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

FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#101

Post by warumdarum »

odiroot wrote: post #92
MatmaRex wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe "no 737 MAX" basically means "no Ryanair". Depending on how you feel about Ryanair, avoiding the 737 MAX can be very easy. In other places, like the US, they may not be practical to avoid.

There's more and better reasons than MAX to avoid Ryanair. Sadly Polish national airlines (among others) also went hard on 737MAX8 so it's not only the budget ones.

The things you do for NATO protection. You buy all franchise equipment only for the franchise giver to walk out on the deal.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#102

Post by ifwinterco »

ronnieron wrote: post #27

I only fly airbus. If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going.

I don't go that far and I'm not exactly scared to fly on a Boeing (because statistically it's still very safe, I ride motorbikes which is probably 100x more dangerous etc etc).

However I definitely prefer flying on an Airbus, put it that way

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#103

Post by niffydroid »

armada651 wrote: post #78
bobthebob wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Having airworthiness certification done by an independent organization not beholden to Boeing's shareholders makes much more sense to me. Giving the authority to Boeing to do its own airworthiness certification feels like the fox guarding the hen house.

But independents would need to be embedded into the company every step of the way, it would get to be point they would look exactly like Boeing employees. But what does happen is audits where the work is checked

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#105

Post by bmitc »

bushido wrote: post #7

The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained. Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran in…

I have avoided flying on a 737 MAX and have even asked about it at gates when a plane was switched.

Part of the problem though is that many, many, many routes were straight up removed during and after COVID and still haven't returned. There is often no choice, particularly with certain companies like Southwest. However, I haven't flown Southwest since I learned that they were basically complicit, if not directly involved, in Boeing's 737 MAX issues.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#106

Post by epolanski »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #66
jordanb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue was actually the door plug scandal. It showed that Boeing's QC was compromised in their factory and they were not able to properly certify that the aircraft were being built as designed . As an aside this a long talked-about problem with the South Carolina factory, that the place does not follow aerospace standards and practices. The door plug failure was the highest profile QC miss out of that factory.

SC wasn't really involved in this. The fuselage came from Spirit in Kansas, and final assembly happened in Renton.

Does it matter? As a customer of the plane (and traveller) I'd like QA to be top notch and I would expect it to be final inspection at assembly stage.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#107

Post by linzhangrun »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #59
estearum wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's actually bad when financialization reaches such a degree that planes fall out of the sky. You as an oncologist: "cells have been dividing for thousands of years and are better off for it. the word is meaningless. I would hate to be a single-celled organism." lmao Great insight! Therefore there's no such thing as pathological cell division or pathological financialization. Or maybe it's just if someone is supe…

Cancer is a disease that attacks living organisms, similar to how collectivism attacks living societies. "Financialization" is a 7 syllable word with no definition. There is nothing about how Boeing builds & sells planes today that is qualitatively different than how they did it 50 years ago. Yes I am familiar with the concern that engineers hold less sway than previously and I agree this is a concern. I would not be…

The problem of "financialization" should also be an old topic by now. It mainly means non-technical bureaucrats (for example, people from finance) taking over the top, making the company focus on maximizing short-term profit and lose its real long-term value.

Just look at Intel.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#108

Post by linzhangrun »

They should never have allowed aircraft manufacturers to sign their own airworthiness certificates in the first place. Are there that many new aircraft types every year? What is the FAA for? Why does it not take responsibility for certification itself, instead of trusting the aircraft manufacturer’s “Trust Me Bro”?

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#109

Post by dudinax »

niffydroid wrote: post #103
armada651 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having airworthiness certification done by an independent organization not beholden to Boeing's shareholders makes much more sense to me. Giving the authority to Boeing to do its own airworthiness certification feels like the fox guarding the hen house.

But independents would need to be embedded into the company every step of the way, it would get to be point they would look exactly like Boeing employees. But what does happen is audits where the work is checked

That's one way it could go but it doesn't have to. The NRC guy walking into a comtrol room is not anybody's friend.

Re: FAA lets Boeing sign off on 737 MAX, 787 airworthiness certificates again

#110

Post by he0001 »

bombcar wrote: post #95
scottlamb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working. Is this kind of consumer revolt even really possible? If you feel strongly enough that you refuse to fly altogether, then of course you can avo…

If you really, really want to avoid an aircraft type, you book with an airline that simply doesn't fly them. Sure, there's a tiny chance they put a chartered jet in for your flight, but that's exceedingly rare.

> If you really, really want to avoid an aircraft type, you book with an airline that simply doesn't fly them.

How do you do that? And which companies does not have these today?

Post reply on HN