A cargo plane is forced to land in Miami after an engine malfunction sends sparks flying midair

a reply to: Zaphod58

One …"Oh $hit” Can Erase A Thousand "Attaboys"…..

😉
👽

The hole there referring was that in the turbine blades or on the outside?

Nevermind I read down more ....sounds like it struck something on take off ...can't be throwing the book at boeing just yet
a reply to: Boomer1947

a reply to: Lidstrom5

Even if they didn’t, I’m curious how you can blame Boeing eight years after delivery, for the failure of something they don’t even make, and only touch long enough to put on the wing. That’s like buying a car, and blaming the manufacturer after the engine blows, because you didn’t do the maintenance on it properly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

At MIA I've mostly seen 747's.

originally posted by: Lidstrom5
Nevermind I read down more ....sounds like it struck something on take off ...can't be throwing the book at boeing just yet
a reply to: Boomer1947

Nobody's trying to throw a book at Boeing, is it forbodden to challenge upper echelon decision-making and/or engineering design and safety of the parts that Boeing deems to buy from other companies to put on their planes, especially specific to the GE engine which had safety issues back in 2012?

a reply to: quintessentone

No, it makes no sense to blame manufacturing for something that happens 8 years after the aircraft was delivered. As for the GEnx, the issues were found and fixed. You keep pointing out issues found over ten years ago, like they just went, “oh well” and did nothing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

No, it makes no sense to blame manufacturing for something that happens 8 years after the aircraft was delivered. As for the GEnx, the issues were found and fixed. You keep pointing out issues found over ten years ago, like they just went, “oh well” and did nothing.

I am pointing out that investigations need to go deeper and further into design/engineering design flaws as well as to top level decision-making on why they choose the parts they do, because we all know companies care about their bottom line first.

a reply to: quintessentone

The bottom line is the entire point of having a business, so of course they care about that first. But at some point they get hammered so much they have to change practices. Boeing has been hammered in the last ten years and is reaching that point. They have already made significant changes ahead of the investigation, and the investigation will make recommendations as well.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

The bottom line is the entire point of having a business, so of course they care about that first. But at some point they get hammered so much they have to change practices. Boeing has been hammered in the last ten years and is reaching that point. They have already made significant changes ahead of the investigation, and the investigation will make recommendations as well.

Ten years? Not good enough.

Which brings us to the Boeing Problem.

The capital letters are appropriate because the largely self-inflicted troubles — some with lethal or potentially lethal consequences — are no longer one-offs, easily explained or brushed aside by the company born and once headquartered in Seattle.

These troubles are heavily the result of the company’s Jack Welch acolytes and General Electric-style management, weak board of directors, union busting, and exchanging Boeing’s history of engineering excellence for McDonnell Douglas’ “bean counters.” Regular readers know I have written about this often.

In 2001, a top Boeing aerospace engineer John Hart-Smith presented an internal paper before top executives warning of excessive reliance on outsourcing — a paper that was lauded by his peers within the company but ignored by management.

Behind all this was one driving force: to keep the stock price up and reap high executive compensation.

www.seattletimes.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

And in the last ten years, they have lost more than in the previous 23. The initial batch of KC-46s alone lost more than the contract value, and they are still paying to fix issues on it. The T-7A isn’t far behind, and the MQ-25 is running into its own issues. That’s just the military side

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

And in the last ten years, they have lost more than in the previous 23. The initial batch of KC-46s alone lost more than the contract value, and they are still paying to fix issues on it. The T-7A isn’t far behind, and the MQ-25 is running into its own issues. That’s just the military side

I want to see a shift with companies starting to take customer needs and safety into consideration, just my warped thinking I guess.

a reply to: quintessentone

And they’d go out of business in no time. There needs to be a balance between the two.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

And they’d go out of business in no time. There needs to be a balance between the two.

I'm surprised they haven't gone out of business what with the never-ending class action law suits.

www.rapoportlaw.com...

www.npr.org...

a reply to: quintessentone

Even with what they’ve lost, and paid out they still make a ton of money from sales and support contracts.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

Even with what they’ve lost, and paid out they still make a ton of money from sales and support contracts.

Odd that, they have tons of money yet they still choose to design their passenger cabins for sardines not people.

a reply to: quintessentone

And there’s your fundamental flaw in understanding how this works. Boeing designs the aircraft, the airlines decide on the interior configuration. They determine cabin layout, seat pitch and size, and all the things around its operation. They tell Boeing, who then installs the cabin based on that configuration.

Depending on route, and aircraft used, airlines make profit based on the fact that they have so many planes flying. I’ve seen routes where a flight that was full barely broke even, because they were using a 30 year old plane.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

And there’s your fundamental flaw in understanding how this works. Boeing designs the aircraft, the airlines decide on the interior configuration. They determine cabin layout, seat pitch and size, and all the things around its operation. They tell Boeing, who then installs the cabin based on that configuration.

Depending on route, and aircraft used, airlines make profit based on the fact that they have so many planes flying. I’ve seen routes where a flight that was full barely broke even, because they were using a 30 year old plane.

As a consumer my understanding of cabin layout goes specifically to value for my money and my comfort, rant over.

a reply to: quintessentone

And your comfort doesn't play into making money, required for the airline that you are flying on to remain in operation.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

And your comfort doesn't play into making money, required for the airline that you are flying on to remain in operation.

BS, if they can pay millions to billions out in legal settlements they have that money to divert to my comfort, safety and peace of mind.