What happened to Malaysia Airlines flight MH 370?

The Malaysia Airlines 777-200ER that went missing.

I went to cnn.com last night around 8:10 p.m. ET for my evening news update and was shocked to see that a Malaysia Airlines jetliner disappeared in the afternoon (U.S. Eastern Time). Flight MH 370 was en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and operated on a Boeing 777-200ER.

Quite a few people have asked me since yesterday what I think happened. When you read the following, please keep in mind that I am not a pilot and everything I share here is based on information that is publicly available. So these are just my thoughts.

The first thing that came to my mind was, "Oh god, it's Air France flight 447 all over again!" (AF 447 crashed over the Atlantic in June 2009.) So let's start with that thought. Yes, there are a few similarities with AF 447, but there are important differences as well. What are the similarities? In both cases, a modern two-engine airplane disappeared in-flight, out of the blue, with no distress signals. Both flights were piloted by fairly experienced flight crews. Both planes crashed over the ocean.

However, there are striking differences. The Malaysia Airlines jet was a Boeing 777, which does have fly-by-wire avionics, but - on a 777, in contrast to the Airbus A330, which was used for AF 447 - the pilots can override the system on the 777. So in the case of MH 370, the possibility of a flight computer going bananas and crashing the plane is close to impossible (for AF 447, that was the speculation in the beginning). Another major difference is that MH 370 did not traverse an area of violent weather like the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ). The weather over the South China Sea was very calm, with no thunderstorms, not even a lot of clouds. So MH 370 did not - like AF 447 - have to maneuver around thunderstorm cells and cumulonimbus clouds. The pilots of MH 370 did not report any severe turbulence. Also, MH 370 did not send any error messages - as AF 447 did - to Boeing or Malaysia Airlines before the crash, so the on-board systems seemed to be working just fine.

So what do we know about MH 370? We know that the flight had reached its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, which is the safest phase of every flight. It was about 40 minutes into its flight and, until then, no anomalies had been reported. The contact to MH 370 was lost just when it was supposed to make contact with Ho Chi Minh Control Center in Vietnam. According to Chinese sources mentioned in The Aviation Herald, "radar data suggest a steep and sudden descent of the aircraft, during which the track of the aircraft changed from 024 degrees to 333 degrees." This is a pretty significant change in flight direction. Some Tweets last night speculated that MH 370 wanted to turn around or toward land, but I doubt that is true. The same speculations were made for AF 447 back in 2009. I think the turn was already part of the steep descend during the crash and was not controlled.

Now comes the mysterious part, and you can make of this whatever you want - two of the passengers on board MH 370 were traveling with stolen passports. I think we need to be careful what this means. It could just be two people traveling with fake passports, a coincidence. Or it could mean there was something wrong with these two people and there's a relationship to the crash.

Let me be pretty blunt here - a 777 does not just fall out of the sky. Especially not when the flight has reached its cruising altitude. Also, the kerosene traces found on the ocean point to the fact that MH 370 did not explode. It looks like the fuel tanks were intact when the plane hit the ocean (obviously, this is only correct if the oil traces were in fact caused by MH 370). Given all this - no explosion, no error messages, no bad weather - the options of what could have happened are fairly limited. A few people have speculated about a terrorist attack. I think that is highly unlikely as well. Terrorism only works by creating fear and claiming responsibility. So far, no terrorist organization or individuals have claimed responsibility for the crash. So terrorism is really not a realistic scenario here.

But what are realistic scenarios? To me, there are only two possibilities at this point:

1) The two people with the stolen passports were involved. Somehow, they took control of the cockpit and crashed the plane. Maybe they wanted to divert the plane, but the pilots didn't cooperate. They could have removed the pilots from the cockpit (or killed them) and tried to fly the aircraft themselves. As sophisticated as the 777 is, it's close to impossible to fly without experience. A similar scenario would be that one of the pilots wanted to commit suicide. You think this is unrealistic? Then check out this Wikipedia entry.

