Would you fly on a 737 Max?
Discussion
And Boeing have just been hit with yet another cost penalty for their troubled KC-46 tanker for the USAF.
"The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.
The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.
Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."
......oooops.....
"The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.
The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.
Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."
......oooops.....Not really, A400M programme has cost billions and billions and billions, in all sorts of fees, costs, etc.
Stupid vanity project.
Part of my job is assessing and raising investigations on known quality issues on aircraft, it’s really, really common, from something that is accept as is (but incorrect to spec) through to ground the fleet.
I wouldn’t fly on a 737 max.
Stupid vanity project.
Part of my job is assessing and raising investigations on known quality issues on aircraft, it’s really, really common, from something that is accept as is (but incorrect to spec) through to ground the fleet.
I wouldn’t fly on a 737 max.
aeropilot said:
And Boeing have just been hit with yet another cost penalty for their troubled KC-46 tanker for the USAF.
"The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.
The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.
Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."
......oooops.....
If only our government engaged in procurement contracts like that! "The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.
The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.
Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."
......oooops.....
Lord.Vader said:
Part of my job is assessing and raising investigations on known quality issues on aircraft, it’s really, really common, from something that is accept as is (but incorrect to spec) through to ground the fleet.
I wouldn’t fly on a 737 max.
Interesting, MCAS aside, what issues do you think still remain?I wouldn’t fly on a 737 max.
Teddy Lop said:
havoc said:
If only our government engaged in procurement contracts like that!
its amazing (during peacetime) how much aggro firms have trying to adapt resolved designs. McDonnell Douglas attempts to build Merlin helicopters is another, they gave up after spending $4.5billion.Looks like they are flying again, one testing from Manchester which has caused the inevitable "Wouldn't get me on that".
I know there were two crashes which isnt acceptable, but there were also a lot of completely uneventful flights as well before all the modifications, I spect after the best part of two years they have engineered it right out.
I wonder if anyone will get to the gate and decide they arent boarding ? As risks go it was low before in number of flights vs that set of circumstances, if one crashes now I suspect it will be something else like pilot error, weather or the usual stuff that causes plane crashes.
Its like the Covid vaccine "Not having that as its new" mitigating a really tiny risk, yet accepts much bigger risks every day without thinking.
One bloke on Facebook that says he isn't going to get on one has him on a Big Sports Bike as his profile picture, as for the chances of meeting a swift and violent death I would think the motorbike is several thousand times more likely to kill you then even a pre fix Boeing 737 Max.
I know there were two crashes which isnt acceptable, but there were also a lot of completely uneventful flights as well before all the modifications, I spect after the best part of two years they have engineered it right out.
I wonder if anyone will get to the gate and decide they arent boarding ? As risks go it was low before in number of flights vs that set of circumstances, if one crashes now I suspect it will be something else like pilot error, weather or the usual stuff that causes plane crashes.
Its like the Covid vaccine "Not having that as its new" mitigating a really tiny risk, yet accepts much bigger risks every day without thinking.
One bloke on Facebook that says he isn't going to get on one has him on a Big Sports Bike as his profile picture, as for the chances of meeting a swift and violent death I would think the motorbike is several thousand times more likely to kill you then even a pre fix Boeing 737 Max.
CeramicMX5ND2 said:
I don't need to fly any more...
But RyanAir will operate them - so loads of people will fly on them and not be aware of the Max's history..!
Exactly, how many people that are currently saying "I won't get on one" are big users of Ryanair..?But RyanAir will operate them - so loads of people will fly on them and not be aware of the Max's history..!
Given Ryanair are buying shed loads of them, if you book Ryanair, within a few years, you'll be flying on a Max regardless.
And there will be nothing on the safety card, nothing written on the sides to tell you, as that's all being redone to erase the Max wording....
Unless you are a plane geek, you'll not know you are on a Max.
J4CKO said:
Looks like they are flying again, one testing from Manchester which has caused the inevitable "Wouldn't get me on that".
I know there were two crashes which isnt acceptable, but there were also a lot of completely uneventful flights as well before all the modifications, I spect after the best part of two years they have engineered it right out.
I wonder if anyone will get to the gate and decide they arent boarding ? As risks go it was low before in number of flights vs that set of circumstances, if one crashes now I suspect it will be something else like pilot error, weather or the usual stuff that causes plane crashes.
Its like the Covid vaccine "Not having that as its new" mitigating a really tiny risk, yet accepts much bigger risks every day without thinking.
One bloke on Facebook that says he isn't going to get on one has him on a Big Sports Bike as his profile picture, as for the chances of meeting a swift and violent death I would think the motorbike is several thousand times more likely to kill you then even a pre fix Boeing 737 Max.
Passenger gets to gate. Sees (or hears) it’s a max and says to the gate staff “I’m not getting on I want an alternative” (or whatever) gate staff “says sorry this is your only option, what’s your name I’ll offload you now and we’ll start looking for your bags or stop them going in the hold. Here’s a ticket that will get you back through security to the airport exit.” I know there were two crashes which isnt acceptable, but there were also a lot of completely uneventful flights as well before all the modifications, I spect after the best part of two years they have engineered it right out.
I wonder if anyone will get to the gate and decide they arent boarding ? As risks go it was low before in number of flights vs that set of circumstances, if one crashes now I suspect it will be something else like pilot error, weather or the usual stuff that causes plane crashes.
Its like the Covid vaccine "Not having that as its new" mitigating a really tiny risk, yet accepts much bigger risks every day without thinking.
One bloke on Facebook that says he isn't going to get on one has him on a Big Sports Bike as his profile picture, as for the chances of meeting a swift and violent death I would think the motorbike is several thousand times more likely to kill you then even a pre fix Boeing 737 Max.
Passenger gets on plane.
I’ve seen this scenario unfold many times over the years when passengers go from deciding something’s “definitely not safe” to getting on when then realise that they’re going to have to buy another flight or more frequently their wife just tells them to shut up and get on the plane.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 19th February 14:27
CeramicMX5ND2 said:
RyanAir's fleet of Max's will only increase too, as they retire off the older 737's - They do like to keep a modern and up-to-date fleet of aircraft..
There’s going to be loads of Max aircraft around. Along with all the other aircraft that PHers have said they’re not going to fly on like the 787 threads years ago aeropilot said:
And Boeing have just been hit with yet another cost penalty for their troubled KC-46 tanker for the USAF.
"The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.
The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.
Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."
......oooops.....
Far from an expert, but how can it cost $10bn to convert (not many I imagine) 767s into Tankers?"The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.
The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.
Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."
......oooops.....and still not get it right by the way!
737 Max passengers be like,
Ryanair wouldn't be buying them if they thought they were still a problem, pissing passengers off is one thing but slamming them into the ground at speed is another, O'Leary likes profit and if you kill your punters then profit doesn't happen and you tend to go bust.
Ryanair wouldn't be buying them if they thought they were still a problem, pissing passengers off is one thing but slamming them into the ground at speed is another, O'Leary likes profit and if you kill your punters then profit doesn't happen and you tend to go bust.
J4CKO said:
737 Max passengers be like,
Ryanair wouldn't be buying them if they thought they were still a problem, pissing passengers off is one thing but slamming them into the ground at speed is another, O'Leary likes profit and if you kill your punters then profit doesn't happen and you tend to go bust.
Ryanair is very safety conscious. You can criticise them for all sorts but their training and safety is top notch, Ryanair wouldn't be buying them if they thought they were still a problem, pissing passengers off is one thing but slamming them into the ground at speed is another, O'Leary likes profit and if you kill your punters then profit doesn't happen and you tend to go bust.
El stovey said:
J4CKO said:
737 Max passengers be like,
Ryanair wouldn't be buying them if they thought they were still a problem, pissing passengers off is one thing but slamming them into the ground at speed is another, O'Leary likes profit and if you kill your punters then profit doesn't happen and you tend to go bust.
Ryanair is very safety conscious. You can criticise them for all sorts but their training and safety is top notch, Ryanair wouldn't be buying them if they thought they were still a problem, pissing passengers off is one thing but slamming them into the ground at speed is another, O'Leary likes profit and if you kill your punters then profit doesn't happen and you tend to go bust.
Like I say, O'Leary isn't exactly generous and is pretty ruthless, but he isn't stupid.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff