13 ms·

This page already goes a long way to fulfill your requirements: https://www.planespotters.net/special/boeing-737-max-grounding https://www.planespotters.net/spe

by rob74 6y ago

This page already goes a long way to fulfill your requirements: https://www.planespotters.net/special/boeing-737-max-grounding https://www.planespotters.net/special/boeing-737-max-groundi... ...however, if you don't want Boeing to "get away with it", you should boycott all their planes. Not saying we should do that though, because if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing. Already the Max issues are at least in part a result of the existing duopoly and US authorities being too lenient with Boeing because they don't want to disadvantage it against Airbus.

systemvoltage 6y ago
That's a pretty odd take when Boeing airplanes have superior safety ratings than their Airbus counterpars for the most part if we exclude the 737-Max variant. I need to find sources, I am writing from memory. I understand the situation with 737-Max safety, Boeing entirely deserves it. But, I think we should also look at the data as well and hold off on knee-jerk reactions. Edit: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
- ucha 6y ago
  Airbus seems safer from your link? They never had a crash on any of their newer models, A380, A350 and neo variants. The vast majority of flights are performed in 737s and A320 variants and the crash rate is 0.09 for Airbus vs 0.24 for Boeing. [edit]: actually excluding planes produced before the 737NG in 1984 and the 737 max, the 737 crash rate is 0.11 which is still slightly higher than Airbus.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Your link disagrees with your conclusion?
- rob74 6y ago
  Do you mean the 0.07 "fatality rate" for Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 vs. the 0.09 for the A320 family? I would say they are both very safe aircraft, but I wouldn't read too much into the 0.02 difference, because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 (where the copilot intentionally crashed the plane) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 (which was 100% due to human error)
  - capableweb 6y ago
    > which was 100% due to human error Not sure how familiar you are with the airplane industry but nothing is ever "100% due to human error" in these events. We know humans are controlling these planes and the equipment can always gets better. Usually it comes down to UX, checklists and more to have multiple stopgaps to prevent issues. Just a quick scan of the Flight 522 page shows there were in fact many UX issues like why can you take off when the pressure system is turned to manual? Forcing a manual override if so would have helped. Same alert sound was also used for "take-off configuration warning" and "cabin altitude warning", leading to the pilots making the wrong decision. Attributing Flight 522 to only human error is not what the courts did (check the "Lawsuits and criminal proceedings" section in the page you linked) so not sure why you would.
    - rob74 6y ago
      Ok, if you want to get into the details of this particular accident... it can be argued that UX issues made it easier for the pilots to make the fatal mistake they made (and the lawyers representing the victims' families of course made that argument, because going after Boeing is far more promising than going after a small airline which declared bankruptcy soon after the accident), but in the end it was still human error. Aircraft are complex systems which can't be made 100% foolproof, that's why they are flown by qualified and trained pilots who have checklists for things that have to be done before take-off, and one of them was checking the pressurization system ("the flight crew overlooked the pressurization system state on three occasions: during the pre-flight procedure, the after-start check, and the after take-off check"). ...and the courts ultimately had nothing to do with it, because the suit against Boeing was settled out of court. Which is not an "admission of guilt" on the part of Boeing, just "give them some money to make this unpleasant thing go away".
    - baylessj 6y ago
      I appreciate your point about nothing ever being "100% due to human error", especially in regards to air travel. I recently read "The Design of Everyday Things", a book that devotes a lot of its time to discussing this same principle. We should blame the UX wherever possible before assigning any blame to the individual.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- KptMarchewa 6y ago
  If you'd read the website you linked more carefully, you'd see the reason: >Also excluded are aircraft models have no fatal events involving airline passengers: >Airbus: A220, A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, A340, A350, A380 A300 and A310 are old planes, not in service in reasonable airlines.
jhowell 6y ago
