Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:51 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 665 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20345
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15652
Location: South Oxfordshire
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?


So, analysts reckon that even after discount this LOI is worth nearly double that - and the point would be that it opens the way for other airlines to resume placing orders. The share price ticked up a couple of points on this announcement


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17950
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?

Iirc, yes, and then proceeded to only take up the orders at a slow pace even after Boeing had returned to full manufacturing capacity. “About those 60 planes you agreed to buy from us...” “Yeah, we only need 5 of them right now. Just hold off on the rest. Still the same price, right? Right. Thanks.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32791
Location: in transit
Boeing facing a class action from pilots now...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-23/ ... x/11238282

Quote:
Boeing's 737 MAX series— first announced in 2011 and put to service in 2017 — is the fourth generation of its 737 aircraft, a widely popular narrow-body aircraft model that has been a mainstay of short-haul aircraft routes across the globe.

By March 2019, the entire global fleet was suspended by a US presidential decree, following the second fatal crash involving a 737 MAX that killed 157 people in Ethiopia.

The first crash involving the 737 MAX jet happened off the coast of Indonesia in October 2018, killing 189 people.

In the time since the two fatal crashes, some of the families of the 346 people killed have sought compensation, while aircraft carriers — such as Norwegian Air — have sought compensation from the American manufacturer for lost revenue as a result of the plane's global ban.

This latest lawsuit filed against Boeing marks the first class action lodged by pilots qualified to fly the 737 MAX series, who have alleged that Boeing's decisions have caused them to suffer from monetary loss and mental distress since the jet's suspension.

The originating plaintiff, known as Pilot X —who has chosen to remain anonymous for "fear of reprisal from Boeing and discrimination from Boeing customers" — lodged the statement of claim on Friday, which seeks damages for them and more than 400 colleagues who work for the same airline.

In court documents seen by the ABC, the claim alleges that Boeing "engaged in an unprecedented cover-up of the known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and subsequent grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide."

They argue that they "suffer and continue to suffer significant lost wages, among other economic and non-economic damages" since the fleet's global grounding.

The class action will be heard in a Chicago court, with a hearing date set for October 21, 2019.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15652
Location: South Oxfordshire
Boeing running out of storage space for the 737 Max production line

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4687
Location: The other side of midnight
TUI

As in yeah right...not getting on that thing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10132
Location: Ultracrepidaria
Quote:
Boeing ... will not offer the 737 Max for FAA certification until it has “satisfied all requirements for certification and its safe return to service”.


Quote:
Boeing has acknowledged the new issue on the Boeing 737 Max recently uncovered by the US Federal Aviation Administration, but gave no indication how long remedying it will take.


Quote:
The FAA found a data processing issue that could force the 737 MAX to dive in-flight, which pilots had difficulty recovering from in simulator tests, according to Bloomberg. This new issue is similar to the one responsible for two crashes since October 2018 that killed 346 people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
message #2527204 wrote:
Quote:
Boeing ... will not offer the 737 Max for FAA certification until it has “satisfied all requirements for certification and its safe return to service”.


Quote:
Boeing has acknowledged the new issue on the Boeing 737 Max recently uncovered by the US Federal Aviation Administration, but gave no indication how long remedying it will take.


Quote:
The FAA found a data processing issue that could force the 737 MAX to dive in-flight, which pilots had difficulty recovering from in simulator tests, according to Bloomberg. This new issue is similar to the one responsible for two crashes since October 2018 that killed 346 people.


Sounds like the FAA certification is about as useful as the warranty on the Rolex I bought on 5th Ave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
Seneca of the Night wrote:
This is 'funny':

Quote:

Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -engineers


And what will happen to the Managerial geniuses, who thought this was a good idea; & signed off on the results ?, Nothing !!!

What will happen to the board that demanded this bullshit; nothing !!!

If it gets really, really, bad; & the shareholders demand blood; they'll give a few of them gold plated payoffs & send them on their way.

It's fucking sickening


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
Seneca of the Night wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
This is 'funny':

Quote:

Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -engineers


And what will happen to the Managerial geniuses, who thought this was a good idea; & signed off on the results ?, Nothing !!!

What will happen to the board that demanded this bullshit; nothing !!!

