Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

Is the Boeing 737 Max 8 safe?

- Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:39:26 EST 0k+47I+E No.173497
File: 1552307966672.jpg -(4326B / 4.22KB, 286x176) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Is the Boeing 737 Max 8 safe?
When a newly built plane crashes, it's not a good thing. When two crashes in a short amount of time, you have to wonder...

(links below have video)
Jarvis Dronningnadge - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:26:41 EST pQvsc5gx No.173505 Reply
Hoo boy. Boeing is having the same moment that Douglas had to go through in the 1970s, when their planes kept having their cargo doors fall off.

Although there's already some speculation that the problem stems from fake chinese aerospace parts, sold to Boeing via forged paperwork.
Charlotte Smallham - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:39:08 EST k4enMT4C No.173510 Reply
the whole story of this plane just perfectly captures the issues with capitalistic thinking

>we'll just fuck with the aerodynamics a little so we can save on fuel and maximize profits
>whoops looks like it's a little aerodynamically unstable now, but we'll just have our code monkeys put some computer code to adjust the plane mid-flight to fix all that
>better not tell any of the pilots about this though, they probably won't even notice the computer making adjustments and we don't want to worry their pretty little heads
>whoops looks like our little system killed a bunch of people in a plane crash, but let's just let it ride, recall would be costly
>whoops looks like we just killed a few hundred more people, but you know that recall would still cost money so let's just keep plugging on ahead and blame the pilots
Angus Cleshbury - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:05:41 EST mWMWLoBA No.173511 Reply
Starting to think that profit might not be the best incentive structure for air travel safety.
Archie Tillingworth - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:16:08 EST 8pt/AtPX No.173512 Reply
This isn't even the first time like this for 737. In the 90s some weird flaw with one of the hydraulics caused the plane's controls to REVERSE, and 737s were literally being flown into the ground.
Jarvis Dronningnadge - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:22:08 EST pQvsc5gx No.173513 Reply

Wow look at that, an entire post of shitty misinformation and over-simplication.

There's no such thing as a perfectly aerodynamically stable plane. There never was, there never will be. Having computers smooth it out is better than the old days when you needed a pilot to manually fly a plane for hours and hours at a time.

And a lot of the time these kinds of crashes do in fact wind up being the fault of the pilots, who either react wrongly to a flight condition, or were just simply never trained to deal with a certain condition, even if boeing/airbus/whoever's flight manual specifies that you need to be trained for it. One of the most egregious examples of this was Colgan 3407, in which the pilots reacted wrongly to a stall warning program not just once, but multiple times. Given that this problem seems to be an issue with an anti-stall computer program, I bet you it's gonna wind up being a similar situation.

And fuel savings is important, idk why now suddenly that's "capitalism". People bitch and whine about airline ticket prices and global warming, but without aerodynamic fuel savings, we'd be back in the 1960s where planes still had turbojet engines that guzzled fuel like an alcoholic at an open bar, and a "cheap" airline ticket in 2019 adjusted dollars would be over $5,000.

Is this shitty for the max 8 project? Yeah. But it's a new design, and new designs always have problems. The 787's avionics bay exploded and caught fire when that design was new. The very first computer controlled A320 was flown into the ground in front of everyone at an airshow by its computer because the computers incorrectly thought the plane was landing. And like I said above: when the DC-10 came out, it's cargo door had the tendency to literally fall off the plane in flight.
Archie Tillingworth - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:28:15 EST 8pt/AtPX No.173514 Reply
>And like I said above: when the DC-10 came out, it's cargo door had the tendency to literally fall off the plane in flight.

I recall that, more for how stupid the FAA can be sometimes. It happened, and by a fucking miracle the plane was able to land with a blown out cargo door. Because of this, they didn't properly investigate or ground the planes since "no one died" even though the only reason they didn't was because of sheer luck.
Jarvis Dronningnadge - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:30:52 EST pQvsc5gx No.173515 Reply

But the DC-10 was grounded, because it happened multiple times.