2) The only other option is that some technical or mechanical failure happened and the pilots were too busy figuring out what was going on to radio mayday or send a distress signal. That was the case with AF 447. If the Chinese reports are true and MH 370 did descend quickly and steeply, that could point to a deep stall, just as what happened with AF 447. All reasons for why this ultra-modern 777 went into a stall, are, however,  pure speculation at this point. There are a thousand things, at least, that can go wrong. However, it is very, very unlikely that one single error or failure caused this crash. It could very well have been a technical/mechanical issue, combined with a serious of misjudgments by the pilots.

I guess the final answer can only be given when the flight and data recorders of MH 370 are found. The only good news is that the water where the plane crashed is not nearly as deep and mountainous as in the Atlantic, where AF 447 went down. And, following all the updates today, it looks like authorities have a pretty good understanding of where to look for the wreck.

To me, this is indeed a very mysterious and disturbing crash. Especially since I'm a big fan of the Boeing 777 and its reliability. We'll soon know who or what was to blame.

Japan Airlines Receives First 787

Stemming from their "bad conscience" about World War II and military as well as economic collaborations with the United States, the Japanese have been very enthusiastic about American airplanes over the last decades. Japanese airlines are well known to be suckers for Boeing planes and have generally been among the first to order new American built aircraft. Even though the Japanese aviation market would be ideally suited for the A380, no major Japanese airline has ordered any of the European super jumbos (Skymark being the only exception).

So it just makes sense that, after delays of more than three years, Japan Airlines (JAL) today received its first 787 - the second airline in the world to operate Boeing's Dreamliner, after main competitor ANA. Japan Airlines announced it would operate the 787 on routes to the U.S. (Boston, San Diego) as well as Europe (Helsinki, Moscow) and closer markets in Asia (Beijing, Singapore, New Delhi). In contrast to ANA, JAL's routes appear to make much more sense for the long-range 787. ANA's first Dreamliners have been flying mostly to nearby cities as the planes were much heavier than originally announced, reducing the aircraft's range immensely.

To read more about JAL's 787, please click here to read an article in Bloomberg Businessweek.

Southwest Airlines Receives First 737-800

In an effort to transport even more passengers on board its all-737 fleet, Southwest Airlines received its first 737-800 this March. So far, Southwest only operated smaller versions of the 737, such as the 300, 500 and 700 versions. According to the Orlando Business Journal, Southwest's 737-800 will feature 175 seats, 38 more than the airline's other 737s. Southwest will add an additional flight attendant to the 800s, of which the Texas-based airline ordered a total of 73, to accommodate for the additional passengers. The 800s will be ETOPS configured upon delivery.

Southwest will likely use the 800s on routes originating or arriving in the Northeast where additional slots are either unavailable or very expensive, such as at New York's LaGuardia airport. The airline could also use the ETOPS 800s on longer and over-water flights to places like Hawaii, Canada or the Caribbean.

In December 2011, Southwest also placed an order for 150 737 MAX 8 (and/or 7) planes, with the option of receiving an additional 150. They are slated to enter service in 2017.

Why I Don't Fly Southwest...

Usually, I don't use this blog to post my opinion as bluntly as I am doing now. The thing is - I am not a big fan of Southwest Airlines. Not at all. I have never been on one of their planes and have no intention to do so in the future. Not only does Southwest have the ugliest color scheme of any U.S. airline, I also believe that the company does not do a good job maintaining its aircraft, which is the main reason I am not flying them.

Several times in the past incidents occurred on Southwest flights that caused me to question their thoroughness in checking and maintaining their planes. The fact that a gaping hole appeared in-flight on a Southwest flight a few days ago confirms my suspicions. And Southwest has a long history of poor aircraft maintenance. In 2008, FAA inspectors submitted documents to the U.S. Congress, alleging that Southwest allowed 117 of its aircraft to fly carrying passengers despite the fact that the planes were "not airworthy" according to air safety investigators. This is the worst hit the airline has every experienced to its reputation. In 2009, a Southwest plane was grounded because of a hole in its fuselage. And now there's a similar story. I just don't believe it's a coincidence this happened to Southwest.

