Two years after it was banned from flying passengers, the Boeing 737 Max has been cleared to return to the skies in much of the world. As part of their decisions, aviation safety agencies in the US, Brazil, Canada, Australia, the UK and the European Union have ordered Boeing and airlines to make repairs to a flight control system blamed for the two crashes that led to the ban; update operating manuals; and increase pilot training. China, the world’s second-largest market for commercial air traffic, is still prohibiting the plane from flying, however, and it hasn’t indicated when it’ll reverse course.
The beleaguered aircraft was grounded worldwide on March 13, 2019, after two crashes, one in Indonesia in 2018 and the other in Ethiopia in 2019, that killed a combined total of 346 people. Apart from the human tragedy, it was a huge blow to Boeing’s business, since the company has thousands of 737 Max orders on its books. In addition to the flight control system at the center of both investigations, other reports identified concerns with the airliner’s flight control computer, wiring and engines.
Stay in the know
Get the latest tech stories with CNET Daily News every weekday.
Airlines are now slowly adding the 737 Max back into their schedules. Southwest was the latest carrier to do so when it resumed flights March 11. The plane is now back in service with all US carriers, but Boeing will have to work vigorously to retain the trust of airlines and the flying public in regard to the Max family. Here’s everything else we know about what’s happened with the airliner.
What happened in the two crashes?
In the first crash, on Oct. 29, 2018, Lion Air flight 610 dove into the Java Sea 13 minutes after takeoff from Jakarta, Indonesia, killing 189 people. The flight crew made a distress call shortly before losing control. That aircraft was almost brand-new, having arrived at Lion Air three months earlier.
The second crash occurred on March 10, 2019 when Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 departed Addis Ababa Bole International Airport bound for Nairobi, Kenya. Just after takeoff, the pilot radioed a distress call and was given immediate clearance to return and land. But before the crew could make it back, the aircraft crashed 40 miles from the airport, six minutes after it left the runway. Aboard were 149 passengers and eight crew members. The aircraft involved was only four months old.
What caused the crashes?
Planes crashes rarely have a single cause, which is the case here. On Oct. 25, 2019, the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee published its final report on the Lion Air crash. The report identifies nine factors that contributed to the crash, but largely blames MCAS. Before crashing, the Lion Air pilots were unable to determine their true airspeed and altitude and they struggled to take control of the plane as it oscillated for about 10 minutes. Each time they pulled up from a dive, MCAS pushed the nose down again.
“The MCAS function was not a fail-safe design and did not include redundancy,” the report said. Investigators also found that MCAS relied on only one sensor, which had a fault, and flight crews hadn’t been adequately trained to use the system. Improper maintenance procedures, confusion in the cockpit and the lack of a cockpit warning light (see next question) contributed to the crash, as well.
On March 9, 2020, almost one year to the day since the crash in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau published an interim analysis. Like the Indonesian findings, it cites design flaws with MCAS such its reliance on a single angle-of-attack sensor. It also blamed Boeing for providing inadequate training to crew on using the Max’s unique systems. (The Seattle Times has a great deep dive on the report.)
Unlike their Indonesian counterparts, the Ethiopian investigators do not mention maintenance problems with the plane nor does it blame the flight crew. “The aircraft has a valid certificate of airworthiness and maintained in accordance with applicable regulations and procedures,” the report said. “There were no known technical problems before departure.”
Remember that crash investigations are tremendously complex — it takes months to evaluate the evidence and determine a probable cause. Investigators must examine the debris, study the flight recorders and, if possible, check the victims’ bodies to determine the cause of death. They also involve multiple parties including the airline, the airplane and engine manufacturers, and aviation regulatory agencies.
What is the Boeing 737 Max?
Built to compete with the Airbus A320neo, the 737 Max is a family of commercial aircraft that consists of four models. The Max 8, which is the most popular version, made its first flight on Jan. 29, 2016, and entered passenger service with Malaysia’s Malindo Air on May 22, 2017. (Malindo no longer flew the plane by the time of the first crash.) Seating between 162 and 210 passengers, depending on the configuration, it’s designed for short- and medium-haul routes, but also has the range (3,550 nautical miles, or about 4,085 miles) to fly transatlantic and between the mainland US and Hawaii. The larger Max 9 first flew in 2017, and the Max 10 has yet to fly (it made its formal debut Nov. 22, 2019). The smaller 737 Max 7 flew for the first time in May 2018.
