Pentagon should save Boeing by funding a clean sheet replacement for 737.

Pentagon should save Boeing by funding a clean sheet replacement for 737.

Prob is legs are too short and no way to extend with current design, so now its a software (Poos $10/day) solution to a hardware problem, and its only gonna get worse with next engine upgrade to bigger front fans.

Also, WTF can't they make the gear extend with a few tricks like F-4s for Royal Navy had long front gear. Just add another telescopic leg and make it out of Titanium. Should be doable if original design is from 1964, when they had only SLIDE RULES.

But make new small jet also the new tanker, since 767 doesn't seem to be fixable.

Make it generally semi-battle worthy as AWACs, ASW, tanker, rear door cargo(maybe only with ground ramp or some extra work for ground crew), airdrop, missile truck, etc.

THEN allow Boeing to sell a civilian version with a bunch of mil-spec stuff removed and maybe lighter structure.

Basically, bring back the 757 with its 707 dimension body cross section, which is about same size as latest stretched 737, but has longer legs for lots of engine clearance and could also have bomb-buggies loading shit under wings, etc.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, the problem is Boeing's MBAs cheaped out, didn't want to make pilots get a new type certificate and installed software to mimic the behavior of previous 737s, then cheaped out on the software and redundancies and ignored engineers who told them they were moronic. Making a new plane doesn't solve the inherent issue of the MBAs heading Boeing

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yes and no, but a big issue is they did software to fix engine size issue which makes plane act funny, so it needs a computer to fly it, since its now "inherently unstable" like a supped up dog fighter jet.

      I'm guessing that will eventually cause another crash when it hits some funny winds.

      Plus, basic design is now 60yrs old for crying out loud.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It was not inherently unstable you technically illiterate moron. The near-stall behavior in a certain configuration was different from previous versions but the aircraft was still longitudinally stable.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >so it needs a computer to fly it, since its now "inherently unstable" like a supped up dog fighter jet.
        No

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not inherently unstable, it just make it nose up to a greater degree under high thrust (most underwing engined planes, the 737 included already have this propensity to a lesser degree). Generally, this would result in pilot training that is specific to the type to familiarize pilots to the new flight characteristics. The Boeing bean counter MBA's did not want this though, since if they could claim that pilots only needed lesser book training and no flight or simulator time then they could use the ease of fleet transition as a selling point. It noses up more since the engines have to be mounted further forward compared to the NG's since the engine is even bigger, and the 737 lacks the ground clearance to fit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          pilot here, you're a fricking moron
          >The Boeing bean counter MBA's did not want this though, since if they could claim that pilots only needed lesser book training and no flight or simulator time then they could use the ease of fleet transition as a selling point
          this is not really the case, the selling point for the MAX was that was still a 737 and could be flown under a 737 type rating, major changes to flight characteristics could have led the FAA to want a new type rating for the MAX which means that nobody is going to take it on

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, it's not inherently unstable (in almost all flight regimes).
        Except when some sensors stop functioning and the flight computer tries to compensate for a problem that doesn't exist and tries to pull you to the ground.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >fail deadly design
          worth every penny.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          and then the pilots botch them because pilots don't even know how to fly anymore

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yup, they don't want a new airframe because it would require recertifying all the pilots.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I still gotta think that after 60yrs a Clean Sheet design could decrease TCO....and these days with advanced simulators it shouldn't be too big a hassle to re-cert pilots. How much actual flying hour$ is required in an empty airplane to cert on that airframe?

        Does USAF flying time count?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The problem is, simulators are expensive. Especially when you have thousands of pilots that all have to get a type rating on whatever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then just make a cheaper simulator. It doesn't need to have that leaning g-forces crap to teach pilots the buttons.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              > It doesn't need to have that leaning g-forces crap to teach pilots the buttons.
              Yes, it does

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          A month in the simulators cost like 60-80k per pilot.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >we can’t afford 80k per pilot every 60 years
            Total Bean Counter Death

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yup, they don't want a new airframe because it would require recertifying all the pilots.

