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

131–140 of 884 posts

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

#131

Post by bombcar »

efdee wrote: post #62
s5300 wrote: post #5

I’d at first read the plane was without passengers and just being flown somewhere… and I thought, great. Today I read that it was full of passengers, and the two people supposed to be in the two seats in the row the panel blew out happened to miss their flight. If that’s true… what an interesting set of statistics coming together. Amount of people that sleep through flights Amount of panels that blow out of passenger…

I'm just going to leave you with this frightening quote: "They said there was a kid in that row who had his shirt was sucked off him and out of the plane and his mother was holding onto him to make sure he didn't go with it." Shirt sucked off him. Mother was holding onto him. Oh hello, a thousand nightmares of my youth.

I suppose after that you’ll be either absolutely unafraid of planes or never go on one with a shirt again.

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

#132

Post by p1mrx »

jaktet wrote: post #73
throwup238 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did they ground it? I'm looking at the tail number on FlightAware and it's on a scheduled flight to SEA since 9am.

I can only assume major hubs have already completed inspection, because a buddy of mine flew out of Seattle on a 737 Max9 this morning. Guess I assumed inspections took longer than half a day

*Slaps door of 737 MAX* this bad boy can fit so much air in it.

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

#133

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

IceHegel wrote: post #60
LargeTomato wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing is late stage MBA. Intel is mid-stage MBA. Google/Alphabet is early stage MBA.

This seems basically right and there is no known cure save bringing back a founder (Jobs & Apple).

[flagged]

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

#134

Post by BoardsOfCanada »

mrandish wrote: post #35
intunderflow wrote: post #2

At least Airbus seems to be competent in building safe aircraft. I would not be surprised though if Boeing's sales drop if the US government brings in tariffs or etc to try and force companies to buy their flying coffins.

> At least Airbus seems to be competent in building safe aircraft. Prior to new models released in the last ~10yrs-ish, Boeing made the safest planes in the sky (as measured by passenger miles). Many of those planes are still flying and still doing great. For me the interesting question is what changed in Boeing's design, testing and/or manufacturing processes which is apparently resulting in worse safety performance…

Probably some upper-middle manager that needed to push something through to get a bonus.

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

#135

Post by blueridge »

LargeTomato wrote: post #46
gamepsys wrote: post #23

Boeing is what happens when an engineering focused company gets taken over by MBAs. When it happens to a webtech company we call it enshitification. When it happens to a transportation company lives are actually at risk. Sadly Boeing is important enough to DC that they seem to be allowed to casually risk American lives.

Boeing is late stage MBA. Intel is mid-stage MBA. Google/Alphabet is early stage MBA.

Oh I like this framing.

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

#136

Post by AdrianB1 »

akira2501 wrote: post #100
throw0101d wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: the running joke is/was that McD bought Boeing with Boeing's money. * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing... * https://archive.is/q5pQV * https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg... * https://simpleflying.com/mcdonnel-douglas-boeing-merger/ B was pressured to buy McD for 'national security' reasons. What would have been a better idea would have been, instead of doing…

> B was pressured to buy McD for 'national security' reasons. Creating monopolies and reducing suppliers actually harms "national security." Our braindead managerial class in action.

That is correct. However MDD was manufacturing key military products (F-15, F-18) and it was doing bad financially, going bankrupt and jeopardizing the fighter plane production and maintenance was a "national security" problem that forced the Boeing acquisition of MDD.

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

#137

Post by AdrianB1 »

intunderflow wrote: post #118
yakkomajuri wrote: post #113

I certainly know nothing about planes yet from the reading I've done on the 737 Max I'm a bit uneasy that these planes are still flying. I usually subscribe to the mentality that something that had a significant issue that was fixed is overly scrutinized and thus becomes safe but in this case it seems like the decision-making involved in the making of this plane from the start was flawed, such that I'm not sure patch…

The FAA will never ban it because politically its untenable in the US, the only thing that could kill the Max off would be if another big regulator such as EASA refused to let the Max into their airspace.

And EASA, which is also politically controlled, will not do it because the US government pressure.

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

#138

Post by hypothesis »

tiahura wrote: post #96
travisgriggs wrote: post #75

At what point does Boeing just scrap the 9s? Completely, for good? It’s all starting to feel like the galaxy note, where you pass a tipping point of no return with public perception.

Because some guy at the factory forgot to lock the door? Isn't that a little melodramatic?

What makes you think that this was the only door he forgot to lock? There is clearly a pattern here with Boeing QA, doors, bolts, etc

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

#139

Post by Zetobal »

dahdum wrote: post #109
panarky wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> safest airliner ever built ... very low production numbers If one model has 5 million flight hours and zero crashes, and another model has 500 million flight hours and 50 crashes, is it possible to say which model is safer?

I’ll take the one with 50 crashes any time. That’s 50 times something went catastrophically wrong and 50 times measures were taken to fix the underlying problems. A brand new plane will undoubtedly have brand new problems.

Until 1980-1990 I would completely agree but with the more recent history of basically everything I am not so sure anymore.
Post reply on HN