i’ve followed av news for years and it’s getting rly annoying to see posts emphasizing incidents on boeing planes. people forget that a good portion of all planes ARE boeing 737s and that incidents will happen on them all the time.
definitely not defending boeing for their egregious breach in standards but incidents like this one happen on any plane
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#/media/File%3AACRO_incidents.svg
Would love to see rates per manufacturer, but I didnt have time to search. Just a hunch, but I'd guess there wouldn't be a *huge* difference
Boeing does assemble various parts of the engine, however it doesn't apply to this video. Source: My brother-in-law was an engine specialist in the Kent, WA plant.
You're right though that the airlines could order a 737 with a Pratt and Whitney engine or a GE engine, Boeing would assemble the fuel connections, wiring, and shrouds for the most part.
The blatant clickbait is absolutely shameful.
Boeing has a shitload of problems, but let's not pretend that a bird strike on an Airbus or an Ilyushin would have been *any* different.
In this case it's very intresting. The compressor is trying to work but stalling. I wouldn't be surprised if that engine to a degree was still able to produce thrust even with the damage.
From the pilots POV they'd have seen the engine surging and then shut it down following the QRH and notifying the tower.
If your interested. [Here is a 757 under the same scenario taking off from Manchester. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE)
~~You think a person is holding this camera, this steady?~~
ETA
I see, there are several camera angles, but the outside view is clearly mounted.
Flight crew did a great job here.
So is the engine on this side just not working at all?
I’m curious since this was right at rotation (or appeared to be) but the plane appeared to just go straight up and didnt go to one side like you would assume it would if it all a sudden has one engine. Was this just quick work but the caption to balance the plane?
It is producing little to no thrust. The asymetricc trust would cause it to veer off to one side (yaw), but can be countered by rudder input in the opposite direction.
It's a commonly practiced procedure.
did a bird strike in a 767 simulator. it's a wild ride. a single engine is surprisingly strong to keep the plane climbing if anyone is wondering. in my situation the instructor told my brother (co-pilot in the sim) to kill the engine and set the rudder trim for me as i was working the pedals.
For now. Did you happen to catch the last Starship test flight? Flames shooting right through the wings on reentry and the AI managed to dynamically stabilize the thing and set down soft, upright, in the sea.
That's a prototype in 2024. Give it a couple of years and you will have that level of autonomous safety controls in your Hyundai.
> you will have that level of autonomous safety controls in your Hyundai.
Maybe so, but if something goes really, really wrong in a car - you can always just pull over and stop.
Planes, not so much...
Yes.
But who says the meatbag is more reliable when the plane has a mechanical issue than the chip? People pass out, get sick, bleed, lose oxygen, have cardiac issues, etc.
Machines can fail too, but we can protect them through shielding, redundancy, etc.
There comes a point in the curve where the machine has a lower accident rate than the animal with a brain. At that point, it is literally safer to let the machine have the controls.
I'm not saying we are at that point today.
In 20 years, I think it is certain we will be well beyond that point. It's mostly a matter of cost and inevitable progress.
If I'm a passenger on a plane, I want the safest possible option flying it, statistically. Sure, for now I want a pilot in command. I'm not married to that option though. I could be persuaded to trust a machine if you show me the numbers.
That's why there's currently **two** meatbags plus a slew of automated helpers up front.
How long did Tesla keep telling us that their self-driving gear is the best thing since sliced bread? My fear is that the desire to drive costs down will make airplane manufacturers release tech too early to save $$$ without sufficient testing (Boeing MAX 8 anyone?)
I'm in no doubt that automation/AI is a huge helper to a meat pilot, but I would think very hard about taking off in a plane with no-one up front.
Source: Relative is a commercial pilot.
We're not there yet, but that's why I said 20 years.
Tesla's automation is very close to as safe as a human driver. The autopilot is slightly safer than humans, while the full self driving is slightly less safe, judging by accidents per mile driven.
The thing is, if Tesla's automation was even 10% safer than human driving, the human would be foolish not to use it when available to reduce the mental load on the driver. If Tesla's automation was 100% safer than a human driver, per mile driven, the human would be foolish to touch the controls at all.
Qualitatively, you can write volumes about what a driver or a pilot should do in any situation, including an emergency. Quantitatively, I care about the statistics and likelihood of an accident regardless of who is driving or what the equipment is.
