51 ms·

Having doors flying off one of your planes and engine failure causing part of the cowling to bust a window and sucking a passenger out of another is definitely

Having doors flying off one of your planes and engine failure causing part of the cowling to bust a window and sucking a passenger out of another is definitely not a bit of politics. Nevermind the bullshit 737Max nonsense. At this point, I'd imagine any Boeing orders left are only in place because Airbus can't keep up. Politics didn't need to come within 10 miles of this decision. It's just the free cherry on top.

Retric 5mo ago
Incidents that are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus. The airbus A320 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities, there’s just a vast number of flights daily so tiny risks add up. Companies buying new aircraft care far more about maintenance to fuel efficiency than a few rare incidents due to already corrected issues.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  > The airbus A380 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities… What? The A380 has never had a single fatality or even injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_inci... > Incidents are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus. Airbus (and Boeing) has a decade-long backlog. They absolutely do. https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airbus-and-boeing-report-march-2026-commercial-aircraft-orders-and-deliveries/ https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airb...
  - Retric 5mo ago
    Ops A320. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
- harmmonica 5mo ago
  Can you shed a bit more light on this? I can't find any evidence that there are that many fatalities related to that plane, at least related to its operations in flight. Seems like there are few or if my quick look shows even zero fatalities related to it flying. You wrote "associated" but can you define what you mean by that? During manufacturing, maintenance and other non-flight-related incidents?
  - Retric 5mo ago
    That was a mistake on my part those are A320 numbers not A380.
    - harmmonica 5mo ago
      Ah, gotcha. Probably not supposed to reply with this, but applaud your quick correction!
- dorfsmay 5mo ago
  A380? Did you mean A320?
  - Retric 5mo ago
    Yes, corrected remembered the fatalities but should have looked it up anyway.
rootsudo 5mo ago
No, majority of Boeing orders to foreign countries use USA backed loans or is a significant part of pushing US interests in the world. The message here, and it’s granted if you’re not aviation, finance or political aware is Italy keeping their aviation sector EU based being In the EU themselves and most likely getting tremendously better financing. While the Boeing incidents you mentioned are unfortunate and a true consequence of engineering culture eroding at Boeing, it does not dispel the true safety of aviation in general nor the high success of the 737 Max.
866-RON-0-FEZ 5mo ago
If we're stringing random facts together to try and make a point, Airbus was found guilty two days ago of manslaughter in the 2009 Air France crash that fell into the ocean. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd2qmdvmq6o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd2qmdvmq6o It's the same airplane as the MRTT, A330.
- celsoazevedo 5mo ago
  I think it's fair to call out the parent comment for things that are not exactly caused by Boeing (eg: the engine failure), but I also think it's important to look at the why. In the case you're referring too, the focus was on poor training and failure to follow up on earlier incidents. It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail or forgetting to bolt a door.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - labcomputer 5mo ago
    > It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail Right, they designed the their system with two sensors, and if they disagree, the system gives misleading indications to the pilots! That’s so much better!
    - celsoazevedo 5mo ago
      My understanding is that the Airbus equivalent (they don't really have the same thing) uses 3 pitot tubes/angle of attack sensors, not 2. More importantly, Airbus pilots know about the system, while Boeing only told airliners about MCAS after the Lion Air crash. I'm not a pilot and I don't know that much about planes, but I've read/watched enough about crashes to know that these sensors fail way too often. To rely on only one already sounds like a bad idea, but it's irresponsible not to tell pilots and train them on how to deal with the new "feature".
stouset 5mo ago
The engine that failed on the Southwest flight was a CFM International CFM56, which has also been used on multiple Airbus planes including the A320. The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing. This could just as easily have happened on an A320. This example only serves to highlight how popular narratives take hold and get reinforced by laypeople. Boeing absolutely deserves to be raked through the coals over MCAS, over their deteriorating engineering culture, and over regulatory capture. But blame them for the things they actually carry responsibility for.
- dpark 5mo ago
  > The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing. NTSB seems to think it’s Boeing’s responsibility to redesign the cowl to prevent this. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1903.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
  - labcomputer 5mo ago
    If you read your own link, they also think it’s the engine manufacturer’s (CFM’s) responsibility to work with Boeing to redesign the cowl, and recommend that the European Aviation Safety Agency require engine manufacturers to work collaboratively with airplane manufacturers for such cowl design in the future.
    - dpark 5mo ago
      I don’t actually see that but I’m also not going to read all 193 pages. That’s not the point regardless. The post I replied to made the claim that Boeing has no responsibility here. The NTSB clearly disagrees.
      - beering 5mo ago
        Come on, you can’t say you can’t be bothered to read the document and also double down on your interpretation of it in the same breath.
shevy-java 5mo ago
Yeah - the mass casualties with regards to Max, changed things a lot. Boeing used to be about enginering; that quality dropped indeed decades ago. Not sure why or how.
- tremon 5mo ago
  Not sure why or how There's plenty of documentation to be found on the why and how, especially following the 737Max issues: https://team-fsa.com/insights/what-happened-to-boeings-culture/ https://team-fsa.com/insights/what-happened-to-boeings-cultu... > Following the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing’s robust culture eroded. Subsequent safety issues with the Boeing 737 have put the company under international scrutiny and underscored the profound impact of a weakened corporate culture. As Forbes aptly put it, “Boeing’s current travails about safety issues with the 737 MAX 9 can arguably be traced to the company’s weak corporate culture.” Or read https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/why-boeings-problems-with-737-max-began-more-than-25-years-ago https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/why-boeings-pr... for Harvard's take on the same situation.
  - p_l 5mo ago
    The best and understated part about it is that the culture change was pushed from Boeing side, and at least some people from McD side of the merger were pushing internal memos warning about actions pushed by Boeing-lifer CEO exemplified in then ongoing 7X7 program (future 787)
- lelanthran 5mo ago
  > Boeing used to be about enginering; that quality dropped indeed decades ago. I just pointed out in a different thread that software is going through that right now.
eastbound 5mo ago
> Having doors flying off one of your planes (…) definitely not a bit of politics. It’s a checkmate of the American system. Boeing delegated construction in parts of the country that needed jobs (=politics), who then botched the job and didn’t get sanctioned because it was bad optics to accuse those providers (2013 airframes). More recent events are also a checkmate of the ultrafinanciarization practices, a checkmate of the consultancy / provider / controller model, and a failure of corruption (the FAA/Boeing dinners inherited from the Macdonnell management) in a context where USA rips at the seams (industrial failure, no-one can be trusted as trustworthy) and tries to renew its ideology (apogee with the Trump elections). That is a fair bit of politics that made Boeing fail.