      Seems to me that the underlying problem here is the way bureaucracy handles pilot certification.

      A regulatory scheme that artificially incentivizes keeping an airplane as technically the same airframe is bound to produce these kind of shit-tier workarounds on the part of manufacturers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The real solutions are
      1) make it illegal to work for a plane manufacturer and the FAA at the same time
      2) make manufacturers submit designs to the FAA for independant engineers to varify
      3) shoot the Boeing board in the back of the head becasue frick allowing corporate assassinations of whistleblowers

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >corporate assassinations of whistleblowers
        Lmao, you believe this?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you think people get killed over a few thousand in their wallet?
          Do you think people killed killed over their shoes?
          Do you think people get killed over being able cut a companies marketcap by ~$50,000,000,000?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            But I think people who are involved in a years long lawsuit against a billion dollar company occasionally get depressed and commit suicide

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The day before? Not the year before or the month before but the day before? After all that waiting you think there would be motive to hang around 24 hours.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Haha yeah he just killed himself halfway through giving evidence in a court case against Boeing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >1) make it illegal to work for a plane manufacturer and the FAA at the same time
        You cant even make politicians stop trading stocks while in office, good luck with that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t think you realize how much work it would be for FAA to independently verify design, and its not just Boeing, if you didn’t work for some manufacturer how would you acquire the necessary knowledge of the system you’re supposed to verify?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >3) shoot the Boeing board in the back of the head becasue frick allowing corporate assassinations of whistleblowers
        also completely "Clean House" at every Govt agency that should've been providing this guy protection, from Dept of Justice all the way down to local PD/Sheriff.

        Given Boeing is also massive Defense Contractor with airliner based jets used by military, this guy shoulda been housed inside Cheyenne Mountain NORAD DUMB, not some shitty motel with Mexican troony hookers banging on his door claiming to be maid service or "complimentary Continental Breakfast". Yeah, that little "trick"(pardon pun) got me to open the door once.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [spam] [recurring] [boeing] [bad kraut ideas]

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no, Pentagon should save the US aerospace industry by disbanding Boeing & Spirit Aerosystems, pressing criminal negligence charges against each of their executives individually, and banning use of outsourced labor on any US-produced aircract (including civilian)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're going after the symptoms not the cause. The issue isn't outsourced labor, the issue is cost cutting by MBAs to get better margins. That's the issue at the core of all this shit. You can blame the outsourced labor all you want, but the only reason they had hands in it at all was because the MBAs were looking for the lowest bidder.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Total MBA death.

        Is it true that Boeing buying McDonnell Douglas is exactly when everything went bad?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's when everything went to shit yes, it was all over with the move of the headquarters away from the engineering teams. It's funny because the MD engineers were unironically some of the top guys in the field. Their advances in CFD methods for design were cutting edge at the time and people still look back at their achievements in awe, but that company and now Boeing got bumfricked by the MBAs running the thing.

          and cost cutting thirdies who used shoddy after market parts
          and thirdie pilots who do things like forget thrust at take off power

          [...]
          It's very normal they didn't want to have to recertify everyone over minor handling changes
          The way theyhot fixed things was clearly contrary to good aircraft design though

          Oh look a Boeingshill, the implementation of MCAS was deeply flawed and every engineer who laid eyes on it knew it. AoA sensors can fail, you never make flight critical systems rely on a single sensor with no redundancy and fail to adequately inform people about the system because you wanted to skirt type certification requirements.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To be a bit fair to Boeing on the retraining aspect, a lot of that was pressure from the customer. The airlines didn't want to buy planes would require them to spend additional time/money to retrain pilots even a lot of the pilots themselves wanted to minimize the training they'd need for the new planes. The blame for minimizing retraining in the name of cost should be spread across the entire aviation industry and not just on Boeing. Boeing disregarding engineer's warnings and making redundancy a paid option was entirely on them though.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The OEM has the onus to distribute critical information regarding flight control system failures that could lead to seldom trained for scenarios. The industry as a whole has corner-cutting issues but the puck stops at Boeing for not disseminating critical information about new software onboard the aircraft, they're the root cause, industry attitudes and practices are only a contributing factor.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It still amazes me, however, how pilots could miss the very loud clacking sound that the trim wheels make and take the basic runaway trim precaution of grabbing them and holding them in place. As many corners as Boeing cut, the crashes still should never have happened with competent crews. Everyone had to mess up badly in order to make it happen.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              People will inevitably mess up once in a while. Relying on people to keep faulty machine in line just isn’t something you do if you’re in the business of ferrying hundreds of people 30k ft in the air.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, however morons can become pilots and that should be accounted for in the engineering. It's a classic case of the swiss cheese model of accidents, you don't want the final hole (the pilot) to line up with everything else. Humans are unreliable, it's why we design equipment and procedures that try to take as much of that human element out as possible.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I spend too much time around corporate lifers and their endless acronyms and models and checklists, but I kinda like the switch theory model for stuff like this. Imagine the whole series of events like it's a circuit diagram, with a series of switches connecting "there is a plane" to "plane crash". Every switch that closes gets you one step closer to the final result, and the very last one is "pilot's a dumbass". Boeing closed a lot of switches on the way to that last one.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's a good way of looking at it. And either way the goal is always to put as many steps as possible between plane and the plane crashing.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              EVERY actual pilot commentary I’ve read concludes the same thing: a basically competent pilot could not have crashed the plane. These crashes were by literally incompetent pilots. Now, that’s not an excuse for cutting corners because these things are supposed to be un-crashable, but there was no fricking grand conspiracy between inspectors and Boeing management over this shit, it was just a buggy / janky system which I’m sure are commonplace but no one involved seriously thought you’d crash a plane over it. Why would Boeing destroy themselves over such a move to begin with? Just use common fricking sense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >EVERY actual pilot commentary I’ve read concludes the same thing: a basically competent pilot could not have crashed the plane.

                But the pilots didnt crash the plane. The MCAS control system did.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Theres a switch to flip to turn it off thats supposed to be a memory item for these pilots

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They can't memorize to flip the switch when the existence of the MCAS failure and it's solution was deliberately kept out of manuals. Literally trying to blame them for something they could not have known.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The symptoms and solution is the same as any other runaway trim IIRC. Knowing it's caused by MCAS going crazy due to a bad AOA sensor is irrelevant. The system was not designed with robustness and redundancy which is on Boeing. But there's also other holes in the swiss cheese here also.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Theres a switch to flip to turn it off thats supposed to be a memory item for these pilots

                A well hidden switch. The MCAS should have been presented as an opt-in system instead of as a hidden opt-out system. The plane flies just fine without it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Even a bad pilot (read: someone who knows how to fly and is certified on the aircraft) will never crash a plane without severe external circumstances. There are more than enough pilots out there and many of them must be shit at their jobs, and yet, this sort of thing happens both very rarely and on one specific plane.

                Clearly there is an issue with the way the aircraft is designed, rather than the people flying it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is completely untrue. Did you know that a fair number of pilots have managed to crash their planes and kill everyone on board because they forgot to set their flaps and slats before takeoff? You can make a plane idiot-resistant, but you can't make it idiot-proof.
                And then there are the stories out of Russia and Africa, and more than a few from western budget airlines. Go watch a few seasons of Mayday! or something.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Remember the time the pilots forgot to turn on de-icing?
                In winter.
                In Washington DC
                In heavy snowfall

                Also, the guys that crashed an airliner in the Everglades because they were too busy ducking with a lightbulb

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Why would a pilot destroy themselves over such a move to begin with? Just use common fricking sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >AOA sensors can fail
            moron, that's why you havr redundancy.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              read you stupid frick, read
              >you never make flight critical systems rely on a single sensor with no redundancy

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              MBA's deem that replacing the aging router and computer that can't handle more than 1 sensor at a time too costly. So have fun with 70's tech,

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's when everything went to shit yes, it was all over with the move of the headquarters away from the engineering teams. It's funny because the MD engineers were unironically some of the top guys in the field. Their advances in CFD methods for design were cutting edge at the time and people still look back at their achievements in awe, but that company and now Boeing got bumfricked by the MBAs running the thing.
          [...]
          Oh look a Boeingshill, the implementation of MCAS was deeply flawed and every engineer who laid eyes on it knew it. AoA sensors can fail, you never make flight critical systems rely on a single sensor with no redundancy and fail to adequately inform people about the system because you wanted to skirt type certification requirements.

