Jail time for execs is the only solution that matters.
Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
381–390 of 407 posts
Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out 300 Boeing Max delivered since it was release in 2016, there has been 2 full hull losses with full loss of life. I bet if you do the numbers it is the most dangerous way of traveling. Tesla gets shit on for autopilot and it’s killed 4 people but has 100s of thousand of cars on the road with autopilot.
> I bet if you do the numbers it is the most dangerous way of traveling That's just crazy talk. If it's more dangerous than a car I'll eat my hat. According to NYT/Flightaware, there were ~8600 737Max flights per week. Let's call it 8000, and limit our analysis to the past year. Let's also make the very low assumption there are only 100 passengers on each. 8000 * 100 * 50 is very conservative 40 million passenger tri…
I thinks it’s more comparison to compare travel time than travel distance when measuring safety. If we invented teleportation device that could whisk humans billions a mile way to the next star but killed 1/2 of the people that used it, it shouldn’t be considered the safest way of traveling.
Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the company Contracts with whom? A member country EU court with a dead passenger could presumably make life very very uncomfortable for senior Boeing management.
I wrote victim and not dead passenger as you falsely implied. The contracts are with the surviving familing members. If you don't consider them as victims then give me another word for it. edit: If you downvote me at least give me a chance to defend why I chose the word victim. The reply gizmo is there.
You’ve taken that in a different direction than I meant. I’d absolutely agree surviving family members are victims too (albeit I’d call them victims’ families for clarity), but none of this will stop say a well motivated prosecutor from arguing that these contracts were signed under duress, bad faith, or include some kind of “unfair term” (which would invalidate a contract in the UK at least)
Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new type rating will mean that the plane gets the worst of two worlds. Instead of saving a type rating yet delivering a paritally-modern aircraft, Boeing is requiring a type rating yet delivering a paritally-legacy aircraft. I'm not sure where the quirks bit comes in. Sure, all planes have their quirks but obviously taildraggers don't intentionally squat their props _closer_ to the pavement on landing. There's no d…
I agree that a new type rating is not a good thing for Boeing or its customers. But it may be the best and right thing for pilots and passengers, which is what the Governments of the world should care about. Secondly, landing a taildragger on its wheels does involve a distinct “push the nose forward” on touchdown to keep the plane on the ground. Takes a bit of practice to get used to it. Even more fun is landing on j…
Thank you for the insight about landings. I am not a pilot but rather just think myself a knowledgeable enthusiast... Just enough to talk mumbo-jumbo.
I had never considered that aspect of increasing angle of attack on bringing the rear wheel down. Considering that and the fact that there is no rotation on takeoff, what is the appeal of a taildragger? I've even seen 152's converted to taildragger. Why would one do that? Do taildraggers have any advantage that I cannot fathom?
Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are required to do what the shareholders want, which is usually maximizing returns. I know of no such law. In which country is the the law? In fact there is some concern by some economists that the management of public firms have too much discretion as unhappy shareholders can simply sell their shares and invest elsewhere rather than provide any direct feedback. Even when direct feedback is provided, managemen…
> In which country is the the law? All that respect private property. The shareholders own the company, the management is essentially their employees. The shareholders may not micromanage their company, but still management's job is to further the aims of the shareholders just as the job of elected politicians in a representative democracy is to further the aims of the people. Otherwise they get fired. While this may…
Can you point to any law or regulation in, say, the USA that requires this, regardless of whether it is enforced or not?
Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
What additional miles? The hypothetical was twice the speed, not twice the distance. If you double the distance and keep the same number of crashes, then of course planes are twice as safe. Why would you suggest otherwise?
The risk would surely increase with doubled speed, no? The Concorde was unsafe because of all the design constraints imposed by being able to go that fast.
Why do you think that the concode was unsafe? It had a single crash in over 25-years of operation, and that crash was due to runway FOD. That makes it probably the single safest passenger aircraft ever brought to service. In fact, it is probably one of the single safest forms of transportation ever.
The concord was involved in single accident resulting in death or injury, which was not due to a fault of its own.
Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In which country is the the law? All that respect private property. The shareholders own the company, the management is essentially their employees. The shareholders may not micromanage their company, but still management's job is to further the aims of the shareholders just as the job of elected politicians in a representative democracy is to further the aims of the people. Otherwise they get fired. While this may…
Can you point to any law or regulation in, say, the USA that requires this, regardless of whether it is enforced or not?
Probably, if I spent the time. But then again, the fact that the owners of a company choose its management might be so obvious no lawmaker ever bothered to write it down.
Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't feel confident that Boeing would accept the cost of grounding the fleet the next time something serious-but-not-yet-crashing shows up. They wouldn't even ground the fleet if death and destruction occurs. Like they didn't do after the Lion Air crash. Even after the Ethiopian plane they tried hell and high water, including a call to the president, to not have the plane grounded. It's clear that to Boeing, their…
> still smearing everybody else but themselves a news alert popped up on my phone today about "bird strike possible in ethiopian crash...". I didn't bother reading it, but I thought seriously ? What media outlet did they pay off to even think of trying to divert attention and who in their right mind would think propaganda like that would be effective ?
Well, how else did the sensor come to be broken?
Aside from a bird strike the possibilities are just as unlikely. There could be sabotage. There could have been an impact with the passenger boarding equipment. Somebody cleaning or painting the plane could have smashed it.
Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#389Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
No: this is a meme which I do not know from where comes. The aim of a corporation is to do its business, not to make money. The first is before the second.
The aim of a corporation is to serve the common interests of it's shareholders (you might add “as understood by it's management”); most commonly, with a widely held corporation, those common interests are limited to making money.
No: I understand it as "by its definition as corporation" (i.e. Boeing might make a lot more money if they just turned into a collection of car factories, for example -just for example-) but then it would not be Boeing.