Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
To use your own words, you could have copied and pasted this from any number of websites.
The problem is that it doesn't pass the common sense test in any way.
So Boeing knowingly cut corners and released a known unsafe plane in the hope that it could sell a few hundred examples before anyone caught on?
What's their exit strategy?
Boeing can't sneak off in the night like the unscrupulous guy who did your new driveway last year that's now spalling to pieces.
Boeing also has other more profitable if lower volume models that it needs to deliver to the world's airlines.
Boeing, like Airbus lives on its reputation. If either were to gain a reputation for offering potentially dangerous aircraft, then that airframer would suffer a loss of business across its line and would ultimately cease to exist as a supplier of commercial transports.
Boeing has built a solid reputation going back to well before Airbus even existed.
Boeing also knew going in that WN was about as likely to buy Airbus as it is that the sun would rise in the West tomorrow morning while AA (really US) along with the rest of the world's airlines have no way collectively of having their replacement and expansion needs met through Airbus alone.
That Boeing made a horrible mistake that cost lives in it's implementation of a system intended to provide for increasing yoke pull effort at high angles of attack where there might otherwise be a reduction in the pull force required is inarguable.
To claim that Boeing knowingly did so is foolish and demonstrates a complete ignorance of commercial realities.
WRT the FAA, that entity has long relied upon manufacturer's people for technical insight and advice.
Were it to be otherwise would require that the FAA possess the technical knowledge of both the airframe and powerplant makers, IOW that it be a virtual shadow designer of both. This has never been the case and never can be, despite the pretentions of the NTSB to the contrary.
Boeing would not be the first or last huge company where hubris took over common sense. What was exit strategy of VW? What was exit strategy of GM? What was exit strategy of MD?
Didn't they charge $80,000 warning light that AoA is not giving right data? Didn't engineers for years warn that new airplane has to be developed due to inherit problems of B737 design? Their strategy supposed to be new design, swallow biter pill, which would be anyway flushed out by Uncle Sam. They cannot loose as much money as USAF can order C17's.
There is no exit strategy here. The fact that CEO is still in the job indicates bigger problems in Boeing. Constant compalints by Air Force regarding KC-46 and complaints by other in regard to B787 tell that issues are far deeper than just MAX.
What engineers were warning for years that Boeing had to develop a new airframe due to inherent problems in the 737 design?
The NG has a safety record at least as good as the single aisle Airbus, so I'm not sure what problems you're bringing up.
Too short gear making fitting higher bypass engines difficult, a legacy of the seminal 737-100 design?
Sure, but other than that and the rather cramped and dated cockpit, there's not much wrong with the basic design, which has truly stood the test of time.
Boeing's main failing was in designing what was intended to be a completely transparent system in a way that could allow potentially deadly erroneous operation and not adequately documenting this potential to the crews who would operate the aircraft. Had the accident crews been warned about the potential problem, they might have recognized it when it happened and saved their aircraft, or maybe not. Knowing about any disagree between the two AOA vanes would probably not have been useful to the crew, but MCAS could have and should have been inhibited under those conditions, but then everything is so obvious in hindsight.
The comparisons with VW are inapt, since VW came up with what is a very obvious but ingenious way of cheating on the EPA emissions cycle tests never expecting to get caught. MD was merely too cheap to develop any clean sheet designs after the DC-10, which began life as a Douglas project anyway and had a very good run with DC-9 developments over many years. The MD-11, no more than a DC-10 development, had its problems, but there were operators that had the type in passenger service for years with no issues at all. MD's exit strategy was obviously a merger, with Boeing inheriting a lot of MD management in the process. Not sure what you're referring to in the case of GM. If you mean their continual race to the bottom in product, the exit strategy is obvious. If you mean the deadly ignition switch defect, then their exit strategy was the same. A pre-packaged bankruptcy law filing bankrolled by all of us taxpayers with the equity we got sold back to GM at a below market price.
Complaints about the 787? I doubt there's anything serious from any of the operators, since they're taking them up just as fast as Boeing can deliver them. There have been some engine problems, but Boeing doesn't run RR. It is of some concern that the root cause of the battery problems was never really determined with the rather unsatisfying solution consisting of a containment vessel.
Quote
To use your own words, you could have copied and pasted this from any number of websites.
The problem is that it doesn't pass the common sense test in any way.
So Boeing knowingly cut corners and released a known unsafe plane in the hope that it could sell a few hundred examples before anyone caught on?
What's their exit strategy?
Boeing can't sneak off in the night like the unscrupulous guy who did your new driveway last year that's now spalling to pieces.
Boeing also has other more profitable if lower volume models that it needs to deliver to the world's airlines.
Boeing, like Airbus lives on its reputation. If either were to gain a reputation for offering potentially dangerous aircraft, then that airframer would suffer a loss of business across its line and would ultimately cease to exist as a supplier of commercial transports.
Boeing has built a solid reputation going back to well before Airbus even existed.
Boeing also knew going in that WN was about as likely to buy Airbus as it is that the sun would rise in the West tomorrow morning while AA (really US) along with the rest of the world's airlines have no way collectively of having their replacement and expansion needs met through Airbus alone.
That Boeing made a horrible mistake that cost lives in it's implementation of a system intended to provide for increasing yoke pull effort at high angles of attack where there might otherwise be a reduction in the pull force required is inarguable.
To claim that Boeing knowingly did so is foolish and demonstrates a complete ignorance of commercial realities.
WRT the FAA, that entity has long relied upon manufacturer's people for technical insight and advice.
Were it to be otherwise would require that the FAA possess the technical knowledge of both the airframe and powerplant makers, IOW that it be a virtual shadow designer of both. This has never been the case and never can be, despite the pretentions of the NTSB to the contrary.
Boeing would not be the first or last huge company where hubris took over common sense. What was exit strategy of VW? What was exit strategy of GM? What was exit strategy of MD?
Didn't they charge $80,000 warning light that AoA is not giving right data? Didn't engineers for years warn that new airplane has to be developed due to inherit problems of B737 design? Their strategy supposed to be new design, swallow biter pill, which would be anyway flushed out by Uncle Sam. They cannot loose as much money as USAF can order C17's.
There is no exit strategy here. The fact that CEO is still in the job indicates bigger problems in Boeing. Constant compalints by Air Force regarding KC-46 and complaints by other in regard to B787 tell that issues are far deeper than just MAX.
What engineers were warning for years that Boeing had to develop a new airframe due to inherent problems in the 737 design?
The NG has a safety record at least as good as the single aisle Airbus, so I'm not sure what problems you're bringing up.
Too short gear making fitting higher bypass engines difficult, a legacy of the seminal 737-100 design?
Sure, but other than that and the rather cramped and dated cockpit, there's not much wrong with the basic design, which has truly stood the test of time.
Boeing's main failing was in designing what was intended to be a completely transparent system in a way that could allow potentially deadly erroneous operation and not adequately documenting this potential to the crews who would operate the aircraft. Had the accident crews been warned about the potential problem, they might have recognized it when it happened and saved their aircraft, or maybe not. Knowing about any disagree between the two AOA vanes would probably not have been useful to the crew, but MCAS could have and should have been inhibited under those conditions, but then everything is so obvious in hindsight.
The comparisons with VW are inapt, since VW came up with what is a very obvious but ingenious way of cheating on the EPA emissions cycle tests never expecting to get caught. MD was merely too cheap to develop any clean sheet designs after the DC-10, which began life as a Douglas project anyway and had a very good run with DC-9 developments over many years. The MD-11, no more than a DC-10 development, had its problems, but there were operators that had the type in passenger service for years with no issues at all. MD's exit strategy was obviously a merger, with Boeing inheriting a lot of MD management in the process. Not sure what you're referring to in the case of GM. If you mean their continual race to the bottom in product, the exit strategy is obvious. If you mean the deadly ignition switch defect, then their exit strategy was the same. A pre-packaged bankruptcy law filing bankrolled by all of us taxpayers with the equity we got sold back to GM at a below market price.
Complaints about the 787? I doubt there's anything serious from any of the operators, since they're taking them up just as fast as Boeing can deliver them. There have been some engine problems, but Boeing doesn't run RR. It is of some concern that the root cause of the battery problems was never really determined with the rather unsatisfying solution consisting of a containment vessel.