          What was the old saying?
          >McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        and cost cutting thirdies who used shoddy after market parts
        and thirdie pilots who do things like forget thrust at take off power

        It's not inherently unstable, it just make it nose up to a greater degree under high thrust (most underwing engined planes, the 737 included already have this propensity to a lesser degree). Generally, this would result in pilot training that is specific to the type to familiarize pilots to the new flight characteristics. The Boeing bean counter MBA's did not want this though, since if they could claim that pilots only needed lesser book training and no flight or simulator time then they could use the ease of fleet transition as a selling point. It noses up more since the engines have to be mounted further forward compared to the NG's since the engine is even bigger, and the 737 lacks the ground clearance to fit.

        It's very normal they didn't want to have to recertify everyone over minor handling changes
        The way theyhot fixed things was clearly contrary to good aircraft design though

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The issue isn't outsourced labor, the issue is cost cutting by MBAs to get better margins
        That's what the criminal charges against the MBAs are for? Ideally the maximum sentence??

        But with that said, don't pretend it's not also ludicrous to allow non-US citizens to work one one of the most blatantly dual-use / national security critical commercial products there is. Like, imagine if 1900's Great Britain farmed out their naval engineering to India. That is basically what's going on here.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I assume you're not in the aerospace industry because we don't allow non-citizens to work on anything remotely sensitive. I have many bad things to say about how liberally we classify shit, but for your specific gripe that over-eager classification means anything close to being sensitive info requires a security clearance which is US citizens only.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The problem is that deregulation and active lobbying has made it very hard to prove they did anything illegal, even though we all know they've done things that should be illegal and even used to be illegal.
          They'll get their golden parachutes and be making the line go up at some other company by this time next week (and then parachuting out when the line crashes through the floor next year). Executive pay and insulation from consequences have only gotten better for them. They don't need to care about quality, safety, security, or even really delivering a product at all. They're playing a numbers game that they've rigged.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >activist investors frick everything up
    >here’s how the government can help!
    No thanks lmao. Let the free market fix this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How is that even going to happen? Boeing owns the US Gov't, they will continue to get contracts no matter how bad their performance is.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The 737 MAX literally uses the telescoping landing gear design. They're taller then the NGs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The 737 MAX literally uses the telescoping landing gear design. They're taller then the NGs.
      Makes sense, but only further supports my case that a new Clean Sheet design is needed, as now they Fricked engine placement causing handling issues, that will only get worse with next batch of even bigger front fan engines, AND now Land Gear is funky to support the bad engine placement issue.

      Problems that cause disasters go by Law of Squares (or maybe even Cubes).

      Now you got:

      1)funky handling do to bad engine placement
      2)bad software to fix #1 (does anyone believe software issue is truly fixed...because I assure no single person is able to review, much less understand, all the code, and no one in FAA is even smart. If you had like Weev, Assange, John MacAfee and Snowden on the case I'd feel better, but that ain't happening)
      3)Funky extra complex and weak landing gear.

      So now you got 2*2*2=8x as likely a disaster, or could be 3^3=27x. And that is just new 737Max design, not Quality Control production/maintenance issues.
      One of the Phun Phacts that cummed out on 9/11 was that USAF had something like 4,000 F-15 and F-16 at various bases close enough to respond AND that while those jets performance doesn't look too much better that prior gens, a BIG DIFF is they can sit around for extended time and still be G2G, more like cars than horses. I'm guessing even newer 737 still have 1960s "Hanger Queen" issues.

