I have been concerned for my country for some time now, if Boeing tanks I will start flying my flag upside down.
Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
True enough, but I still would rather fly in a Boeing than any other variety of silver tube.
BJC
However.... Boeing also managed to sit back smiling and watch Airbus make a colossal and expensive failure with the A380, so both sides are capable of being stupid.
We're still listening to Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith, and 85 year old Clint Eastwood is still a leading man, so perhaps we'll be flying on the 747 for a while because of the same "quality" argument
Pardon me while I crank up my old obsolete antique 172 next Saturday morning, to fly over and take a look at a 50 year old glider... that is still relevant to people's lives!
We're still listening to Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith, and 85 year old Clint Eastwood is still a leading man, so perhaps we'll be flying on the 747 for a while because of the same "quality" argument
Pardon me while I crank up my old obsolete antique 172 next Saturday morning, to fly over and take a look at a 50 year old glider... that is still relevant to people's lives!
Pilot-34
Well-Known Member
And you know it’s always aggravated me to get on a airline with some sort of American USA brand name, only to be told I’m going to be riding on a foreign bus!
Jimstix
Well-Known Member
Maybe, just maybe the solution to this mess is the insurance industry. The insurance providers are in the nickers of the satellite and launch business to improve launch and on-station success. If the insurance guys said to Boeing management and shareholders that "no improvement, no insurance" was now the rule, things would change at the Lazy B.
Collusion to deny coverage sounds illegal. Anyone stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
BJC
My personal way of dealing with incompetence is that you have to bleed. Sure some good one's are going to get axed, it is part of the process to make sure you get rid of all the bad one's.
Maybe just axe everyone and start over. Possibly the only way to ensure the bad one's are gone.
Maybe just axe everyone and start over. Possibly the only way to ensure the bad one's are gone.
Problem with it this that Boeing can falsify/claim/cook the data for an "improvement" in order to pass under the wire and get their insurance, then when an airplane crashes their insurance is there, and it protects them, and Boeing doesn't "bleed" as Blane says.
If there is a legal gov't mandate that after a crash is shown to be caused (by Boeing willingly de-prioritizing safety) the insurance vaporizes, exposing Boeing's shareholders and executives to the lawsuits from Bubba's family, then there is the threat of the actual perpetrators bleeding. Like I said previously, no house in the Hamptons, no Harvard vacay for the kids, and food stamps for dinner... THEN something will possibly change.
This is in fact the only way to put the engineers back in charge of an engineering development program. Anybody with direct experience in aerospace corporate management feel free to support/puncture/argue for or against this. I have zero experience in that particular cesspool, and I know we probably have several folks here who do have some.
Ive been on both sides of the fence - engineering and business management - and I believe there is a need for engineers to do engineering stuff, but the business office needs to hold them accountable. Its a fine balance and when it works, it works well. The good old days of Kelly Johnson giving money back to the Government after under running costs and delivering way early are NOT because he was a great engineer - he also had some significant business savvy. Ive meet plenty of engineers who would hapily absorb 99% of a project budget before the first metal shaving hit the floor, so "pure engineering" is not the answer either. It seems the pendulum has swung a bit too far for Boeing, but pull it back toward the center and things will pick up.
Bill-Higdon
Well-Known Member
Boeing: Directors to face investor lawsuit over fatal crashes
Shareholders can sue Boeing over claims it ignored safety warnings about its 737 Max plane, a US judge rules.
www.bbc.com
From my dozen years of working on the A320 and A330, as a line guy, is that they are excellent aircraft, well-designed and thought out, very efficient and mostly reliable. My limited experience of the 737 (the 3/4/500 era) is that they are too heavy, built like a tank and the refusal to change them or get their replacement in service is Boeing's fault, especially when you consider the 767,777 and 787. You could have had a taller undercarriage in a 737-800 a decade or two ago AND pared off some of the weight. I recall the many yards of steel control cables,that could have been developed out and saved weight. I had to help replace an entire set and fit and lube the replacements and what an ordeal that was! Airbus aren't perfect but they are well thought out.