The design of the 737 Max series is based on the Boeing 737, an aircraft series that has been in service since 1968. As a whole, the 737 family is the best-selling airliner in history. At any given time, thousands of some version of it are airborne around the world and some airlines, like Southwest and Ryanair, have all-737 fleets. If you’ve flown even occasionally, you’ve most likely flown on a 737.
What’s different about the 737 Max series compared with earlier 737s?
The 737 Max can fly farther and carry more people than the previous generation of 737s, like the 737-800 and 737-900. It also has improved aerodynamics and a redesigned cabin interior and flies on bigger, more powerful and more efficient CFM LEAP engines. CFM is a joint venture between General Electric and France’s Safran.
Those engines, though, required Boeing to make critical design changes. Because they’re bigger, and because the 737 sits so low to the ground (a deliberate design choice to let it serve small airports with limited ground equipment), Boeing moved the engines slightly forward and raised them higher under the wing. (If you place an engine too close to the ground, it can suck in debris while the plane is taxiing.) That change allowed Boeing to accommodate the engines without completely redesigning the 737 fuselage — a fuselage that hasn’t changed much in 50 years.
But the new position of the engines changed how the aircraft handled in the air, creating the potential for the nose to pitch up during flight. A pitched nose is a problem in flight — raise it too high and an aircraft can stall. To keep the nose in trim, Boeing designed software called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. When a sensor on the fuselage detects that the nose is too high, MCAS automatically pushes the nose down. (For background on MCAS, read these excellent in-depth stories from The Air Current and The Seattle Times.)
When was the Max grounded?
About 30 airlines operated the Max by the time of the second crash (the three largest customers being Southwest Airlines, American Airlines and Air Canada). Most of them quickly grounded their planes a few days later. Besides the airlines already mentioned that list includes United Airlines, WestJet, Aeromexico, Aerolíneas Argentinas, GOL Linhas Aéreas, Turkish Airlines, FlyDubai, Air China, Copa Airlines, Norwegian, Hainan Airlines, Fiji Airways and Royal Air Maroc.
More than 40 countries also banned the 737 Max from flying in their airspace. China (a huge Boeing customer and a fast-growing commercial aviation market) led the way and was joined by Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, India, Oman, the European Union and Singapore. Canada initially hesitated, but soon reversed course.
Up until March 13, 2019, the FAA also declined to issue a grounding order, saying in a statement tweeted the previous day that there was “no basis to order grounding the aircraft.” That was despite a public outcry from a group of senators and two flight attendant unions. But following President Trump’s decision to ground the Max that day, the agency cited new evidence it had collected and analyzed.
Older 737 models, like the 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900, don’t use MCAS and weren’t affected.
What was the problem with the warning light?
The Air Current reported March 12, 2019 that the Lion Air plane lacked a warning light designed to alert pilots to the faulty sensor and that Boeing sold the light as part of an optional package of equipment. When asked about the warning light, a Boeing spokesman gave CNET the following statement:
“All Boeing airplanes are certified and delivered to the highest levels of safety consistent with industry standards. Airplanes are delivered with a baseline configuration, which includes a standard set of flight deck displays and alerts, crew procedures and training materials that meet industry safety norms and most customer requirements. Customers may choose additional options, such as alerts and indications, to customize their airplanes to support their individual operations or requirements.”
But on April 29, 2019, The Wall Street Journal said that even for airlines that had ordered it, the warning light wasn’t operating on some Max planes that had been delivered (a fact the Indonesian accident report confirmed). Then on June 7, 2019, Reps. Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon, and Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington, said they’d obtained information suggesting that even though the plane maker knew the safety alert wasn’t working, it decided to wait until 2020 to implement a fix.
Boeing responded to DeFazio and Larsen in a statement sent to CNET the same day.
“The absence of the AOA Disagree alert did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” the statement read. “Based on the safety review, the update was scheduled for the MAX 10 rollout in 2020. We fell short in the implementation of the AoA Disagree alert and are taking steps to address these issues so they do not occur again.”