If it gets really, really, bad; & the shareholders demand blood; they'll give a few of them gold plated payoffs & send them on their way.

It's fucking sickening


President Tucker Carlson would have them in prison.


I somehow doubt that.

..

it would set a worrying precedent for the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14148
Panorama putting the boot in there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2646
Location: Leafiest Cheshire (East)
Gavin Duffy wrote:
Panorama putting the boot in there.


What’s on?

Edit - as in what channel etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15652
Location: South Oxfordshire
Dunno what Panorama are saying, but Boeing are planning to close the 737 line. They're running out of storage space and are expecting recertification to run well into next year


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
Saint wrote:
Dunno what Panorama are saying, but Boeing are planning to close the 737 line. They're running out of storage space and are expecting recertification to run well into next year


I assume they're expanding on their initial teaser article from this morning, the way they usually do.


Quote:
Adam Dickson worked at Boeing for 30 years and led a team of engineers who worked on the 737 Max. He said they were under constant pressure to keep costs down.

"Certainly what I saw was a lack of sufficient resources to do the job in its entirety," he says.

"The culture was very cost centred, incredibly pressurised. Engineers were given targets to get certain amount of cost out of the aeroplane."

Mr Dickson said engineers were under pressure to downplay new features on the 737 Max.

He said by classifying them as minor rather than major changes, Boeing would face less scrutiny from the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The goal was to show that those differences were so similar to the previous design that it would not require a major design classification in the certification process. There was a lot of interest and pressure on the certification and analysis engineers in particular, to look at any changes to the Max as minor changes."



I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 pm
Posts: 15389
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Dunno what Panorama are saying, but Boeing are planning to close the 737 line. They're running out of storage space and are expecting recertification to run well into next year


I assume they're expanding on their initial teaser article from this morning, the way they usually do.


Quote:
Adam Dickson worked at Boeing for 30 years and led a team of engineers who worked on the 737 Max. He said they were under constant pressure to keep costs down.

"Certainly what I saw was a lack of sufficient resources to do the job in its entirety," he says.

"The culture was very cost centred, incredibly pressurised. Engineers were given targets to get certain amount of cost out of the aeroplane."

Mr Dickson said engineers were under pressure to downplay new features on the 737 Max.

He said by classifying them as minor rather than major changes, Boeing would face less scrutiny from the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The goal was to show that those differences were so similar to the previous design that it would not require a major design classification in the certification process. There was a lot of interest and pressure on the certification and analysis engineers in particular, to look at any changes to the Max as minor changes."



I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say. :uhoh:

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 pm
Posts: 15389
fishfoodie wrote:
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say. :uhoh:

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.


It’s a high pressure industry, and many fast tracked managers wont pay that extra for quality because they don’t understand the difference between quality design, requirements, code and testing from aggregated figures on a spreadsheet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say. :uhoh:

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.


It’s a high pressure industry, and many fast tracked managers wont pay that extra for quality because they don’t understand the difference between quality design, requirements, code and testing from aggregated figures on a spreadsheet.



That's a rather naive statement. The stated directives; to the Lead Engineer I quoted, speak to a direct knowledge of all of these; & a desire to avoid the correct classification of changes from the original 737 design, so that the company could avoid the proper certification processes.

It's never an act of ignorance, if it is done such a deliberate & exact manner.

Senior Management knew that the, 'correct', classification of the 737 MAX would entail a much more significant expenditure, & they; very deliberately tried to deceive the FAA; & they decided it was preferable to kill hundreds of passengers, than follow the correct processes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39021
fishfoodie wrote:
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say. :uhoh:

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

It's what happens when bean counters take over from engineers in manufacturing companies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
camroc1 wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say. :uhoh:

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

It's what happens when bean counters take over from engineers in manufacturing companies.


Not really.

Often the people on both sides are Engineers; at least they were in the Company I worked for; but, one group have thrown away their engineering cards, & swapped them for chinos & button-down shirts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18956
fishfoodie wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say. :uhoh:

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

It's what happens when bean counters take over from engineers in manufacturing companies.


Not really.

Often the people on both sides are Engineers; at least they were in the Company I worked for; but, one group have thrown away their engineering cards, & swapped them for chinos & button-down shirts.