      Questions: "If the new extra long, extra complex landing gear fails, or 1/2 fails, and a crash landing is required, how does the new engine placement work with all that?"
      "Does the new revamped Compensation Software including low speed handling like during a crash landing if the gear is 1/2 jammed, like if one side is down but other is up?"
      Asking for a friend.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This thread only exists and you only have this opinion because 3rd-worlders who lacked basic pilot competence crashed a few planes which caused a media uproar and so became a Current Thing. I’m not an insider but I’m willing to bet $100 that the industry is FULL of bugs, cost-cutting, jank, etc, which cause all kinds of problems all over the world every day — it’s just that none of those have caused a dead crash yet. If those airliners had hired somewhat competent pilots, or those incompetent pilots just weren’t driving those particular planes or if just not during a bird-strike taking out. An AOA sensor, etc, this whole discussion would literally be the furthest thing from your mind. Every day I bet there’s a crappy design failure or bug which is caught by crews and solved before take-off, any one of which could have resulted in an deadly crash, but no one cares about those because there hasn’t been a deadly crash due to crews doing their jobs and therefore not a Current Thing to provide you with a strong opinion.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Make it generally semi-battle worthy as AWACs, ASW, tanker, rear door cargo(maybe only with ground ramp or some extra work for ground crew), airdrop, missile truck, etc.
    The 737 already has an AWACS variant (E-7), an ASW variant (P-8) and variants with a large cargo door (C-40 among others). They're all are based on the 737 Next Gen Series which is a proven design that works just fine.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Boeing will be acquired by Lockheed or Cessna

    Mark my words

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If the DoD wanted to save Boeing all they'd need to do is send a team to kill everyone in upper management and replace them with engineers. Super easy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think it's that simple but they should do it anyway. They should go through and kill a bunch that have already resigned/retired too.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just buy airbus and brain drain them until theres nothing but a shell left

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah and while you're at it just buy Lockheed Martin, Comac, Cessna, Embraer, Bombardier and Northrop Grumman as well, Boeing has infinite money to buy out any company it wants, after all!

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I fly the 737 max. AMA

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What would you do if faced with runaway trim due to an unknown code "feature"?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        crash probably

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you were flying the earlier MAX and there was a sensor failure how difficult would it be for you to crash the plane?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The way to save Boeing is a Stalin tier purge of literally everyone from middle management and above. And then use them as an example that the days of the golden parachute are over and anyone trying to frick around in companies involved with national defense at Boeings will find out real quick. Of course that’ll never happen but a man can dream.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why would a bomber have the fuselage size of a civilian airliner? why would a tanker have the fuselage size of a civilian airliner? the only things it makes sense for are aircraft where people work, like maritime patrol and AWACS, and they are still too big to be reasonable for AWACS.
    civilian airliners are sized to haul people and luggage, which they do efficiently. Military aircraft are sized to haul equipment, bombs and missiles.
    a civilian airliner fuselage would make a dreadful military cargo aircraft because the low wing means it needs to be high off the ground to clear the big, high efficiency engines, so there would be no practical way to make a ramp/door in the rear (or front).
    but I'm sure you never thought of any of this because you are a dipshit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >why would a tanker have the fuselage size of a civilian airliner?
      >he doesn’t know

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you definitely don't.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >he doesn’t know

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Boeing should die and the execs hung as a lesson to boardroom homosexualry.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm fine with bailouts, but they should only come after shareholders vote to hang the current executive team

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Frick bailouts, the taxpayers should own a share in the company and take profits until the debit is repaid.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the government should bail out a company who made shitty and illegal decisions at the expense of american taxpayers
    no every single person who intentionally skirts regulations and inspections to save a few bucks and thinks hard working americans should pay for the fallout should be put to death

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So just another entire industry that should be killed by bureaucrats & regulations ?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >bbbbbbut my shareholders
        if your industry requires blood sacrifice and regular repayment free loans to survive then yes your industry deserves to die along with everyone who enabled it
        your taxes are going to paying incompetent fricks billions of dollars to crash planes and lie about it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So you are talking about the third world airlines who crashed 2 planes?
          Noone else had a problem how is that boings fault ?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >american tax payer doesnt bail out boeing
      >boeing has to lay off people
      >boeing has to close works
      >boeing loses market share
      >foreign companies who are being backed by foreign tax payers (airbus, comac, embraer) buy whats left of boeing and close it down
      >america has now lost its airplane industry
      was that wise?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bail them out, but either nationalize them or break it up into multiple companies again

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >nationalize them
          but anon, communism doesnt work, right?