What kind of MCAS training did 737 Max pilots receive?
Not much, which was a factor cited in both crash reports. As the Indonesian report said, “The absence of guidance on MCAS or more detailed use of trim in the flight manuals and in flight crew training, made it more difficult for flight crews to properly respond.”
Though MCAS was a new feature, existing 737 pilots didn’t have to train on a simulator before they could start flying the Max. Instead, they learned about the differences it brought through an hour’s worth of iPad-based training. MCAS received scant mention. The reason? It was because Boeing, backed by the FAA, wanted to minimize the cost and time of certifying pilots who’d already been trained on other 737 versions. To do so, Boeing and the FAA treated the Max as just another 737 version, rather than a completely new airplane (which it pretty much is).
Pilot complaints about the lack of training emerged quickly after the Lion Air crash. On Nov. 12, 2018, The Seattle Times reported that Max pilots from Southwest Airlines were “kept in the dark” about MCAS. The Dallas Morning News found similar complaints from American Airlines pilots four months later.
What other issues with the aircraft besides MCAS were identified?
There are a few.
- In December, 2019, the FAA said it was looking at a potential problem with two bundles of wiring that power control surfaces on the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer. Because the bundles are close together, there’s a remote possibility that they could short-circuit and (if not noticed by the flight crew) send the plane into a dive. Boeing initially argued a fix wasn’t necessary, since earlier 737s have the same wiring design, and has proposed leaving the bundles as they are.
- The same month, the FAA said it was investigating software that verify whether key systems on the aircraft are functioning correctly.
- Then in February, 2020, Boeing notified the FAA of a malfunction with an indicator light for the stabilizer trim system, which raises and lowers the Max’s nose. The indicator, which notifies pilots of a malfunction, was turning on when it wasn’t supposed to.
- Boeing also investigated whether it needs to better insulate the engine cowlings from lightning strikes in flight.
- Separately, CFM International said there may be a potential weakness with a rotor on the Max’s engines.
- In April, 2020, the FAA instructed Boeing to make two additional computer fixes to the airplane beyond MCAS. One, a possible fault in a flight control computer, could lead to a loss of control from the horizontal stabilizer, while the second could lead the autopilot feature to potentially disengage during final approach.
- Aviation safety regulators in Europe and Canada have asked for additional changes to the Max’s avionics beyond MCAS.
- in June, the FAA said Boeing had to fix engine coverings. The defect could lead to a loss of power during flights.
- According to The Wall Street Journal, both the FAA and the Justice Department investigated whether Boeing workers mistakenly left debris in fuel tanks or other interior spaces of completed aircraft.
Were any other reports issued?
On Oct. 11, 2019, an international flight safety panel issued a Joint Authorities Technical Review that faulted both the FAA and Boeing on several fronts. For the FAA, it said the agency needs to modernize its aircraft certification process to account for increasingly complex automated systems.
For Boeing’s part, the report cited the company’s “inadequate communications” to the FAA about MCAS, pilot training and shortage of technical staff. The review was conducted by representatives from NASA, the FAA and civil aviation authorities from Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Singapore, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates.
Boeing CEO: 737 Max soon to be one of the safest planes
How did Boeing respond?
Boeing was fully involved with both investigations early on. On Nov. 6, 2018, just eight days after the first crash, the company issued a safety warning advising 737 Max operators to deactivate MCAS if a flight crew encountered conditions like the Lion Air pilots experienced. It also expressed sympathy for victims’ families and pledged $100 million in support, and it quickly backed the US grounding order.
“There is no greater priority for our company and our industry,” Boeing said in a March 13, 2019 statement. “We are doing everything we can to understand the cause of the accidents in partnership with the investigators, deploy safety enhancements and help ensure this does not happen again.”
As is common after a crash, Boeing didn’t comment on preliminary findings of either investigation, but the day after the Ethiopian crash the company said it would issue a software update that would include changes to MCAS, pilot displays, operation manuals and crew training.
Following the Lion Air accident report, then CEO Dennis Muilenburg said the company was “addressing” its safety recommendations. “We commend Indonesia’s KNKT for its extensive efforts to determine the facts of this accident, the contributing factors to its cause and recommendations aimed toward our common goal that this never happens again,” he said.
