Boeing’s on a streak...

Half Fast

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 7, 2016
Messages
14,496
Location
Central Florida
Display Name

Display name:
Half Fast

giphy.gif
P
 
Boeing built the engines?
It's likely that Boeing didn't even *select* the engines to be used on the airframe, and they certainly didn't maintain them.
Why does the 747 in the video look like it's a twin? Time will tell, but not everyone wants to wait.

Nauga,
and a little blamestorming
 
No, just installed them. But guess who gets the publicity...

You mean like creating post proclaiming it's somehow Boeing's fault? :rolleyes:

We don't know if it was a bird strike, or what created the problem. Furthermore, we don't even know what engines. Add to that that jet engine failures are extremely rare given the millions of operating hours per failure.

But yea, rush into a forum and make an asinine post about the airframe manufacturer. :rolleyes:
 
You mean like creating post proclaiming it's somehow Boeing's fault? :rolleyes:

We don't know if it was a bird strike, or what created the problem. Furthermore, we don't even know what engines. Add to that that jet engine failures are extremely rare given the millions of operating hours per failure.

But yea, rush into a forum and make an asinine post about the airframe manufacturer. :rolleyes:

he made no claim whatsoever. he didn't even make any commentary, the only thing he did was post a link to a "news" article and literally said nothing about it.
 
The title being "Boeing is on a streak" strongly implies that this is about Boeing, not engines, not owner maintenance failure, or ground crew mistakes.

There is not even any data yet on the age of that airframe, or extended ownership history. Is it an independent shop conversion from passenger configuration, of an aged airframe? Who knows, but all relevant to the possibility that Boeing had any direct relationship to the event.
 
Title of thread

"Boeing’s on a streak" :rolleyes:


Could be a joking reference to the fire streak across the sky……

Could be a reference to their streak of being in the news for one reason or another regardless of who’s at fault…..

Could be a joking reference to the streak of turd in the underwear of Boeing c-suite execs for being in the news again…..

I don’t think that title warrants you ripping into him based on your assumptions of what the title means.
 
Could be a joking reference to the fire streak across the sky……

Could be a reference to their streak of being in the news for one reason or another regardless of who’s at fault…..

Could be a joking reference to the streak of turd in the underwear of Boeing c-suite execs for being in the news again…..

I don’t think that title warrants you ripping into him based on your assumptions of what the title means.


Ding ding ding. All the above. Regardless of fault, it's going to result in some more negative press for Boeing, and their execs and PR department are probably pounding their heads against the wall right now.

It was a double or triple or quadruple entendre, with anyone free to interpret it however they chose. If I'm lucky it will cause Doc and Short1 to put me on their ignore lists.
 
It was a double or triple or quadruple entendre, with anyone free to interpret it however they chose. If I'm lucky it will cause Doc and Short1 to put me on their ignore lists.
Nah, we're generally friends, but I don't think it is good for aviation to encourage that kind of headline.
 
Only one engine type used on the 747-8, the GEnx.
 
I claim it was a ruptured fuel line, no it was a miss installed fuel coupling using 737 plug door bolts, no it was a bird stIke, no it was the cowling that fell into the intake, no it was a fan blade that fell off, no it was a lightning strike, no it was ………

Doe this qualify me for a reporter job? I believe it does since i linked several totally unrelated aircraft incidents to this one.
 
I'm just sad because I did a quick search and found out Gilda Radner only made it to 42. That's way too young. Cancer.

Re Boeing, maybe to inspire consumer confidence, they could rename their different lines of aircraft based on good/better/best, like Harbor Freight and Snap-On do with their tools?

They should own the old MD names, so maybe re-brand the 737-Max as the MD-200? Nobody will figure it out, it'll be fine.
 

Is this where more Boeing news is posted?
It’s a crying shame. Looks like it’s originating from a subcontractor but it falls back on them. Good that they’re noticing and owning, bad for their string of bad luck/bad news continuing. Sure hope they continue to catch the/anny issues early and resolve in the open instead of burying heads in the sand or covering up issues.
 
