411–420 of 637 posts
So I read somewhere than Muilenburg was the only engineer in the Boeing C suite. There were no pilots in the C suite. And this was part of the problem. The new CEO has a degree in accounting. I bet he’ll do great.
And, if Wikipedia is to be believed, once worked for GE!
Boeing was still promising end of year FAA certification for 737 Max as recently as early December. Around that time, they had a spokesperson on CNBC who was asked directly how the outstanding steps (which indicated February at the earliest) aligned with their end of year statements and the position was essentially, 'we've been saying end of year and end of year could still happen.' When your brand is suffering a cri…
has worked for Elon, and now his stock is trading at an all time high. $420
As I understand, Boeing wanted to use larger engines because larger, hotter engines burn less fuel. But increasing the diameter of the engine ordinarily means raising the wing in order to accommodate it but that would make the plane incompatible with existing infrastructure (such as jet bridges) at airports. For that reason Boeing positioned the engine forward on the wing instead of raising the wing.
Don't newer Airbus planes also have larger engines? How did they maintain compatibility with existing airport infrastructure while accommodating a larger engine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of the news coverage of SpaceX’s first landing attempts, where they crashed into the barge and exploded and everyone was like “it’s a failure, it will never work”. Yeah but so much went right. I think it’s just the (well deserved) media narrative Boeing is in now. When you kill hundreds of people and then pretend it wasn’t your fault, you get what’s coming to you.
That negative messaging was driven by ULA in a desperate bid to close the door on their new competitor. If they could kill off enough contracts, SpaceX might have run out of runway before they established their business model.
You don't get to preside over 346 deaths and get to keep your job. Sorry...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won't until political winds shift and you get some regulatory intervention. I would project around 2030, when the major carriers are all ground away and the financial shenanigans of low cost airlines (example: Norwegian Airlines with NY->Europe trips that cost less than the parking) run out of gas. Without that, there's no motivation to do anything but shave every marginal dollar. Competitive forces are limited…
> remove seat cushions on the locomotives A very short-sighted action. Driver seats are not like passenger seats, the drivers will strike if they are discomforted by the seat.
How did Airbus avoid the problem Boeing ran into? As I understand, Boeing wanted to use larger engines because larger, hotter engines burn less fuel. But increasing the diameter of the engine ordinarily means raising the wing in order to accommodate it but that would make the plane incompatible with existing infrastructure (such as jet bridges) at airports. For that reason Boeing positioned the engine forward on the…
How did Airbus avoid the problem Boeing ran into? As I understand, Boeing wanted to use larger engines because larger, hotter engines burn less fuel. But increasing the diameter of the engine ordinarily means raising the wing in order to accommodate it but that would make the plane incompatible with existing infrastructure (such as jet bridges) at airports. For that reason Boeing positioned the engine forward on the…
How did Airbus avoid the problem Boeing ran into? As I understand, Boeing wanted to use larger engines because larger, hotter engines burn less fuel. But increasing the diameter of the engine ordinarily means raising the wing in order to accommodate it but that would make the plane incompatible with existing infrastructure (such as jet bridges) at airports. For that reason Boeing positioned the engine forward on the…
My understanding was their planes rode higher off the ground so the engines didn't need to be moved forward
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NYT didn’t have to be right, they only had to sell newspapers and clicks. The burden of evidence for publishing a hit piece is much lower than that for making an actual business decision. I’m no fan of Boeing but the truth is, betting your entire business requires a much higher burden of proof than journalism does.
"The NYT didn’t have to be right, they only had to sell newspapers and clicks." This is totally wrong. The New York Times depends on its reputation for accuracy.
Which, to me at least, is a perfectly legitimate thing for a newspaper to do. Yes, they should check facts and vet sources, but their primary responsibility is to do the best they can and get the information out there for the public.