          >break it up into multiple companies again
          so china can buy these smaller companies even faster and transfer all the know how back to china?

          also these bailouts would technically be subsidies which means europe and china would have to retaliate with tariffs or subsidies of their own.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Socialism works in small doses. Communism fails everytime. Put the unions and engineers back in charge.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You have a third option, partial state-ownership
              Companies like Kongsberg and Nammo is half-owned by the Norwegian state through public trading, for example. Same with Patria, owned 50/50 by the Norwegian and Finnish state.

              In the end the state gets a say in what the company does (or has a position on the board itself), while also getting benefits through dividends and stock prices.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thats Norway, not USA or even UK.

                Norway used its North Sea Oil to create some massive bank account for each citizen that is still in the bank. UK used it to gift big Land Lords a big tax break and now its all gone and everyone except the .0001% are worst off, and most of .0001% weren't even British.

                Idea of having Musk spin up a new company is interesting. Have Congress pass a law that allows him to hire only who he wants from Lockheed/Boeing etc that negates any existing contracts.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >thats Norway, not USA or even UK
                Yeah, that much is obvious seeing as he mentioned that country by name..

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I've heard this pyramid scheme rabbit hole logic before
            Frick you. It's my money. Frick Boeing. This is capitalism. Shitty business should die or it will just keep being shitty and they will just charge me more money
            Lehman Brothers, black rock all got bailouts and jacked up the prices on houses and apartments as a thank you

            Now try to use your bullshit rabbit hole pyramid logic to justify taking my money to bail out a piece of shit company.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            force them to hand their IP over to Elon Musk and let him spin up a company with it. Boeing is fricking DEAD, lots of morons don't seem to understand that starting from scratch would be easier than trying to unfrick decades of cancer growing in that company

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >decades of cancer growing in that company
              Happens to many if not all companies that have a rep as being "really great to work for" such as Apple or H-P.
              Steve Jobs was able to unfrick Apple but Apple was only making toys for grown-ups, not airliners, which opened up his game and he was able to turn it into a slaughter house for a while without worrying about "safety".

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Holy frick there are unironic corporate shills ITT. What the hell, my cyberpunk dystopia wasn't supposed to be like this....

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The airlines and Boeing didn't want a clean slate. They wanted another 737 so they wouldn't have to be brought up to modern safety standards and train pilots.

    The airlines are as guilty as Boeing.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Y'know, the US is going to need a C-17 replacement in another 20 years. Plus, there's KC-Y.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Frick that. Boeing ain't paying my bills why the frick should I pay theirs

    Frick corporate communism and frick anyone who backs it. I go broke I lose my shit. Why is a company getting my money when I dont get theirs

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They got $425 million from NASA for the X-66A Sustainable Flight Demonstrator with the company fronting another $300 million for it. The end target is an aircraft that is 30% more efficient than the 737MAX and A320neo. They're putting a super high aspect ratio wing with proof and on it. How are you not aware of this?

    Also, they can't modify the 737 landing gear to be taller because that would require a new type certification and make the aircraft totally unmarketable. The whole reason for the 737 bandaids is because it allows airlines to buy the new aircraft and not have to send pilots to expensive retraining programs.