Did Boeing know about Max problems before the crashes?
There is evidence that it did. On Oct. 17, 2019, Boeing revealed text messages between two of the company’s top pilots sent in 2016, which indicated the company knew about problems with the MCAS system early on. In one of the messages, a former chief technical pilot for the Boeing 737 described the MCAS’ habit of engaging itself as “egregious.”
Later that month, as he appeared before two congressional committees, Muilenburg admitted Boeing knew of the test pilot concerns in early 2019. “I was involved in the document collection process, but I relied on my team to get the documents to the appropriate authorities,” he said. “I didn’t get the details of the conversation until recently.”
Then on Jan. 10, 2020 Boeing released a series of explosive emails and instant messages to Congress in which Boeing employees discussed the 737 Max. Though some expressed regret for the company’s actions in getting the aircraft certified — “I still haven’t been forgiven by God for the covering up I did last year,” one employee wrote in 2018 — others openly discussed the 737 Max’s flaws and joked about the FAA’s approval process. “This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys,” another employee wrote. (The New York Times has compiled the documents online.)
Did Boeing change its leadership?
Yes, but it didn’t happen quickly. Though Muilenburg apologized to the victims’ families in an interview with CBS News in May, 2019, he came under sharp criticism for his response to the crashes. On Oct. 11, 2019, Boeing announced it had taken away his role as chair so that as CEO, Muilenburg could “focus full time on running the company as it works to return the 737 Max safely to service.”
Muilenburg spent the next two months resisting calls for his resignation from his other position, but on Dec. 23, 2019 the company announced that he had stepped down. “The Board of Directors decided a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders,” Boeing said in a statement. Chairman David Calhoun officially replaced Muilenburg on Jan. 13, 2020.
Calhoun had defended Muilenburg before taking the top role, but in a March 5, 2020 interview with the New York Times he said his predecessor had needlessly rushed production of the Max before the company was ready. “I’ll never be able to judge what motivated Dennis, whether it was a stock price that was going to continue to go up and up, or whether it was just beating the other guy to the next rate increase.”
Separately, on Oct. 22, 2019, the company said it replaced Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Kevin McAllister, the official overseeing the 737 Max investigation, with Stan Deal, former president and CEO of Boeing Global Services.
Tour the Museum of Flight in Seattle, home to Boeings and much more
What has the FAA’s role been?
Complicated. The agency quickly came under fire on multiple fronts over the crashes. Congress, the FBI, the Justice Department’s criminal division and the Department of Transportation all called for investigations of the FAA’s certification process. Under an FAA program, Boeing was allowed to participate in the process, meaning that it inspected its own plane.
But on Jan. 16, 2020, an independent panel set up by the Department of Transportation (the FAA is a division of the DOT) dismissed that criticism. In its report, the committee found no significant problems with how the Max was cleared to fly. Though the committee said the FAA could improve the certification process, it saw no need for substantial changes.
Those findings were largely echoed by a report from the Department of Transportation inspector general’s office on Feb. 24 that made 14 recommendations for revising the FAA’s certification program. Though the 55-page report said the FAA didn’t deviate from an established protocol when it first cleared the plane to fly in 2016, it significantly misunderstood the MCAS flight control system.
Outside of the certification process, the FAA slapped Boeing with two fines for installing substandard or unapproved equipment in some Max planes. With the first fine, which the FAA proposed in January 2020 for $5.4 million, the agency said Boeing used improper equipment to guide the slats on 178 Max planes. Positioned at the leading edge of each wing, slats are deployed at takeoff and landing to provide more lift. The FAA also accused Boeing of installing a guidance system on 173 Max planes that used sensors that hadn’t been properly tested. The proposed penalty is $19.68 million.
Has Boeing been subject to other fines?
Yes. After the Department of Justice charged Boeing with conspiring to defraud the FAA, the company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement to pay more than $2.5 billion in criminal penalties, compensation payments and the establishment of a $500 million beneficiaries fund for the 346 crash victims.
Did Congress get involved?
Yes. In March 2020, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure released a report on the design, development and certification of the 737 Max and the FAA’s oversight of Boeing. It said “acts, omissions, and errors occurred across multiple stages and areas of the development and certification of the 737 MAX.” The report went on to identify five specific issues.
- Production pressures: There was tremendous financial pressure on Boeing and the 737 Max program to compete with the A320neo, leading the company to rush the plane into service.
- Faulty assumptions: Boeing made fundamentally faulty assumptions about critical technologies on the 737 Max, most notably with MCAS.
- Culture of concealment: In several critical instances, Boeing withheld crucial information from the FAA, its customers and 737 Max pilots.
- Conflicted representation: The FAA’s current oversight structure over Boeing creates inherent conflicts of interest that have jeopardized the safety of the flying public.
- Boeing’s influence over the FAA’s oversight: Multiple career FAA officials documented examples of FAA management overruling the determination of the agency’s own technical experts at the behest of Boeing.
On Sept. 16, the House Transportation Committee issued a report that blamed the crashes on a “horrific culmination” of failures at Boeing and the FAA. “In several critical instances, Boeing withheld crucial information from the FAA, its customers, and 737 MAX pilots,” the report said. And as for the FAA, “the fact that a compliant airplane suffered from two deadly crashes in less than five months is clear evidence that the current regulatory system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be repaired.”
Then on Dec. 21 after a Senate report faulted Boeing’s and the FAA’s initial review of the Max, Congress passed legislation that reforms the FAA’s protocols for certifying new aircraft. Among other things the bill eliminates some parts of the process that allows manufacturers to certify their own planes and creates new safety review procedures and whistleblower protections.
What happened during the grounding period?
First off, Max airlines had to look for parking spaces for the roughly 300 Max aircraft Boeing had delivered by the time the worldwide order went into effect. That’s a tremendously complicated effort by itself.
But while airlines can’t fly the plane (except to ferry empty aircraft from one airport to another) Boeing was able to conduct test flights for evaluating its proposed fixes.
On May 16, 2019, the company said its updates were largely complete after more than 135 test flights. Five months later, on Oct. 22, the company said it had made “significant progress” toward that goal by adding flight control computer redundancy to MCAS and three additional layers of protection. It also had conducted simulator tests for 445 participants from more than 140 customers and regulators. Boeing provided a further progress report Nov. 11, 2019.
Boeing and the FAA finally began the recertification flights on June 29. The flights attempted to trigger the steps that led to the two crashes and confirm that MCAS isn’t activating erroneously. The FAA also reviewed pilot training materials and FAA Administrator Steve Dickson piloted the plane on a Sept. 30 test flight to evaluate Boeing’s changes. Speaking to reporters after the flight he said he “liked what I saw.”
When did the FAA lift the grounding order, and what are its proposed fixes?
- MCAS must compare data from more than one sensor and avoid relying on a single angle-of-attack sensor that’s giving faulty readings.
- All aircraft must have a warning light that shows when two sensors are disagreeing.
- When MCAS activates, it must do so only once, rather than activating repeatedly (another factor that contributed to both crashes).
- If MCAS is erroneously activated, flight crews must always be able to counter the movement by pulling back on the control column.
- Pilots must get more-rigorous training on MCAS, including time in a Max simulator (see next question).
Outside of MCAS, the FAA identified other modifications Boeing must make, including separating two bundles of wiring that power control surfaces on the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer to ensure redundancy if one of the bundles fails.
Not everyone is trusting in the FAA’s decision, though. On March 10, relatives of some of the Ethiopian crash victims asked the agency to reverse its decision. In a meeting with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, they also called for several top FAA officials to be removed.
How will pilot training change?
Simulator time focusing on MCAS will now be required, a change from a position the FAA previously took. It took lobbying from pilots and regulatory officials from other countries, like Canadian Transport Minister Marc Garneau, to change that decision.
They won an influential supporter on June 19, 2019, when “Miracle on the Hudson” Capt. Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger argued before a congressional committee that simulator training should be required before pilots take the Max back into the air. He also said the original design of MCAS was “fatally flawed and should never have been approved.”
On Jan. 7, 2020, Boeing agreed when it issued a recommendation that pilots receive simulator training on MCAS before the Max returns to service. Simulator sessions will require extra time and expense for airlines struggling to get their Max fleets back in the air.