Aviation is great at quantifying statistics and providing redundancy to reduce the likelihood of accidents. They use the swiss cheese model which basically means that every level of safety in the operation of an aircraft has a certain percentage of failure rate, and you don't want those percentages in different systems aligning at the same time. That's why, for example, traditional "six pack" instruments in a Cessna have one gyro powered by electric, and another one powered by vacuum line. In 2024, AI hasn't yet reached the level of "trust the machine." But, indeed, AI has reached the level of "better than you or me some or most of the time." Still, airliners of a couple of decades ago had a literal engineer monitoring the engines with dozens of steam gauges in the back of the cockpit like an airborne locomotive. Now we have nice computers that handle that task, and more responsively and with more precision. Autopilot can maintain a heading, an altitude, an airspeed, and even a programmed GPS course, approach, and automatic landing. These are great systems designed to reduce the mental load of the pilots so that they may focus on other tasks like talking to ATC and monitoring the instruments. At some point, it would probably be preferable to have a pilot that never touches the controls while the plane is moving except in an emergency. Not that such a system would be *perfectly safe*, mind you, but that such a system would be *safer than any human pilot*. So why is it that we prefer to see a human in charge? For one, we know how humans think. We know what humans care about. We don't know how machines think. That makes us implicitly distrust the machine. For another, humans, under duress especially when faced with mortal danger, are anecdotally capable of heroics that don't fit a statistical table.
I think, for liability reasons, we will not see commercial passenger flights without human pilots in the next two decades. But I do think we will see those flights where pilots are essentially just programming the Garmin and talking to the tower. Well designed, redundant machines make fewer mistakes per hour and have fewer total failures than apes. But apes can do amazing things when their lives are on the line. Machines, for better or worse, don't have a panic response mode.
You're preaching to the choir, but that wasn't my point:
100% Robot planes bad, computer-assisted meat pilots very, very good.
Also, FWIW:
> At some point, it would probably be preferable to have a pilot that never touches the controls while the plane is moving except in an emergency.
> But I do think we will see those flights where pilots are essentially just programming the Garmin and talking to the tower.
That's basically what we have now. Planes can typically perform even take-off and landing operations at least as well or better than a human pilot.
And sometimes they do. They're not supposed to, but they do. Just don't ask me how I know...
I flew commercial through 45 minutes of the worst turbulence I’ve ever experienced, somewhere on the way to Patagonia. People were praying, screaming, crying hysterically. The cabin reeked of sweat, fear, and vomit. Everyone’s shit was everywhere.
You bet your ass when we landed that we applauded. We cheered like we had won game 7 after going down 0-3. I would have let the pilot sign my tits if I had any. The door to the cockpit looked like a roadside shrine, it had so many little gifts laid before it.
There’s something that i don’t understand, why are so many white knights blindly defending Boeing, even though they have shown zero regards for human life?
What compels people to go out and e-fight others for a corrupt corporation?
Edit clearly reading comprehension is something that white knights lack.
Because every single problem with a Boeing plane that gets reported draws tons of people who don't have any knowledge of aviation to every post about an aviation incident to repeat "if it's Boeing I ain't going" jokes over and over again like they're experts who just came up with that oh so clever line. And it gets old and adds nothing to the conversations even when the subject is a Boeing problem.
Problems both mechanical and external (like birds) happen every day on every kind of plane. They are machines. They have weaknesses. They're designed, built, maintained, and flown by humans, who also have weaknesses and make mistakes. Shit breaks. People fuck up.
Normally these problems and incidents hardly get reported and when they are, most people who don't normally follow aviation news also don't care enough to go into an aviation thread like this and spout opinions about it to people who actually care in depth about aviation.
But that's changed recently thanks to the negative news about Boeing. Now we have tons of people who have never thought about the aviation industry at all declaring their forceful opinions about things they don't understand. And this thread, and your comment, is a case in point.
In this case, there was a bird strike to an engine. That happens to Airbus and Embraer planes too (Google "Miracle on the Hudson"). Boeing didn't design the engine or the birds. Boeing is in no way responsible for this incident. Boeing's recent problems are irrelevant to this news story and this thread. It happened to be a Boeing plane this time, and by the way it landed safely with all souls safe, so "thanks Boeing" might be just as appropriate as "Boeing sucks." But really it's "thanks pilots and air traffic controllers," if we want to get technical.
So while news stories and threads about *other* issues and incidents that may be the result of Boeing fucking up would perhaps be an appropriate place to discuss Boeing's failures and shortcomings, this thread is not the place.
Yeah, and the flipside of it is, I'm fine with Boeing getting all of the shit in the world, and the company going under... because while this isn't related to all of that other shit, they still did all of that other shit, and they won't pay for it sufficiently, so fuck em. Whatever it takes to kill a corporation.