> Not saying we should do that though, because if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing. This is a strong argument to work with Boeing to correct both the engineering and company cultural issues that produced an aircraft that kills their customers' customers. What's happening now seems like the time elapsed in the penalty box for bad behavior and now they are back on the ice. As you've stated, Boeing is too important to go out of business. Should a crash happen in the western world they'll long for the difficulties and corrective opportunities they face now.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > Boeing is too important to go out of business. I hear this a lot and I get it, but I'm not so sure it's true. If Boeing dies, their assets don't just evaporate with them. There are half a dozen companies in the US who could take over where they left off - hopefully with better leadership this time around.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    > There are half a dozen companies in the US who could take over where they left off Like who? Lockheed maybe? I'm not sure they'd be willing or able to take over without the US government stepping in with some serious incentives though.
    - CivBase 6y ago
      Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, General Electric, Northrop Grumman, and Honeywell all spring to mind. Most of those companies do not presently manufacture entire aircraft, but they're all in a position to do so if they acquired only a fraction of Boeing's assets. Raytheon Technologies in particular already makes engines, avionics, and interior systems. All they'd need is a manufacturing plant to assemble everything onto a fuselage. Boeing and Lockheed Martin get a lot of name recognition for handling the high-level design and manufacturing of aircraft. But in reality, their planes are an amalgamation of engines, avionics, and interior systems which are often contracted out to other companies like those I listed. Many of them could step up and fill Boeing's shoes if a good deal presents itself - especially if there was extra incentive seeing as it would be a matter of national interest.
newswasboring 6y ago
> if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing. Comac is getting to a point where it can give serious competition. This is corroborated by the fact that US has already established sanctions against them [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-comac-military-exclusive-idUSKBN29J2HK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-comac-military-...
- Ulrich2 6y ago
  Comac C919 is not even in service yet. Sanctions are probably because of alleged IP theft: https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2018/11/05/america-accuses-china-of-stealing-aerospace-trade-secrets https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2018/11/05/america-accuse...
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    They are slated to deliver in late 2021. And you and I both know their competitive edge is not coming from being good, its coming from being Chinese. China is a pretty big market and they will definitely favor Comac. I will reserve my comments about IP theft.
  - leemailll 6y ago
    C919 use CFM engine why they try to steal something they buy?
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > why they try to steal something they buy? Because they can’t manufacture it yet but are trying to learn to.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      Because China wants to be able to manufacture everything so that they are beholden to no one. Seize the means of production as it were. Most of China's innovations in aircraft stem from the fact that they lack the advanced metallurgy and engine manufacturing chops to make powerful engines. Their equivalent to the Blackhawk helicopter uses an advanced fly-by-wire system instead of heavy hydraulics systems because they can't produce an engine powerful enough to meet operational requirements and have hydraulic controls.
emilecantin 6y ago
> if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets The former US president certainly helped with that, as his misguided tariffs on aluminium killed Bombardier's C-Series plane. Bombardier had to _give_ it to Airbus so it had a chance to see the light of day. It's now known as the A220.
- rob74 6y ago
  I was under the impression that had more to do with this episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo... - basically Boeing complained that Bombardier was selling the CSeries at dumping prices, the US International Trade Commission agreed and threatened additional duties on the imported planes, so Bombardier partnered up with Airbus to be able to (partly) build the planes in the USA and thus avoid paying the additional tariffs.
  - emilecantin 6y ago
    Yeah, Boeing was complaining that Bombardier was receiving subsidies (which it did, at great expense to Québec taxpayers), while it was receiving many times that amount in subsidies as well from the US gov. > US International Trade Commission agreed If you think that wasn't from political pressure, I have a bridge to sell you.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    The ruling didn't hold up in court. What's interesting is how Trudeau immediately bowed down to Trump. All he did was to basically threaten to not buy Boeing fighter jets and instead get f35 from Lockheed (which he was contractually obligated to anyways). I still don't understand why he reacted so submissively to Trump. Having the CSeries sold to Airbus at a huge discount was foolish: The plane already had a profitable amount of orders. Now Europeans are reaping the benefits. Why didn't he step up?
- cptskippy 6y ago
  The tariffs really struck me as contradictory to their intent. They said the tariffs would bring factory jobs back to America, but they seemed specifically designed to make most manufacturing more expensive. Most finished products weren't taxed but raw materials were. So if someone wanted to setup a TV factory it would cost more to import the necessary parts.

by rob74 6y ago

systemvoltage 6y ago

That's a pretty odd take when Boeing airplanes have superior safety ratings than their Airbus counterpars for the most part if we exclude the 737-Max variant. I need to find sources, I am writing from memory. I understand the situation with 737-Max safety, Boeing entirely deserves it. But, I think we should also look at the data as well and hold off on knee-jerk reactions. Edit: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

ucha 6y ago
Airbus seems safer from your link? They never had a crash on any of their newer models, A380, A350 and neo variants. The vast majority of flights are performed in 737s and A320 variants and the crash rate is 0.09 for Airbus vs 0.24 for Boeing. [edit]: actually excluding planes produced before the 737NG in 1984 and the 737 max, the 737 crash rate is 0.11 which is still slightly higher than Airbus.
Daho0n 6y ago
Your link disagrees with your conclusion?
rob74 6y ago
Do you mean the 0.07 "fatality rate" for Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 vs. the 0.09 for the A320 family? I would say they are both very safe aircraft, but I wouldn't read too much into the 0.02 difference, because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 (where the copilot intentionally crashed the plane) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 (which was 100% due to human error)
- capableweb 6y ago
  > which was 100% due to human error Not sure how familiar you are with the airplane industry but nothing is ever "100% due to human error" in these events. We know humans are controlling these planes and the equipment can always gets better. Usually it comes down to UX, checklists and more to have multiple stopgaps to prevent issues. Just a quick scan of the Flight 522 page shows there were in fact many UX issues like why can you take off when the pressure system is turned to manual? Forcing a manual override if so would have helped. Same alert sound was also used for "take-off configuration warning" and "cabin altitude warning", leading to the pilots making the wrong decision. Attributing Flight 522 to only human error is not what the courts did (check the "Lawsuits and criminal proceedings" section in the page you linked) so not sure why you would.
  - rob74 6y ago
    Ok, if you want to get into the details of this particular accident... it can be argued that UX issues made it easier for the pilots to make the fatal mistake they made (and the lawyers representing the victims' families of course made that argument, because going after Boeing is far more promising than going after a small airline which declared bankruptcy soon after the accident), but in the end it was still human error. Aircraft are complex systems which can't be made 100% foolproof, that's why they are flown by qualified and trained pilots who have checklists for things that have to be done before take-off, and one of them was checking the pressurization system ("the flight crew overlooked the pressurization system state on three occasions: during the pre-flight procedure, the after-start check, and the after take-off check"). ...and the courts ultimately had nothing to do with it, because the suit against Boeing was settled out of court. Which is not an "admission of guilt" on the part of Boeing, just "give them some money to make this unpleasant thing go away".
  - baylessj 6y ago
    I appreciate your point about nothing ever being "100% due to human error", especially in regards to air travel. I recently read "The Design of Everyday Things", a book that devotes a lot of its time to discussing this same principle. We should blame the UX wherever possible before assigning any blame to the individual.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
KptMarchewa 6y ago
If you'd read the website you linked more carefully, you'd see the reason: >Also excluded are aircraft models have no fatal events involving airline passengers: >Airbus: A220, A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, A340, A350, A380 A300 and A310 are old planes, not in service in reasonable airlines.

jhowell 6y ago

> Not saying we should do that though, because if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing. This is a strong argument to work with Boeing to correct both the engineering and company cultural issues that produced an aircraft that kills their customers' customers. What's happening now seems like the time elapsed in the penalty box for bad behavior and now they are back on the ice. As you've stated, Boeing is too important to go out of business. Should a crash happen in the western world they'll long for the difficulties and corrective opportunities they face now.

CivBase 6y ago
> Boeing is too important to go out of business. I hear this a lot and I get it, but I'm not so sure it's true. If Boeing dies, their assets don't just evaporate with them. There are half a dozen companies in the US who could take over where they left off - hopefully with better leadership this time around.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  > There are half a dozen companies in the US who could take over where they left off Like who? Lockheed maybe? I'm not sure they'd be willing or able to take over without the US government stepping in with some serious incentives though.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, General Electric, Northrop Grumman, and Honeywell all spring to mind. Most of those companies do not presently manufacture entire aircraft, but they're all in a position to do so if they acquired only a fraction of Boeing's assets. Raytheon Technologies in particular already makes engines, avionics, and interior systems. All they'd need is a manufacturing plant to assemble everything onto a fuselage. Boeing and Lockheed Martin get a lot of name recognition for handling the high-level design and manufacturing of aircraft. But in reality, their planes are an amalgamation of engines, avionics, and interior systems which are often contracted out to other companies like those I listed. Many of them could step up and fill Boeing's shoes if a good deal presents itself - especially if there was extra incentive seeing as it would be a matter of national interest.

newswasboring 6y ago

> if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing. Comac is getting to a point where it can give serious competition. This is corroborated by the fact that US has already established sanctions against them [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-comac-military-exclusive-idUSKBN29J2HK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-comac-military-...

Ulrich2 6y ago
Comac C919 is not even in service yet. Sanctions are probably because of alleged IP theft: https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2018/11/05/america-accuses-china-of-stealing-aerospace-trade-secrets https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2018/11/05/america-accuse...
- newswasboring 6y ago
  They are slated to deliver in late 2021. And you and I both know their competitive edge is not coming from being good, its coming from being Chinese. China is a pretty big market and they will definitely favor Comac. I will reserve my comments about IP theft.
- leemailll 6y ago
  C919 use CFM engine why they try to steal something they buy?
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > why they try to steal something they buy? Because they can’t manufacture it yet but are trying to learn to.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    Because China wants to be able to manufacture everything so that they are beholden to no one. Seize the means of production as it were. Most of China's innovations in aircraft stem from the fact that they lack the advanced metallurgy and engine manufacturing chops to make powerful engines. Their equivalent to the Blackhawk helicopter uses an advanced fly-by-wire system instead of heavy hydraulics systems because they can't produce an engine powerful enough to meet operational requirements and have hydraulic controls.

emilecantin 6y ago

> if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets The former US president certainly helped with that, as his misguided tariffs on aluminium killed Bombardier's C-Series plane. Bombardier had to _give_ it to Airbus so it had a chance to see the light of day. It's now known as the A220.

rob74 6y ago
I was under the impression that had more to do with this episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo... - basically Boeing complained that Bombardier was selling the CSeries at dumping prices, the US International Trade Commission agreed and threatened additional duties on the imported planes, so Bombardier partnered up with Airbus to be able to (partly) build the planes in the USA and thus avoid paying the additional tariffs.
- emilecantin 6y ago
  Yeah, Boeing was complaining that Bombardier was receiving subsidies (which it did, at great expense to Québec taxpayers), while it was receiving many times that amount in subsidies as well from the US gov. > US International Trade Commission agreed If you think that wasn't from political pressure, I have a bridge to sell you.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  The ruling didn't hold up in court. What's interesting is how Trudeau immediately bowed down to Trump. All he did was to basically threaten to not buy Boeing fighter jets and instead get f35 from Lockheed (which he was contractually obligated to anyways). I still don't understand why he reacted so submissively to Trump. Having the CSeries sold to Airbus at a huge discount was foolish: The plane already had a profitable amount of orders. Now Europeans are reaping the benefits. Why didn't he step up?
cptskippy 6y ago
The tariffs really struck me as contradictory to their intent. They said the tariffs would bring factory jobs back to America, but they seemed specifically designed to make most manufacturing more expensive. Most finished products weren't taxed but raw materials were. So if someone wanted to setup a TV factory it would cost more to import the necessary parts.