I mean, while we're at it, let's point out that Boeing has been in the news for a long time. MH370 was a Boeing and so was TWA 800. When you are the largest aerospace company in the world (until the 2019 MAX groundings when Airbus took the top spot), statistically, you are probably also going to have the highest number of incidents/accidents/whatever MH370 and TWA800 were.

Where Boeing is taking a hit is not that Airbus hasn't had issues with its aircraft too, but rather the types of issues. General consumers are usually only aware of/concerned with the recent past. In the 2020s, Airbus's issues have been primarily limited to engine failures/landing gear issues, only one of which (per a VERY cursory search) was mass-casualty (Pakistan 8303). Some of the other "incidents" involving Airbus in the past 4 years include being hit by a stray bullet while landing Beirut, shrapnel damage from a rocket in Libya, and last month, an A320 in Sydney was involved in a "crash" with an airport vehicle...only the A320 was under tow at the time with nobody on board.

Whether it is Boeing, their subcontractors, or whoever else is actually to blame, the TYPES of incidents involving their aircraft are visually, if not statistically, significant.

My personal opinion (which nobody asked for!) is that their quality control in production and routine maintenance may be dropping in an effort to regain the lost market share since the MAX groundings. The only problem is that by this decreased attention to detail, they are losing MORE market share. Boeing is not going out of business anytime soon (and all those who use ForeFlight breathed a sigh of relief), but they do need to make some perception changes going forward.
 
It’s been my experience people don’t know if they’re on a jet or a turboprop…

Pretty sure IF they can figure out the kind of jet they’re on (by taking some app’s word for it) they ain’t NOT gonna go the minute they realize they gotta gate check a bag, sit in a middle seat, or spend a nickel more.
 
It’s been my experience people don’t know if they’re on a jet or a turboprop…

Pretty sure IF they can figure out the kind of jet they’re on (by taking some app’s word for it) they ain’t NOT gonna go the minute they realize they gotta gate check a bag, sit in a middle seat, or spend a nickel more.
95% of airline passengers could get a ticket that says they’re going to be on an Airbus, and if it gets switched to a Boeing they can’t tell the difference. And they won’t know even after being seated because almost no one looks at the emergency card or listens to the briefing.
 
Where Boeing is taking a hit is not that Airbus hasn't had issues with its aircraft too, but rather the types of issues.
Airbus has the same "type" of issues except you just don't hear about them. Plus they've had some very significant issues over the years that eclipsed the MCAS issue in my opinion. What Airbus doesn't have to deal with is the same "free" press and vindictive mentally that Boeing has to deal with. Did Boeing bring some of this on themselves? Sure. But just has people have the azz for all things Airbus it never raises to the same public levels as Boeing has to deal with.
 
Last edited:
Saw someone post something on Twitter pointing out some recent issues with Boeing aircraft. I think he posted 4 so I did a screenshot of FlightRadar showing the US and all flights broadcasting at that time. That said, Boeing needs to put airplane people back in charge rather than bean counters. Compounding the problem is the FAA lacks the expertise to properly supervise what aircraft manufacturers are building. The whole 737MAX MCAS should have been the "canary in the coal mine" for Boeing to stop ruining their brand which has such a long and great history of aviation innovation.
 
95% of airline passengers could get a ticket that says they’re going to be on an Airbus, and if it gets switched to a Boeing they can’t tell the difference. And they won’t know even after being seated because almost no one looks at the emergency card or listens to the briefing.
95% of them couldn't care less if they were on an Airbus, a Boeing, a Tuploev, or a Comac as long as the ticket price is low enough.
 
95% of them couldn't care less if they were on an Airbus, a Boeing, a Tuploev, or a Comac as long as the ticket price is low enough.
I’ve flown on a Tupolev to Siberia. I’m pretty sure that if the 95% tried it as well, they would suddenly take an interest in paying more for a ride on an Airbus or Boeing.
 
Back
Top