    The issues with the KC-46 could be solved by just buying the KC-45 which actually won the original contract before Boeing threw a tantrum to Congress. Would probably help Boeing honestly. They underbid like complete fricking morons and signed a firm-fixed-price contract and are at billions in losses on the program.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >X-66A
      interesting, butt imho NASA (which is Defense Dept, lets face it) should include that "and we looking for a general use including certain combat missions, military transport contract of about at least 100 units to jump start this shit".
      Sure it guess a 30% jump over 737Max is big, but that is what they are HOPING for, and 737Max is based on early 1960s.
      How much over a 737Max could they expect with a conventional Clean Sheet design, without all the risks of radical new type of wing?

      BTW, it triggers me that they still have big bulges for landing gear at wing roots on airliners. Seems like, combined with thicc inner wing, would cause big pressure surge to push through.

      "A full-scale demonstrator based on the McDonnell Douglas/Boeing MD-90 was announced on January 18, 2023, with NASA funding $425 million over seven years while Boeing and its partners will invest the remainder of the agreed $725 million,[7] as the airframer had already spent $110 million in sustainable aviation research.[8] Combined with better propulsion and materials, efficiency is targeted at 30% better than current Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo.[9] Using a shortened MD-90 airframe and CFM International RISE engines, the demonstrator is scheduled to fly in 2028,"

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The FTC, NTSB, and likely a few others should save air travel by penalizing the living shit out of Boeing's civ side and nuking the half-assed contractors they've used from orbit to set an example for all others that would put profits and stock price over safety and ensuring work is properly done. If nothing is done frickups like we've seen out of Boeing lately WILL happen again. They severely impact trust in commercial flight and American made aircraft.

    The mil side of Boeing are probably shitting themselves over the very real risk of this clusterfrick affecting future military contracts with the US government. LockMart and Northrup Grumman probably have parties every time a Boeing plane shits the bed regardless of civ or mil. Offering Boeing a contract to make a plane like you've said would help them a lot, but would make any penalties much less impactful if at all. It'd be like spanking them then giving them a triple scoop ice cream cone with sprinkles on top and a high class hooker to enjoy it with.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Locksneed employee here. Yes, we do. We don't really care when their commercial planes fall apart, but when their missile fricked up about a month ago? We had a sit-down lunch to laugh at it.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    State ownership or at least state-backed / protected is the international norm; purely private is the exception. In most cases, though, you’ll find that most examples of common state-involvement is simply for corruption reasons with any protections an extension of that. Airbus would be the counter-example of legitimate protectionism. But, in reality, major governments are so involved driving the commercial success of these manufacturers that it seems the differences are almost academic. Whether a company is good or bad comes down to the quality of the leadership. A company with weak leadership lacks strategic vision, fails to bring on talented people and retain them and can’t execute. Strong leadership overcomes the lowest common denominator. So in the U.S. context nationalization of any flavor is probably a negative because Democrats will find the most fringe minority people to run it and fluff up their resumes to pretend that they’re great at the job and plunge it even deeper into the lowest common denominator. Image if they took over SpaceX for example.

    In regards to the airlines they are SUPER cost-conscious. They want CHEAP, period. Lower operating costs trumps everything and Boeing delivered what the market wanted; weak leadership meant that it bungled the execution.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the 737 is a regional jet you tard

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tax payers should not fund shit You Boeing piece of dicksucking buttfrick.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Pentagon should save Boeing and the entire US economy by repealing all the racist & sexist diversity quotas and allowing companies to operate as strict meritocracy. Let companies hire and promote individuals based on their personal merit instead of the colour of their skin or shape of their genitals.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      crazy talk

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They would have had it if the embraer boeing deal had been a success, since the embraer e195-e2 is basically the best plane on the range.

    Tough i admit it's funny the embraer plane that was made for the usa the e175-e2 has 0 orders due to moronic union contracts in the usa not allowing new engines in planes due to weight.

    It's interesting tough that the biggest embraer civilian plane that was not expected to be as succesfuly has ended in a position to compete with the a220 and that the 737 has grow bigger and bigger to the point boeing has 0 product in the lower 100s seats range.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the taxpayers should bail out a corrupt company with poor quality controls
    Nah they should collapse as a company and be replaced by companies not infected with sub-humans with MBAs

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *