Cyprus-Forum.com

by **Robin Hood** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:00 am

Londonrake wrote:
Robin Hood wrote: When you are the exceptional Nation you are never in the wrong

I think that comment says far more about the poster than the subject. Which it seems, ultimately, is not at all his point.

Back on the personal comments again ! Do you never give up?

by **Robin Hood** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:25 am

Kikapu wrote:If and when the MAX takes to the skies again with billions of dollar in litigation for Boeing to pay out in out of court settlements for no guilt accepted, this may not save the MAX, or dare I say, to save Boeing from financial ruins if Boeing wants to stand by the MAX. At the moment the MAX is “damaged goods” product with the flying public, and should the flying public accept the MAX to fly with again, the next time the MAX suffers another MCAS related crash, the flying public and regulators will not forgive Boeing and the company will be as good as dead. Boeing needs to think hard to do away with the MAX right now and take their loss or risk losing the whole company with another MAX crash. Boeing can turn the B-757 design into their new MAX planes with it’s large engines and retire the B-737 MAX 8&9 models for good. Playing Russian Roulette is no way to run a company.

According to this mornings BBC World news, apparently the problem has now spread to the NG not just MAX! Boeing have been ordered to replace non-approved parts (Pirate cheap copies used during manufacture) on both types. Estimated to affect 200+ aircraft.

I predict the MAX even Boeing itself, will disappear and then reappear under other names. I agree with you though, no matter how they try to whitewash this and try to share the blame, Boeings name is tarnished for ever. :roll:

by **Londonrake** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:36 am

Robin Hood wrote:Back on the personal comments again ! Do you never give up?

I think highlighting your obsessive hatred of the US being a predominant factor - rather than it’s involving purely technical issues - in this discussion seems fair enough.

Also, you’ll need to go back quite a few pages but you will find that you were the one who dragged the tone down (as you invariably do).

Back on the hypocrisy again! Do you never give up? :wink:

by **Kikapu** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:39 am

Robin Hood wrote:
Kikapu wrote:If and when the MAX takes to the skies again with billions of dollar in litigation for Boeing to pay out in out of court settlements for no guilt accepted, this may not save the MAX, or dare I say, to save Boeing from financial ruins if Boeing wants to stand by the MAX. At the moment the MAX is “damaged goods” product with the flying public, and should the flying public accept the MAX to fly with again, the next time the MAX suffers another MCAS related crash, the flying public and regulators will not forgive Boeing and the company will be as good as dead. Boeing needs to think hard to do away with the MAX right now and take their loss or risk losing the whole company with another MAX crash. Boeing can turn the B-757 design into their new MAX planes with it’s large engines and retire the B-737 MAX 8&9 models for good. Playing Russian Roulette is no way to run a company.

According to this mornings BBC World news, apparently the problem has now spread to the NG not just MAX! Boeing have been ordered to replace non-approved parts (Pirate cheap copies used during manufacture) on both types. Estimated to affect 200+ aircraft.

I predict the MAX even Boeing itself, will disappear and then reappear under other names. I agree with you though, no matter how they try to whitewash this and try to share the blame, Boeings name is tarnished for ever.

I read the same story. It is very disconcerting to know that Boeing is taking such risks that these cheap parts may cause problems during flight in the years to come.

Trump couple of months ago stated, that for Boeing to re-brand the 737 MAX in order to save the company. I think he was correct. As hard as it may be to re-brand the MAX, it may be Boeing’s only avenue at this stage. I believe B-757 can be the next MAX without much re-designing it.

by **Londonrake** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:07 am

Robin Hood wrote:According to this mornings BBC World news................

by **Robin Hood** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:40 am

Kikapu wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
Kikapu wrote:If and when the MAX takes to the skies again with billions of dollar in litigation for Boeing to pay out in out of court settlements for no guilt accepted, this may not save the MAX, or dare I say, to save Boeing from financial ruins if Boeing wants to stand by the MAX. At the moment the MAX is “damaged goods” product with the flying public, and should the flying public accept the MAX to fly with again, the next time the MAX suffers another MCAS related crash, the flying public and regulators will not forgive Boeing and the company will be as good as dead. Boeing needs to think hard to do away with the MAX right now and take their loss or risk losing the whole company with another MAX crash. Boeing can turn the B-757 design into their new MAX planes with it’s large engines and retire the B-737 MAX 8&9 models for good. Playing Russian Roulette is no way to run a company.

According to this mornings BBC World news, apparently the problem has now spread to the NG not just MAX! Boeing have been ordered to replace non-approved parts (Pirate cheap copies used during manufacture) on both types. Estimated to affect 200+ aircraft.

I predict the MAX even Boeing itself, will disappear and then reappear under other names. I agree with you though, no matter how they try to whitewash this and try to share the blame, Boeings name is tarnished for ever.

I read the same story. It is very disconcerting to know that Boeing is taking such risks that these cheap parts may cause problems during flight in the years to come.

Trump couple of months ago stated, that for Boeing to re-brand the 737 MAX in order to save the company. I think he was correct. As hard as it may be to re-brand the MAX, it may be Boeing’s only avenue at this stage. I believe B-757 can be the next MAX without much re-designing it.

I think you have to be very careful in judging these parts as 'dangerous or sub-standard'? It could be they are identical to the 'approved' one but did not have some required certification.

Many years ago when I was learning to fly, I was told that the reason a wing tip lamp for a Cessna cost about £40 although it was no different to the £5 one in your car ....... was the cost of the certification and paperwork you get in the box. Either could last years or blow the first time it was powered up.

