More bad news for Boeing.

[facthunter]

Money is GOD for some people. Having both money and a god who says "greed is good" must tick all the boxes very conveniently. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Well I'm glad you mentioned Whitlam, because he started it with a 25% reduction. Fraser reigned it in, then Hawke did it again, then Keating.

 

Don't think this is anti-Labor, it's not, Liberals did little about it once they got in after Keating.

 

 

 

 

.. and vice versa, Labor did NOTHING about it.

 

 

 

 

Did you know that Germany, not a cheap country, the Government there supports the car industry to the tune of 5 times per Capita that Australia ever did, and have a look at their success around the globe. Oh and check out their Protection Laws and Tariffs ....

 

Cheap imports from Asia, sure but you don't mention the protection barriers they put up while we opened our doors so that they can flood in ...

 

I will never forgive Hawke and Keating for pretending that we can compete on the World stage, all they did was bend us over and make way for pineapples.

 

I didn't mean this to be a Labor/Liberal thing, but I can appreciate how it was construed that way. As a matter of record, I am a swinging voter (in the poltical sense) if I can be bothered voting given the current crop of domwits.

 

Agree, it was a fallacy that Aus could compete on the world stage and I do recall a speech or answer to a journo's question basically saying Auatralia was leading ghe world at breaking down trade barriers.

 

I deapaired on hearing Abbot was removing the subsidies for the car industry. Yes - I know about Germany; and the US - remember in the GFC how the US government bailed out the car companies, even tthough their execs flew from Detroit to Washington in private jets to emerge with their caps in hand. Again the EU, that bastion of free of subsidies markets allows it to go on...

 

The point I was trying to make is that the problems with Aussie manufacturing and ites decline were not alone linked to the float of the AUD; in fact, with the exchange rate plumeeting at the time, the opposite effect should have happened. But, it highlights that the market is full and free, where the structure is controlled by a realtive few businesses and the government is less that integral in its dealings..

 

[edit] I am not sure Labour has been in power since Abbot - so not sure how they could have done much unless they controlled the senate and the withdrawal of subsidies was linked to a change of the law [/edit]

[Jerry_Atrick]

<snip>

As it stands today, these banks are still charging anywhere between 14% and 21% for credit cards, when their financing costs are likely to be in the region of less than 2%.

 

The base rate here is now 0.1%; was 0.25%.. One would be very lucky to get a card rate at 14%; 20% would be more like the minimum (except for time-boxed teaser rates). However, not to say they don't make money out of it, but they are continuing unsecured loans, under international agreements, they have to hold capital as if they were fully drawn and as unsecured loans, the recovery rates they use to calculate their losses in defaults are not going to be very high (meaning a hefty loss); they (used to when I lived in Aus) provided minimum of 30 days interest free and Mastercard I think used to give 55 days. Again, not sure about Aus, but the days of high fees for the merchants are long gone and the days where they didn't pay the merchant until the month had passed and can reclaim money paid to the merchant if the customer defaults are also long gone. There is a high default rate (compared to other forms of finance).. so when using a credit card, you are paying for all of this... Also, not sure about Aus, but if a merchnt doesn't fulfil their part of the contract, then the credit card company is liable to refund the money. So, we never buy anything online or airline tickets, etc without a credit card. Even if it is Nigerian Airlines and we use a dodgy website in Nigeria to buy the tickerts, if we don't go because of the airline or ticket site, we get our money back.

 

Aus may be different, and they do make more out of it when the rates are low.. but it is not pain free for them. If you are not paying off your credit card each month, think of converting to a cheaper form of finance - personal loan (secured/unsecured), overdraft, etc.

[facthunter]

Unnatural rates of interest should ring alarm bells. Like quantitative easing (printing money). It's all a game the common man funds. Nev

[red750]

Came across this video -

 

[Thruster88]

I don't see Boeings culture, whatever it is, being the problem that resulted in a poorly designed MCAS. A small group of engineers would have been tasked the development. I say a small group because if it was large say 50-100 some one would have asked the questions, what happens if the AoA sensor fails? How far can this system trim? What warnings are there that the system is trimming outside the normal range?

 

As a pilot (only PPL) I can't understand how these highly trained commercial pilots failed to recognize and correct the runaway trim. It was clear day time conditions. A student pilot in a 172 would notice if the instructor started to wind the trim continuously.

[kgwilson]

One thing no-one has mentioned and that is we have the most expensive labour in the world. There are many Australian entrepreneurs and innovators who get everything made offshore because the cost of labour here is just too high. In the US (not an example I care to follow) some jobs still only pay $6.00 to $7.00 an hour and the minimum is $7.25. Exchange rate aside ours is $19.50.

[kgwilson]

I don't see Boeings culture, whatever it is, being the problem that resulted in a poorly designed MCAS.

A profit before safety culture results in reduced funding so the group would have been small to fit the reduced budget and the timeframe demands were high. It was cost reduction that resulted in only 1 AOA vane when there should have been 2 minimum. Airbus has 3.

[Guest Machtuk]

Boeings culture is everything! That's their main problem! Grubby large corporation pits profit ahead of safety only the general public don't know that!

