Consumer advocate Ralph Nader joins CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" team to give his take on Boeing and why he says the company's governance is compromised.
He's 100% right. The Board and the worthless CEO need to go. They should faced criminal charges. Those people are greedy psychopath and sociopaths: don't trust them with your lives or your loved ones. The only thing they care about is $$$.
Milt Farrow it is such a shame as FAA had a good reputation and very strong regulations throughout history until they bent over for boeing and co-killed cold bloodily 300+ innocent lives
@@WXUZT Dennis also knew that MCAS was still not ready and they were actively working on a patch while it was actively in service. That decision was under HIS watch. At the very least, Boeing should have done a voluntary recall. But that does not help stock price and executive compensation/bonuses.
can't understand that the same people of made this mess are the ones trying to fix it.. !! People in charge of designing and certification of the Max belong in Jail ..!!
Its not going to make a difference who's in charge - Boeing has painted itself into a corner. There is a lot of pain and disruption for America to be had yet. This is an enormous opportunity for Boeing's competitors - just watch the Chinese take it with both hands and make a success of it.
RALPH NADER IS A BUM AND HE IS THE REASON GEORGE W. BUSH BECAME INSTEAL OF ALL GORE. RALPH NADER WAS THE SPOILER AND AND REMEMBER HOW GEORGE BUSH DESTROYED THE US ECONOMY. NEVER FORGET RALPH NADER SPOLIED THE ELECTION SO AL GORE COULD NOT BE ELECTED. RALPH NADER IS A EGOCENTRICAL SELFISH TWIT AND HE SUCKED VOTES FROM GORES ELECTION CAMPAIGN WHEN HE KNEW HE COULD NOT WIN AND THATS WHY WE HAD EIGHT YEARS OF GEORGE BUSH WHO DESTROYED THE US ECONOMY AND CREATED THE HUGE DEFICIT. RALPH NADER IS A SELFISH BUM!!!
@@kimberlywilliams7543 Stop blaming Ralph Nader for George W. Bush and accept the fact that your favorite Albert Gore lost in 2000 because he was a mediocre at best candidate. Dude couldn't even win his homestate of TN.
You can, the plane is able to fly safely from A to B if the AoA sensors work correctly. However, what you cannot do is pretend to the pilots it is a 737... ... because, the 737 is a plane where the pilot can control everything manually, if necessary with muscle power. As soon as you try to fix a hardware problem with software, the computers are by definition controlling stuff. Any safety situation that depends on the pilot manually intervening suddenly needs to be questioned. The 737 Max is not a 737, full stop. The right decision would be to remove the 1960's cockpit, install a modern fly-by-wire cockpit and most important, train pilots how to deal with confused computers. Then it will be a safe plane. This is simply not going to happen, so what we will get is a fixed plane, that is sort of safe, but will never be as safe as it should have been.
Modern electronics make it possible for machines to behave in ways that science seems impossible. The new Chevy Blazer can run a slalom course a mere .5 seconds slower than a Chevy Impala. Because a Blazer is much taller than the Impala, physics says that is impossible. But on-board computers tell the suspension to limit body roll.
Grounded for good indefinitely, there is no small fix and all is well, all the plane need to be certified, this way, any "glitches" will be found" and rectified before any takes to the air.
And when ever was Boeing a great company a good company will have a lot of old planes flying how many old plane does Boeing have flying that are the same age as the DC 3
I agree 100% with Ralph Nader, recall the aircraft and hold Boeing accountable to both the families of passengers and the pilots who's jobs have been cut back. MCAS should not exist on an aircraft, if software is needed to keep the aircraft stable in flight, then crappy engineering is the problem. MCAS is nothing but a big band-aid to cover up slam dunking it out of the factory and into the hands of the airlines to keep up with Airbus. As we all can see, Airbus gave their engineers time to develop the NEO, and the a320 family has been a success. In this industry, stockholders and executive bonus checks are not the priority, safety is.
this is what happens when a company puts financial considerations at the forefront as opposed to the hard engineering task of producing a viable aircraft. same thing happened to the automobile companies years ago until faced with stiff competition from here and abroad, competition that does not exist in the civilian aircraft sector.
