Make up your mind.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.
Well, not too sure about that.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.
What are you on about?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.
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..
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.
It's obvious after all these years you don't really have a clue what I am all about.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.
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!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.
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.
Alright then.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.
Alright then.
What do you think is the solution.
What do you think has the best cost vs benefit?