What happens next?
Before airlines can fly the Max again, Boeing must work with them to make the required fixes and retrain pilots. Only then will the FAA sign off on certification for each aircraft. That will take time.
American Airlines resumed flights Dec. 29 with a Max flight between Miami and New York LaGuardia. The airline says it will continue to add Max flights, “with up to 36 departures from our Miami hub depending on the day of the week.” United Airlines resumed flights on Feb. 11 while Southwest Airlines started flying the Max again on March 11. Alaska Airlines, a new 737 Max customer, began flights March 1.
But that’s just in the US. Aviation regulatory agencies around the world also need to approve the fix before they’ll let the Max fly to the countries they oversee. Traditionally, they’ve followed the FAA’s lead on such matters, but Transport Canada, China, the European Aviation Safety Agency and the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority conducted independent tests of the plane on different timelines while working with the FAA.
Brazil’s National Civil Aviation Agency lifted its grounding order Nov. 25. Canada followed on Jan. 18, the EU and the UK on Jan. 27 and Australia on Feb. 26. China is still conducting its review, and has not set a timetable for any updates.
How will I know I’m booked on a Max flight and will I be able to change my reservation?
Your aircraft type will be listed in the flight details as you book. Some airlines will spell out the full aircraft name as “737 Max,” while other carriers may shorten it to “7M8.” If you’re not sure, contact a reservations agent to confirm. Just remember, though, that airlines can change the aircraft type for your flight at the last minute.
For now at least, all US airlines operating the Max will allow you to change your flight with penalty or cancel your trip for either a full refund or a travel credit. The exact details will vary, and I wouldn’t expect the policies to last forever, so click the link above and confirm with your airlines as you book.
How important is the Max series to Boeing?
Hugely important. Boeing and Airbus are in a fierce battle for the 150- to 200-seat aircraft market. Following the second crash, new orders for the 737 Max slowed dramatically, and some carriers canceled or delayed their orders, a trend only hastened by the travel slowdown from the coronavirus pandemic.
But Boeing still has almost 4,000 737 Max orders on the books, and new orders have started to creep up since the lifting of the grounding order. The list of buyers includes Alaska, Ryanair, United, Virgin Australia, Air Canada, AeroMexico, Southwest and Air Astana.
Has a commercial aircraft been grounded before?
Yes. In the most recent example, the FAA grounded the Boeing 787 for three months in 2013 after a series of nonfatal battery fires. Before that, the FAA grounded the Douglas DC-10 for a month in 1979 after a crash near Chicago O’Hare Airport killed 271 people on board, plus two on the ground. (Outside of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, that remains the deadliest airplane crash on US soil.) The Chicago crash was ultimately attributed to improper maintenance. The crash of a DC-10 in 1974 in France, killing 346 people, was caused by a design flaw on a cargo hold door latch.
Outside the US, both Qantas and Singapore Airlines voluntarily grounded their Airbus A380s for a couple of days after a Qantas flight from Singapore to Sydney in 2010 had an uncontained engine failure.
Correction, Jan. 10, 2020, 1:54 p.m. PT: This story initially misstated the status of Malaysia’s Malindo Air at the time of the first crash.
American Airlines is canceling some flights through mid-July due to a surge in travel demand as the pandemic fades in the US, as earlier reported by CNN. Weather and labor shortages are factoring into the cancellations as well, a spokesperson said.
The airline apparently had 120 cancellations on Saturday and expects to cancel 50 to 80 flights each day. If you’re due to fly with the airline through July 15, you should already have a notification if your flight has been canceled.
For context, American Airlines confirmed it had a total of 5,930 flights scheduled for Monday.
“The first few weeks of June have brought unprecedented weather to our largest hubs, heavily impacting our operation and causing delays, canceled flights and disruptions to crew member schedules and our customers’ plans,” a spokesperson said in a statement emailed to CNET.
Stay in the know. Get the latest tech stories from CNET News every weekday.
“That, combined with the labor shortages some of our vendors are contending with and the incredibly quick ramp-up of customer demand, has led us to build in additional resilience and certainty to our operation by adjusting a fraction of our scheduled flying through mid-July.”
