No i have the competitor stock… But you know, talking about serious topic require basic understanding of facts and solutions.
All the MAX have being globally grounded because they were sharing the same configuration: the same motor, so the mcas to compensate. Today the problem is totally different…
Your article regarding boeing is total bullshit because it didn’t take into account the number of aircrafts delivered (and flying) by Boeing before 2000 (quite a significant amount due to the age of boeing company… especially when the article talk about crash of any aircrafts flying…). A ratio with the amount of flying aircraft per manufacturer would have made the analysis fair… and relevant.
If there is something we know for sure in aeronautics - it’s that incidens / accidents never don’t happen alone… with only one factor or error. It’s always a sum of multiple layers that align and create an unrecoverable situation.
Note that I agree about the fact that recently Boeing have problem (low skills on FAL, shortcut to save money like the mcas, etc…). But you need to stay rationnal too and understand the topic you are commenting on before “arguing” with me.
“The European Union aviation safety regulator adopted the FAA’s MAX 9 directive but noted no EU member state airlines “currently operate an aircraft in the affected configuration.” A British air safety regulator said it would require any 737 MAX 9 operator to comply with the FAA directive to enter its airspace.”
EU + UK have no MAX 9 with the affected configuration but still forcing every plane to be double checked
And average age of an airplane before they retire is low 20s years old. There’s not gonna be many planes in service built before 2000. They even early retired a bunch of older planes between 2010 and 2014 to more fuel efficient ones
No i have the competitor stock… But you know, talking about serious topic require basic understanding of facts and solutions.
All the MAX have being globally grounded because they were sharing the same configuration: the same motor, so the mcas to compensate. Today the problem is totally different…
Your article regarding boeing is total bullshit because it didn’t take into account the number of aircrafts delivered (and flying) by Boeing before 2000 (quite a significant amount due to the age of boeing company… especially when the article talk about crash of any aircrafts flying…). A ratio with the amount of flying aircraft per manufacturer would have made the analysis fair… and relevant.
If there is something we know for sure in aeronautics - it’s that incidens / accidents never don’t happen alone… with only one factor or error. It’s always a sum of multiple layers that align and create an unrecoverable situation.
Note that I agree about the fact that recently Boeing have problem (low skills on FAL, shortcut to save money like the mcas, etc…). But you need to stay rationnal too and understand the topic you are commenting on before “arguing” with me.
“The European Union aviation safety regulator adopted the FAA’s MAX 9 directive but noted no EU member state airlines “currently operate an aircraft in the affected configuration.” A British air safety regulator said it would require any 737 MAX 9 operator to comply with the FAA directive to enter its airspace.”
EU + UK have no MAX 9 with the affected configuration but still forcing every plane to be double checked
And average age of an airplane before they retire is low 20s years old. There’s not gonna be many planes in service built before 2000. They even early retired a bunch of older planes between 2010 and 2014 to more fuel efficient ones
https://www.statista.com/statistics/622600/average-age-of-jets-when-removed-from-service-by-type/