My recommendation: Don't fly Southwest until they have their safety issues figured out. I don't want my hair to get ruined by a gaping hole at 900 km/h. Can you imagine that kind of wind?

The New York Times: Boeing and Airbus Waver on Reworking Planes

I just stumbled over this very interesting New York Times article from today. It basically states what I already wrote here in my post on July 30th.

Boeing and Airbus Waver on Reworking Planes
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JAD MOUAWAD

The latest high-stakes maneuvering by Boeing and Airbus does not involve their top-of-the-line models, the 787 Dreamliner and the A380 jumbo jet, but instead their aging smaller workhorses.
The two companies have long been defined by their willingness to take big risks. But perhaps because of all the problems and costs involved with the bigger planes, they have turned more cautious in responding to pressure from the airlines to develop more fuel-efficient substitutes for their smaller planes, the 737 and A320.

Aviation experts say breakthroughs in engine technology offer a rare chance to re-engineer the two companies’ narrow 737s and A320s, which make up three-fourths of the fleets at the largest airlines. But while the new engines could save the airlines hundreds of millions of dollars a year, Airbus would have to invest $1.5 billion to $2 billion — and Boeing possibly twice that — to test and install them on the jets.

To continue reading, please click here.

Should Airbus and Boeing Update their Narrowbody Planes or Develop Completely New Aircraft?

It is a hard decision to make. But by the end of this year, Airbus and Boeing will have to make up their minds: Will they update their A320 series and 737 planes with more fuel-efficient engines and add-ons (such as winglets, better wings, etc.) or will they stop investing in those planes and rather pursue the launch of completely new narrowbody aircraft? With rising competition, such as Embraer's E jets and Bombardier's upcoming C series, the two plane manufacturers have to keep up with rising (fuel) efficiencies to remain competitive.

According to reports in Aviation Week, both plane makers are not sure yet, what to do. It almost looks like one is waiting for the other to make the first move. And it is indeed a tricky game. The A320 series and the 737 are already fairly fuel-efficient planes. They can, however, not compete with lighter and, thus, even more fuel efficient models, such as the upcoming Bombardier C series. And with more players in the narrowbody market, it will be harder for Airbus as well as Boeing to stay at the top of the game. Just look at the success of Embraer's E jets - since the launch of the plane in 2002, more than 600 craft of that type have been sold. Hardly anyone would have predicted that.

But what are the options at this point? The idea is to keep the A320 models and the 737 basically as they are, but make some changes so they become more fuel efficient. This means: changing the structure of the wings (to increase lift and reduce weight), use more fuel efficient engines (to be outsourced to third-party manufacturers, such as Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney) and add certain fly-by-wire systems (for the 737). This is basically it. The goal is to reduce fuel consumption by 6 to 12 percent.

That was option 1. Option 2 is to not pursue the updates at all but rather come up with completely new narrowbody models. Say, an Airbus A360 or a Boeing 797. Those planes would not be based off of the A320 series or the 737, but engineers at Airbus and Boeing would start from scratch, maybe using completely new light materials, totally different shapes for the fuselages and so on. Obviously, this would be the more time-consuming option and would cost a lot of money. A LOT of money! The question though is: Will airlines want new models at this point? Looking at the orders for the A320 series and the 737, you can argue if there is a need for new models in the short run as both Airbus and Boeing are currently boosting their production rates for the A320 and the 737 to cope with increased demand.

So what should they do? My opinion is that - at this point - there is no need for completely new narrowbody planes. The demand for the A320 planes and the 737 is still there and I am convinced it is a wiser choice to update the current models than to come up with new models. Also, engineers are already swamped with Boeing's 787 and the 747-8, as well as with Airbus's A350. It would be very hard to make time to start new models from scratch right now. Updating current models wouldn't be that much of an effort and is way more efficient at this stage.

I also believe that Boeing should make the first move here (even though they appear to be more reluctant than Airbus). The simple reason is - the technology of the 737 is already outdated. Even the "Next Generation" 737s do not have fly-by-wire (fbw) systems. So just comparing the current models of the 737 with the A320 shows that there is a greater need for an update of the 737 than there is for the A320 aircraft (which all have fbw). Additionally, it has been a better year for the A320 series so far than for the 737. Airlines around the world slightly prefer the A320 over the 737 already, maybe because of its more advanced technology.

As mentioned above though, Boeing seems to be more reluctant to start with the updates of its 737. Experts hypothesize that Boeing is waiting for Airbus to make the next move. If the European aircraft manufacturer announced sometime this year they would start updating the A320 series, then Boeing could just say: Hey, we will not be updating the 737, but come out with a totally new, state-of-the-art plane in 5 years! The rationale is: Why would an airline buy updated versions of the A320 series planes when Boeing is coming out with a brand new, better and even more fuel efficient plane five years later? The hopes are that nobody would order the next-generation A320 planes, but wait for the new Boeing aircraft.

Still, I believe the best thing to do now is update the A320 series and the 737. Airlines haven't really voiced their demand for new narrowbodies yet. With the E jets already on the market, the C series coming out soon and the continued demand for the A320 and the 737, it is just smarter to update current models than create new ones. And if the updated versions are really 6 to 12 percent more fuel efficient, then it will be hard to come up with all-new models that can top this. In my opinion, Airbus and Boeing should listen to what the market wants and I honestly do not see a high demand for all-new narrowbody planes right now.

Again United 777 Hits Severe Turbulence, Injures Passengers

Again, a United 777-200 hit severe turbulence, injuring 30 passengers on Tuesday. The long-haul aircraft was en route from Dulles to Los Angeles when it flew into sudden turbulence over the Rocky Mountains. Flight UA 967 was eventually diverted to Denver, Colorado, where injured people were treated.

The turbulence came out of nowhere, sending items such as laptops flying around the cabin. What flight 967 encountered was so-called mountain wave turbulence, which is very common while flying over mountainous areas. Because of the uneven surface of the Earth in those areas, wind gets diverted up and down quickly, which causes rough air. While it is highly recommended to always wear seat belts on a plane, it is even more recommended to do so while flying over mountains.

To read the CNN story, please click here.

Further Delays with Boeing's 747-8

Boeing appears to be focusing all its attention on the rollout of its 787. Originally they planned to present a first version of the 747-8 at this year's Farnborough Air Show. But all those excited to see the 747-8 live will be disappointed. The 747-8 did not make it across the Atlantic. And it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.

For the fourth time, Boeing had to announce delays with its 747-8 program. Right now it looks like the updated jumbo jet will not be delivered to the first customer until next year. Apparently, Boeing does not have enough capacity to work on too many projects at the same time. The 787 has been a huge success so far while the 747-8 has been, well, more of a disappointment. Only three airlines have ordered the passenger version so far. In addition, Boeing will have to make urgent decisions on what to do with its 737. Will they redesign it, adding more efficient engines, or start developing a brand new single-aisle plane? Airbus is in a similar situation - the European plane maker will need to decide soon on whether it wants to revamp the A320 series or come up with a completely new plane. The competition is set to steal some thunder here - just look at Embraer's E series or Bombardier's C series...

To read more about Boeing's current problems, please read this Bloomberg piece.

British Airways Orders 24 Boeing 787

More aircraft-order news have come out of this year's Farnborough Air Show. British Airways yesterday announced an order of 24 Boeing 787, with deliveries starting as early as next year.