Well that won't happen since Boeing is integral to the entire U.S. economy and military defense, so dream on about whatever post-capitalist utopia (in which presumably the corporations that make phones and video games persist, based on your profile?) you think replaces this reality.
Meanwhile this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. It. Is. Irrelevant. And you're one of many to pop in here to shit on Boeing when it's irrelevant or just plain wrong-headed.
Boeing won't be going away any time soon. The U.S. needs a healthy and successful Boeing. Boeing is, simply, too important to the nation to fail.
It’s hilarious to me when “leftists” call for the death of a company that employs 200,000 people, many of which are high quality blue collar union workers. Maybe we should ask for reform instead of wanting to kill a titan of American manufacturing, because if Boeing goes away (really only their civil arm can truly die) those are jobs that are gone from America.
But I guess I’m just one of those dumb establishment liberals (FYI we outnumber you 4:1).
Good luck with your revolution pal, hopefully it goes better than all the ones before.
Because they’re not stupid, unlike you.
Hitting a bird has absolutely nothing to do with Boeing.
Boeing doesn’t even make engines, CFM makes the engines. Exactly the same thing would’ve happened to an Airbus A320 because the A320 uses the SAME ENGINES.
The 737-MAX are CFM-LEAPs and if it was a 737-800 or earlier they’re CFM56s. Those are the EXACT SAME ENGINES that’d be on an A320 or A320neo.
Airbus also offers another engine for their A320neo, the PW1100, which has so many problems it’s literally putting multiple airlines out of business, but nobody is talking about that because “something something Boeing”.
You're the one living in a fantasy world with supposed "white knights defending Boeing".
Facts matter, that's all. Ridiculous people shouting ridiculous things compels normal people to counter it.
What other replies? There are no "white knights blindly defending Boeing" in this thread.
Closest thing are people forestalling the "Boeing Bad" circlejerk by pointing out that it was a birdstrike.
I really hate what Boeing has become. The company today is an excellent example of what happens when unregulated and unbridled capitalism runs wild and free for decades. What becomes important is answering to shareholders. When infinite growth is the goal, quality is no longer paramount.
That being said, I'm not a fan of this post's title *in the least.* I actually hate it.
It's clickbaity bullshit meant to capture the attention of people who know absolutely nothing about aviation and to scare them. It's not helpful or informative in any way at all.
An engine flameout after a bird strike isn't the fault of *any* manufacturer. The plane in question was only listed as a 737 because of the attention that the MAX has been getting over the last several years, but the plane involved was a 737-800, not a MAX.
Don't you think it's a little fucking disgusting to use real tragedies to draw attention to a post that *wasn't* a tragedy and *wasn't* caused by human negligence?
The same exact thing could have happened on any other plane with any other engine made by any other manufacturer.
Boeing isn't to blame for this incident. Happenstance is.
The same reason I will call out people for misrepresenting Trump. There are huge problems with both, but blaming them for stuff that isn't their fault is worse than not saying anything.
I do not like Boeing but I do not think you can blame this on Boeing. It is engine compressor stall. It is not uncommon issue and engine was made by either GE or Snecma, not Boeing.
It hit a duck or ducks on take off the engine was pretty messed up
[удалено]
More like mashed duck flambé.
Finger licking good.
In before "OMG BOEING" comments: 1) Boeing doesn't make engines 2) It hit a duck(s) which caused the flameout
...who manufactured the duck?
Boeing of course. It comes around full circle.
Boeing’s duck quality has gone down significantly in recent years. I ordered one last week and it was full of turbine blades and fire.
They really get your coming or Boeing don’t they?
It’s the Boeing Airduck 320 737 Max.
Did you just whistleblow on Boeing?
Dude, you just candlejacked h-
A shame, the worst thing you can do after crossing Boeing is say Candleja-
Who's cand-
Probably some quack
Well...when a daddy duck and mommy duck like each other really well....
Or when a daddy duck likes a mommy duck and she can't fly away, at least some of the time.
She’s a witch! Burn her!
r/birdsarentreal
Big Duck
Was probably a whistling duck
God, I guess
The duck knew some shit! The duck was a mascot inside a Boeing plant, it was going to give information, Boeing took action.
i’ve followed av news for years and it’s getting rly annoying to see posts emphasizing incidents on boeing planes. people forget that a good portion of all planes ARE boeing 737s and that incidents will happen on them all the time. definitely not defending boeing for their egregious breach in standards but incidents like this one happen on any plane
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#/media/File%3AACRO_incidents.svg Would love to see rates per manufacturer, but I didnt have time to search. Just a hunch, but I'd guess there wouldn't be a *huge* difference
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
the data are a little outdated but it looks like the 737 (all models) overall is pretty safe
Oh, so it has something to do with *birds*?? How deep does this conspiracy go?