The Max and Neo were built for the exact same financial reasons and at the request of the airlines themselves but MCAS was poorly designed although the concept is nowhere near as outrageous as people believe
CNBC should conduct more of such interviews. Raise scrutiny and accountability standards. That’s what good journalism is about. Thank you Nader! I have been reading about your great works in uni days like some 20 years ago. Great job.
... and you'd call that a FIX because...? This isn't about making an enemy out of Airbus, that is not a solution that's simply irresponsible finger pointing. The solution is to right the wrong. Companies make mistakes eg. Volkswagen and Diesel-Gate. The responsible strategy is to take the loss by cancelling 737 Max altogether. Boeing cannot rebuild trust by flying that 737 iteration evvvver. Why, because that RESPONSIBLE solution will prove to the public Boeing takes airline safety seriously. Management made a massive strategical error in R&D. Nothing to do with Airbus one iota. This is to do with safety that Boeing has been synonymous with for many decades. 737 Max management need to be replaced wholesale. The plane needs to be redesigned from the ground up as it should have been in the first place. That's the only* way Boeing can regain the integrity it has clearly lost worldwide. By demonstrating to the public they realize they made a deadly error and it won't be repeated.
Then watch him bailout boeing out with socialist money.When capitalism fails socialism is there to pay the debt. Without taxpayer bailouts the banks and boeing would be no more.
The management of Boeing murdered 346 people abd should be in jail for putting profit ahead of safety. The put my family in an aircraft that had an undertrained flight crew that knew nothing about the MCAS system. They withheld the information from the airlines and pilots because they could not deliver the aircraft that they had promissed the airlines and did not want to loose any orders because the crews should of had simulator training which Boeing promissed would not be needed. It's disgusting that they are going to get away with the decisions they made that killed all those people and these upper managment people made these decisions knowing what the consequences of these decisions could be.
@@FLT111 McDonnell Douglas merger was about increasing efficiency and making a huge profit for shareholders... so your points were pointless...just like your irrelevant feeling are...about the 777X and anything else your mindless ranting about...
Cleary we have an Mdc fan here. If you look at MDCs investment in new aircraft after the 80s and see what Boeing has been doing right after the 90s/00s (post 787) you'll see similarities.
Ralph is one of my heroes and remains very relevant today at the age of 85. Still fit and full of intellectual vigour! By the way, the day Ralph Nader made those comments the shares of Boeing were trading at $375, as you can see from the chart on the screen. Today, August 6, a mere two weeks later, the stock closed at $332.
It is crucial to aviation safety that Boeing not be allowed to "fix" the 737 MAX with software. The plane was made unstable due to new, larger and heavier engines which were stupidly located upward and further forward for ground clearance. This causes the 737 MAX to often pitch up at max thrust on take-off. Basic aerodynamic stability was compromised. MCAS is compounding the error: for an airplane that lacks essential stability, software only "papers over" the underlying problem, and Boeing management knows this. But they decided to allow a flawed fifty year old design decision to continue rather than implement a costly re-design. The "reasoning" in the 1960's was that smaller airports would not have lifts to permit ground crew to access the baggage hold, so they purposely made the landing gear short, giving the engines only 17 inches ground clearance. Thus, 346 people have so far been killed by what amounts to negligent homicide in two incidents. New software will not cure this problem. Every in-the-loop manager at Boeing is criminally liable, from the CEO on down. Of course this will not happen, as Boeing has become too big to fail.
First, I'm not a Boeing apologist. I believe Boeing and their management need to pay a heavy price for this plane. However, aerodynamic instability problems can be managed safely with a robust hardware/software solution. For example, the NASA-Grumman X-29 was intentionally unstable. It's(circa 1980's) computerized flight control system made 40 corrections per second to make the airplane stable and flyable. Boeing's MCAS solution to the 787-max stability problem is crude compared to the 40 year old X-29 and it lacked redundancy.
@@dagrynch -- Fighters are designed with negative stability to enhance maneuverability. Commercial airliners need positive stability for passenger comfort. Fly in a TF-15 without g-loc training and you'll leave your lunch in your helmet. This well-made Wendover video shows 737 MAX issues in detail: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BfNEOfEGe3I.html
@Milt Farrow -- That's Ducommun (DCO)... The company didn't use specified CNC (computer numerical control) techniques for drilling holes in 737 fuselages, instead doing it "by hand". Fuselages were delivered mis-drilled and cracked and when Boeing employees blew the whistle Boeing slapped the employees down. See ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv1073-756 re "potentially damaging force (i.e. 'make it fit')."
Calling the Max "unstable" isn't functionally true in an aviation context and plenty of stability augmented airliners/general aviation aircraft exist (some with worse stability) and they have impeccable safety records the real problem is the lack of redundancy with MCAS The concept of MCAS isn't outrageous it's basically an electronic anti servo tab but because anti servo tabs are mechanical and respond to direct pilot input they can't act on their own to override that input
Boeing not only killed innocent people but they killed it's most popular Aircraft .... sometimes in business your competitor wins over a bigger market share with their product That's life...but to rush thru a change without putting Safety first before profit was and is murderous
I’m not a Boeing fan but it’s a real shame as they’ve produced some very good planes over the years , 707, 727,757 etc etc . Something has to change at modern Boeing !!
Post Modern management is about company equity. Plane desgin, ICEl car design and rail travel have stagnated since the 1980s. The short turm view point has allowes competitors to catch up.
Sara: "Boeing are the experts, why would they put a (faulty) plane in the air after the last two crashes?" The question is "Why did the "experts" put an unsafe aircraft in the air in the first place?"
boeing was unaware that the max was flawed ! but i think they need a newly designed 737l ! the max engines should be down graded on the current plane (max) so they can fly as ng model !
Mike Stanmore, Sara asked exactly the right question. It's called playing devil's advocate, putting an unpopular point of view that you (the interviewer) and your viewers may not agree with in order that the interviewee can have something to push against. Nader's answer, in fact his entire contribution, exposed the fallaciousness of the interviewer's question . . .
Nader is doing God's work. He always has the common people's needs first, and has shaped the consumer world as we know it for the better. He's right about Boeing giving up on engineering in favor of profits.
Yea, Ralph's grand niece died in the crash of the Boeing 737 MAX off the tarmac in Ethiopia this year. His niece was on a humanitarian mission somewhere in Africa.
The US air force has twice stopped deliveries of Boeing KV46A tankers because the interiors were full of tools, garbage, and aluminum shavings. The pilots refused to fly them. Even the average person would know not to deliver a multi million dollar piece of equipment in that sort of condition. So there is some very obvious problems with mismanagement at Boeing.
Completely agree, reinstall the old engine(small one) with less fuel economy. Allow the airlines to use them while they re-design a completely new airplane. The new engines just aren’t made for the new 737
And here is the problem with pure Capitalism. There is no person that is liable for human decisions. Just like the Mortgage Crisis, no one is held accountable.
True. There was a time when boeing was a great company, a true pioneer. Not anymore. They shouldve replaced the 737 entirely, and revamped the 757 instead.
That would functionally accomplish nothing the entire purpose of maintaining the 737 type rating is to avoid the cost of airlines retraining their 737 crews
"They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. The stalk has no head; it will produce no flour. Were it to yield grain, foreigners would swallow it up.” - Book of Boeing
I understand accidents can happen in aviation, but when this plane is put back into service, I will not fly on it. When I book my flights, my first question will be, what plane will I be flying on?
I have lost respect for Boeing since that terrible disaster. The company has engaged in nothing but platitudes, vague promises, disingenuousness and outright lies.
No, he simply said that the the CEO and the board should be sacked and the 737 Max program scrapped to save Boeing. It's going to be extremely difficult to rehabilitate the 737 Max.
All major corporations are mismanaged!! Hind-sight is always 20/20!! Ralph Nader, has a knack for telling the world the obvious, right after it is obvious to everyone!! Listening to him pontificate about stuff would gag a maggot!!
Ouch. The writing is on the wall. He right that’s better to get the pain out of the way now and take the loss. Why risk the industry when others are able to do replace us.
Boeing's Board members responsible regarding these HUGE MESS needs to get fired WITHOUT RETIREMENT. Donate those retirement benefits to the victim's families left behind.
Boeing should put the previous model's engines on the Max and get it back to normal. Then give the airlines a discount on the Max's they buy. The plane should fly normally then.
Often when money is the ONLY goal, things turn out badly. I saw somewhere a clip of this CEO talking about cutting costs through decreased checks and the like. Look what he has now. Could be better for all. The relatively little cost associated with increased engineering might have gone a long way?
I am at the point that I will not fly on this plane, no matter even if the FAA says it fit for purpose. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, well I am not prepared to take a chance at 30 000ft.
somebody signed this aircraft off. and until they are jailed. There wiil be no justice. Of course that thought will be going through the minds of next lot of regulators . Russian roulette with every cylinder full.
@Milt Farrow yeah and your point is, million of americans drive a car everyday to work does that mean they know how an engine works. Just because you operate a machine it dosent make u an expert millions of americans drive a car but dont have a clue how an combustion engine work
@Milt Farrow pilots fly the aircraft during take off and landing that's pretty much it the auto pilot does the rest they just sit their and monitor it, so because you sit their and know how to set up and auto pilot to fly it that automatically makes you a plane engineer no it dosent my men,
Jackson Lazor that is not a firm order it’s like going to a car dealer and saying you are looking to buy x cars for your company but you have not signed the final paperwork
We live in unstable times, ruled over by unstable people. Naval architects design an unstable cargo ship with an itsy-bitsy tipsy canoe shaped bottom hull supporting a colossal upper deck structure with huge overhangs. When the heavy cargo is stacked up high the vessel apparently became top-heavy and capsized. It simply flops over and capsizes, and in relatively calm waters. Then an unstable legally hogtied media will not point to the obvious stability problem and report it as such. Unstable businessmen at Boeing, keen to beat Airbus, go against the advice of the engineers and try to rig the Boeing 737 with bigger engines as is. They call it the 737 Max but it is really now a different plane with different handling characteristics. But the pilots are not properly informed or prepped for the changes. The Boeing landing gear is shorter than the Airbus. So they instruct the designers to put the bigger engines up higher on the wing. The plane that was once stable in flight now has unstable nose-up flight characteristics during the critical takeoff phase. That is a fact. If it were not a fact then they would not have tried to remedy the situation with software to override the pilots. But no matter. They try to correct this nose-up misbehavior by crafting the computer software to slowly crank the tail surface down to put the nose down during takeoff. This can and on occasion sometimes does take away pitch control from the pilots who are on occasion pulling back on the yoke trying to get the nose of the plane up. They are struggling to prevent a nose-down crash into the ground. This is something no pilots should ever have to face. This has ended up crashing two airliners, killing all on board. And now what do the unstable bean-counters at Boeing want to do? Back to the drawing board? Oh no. That would be too costly. They want to tweak the crazy self-conflicted system. They want to calm and mollify the ghost in the machine. They want to get the planes back in the air making money again.
The 737 Max has larger heavier engines which need to be mounted in a different position which critically altered the centre of gravity and therefore required a major redisign which would cost billions to rectify.
How did it alter the center of gravity? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? No, just repeating whats been reported in the news and NOT even getting that right.
It was a bad sign a few years back when Boeing moved their headquarters out of Seattle to somewhere back east. Moved the suits far from those annoying engineers. Just saying....
In the aviation industry, when you remove safety as your first priority, the company is destroyed. Both management at Boeing and at FAA should be replaced. It’s one industry where self regulation shouldn’t be allowed at all. The FAA’s role is not to be just a safety advisor. Granted, it has now discovered a lot of safety flaws with the 737. But why weren’t these flaws discovered before the plane was certified? They should always remain objective and never trust Boeing that these planes were safe to fly.
Seat belts in your Car? Ralph Nader. Compensation when you're bumped from a flight? Ralph Nader. Those and many others, it was Ralph not "competition".
I also believe that, with Chinese competition getting stronger by the day, Boeing and Airbus will have to end up merging. So the 737Max situation isn’t good for anyone.
That's going to be some type of persuasion campaigning on Boeing's part, to persuade those who care that it's safe to fly again. #RalphNader #IsTheTruth