The 787s will be used to replace BA's fleet of Boeing 767s. Experts have been curious about BA's next move, considering the limited capacity at the airline's home base at Heathrow airport. BA has mentioned in the past that it is also considering buying more Airbus A380s (the airline already ordered 12 super jumbos) to use its slots at Heathrow more efficiently and to replace the airline's huge but aging 747-400 fleet.

Boeing's "Dreamliner" made a first appearance in Europe at the air show over the weekend. Europe has not been a great market for the 787 yet and Boeing is trying to boost orders at the show.

To read more about BA's 787 order, please click here.

Emirates to Order 20 More 777s

A bit more than a month ago Dubai-based Emirates ordered 32 additional A380s and everybody thought "Wow, what are they going to do with all those planes???". Today, Reuters reports that Emirates is about to order an additional 20 Boeing 777-300. Already the largest airlines in the Arab world, Emirates is set to become the largest airline in Asia if they continue to grow with this speed.

The order could be a key feature of the opening day of the July 19-25 Farnborough air show in England on Monday, when the Dubai-based airline is expecteded to hold a news conference.

To read the Reuters story, please click here.

Again Passengers Injured as Jet Hits Severe Turbulence

In general, turbulence is harmless. In 99.9 percent of all cases, nothing happens and nobody is injured. Turbulence to an airplane is pretty much what waves are to a boat - harmless. However, sometimes severe turbulence occurs unexpectedly and then it can cause severe injuries; like today when a United 777 en route from London to LA encountered severe and unexpected turbulence over the Atlantic.

As a matter of fact, only those people who do not have their seat belts fastened suffer injuries whenever planes hit turbulence. When a plane drops (sometimes incorrectly called "air pockets"), they get pulled out of their seats, hit the ceiling and are sometimes even thrown against other passengers. Every year, dozens of people are injured because they don't wear their seat belts while on a plane. So it is extremely important to wear seat belts whenever seated and throughout the entire flight. Even pilots can sometimes not tell if they are about to hit rough air. In contrast to clouds or thunderstorms, wind in clear air (so-called clear-air turbulence) cannot be detected, not even by state-of-the art instruments. You just never know. And exactly that happened on the United flight today. Ten people on board were injured and the Boeing 777-200 had to make an emergency landing in Montreal.

CNN reported that the plane is also being checked for possible damage. This is highly unlikely. Airlines usually do those checks, just to be on the safe side, but turbulence is generally not strong enough to cause real damage to a plane. Planes are built to withstand the worst of all possible circumstances. It is impossible for wind, or even storms, that occur in reality to cause damage to a plane. Damage is, however, caused by people falling around the cabin and hitting the cabin ceiling. For a plane to be allowed to take off again with passengers, this damage needs to be corrected.

To read the CNN story, please click here.

Air India Express Crash Kills 158

One really wonders if the recent series of plane crashes will ever end. This morning at 6.10 am local time, an Air India Express Boeing 737-800 overshot the runway at Mangalore airport in the south of India, killing all but eight of the passengers on board.

The two-year old plane was on the way back from Dubai, carrying mostly Indian guest workers from the Emirate, when it crashed into a valley at the end of the runway. The weather at Mangalore airport was decent: good visibility, calm winds and no rain. The pilot, a British citizen, did not report any technical difficulties with the fairly new 737 on approach. The surviving passengers report they heard the tires of the plane burst, then the plane hit something and it caught fire. A survivor told Reuters: "[The plane] caught fire and we fell out. We looked up and saw some opening and came out through that route."

The cause of the accident has not been determined yet, but there can only be a couple of realistic reasons: The 737 might have had technical difficulties, so that the pilots could not brake (but then the tires would not have burst). Another possibility is that the plane touched down too late on the runway and the cockpit crew could not bring the 737 to a halt before hitting trees (this theory is supported by the bursting tires) - which would be a pilot error. Another reason is that the 737 hit the runway too hard, causing the tires to burst and then the brakes were, consequently, not fully functional. Whatever the reason, we will know it soon. There were, luckily, survivors and the black boxes have been found. The Aviation Insider will keep you posted!

