6 ms·

I don't think things are going that badly for Boeing. There are only two aircraft producers and Airbus is at full capacity. The airline industry is still growin

I don't think things are going that badly for Boeing. There are only two aircraft producers and Airbus is at full capacity. The airline industry is still growing. You would actually have to try really hard to fuck this up. It would be amusing if the US government gives them money though. European alleged subsidy of Airbus is the latest accusation of Trump and one of the causes of the US-EU trade war.

polotics 7y ago
At how many provoked deaths does "badly" begin in your (quote) thinking?
onli 7y ago
> You would actually have to try really hard to fuck this up. Murdering 350 civilians with lies and negligence for profit and "shareholder value" just might suffice. They put a plane into the air that flies itself automatically into the ground after all, with no opportunity for the pilots to save the plane. You can't fuck up more. > It would be amusing if the US government gives them money though. The US is already giving them money, indirectly. The EU is just also giving Airbus money. That's the core of the issue of Trumps position and why the conflict can't be easily solved.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > They put a plane into the air that flies itself automatically into the ground after all, with no opportunity for the pilots to save the plane. You can't fuck up more. Though Boeing has significant contribution, if you read the report on the Ethiopian Air 737-Max crash, I think it's easy to see several places where there was ample opportunity for the pilots to save the plane, particularly in light of the LionAir crash. Even in the LionAir case, a prior LionAir crew did save the airplane on an earlier flight by following the manufacturer provided checklist. Boeing made a serious design error here. However, it's not nearly as serious as the quoted sentence, IMO.
  - onli 7y ago
    I was honestly under the impression that the provided checklist did not work, as it included elements that did not work in the 737-MAX as expected when coming from earlier models. Plus the fact that the forces were to strong, the pilot could not manually correct the course. Besides, did the pilots have opportunity to read and implement the new checklist?
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      There was no new checklist. (Arguably, this may be a problem.) The existing checklist was unchanged from other 737s and the required actions were all "memory items" (items which must be recalled and implemented by the crew from memory, prior to referencing and completing the written checklist in the QRH). Any 737 crewmember would have had to have demonstrated those checklist items, from memory, prior to receiving their type-rating to fly the jet. Runaway trim is a "no joke" event in nearly any type and is a memory item in any type I'm familiar with. The Ethiopian Air crew seemed to correctly diagnose the issue, got the aircraft somewhat under control and then, in an attempt to fix the trim issue, undid the corrective checklist item, ran the trim aircraft-nose-up using the thumb switch (so far, excellent!!) and then, inexplicably, left the stab trim power enabled without commanding further aircraft-nose-up. So, they diagnosed the issue, initially did all the right things, then undid them [with good reason], then failed to re-do them. (I agree that Boeing still wears a lot of blame here. It's just not the case that the crews were helpless and unaware passengers.)
      - onli 7y ago
        Well, okay. https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-crash-problems-human-error-mcas-faa https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-cr... agrees (though I vehemently disagree with its title when interpreting it as referring to pilot errors! But that might be the point). Problem seems to be that it was basically impossible to realize which checklist to follow and to identify the problem. I think my sentence when interpreted with that in mind still works (and you are still right as well): Pilots had no opportunity (several reasons, like not being informed about system changes) to save the plane, but not it was 100% impossible during the whole incident to save the plane (it was probably impossible after they deactivated the electric trim system).
chopin 7y ago
I am not so sure. Not only Boeing but also FAA have come under close scrutiny. And if the OP is right, there will be more accidents involving poor design decisions. After that, the public will shy away at least from flying newer Boeing models. Even a bailout could leave Boeing with only the military arm as nobody wants to fly with their civilian planes.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
iSnow 7y ago
It would be kind of amusing if that was the beginning of the end of the duopoly and the rise of Comac as a third player.

polotics 7y ago

At how many provoked deaths does "badly" begin in your (quote) thinking?

onli 7y ago

> You would actually have to try really hard to fuck this up. Murdering 350 civilians with lies and negligence for profit and "shareholder value" just might suffice. They put a plane into the air that flies itself automatically into the ground after all, with no opportunity for the pilots to save the plane. You can't fuck up more. > It would be amusing if the US government gives them money though. The US is already giving them money, indirectly. The EU is just also giving Airbus money. That's the core of the issue of Trumps position and why the conflict can't be easily solved.

sokoloff 7y ago
> They put a plane into the air that flies itself automatically into the ground after all, with no opportunity for the pilots to save the plane. You can't fuck up more. Though Boeing has significant contribution, if you read the report on the Ethiopian Air 737-Max crash, I think it's easy to see several places where there was ample opportunity for the pilots to save the plane, particularly in light of the LionAir crash. Even in the LionAir case, a prior LionAir crew did save the airplane on an earlier flight by following the manufacturer provided checklist. Boeing made a serious design error here. However, it's not nearly as serious as the quoted sentence, IMO.
- onli 7y ago
  I was honestly under the impression that the provided checklist did not work, as it included elements that did not work in the 737-MAX as expected when coming from earlier models. Plus the fact that the forces were to strong, the pilot could not manually correct the course. Besides, did the pilots have opportunity to read and implement the new checklist?
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    There was no new checklist. (Arguably, this may be a problem.) The existing checklist was unchanged from other 737s and the required actions were all "memory items" (items which must be recalled and implemented by the crew from memory, prior to referencing and completing the written checklist in the QRH). Any 737 crewmember would have had to have demonstrated those checklist items, from memory, prior to receiving their type-rating to fly the jet. Runaway trim is a "no joke" event in nearly any type and is a memory item in any type I'm familiar with. The Ethiopian Air crew seemed to correctly diagnose the issue, got the aircraft somewhat under control and then, in an attempt to fix the trim issue, undid the corrective checklist item, ran the trim aircraft-nose-up using the thumb switch (so far, excellent!!) and then, inexplicably, left the stab trim power enabled without commanding further aircraft-nose-up. So, they diagnosed the issue, initially did all the right things, then undid them [with good reason], then failed to re-do them. (I agree that Boeing still wears a lot of blame here. It's just not the case that the crews were helpless and unaware passengers.)
    - onli 7y ago
      Well, okay. https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-crash-problems-human-error-mcas-faa https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-cr... agrees (though I vehemently disagree with its title when interpreting it as referring to pilot errors! But that might be the point). Problem seems to be that it was basically impossible to realize which checklist to follow and to identify the problem. I think my sentence when interpreted with that in mind still works (and you are still right as well): Pilots had no opportunity (several reasons, like not being informed about system changes) to save the plane, but not it was 100% impossible during the whole incident to save the plane (it was probably impossible after they deactivated the electric trim system).

chopin 7y ago

I am not so sure. Not only Boeing but also FAA have come under close scrutiny. And if the OP is right, there will be more accidents involving poor design decisions. After that, the public will shy away at least from flying newer Boeing models. Even a bailout could leave Boeing with only the military arm as nobody wants to fly with their civilian planes.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

iSnow 7y ago

It would be kind of amusing if that was the beginning of the end of the duopoly and the rise of Comac as a third player.