Retric 5mo ago

Incidents that are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus. The airbus A320 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities, there’s just a vast number of flights daily so tiny risks add up. Companies buying new aircraft care far more about maintenance to fuel efficiency than a few rare incidents due to already corrected issues.

ceejayoz 5mo ago
> The airbus A380 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities… What? The A380 has never had a single fatality or even injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_inci... > Incidents are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus. Airbus (and Boeing) has a decade-long backlog. They absolutely do. https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airbus-and-boeing-report-march-2026-commercial-aircraft-orders-and-deliveries/ https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airb...
- Retric 5mo ago
  Ops A320. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
harmmonica 5mo ago
Can you shed a bit more light on this? I can't find any evidence that there are that many fatalities related to that plane, at least related to its operations in flight. Seems like there are few or if my quick look shows even zero fatalities related to it flying. You wrote "associated" but can you define what you mean by that? During manufacturing, maintenance and other non-flight-related incidents?
- Retric 5mo ago
  That was a mistake on my part those are A320 numbers not A380.
  - harmmonica 5mo ago
    Ah, gotcha. Probably not supposed to reply with this, but applaud your quick correction!
dorfsmay 5mo ago
A380? Did you mean A320?
- Retric 5mo ago
  Yes, corrected remembered the fatalities but should have looked it up anyway.

rootsudo 5mo ago

No, majority of Boeing orders to foreign countries use USA backed loans or is a significant part of pushing US interests in the world. The message here, and it’s granted if you’re not aviation, finance or political aware is Italy keeping their aviation sector EU based being In the EU themselves and most likely getting tremendously better financing. While the Boeing incidents you mentioned are unfortunate and a true consequence of engineering culture eroding at Boeing, it does not dispel the true safety of aviation in general nor the high success of the 737 Max.

