Departing politics:

[Insp4]

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.

K.C. The idea was to get away from politics! But since you had to drag it back, what "regulations and requirements" are you refuring to? I believe we had off shore maintenance going on long before Trump!

 

[KCFlyer]

K.C. The idea was to get away from politics! But since you had to drag it back, what "regulations and requirements" are you refuring to? I believe we had off shore maintenance going on long before Trump!

Yes, we did. But I believe that it was deregulating republicans that brought it about.

 

[Insp4]

Yes, we did. But I believe that it was deregulating republicans that brought it about.

My, my, my! Who's that signing the "Airline Deregulation act"? ....... President Jimmy Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act into law on October 24, 1978, the first time in U.S. history that an industry was deregulated.

 

[KCFlyer]

My, my, my! Who's that signing the "Airline Deregulation act"? ....... President Jimmy Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act into law on October 24, 1978, the first time in U.S. history that an industry was deregulated.

Where in the airline deregulation act did Carter authorize FAA oversight to be turned over to manufacturers?

I didn't really mean to post about politics, but airline deregulation wasn't enough. Republicans have gone on about onerous government regulation...W did something about it.. Then manufacturers were given a lot more leeway in the certification of their planes. Whether they were built or maintained. And once that happened...it opened the door to things like offshoring heavy checks.

And I think that it has some responsibility to the recent Max crashes. Profits uber alles. Boeing would have been fine paying off 150 families. But now that the plane is grounded, they have some unhappy customers and a lot of planes nobody can fly. BUT...and this is important....there wasn't a lot of bureaucratic red tape to get this thing to market.

 

[Insp4]

O.K. K.C., point taken...... But please don't try and blame what happened here on Trump, or the Republican Party...... FAA screwed up! Plan and simple! I believe both of us agree on that.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

What price do you put on safety?

I don't know what price you put on safety KCFlyer. However, a balance has to be found. When you have so many regulations on a business that they can't survive that is a problem.

Take an iron worker, they wear hardhats, steel toed boots, safety glasses, gloves, harnesses, and hearing protection. I may even be missing a few things. Point is injuries and fatalities still happen. Could you make the job even safer? I am sure you can. However when it gets to the point where safety is so expensive nobody can afford to build anything or there are so many regulations nothing is getting built that is a problem.

If you think that can't happen think again. There are several large cities with housing problems right now because new homes are not being built due to very restrictive regulations.

Take smokers. The government has been on a nonstop attack on smokers now for the last 10 years. The taxes on cigarettes are obscene. The rules are so restrictive as to make the product unusable. Vaping has been attacked. All this has been done in the name of "safety".

Sure safety is very important but you can't shut the world down because of risk.

So to answer your question how much is safety worth, I guess my answer would have to be what is reasonable that still allows an acceptable level of progress and growth. What does that mean? Well I am not so arrogant as to think I know the answer to that question. It is going to take someone a hell of a lot smarter than me to quantify that.

However I will say when you get to the point that you have a homeless problem due to restrictive regulations things have gone too far. I will say when you have smokers being unfairly taxed and bullied things have gone too far.

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.

MY work?

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Care to clarify that comment?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Where in the airline deregulation act did Carter authorize FAA oversight to be turned over to manufacturers?

I didn't really mean to post about politics, but airline deregulation wasn't enough. Republicans have gone on about onerous government regulation...W did something about it.. Then manufacturers were given a lot more leeway in the certification of their planes. Whether they were built or maintained. And once that happened...it opened the door to things like offshoring heavy checks.

And I think that it has some responsibility to the recent Max crashes. Profits uber alles. Boeing would have been fine paying off 150 families. But now that the plane is grounded, they have some unhappy customers and a lot of planes nobody can fly. BUT...and this is important....there wasn't a lot of bureaucratic red tape to get this thing to market.

How do you feel about companies that have breakthrough new medical treatments for TERMINAL illness that they can't use?

If I were dying I think I would chance the side effects because ANY side effect would have to be better than the alternative (which is death).

Yet these treatments stay stuck in labs locked behind a mile of red tape.

But hey.... at least those terminal patients are safe.

I know this is an extreme example but my point is........ sometimes safety (and I don't necessarily mean the max situation) has to take a backseat to getting things done.

 

[Insp4]

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.

WRONG AGAIN! ..... The one that "cut" the regulations was your own Democrat, peanut farmer, President Jimmy Carter, back in 1978! I really don't know what other, " nasty regulations and requirements," you are talking about!

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

What price do you put on safety?

 

[KCFlyer]

WRONG AGAIN! ..... The one that "cut" the regulations was your own Democrat, peanut farmer, President Jimmy Carter, back in 1978! I really don't know what other, " nasty regulations and requirements," you are talking about!

Where in the deregulation act did Jimmy Carter say that the FAA should ease oversight of aircraft certification and maintenance. The airline deregulation act impacted the Civil Aeronatics Board...not the FAA. They were two different things. Nice try though.

 

[KCFlyer]

How do you feel about companies that have breakthrough new medical treatments for TERMINAL illness that they can't use?

If I were dying I think I would chance the side effects because ANY side effect would have to be better than the alternative (which is death).

Yet these treatments stay stuck in labs locked behind a mile of red tape.

But hey.... at least those terminal patients are safe.

I know this is an extreme example but my point is........ sometimes safety (and I don't necessarily mean the max situation) has to take a backseat to getting things done.

Isn't it funny that we have so many regulations to prevent a handful of people with a terminal illness from dying, but have rather lax oversight of a metal tube with 150 lives on it, conducting thousands of flights every day.

 

[Insp4]

Where in the deregulation act did Jimmy Carter say that the FAA should ease oversight of aircraft certification and maintenance. The airline deregulation act impacted the Civil Aeronatics Board...not the FAA. They were two different things. Nice try though.

And what regulations were "cut", or "suspended", by the Republicans, to do what you claim? Which by the why has not been proven to begin with!......... And, are you trying to imply that the Airline deregulation act of 1978 has not affected you? If so, you have your head buried in the sand!........ And I'm being diplomatic here!

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Isn't it funny that we have so many regulations to prevent a handful of people with a terminal illness from dying, but have rather lax oversight of a metal tube with 150 lives on it, conducting thousands of flights every day.

I think you are oversimplifying the issue.

That is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[KCFlyer]

I think you are oversimplifying the issue.

That is not an apples to apples comparison.

Well...when you vote for getting rid of onerous regulations and bureaucratic red tape, you might be thinking about a life saving medical procedure or drug. But the people you voted for are looking at profit$. You know....without all that bureaucratic red tape around airline and airliners, it can be very beneficial to $hareholders if we offshored that heavy maintenance. You have to look at what they are promising.

And this isn't a first for Boeing..Al Jareeza did a documentary about the 787 where the (non union) workers in South Carolina said they were being pushed to get them out the door. One workers comment was "we don't build these to fly, we build them to sell".,

 

[Dog Wonder]

I think you are oversimplifying the issue.

That is not an apples to apples comparison.

You made the comparison,