In the multi-national I'm working for, you don't have to go far up the chain before you're out of engineers and into bean-counters. I'd also echo all the above regarding 'culture' and what-not, when bottom-line is the real driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4460
Location: Monmouthshire
fishfoodie wrote:
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say. :uhoh:

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.


Very true. You quickly get bypassed, cut out of meetings though still frequently acquire technical responsibility (with no extra reward, obviously). Difficult not to be bitter particularly when it later costs the company a fortune yet the shitheads responsible just get moved sideways. Management culture in many of these companies is rotten and no one technical buys the low grade PR bullshit they repeatedly spout. The amount of money they waste of cost cutting activities which actually save zero cost bar shifting it off one areas cost sheet to another or resulting in a cock up which is passed directly on to the customer (indirectly the state in many cases).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
I'd decided in my early teens I was destined to be an Engineer, once I realized I wasn't creative enough to be an architect; and over the next few years, before I ended up in college, these were some of the International events I remembered pouring over the official reports of.

Bhopal Disaster - 1984
Challenger - 1986
Chernobyl - 1986
Piper Alpha - 1988

In ever single case, I saw, dogma, or short term monetary concerns; triumph over actual objective common sense, or simple human decency; & in each & ever case; the poor schmuck who stood up for those; got fucked !

In the case of Bhopal, it would have cost about $100 to prevent the disaster, Challenger was a few days delay; Chernobyl, another delay; or God forbid, pointing out that an experiment was catastrophically stupid & dangerous; piper alpha was a simple f**ked up LOTO procedure.

All preventable, & all disasters where the short term, 'Gain', was wiped out a million fold, by the reality of exactly the consequences the engineers warned about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18956
fishfoodie wrote:
I'd decided in my early teens I was destined to be an Engineer, once I realized I wasn't creative enough to be an architect; and over the next few years, before I ended up in college, these were some of the International events I remembered pouring over the official reports of.

Bhopal Disaster - 1984
Challenger - 1986
Chernobyl - 1986
Piper Alpha - 1988

In ever single case, I saw, dogma, or short term monetary concerns; triumph over actual objective common sense, or simple human decency; & in each & ever case; the poor schmuck who stood up for those; got fucked !

In the case of Bhopal, it would have cost about $100 to prevent the disaster, Challenger was a few days delay; Chernobyl, another delay; or God forbid, pointing out that an experiment was catastrophically stupid & dangerous; piper alpha was a simple f**ked up LOTO procedure.

All preventable, & all disasters where the short term, 'Gain', was wiped out a million fold, by the reality of exactly the consequences the engineers warned about.


The one thing that I've noticed (and I once read a great article articulating this with regards to the Challenger disaster, but be buggered if I can find it now) is people's short-term memory/understanding of where the risk actually lies. i.e. in the Challenger disaster, the issue was taking off when the launch site was so cold. It was considerably colder than what was deemed to be the acceptable level, but because they had been dipping down below what had previously been agreed safe temp levels for previous launches, they had a false perception of where they sat within the risk profile.

And I see similar all the time. People push the envelope a little, see nothing catastrophic happens, and then move the 'safe line' to this new point, and once there, they do it again. They think they are smart, saving money and time...when in fact, all that is happening is either negligent or incompetent people are just playing inside the safety factors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:47 pm
Posts: 4716
Location: Chukity - puck!!!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17429
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Dunno what Panorama are saying, but Boeing are planning to close the 737 line. They're running out of storage space and are expecting recertification to run well into next year


I assume they're expanding on their initial teaser article from this morning, the way they usually do.


Quote:
Adam Dickson worked at Boeing for 30 years and led a team of engineers who worked on the 737 Max. He said they were under constant pressure to keep costs down.

"Certainly what I saw was a lack of sufficient resources to do the job in its entirety," he says.

"The culture was very cost centred, incredibly pressurised. Engineers were given targets to get certain amount of cost out of the aeroplane."

Mr Dickson said engineers were under pressure to downplay new features on the 737 Max.

He said by classifying them as minor rather than major changes, Boeing would face less scrutiny from the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The goal was to show that those differences were so similar to the previous design that it would not require a major design classification in the certification process. There was a lot of interest and pressure on the certification and analysis engineers in particular, to look at any changes to the Max as minor changes."



I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:

Much as I am a supporter of the BBC, I'm not a big fan of Panarama.

I experienced first hand the damage that their sensationalist reporting can do in respect of two programmes, one covering the imminent collapse and demise of Aberdeen's Oil Industry in 1986 and the other covering building irregularities during construction in the renovation of the Isle of Dogs, in which they perpetrated a number of falsehoods regarding equipment sourced in Scotland which they misidentified and which a company I worked for was involved.

On those two programmes, their priority was sensationalism over accuracy and I have developed a bit of a jaundiced eye when watching their output.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21618
Jeff the Bear wrote:

The one thing that I've noticed (and I once read a great article articulating this with regards to the Challenger disaster, but be buggered if I can find it now) is people's short-term memory/understanding of where the risk actually lies. i.e. in the Challenger disaster, the issue was taking off when the launch site was so cold. It was considerably colder than what was deemed to be the acceptable level, but because they had been dipping down below what had previously been agreed safe temp levels for previous launches, they had a false perception of where they sat within the risk profile.

And I see similar all the time. People push the envelope a little, see nothing catastrophic happens, and then move the 'safe line' to this new point, and once there, they do it again. They think they are smart, saving money and time...when in fact, all that is happening is either negligent or incompetent people are just playing inside the safety factors.


I've worked a lot in medical devices where lean six sigma was the king, everything had to be leaned out. This meant new hungry young engineers coming in and removing unnecessary operations and steps from manufacturing. The only issue being of course that there was a reason those supposedly superfluous manufacturing operations were added. They largely stemmed from old CAPA's, recalls and investigations. Now we had people removing them willy nilly with predictable consequences and god help you if you questioned the one true religion that is lean six sigma.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:25 pm
Posts: 714
fishfoodie wrote:
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Plato'sCave wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya :roll:


I second that eye roll.


I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say. :uhoh:

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.


It’s a high pressure industry, and many fast tracked managers wont pay that extra for quality because they don’t understand the difference between quality design, requirements, code and testing from aggregated figures on a spreadsheet.



That's a rather naive statement. The stated directives; to the Lead Engineer I quoted, speak to a direct knowledge of all of these; & a desire to avoid the correct classification of changes from the original 737 design, so that the company could avoid the proper certification processes.

It's never an act of ignorance, if it is done such a deliberate & exact manner.

Senior Management knew that the, 'correct', classification of the 737 MAX would entail a much more significant expenditure, & they; very deliberately tried to deceive the FAA; & they decided it was preferable to kill hundreds of passengers, than follow the correct processes.


I'd agree with the first part of your bolded sentence, although perhaps not the second - a jaundiced view of the safety and certification process isn't really a conscious decision.

There's a parallel with the Nimrod crash, where Qinetiq and BAe just bodged through safety case checks as the plane was considered safe and the perception was no-one really needed to bother with the legislative bureaucracy and cost. They weren't actually seeking to release an unsafe plane, but had become complacent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
inactionman wrote:

I'd agree with the first part of your bolded sentence, although perhaps not the second - a jaundiced view of the safety and certification process isn't really a conscious decision.

There's a parallel with the Nimrod crash, where Qinetiq and BAe just bodged through safety case checks as the plane was considered safe and the perception was no-one really needed to bother with the legislative bureaucracy and cost. They weren't actually seeking to release an unsafe plane, but had become complacent.


You don't pay Engineers to Think, you pay them to Know !

They Thought it was Safe; but they didn't test it appropriately, so they didn't Know, it was Safe !

Further; if you aren't sure what the appropriate test scheme is; you use the most exhaustive one you have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:25 pm
Posts: 714
fishfoodie wrote:
inactionman wrote:

I'd agree with the first part of your bolded sentence, although perhaps not the second - a jaundiced view of the safety and certification process isn't really a conscious decision.

There's a parallel with the Nimrod crash, where Qinetiq and BAe just bodged through safety case checks as the plane was considered safe and the perception was no-one really needed to bother with the legislative bureaucracy and cost. They weren't actually seeking to release an unsafe plane, but had become complacent.


You don't pay Engineers to Think, you pay them to Know !

They Thought it was Safe; but they didn't test it appropriately, so they didn't Know, it was Safe !

Further; if you aren't sure what the appropriate test scheme is; you use the most exhaustive one you have.


You most definitely pay engineers to think - reasoning through from first principles is one of the most basic tenets of engineering.

I assume the point you were making was that they assumed the design was safe, given historical safety records of the plane (both 737 and Nimrod) but didn't demonstrate and ultimately prove the design was safe given some key design changes. This I agree with, but I'd more readily believe it was caused by complacency than any other cause.

I still find it hard to understand how any aerospace company can self-certify its work, or have any say in what constitutes a change worthy of re-certification. I'm doing a lot of work in IT now, and a fundamental of security (as close as any digital service tends to get to safety) is that an external company is used for penetration testing (fnar fnar). People involved in the product development can get too caught up in it, too blind to what are sometimes pretty clear risks, and too invested in the product to critically evaluate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11309
Jeff the Bear wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
I'd decided in my early teens I was destined to be an Engineer, once I realized I wasn't creative enough to be an architect; and over the next few years, before I ended up in college, these were some of the International events I remembered pouring over the official reports of.

Bhopal Disaster - 1984
Challenger - 1986
Chernobyl - 1986
Piper Alpha - 1988

In ever single case, I saw, dogma, or short term monetary concerns; triumph over actual objective common sense, or simple human decency; & in each & ever case; the poor schmuck who stood up for those; got fucked !

In the case of Bhopal, it would have cost about $100 to prevent the disaster, Challenger was a few days delay; Chernobyl, another delay; or God forbid, pointing out that an experiment was catastrophically stupid & dangerous; piper alpha was a simple f**ked up LOTO procedure.

All preventable, & all disasters where the short term, 'Gain', was wiped out a million fold, by the reality of exactly the consequences the engineers warned about.


The one thing that I've noticed (and I once read a great article articulating this with regards to the Challenger disaster, but be buggered if I can find it now) is people's short-term memory/understanding of where the risk actually lies. i.e. in the Challenger disaster, the issue was taking off when the launch site was so cold. It was considerably colder than what was deemed to be the acceptable level, but because they had been dipping down below what had previously been agreed safe temp levels for previous launches, they had a false perception of where they sat within the risk profile.

And I see similar all the time. People push the envelope a little, see nothing catastrophic happens, and then move the 'safe line' to this new point, and once there, they do it again. They think they are smart, saving money and time...when in fact, all that is happening is either negligent or incompetent people are just playing inside the safety factors.


Trouble I see too are people playing games on both sides of the process. The "doers" protecting themselves from extra pressure by trying to build unnecessary margins, and the decision makers not trusting the doers and asking them for more at every opportunity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
inactionman wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
inactionman wrote:

I'd agree with the first part of your bolded sentence, although perhaps not the second - a jaundiced view of the safety and certification process isn't really a conscious decision.

There's a parallel with the Nimrod crash, where Qinetiq and BAe just bodged through safety case checks as the plane was considered safe and the perception was no-one really needed to bother with the legislative bureaucracy and cost. They weren't actually seeking to release an unsafe plane, but had become complacent.


You don't pay Engineers to Think, you pay them to Know !

They Thought it was Safe; but they didn't test it appropriately, so they didn't Know, it was Safe !

Further; if you aren't sure what the appropriate test scheme is; you use the most exhaustive one you have.


You most definitely pay engineers to think - reasoning through from first principles is one of the most basic tenets of engineering.

I assume the point you were making was that they assumed the design was safe, given historical safety records of the plane (both 737 and Nimrod) but didn't demonstrate and ultimately prove the design was safe given some key design changes. This I agree with, but I'd more readily believe it was caused by complacency than any other cause.

I still find it hard to understand how any aerospace company can self-certify its work, or have any say in what constitutes a change worthy of re-certification. I'm doing a lot of work in IT now, and a fundamental of security (as close as any digital service tends to get to safety) is that an external company is used for penetration testing (fnar fnar). People involved in the product development can get too caught up in it, too blind to what are sometimes pretty clear risks, and too invested in the product to critically evaluate.


You're right, you do pay Engineers to think; but the FAA doesn't ask them if they, 'think', the aircraft if safe; & only an idiot of an engineer will state that something is safe, without first testing it exhaustively.

