61–70 of 87 posts
Sigh, something that would be much less likely to even make it to HN if not for the fact that everyone is hungry to find the next thread to post their pre-canned “damn MBAs!!” rant on. It’s not a Max.
Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749
Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749
One, that’s not that old and shouldn’t be crashing on take-off and two, the narrative that it’s shady African carriers that are to blame is getting old. In fact, it’s exactly what Boeing always says right before they are in fact to blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of maintenance is done by non-Boeing mechanics employed by airlines and their contractors. They generally cheap out on it as much as they can get away with. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance...
Ok. I'm surprised the Boeing MBAs haven't seen the maintenance aftermarket as a big opportunity but perhaps there are laws in the way.
Can the BBC reign in its news headline writers and reverse a fairly recent (5-10 years?) policy of juicing up what was 'unbiased' news? But in fact, I have a rose-tinted view of the BBC so I should just reign in my reactions instead.
What exactly is "juiced up" about "Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal"? I'd be hard put to craft a more neutral/factual/boring summary of what just happened. Update: Apparently "crash" is misleading here since the plane was never airborne, it aborted takeoff but veered off the runway and likely hit something since the wing caught fire.
Also, they finished the article with a paragraph about current issue despite the fact that there are no evidence whatsoever that link this incident of a 30 year old airframe with Boeing. They could have waited until the incident investigation concludes to make that connection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok. I'm surprised the Boeing MBAs haven't seen the maintenance aftermarket as a big opportunity but perhaps there are laws in the way.
The laws are more laws of economics. Airlines like to be relatively vertically integrated, especially at their home bases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The laws are more laws of economics. Airlines like to be relatively vertically integrated, especially at their home bases.
How is that more economical? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to have Boeing support personnel on the ground? Also, since when do customers (in this case the airlines) get what they ask for, especially in a quasi-monopoly situation? I would expect the aircraft vendor to control everything.
Absolutely not. Read the Vanity Fair article I linked above; they outsource it to China, El Salvador, etc. where labor is cheap and non-unionized and the FAA can't meaningfully do surprise inspections.
The airline will have approved routine maintenance and repair procedures from Boeing, and reps they can reach out to with questions. When it's a major or unusual repair, they can ask Boeing to handle it; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/airliner-r...
> I would expect the aircraft vendor to control everything.
It's not dissimilar from cars; most people don't go to the dealership for every repair, because it costs substantially more. Especially not if the plane is based in Senegal.
Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749
One, that’s not that old and shouldn’t be crashing on take-off and two, the narrative that it’s shady African carriers that are to blame is getting old. In fact, it’s exactly what Boeing always says right before they are in fact to blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One, that’s not that old and shouldn’t be crashing on take-off and two, the narrative that it’s shady African carriers that are to blame is getting old. In fact, it’s exactly what Boeing always says right before they are in fact to blame.
I never heard anyone complaining that Boeing did shoddy work before the merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
This was a proper Boeing, not a McDonell Douglas.
Sigh, something that would be much less likely to even make it to HN if not for the fact that everyone is hungry to find the next thread to post their pre-canned “damn MBAs!!” rant on. It’s not a Max.
Does the Max have different MBAs behind it?