4 ms·
Those claims that it was maintenance is a bit bizarre considering these were brand new craft, and that panel isn't exactly a wear item. (ofc, some wear with eac
by Night_Thastus 3y ago
Those claims that it was maintenance is a bit bizarre considering these were brand new craft, and that panel isn't exactly a wear item. (ofc, some wear with each pressurization cycle, but I digress)
It'd be different if it was an engine issue on a 20+ year old plane.
But still, this isn't anything like the prior MAX issue - and frankly could have just as easily happened to any manufacturer like Airbus.
I don't think it's worth bashing Boeing much about, I doubt they're too happy about it either.
- chatmasta 3y ago> But still, this isn't anything like the prior MAX issue Sure, other than being with a variant of the same model of plane built by the same manufacturer, this latest issue is nothing like the prior issue.
- Night_Thastus 3y agoIf you knew anything about the previous issue, you'd know they aren't much of anything alike. The previous issue: * Was primarily a software issue, not a hardware issue * Was caused by the design of the craft, not an issue with construction * Was known by Boeing in advance and ignored, not discovered later So yes, the two issues aren't very much alike.
- dan_quixote 3y agoOne major difference I recall back when working in the industry is that Airbus didn't rely on contract manufacturing like Boeing adopted after the McDonnell Douglas merger. Spirit was just Boeing Wichita until they divested the operation only to immediately contract work with the new owner at a discount.
- hef19898 3y agoThe Boeing MDD merger was before my time. Airbus sure does rely on contract manufacture for everything from wings over fuselage sections to doors so. Often using the same suppliers Boeing does, the market for these tier 1 manufacturing suppliers is small.