In a press release, Microsoft said the board unanimously elected Nadella to the new position. He replaces John Thompson, who will move into a lead independent director role, on the heels of a blockbuster fiscal year — and as the company approaches a $2 trillion market capitalization. Apple has been the only company to reach that value.
Editors’ top picks
Subscribe to CNET Now for the day’s most interesting reviews, news stories and videos.
Microsoft has a typically busy year ahead of it, starting with its expected unveiling of a redesigned Windows operating system next week. The company is also in the midst of rolling out its newest gaming systems, the Xbox Series X and Series S — which have sold out within hours of nearly every restock since last year.
Microsoft didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump administration officials subpoenaed Apple for data from at least a dozen people connected to the House Intelligence Committee in an attempt to root out the source of leaks of classified information, The New York Times reported this week. The targets included at least two Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, aides and family members — one of whom was a minor.
Prosecutors, who seized the records in 2017 and early 2018, were searching for the source of media leaks about contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the Times reported. Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, then the panel’s top Democrat, was one of the members of Congress targeted, sources told the newspaper.
CNET’s Apple Report newsletter delivers news, reviews and advice on iPhones, iPads, Macs and software.
Apple provided metadata and account information, but not photos, emails or other content, a person familiar with the inquiry told the Times. Ultimately, the data subpoenaed didn’t tie the committee to the leaks, the newspaper reported.
The report follows recent revelations that former President Donald Trump’s administration had secretly obtained phone and email records from a number of journalists, including reporters for CNN and the Washington Post. President Joe Biden said last month he had directed the Justice Department to end the practice of seizing phone or email records of reporters.
As it did with the news organizations, the Justice Department obtained a gag order that prevented Apple from disclosing the subpoenas, a source told the Times. Lawmakers only learned of the probe last month from Apple, after the gag order had expired, the newspaper reported.
Schiff called the investigation “baseless” and said it highlighted how Trump used the system to target political enemies.
“This baseless investigation, while now closed, is yet another example of Trump’s corrupt weaponization of justice,” Schiff said in a tweet Thursday evening.
Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, another prominent Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told CNN on Thursday evening he had been notified that his data was seized as part of the probe. Representatives for Swalwell, a longtime critic of Trump, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Apple typically receives thousands of requests each year for individual data from governments and private parties in litigation around the world. In April, the company reported that requests it received in 2020 had targeted 171,368 devices, a drop of 12% from the same time in 2019. Apple provided the information requested 80% of the time.
Representatives for Apple and the Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. On Friday, however, Apple said it didn’t know that the DOJ’s subpoena targeted Democrats‘ data. The subpoena sought data belonging to a seemingly random collection of email addresses and phone numbers and “provided no information on the nature of the investigation,” a company spokesman told CNBC in a statement. “It would have been virtually impossible for Apple to understand the intent of the desired information without digging through users’ accounts.”
CNBC also reported Friday that Microsoft received a similar DOJ subpoena. “In this case, we were prevented from notifying the customer for more than two years because of a gag order,” the company told the news outlet in a statement. “As soon as the gag order expired, we notified the customer who told us they were a congressional staffer. We then provided a briefing to the representative’s staff following that notice. We will continue to aggressively seek reform that imposes reasonable limits on government secrecy in cases like this.”
Also on Friday, the Justice Department’s independent inspector general opened an investigation into the subpoena for the data, The New York Times reported.
‘We’ve struck a deal’: Biden says agreement reached on infrastructure plan – live
Miami building collapse: one dead as rescue crews say 99 unaccounted for
Goretzka’s late equaliser saves German blushes as Hungarians prove a tough test
These ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
The final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
According to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
Fashion4 years ago
These ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
Entertainment4 years ago
The final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
Fashion4 years ago
According to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
Sports4 years ago
Federer makes history with eighth Wimbledon, 19th major title
Entertainment4 years ago
The old and New Edition cast comes together to perform
Entertainment4 years ago
Disney’s live-action Aladdin finally finds its stars
Sports4 years ago
Boxing continues to knock itself out with bewildering, incorrect decisions
Fashion4 years ago
Model Jocelyn Chew’s Instagram is the best vacation you’ve ever had