181–190 of 273 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are are the equivalent of Airbus - a national champion for both commercial and military contracting. Imagine the US military going to another country hat-in-hand to buy aircraft. That's why.
Imagine the US military going to another country hat-in-hand to buy aircraft. You mean like with the Harrier or Eurocopter? Or more like the KC-30 where Boeing protested until Airbus dropped out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The MAX can't be certified for civil air transport without MCAS. That's the rub. If Boeing could have built and certified the plane without it, they would have.
Are you sure? There's been a lot written about the reasons for MCAS and this is the first time I've seen anyone claim that the MAX couldn't be certified without it. Everyone else has stated that the reason for MCAS is so that MAX could be certified as a previous generation of 737 and therefore not require training for an established 737 pilot to fly.
If they want to remove MCAS then they need to enlarge the undercarriage to give the aircraft more ground clearance, so that the engines can be placed further back. Such a major change to the aircraft's design would mean the 737 MAX could not share a type rating with the other 737s or at least would require significant differences training (not an iPad lesson)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Althought as a Montrealer I am really unhappy that the C-series is now called the A220, I was very happy when Bombardier basically bitch slapped Boeing by getting Airbus to buy it and make it in the US.
It was hilarious to watch the Airbus licensing, but Bombardier also got the raw end of the deal - with the corner they were backed into they're going to end up seeing a lot less revenue off that model then they had planned.
Per unit. Lifetime revenues could likely be higher given the heft of Airbus’ marketing machine.
Agree, however, that it compounds Boeing’s image as a distracted company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing is one of the pillars of the American economy and the market as well. Dumping the stock will hurt pretty much every fund that invested on it, plus Dow will plunge just because of this one stock if it's getting dumped. Boeing, as well as many other firms, are just too big to fail suddenly.
Honestly, I don't know why Boeing has this image of being such a vital cog in America - America isn't wholly dependent on Boeing and if it was that'd be a generally terrible thing anyways. Also, who cares about the Dow plunging if it's for such a clear and explicable reason - it's usually used by politicians to gauge mysterious impacts on the economy, when you know the cog that broke to cause the numbers to swivel it…
The enormous fraction of people who have their retirement savings tied up in the stock market, that's who.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing is one of the pillars of the American economy and the market as well. Dumping the stock will hurt pretty much every fund that invested on it, plus Dow will plunge just because of this one stock if it's getting dumped. Boeing, as well as many other firms, are just too big to fail suddenly.
Honestly, I don't know why Boeing has this image of being such a vital cog in America - America isn't wholly dependent on Boeing and if it was that'd be a generally terrible thing anyways. Also, who cares about the Dow plunging if it's for such a clear and explicable reason - it's usually used by politicians to gauge mysterious impacts on the economy, when you know the cog that broke to cause the numbers to swivel it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because the name is toxic. But I don't think it will work, because it takes time to engineer such a modification, and more time to get FAA approval.
The software fix is complete, and the name is already been replaced, its now the 737-8200.
The 8200 is a customized MAX variant for a single airline’s requirements, Ryanair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next model would be drawn up already. They knew where it went wrong.
The next model isn't a 737-something, it's an entirely new airplane, one that can replace the 737 and 757. There is nothing wrong with the MAX that is not fixable with software and some artful rebranding. But its still a 737, and comes with all of the discomfort and limitations thereof inherent to the platform. It's not a comfortable airplane to fly in, fly, and its limited in how fast you can evacuate it too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were gambling on a quick fix that would be acceptable to regulators, and which could be easily retrofit to existing aircraft, including the ones still rolling off the production line. Pausing production has cost -- and if the planes were recertified by now, the cost of storing finished planes in parking lots is probably quite a bit less.
Their initial reaction was "nothing to see here, keep moving". When it was clear that wouldn't fly, it was "don't worry, we'll have a fix ready before you know it". It should have been clear when the entire world stopped trusting their certification that this was going to be a long drawn out process. The scariest part of this event is their apparent disconnect from reality. Their gamble was a losing one from the begi…
I'm surprised that the market hasn't reacted more negatively towards Boeing regarding the Max 8 disaster. Airlines operate on razor-thin margins (~1 to 2%), and several users of the Max 8 have had significant portions of their fleet out of service as a result. Westjet [1], for example runs 124 planes currently. 13 of which are the Max 8. Over 10% of their fleet. Southwest Airlines [2], for example, runs 748 planes, 3…
> lawsuits that are surely incoming are going to pile-drive this company into the ground Legally, everyone is indemnified up the wazoo. Strategically, airlines are in a worse position if Boeing goes under. Not only do they lose the planes on order. They also lose their service and replacement-parts provider. The survivors would, in the medium-term, face an Airbus monopoly and, in the long-term, a Chinese-European duo…