"Thruster" if it only took a C172 pilot to recognise the problem and fix it then why is Boeing grounded in a world of hurt? That's a very poor comparison, totally irelevent actually!

[spacesailor]

Silly question !.

if the engines are forcing the plane to climb, reducing thrust may have stopped it.

If airplane goes nose down, would rolling on to back, cause it to fly inverted, but controllable ?.

spacesailor

[Thruster88]

 

"Thruster" if it only took a C172 pilot to recognise the problem and fix it then why is Boeing grounded in a world of hurt? That's a very poor comparison, totally irelevent actually!

 

The 737max is grounded because mcas was a crap system. Just wondering if you and or facthunter or any other ATPL's would agree the aircraft suffered a runaway trim? As you would know runaway trim and how to correct it is a memory item. It did happen on two previous flights and the pilot's resolved the situation.

Nothing personal just genuinely curious.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Thruster88

[Guest Machtuk]

The 737max is grounded because mcas was a crap system. Just wondering if you and or facthunter or any other ATPL's would agree the aircraft suffered a runaway trim? As you would know runaway trim and how to correct it is a memory item. It did happen on two previous flights and the pilot's resolved the situation.

Nothing personal just genuinely curious.

 

Well if it where that simple then why is Boeing got a grounded airframe type? You fail to realise that this is FAR more complex than a so called crap system!

[facthunter]

The design is unstable because the engines are too far forward and too high relative to the wings ' Suggesting it is able to be controlled predictably by ordinary well trained pilots has been dropped since the early days of investigating it. If it was that easy it would have been back in the Air months ago.. Nev

[Guest Machtuk]

Silly question !.

if the engines are forcing the plane to climb, reducing thrust may have stopped it.

If airplane goes nose down, would rolling on to back, cause it to fly inverted, but controllable ?.

spacesailor

You've been watching Denzel Washington too much...lolol?

[Thruster88]

Well if it where that simple then why is Boeing got a grounded airframe type? You fail to realise that this is FAR more complex than a so called crap system!

I agree with all of the above but do you have an answer to the question I asked in #61, just asking as a pilot.

[Guest Machtuk]

I agree with all of the above but do you have an answer to the question I asked in #61, just asking as a pilot.

No I don't have the answer neither do Boeing, the FAA or most of the Airline flying community. Volumes have been written on this very problem for around a year now! I know one things for sure though Boeing have a lot to answer for, this will break Boeing to the point where they will never be trusted again by once traditional Boeing customers and has already shaken up the high capacity airframes industry big time! In their wisdom (Boeing) cut corners in order to head of Airbus's NEO 320 series airframes due inroads in to what Boeing thought was their own sole right to that sector of the market (single isle twin jet) but it backfired with bodies scattering the countryside!

[red750]

Boeing Finds New Software Flaws on 737 Max

 

Bloomberg article here.

[KRviator]

You've been watching Denzel Washington too much...lolol?

No, he's considering extreme measures, exactly as the crew of Alaska Airlines 261 did. The quote in the movie is straight from the CVR of that crash and they well understood even inverted they could fly it a bit longer. In the same manner as runaway ANU pitch trim - if you can't get it under control, roll into a steep turn until you can get some force off the controls.

[onetrack]

Boeing have taken a final kick to the gonads, by having to shut down manufacturing indefinitely. 30,000 of Boeings 70,000 employees are being laid off, with no idea of when any aircraft production might start again.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-indefinitely-extends-production-shutdown-at-washington-state-plants-due-to-coronavirus/

[red750]

And still the bad news flows....

 

 

The rest was behind a pay wall.

[onetrack]

And while Boeing languishes up to the makers name in quicksand - back in Toulouse, Airbus execs are doing Toyota-style leaps and clinking the champagne glasses ....

 

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3003233/blow-boeing-china-buy-hundreds-airbus-jets-mammoth-us35

[Flightrite]

RIP Boeing and now VA? We live in interesting times!

[onetrack]

The cancelled leasing deal is not really as disastrous as Bloomberg is trying to make out. The Chinese leasing company has come to an amicable agreement with Boeing to cancel the 29 aircraft currently on order.

The Chinese leasing company still has orders for 70 x 737MAX Boeings in place, but they are pushing delivery way back (2024-2026), and changing the orders to the smaller MAX 8 series, rather than the MAX 10 series.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-cdb-leasing/chinas-cdb-financial-scraps-purchase-of-29-boeing-737-max-jets-idUSKBN222033

[kgwilson]

Airbus has cut it's production by a third so there will be huge layoffs of employees and their suppliers employees. This is in response to the Coronavirus pandemic so I doubt whether there will be much Champagne flowing. The A320 production is going from 60 to 40 a month & the flagship A350 from 10 to 6. The Aviation industry will emerge from this crisis a totally different animal but I expect Airbus will be in the box seat. Boeings problems are nowhere near resolution.

[Old Koreelah]

RIP Boeing ...

Don't be too hasty: Boeing gets a lot of its revenue from military aircraft. They'll be treated as Too BigTo Fail and will get whatever support they need, even if that entails America stirring up another war to boost sales of military equipment.