Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 884 posts

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#761

Post by mulmen »

habinero wrote: post #718
mulmen wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like a great way to create an airplane company that no competent people will want to run. Is it your assertion that Boeing is currently operated by competent people? They're getting crushed by SpaceX at rockets. How much more of this incompetence will it take before someone does the same to them with airliners? Relying on being "too big to fail" isn't a viable long term strategy. It only lowers the barrier t…

The aviation side of Boeing doesn't do rockets. That's a completely separate org which is part of the ULA consortium. SpaceX has (ok, had) good PR, but they don't do anything others couldn't do. And they'd be bankrupt without NASA.

SpaceX is doing things nobody else has done. ULA is equally reliant on government dollars. Boeing is a company that builds rockets and airliners and they aren't doing a great job of either at the moment. Who else is responsible for that if not the C-suite?

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#762

Post by nielsbot »

nyokodo wrote: post #692
nielsbot wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is called regulatory capture. And it’s by our campaign finance system. And that’s a result of unhindered capital accumulation by a minority.

> regulatory capture You don’t need a campaign finance problem to get regulatory capture. Only industry insiders have the context to regulate industries. They come from industry, they know and are known by all the players, and back to industry is where they want options to return. They see the world in terms other insiders do and they don’t want to burn any bridges. This is a recipe for industry getting what they wan…

I agree "revolving door" is also a huge problem.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#763

Post by elihu »

elihu wrote: post #757
seydor wrote: post #129

Now i wonder, where did that broken door land?

That's a matter of active speculation on the Portland subreddit, as you might imagine. As far as I know, no land owner has come forward with the missing window. There's a lot of green space in and around Portland. There's good odds it may never be found, especially if it lands in some remote corner of Forest Park.

Here's one person's approximate location guess:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/190col8/probable_...

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#764

Post by bmitc »

vladms wrote: post #743
ixs wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Southwest 1380 would like a word with you. Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 was a Boeing 737-700 that experienced an uncontained engine failure[a] in the left CFM56-7B engine after departing from New York–LaGuardia Airport en route to Dallas Love Field on April 17, 2018. […] One passenger was partially ejected from the aircraft and sustained fatal injuries[…] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_13…

Based on this https://www.airlines.org/dataset/safety-record-of-u-s-air-ca... between 2009 and 2021 there were indeed 2. I think that the point stands, it is very impressive and safe.

Wikipedia says 51.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_...

The numbers would go up quite a bit if it included private and military. The numbers you linked to seem to have a very tight definition of which flights were considered, as the Wikipedia list showcases several more in-flight deaths involving air carrier class airplanes than just two.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#765

Post by phpisthebest »

brookst wrote: post #690
phpisthebest wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is widely known that the Supreme Court has been since at least FDR (if not longer) been derelict in their duty to limit the power of congress by ensuring laws fall into only the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 are accepted as constitutional. Under the current "living document" doctrine adopted by the court the power of the federal government is limitless, and there really is not need for Section 8 of Article…

The idea that the constitution forbids Congress from delegating to the executive is not widely accepted. It is a novel interpretation from a Qanon-adjacent fringe group that wants to dismantle the government by making it too dysfunctional to work. It also creates a strange right for the judiciary to regulate how Congress and the executive choose to work together.

First off I'm not even talking about the delegation problem that's a whole other kettle of fish

That's said The arguments against Congressional delegation to the executive existed long before qanon and the arguments of limited congressional power date back to before 1789 so unless q anon existed in 1700's then you're just using a modern fringe group in a very poor attempt to sideline the conversation no different than calling everything that you disagree with racist or sexist or some other ism

For there still this idea that Congress and the executive should work together as a novel one and not one shared by the Constitution separately equal is critical to the functioning of our governance The key word there being separate.

The cozy relationship between the executive and Congress is a problem

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#766

Post by metabagel »

talldatethrow wrote: post #747
vladms wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feeling sad and depressed can be a medical condition rather than a reality issue. There are many numerically things (can't check everything) that are not much worse than 20 years ago (and some even better), but people seem more and more upset. It's like they just spend time online/on TV and WANT to find reasons to feel bad. Or that they expect that because things CAN be good they will be good tomorrow without any eff…

I'm in California since 1989. Things are definitely different and IMO worse than before. If I had to guess, previously the crime was in obvious rough areas. Now it seems it's expanding to everywhere. But even if crime/illegal border crossings were down... Just because we were unaware of it 20 years ago and are now aware doesn't really make people feel better about it. "Hey, you know how you were wondering why wages a…

One has got nothing to do with the other. Illegal immigrants aren’t driving up housing costs. Standard of living is stagnant, because wealth doesn’t “trickle down” like Reagan promised us. It trickles up. You’re repeating right wing talking points.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#767

Post by dclowd9901 »

jacquesm wrote: post #435
dclowd9901 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost couldn’t believe this statement so I looked it up. Sure enough you’re correct. As a factor of GDP, it dropped by about half. Incidentally, however, as a factor of gdp, it had gone down 50% since the Korean War before that too. I think all this means is that military spending isn’t outpacing gdp growth (a good thing) rather than we’re actually cutting spending.

Actually, spending was cut in an absolute sense as well, especially if you factor in inflation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... But it is - obviously - on the rise right now.

With relation to inflation?

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#768

Post by siva7 »

alwa wrote: post #219
nerdponx wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's also consider just how much worse this situation could have been. The door panel blew out next to the one seat that happened to be unoccupied, and it happened at 16,000 ft instead of 26,000 ft.

And even so, sucked the shirt right off the boy in the middle seat! I shudder to imagine how things would have gone 20 minutes further in to the flight.

Almost certainly a fatal crash if they were a few minutes later into the flight

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#769

Post by Arn_Thor »

PaulHoule wrote: post #544
tavavex wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is pretty concerning. The way how Boeing can get its way simply by threatening to can the entire MAX program (which they'd never actually do) shows that there's a very deep level of integration between the US government and its biggest companies, especially one like Boeing that's often seen as kind of a minor point of national pride. Not only that, but the article mentions that the 737 MAXs got an exemption on p…

Boeing doesn't have a real business plan until they have a plan to replace the 737. Boeing and Airbus have been going crazy over the past 30 years developing widebody airliners, some of which were solidly rejected by the market, but domestic flyers (most of them) are stuck with a 1967 design. It's a disaster when it comes to managing the social and environmental impacts of air travel. A ride in this plane https://en.…

Seems to me the solution to the union problem would be some kind of direct deal with the union on outsourcing rather than a workaround based on staff rules relating to seat numbers.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#770

Post by Arn_Thor »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #639
methodical wrote: post #527

Boeing may think they fly above it all (get it?) but I can assure you despite my largely unwavering confidence in the air travel industry, I will not travel on a Boeing aircraft in the near future. I will see to it that I fly Airbus or not at all, which I'm perfectly fine with should it spare my life. This type of large-scale and continued negligence can only be defined as a company that thinks they're too big to fai…

Objectively, even a 737 MAX is probably safer than driving.

Very true. But there is probably something about the fact that traffic accidents are direct human error, usually, that make us more comfortable with the risk than the prospect of a systemic, corporate or technical error. Entirely irrational of course.
Post reply on HN