3 ms·
1 - it really doesn't matter, delegating your manufacturing to a subcontractor doesn't absolve you of ensuring the product is made properly 2 - it's made in a
by nolok 3y ago
1 - it really doesn't matter, delegating your manufacturing to a subcontractor doesn't absolve you of ensuring the product is made properly
2 - it's made in a former Boeing plant, that boeing sold to an investment fund and then contract work to, so if your point is "that's not how REAL boeing manufacturing is done" well that's certainly where boeing is heading its manufacturing.
3 - The plane is designed, certified, assembled, inspected and then sold by Boeing. If I buy a ford and the door falls off randomly after two weeks, I don't care which subcontractor made the door, I give ford an angry warranty call.
- kube-system 3y agoI understand all of that. My point is that people avoiding all 737 MAX variants over an issue specifically on plug doors that are no longer in the air, that we don't even know why they failed, are illogically filtering their flight options.
- nottorp 3y ago> over an issue specifically on plug doors that are no longer in the air ... on the same type of plane that had the controls wrong enough to cause two crashes? People can see a pattern there...
- nolok 3y agoOh yes but that's a different type of MAX though ! No, not the one with the engine nacelle falling potential issue that we don't have a fix but want the FAA to ignore, the other one ! Out of the 3 current MAX types, one killed people two times and the other two have unresolved issues (one that make it fail FAA certification, and the other that make it lose parts of fuselage in flight ...). And then Boeing ask for fast track certification on the 4th type, because they've been doing such a great job so far.
- nolok 3y agoBut virtually no one really is avoiding it over that, they're avoiding because of the multitude of various faults and issue over the entire MAX line that makes it highly unlikely that there isn't something else coming.
- kube-system 3y agoThis submission isn't on the front page because of incidents 4-5 years ago. It is on the front page because of the news this week.
- nolok 3y agoI really don't understand what you're getting at. I don't disagree with you. The difference between this website existing for MAX and not for others is the repetition of issues though, to the point that now more people have had enough. When the glass spills, the last drop might be the trigger for the glass finally spilling but it's the accumulation of water that's the issue, not just that one final drop.
- kube-system 3y agoThe bottom line is that I think it is absolutely silly for people to try to make their own judgement about the safety of aircraft they get on based on news stories about different variants of models which have had issues that are already identified. This is a relevant topic for regulators to address, with specificity to the actual offending parts, procedures, and processes in place. Avoiding all MAX variants is a very hamfisted attempt to address a very tiny difference in observed safety. There are regional airlines flying much more sketchy things. Where's "isMyPlaneACessna208BeingFlownByANewPilotInPoorWeather.com"?
- wasmitnetzen 3y agoA singular incident where nobody died would also not be on the front page. It's the combination of this one and the MCAS crashes.