Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You presume everyone will bow down to American demands. Those days are gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Of course the FAA is the one that certifies the airplane. But Boeing requests the certification and does the work needed to make it happen.
I agree. But you are the one who said "Boeing will re-certify the plane." I know that's an incorrect claim. But it was a slip-of-the-tongue that reflects your faith that, come what may, Boeing will get what it wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
The other certification agencies will follow along.
Following along requires either mutual goodwill or over-riding power. The U.S. has neither vis a vis Europe. The dynamics that have ended the over-riding power are long-running. But the destruction of goodwill began in 2017. There is no reason the other agencies will follow along unless they themselves deem the plane safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Some may complain but they will in time follow.
Anything will happen "in time." In time Los Angeles will be next door to San Francisco. This claim means nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Simple reason. Any country that blocks a US certified aircraft can expect a hard time. For the Europeans it may mean the loss of the ability to operate some Airbus airplanes in the US. For other nations conditions on operating into the US. I see little likelihood anyone is going to start that class of battle.
Other nations are already getting a hard time. The current administration has threatened a trade war with everyone. They have nothing to lose. If the U.S. starts threatening there is nothing to stop Europe and Asia from simply ending flights to the U.S. That leaves a massive world of flight, all using Airbus. The days of U.S. dominance are over. If the U.S. threatens and threatens other nations can just cut the U.S. out. It happened in the climate accord. It happened at the WTO negotiation. It happened with the Iran nuclear deal. And it can happen with this. The U.S. should fix its own industry, not demand everyone else fly on its deathtraps. You don't do that to a friend, and you don't have power to force that on an enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
It is likely that passenger views will at least initially have some impact.
I'll say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
But give it a couple of years and watch it go away. And in lots of situations the passengers choice is the MAX or drive. Some will drive but not a very big percent.
No, the choice may be "risk my life on a Max" or "meet the business partner via Zoom teleconferencing." The only people who have to fly are vacationers (which is totally discretionary) or people attending a funeral (though when my friend passed away in 2014 I set up the video link so her elderly parents could see the memorial service because they were too frail to fly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Video conferencing is nice but will not supplant the need for contact visits. I was a participant in the establishment of an early video conferencing network. Thirty five or so years ago. It was useful but did not remove the need for face to face. Certain kinds of meeting worked well others were not effective. Same will be true today.
Maybe. But as more people do more business via teleconference, they become comfortable with that means of conducting business. At the same time, it becomes harder and harder for businesses to justify the travel expense. If 25% of business travel stops, that would massively change the economics of air travel. It doesn't have to be everyone to affect everything.
Someone in really getting hysterical. Boeing will fix it to all (Us, Europe, everywhere else) the certifying authorities satisfaction. They have no choice.
Someone in really getting hysterical. Boeing will fix it to all (Us, Europe, everywhere else) the certifying authorities satisfaction. They have no choice.
Someone has a really simplistic understanding of reality. Three things are required for any person or organization to get what they want. They must decide to get it (choice). They must have the capacity to get it (capability). And others must not prevent them from getting it (acquiescence).
I have no doubt that Boeing has made the choice, for all other options are cost prohibitive. The discussion is about capability--which their engineers seem to have but their finance managers seem to often hinder--and acquiescence. It is not clear that Boeing will be able to correct the problems, satisfy the regulators, and still have a plane that is cost-advantaged both at purchase and during its operation. That may be too tall an order.
No, we do not live in Disneyland, Hollywood, or some rom-com, where if a person or organization wants something bad enough, they will get it. I can see why learning this may make you feel the messenger is hysterical. I am sorry to break this news to you. But it needed to happen sometime.
Boeing is capable. You'll see. That doesn't mean that I think they need big changes to how they do things. I do think so. However, I have no doubt that they are capable of fixing the problems with the Max.
Boeing is capable. You'll see. That doesn't mean that I think they need big changes to how they do things. I do think so. However, I have no doubt that they are capable of fixing the problems with the Max.
Hopefully this time, with the FAA looking over their shoulders.
When someone responds to an observation that the Max8 may drive Boeing into bankruptcy by writing
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Boeing isn't going anywhere. The government will make the taxpayers bail them out if it ever got that far.
their tone is defiant but their logic basically accepts that the Max8 debacle threatens to destroy the solvency of the company.
Back in May 2019 a few of us analyzed the situation and reported that the Max8 crashes posed a serious threat to the solvency of the company. Those who maintained the Max8 crashes were just a hiccup, Boeing isn't threatened, anyone who thinks it is is ignorant, are now playing their final card--the government will step in to interrupt the bankruptcy. Asserting that the government may step in is to assert that we were correct in reporting that the Max8 debacle, hatched in the luxurious offices of Boeing's financial analysts, may destroy the company. A government bailout is a reset without formal bankruptcy that basically admits the company is bankrupt. Maybe it gets that far, maybe it does not, but that a government bailout is now mentioned as a potential endgame indicates that the company is really under threat, just as we claimed. I'm sad it is going as I and others predicted. Alas, it seems we knew what we were talking about after all.
When someone responds to an observation that the Max8 may drive Boeing into bankruptcy by writing
their tone is defiant but their logic basically accepts that the Max8 debacle threatens to destroy the solvency of the company.
Back in May 2019 a few of us analyzed the situation and reported that the Max8 crashes posed a serious threat to the solvency of the company. Those who maintained the Max8 crashes were just a hiccup, Boeing isn't threatened, anyone who thinks it is is ignorant, are now playing their final card--the government will step in to interrupt the bankruptcy. Asserting that the government may step in is to assert that we were correct in reporting that the Max8 debacle, hatched in the luxurious offices of Boeing's financial analysts, may destroy the company. A government bailout is a reset without formal bankruptcy that basically admits the company is bankrupt. Maybe it gets that far, maybe it does not, but that a government bailout is now mentioned as a potential endgame indicates that the company is really under threat, just as we claimed. I'm sad it is going as I and others predicted. Alas, it seems we knew what we were talking about after all.
sorry but you continue to build houses of straw.
Of course it could have turned disastrous for Boeing. Perhaps some absolutely hideous bribery of FAA officials. Or a set of emails showing that Boeing knew accurately of the problem and its likely outcome and fired the engineers who wanted to fix it.
Short of that sort of minuscule probability there was zilch chance of Boeing folding. And that is from day one.
The biggest driver of careful safety engineering at Boeing is shown by what has happened. Any reasonable analytic group at Boeing would show the probability of a major safety failure and the scenarios that would result. Basically the Boeing management should have and likely did understand the cost of not maintaining a solid safety design. And yes it did happen any way. But they knew the cost.
But they were never in any danger of folding over this. It has continued to compound as time has gone on but there are still no significant problems that would be difficult to fix. So what they have to do is run the bureaucratic gauntlet. And they will.
Boeing will probably take a full decade to recover...but they will. I would personally argue they should return the headquarters to Seattle and make the corporate management manage the heart of the endeavor.
But we shall see. Bean counters generally do not like the risk of getting near the real process or otherwise getting their hands dirty.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,852 posts, read 58,453,030 times
Reputation: 46405
No one wants to get their hands dirty anymore... Including engineering and production. Fortunately much is 'plug and play' so greasy fingers are minimal. BA will survive, the MAX will survive (tho may be rebranded), 737 will continue to be a viable workhorse.
I, as a product engineer, and toolmaker, do not have the confidence that the 'boot-strap' / 'git-er-done' capability or collaboration exists anymore to be anything greater than average... 'good enough' to sell. We as a culture do not have the pride or value of craftsmanship that used to make exceptional mechanical products (better than advertised, need, or expected). Sure, there is innovation in vaporware, but... That very solution brought us (and BA) to this failure. The last 10 yrs in my highly innovative engineering company were far from the paradigm shifts of new technology and solutions that had made us great for previous 70 yrs.
Now the USA has an entire worker generation appeased at "just make it good enough', they do not have the previous rigor of "make it exceptional' as if their life and future of their family and career and company depends on it.
MAX will survive,
Nothing that comes out of Boeing or Airbus will be exceptional...
Maybe never again.
Post-indusrial expertise era.
Those with the Know-how, are dropping like flies.
I consider the USA educational system brought us to the point of ineptness. No one who I have hired in last 10 yrs was capable to perform. (New hires are pathetically ill educated)
The bean counters sold us out (as an industrialized nation.). Ironically, that leaves us without beans to count.
Last edited by StealthRabbit; 02-18-2020 at 02:32 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
