Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I'm normally wary of saying what's happening to so and so, they are turning to shit. It's the logical fallacy of selected instance. 

 

But what's happening to Boeing? They're turning to shit 😄

 

Probably what I can more accurately say is- what's happening to maintenance standards, they're turning to shit.

Edited by danny_galaga
Posted

Not related directly to the other issues but most likely a n example of the continued neglect of the Conditions some "line' Aircraft are allowed to get into. Keep it in the air and crammed with Pax and the share dividend will climb... There was plenty of evidence pointing where Boeing was going more than 10 years ago. IF people had bothered to keep an eye open for it. Plenty of Airlines are ready to resume Boeing purchases. Just throw a bit of a discount on the price and the Carriers will see a potential extra profit possible. Airlines are a hard game at any time so the cost cutting temptation is always present.  I had an airline management person tell me WE have budgeted for one hull loss a year. Bit revealing isn't it? It nearly made me throw up but some how I was not surprised.   Nev

  • Informative 2
Posted

Both sides of cowl opened at different times so most likely not locked correctly.  

  • Agree 1
Posted

This is clearly not Boeing's fault; cut them some slack. Ground engineer obviously screwed up or got a ping on iphone to check latest 2.5 second  tiktok feature blockbuster film. 
 

All things being equal Boeing supplied aircraft; ground engineer received training with Boeing supplied content; ground engineer failed to implement Boeing approved method. So Boeing is accountable; it is Boeing's fault...

 

🤔... yeah that is a solid argument..

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Area-51 said:

This is clearly not Boeing's fault; cut them some slack. Ground engineer obviously screwed up or got a ping on iphone to check latest 2.5 second  tiktok feature blockbuster film. 
 

All things being equal Boeing supplied aircraft; ground engineer received training with Boeing supplied content; ground engineer failed to implement Boeing approved method. So Boeing is accountable; it is Boeing's fault...

 

🤔... yeah that is a solid argument..

Well, if he is trained by them it sort of is. You have to keep up with the times. Young people becoming engineers have grown up with smart phones etc. so that has to be part of the training. Train them to make the first step to switch off your phone and put it in your locker. Or whatever the problem is- why isn't he following the protocols? What is it in the training that isn't sticking? Are they lowering standards for recruiting? And etc.

Posted (edited)

Is it as simple as Boeing decided to compete on price not tech?

so appealed to the minimum cost customer - who also has the minimum cost service divisions.

 

sure it might not be their fault - but is a direct result of the strategy they put in place.

they chose to compete on price

Edited by spenaroo

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...