It just really grates me to read that Engineers statement, where you can clearly see the direction Management were dragging the Engineers. They were clearly being told to make sure that the 737 MAX didn't get treated as a significantly different aircraft, from the original series; when they knew damn well that it's flight characteristics were massively different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 5891
Location: Suffolk ba
The Final Report on the Indo crash will be out on Friday
Quote:

Lion Air crash investigation faults Boeing 737 Max design and oversight
The families of victims in last year's Lion Air crash have been told by Indonesian investigators that poor regulatory oversight and the design of Boeing's 737 Max contributed to the fatal disaster.

Investigators on Wednesday provided victims' relatives with a summary of their final report on the crash, which killed 189 people. Details from the briefing for family members were shared with CNN by Anton Sahadi, a spokesperson for the relatives.

The report summary said that faulty "assumptions" were made during the design and certification of the 737 Max about how pilots would respond to malfunctions by the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), according to the presentation seen by CNN.

MCAS lowers the nose of the plane when it receives information that the aircraft is flying too slowly or steeply, and at risk of stalling. The system was vulnerable because it relied on a single angle of attack (AOA) sensor, investigators said.

The AOA sensor on the doomed Lion Air plane had been miscalibrated during a repair, according to investigators. But the airline's maintenance crews and pilots couldn't identify the problem because one of the aircraft's safety features — the AOA Disagree alert — was not "correctly enabled during Boeing 737-8 (Max) development," they said...

...A spokesman for Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Commission said Wednesday that its final report will publish on Friday.

It has been sent to the US National Transportation Safety Board and other relevant parties, and those parties have replied with comments, the spokesman said.
============
Note:
The Indonesian NTSC investigated that the replacement vane had been a recertified Rosemount Aerospace's AOA sensor which had been serviced by a USA company in Florida. Please read the following news article for details: Faulty 737 Sensor In Lion Air Crash Linked To US Repairer .

- https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/b...air/index.html
- https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...-repairer.html


Slightly different version of the same news from reuters
Quote:
Lion Air Families Told 737 MAX Design Flaws Linked To Deadly Crash
Mechanical and design issues contributed to the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX jet last October, Indonesian investigators told victims’ families in a briefing on Wednesday ahead of the release of a final report.

Contributing factors to the crash of the new Boeing (BA.N) jet, which killed all 189 on board, included incorrect assumptions on how an anti-stall device called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) functioned and how pilots would react, slides in the presentation showed.

The briefing slides showed that a lack of documentation about how systems would behave in a crash scenario, including the activation of a “stick shaker” device that warned pilots of a dangerous loss of lift, also contributed.

“Deficiencies” in the flight crew’s communication and manual control of the aircraft contributed as well, the slides showed, as did alerts and distractions in the cockpit.

The deficiencies had been “identified during training,” the slides said, without elaborating.

Reliance on a single angle-of-attack sensor made MCAS more vulnerable to failure, while the sensor on the plane that crashed had been miscalibrated during an earlier repair, according to the slides.

The final report will be released on Friday...

- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1X20EJ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 5891
Location: Suffolk ba
Final Report on the LionAir accident here

http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Final%20Report.pdf

322 pages. I may be a while


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15652
Location: South Oxfordshire
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:45 pm
Posts: 527
Location: Shenzhen, China
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)



I think the whole board of directors should have gone, no way that these decisions are the CEO's alone. So the CEO takes the fall in urn for a nice golden parachute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:45 pm
Posts: 527
Location: Shenzhen, China
bok_viking wrote:
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)



I think the whole board of directors should have gone, no way that these decisions are the CEO's alone. So the CEO takes the fall in urn for a nice golden parachute.


Definitely a much easier life for these boards making life ending decisions than in China. They can definitely be happy they are not based in China. There are a few instances in China where decisions by the board of the company that ended up in the deaths of consumers lead to the CEO's/owners being sentenced to death as well as any other board members directly involved whereas the rest of the board members tend to get life prison sentences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5797
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15652
Location: South Oxfordshire
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.



I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8056
Saint wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.



I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP


The problem with that approach is that the industry needs the next game-changing technology to make designing a new aircraft profitable. The risk is that they spend $Xm to design something that is immediately made obsolete, the counter to that risk is that they have to do something.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 665 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hong Kong, Muttonbirds, Slim 293 and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group