Bill-Higdon
Well-Known Member
Bit more of post 51
Boeing: Directors to face investor lawsuit over fatal crashes
Shareholders can sue Boeing over claims it ignored safety warnings about its 737 Max plane, a US judge rules.
www.bbc.com
Bill-Higdon
Well-Known Member
And under the bus he goes
Report: Boeing Official Expected to Face Criminal Charges Over Fatal Boeing 737 Max Issues - Slashdot
"Federal prosecutors plan to criminally charge a former Boeing Co. pilot they suspect of misleading aviation regulators about safety issues blamed for two fatal crashes of the 737 Max," reports the Wall Street Journal, citing "people familiar with the matter." Mark Forkner, who was Boeing's 737...
yro.slashdot.org
Bill-Higdon
Well-Known Member
One Tequila, 2 Tequila 3 Tequila floor Boeing reportedly investigating empty tequila bottles found on a future Air Force One
I would be very very surprised if there had not ever been empty bottles of red wine and Guinness found on the bellies of one large brand of airliner, and empty bottles of vodka found in another one or two large brands of airliner. Of all the things threatening Boeing, the Tequila issue is probably not the most concerning. It's the Martinis in the boardroom....
it all depends on the standards of your maintenance,when it comes to deep overhauls. Our airlines used several different firms for C checks, citing cost savings and the results were rags found in the fuel tanks, items not wirelocked or sealed, lifed items not changed out and a litany of other snags. You get what you pay for.
Kiwi303
Well-Known Member
One reason why Air NZ has it's own maintenance department rather than outside contractors.... In fact other crriers contract Air NZ to do THEIR maintenance...
Being a National Carrier means political lean to do it right and don't f*k up the perception of the country overseas.
On the Boeing/Airbus "buy American" topic, I call bovine excrement. Multinational firms selling multinational products spin such arguments for their own benefit. Take cars as an example...
NHTSA tracks and publishes the country of origin percentages of cars, SUVs, and light trucks sold in the USA. The USA and Canada are lumped together in the stats, which I can live with as a New Englander whose childhood sports heroes were mostly Canadian hockey players. (It also means that Mexico gets highlighted as foreign origin despite NAFTA, which seems somewhat...racist.)
In over five pages of car model listings, the cars with 50% or more USA/Canada content take up less than one page and the majority of them are *not* American brands. Of the 83 or so vehicles with 50% USA/Canada content, Fiat-owned Chrysler has 12 models, Ford 6, Tesla 6, and GM only 4 while Subaru has 3, Nissan 5, Toyota 7, and Honda 33!
Of course, these stats don't break down numbers of cars built and sold or the dollar value of the sales, which would help gauge the actual economic impact, but you get the idea. The most "American" car you can buy is the Ford Mustang with 77% USA/Canada content, but after that if you want to support American workers, odds are you should buy a Honda. :-/
All this to say that, with just two major airliner companies in the world (though Embraer is nibbling away and may make it as a third), a significant portion of your Airbus is actually made in USA and a significant portion of your Boeing is, ahem, not. Here's a 10-year-old illustration of the origin of major components in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (admittedly probably the most international Boeing product).
NHTSA tracks and publishes the country of origin percentages of cars, SUVs, and light trucks sold in the USA. The USA and Canada are lumped together in the stats, which I can live with as a New Englander whose childhood sports heroes were mostly Canadian hockey players. (It also means that Mexico gets highlighted as foreign origin despite NAFTA, which seems somewhat...racist.)
In over five pages of car model listings, the cars with 50% or more USA/Canada content take up less than one page and the majority of them are *not* American brands. Of the 83 or so vehicles with 50% USA/Canada content, Fiat-owned Chrysler has 12 models, Ford 6, Tesla 6, and GM only 4 while Subaru has 3, Nissan 5, Toyota 7, and Honda 33!
Of course, these stats don't break down numbers of cars built and sold or the dollar value of the sales, which would help gauge the actual economic impact, but you get the idea. The most "American" car you can buy is the Ford Mustang with 77% USA/Canada content, but after that if you want to support American workers, odds are you should buy a Honda. :-/
All this to say that, with just two major airliner companies in the world (though Embraer is nibbling away and may make it as a third), a significant portion of your Airbus is actually made in USA and a significant portion of your Boeing is, ahem, not. Here's a 10-year-old illustration of the origin of major components in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (admittedly probably the most international Boeing product).
Last edited:
jedi
Well-Known Member
UPDATE: More Details Emerge In United 737-900 Tail-Strike Episode
Mark Phelps
September 21, 2021
More details have come out related to the embarrassing tail-strike episode involving a chartered United Boeing 737-900. As previously reported, the airliner was carrying the University of Southern California (USC) football team to Lewiston, Idaho, on Friday for a Saturday game with Washington State, just across the state line.
United issued the following statement: “United flight 2509 flying from Los Angeles, California, to Lewiston, Idaho, landed without incident. However, due to a shift in weight and balance during the offloading process, the tail of the aircraft tipped backwards. No ground personnel, customers, or crew reported any injury.”
According to multiple posts on news stories related to the incident, standard procedure calls for using a tail stand to ensure the stretched 737-900 would not be susceptible to balance issues while parked, but ground crews at Lewiston either did not have a tail stand available or the procedure slipped through the operational cracks.
Despite several suggestions that attributed the incident to hefty linemen being the last to disembark, a USC spokesperson told local news outlets that all the players had already deplaned, and it was only support staff members who were left on board at the time. No one was injured—and USC went on to win the game.
-----
Now it is my turn to say:
I have never seen a B 737 with a tail stand. But I have been crew on a stretch DC-8 when United mechanics nearly set the tail on the ramp. The mechanics had not seen a DC-8 tail stand for many years as Pitsburgh was not a United DC-8 destination just as Leweston is not a United B 737 destination. Could this be a United red flag issue and the reason B-727 had the rear exit door/tail stand as standard equipment?
B727 were built in the days (otherwise known as the "good old days") when Boeing knew how to design build and test superior aircraft and hire/retain good engineers. IMHO
Mark Phelps
September 21, 2021
More details have come out related to the embarrassing tail-strike episode involving a chartered United Boeing 737-900. As previously reported, the airliner was carrying the University of Southern California (USC) football team to Lewiston, Idaho, on Friday for a Saturday game with Washington State, just across the state line.
United issued the following statement: “United flight 2509 flying from Los Angeles, California, to Lewiston, Idaho, landed without incident. However, due to a shift in weight and balance during the offloading process, the tail of the aircraft tipped backwards. No ground personnel, customers, or crew reported any injury.”
According to multiple posts on news stories related to the incident, standard procedure calls for using a tail stand to ensure the stretched 737-900 would not be susceptible to balance issues while parked, but ground crews at Lewiston either did not have a tail stand available or the procedure slipped through the operational cracks.
Despite several suggestions that attributed the incident to hefty linemen being the last to disembark, a USC spokesperson told local news outlets that all the players had already deplaned, and it was only support staff members who were left on board at the time. No one was injured—and USC went on to win the game.
-----
Now it is my turn to say:
I have never seen a B 737 with a tail stand. But I have been crew on a stretch DC-8 when United mechanics nearly set the tail on the ramp. The mechanics had not seen a DC-8 tail stand for many years as Pitsburgh was not a United DC-8 destination just as Leweston is not a United B 737 destination. Could this be a United red flag issue and the reason B-727 had the rear exit door/tail stand as standard equipment?
B727 were built in the days (otherwise known as the "good old days") when Boeing knew how to design build and test superior aircraft and hire/retain good engineers. IMHO
Last edited:
