Departing politics:

Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by Insp4, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. Insp4

    Insp4 Veteran

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    689
    So what are your thoughts?
     
  2. La Li Lu Le Lo

    La Li Lu Le Lo Veteran

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,418
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    I think this is a good argument why we are not ready for automated transportation. I also think airlines should sue Boeing for the cost they are going to incur due to false advertising.

    Most of all I think Boeing should be on the hook for lawsuits resulting from fatalities and not the airlines.

    On top of that Boeing needs to compensate not only passenger families but flight crew families as well.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. xUT

    xUT Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    3,776
    Make up your mind.
    Are you a capitalist or socialist?
    Every suggestion you made is socialist.
    It has long been known that the FAA has been in bed with manufactures since day one.
    Since the FAA approved it, the onus is on the FAA.
    Sue the government.:eek:
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. KCFlyer

    KCFlyer Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    9,445
    Likes Received:
    1,265
    #4 KCFlyer, Apr 19, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
    It should have been called the 797 and pilots should be type rated for it. I have no doubt that any 737 pilot could have stepped into the cockpit of a 757 and flown it fine, but they'd still need to be type rated for the differences between the two before they can fly any passengers. This was sold as a 737, but it's not a 737. Hell...why don't they just bring back the 757?

    And it does look like Boeing put profits ahead of everything else. Not only will they be on the hook for a LOT of damages from the crash victims families, I have an idea that the cost of the "optional" safety equipment that SWA and AA paid for will be reimbursed, and I'm fairly certain that all US airlines will want some sort of compensation for the revenues lost by a bunch of new jets parked in Victorville, earning them zero return on their investment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Seatacus

    Seatacus Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    159
    I agree. The 757 was a great plane.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. xUT

    xUT Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    3,776
    Well, not too sure about that.
    I haven't flown much but I have worked on aircraft/components from UH-1, DC-3 up to 767.
    I will say that you are pretty confused about type ratings.
    True going from a 757 to 767 is supposed to be easier, but from a 737 to 757 is quite a leap.
    This is my opinion of course.
    I am sure that your perspective from first class exceeds my experience..:)
     
  7. La Li Lu Le Lo

    La Li Lu Le Lo Veteran

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,418
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    What are you on about?

    It was Boeing's product.

    It was Boeing's software.

    It was Boeing's failure to disclose.

    Why should the government be on the hook for Boeing's failures?

    Why should tax money go to pay for Boeing's mistakes?

    Using tax many to pay for the mistakes of that manufacturer is socialist, not expecting the manufacturer to own their mistakes.

    Remember a few years ago when drivers accelerators were randomly sticking? Who got sued? It was certainly not the government.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/...1-6-billion-over-faulty-accelerator-suit.html

    A federal judge approved a $1.6 billion settlement on Friday in a class-action lawsuit against Toyota to compensate vehicle owners who suffered financial losses after widespread reports of sudden, unintended acceleration in 2009 and 2010.

    Seriously, if you think expecting Boeing to own their mistake is socialist (instead of the government) you're going to have to walk me through your logic because I don't see it. In fact I see it as the exact opposite.

    When you are a business you are liable for the product you sell. The only exception to that is if the company discloses (this product is known to cause dizziness in some consumers) or the knowledge is very common (like sugary drinks can lead to diabetes or smoking can cause cancer). If it is common knowledge that has been available for years and you still choose to do it that is on you.
     
  8. KCFlyer

    KCFlyer Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    9,445
    Likes Received:
    1,265
    I'm not really confused. The 757 to 767 is supposed to be easy, but you still have to be type rated in both because they are different. I'm not an aeronautical engineer either, but it just seems that when you do something like, say, reposition an engine, you just changed the plane, so it's different. And IMHO, deserves more than a two hour session on an iPad and barely mentioning the system that had to be created to deal with the new flight characteristics. Here's what I was getting at....I think that a 737 pilots "stick and rudder" skills would allow them to take a 2 hour iPad overview and successfully take a 767 round the pattern. They wouldn't know the plane, but they most likely could manage to fly one. Same thing with the Max....it's familiar enough, but there is a system that was glossed over, with a single point of failure and no backup. Pilot's could fly that plane, but they (thanks to Boeing) did not KNOW that plane.