There was only a single cause of the 737 MAX crash ..... MCAS failed ..... the pragmatic and if you like, moral judgement, can only be to blame Boeing.

What then happens is what Paphitis keeps describing and that is not pragmatic, it is judgement derived from the Legal aspect. For instance; If you are hit by another car with no fault attributable to you then the other guys insurance will pay out because he was at fault. BUT ..... if his insurance company then finds out your Road tax expired the day before the accident ...... they will able to legally absolve them selves of responsibility. The other drivers insurance will get out of paying although an expired Road tax had no bearing on the accident ............. because The Law is The Law.

If Boeing can get rid of the responsibility by using lawyer to spread the blame about .......it will to an extent, take the heat off Boeing and any compensation awards will be reduced or negated. :roll:

by **Kikapu** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:10 pm

Robin Hood wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
Kikapu wrote:If and when the MAX takes to the skies again with billions of dollar in litigation for Boeing to pay out in out of court settlements for no guilt accepted, this may not save the MAX, or dare I say, to save Boeing from financial ruins if Boeing wants to stand by the MAX. At the moment the MAX is “damaged goods” product with the flying public, and should the flying public accept the MAX to fly with again, the next time the MAX suffers another MCAS related crash, the flying public and regulators will not forgive Boeing and the company will be as good as dead. Boeing needs to think hard to do away with the MAX right now and take their loss or risk losing the whole company with another MAX crash. Boeing can turn the B-757 design into their new MAX planes with it’s large engines and retire the B-737 MAX 8&9 models for good. Playing Russian Roulette is no way to run a company.

According to this mornings BBC World news, apparently the problem has now spread to the NG not just MAX! Boeing have been ordered to replace non-approved parts (Pirate cheap copies used during manufacture) on both types. Estimated to affect 200+ aircraft.

I predict the MAX even Boeing itself, will disappear and then reappear under other names. I agree with you though, no matter how they try to whitewash this and try to share the blame, Boeings name is tarnished for ever.

I read the same story. It is very disconcerting to know that Boeing is taking such risks that these cheap parts may cause problems during flight in the years to come.

Trump couple of months ago stated, that for Boeing to re-brand the 737 MAX in order to save the company. I think he was correct. As hard as it may be to re-brand the MAX, it may be Boeing’s only avenue at this stage. I believe B-757 can be the next MAX without much re-designing it.

I think you have to be very careful in judging these parts as 'dangerous or sub-standard'? It could be they are identical to the 'approved' one but did not have some required certification.

Many years ago when I was learning to fly, I was told that the reason a wing tip lamp for a Cessna cost about £40 although it was no different to the £5 one in your car ....... was the cost of the certification and paperwork you get in the box. Either could last years or blow the first time it was powered up.

There was only a single cause of the 737 MAX crash ..... MCAS failed ..... the pragmatic and if you like, moral judgement, can only be to blame Boeing.

What then happens is what Paphitis keeps describing and that is not pragmatic, it is judgement derived from the Legal aspect. For instance; If you are hit by another car with no fault attributable to you then the other guys insurance will pay out because he was at fault. BUT ..... if his insurance company then finds out your Road tax expired the day before the accident ...... they will able to legally absolve them selves of responsibility. The other drivers insurance will get out of paying although an expired Road tax had no bearing on the accident ............. because The Law is The Law.

If Boeing can get rid of the responsibility by using lawyer to spread the blame about .......it will to an extent, take the heat off Boeing and any compensation awards will be reduced or negated.

Surely certification is everything when it comes to parts for planes, to make sure the required standards are maintained where safety is concerned? How else can the quality of the parts determined if not certified by an independent party? Parts may look the same as original, but not necessarily the same quality. If some parts are non certified, are the customers (airlines) told of this as this may affect their insurance claims in the event there is a crash? Boeing is not helping itself to bring confidence with the flying public or it’s customers if non certified parts usage is a common practice.

by **Robin Hood** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:30 pm

Kikapu:

Surely certification is everything when it comes to parts for planes, to make sure the required standards are maintained where safety is concerned? How else can the quality of the parts determined if not certified by an independent party? Parts may look the same as original, but not necessarily the same quality. If some parts are non certified, are the customers (airlines) told of this as this may affect their insurance claims in the event there is a crash? Boeing is not helping itself to bring confidence with the flying public or it’s customers if non certified parts usage is a common practice

.
I am not disagreeing with you on that, you are correct. I just look at it in a practical way. The certification may be a requirement and justly so ...... but it does not automatically mean the part is in any way substandard. It does not excuse the manufacturer or relieve him of responsibility though, because his procedures should have been such as to prevent the non certified parts getting anywhere near the production line and anyone involved in such a scheme is a criminal.

Paphitis: 26th May at 0848

I just flew on a QANTAS NG from Brisbane to Canberra this morning.

No problems at all. All NG 600, 700 and 800s are AOK

Just goes to show that your source is nonsense because they would have grounded the entire global fleet if there was anything amiss with the EPs. Not only that but pilots would need to be retrained with the new EPs.

Looks like your junk source is the only outlet running the story. No one else is and no one in the industry is aware of any greater problems with the NG.

I think you need to have your head examined. Stop reading junk.

Going by the news today ..... it looks like my ‘junk source’ (Moon of Alabama) was correct and significantly ahead of your sources. You were wrong again in your judgement so maybe it is you that should stop reading junk. :roll:

Just pointing it out! :wink: