4 ms·
Perhaps, but it's understandable why Boeing is parsing their words carefully here. For some critics full responsibility would mean nothing short of Boeing admit
by ralph84 7y ago
Perhaps, but it's understandable why Boeing is parsing their words carefully here. For some critics full responsibility would mean nothing short of Boeing admitting the 737 design had reached end of life and they should have never tried to shoehorn larger engines onto the 737 airframe. That would mean ceding the trillion dollar narrowbody market to Airbus for the foreseeable future.
- jonplackett 7y agoI just think they need to accept responsibility for all those dead people. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the idea of the redesign. It's the execution that was the problem. If he came out and said, look we screwed up. There should have been a backup sensor/proper training/proper manuals/software that took a bloody hint and maybe there should be more gov oversight in general because this kind of cock up should not be possible. At least then you'd believe they're actually tackling the problem. Reading all that back, it is actually quite a lot to ask for isn't it.
- vkou 7y ago> Personally I don't see anything wrong with the idea of the redesign. You don't think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with designing an aerodynamically unstable airframe, that needs software overrides to keep the plane flying? A 737 shouldn't fly like a fighter jet.
- theclaw 7y agoIt’s not like the plane was uncontrollable without MCAS, it’s more that it did not fly like a 737-NG, and so would have required extra pilot training to compensate, which would have made the plane less attractive to airlines.
- jonplackett 7y agoProbably should have said _a_ redesign rather than _the_ redesign. But even so, if they’d been up front about what they were doing and why and put proper safety systems in place I don’t think it’s that different to other planes is it? They just did it badly and secretly.