Thanks for your response.
The 2 Boeing 737 Max crashes were due to this sick culture. Boeing put the big fuel efficient engines on the old 737 design that was never designed for them as a hack so they could have a short term super fuel efficient plane solution they could offer to Boeing's customers as an alternative to Airbus who came out with those fuel efficient larger engines. Since Boeing had that hack, those larger engines made the plane top heavy, so they had to put in that sneaky MCAS system to compensate (that they didn't even tell the airline pilots about). And, of course, Boeing didn't do the proper quality assurance on their sneaky and secret MCAS system. After 2 tragic plane crashes where everyone died, Boeing has lost my trust forever.
What Boeing should have done instead of using that hack, they should have designed a new plane that was designed to carry the larger fuel efficient engines, not retrofit existing old 737 design with 2 new large engines. They saved a lot of money and time to market was fast, but the end result of that decision was catastrophic, both in loss of life, and loss of Billions of dollars to Boeing's balance sheet.
In my humble opinion, the company has a sick culture where profits and avoiding assembly line delays take priority over safety. Once my trust is lost in a company, it's usually impossible for anything to change that. Boeing's management never learns and sadly History is likely to repeat itself. Hence, It's only Airbus planes for my family.
I’m not a Max fan. Search my posts on it. Let us not forget that Boeing was heavily pressured to keep the 737 in production by an airline whose absolute core business model, whose very existence, required new 737s.
They could not have survived if they had to switch fleet types. They lobbied hard for new, fuel efficient 737s.
The failures were not solely internal to Boeing.
Your post is, well, old news to those of us in the industry. For example.
Post in thread 'United Airlines Places Orders for 100 787s + 100 Options, Orders 56 737MAX + 44 Exercised Options'
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...7max-44-exercised-options.363074/post-6645311
But the tail snapped off AA587 because Airbus designed only to the minimum strength required, and it couldn’t handle the inappropriate rudder input of the FO.
AF 447 was partly a design flaw in the pitot tubes, and partly the ergonomic failures of the entire Airbus flight control system, duplicated and repeated on the A-330, A-340, A-350 and A-380. It was more than just pilot error.
The A-320 that flew into the trees in Toulouse on a demo flight? Pilot error. Flight control system logic was not understood by an Airbus Test pilot. What chance did AF 447 have if the Test Pilot at Airbus got the logic wrong?
The way Airbus has developed the flight controls (fly by wire) in every single airliner they sell, is that the pilot cannot override the computers limitations. Through the ergonomic failures of displaying “alternate law” as happened in AF447 the pilot can be kept from understanding what is happening to the airplane, and if the airplane decides that the pilot is wrong, the airplane wins.
Even when the pilot is right.
There have been plenty of crashes of Airbus airplanes. Many pilot error, of course, but many of those errors are driven by the way Airbus built the flight controls, and display interfaces.
It’s your choice, but to say that Boeing builds trash, and Airbus builds perfect, is to grossly miss state, the reality of airliner design, construction, and the interface between engineering and pilot performance.
I am not defending Boeing, nor am I defending the Max. However, I do not agree with specious oversimplifications, particularly when they lead to uninformed blanket pronouncements.
Edit: one might say, that, after examining the Pinto, and the Explorer, that I will never put my family in a Ford. They’ve lost my trust. They are a terrible company, rife with corruption and poor build quality.
www.spiritaero.com
