John, I think that you have touched on a silent underlying issue that being profits. Boeing's main customers are not the airlines nor the people they in turn serve. The number one customer to Boeing, or Airbus, etc., is the shareholder. Drive costs down (outsource, cut corners, etc) to reduce hard costs and automate as much as possible in order to keep training costs down. Sad but the reality of free enterprise. The Max issue will simply a speedbump in time while the drive towards autonomous commercial aircraft continues. My 2 cents worth.

(Written on 2019年 09月 21日)(Permalink)

It's all about money guys, not technology!

(Written on 2019年 09月 21日)(Permalink)

Damage to frame / pressure dome (?) must be significant enough to warrant repair on site approach vs quick ferry. Anyway, gear issues identified which makes repair on site the only option.

(Written on 2019年 08月 30日)(Permalink)

Bit surprised. Thought they would cannibalize for parts for the rest of the fleet. Nice to see that they are giving her a second life! BUT its all about money and it seems the bean counters have determined that it's a thumbs-up!

(Written on 2019年 08月 30日)(Permalink)

This turd of a president just wants to leave footprints for the next generation. Unparalleled ego and nothing else. Can not even negotiate himself out of a paper bag. Suspect he will be long gone by the time they get to painting the jets.

(Written on 2019年 06月 07日)(Permalink)

Just another blood sucking leach preying on those in need of and looking for help, support, and guidance and often those that can least afford it. Generation after generation sees these types around.

(Written on 2019年 06月 07日)(Permalink)

If that is indeed the case ie: "lowest bids, not best units", perhaps your venom should be directed to the airports that made the choice!

(Written on 2019年 05月 17日)(Permalink)

Delta is leading the charge apparently! Part of the reason for slow adoption is the relatively cheap cost of fuel in the US. Causes companies to hold onto the old heavy drinking birds. ;-{)

(Written on 2019年 05月 03日)(Permalink)

Yeah agree, love the '57 but Boeing simply did not look past the end of its nose or around the corner at the time the '57 was canned. Guess the '37 was just more profitable on a frame by frame basis and they made a decision for that time and not for the future. Guess they just tried to milk the 737 frame too long - the 900 is a glaring example of too much stretch I think. BUT the was not taking the 37 over the 57 but more so on Boeing being slack on the job and losing sight of what QA is all about. Whether the '37 or '57 frame was chosen, the lax QA would have applied to both. It seems to be systemic and quite possibly based on stock price and not much else. Hate to say it guys but aviation is not about engineering,,,,, its about money. Who is the #1 customer of Boeing and any manufacturer for that fact? Certainly not the flying public, certainly not the airlines. It is the stockholder. Full stop.

(Written on 2019年 04月 26日)(Permalink)

BUT , , , success is measured by bums in seats. If pax shy away based on Boeing's problem with QA, then the beancounters will change their color. After all, there is competition. Example could be Jet Blue who is, I am certain, enjoying the scheduling havoc caused by gaps in the competitions fleets due to MAX groundings.

(Written on 2019年 04月 26日)(Permalink)