To read the Reuters story, please click here. Click here for the The Hindu article.

BusinessWeek: Boeing seen posting 1Q profit

I am not surprised to see Boeing posting a Q1 profit. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expect profit of 63 cents per share on revenue of $15.29 billion. Boeing has seen continued high demand for its 777 and 787. However, the 787 still hasn't entered service yet and profits could fall if further delays happen. I am sure Airbus's (or rather EADS's) results are not that great.

To read the entire story, please click here.

EADS Jumps Back into U.S. Tanker Deal

It looks like this story will never end: In early 2008, the U.S. Air Force awards a projected $35 billion contract for up to 179 refueling planes to Northrop and EADS. In September 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancels the contract. In March of this year, EADS officials rule out making a solo bid for the U.S. tanker contract under current terms and timetable. However, EADS today announced they are back in the game and they will compete directly with Boeing for the tanker contract. Awesome! If the Americans are smart, they will make this a fair bidding process. Clearly, EADS has the better product, but it is more expensive to maintain, probably due to its more sophisticated technology. Let the game begin...

To read the Reuters chronology, please click here.

Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents

Just saw this interesting presentation on commercial jet accidents from 1959 to 2008. I can highly recommend the slides on the 2008 accidents.

Check it out: http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

Airbus vs. Boeing

Interesting chart, comparing range and number of passengers - Airbus vs. Boeing:

Qantas 747 with Engine Problems Returns to Sydney

A Qantas Boeing 747-400 en route from Sydney to Singapore had to return to Sydney after the pilots noticed an issue with at least one of the 747's engines earlier today. It is not clear yet what happened or what the problem was, but the pilots dumped some fuel and headed back to Sydney, where they landed safely. Qantas insists the incident was not an accident. However, witnesses report fire coming out of one engine. From my experience, that doesn't mean anything, since even engine stalls can cause fire from an engine and they are completely harmless.

If you want to read more about today's incident, please click here.

WSJ - Embraer: Plane Speaking

The last one and a half years haven't been too positive for Brazil's Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica SA (Embraer). Orders have declined and the company had to lay off 20% of its workforce. But which aviation company can claim that the time since 2007 has been a good one? So compared to other businesses, Embraer has done pretty well during the economic crisis. Now, the bosses of South America's largest plane manufacturer are at a crossroads: Where to go from here? Should Embraer continue to focus on small jet planes? Or should it enter the market for larger, maybe even long-haul aircraft and try to compete with Airbus and Boeing, the two dominant (actually: ONLY) players in the market?

Click here to read the Wall Street Journal piece.

MarketWatch - Air Berlin Reduces 787 Order

Bad news for Boeing: The only airline from Europe's largest economy, Germany, that has ordered Boeing's 787 has reduced its order from 25 to 15. Air Berlin, Germany's second largest airline, also reduced the number of options from 10 to 5. The news underlines Boeing's difficulty in selling the 787 in Europe.

To read the MarketWatch article, please click here.

Bloomberg - Boeing Boosts Output on 777s and 747s to Meet Demand

I wasn't surprised to read that Boeing is boosting the production of its 777. The 777 is an awesome plane and it has been really successful with airlines from all over the world. But I was a bit stunned to read that Boeing is also increasing its 747-8 production. I am not a big fan of the 747-8, since I don't really understand why you would need a plane like it at all. I don't understand its unique selling point. The 747-8's design is a bit obsolete and it looks like a 747-200 with new engines (and apparently a fly-by-wire system). To me, it is just a "we need to build a successor of the 747-400" plane to compete with Airbus's A380. Airlines feel this way too. Only two passenger airlines (Korean Air and Lufthansa) have ordered the 747-8 so far and demand is less than expected. For a while, Boeing even considered axing the passenger version of the new jumbo jet altogether. Well, we'll see if the 747-8 turns out to be a success. Several dozen freighter versions have been sold already.

To read the Bloomberg piece, please click here.