Planet Rugby Forum

ForzaIt wrote:

Saint wrote:

ForzaIt wrote:What also amazes me is that the Boeing share price is bumbling along as if nothing has happened.

Because ultimately this will have little impact on the Boeing P&L

The only way this will impact Boeing is if the MAX doesn't get recertified at all. Then Boeing's in a pickle

What about the billions in compensation it will have to pay out plus a protracted legal process with all the associated press?

Surely the airlines that bought the Max will also be seeking compensation for loss of earnings/reputation etc?

Lawyers gonna have a field day.

Saint wrote:

ForzaIt wrote:What also amazes me is that the Boeing share price is bumbling along as if nothing has happened.

Because ultimately this will have little impact on the Boeing P&L

The only way this will impact Boeing is if the MAX doesn't get recertified at all. Then Boeing's in a pickle

ForzaIt wrote:What also amazes me is that the Boeing share price is bumbling along as if nothing has happened.

sewa wrote:

ForzaIt wrote:What also amazes me is that the Boeing share price is bumbling along as if nothing has happened.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/21/boeing- ... crash.html

I don't get the logic, it was only a bird strike? Everyone still died like

TheFrog wrote:

Saint wrote:

ForzaIt wrote:What also amazes me is that the Boeing share price is bumbling along as if nothing has happened.

Because ultimately this will have little impact on the Boeing P&L

The only way this will impact Boeing is if the MAX doesn't get recertified at all. Then Boeing's in a pickle

Trump's Air Force will take care of that. No subsidies for Boeing, just a very big and loyal customer to make up for the losses.

sewa wrote:

ForzaIt wrote:What also amazes me is that the Boeing share price is bumbling along as if nothing has happened.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/21/boeing- ... crash.html

I don't get the logic, it was only a bird strike? Everyone still died like

camroc1 wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Saint wrote:It turns out the Boeing MAX simulators didn't accurately represent an MCAS failure should one occur. Not directly relevant to either crash as simulator time wasn't required, nor even available outside of Seattle, but it speaks to the nature of what was effectively a coverup

It does speak volumes to Boeings commitment to quality control !!

Why not just bung on a copy of MS Flight Simulator, & pretend that, if people can land something on that; they can land a MAX in Hong Kong during a Typhoon

The first rule of any software modeling; is to compare the accuracy of the results of the model, to a wide variety of real datasets, (not exclusively using the same data you derived the model from), to determine the actual validity of the model !

The entire project was sales and marketing driven, rather than engineering.

The executive team should have had enough engineering experience to counter this, but I don't know how many engineers afre in the Beoing executive team any more.

ForzaIt wrote:What also amazes me is that the Boeing share price is bumbling along as if nothing has happened.

Russian low-cost airline Pobeda tells passengers not to switch seats on their flights because it complicates identifying victims in crashes, says tjournal.ru

Авиакомпания «Победа» объяснила запрет пассажирам меняться местами последующим опознанием при катастрофах

The Optimist wrote:

Russian low-cost airline Pobeda tells passengers not to switch seats on their flights because it complicates identifying victims in crashes, says tjournal.ru

Авиакомпания «Победа» объяснила запрет пассажирам меняться местами последующим опознанием при катастрофах

Brumbieman wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-03/ ... s/11174710


fudge getting on that plane ever again...

Saint wrote:

Brumbieman wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-03/ ... s/11174710


fudge getting on that plane ever again...

You've completely misunderstood the takeaway of this story (although to be fair so have the press). This is actually q story of the FAA doing it's job. In any machine as complex as an aircraft it's inevitable that so.ewhere in the supply chain defects will occur from time to ti.r. The truck is identifying and fixing them in a time6manner, which I thus vase yet have. Note also that a failure of this component would not be fatal in any shape or form, hence the 7 day allowance given to identify and fix things.

This is the system working as it should.

Doesn't change the fact that they screwed up MCAS right and proper

TheFrog wrote:What I still fail to understand is how they could come up with an automated system relying on a single input when redundancy is the basis of aerospace design... It is as if the MCAS had been designed by an undergrade intern...

TheFrog wrote:What I still fail to understand is how they could come up with an automated system relying on a single input when redundancy is the basis of aerospace design... It is as if the MCAS had been designed by an undergrade intern...

blindcider wrote:

TheFrog wrote:What I still fail to understand is how they could come up with an automated system relying on a single input when redundancy is the basis of aerospace design... It is as if the MCAS had been designed by an undergrade intern...

It seems like they didn't deem it a critical system in terms of COF requiring redundancy

sewa wrote:

blindcider wrote:

TheFrog wrote:What I still fail to understand is how they could come up with an automated system relying on a single input when redundancy is the basis of aerospace design... It is as if the MCAS had been designed by an undergrade intern...

It seems like they didn't deem it a critical system in terms of COF requiring redundancy

Because they do not understand basic engineering. There is nothing more critical than staying in the air. By the way I flew in a 737 800 to Porto, no issues.

blindcider wrote:

sewa wrote:

blindcider wrote:

TheFrog wrote:What I still fail to understand is how they could come up with an automated system relying on a single input when redundancy is the basis of aerospace design... It is as if the MCAS had been designed by an undergrade intern...

It seems like they didn't deem it a critical system in terms of COF requiring redundancy

Because they do not understand basic engineering. There is nothing more critical than staying in the air. By the way I flew in a 737 800 to Porto, no issues.

Yes Sewa, Boeing does not understand basic engineering. Do you ever make any statements that are not moronic in the extreme?

Rinkals wrote:

blindcider wrote:

sewa wrote:

blindcider wrote:

TheFrog wrote:What I still fail to understand is how they could come up with an automated system relying on a single input when redundancy is the basis of aerospace design... It is as if the MCAS had been designed by an undergrade intern...

It seems like they didn't deem it a critical system in terms of COF requiring redundancy

Because they do not understand basic engineering. There is nothing more critical than staying in the air. By the way I flew in a 737 800 to Porto, no issues.

Yes Sewa, Boeing does not understand basic engineering. Do you ever make any statements that are not moronic in the extreme?

I think most of us understood that he was referring to board and management personnel rather than engineering staff.

camroc1 wrote:It has been reported that the executive level at Boeing has been hollowed out of engineers in favour of marketing/sales/general management over the past 15 years or so. It could be as simple as not understanding the risks involved in the decisions they were making.

Glaston wrote:More problems with Boeing.

Safety worries about the 787 Dreamliner now.


"Airline pilots have voiced fears over the safety of a fleet of Boeing aircraft after a crucial fire-fighting system has been found to have the potential to malfunction.
Boeing has issued an alert to airlines using its flagship B787 Dreamliner, warning that the switch used to extinguish an engine fire has failed in a “small number” of instances. The switch also severs the fuel supply and the hydraulic fluid to prevent flames spreading."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... fety-fears

fishfoodie wrote:

Glaston wrote:More problems with Boeing.

Safety worries about the 787 Dreamliner now.


"Airline pilots have voiced fears over the safety of a fleet of Boeing aircraft after a crucial fire-fighting system has been found to have the potential to malfunction.
Boeing has issued an alert to airlines using its flagship B787 Dreamliner, warning that the switch used to extinguish an engine fire has failed in a “small number” of instances. The switch also severs the fuel supply and the hydraulic fluid to prevent flames spreading."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... fety-fears

wait & see; we'll get a stream of these; now that Boeing has had a sit down with it's engineering teams; & lawyers, & now they're going to have to start trying to retrospectively install quality in aircraft they've already sold !

sewa wrote:Because they do not understand basic engineering.

sewa wrote:They are still an outstanding company

A5D5E5 wrote:

sewa wrote:Because they do not understand basic engineering.

sewa wrote:They are still an outstanding company

How many contradictory things can you believe before breakfast?

sewa wrote:

A5D5E5 wrote:

sewa wrote:Because they do not understand basic engineering.

sewa wrote:They are still an outstanding company

How many contradictory things can you believe before breakfast?

I am free to criticise them for these failings without saying I'd never fly Boeing again. Maybe the difference is lost on you.

sewa wrote:Thalidomide is back on the market with the toxic isomer separated. Its used for people in late stage cancer and aids.

TheFrog wrote:So IAG gives Boeing a life line committing to the purchase of 200 B737 Max, when they operate a massive fleet of A320.

Is there a link with BA signing with Boeing for the maintenance of its 200 strong A320 fleet?

Saint wrote:

TheFrog wrote:So IAG gives Boeing a life line committing to the purchase of 200 B737 Max, when they operate a massive fleet of A320.

Is there a link with BA signing with Boeing for the maintenance of its 200 strong A320 fleet?

This is just a Letter of Intent - it's the ultimate in cancellable orders, and ultimately I wouldn't be surprised to see it convert into 77X and 787 somewhere down the line (if not just be cancelled altogether). I also wonder just how big a discount was offered and guaranteed against any possible future order of ANYTHING, in return for something like this to be announced and shore up the share price.

Also completely overshadows IAGs order for 14 321XLRs, which will be used for US single aisle routes out of Dublin.

After doing some more digging, it seems that BAs share of these would be intended for Gatwick - so very much the low cost tourist end of BA operations. High value business operations out of Heathrow won't be risked by this. That would be consistent with the other target airlines for these planes - LEVEL, and Vueling.

EDIT - worth also noting that as of IAGs last annual report (December), IAG had confirmed orders of 92 A32xneo and options on a further 128, all to be delivered by 2023. How much do you want to bet that Willie Walsh is already on the phone to Toulouse - lower the price or we'll cancel and take the Boeing planes instead?

Yer Man wrote:

Saint wrote:

TheFrog wrote:So IAG gives Boeing a life line committing to the purchase of 200 B737 Max, when they operate a massive fleet of A320.

Is there a link with BA signing with Boeing for the maintenance of its 200 strong A320 fleet?

This is just a Letter of Intent - it's the ultimate in cancellable orders, and ultimately I wouldn't be surprised to see it convert into 77X and 787 somewhere down the line (if not just be cancelled altogether). I also wonder just how big a discount was offered and guaranteed against any possible future order of ANYTHING, in return for something like this to be announced and shore up the share price.

Also completely overshadows IAGs order for 14 321XLRs, which will be used for US single aisle routes out of Dublin.

After doing some more digging, it seems that BAs share of these would be intended for Gatwick - so very much the low cost tourist end of BA operations. High value business operations out of Heathrow won't be risked by this. That would be consistent with the other target airlines for these planes - LEVEL, and Vueling.

EDIT - worth also noting that as of IAGs last annual report (December), IAG had confirmed orders of 92 A32xneo and options on a further 128, all to be delivered by 2023. How much do you want to bet that Willie Walsh is already on the phone to Toulouse - lower the price or we'll cancel and take the Boeing planes instead?

Didn't they just get awarded a $6.5B contract by the US Government for Military planes last week?

UEARFC wrote:Didn't O'Leary place a huge order for new Boeings in the wake of 9/11 when airline shares were in freefall?