This is an incredibly weird article. It's basically a prolonged sob-story about how terrible a production halt would be.
No doubt there would be an economic impact but the writing is just full of hyperbole and doesn't name any sources for it's claims (like 0.6% of GDP growth rate - note the growth rate, not 0.6% of GDP or 0.6% of GDP growth ...). It also fails to differentiate between the impact of existing planes not able to fly and continued production.
This smells like a PR campaign to put pressure on regulators.
Only, in this instance, the FAA probably won't risk further embarrassment by declaring the plane safe while EASA is holding out. Most of the world will wait for them rather than go with the FAA.
There seems to be a lack of objectivity in the article. Is a reduction of 0.6% of the growth rate (which, again, is 0.6% of probably a percentage like 2% of 3%-- a very small percentage indeed) a small price for the safety of air travel? There's zero discussion of the downsides of letting these planes fly. Or, stated in other words, are we willing to accept a third plane's worth of casualties over an already known systemic error, for a miniscule improvement to the growth rate? This strong-arming is not what Boeing needs right now.
You're taking it way too far in the other direction. It's not whether we have safety or not, it's a matter of some very close to 100% number vs. a different very close to 100% number. (And at this point it's more likely the same future safety level but different amounts of training.)
are we willing to accept a third plane's worth of casualties over an already known systemic error, for a miniscule improvement to the growth rate?
0.6% of 2% of $19 trillion is $2.2 billion. Theoretically, if enough of that could be captured and used to directly reduce airfare on 737 MAX planes (and/or provide a fat guaranteed payout in the event of death) then I bet a lot of people would choose to fly--possibly even in the U.S., but certainly in many parts of the world where people already assume substantial risks when traveling.
It would be difficult to capture it, though, especially because Boeing would be better off shutting down production and waiting as the manufacturer duopoly means Boeing is likely to sell all or most of those planes eventually rather than lose out on a large number of sales entirely.
But if we were able to somehow force Boeing to factor in the real costs to employees of labor disruption (i.e. if Boeing was forced to be 100% unionized now and for the indefinite future) then I imagine Boeing might choose to keep a minimal production line going and sell at discounted prices, in turn permitting some regional airlines to sell cheaper tickets. Actually, more likely Boeing would be better off paying their labor to sit around (and their employees richer for it) by giving labor a greater share of the future expected surplus from duopoly pricing. Or maybe some combination of the above.
I have no idea how to even attempt to pencil that out, though. My point is merely that it could work, depending on the numbers; not that it necessarily would work. In other words, your question can be answered quantitatively, whereas I assume you intended it rhetorically with an implied, categorical, "no".
If anything, this should be pressure for more regulation, in that arguably it's the transfer of knowledge and responsibility for safety regulation from the FAA to the manufacturers that put us in this "disastrous" situation in the first place.
Boeing has been left to oversee themselves, resulting in serious safety issues with their planes. Both Seattle and Charleston production faculties have caustic cultures that have enabled management to cover up poorly done assembly work, its no wonder the same behaviour occurred when Boeing wrote software: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamline...
It is like a PR campaign but I'd say it's also significant.
While it's not a lot relative to the mass of the GDP, aerospace is one of the key areas that the US has had a strong presence in over the years.
US Health Care spending is approaching 20% of GDP but this is because health care is a bloated corrupt mess. Other parts of the GDP also have debatable reality - overprices infrastructure project also are added to the GDP. But selling advanced airplanes is something real the US does - though with Boeing's many shenanigans, maybe not as much as before.
Of course, it's Boeing gutting itself and stretching every area of safety and regulation that brought us here and the regulators letting this go wouldn't stop a fall at all.
Comments
This is an incredibly weird article. It's basically a prolonged sob-story about how terrible a production halt would be.
No doubt there would be an economic impact but the writing is just full of hyperbole and doesn't name any sources for it's claims (like 0.6% of GDP growth rate - note the growth rate, not 0.6% of GDP or 0.6% of GDP growth ...). It also fails to differentiate between the impact of existing planes not able to fly and continued production.
This smells like a PR campaign to put pressure on regulators.
Only, in this instance, the FAA probably won't risk further embarrassment by declaring the plane safe while EASA is holding out. Most of the world will wait for them rather than go with the FAA.
There seems to be a lack of objectivity in the article. Is a reduction of 0.6% of the growth rate (which, again, is 0.6% of probably a percentage like 2% of 3%-- a very small percentage indeed) a small price for the safety of air travel? There's zero discussion of the downsides of letting these planes fly. Or, stated in other words, are we willing to accept a third plane's worth of casualties over an already known systemic error, for a miniscule improvement to the growth rate? This strong-arming is not what Boeing needs right now.
You're taking it way too far in the other direction. It's not whether we have safety or not, it's a matter of some very close to 100% number vs. a different very close to 100% number. (And at this point it's more likely the same future safety level but different amounts of training.)
0.6% of 2% of $19 trillion is $2.2 billion. Theoretically, if enough of that could be captured and used to directly reduce airfare on 737 MAX planes (and/or provide a fat guaranteed payout in the event of death) then I bet a lot of people would choose to fly--possibly even in the U.S., but certainly in many parts of the world where people already assume substantial risks when traveling.
It would be difficult to capture it, though, especially because Boeing would be better off shutting down production and waiting as the manufacturer duopoly means Boeing is likely to sell all or most of those planes eventually rather than lose out on a large number of sales entirely.
But if we were able to somehow force Boeing to factor in the real costs to employees of labor disruption (i.e. if Boeing was forced to be 100% unionized now and for the indefinite future) then I imagine Boeing might choose to keep a minimal production line going and sell at discounted prices, in turn permitting some regional airlines to sell cheaper tickets. Actually, more likely Boeing would be better off paying their labor to sit around (and their employees richer for it) by giving labor a greater share of the future expected surplus from duopoly pricing. Or maybe some combination of the above.
I have no idea how to even attempt to pencil that out, though. My point is merely that it could work, depending on the numbers; not that it necessarily would work. In other words, your question can be answered quantitatively, whereas I assume you intended it rhetorically with an implied, categorical, "no".
If anything, this should be pressure for more regulation, in that arguably it's the transfer of knowledge and responsibility for safety regulation from the FAA to the manufacturers that put us in this "disastrous" situation in the first place.
Boeing has been left to oversee themselves, resulting in serious safety issues with their planes. Both Seattle and Charleston production faculties have caustic cultures that have enabled management to cover up poorly done assembly work, its no wonder the same behaviour occurred when Boeing wrote software: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamline...
It is like a PR campaign but I'd say it's also significant.
While it's not a lot relative to the mass of the GDP, aerospace is one of the key areas that the US has had a strong presence in over the years.
US Health Care spending is approaching 20% of GDP but this is because health care is a bloated corrupt mess. Other parts of the GDP also have debatable reality - overprices infrastructure project also are added to the GDP. But selling advanced airplanes is something real the US does - though with Boeing's many shenanigans, maybe not as much as before.
Of course, it's Boeing gutting itself and stretching every area of safety and regulation that brought us here and the regulators letting this go wouldn't stop a fall at all.