More Boeing Bad News

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

To wreck Boeing?
Boeing has wrecked itself.

[ian16th]

To wreck Boeing?
Boeing has wrecked itself.

Whatever.

It still is not going to be allowed to fail.

[TheGreenGoblin]

To wreck Boeing?
Boeing has wrecked itself.

Whatever.

It still is not going to be allowed to fail.

Precisely. +1

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The knowledge that something this big will not be allowed to fail, as demostrated by the banks in 2008, is why it fails in the first place.
And as with the banks, rescuing it will just lead to an even bigger failure further down the road.

If there is no moral hazard, and also no financial hazard for the perpetrators, then there will be guaranteed failure eventually. It is not hard to find people who will happily gamble everything if it's someone else's money, and gamblers always lose in the end. The payoff reported for Muilenburg is larger than the compensation fund currently announced for both crashes combined. "I killed your families so I am worth more than they are." is what results from No Moral Hazard.

Having said that, will Boeing be "allowed to fail"?
I don't know; you may be right. But it will result in an even bigger failure later if they don't fail and so don't learn the lessons. Epstein didn't kill himself, Khashoggi wasn't sliced up by some rogue security guys acting alone. Does anyone think their government gives a flying f#ck about justice or their lives these days if it were "seriously politically inconvenient"?

[TheGreenGoblin]

The knowledge that something this big will not be allowed to fail, as demostrated by the banks in 2008, is why it fails in the first place.
And as with the banks, rescuing it will just lead to an even bigger failure further down the road.

If there is no moral hazard, and also no financial hazard for the perpetrators, then there will be guaranteed failure eventually. It is not hard to find people who will happily gamble everything if it's someone else's money, and gamblers always lose in the end. The payoff reported for Muilenburg is larger than the compensation fund currently announced for both crashes combined. "I killed your families so I am worth more than they are." is what results from No Moral Hazard.

Having said that, will Boeing be "allowed to fail"?
I don't know; you may be right. But it will result in an even bigger failure later if they don't fail and so don't learn the lessons.

All true sadly. I suspect the root cause of the ongoing moral hazard occurred when Boeing (and Airbus) were allowed to become quasi state supported monopolies...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Forgive me, it was a bit of a rant, although I do think it's the root cause of the problem. Frankly, I think the financial system is going to collapse again before Boeing goes bust, so Boeing's potential bankruptcy is a moot point.

[Rwy in Sight]

How many people that we know will buy not the cheapest product or would accept a lower short term RoI aiming for the longer gain or for a better salary of the workers offering a service? Somebody here mentioned that Boeing is/was a blue chip so people would hold the share for long term but I am not sure there are many people around looking to invest for the long term in decent companies

[ian16th]

Today, 'long term' seems to mean anything longer than 90 days!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The top 1% wealthy Americans now own 38% of the Stock Market.
Do you think they are looking for maximum stability or maximum profit?

[TheGreenGoblin]

Forgive me, it was a bit of a rant, although I do think it's the root cause of the problem. Frankly, I think the financial system is going to collapse again before Boeing goes bust, so Boeing's potential bankruptcy is a moot point.

If an intelligent man can't rant then who can?


GG

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I don't discriminate. I think anyone's entitled to a bit of a rant now and again, which is of course why I started the Rant of the Day thread.

[TheGreenGoblin]

I don't discriminate. I think anyone's entitled to a bit of a rant now and again, which is of course why I started the Rant of the Day thread.

[Boac]

Anyone spot the flaw in this WSJ extract?
"Boeing Co. is increasingly committed to transferring more control of aircraft from pilots to computers after two crashes exposed flaws in an automated system on its 737 MAX that overpowered aviators in the disasters."

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

"Increasingly committed" is tautological

[Slasher]

Yep. Don’t make better pilots - make it more frigging bloody automated!

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/max-cr ... 1577816304

[Pontius Navigator]

Er, the automated systems failed so will make them more automated.

Everyone can **** up but to really **** up you need a computer.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Better pilots are already made, all of us for instance. But we aren't flying, because they want cheaper pilots, not better ones. The PR people, however, wish to pretend that the pilots are as good as they ever were, if not better. It's the same Have Their Cake And Eat It as getting fuel efficiency out of an old design that led to the MAX. It's a plan that generally works for a bit, because there was flexibility built into the original design, there's goodwill to use up, etc. And if the 'creaking' bits get some token investment and the regulators can be persuaded to look the other way at appropriate moments, then it can chug on for years. But any complex system like this is bound to go wrong eventually, and with the management applied it tends to go spectacularly wrong in several areas when it does. Grenfell Tower would be another example. I always picture the Jaguar spinning. It goes unstable in all three axes at about the same time during high alpha manoevring. It look really sleek right up to the point it departs, and then it just...tumbles through the air like a junk cooker chucked off a cliff, with smoke coming out of both ends, and in the time/height normally available there's no getting it back.

https://youtu.be/nwHlixf91wY?t=200

[Rossian]

.......that was shown in the TV series"Test Pilot" was it not? How did he get out of it?

The Ancient Mariner

[TheGreenGoblin]

...tumbles through the air like a junk cooker chucked off a cliff, with smoke coming out of both ends, and in the time/height normally available there's no getting it back.

Fascinating video Fox3.



I have heard of pilots been so good that they could fly a brick but a tumbling cooker? If it had been a washing machine that would count as a tumble dryer wouldn't it?

Pilot Paul Millett talks about many things including test flying the SEPECAT Jaguar

Go to reels 4 and 5 for Jaguar stuff.

[Boac]

PN wins the 'prise'. "Er, the automated systems failed so will make them more automated."