed as they occurred not as after-the-fact incident/accident "CYA" counter accusations. An improved efficacy standard for industry should equally apply to federal regulatory agencies; after all, federal taxes are fleeced from citizens to support a federal regulatory agency, not a finger pointing deny all accountability agency.
rboerner
rboerner 5
I hear what you are saying but shouldn't oversight come from a non-biased party to insure integrity? Perhaps I misunderstood your position.
"Boeing has decided to take full control oversight of the 737 MAX relaunch to assure the integrity of a legitimate return-to-service program"
phowry
Phil Howry 0
The return to service "oversight" should be monitored by certified/licensed independent "hired pilots" who are not stockholders of Boeing, friends and family, or have an "axe to grind" bias against Boeing's return to service initiative(s). In turn, where is the taxpayer funded assumed FAA expertise oversight in this discussion (i.e. responsibility for pilot licensing)? The FAA needs to step up and get some skin in the game, or stop taking taxpayer funding as a qualified overseer.

"The secret to change is to focus all your energy, not on the old, but on building the new." SOCRATES
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 2
You know not of what you speak. But then that's not unusual for this chat group.

Capt J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
Air Traffic Controller
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
Aviation Safety Consultant
darjr26
darjr26 1
Facts speak for themselves.
pilotblake
Blake Van 2
"Between a Rock and a Hard Place" As a Flight Instructor in this situation. Between two companies, the MAX Operator and Boeing, both require none disclosure signature's. If either the operator or Boing dislike my Pilot, Aircraft, "Standards/Safety observation audited" I'm the sacrificial Lame, it becomes a "Wiscel blowers nightmare" I believe the FAA should be doing this Safety Audit/Standards check.
darjr26
darjr26 1
It will be interesting to see how welcome these pilots will be in the cockpit of the major carriers in the USA. They were all operating the Max before it was grounded and they have excellent training programs. I also don’t think their flight attendants will need any help comforting their passengers. As a matter of fact it’s insulting to them to think they don’t know how to handle this.
Jaime1949
Jaime Terrassa 1
are this new pilots or pilots that got layoff
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 1
"It will be interesting to see how welcome these pilots will be in the cockpit of the major carriers in the USA."

Another Boeing PR stunt. None of their hired hands will end up in the cockpit of a U.S. carrier. More likely they'll go to the likes of Lion Air, Ethiopian airlines, and others who Boeing has sold aircraft to and, as a part of the bargain, agreed to provide training, checking, etc.
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 1
There won’t be any of these pilots in US carriers’ cockpits for two reasons: one, every major airline prohibits anyone who is not a currently employed pilot with that airline from occupying a pilot station. So even a flight attendant technically cannot sit in a pilot seat while in flight. And two, in order to occupy a flight deck observer seat one must be on a short list of qualified personnel, and Boeing employees are not on that list. They could however be present for simulator or other ground training events. I would guess the vast majority will go to foreign operators like you suggest, which honesty is where they’re really needed anyway.
wiregold
wiregold -1
"Boeing failed to grasp risks in the design of cockpit software on the MAX, sowing the seeds for a 2018 crash that ALSO INVOLVED ERRORS by airline workers and crew."

I'm thinking BOEING HIRED REPORTERS AT REUTERS as well as pilots.
Nothing like revisionism by the 'press' to erase an ugly truth. Screw you Boeing. Never will I set foot on a Boeing MAX death trap.
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 1
Nothing like sensationalism by "keyboard warriors" who don't understand the facts and act out based on emotion.
wiregold
wiregold 0
An emotional response to 346 murdered passengers ... I see.
Boeing knew what they were hiding and what would happen within about 10 seconds of the alarms. 10 seconds is a fact.
The MAX is an unwieldy piece of machinery; visually it looks like a stall waiting to happen hence the radical software to keep it upright ...
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#:~:text=Air%20France%20Flight%20447%20(AF447,all%20228%20passengers%20and%20crew.

Even Capt. Sully has issues with Airbus' side stick contollers that provide no feedback to the other pilot and does not allow for override by another pilot in dire situations. Airbus murdered 228 people on that Air France flight.
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 1
Your last sentence does nothing but confirm your emotional detachment from any facts regarding the Max. I’ve flown it, and I’ll be flying it again sometime next year. There is nothing “unwieldy” about it, in fact it is more stable and balanced on the controls than earlier models. And there is nothing “radical” about the MCAS software. Boeing did manage to bungle what should’ve been a straightforward software program, but the fact of the matter is flight crew error was a large factor in both crashes. There wasn’t, and isn’t any stability issues with the Max. The sole purpose of MCAS is to meet a certification requirement for control force, that’s it. It’s not easier to stall, it doesn’t have different stall characteristics, and it’s not harder to recover should one ignore all the warnings and actually enter a stall. To suggest any different is to simply ignore the facts or fail to accept them when presented.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
Stop being lazy and go read the reports (they weren't written by reuters).

I really hope this is the most ignorant comment I read today.
wiregold
wiregold 1
Boeing designed an aircraft that a single-point failure brought down; twice.
"failed to grasp the risks" ...
Boeing knew exactly what they were doing. They KNEW at least 15 MAX jets would splash over the life of the plane. And they were good with that.
I'm hoping your comment is the most ignorant thing you say today, life is just too short.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
There's ignorant, and there's outright making things up.
darjr26
darjr26 0
Ok, let’s see some straight and level.
sgbelverta
sharon bias 0
Well, whether the FAA is going a good job or not monitoring the relaunch of the 737, a whole bunch of other countries are doing their own tests and studies. I want to see their results before I step foot on a 737Max.
bidrec
Richard Haas 0
I am not a lawyer or a pilot. If pilots are employed/contracted through a company based in the Isle of Mann does that mean employee/contractor disagreements are handled according to Manx law?
pilotblake
Blake Van -2
This is still, " The Fox Guarding the Hen House" the FAA is caving and still giving up oversight to industry. All of our"Protection Agency" are being defunded, or infiltrated by corporate lobbyist to reduce oversight. If we want a safe and strong Aviation, EPA, FDA,FCC, ect... We need to fund and employ our Protection Agency's with the manpower and guardians to guide and guards our future.
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 3
Nonsense. You, like Mr. Howry, no not of what you speak. As to the FAA "caving and still giving up oversight to industry" I suggest that read all the following Congressional documents and see what the FAA had to say (under oath.)

House Hearing, 116th Congress - THE BOEING 737 MAX: EXAMINING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S OVERSIGHT OF THE AIRCRAFT'S CERTIFICATION
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-116hhrg40697/CHRG-116hhrg40697

House Hearing, 116th Congress - THE BOEING 737 MAX: EXAMINING THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, AND MARKETING OF THE AIRCRAFT
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-116hhrg38282/CHRG-116hhrg38282

House Hearing, 116th Congress, Part 6 - DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HUD, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-116hhrg38962/CHRG-116hhrg38962

House Hearing, 116th Congress - STATE OF AVIATION SAFETY
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-116hhrg37561/CHRG-116hhrg37561

House Hearing, 116th Congress - STATUS OF THE BOEING 737 MAX: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-116hhrg37476/CHRG-116hhrg37476

House Hearing, 116th Congress - STATUS OF THE BOEING 737 MAX
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-116hhrg37277/CHRG-116hhrg37277

S. 2703 (IS) - Aviation Automation and Human Factors Safety Act of 2019
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-116s2703is

S. 3337 (IS) - Restoring Aviation Accountability Act of 2020
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-116s3337is

Boeing 737 Max Aircraft: Costs, Consequences, and Lessons from Its Design, Development, and Certification : Preliminary Investigative Findings
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-Y4_T68_2-fb0f3812fefe3515ebcf3f4170fce64b


Capt J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
Air Traffic Controller
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
Aviation Safety Consultant
phowry
Phil Howry 2
Mr. Buck, your response here reinforces the after-the-fact, "form over function", finger pointing procedural exercises and personal titles/certificates that, in and of themselves, are not a substitute for hands-on, take full personal responsibility, decision-making.

Thank you for your validation of our federal bureaucracy's "smoke screen". procedural ineptness.
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 1
You're welcome. I glad you found the guidance I provided helpful.
wiregold
wiregold 1
The FAA has a 2 decade old history of capitulating to Boeing going back to the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999. I had a long conversation with a British delegate back then about an EU/Airbus consortium that spooked Boeing so they got in bed with the FAA. That's a shortened version but you get the idea.
wiregold
wiregold 1
If there is a bill entitled 'Aviation Safety and Accountability', you should bet it contains neither safety nor accountability. It does give the pols a talking point, much like Boeing offers to FAs.
Boeing murdered 346 people. Somebody needs to be in the grey-bar motel, then you will begin to see accountability.
phowry
Phil Howry 2
What is the basis for your opinion the FAA is; "caving and still giving up oversight to industry"? Are you opining about the entrenched infrastructure of Washington D.C.'s Avenue K lobbyist who continue to oppose term-limits and/or a reduction in the ever expanding "administrative state" bureaucracy?

The FAA"s alleged "ball dropping" over the 737 MAX issues was not a "one off" failure of a bloated federal government "political class" that continues to hide behind the shield of federal regulation. Throwing more money at a problem rarely solves the problem.
pilotblake
Blake Van 1
You truly understand the problem, and it go's beyond Boeing and the FAA. LEADERSHIP, " is taking the blame of those under you without hiding". Corporate and government to protect the status quo that is killing people. Example. Drug companies protected by FDA headed by drug company lobbyist. We need new ethical leadership.
wiregold
wiregold 1
Agree. The corruption within government dates back to the Capone days, literally. His organization was left intact, that's why the "drug war" will never end. Prohibition earned the mobsters more money than the industrialists had.
Who thinks they gave it up?
It is no coincidence Boeing moved HQ to Chicago.
sbetheil
Stuart Betheil -4
New administration should reverse this trend.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 3
Don't bet on it. The Max was being watched by and paperwork submitted for approval by the FAA during the administration he was previously a part of.
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck 1
Based on my experience having served under a 7 Administrations nothing will change. The incoming Administration will be too busy with new and revised social engineering programs to be bothered with airplanes.
wiregold
wiregold 1
You list a number of bills with titles that claim oversight ... and then you say "nothing will change" ...
"I glad you found the guidance I provided helpful."

تسجيل الدخول

ليس لديك حساب؟ سجل الآن (مجانا) لتستمع بمميزات مخصصة، وتنبيهات الرحلات، وغير ذلك الكثير!
يستخدم موقع الويب هذا ملفات تعريف الارتباط. باستخدام موقع الويب هذا وعمل المزيد من عمليات التنقل خلاله، يعني هذا قبولك لملفات تعريف الارتباط.
استبعد
هل علمت بأن خاصية تتبع الرحلة التابعة لـFlightAware مدعومة بواسطة الإعلانات؟
يمكنك مساعدتنا بالإبقاء على موقع FlightAware مجاني بدون مقابل من خلال السماح بالإعلانات من موقع FlightAware.com. نحن نعمل بكل كد لجعل إعلاناتنا ملائمة ومناسبة وأن تكون هذه الإعلانات غير ملحوظة من أجل إنشاء تجربة رائعة. يمكن بكل سرعة وسهولة السماح لـإعلانات القائمة البيضاء الموجودة على FlightAware، أو الرجاء مراجعة الحسابات المميزة الخاصة بنا.
استبعد