    But Airbus was selling the A320neo as "basically the same plane"...but in their case, it really WAS. It wasn't with Boeing, and increased costs associated with training would make it less competitive with Airbus., so they TOLD airlines that it was basically the same plane

    The other planes in the 737 family all have the engines in the same spot under the wing., This one doesn't. It had to be moved forward and up. That is what necessitated the MCAS system. Seattle%20Times%20investigation%20published%20Sunday%20alleges.]This article doesn't look great for Boeing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. KCFlyer

    KCFlyer Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    9,445
    Likes Received:
    1,265
    I guess because in a business friendly, cut wasteful government spending move, much of the oversight of the aircraft was delegated from the government to the manufacturer. Your money MIGHT have prevented this, but when the manufacturer wants to get something out the door, they might be pressured to certify something in their role as overseer.

    BUT....if those "damned government regulations" would have pushed the release of the Max back, I'm sure that it would just be another example of the government hindering America's competitiveness.
     
  10. Insp4

    Insp4 Veteran

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    689
    Let's face it, FAA screwed up on this one just as much as Boeing. But unlike Boeing, that can't be fixed with just a software upgrade!
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  11. La Li Lu Le Lo

    La Li Lu Le Lo Veteran

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,418
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    It's obvious after all these years you don't really have a clue what I am all about.

    This comes down to responsibility.

    Boeing sold a bad product and they need to deal with the fallout. The liability certainly should not be pushed off on the government. After all when the government gets sued, you're not really suing "the government", you're suing the people. I don't wish to socialize Boeing's losses and that is EXACTLY what suing the government would result in.

    I believe lawsuits, loss of reputation, and public opinion are very devastating. I believe these factors encourage self regulation.

    It is true that the FAA "MIGHT" have caught it. However "MIGHT" is fantasy and the fact it was missed is reality.

    I know this is a bit off top but, regarding the FAA.....in this day and age of globalization and offshore maintenance I believe the FAA in it's current form (key words there) has outlived it's usefulness. They need to either evolve to the modern reality of maintenance, or insist all American airlines (as in airlines based in America not the company) maintenance be done in the United States.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Insp4

    Insp4 Veteran

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    3,485
    Likes Received:
    689
    #12 Insp4, Apr 20, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
    This is one area the I feel Trump either is ignoring or just doesn't have a clue!........ I feel if an Aircraft is manufactured in this country, it should be mandatory that it's maintained in this country!..... No exceptions!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. KCFlyer

    KCFlyer Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    9,445
    Likes Received:
    1,265
    And I am saying that sometimes removing regulations and onerous oversight and turning it over to the manufacturer might result in a certification (self) in order to improve profits. The FAA is kind of in a no win situation. If they have FAA inspectors doing the certification, and they slow down the sales of the plane, then they are hindering American competitiveness. But if they turn the certification over to the manufacturer, that manufacturer might self certify something a little sooner that they maybe should have, in order to capture sales and profits.
     
  14. La Li Lu Le Lo

    La Li Lu Le Lo Veteran

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,418
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Alright then.

    What do you think is the solution.

    What do you think has the best cost vs benefit?
     
  15. KCFlyer

    KCFlyer Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    9,445
    Likes Received:
    1,265
    What price do you put on safety? Boeing made it "optional" on the Max. But I think the best solution is to bring BACK FAA oversight. Don't turn it over to the manufacturer who has to answer to shareholders and needs a quick profit to make them happy. Might be more "wasteful spending", but I think that part of the problem with the Max is that Boeing wanted profits. Boeing NEEDED profits. And that might have influenced their "self certification".

    AND...if the FAA were back in the picture and their oversight was required for MAINTENANCE - you might see some of that offshored maintenance come back to the states, since of the FAA can't get down there to certify everything, then the planes that are fixed there can't fly when they get back. It's kind of funny....you voted for a party that vowed to cut those nasty regulations and requirements....and they DID....and it resulted in YOUR work being sent to another country. Be careful what you vote for.
     

Share This Page