Those who follow the history of the airplane-building business believe that the fuse that led to the Douglas company completely falling apart in the 1980s and 1990s was lit when the tens were grounded by the FAA.
Archie Tillingworth - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:35:15 EST 8pt/AtPX No.173516 Reply
Yeah, but not untill an entire DC-10 of people were killed by the same thing. I was pointing out that somehow, that problem wasn't a "big deal" because it didn't kill anyone the first time, despite it only because of luck, and an Air Worthiness directive wasn't issued till it killed people.
Jarvis Dronningnadge - Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:49:10 EST pQvsc5gx No.173521 Reply

Unfortunately, aircraft regulations are written in blood, as the old saying goes.

The DC-10 went through thousands of hours of flight testing to receive it's certification. But neither Douglas or the FAA thought about the scenario of what happens when a ramp worker who isn't paying any attention to his job forces a lever on the cargo door to close so hard that he literally breaks the internal mechanism, and then doesn't tell anyone about it.
Lillian Chimmerford - Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:50:49 EST k4enMT4C No.173550 Reply
Shut the fuck up. The first crash was specifically found to be caused by the MCAS software. False readings from the AoA sensor caused the computer to continue to lower to nose of the plane until it crashed. The company has already said it is going to be pushing updates to the software that make it possible for the pilot to override the software. They should have stopped flights the second they found out their software was at fault, but they didn't and now you're defending that decision because it's "normal" for planes to have issues. Go suck a dick.
Wesley Dosslegold - Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:18:39 EST WL3e2fsO No.173554 Reply

What the fuck do you think, that getting a pilot's license is just like getting a drivers license: you answer some questions on a computer screen and it just spits out a pilots license?

Even if a sensor is faulty, a properly trained and certified pilot will detect it and react appropriately to it. This may very well wind up being poor pilot training, where they got an AoA disagreement and they freaked out and reacted wrongly to the instrument failure. You're supposed to be fucking trained to deal with multiple instrument failures when you get type certified. Nearly all modern air crashes now are caused by pilot error/incompetence caused by bad training. There are 300 more of these types flying, how come no FAA or EASA certified pilots have managed to put their planes into the dirt?

Or yeah you know we can do your idea and just cripple the entire air industry by pulling type certifications on airplanes every time they pop a circuit breaker in flight ... yeah great plan there, genius. Are you one of those chuds who doesn't want einstein flying your plane? Fuck it, let's just go back to mechanical linkages right directly to the control surfaces, because computerized engine control is too complicated. Dumbass.

It's also worth noting that all of the aviation authorities that have grounded the planes, are all in countries that have their own domestic aircraft manufacturing industries they're motivated to protect .... hmmm......
Walter Buzzspear - Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:36:15 EST ZaT3LGkF No.173556 Reply
>neither Douglas or the FAA thought about the scenario
>In the following investigation, it was found that a similar set of conditions, which had caused the failure of an aircraft floor following explosive decompression of the cargo hold, had occurred in ground testing in 1970, before the DC-10 series entered commercial service. The smoking gun was a memo from the fuselage's manufacturer, Convair, to McDonnell Douglas, in which the series of events that occurred on Flight 96, and fatally on Flight 981, was foreseen; it concluded that if these events occurred it would probably result in the loss of the aircraft. In spite of this warning, nothing was done to correct the flaw. One of the eventual consequences was the largest civil lawsuit to that date.
Wesley Dosslegold - Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:54:56 EST WL3e2fsO No.173557 Reply

There's a good reason why Mcdonnell Douglas isn't around anymore today. That company was a slow bureaucratic nightmare.
William Bravingkark - Fri, 15 Mar 2019 03:39:48 EST JJfRbRWk No.173590 Reply
1552635588820.jpg -(93665B / 91.47KB, 1100x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It may be a bad plane but those wingtips are funky.
Angus Fomblekock - Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:27:29 EST WL3e2fsO No.173601 Reply
1552660049611.png -(1130805B / 1.08MB, 2256x1158) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Mcdonnell Douglas was a company completely falling apart by the end of the 1980s, but the one thing they were the fucking best at was aerodynamic surfaces and flow optimization.

Those split wingtips are originally from this clusterfuck of a concept: the MD-12. McD was working on ways to make the DC-10 more efficient, which led to all kinds of aerodynamic improvements that ultimately ended up in the MD-11.

Boeing has always made fast as fuck airfoils (The 747 is still to this day the fastest passenger plane in level flight) but they were never as good as McD at aerodynamic optimization ... of course since Boeing bought up all of McD in the mid-1990s, now all of those concepts and all of that knowledge belongs to them now...

However, if anything Boeing now is starting to fall into that same mentality that ultimately killed Mc don't create clean sheet designs because that's too expensive, just upgrade and re-engine old designs forever instead.
Angus Fomblekock - Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:37:00 EST WL3e2fsO No.173603 Reply
>The 747 is still to this day the fastest passenger plane in level flight

  • with the exception of the convair 990 and the concorde, before anyone jumps on me with some snarky achtually post. But both of those planes were white elephants and they both massive piles of money for Convair and the british and french taxpayers respectively. There are thousands of 747s built, delivered, and flying. There were less than 20 concordes ever made. NB
Reuben Himblefield - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 06:55:14 EST 66djl741 No.173841 Reply
Are 747s still flying? I remember seeing a 747 variant with finned wingtips.
Hamilton Borringsire - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:07:38 EST WL3e2fsO No.173842 Reply


For passenger flights, their use is slowly coming to an end: they're being replaced by more efficient planes, like the 777 and the a350.

But for cargo, they're still very heavily used. The order book for the newest version is almost entirely filled by cargo airlines. Given that the first drawing board version of the 747 was for a military cargo plane, it's a fitting place for that old bird to be.
Thomas Merrywell - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:38:02 EST 8pt/AtPX No.173852 Reply
>For passenger flights, their use is slowly coming to an end: they're being replaced by more efficient planes, like the 777 and the a350.

Are they? I see many of the busy Transcontinental flights still use 747s with no statement about being moved away from by airlines.
Hamilton Borringsire - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:05:35 EST WL3e2fsO No.173853 Reply

The 747-400s were designed to have a useful passenger service life of 30 years, and all of the ones out there still in fleets are starting to reach 20-25 years in age. All of the american carriers have already retried their -400s, I think only british airways and lufthansa still fly the -400 in any regular capacity. Although lufthansa is already starting to retire them in favor of the a350.
Eugene Drommerworth - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:55:54 EST 8pt/AtPX No.173858 Reply
47 747Is are in active service according to Wikipedia. Mostly based in East Asia. the 400 still has 150 passenger versions flying too. I dont think we'll see smaller jets in the Pan-Pacific flights, where they are most used.
Nell Sonderludging - Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:42:14 EST WL3e2fsO No.173865 Reply

The 777-9 and 777-10 is designed to replace the -400 ... holds just as many people in a two engine aircraft that is more efficient to run. When those come out in the next few years, that's when we'll really see the send of 747 passenger service. Airlines don't want 4 engine planes anymore, it's just two extra engines that require maintenance and costs. 4 engine planes have been obsolete ever since ETOPS.

Their fate will probably be like the MD-11s: they'll either get sent back to boeing to be re-built into cargo aircraft, or they'll be on their way to Arizona to go sit in the desert.
Shit Grimfield - Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:22:25 EST Tt8Bs1qe No.173905 Reply
I doubt Indonesia & Ethiopia are going to buy any more Boeings. Airbus just has to wait a few years and they will.
Walter Codgemeg - Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:05:04 EST k4enMT4C No.173939 Reply
They literally didn't even tell pilots that the software existed and had the ability to control the plane dude. They were probably afraid of the bad publicity it would get having the computer have to step in and control issues caused by aerodynamic failures in their design. The whole MCAS was kept secret and not put in the fucking operating manual at all. It's not the pilots fault you asshole.

Angus Femblewater - Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:18:35 EST WL3e2fsO No.173940 Reply

100% clickbait. Simple fact of the matter is that an MCAS failure caused a trim runaway, which 737 pilots have been trained to handle for 40 years.

People are bitching about an optional extra line of text on the display that would have read "AoA Disagree." What they conveniently forget to mention is that there already is a trim position indicator in the cockpit, and a trim runaway condition is a very obvious condition where the trim wheel starts flying around really fast and makes a lot of noise, which these pilots very clearly reacted wrongly to.

Having one extra light that probably would have confused these - as we now know - fairly inexperienced pilots even more than they already were confused.


People would pop blood vessels if they knew just how many software systems are in a plane that pilots aren't told about. They don't have to be told about them, it's irrelevant to them doing their jobs. Pilots follow checklists and react to flight conditions. They don't need to know about every single flight augmentation computer - they're line pilots, not test pilots.
Martha Bruvingstone - Sat, 23 Mar 2019 17:58:15 EST 4scaaRdR No.174001 Reply

hes just trying to show off what a super pro badass he is after all those hours of flight sim
Nicholas Billingridge - Wed, 27 Mar 2019 06:47:45 EST S3p2ieLA No.174172 Reply
>They don't need to know about every single flight augmentation computer - they're line pilots, not test pilots.

I had to know every single sensor and the mechanics behind them for my airline pilot training... Every detail from what the diaphragm inside the ASI is made of, to what happens to the air pressure and temperature before, during, and after hitting the vanes inside the low pressure compressor.

Pilot's don't just "react" to flight conditions. That's how you end up chasing needles and ending up in catastrophic situations you could have been prevented and solved at the very first anomaly.
To get hired anywhere as a pilot (under FAA or JAA rules) you have to prove that you can anticipate situations instead of just reacting to them.
and the only way to be able to diagnose problems you can't see yet it by knowing all the systems, sensors and physics related to your aircraft.
Cedric Sorrygold - Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:22:50 EST Zhdk+f9U No.174173 Reply

Some actual informed insight. Well holy shit there's hope yet for this board.
Augustus Trotson - Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:31:58 EST rGvC95bY No.174174 Reply
>They don't have to be told about them, it's irrelevant to them doing their jobs.
American capitalism, folks.

An ideology that doesn't just excuse catastrophic ignorance, it demands it!
Jack Blythebanks - Wed, 27 Mar 2019 16:59:23 EST iKg9hGZK No.174197 Reply
Does an ambulance driver need to know how an ECU calculates air:fuel mixtures or how the throttle position sensor changes shift timing in the transmission? I feel like you didn't understand the point he was making, or maybe you didn't even read the whole paragraph.
Thomas Pickson - Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:27:33 EST 1oIk8TNb No.174201 Reply
Holy shit are they horses? What are they man? Is my family safe or should I buy ambulance traps?
Caroline Haffingcocke - Tue, 16 Apr 2019 05:36:06 EST p03vjXnQ No.174896 Reply
Get the UN involved & let these Equatorial countries sue a USA company.
Wesley Mandledock - Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:04:55 EST LgBx1cO1 No.175155 Reply
A Seattlean laments:
As a Seattle local, near the heart of Boeing manufacturing, I've found that a critical part of this story that hasn't necessarily reached national or international attention is the corporate politics of Boeing.
Some years ago - around 2009 I believe? - Boeing went through a merger with another corporation. The Boeing name was kept, being widely known, but the management positions went almost entirely to the new company.
Boeing engineers and machinists had historically been an incredibly strong union, as the managers of the company knew that these were the people who actually made the company function. While of course there are written plans for all the planes, the technical knowledge of how to build them correctly was passed down directly from old employees to new ones,somewhat like a traditional mentorship.
Now, when the new management came in, there was already tension between the management and the union, since the union had been on strike at the start of the 2008 recession, which had caused a significant blow to company profits. Of course, there's no way the union could have known this, and sometimes that's how strikes go - but rather than understanding that they needed to bargain with the union, the new management decided to destroy it. They fired the vast majority of their senior engineers - I learned all this from a bus driver, who'd been fired just years out from retirement, after working as a boeing engineer for his entire career. They tried outsourcing production of individual parts to China and merely assembling the parts at the Washington plants, but that was a disaster - parts came back in all kinds of wrong sizes and with significant quality issues. So they realized it was critical to make everything in the same plant - and decided to build a new plant in North Carolina, a "right to work" (anti-union) state. This was also a disaster - the engineers they hired there were trying to figure out airplane manufacturing basically from scratch. Again, massive quality issues ensued. Eventually the corporate management realized just how important the mentoring of experienced engineers had been to their production, and sent the handful of engineers they hadn't fired yet to NC to train the scabs. Things stabilized after that, but they'd still lost a massive amount of knowledge and skill with all the people they'd fired. The Washington plants continued operation, at a significantly reduced volume, but the union was massively weakened.

The bigger picture here is that Boeing has built its entire reputation on reliability, quality, and expert engineering. The old management squabbled with the union, but they knew that, and they respected it. They understood that a passenger airplane is a piece of infrastructure, something which must be absolutely reliable, easy to repair and maintain, long-lasting, and replaced with new purchases only as needed.
The new management, despite a series of expensive manufacturing disasters which perfectly illustrated the importance of consistency, reliability, and expertise, entirely failed to learn their lesson. They view airplanes as a commodity to be marketed. They are willing to cut corners, push deadlines, mislead with marketing, and treat core safety features as "bonus upgrades" with an extra cost. Everything that has gone wrong with the 737 max can be explained by this corporate mindset.
Fanny Chuffingsune - Wed, 24 Apr 2019 05:28:09 EST LgBx1cO1 No.175165 Reply
As the video explains, the 737 max was a hastily-designed attempt to put an entirely new engine on the fuselage of the 737 line, which significantly changed the balance of the plane, and caused it to tip up into an angle which could cause stall conditions. From an engineering perspective, this should be an absolute dealbreaker. You don't launch a plane that's going to send itself into stall conditions during normal flight manouvers. That's absurd. The only sensible thing to do would be to redesign to fuselage to balance properly with the new engine. And that's absolutely normal in the world of airplane engineering. It might take a few more years, but the service life of an airplane is a good three decades, so it really shouldn't matter that much whether you're making that profit right now or a few years later.
Only from the perspective of a company trying to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible, veiwing market competition as a game to be won in the month-to-month comparison of profits, could the decision to rush the plane to production with such a fatal design flaw possibly occur.
And the way they chose to "fix" this problem by hiding it takes this profit-driven mindset to even more bizzare levels.
A plane which had such severe balance issues would not have passed regulations - so they hid it with a software system.
A plane which relied on an autonomous software system to prevent total failure would not have passed safety regulations - so they pretended it was a minor stabilization system, not a critical safety system.
If the actual function of the tilt control system was known to pilots, it would have been obvious that the plane was a safety disaster which should never have been cleared to fly - so the pilots manual didn't mention that the system even existed.
If pilots had known what the system was, how to tell if it wasn't working correctly, and how to manually override it, the crashes may have been averted (though the Ethopia flight data shows the pilots did regain manual control, it was too late - but they may have had to waste precious time figuring out what was going wrong.) But that information was intentionally hiden from them, entirely for the purpose of making the plane "marketable."

Worse still is the marketing of the sensor upgrade. The automatic tilt control system relied on measurements from a sensor on the tail of the plane. Every plane had two sensors built in, but by default, only one was activated and connected to the tilt control system. If customers paid extra, they could recieve an upgrade in which both sensors were activated, compared data to eaxh other, and set off an alert to the pilot if the two sensors were reporting different readings. Such a system would have, presumably, detected the sensor reading errors responsible for causing both of the crashes. Of course, to act on this information, the pilots would still have had to know what the tilt control system was and how to manually override it.

Boeing chose to market the plane as being functionally the same as the previous 737 designs, specifically so it would be given less thorough safety anaylsis and require less pilot training, and be on the market faster.
Boeing specifically requested, and recieved, special treatment from the FAA - a faster and less thorough review process.
After the second crash, Boeing lobbied the federal government not to ground the fleet, without any respect for the obvious safety concerns or the tradgedy of massive loss of life.
Now, with the fleet grounded, Boeing is trying to claim that they can fix the planes with a software upgrade and more pilot training - even though the problem remains that the plane will tip itself into stall conditions without active intervention, and even with both pilot knowledge and a non-malfunctioning software system, that's an incredibly dangerous design flaw.
Fanny Chuffingsune - Wed, 24 Apr 2019 18:50:54 EST LgBx1cO1 No.175175 Reply
1556146254309.jpg -(343915B / 335.85KB, 1680x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
At every stage, Boeing has put their corporate interests and profit above human life and safety, with disastrous consequences. Maybe that's just what we expect from a corporation in the modern day. While the vox video gives a good explanation of how the technical issues causing the failure were rooted in greedy business descisions, it seems to take somewhat for granted that corporations will behave this way.
But it came as a surprise to many, coming from Boeing, with its long history of engineering quality and reliability. In particular, the special treatment Boeing recieved from the FAA that allowed this mess of an airplane to pasd regulations, almost certainly wouldn't have been granted without that reputation.
I think Boeing's new management has finally burnt through all the currency of reputation the old union built. But I think it's an important cautionary tale, in this increasing unregulated mega-corporate capitalist world - a company which destroys its unions in the name of its profit margins can't be trusted to put any other human values above the relentless pursuit of profit, either.

I wrote all this put from memory,so pardon any innacuracies. Technical information is mostly from the Seattle Times coverage of situation, which has been very thorough. Information on the management and their union-busting shenanigans is from the various ex-Boeing engineers I've talked to over the years.
Charlotte Gallerfuck - Wed, 08 May 2019 07:03:23 EST 5D4LJVGP No.175491 Reply
Is AIRBUS going to take Boeing's share of the commercial flight market?
Ian Sellytidge - Wed, 08 May 2019 09:37:02 EST WL3e2fsO No.175495 Reply

They could have if they wanted to, but instead they lost billions of french and german taxpayer dollars on the white elephant that was the A380: a passenger plane designed in the 2000s for an airline business model that hasn't existed since 1977.

The A350 only just started flying this year. It's designed to compete with the 777...which started revenue flying in 1995.
Esther Nabberluck - Tue, 21 May 2019 06:06:36 EST BNgUsa5E No.175930 Reply
Airbus has a chance to swoop in; release the sales reps. Heh.
Nell Greenhall - Tue, 21 May 2019 10:42:52 EST WL3e2fsO No.175932 Reply

Frankly, there's a surplus of long haul commercial aircraft in the world right now anyway. All of the second-tier state-owned manufacturers are all getting in on the regional jet game now, which until now was pretty much been left for dead ever since Boeing killed the MD-95. But that's where the industry is heading. This isn't the 1970s anymore where a bunch of men in a smokey boardroom determine hub-and-spoke routes with pencil and paper. Computer analysis is giving us routes that are shorter and thinner to the point where even a 737 is considered over-capacity.

Airbus shouldn't be worried about boeing, they should be worried about embraer and sukhoi and comac. Those are the manufacturers who are going to eat their lunch in the next 20 years.

Realistically, boeing could exit the commercial aircraft game tomorrow and be fine ... they have military contracts to last them for the next 50 years. Just like lockheed did in the 1980s when they realized that commercial aircraft manufacturing in the post-dereg environment really is a fools errand.

Airbus doesn't have any such arrangement and their military products are terrible ... the A400 is a crock of shit, everybody wants C-17s from boeing instead.

Hence why they've become so heavily invested in bombardier, but that company has been a money-loser for 20 years ... the c series program is an absolute disaster and is completely dependent now on canadian taxpayer dollars for survival.
Phyllis Bimmerchane - Tue, 28 May 2019 06:51:20 EST AlIsIy64 No.176100 Reply
1559040680424.jpg -(33269B / 32.49KB, 600x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
> boeing could exit the commercial aircraft game tomorrow and be fine ... they have military contracts to last them for the next 50 years.
Can't do that. Profits will go down - Boeing CEO
Eugene Grandville - Tue, 28 May 2019 11:00:38 EST WL3e2fsO No.176104 Reply

Profits will go down substantially if they botch the design of a commercial aircraft. The L1011 nearly killed Lockheed, which is why they exited the commercial game and decided to focus only on military products. The MD-11 succeeded in killing Douglas, when they botched the introduction of a 3 engine jet right at the time that ETOPS started being accepted by the industry.

It's almost too easy to run a commercial jet program and never even come close to making any of your costs back at all. Airbus wouldn't even exist today if the french government hadn't bailed out Aerospatiale after the concorde turned out to be a complete white elephant.
Samuel Gettingshaw - Fri, 31 May 2019 20:53:27 EST 1i2Q00c3 No.176246 Reply
1559350407691.jpg -(192751B / 188.23KB, 1024x741) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You reminded me of Concorde's death... RIP 1976-2003.
One less chance for me to go supersonic.
Edwin Clinkinworth - Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:40:57 EST 8pt/AtPX No.177102 Reply
Seems like the guy who posted that thing about Boeing ditching their experienced engineers is true.

I suspect the MAX will never be allowed to fly again.
Emma Grandshaw - Mon, 01 Jul 2019 02:15:14 EST Fi7cZeI/ No.177123 Reply
1561961714466.png -(95809B / 93.56KB, 1031x531) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
No it's not safe and the reason is because of Indians. They are incompetent as shit.

-someone who worked in the tech industry with the job of fixing Indian mistakes
Alice Cillyson - Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:38:03 EST +8irr0Qf No.177152 Reply
>Capitalism as usual outsources jobs including skilled professions to poorly trained third worlders whose labor can be exploited cheaply
>blame third worlders
The actual inherent problem is transnational Capitalism.
Eugene Dapperson - Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:43:59 EST Ni4Gj5pD No.177153 Reply
>No it's not safe and the reason is because Boeing chose to skimp on safety by outsourcing on the cheap.
Beatrice Habberville - Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:16:37 EST g+vb2gyp No.177166 Reply
1562015797653.jpg -(211397B / 206.44KB, 1020x766) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The best part of Boeing's anti-worker saga was when they were publicly accusing union inspectors of doing their job by failing parts that didn't meet specifications, so they eliminated the "Quality Assurance Inspector" position all together.

lol that's a function of temp workers/contractors who just have to get past requirements and have zero future interaction with their work or whoever their work will affect.
American contractors make far more than Indians and still pull that shit.
Conversely, Indians my work has on-shored do really good work.
Hugh Hirringwill - Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:00:16 EST 1oIk8TNb No.177167 Reply
It was the total opposite for me. All of the guitar bodies we had made in India were so shitty that there was a 1 in 10 return rate, and the stuff that wasn't returned still needed work. The boxes they came in smelled fucking horrible for some reason too. The stuff assembled in Mexico and US was always fine though.
Esther Climbleman - Fri, 05 Jul 2019 23:42:59 EST rZVlyepI No.177216 Reply
I wouldn't trust today's Boeing to make a paper airplane, a real passenger aircraft.
David Cibberdock - Thu, 08 Aug 2019 20:14:43 EST u+szhWv9 No.178026 Reply
yeah, and the way he described it was how I was thinking.
Clara Cittingkure - Thu, 08 Aug 2019 20:23:11 EST E2Yofruj No.178028 Reply
Sounds like a cost cutting measure gone wrong & the usual security through obscurity approach.
I think it's time to outlaw the deployment of proprietary systems in safety critical applications.
Charles Blebbertick - Sun, 18 Aug 2019 01:59:14 EST 9HzY2i2C No.178327 Reply
1566107954314.jpg -(69478B / 67.85KB, 1400x650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>McDonnell Douglas
>Industry: Aerospace
>Fate: Merged with Boeing

Boeing should have never been allowed to absorb it.
Simon Brurringladge - Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:17:33 EST WL3e2fsO No.178403 Reply

What else were they supposed to do? Dissolve the company and put every single person out of a job? Give it to Lockheed who wanted absolutely nothing else to do with commercial aviation after the L-1011 project failed? The McD-Boeing merger was an inevitability 30 years in the making.

Once Airbus came into existence, it was pretty much a given that aerospace manufacturing would eventually merge into just a few of either: 1) massive mega-corporations or 2) quasi-government design bureaus, since now they would need to fight against the essentially unlimited deluge of european tax subsidies that Airbus receives.

(Plus more recently the need to fight against the gigantic piles and piles of state aid that China is pumping into COMAC ... but that wasn't relevant in the mid 1990s.)

That, plus McD's management was notoriously horrible, even all the way back to the 1950s when they were two separate companies. Douglas especially.

Boeing now has their entire product portfolio and all of their research, but none of the famously terrible management that killed the company, like all of the bad decisions they made regarding the MD-11 project and most especially the A-12 project.

McD genuninely believed the cold war was gonna last well into the 2000s, and ETOPS would never be extended past 90 minutes. Both of those predictions were wrong.
Shit Bendlekit - Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:59:57 EST 3Odo9IR+ No.178407 Reply
>What else were they supposed to do? Dissolve the company and put every single person out of a job?

You mean like how they did and had Fly by Nights come in and make the new 737 thats gonna bankrupt the company? bang up job that.
Simon Brurringladge - Mon, 19 Aug 2019 16:53:31 EST WL3e2fsO No.178409 Reply

It's hopelessly naïve to think that a type cert revoke from one variant of a short-to-medium commercial airframe -- the lowest margin area of the business -- will bankrupt Boeing.

Boeing still holds the global monopoly on long range widebodies, which is where the real money is at in the commercial game. The A380 was a commercial failure and the A350 is still just an afterthought for non-european airlines. Russian widebodies are outdated garbage. Chinese widebodies are still realistically 50 years or more away. Asian airlines all unanimously want 777s and 787s.

They also hold essentially all of the designs for military aviation airframes used by the non-communist world.
Graham Noddlekork - Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:03:59 EST 3Odo9IR+ No.178414 Reply
I like that you ignored the point that even with all the funding, breaks, and merging, they still fired all the experienced high payed workers, rendering your point moot.

But I did misspeak, and I apologize. It won't bankrupt Boeing, because of its military contracts, but it will likely go the way of Lockheed. Complete shutter of its civilian side, because widebodies arn't wanted anymore. Long range, small planes are the future. Hell you said it yourself with ETOPS.
Phoebe Dartworth - Sat, 07 Sep 2019 16:50:27 EST 3Odo9IR+ No.178952 Reply
Congrats on Boeing on fucking the system that has been used since flying became commercial.
Beatrice Senningdadge - Sat, 07 Sep 2019 18:53:54 EST wFK2Hm63 No.178957 Reply
American airplanes have become the equivalent of soviet cars.
Graham Pickbury - Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:24:47 EST 4g+BxLVK No.179310 Reply
You need to get out of the city now.

The US Ponzi economy will collapse.

The farms will have food, but the cities will not.

There will be riots in the urban areas.

The elites are also planning to start WWIII with North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia to distract Americans when the economy implodes and boost defense company sales. Cities will become nuclear targets.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.