866-RON-0-FEZ 5mo ago

If we're stringing random facts together to try and make a point, Airbus was found guilty two days ago of manslaughter in the 2009 Air France crash that fell into the ocean. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd2qmdvmq6o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd2qmdvmq6o It's the same airplane as the MRTT, A330.

celsoazevedo 5mo ago
I think it's fair to call out the parent comment for things that are not exactly caused by Boeing (eg: the engine failure), but I also think it's important to look at the why. In the case you're referring too, the focus was on poor training and failure to follow up on earlier incidents. It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail or forgetting to bolt a door.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- labcomputer 5mo ago
  > It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail Right, they designed the their system with two sensors, and if they disagree, the system gives misleading indications to the pilots! That’s so much better!
  - celsoazevedo 5mo ago
    My understanding is that the Airbus equivalent (they don't really have the same thing) uses 3 pitot tubes/angle of attack sensors, not 2. More importantly, Airbus pilots know about the system, while Boeing only told airliners about MCAS after the Lion Air crash. I'm not a pilot and I don't know that much about planes, but I've read/watched enough about crashes to know that these sensors fail way too often. To rely on only one already sounds like a bad idea, but it's irresponsible not to tell pilots and train them on how to deal with the new "feature".

stouset 5mo ago

The engine that failed on the Southwest flight was a CFM International CFM56, which has also been used on multiple Airbus planes including the A320. The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing. This could just as easily have happened on an A320. This example only serves to highlight how popular narratives take hold and get reinforced by laypeople. Boeing absolutely deserves to be raked through the coals over MCAS, over their deteriorating engineering culture, and over regulatory capture. But blame them for the things they actually carry responsibility for.

dpark 5mo ago
> The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing. NTSB seems to think it’s Boeing’s responsibility to redesign the cowl to prevent this. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1903.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
- labcomputer 5mo ago
  If you read your own link, they also think it’s the engine manufacturer’s (CFM’s) responsibility to work with Boeing to redesign the cowl, and recommend that the European Aviation Safety Agency require engine manufacturers to work collaboratively with airplane manufacturers for such cowl design in the future.
  - dpark 5mo ago
    I don’t actually see that but I’m also not going to read all 193 pages. That’s not the point regardless. The post I replied to made the claim that Boeing has no responsibility here. The NTSB clearly disagrees.
    - beering 5mo ago
      Come on, you can’t say you can’t be bothered to read the document and also double down on your interpretation of it in the same breath.

shevy-java 5mo ago

Yeah - the mass casualties with regards to Max, changed things a lot. Boeing used to be about enginering; that quality dropped indeed decades ago. Not sure why or how.

tremon 5mo ago
Not sure why or how There's plenty of documentation to be found on the why and how, especially following the 737Max issues: https://team-fsa.com/insights/what-happened-to-boeings-culture/ https://team-fsa.com/insights/what-happened-to-boeings-cultu... > Following the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing’s robust culture eroded. Subsequent safety issues with the Boeing 737 have put the company under international scrutiny and underscored the profound impact of a weakened corporate culture. As Forbes aptly put it, “Boeing’s current travails about safety issues with the 737 MAX 9 can arguably be traced to the company’s weak corporate culture.” Or read https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/why-boeings-problems-with-737-max-began-more-than-25-years-ago https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/why-boeings-pr... for Harvard's take on the same situation.
- p_l 5mo ago
  The best and understated part about it is that the culture change was pushed from Boeing side, and at least some people from McD side of the merger were pushing internal memos warning about actions pushed by Boeing-lifer CEO exemplified in then ongoing 7X7 program (future 787)
lelanthran 5mo ago
> Boeing used to be about enginering; that quality dropped indeed decades ago. I just pointed out in a different thread that software is going through that right now.

eastbound 5mo ago

> Having doors flying off one of your planes (…) definitely not a bit of politics. It’s a checkmate of the American system. Boeing delegated construction in parts of the country that needed jobs (=politics), who then botched the job and didn’t get sanctioned because it was bad optics to accuse those providers (2013 airframes). More recent events are also a checkmate of the ultrafinanciarization practices, a checkmate of the consultancy / provider / controller model, and a failure of corruption (the FAA/Boeing dinners inherited from the Macdonnell management) in a context where USA rips at the seams (industrial failure, no-one can be trusted as trustworthy) and tries to renew its ideology (apogee with the Trump elections). That is a fair bit of politics that made Boeing fail.