MPHSystems
Hallett 240
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2021
- Messages
- 4,103
- Reaction score
- 10,283
Boeing doesn’t even have spark plugs.Boeing the new Ford?
Boeing doesn’t even have spark plugs.Boeing the new Ford?
Serious question @DaveH are American runways better for landing without a tire? Why not jus land it in Japan without 1 wheel?just saw on the news this morning a tire/wheel flew off a 777 at take off. not sure this can be blamed on Boeing but still the press they are getting.....
I should have sold but I hold.That’s nothing. I have bought and sold BA a few times. I was expecting a much bigger dip than that.
Your right, instead of blowing spark plugs it blows doors offBoeing doesn’t even have spark plugs.
my guess would be they had no way of knowing if when the tire came off there was any sort of other collateral damage. so the safest option would likely to be to get the thing back on the ground as soon as possible.Serious question @DaveH are American runways better for landing without a tire? Why not jus land it in Japan without 1 wheel?
My GF bought a bunch of Boeing years ago on the advice of an ex Boeing Engineer. It is half now what it was when she bought it. Fact is, Boeing is the only US company competing with Airbus. It will take some time to sort things out but they will survive and thrive no matter what IMO.I should have sold but I hold.
Did he also claim he had proof the earth was flat?
Boeing has some issues , this isn't one of them.
That said, if the stock dips hard, I might buy.......
I’ve milked it twice. Looks like it’s gonna be 3.Good buy on the dip for sure, too big to fail.
Buy after the crash. Sell over $200Not going there at this point
I had a 1000 shares I bought at 40-60 bucks around 2010, and sold it for 260-300 in 2018.
the thing about Boeing Stock, You’re only 1 plane crash away from losing most of your money at any time.
This......Buy after the crash. Sell over $200
Who is defending them?Not sure I understand people coming to the defense of this company. They knowingly engineered MCAS software into the 737max without telling pilots it was present. They told airlines that no additional training was required for the max, and they put profits over safety. Trust is earned not given. If you want to fly "Bean Counter" airlines, be my guest.
While the crews did not know about MCAS, a runaway stabilizer is a memory item (no checklist needed). The Ethiopian crew got it correct by using the stab cutoff switches but then turned them back on.Not sure I understand people coming to the defense of this company. They knowingly engineered MCAS software into the 737max without telling pilots it was present. They told airlines that no additional training was required for the max, and they put profits over safety. Trust is earned not given. If you want to fly "Bean Counter" airlines, be my guest.
Right! And anyone who has practiced it in the Sim knows it’s a very challenging maneuver and a unnatural feeling to release forward or back pressure to release the trim brake and manually trim.While the crews did not know about MCAS, a runaway stabilizer is a memory item (no checklist needed). The Ethiopian crew got it correct by using the stab cutoff switches but then turned them back on.
It can also take a lot of strength if the horizontal stabilizer is loaded.Right! And anyone who has practiced it in the Sim knows it’s a very challenging maneuver and a unnatural feeling to release forward or back pressure to release the trim break and manually trim.
ExactlyIt can also take a lot of strength if the horizontal stabilizer is loaded.
A pilot used the term "gauges" to describe his instruments? Can't say I've heard one do that before.50 injured during “technical event” on 787
![]()
50 injured by 'strong movement' during 'technical event' on Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner: LATAM Airlines
Officials say at least 50 people have been injured by what they described as a "strong movement"abc7chicago.com
View attachment 1346829
He's a car guyA pilot used the term "gauges" to describe his instruments? Can't say I've heard one do that before.
50 injured during “technical event” on 787
![]()
50 injured by 'strong movement' during 'technical event' on Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner: LATAM Airlines
Officials say at least 50 people have been injured by what they described as a "strong movement"abc7chicago.com
View attachment 1346829
Its a 25yo plane.
I agree. I don’t care either way, just saw the info and shared.Its a 25yo plane.
Seems like this is more of a United problem than a Boeing problem.
Judging from the leaks and dirt that's not a well maintained aircraft.Its a 25yo plane.
Seems like this is more of a United problem than a Boeing problem.
Well you got to give Boeing props here….. their planes can’t fly but their bullets can.Boeing Whistleblower: "If Anything Happens to Me, It's Not Suicide"
![]()
Someone “wanted to shut him up” claims family friend...
