51–60 of 84 posts
It's not just planes; I've noticed a lot of things seem to get better over time, then take a nosedive (pun not intended). I wonder if it's an inherent property of systems to do this, or if it's the result of some perverse incentives to have "progress" at all costs.
That's a disingenuous headline (I blame the Telegraph). > In an email from June 2018, before the first Max crash, one Boeing worker wrote: “Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule.” > Another member of staff warns about a relentless cost focus... > Last September, the 777X suffered a setback when it failed a ground te…
Yes, they try to imply that the 'Max problem' in the headline is the MCAS. We can conclude that with some certainty, because the headline is quite awkwardly written, to fit the quote in there. (However, it is of course entirely correct as written.)
These articles are getting a little tiresome. Private enterprise is about competition and cost reduction. That’s what drives improvement, innovation, and efficiency, and it’s what differentiates private enterprise from government spending, which is about justifying why things need to be so expensive. Yes, Boeing was too aggressive about reducing cost to compete with Airbus and they need some major reform because hund…
It's not terribly surprising this is causing all kinds of upheavals at Boeing.
Richard Feynman is right again. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
Boeing changed my life. My family traveled a lot when I was a little kid. The advent of the 707 meant we no longer had to spend five days on a ship in the North Atlantic to get from Europe to New York or vice versa. I sure hope they can pull their company out of its present poorly controlled descent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s all because of card fees. It’s not economical to charge $0.5
That “problem” has been solved two decades ago. In the EU debt reins, with zero fees, and there are dozens of micro-payments systems operating all over the world. Isn’t Venmo big in the US?
Debit cards are not popular here because they tend to lack robust fraud protection - and even if they did, your bank account could easily be zeroed for weeks while they work to reverse the fraudulent charges.
Also, debit cards still have an interchange fee here. It’s cheaper than credit cards, but even for a small purchase there’s usually a $0.20 minimum fee - which is too much for microtransactions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I would agree with you in general, I hope in this case you can see how Boeing’s judgement can be called into question based on the terrible decisions they’ve made contemporary to the 777X development. And these are decisions that have cost lives. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume they’re just cheaping out and don’t really care about passenger safety when they have a track record of cheaping out and n…
The 737 MAX issue wasn’t Boeing cheaping our though. It was Boeing trying to avoid recertification so it was a drop in for existing 737 customers. In other words, Boeing was trying to target the airlines that cheap out and did something stupid to get there. This wasn’t a quality problem. This is was a failure to recognize (or willful hiding) the importance of training pilots on MCAS.
Is it too much to assume that the government would try to figure out some rescue operations (whatever they may look like) to save Boeing financially in case that this is required? One reason for the trade dispute with the EU is Airbus.
That's a disingenuous headline (I blame the Telegraph). > In an email from June 2018, before the first Max crash, one Boeing worker wrote: “Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule.” > Another member of staff warns about a relentless cost focus... > Last September, the 777X suffered a setback when it failed a ground te…
Still doesn’t fill me with reassurance about the safety of flying on one of these.
If William Langeweische's NYT article from last September ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c... ) is accurate, Boeing is scrambling to make a transition from selling airplanes requiring extremely high pilot skill ("airmanship", Langeweische calls it) to requiring medium pilot skill. They're trying to make the transition due to competition from Airbus. They're partly using public relations…
Boeing is the stock with the biggest weight within the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Trump often uses this index as a public measure of his personal success. Is it too much to assume that the government would try to figure out some rescue operations (whatever they may look like) to save Boeing financially in case that this is required? One reason for the trade dispute with the EU is Airbus.