Right now any bad news related to a 737 is fatal to the brand, regardless of how common or uncommon the incident may be.
Or the opposite. Now people will become desensitized and assume it's just more clickbait.
Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
71–80 of 126 posts
Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fuck the investors, they're literally killing people epitaph of the new century. from water that makes your teeth black to illegal drug trials in poor countries. corporations are amoral by design and we have to assume they will do literally anything to make a buck.
>from water that makes your teeth black ???
Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing made a business decision to brand a new model as a "737". They wanted to trade of the reputation of the 737. Instead they tarnished it.
Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing, supplier management and quality insurance. There is nothing to funny about any of that.
I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.
Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#74The plane in question was JA56AN [0], which according to PlaneSpotters.net was delivered in June 2009 [1]. Forbes [2] indicates that the service life of a fight deck window is ten years (it's not clear if that applies to the windshield as well as passenger windows)—if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately. Unfortunately for Boeing it doesn…
Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#75This is one of those stories that wouldn't be noticed if not for the attention on anything Boeing related right now. Instead it's near the top of the front-page. This hyper selective attention is very bad. It leads to all kinds of wrong inference about the background frequency of events, because suddenly when under the microscope we notice all kinds of things that would have previously gone unnoticed.
The FAA should have hell to pay if they certify it and this will put pressure on them, as at the end of the day they answer to the American public, even if boeing only answers to shareholders.
Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why the service life is relevant here, unless ANA wasn't maintaining their planes properly which I doubt is the case given the reputation of this airline.
I included it because in theory it shows that the windshield was either overdue for replacement or it wasn't an original windshield, so it's not evidence of failure on Boeing's part in the initial manufacture of the plane. Admittedly, I don't know much about how maintenance works for these planes, so there could be something I'm missing.
Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as it doesn't remind us all of the ill fated JL123 flight...
Reading the wikipedia page on that one is horrific.
Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing made a business decision to brand a new model as a "737". They wanted to trade of the reputation of the 737. Instead they tarnished it.
Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing, supplier management and quality insurance. There is nothing to funny about any of that.
Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#79Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, the hyper focus on Boeing might result in some actual change instead of more of the same as before. Perhaps a little of the stick to contrast with the carrot?
I wholeheartedly agree. They need to get an aerospace engineer back at CEO and not some MBA optimizing for quarterly reports. People are absolutely dying because of an incoherent understanding of the value chain. The decision to outsource may please Wall Street for three months but it certainly hurts the brand in the long term. Boeing is in the business of R&D and production. That’s their value add. Fuck the investor…
Apparently AF261 had a whistleblower who had to sue in court for damages. That's not correct, that's not how this should be done.