FRI MAR 15, AT 6:00 AM
Swift drivers crash Freightliners....why isn't Freightliner in the news?My question is this: Why have all the last 4 or 5 major issues happened to United Arilines only? Any parts been falling off of Southwest planes recently? It certainly wouldn't surprise me that Boeing would use some inferior parts at times, but shouldn't a good ground crewman or jet technician spot issues and fix them? Shouldn't some of these issues get caught during routine inspections by the airlines? I gotta call BS on some of this and put some of the blame of United and/or Alaska airlines.
Because they have better lobbyists!!!Swift drivers crash Freightliners....why isn't Freightliner in the news?
I watched a special yesterday about an Aloha 737 (early model) that lost the roof several years ago. A passenger saw a crack in the fuselage right next to the door when she was boarding. She asked her friend if she should say something. She didn't, but not her fault. If a passenger could see a crack in the fuselage, don't you think a "trained" technician or inspector for the airline should have seen it and grounded the plane until it was repaired? FAA said the crack was a debonding of the glue that holds one panel to another. Glue? Really? It's a special glue that was used along with rivets and other stuff to hold the plane together. It was actually pretty interesting to listen to. The glue was affected by the humidity which caused it to debond. They have since reformulated that glue to make it impervious to humidity.Its a 25yo plane.
Seems like this is more of a United problem than a Boeing problem.
There was an Air Disasters episode on that. Need to remember the aircraft skin is a pressure vessel. They use epoxy on the overlapping seams to hold it together and then rivets as a final attachment.I watched a special yesterday about an Aloha 737 (early model) that lost the roof several years ago. A passenger saw a crack in the fuselage right next to the door when she was boarding. She asked her friend if she should say something. She didn't, but not her fault. If a passenger could see a crack in the fuselage, don't you think a "trained" technician or inspector for the airline should have seen it and grounded the plane until it was repaired? FAA said the crack was a debonding of the glue that holds one panel to another. Glue? Really? It's a special glue that was used along with rivets and other stuff to hold the plane together. It was actually pretty interesting to listen to. The glue was affected by the humidity which caused it to debond. They have since reformulated that glue to make it impervious to humidity.
Might have been what it was. It had already started when I tuned in. I get that, but my point was why didn't a tech or inspector see what a passenger saw?There was an Air Disasters episode on that. Need to remember the aircraft skin is a pressure vessel. They use epoxy on the overlapping seams to hold it together and then rivets as a final attachment.
That airframe was way over the manufacture limit for flight cycles, and the environment was a contributing factor.
Absolutely agree. The Air Disasters episode said what the passenger saw was right next to the aircraft door frame on the way in.Might have been what it was. It had already started when I tuned in. I get that, but my point was why didn't a tech or inspector see what a passenger saw?
It's required. A flight crew member does the walk before they enter the cockpit and passengers board.Absolutely agree. The Air Disasters episode said what the passenger saw was right next to the aircraft door frame on the way in.
That tells me two pilots and the rest of the crew walked right past that to board the plane themselves and neither noticed nor said anything.
One thing I have noticed is the pre-flight check walk around the plane seems to have died. Used to be something every pilot did. Now they just get on and go to the cockpit and none's the wiser.
I know a few pilots that fly for southwest and they all say I wouldn't get in the pilots seat without doing it. They are all captains.Absolutely agree. The Air Disasters episode said what the passenger saw was right next to the aircraft door frame on the way in.
That tells me two pilots and the rest of the crew walked right past that to board the plane themselves and neither noticed nor said anything.
One thing I have noticed is the pre-flight check walk around the plane seems to have died. Used to be something every pilot did. Now they just get on and go to the cockpit and none's the wiser.
Wow!! I didn't even think about the flight crew entering the plane. They dang sure should have seen it.Absolutely agree. The Air Disasters episode said what the passenger saw was right next to the aircraft door frame on the way in.
That tells me two pilots and the rest of the crew walked right past that to board the plane themselves and neither noticed nor said anything.
That's what the airlines refer to as "deferred maintenance"!!Looks like a job for Flex Seal
Phil Swift for quality control! View attachment 1348663 View attachment 1348664