Man.. if I hadnt seen it I wouldn't have believed it.That is absurd. How the FAA keeps approving this junk from Boeing is even more concerning than how bad Boeing manufacturing has become.
Sadly, that's the story of most great technology and manufacturing companies of the past.
Maximizing profit is a good thing that a healthy company should do, but if it wants to remain a healthy company in the future then it should not be done "at all costs"... Profit needs to be balanced with: safety, quality, and the humans who research, create, and manufacture the products. Too much emphasis is put on the one person at the very top who often makes decisions that sacrifice safety, quality, and the humans who research, create, and manufacture the products.
It’s not cursed, it’s the inevitable outcome of regulatory capture. That Boeing have suffered little to no consequences from the Max failures is a symptom of an FAA that desperately needs a purge of corrupt processes and officers.
From what I remember from the first 737 max incidents, the 737 max was designed as an iteration of 737 limited to the updates that would allow Boeing to bypass re-certification. The upgrades were significant and some, like engine placement, un-natural and clearly driven by regulation bypass.
I think it is quite logical that the added complexity results in additional failures.
It's going to be quite hard for the public to regain confidence in that aircraft, especially when (as noted elsewhere) Boeing was just now trying to get an exception from the FAA re: certification of the max 7.
But was that door specific to the max? I would assume previous generations of B737 had the exact same door. It seems to me that this is more an indictment of Boeing's manufacturing than a design flaw specific to the max (well, we will see what actually caused it). If that's the case, this would curse all boeing models.
I don't think we know that yet. Yes, I have seen many reports that the Max has the "exact same door" as the 737-900, but how confident are we that there wasn't some cost-cutting or "simplification" measure done on newer models, or a change to a cheaper subcontractor building a crucial part, or whatever? There's enough complexity there that I think there could be significant differences while still theoretically staying within the "same design."
not much choice. Boeing is practically the only US manufacturer of widebody passenger jets and enjoys a privileged position as such. there is literally no other American competition for passenger air.
Alternatives include the Chinese Comac 929, Sukhoi SSJ100, or A320 from Airbus. the first two are non-starters as most north american politicians are furiously opposed to the idea of carriers so much as looking at chinese or russian passenger jets. the A320 on the other hand, while arguably a better widebody jet than anything Boeing has ever produced, has the same political hand-wringing and strong arming from lobbyists and airline executives alike. American Airlines replaced a chunk of their fleet with the A320 because the Dreamliner was literally killing about as many people as it managed to transport when it wasnt down for loose bolts or reboots due to battery issues.
Given enough time and without meaningful reform and intervention by Washington, Boeing will literally hand the win over to these 3 other competitors just like AT&T handed over 5G to Huawei. Ironic considering Airbus was originally a Boeing joint venture.
Airbus has never been a Boeing joint venture. It is a politically desired united European aircraft company (doesn't sound good so far?) that somehow took off (heh).
Maybe it worked because the predecessor companies' main problem was "just" scale - they made some decent planes already.
It’s rather ironic that by claiming their comment lacks credibility without including any counterpoints it makes your comment itself lack credibility too.
ignoring various questionable details here, the one main point is correct: Boeing and Airbus are strategic industrial assets of USA vs EU and have deep implications for strategic security for both US and EU and their clients. For example, servicing these machines provides access to sensitive infrastructure all over the planet to these two companies’ employees & “certified” 3rd party consultants. If you are sitting say in UAE, buying Boeing vs AirBus is a political decision as well as a practical decision.
> American Airlines replaced a chunk of their fleet with the A320 because the Dreamliner was literally killing about as many people as it managed to transport when it wasnt down for loose bolts or reboots due to battery issues.
From Wikipedia:
> The Boeing 787 has been involved in seven accidents and incidents as of November 2023, with zero fatalities and no hull losses.
This makes no sense. The Comac 929 is a widebody that is still in the prototype stage, the SSJ100 is a regional jet that competes with the A220 or Embraer (a market where Boeing doesn’t even have a product), and the A320 is not a widebody. No airline replaces Dreamliners with A320s.