101–110 of 128 posts
2019 has been a true _annus horribilis_ for Boeing.
It has very little to do with Boeing in this case. But blaming Boeing in the title gets you more clicks, and clicks equals money for journalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lack of mention of Rolls-Royce here seems more than a little amiss, considering the engine flaw seems to be due to their error as far as I have heard.
You don't know the cause. Could have been a bird ingestion on this or a previous flight.
2019 has been a true _annus horribilis_ for Boeing.
The title of the article should be Metal shards of Rolls-Royce Trend 1000 engine rain down on people below . It has very little to do with Boeing in this case. But blaming Boeing in the title gets you more clicks, and clicks equals money for journalism.
Airplane parts are intertwined believe it or not, their engineers spend years working together.
May as well start 26 shell companies named BoeingA to BoeingZ and pretend it was all someone else's fault.
And this is what a culture of management bonuses causes. I don’t want to ever fly Boeing again at this rate...
It was a problem with the engine, not the airframe. The 787 ships with Rolls-Royce and GE engines - the GE equipped ones are fine. Boeing manufactures the planes, and then works with engine manufacturers to offer various options for powering them. The airlines choose which engines they'd like to install on their aircraft. GE, for all of its faults as a corporation (the stock price is what, $9-something now?), makes v…
2019 has been a true _annus horribilis_ for Boeing.
The title of the article should be Metal shards of Rolls-Royce Trend 1000 engine rain down on people below . It has very little to do with Boeing in this case. But blaming Boeing in the title gets you more clicks, and clicks equals money for journalism.
Boeing is not free of responsibility here, they chose to sell said engines as an option on their planes. They have worked together with Rolls Royce to integrate their engines with their plane. In theory, engine problems could even be caused by Boeing's software mismanaging the engines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. That's why there are restrictions on which RR engines can be put in a 787 as well as a reduction in the ETOPS certification. There've…
Wow is this really how the industry views it? The notion of having one "less fixed" engine on a twin engine commercial jet aircraft is ok, so long as the other engine is the more fixed version? Sounds incredibly risky. For such a critical component, I figured they would adopt the military position: "2 is one... one is none".
"It was a storm of steel and iron", said one area resident, who later identified himself as George R. R. Martin.