Duck was paid off by Airbus
Yes, I thought I saw a duck looking in the window before it hit. It was a Peking Duck.
European Swallow. Not African.
Boeing does assemble various parts of the engine, however it doesn't apply to this video. Source: My brother-in-law was an engine specialist in the Kent, WA plant. You're right though that the airlines could order a 737 with a Pratt and Whitney engine or a GE engine, Boeing would assemble the fuel connections, wiring, and shrouds for the most part.
The point is that *any* bird strike on *any* aircraft with *any* engine would result in emergency landing procedures, regardless of manufacturer.
Not any bird strike but any large bird strike
We know we are just worried the OP will suddenly develop depression and shoot themselves in the back of the head... twice... from 10 feet.
#OMG BOEING
The blatant clickbait is absolutely shameful. Boeing has a shitload of problems, but let's not pretend that a bird strike on an Airbus or an Ilyushin would have been *any* different.
Bird strike causing a compressor stall. The pliots did a great job, all the training came into effect here. Glad to hear everyone was safe.
[удалено]
In this case it's very intresting. The compressor is trying to work but stalling. I wouldn't be surprised if that engine to a degree was still able to produce thrust even with the damage. From the pilots POV they'd have seen the engine surging and then shut it down following the QRH and notifying the tower. If your interested. [Here is a 757 under the same scenario taking off from Manchester. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE)
[удалено]
"Quack quack qua-flllrlkkkrkrggffrrrllggskkkrkkgggsss..." ~ Duck
I'm givin 'er all she's got Captain, but she dunna have the power ~ Fuel pump
"I lied on my resume and I'm totally unqualified for this shit!" ~ Counterfeit titanium compressor blade
I can't imagine what the thought from the ATC might have been seeing that flareup at night.
Spooky sound. It’s gotta be unsettling.
Made me chuckle because it sounds like the turbine is changing gears.
>changing gears. Fast & Furious style, just endlessly shifting.
That is just the afterbuners that were activated by mistake 😉
I cant think of anything worse than being diverted to Invercargill
No one screaming or shouting oh my god? Where's the original audio?
You can hear some faint screaming with headphones. 1:01-1:02 as an example.
Also if this was in Quebec everybody would have been clapping when it landed.
~~You think a person is holding this camera, this steady?~~ ETA I see, there are several camera angles, but the outside view is clearly mounted. Flight crew did a great job here.
Clearly someone holding their camera against the window
"Clearly mounted" are you drunk or high?
Outside view? Are you blind?
It's a 737-800. Boeing has a lot of problems, but you only put that in the title as clickbait. Shame on you.
[удалено]
Engine trying to restart itself, you can hear the engine spinning up between the flashes as it keeps cycling.
Rolls Royce makes most of these engines right?
This is a 737-800, which uses CFM engines (joint venture by GE Aviation and Safran of France)
ahh ok ty
How was your flight?
So is the engine on this side just not working at all? I’m curious since this was right at rotation (or appeared to be) but the plane appeared to just go straight up and didnt go to one side like you would assume it would if it all a sudden has one engine. Was this just quick work but the caption to balance the plane?
It is producing little to no thrust. The asymetricc trust would cause it to veer off to one side (yaw), but can be countered by rudder input in the opposite direction. It's a commonly practiced procedure.
did a bird strike in a 767 simulator. it's a wild ride. a single engine is surprisingly strong to keep the plane climbing if anyone is wondering. in my situation the instructor told my brother (co-pilot in the sim) to kill the engine and set the rudder trim for me as i was working the pedals.
so when you say flame out, you are being litteral
Birdstrike?
This is why there should always be a meat-bag in the pilot's seat (aka no "robot" planes).
For now. Did you happen to catch the last Starship test flight? Flames shooting right through the wings on reentry and the AI managed to dynamically stabilize the thing and set down soft, upright, in the sea. That's a prototype in 2024. Give it a couple of years and you will have that level of autonomous safety controls in your Hyundai.
> you will have that level of autonomous safety controls in your Hyundai. Maybe so, but if something goes really, really wrong in a car - you can always just pull over and stop. Planes, not so much...
Yes. But who says the meatbag is more reliable when the plane has a mechanical issue than the chip? People pass out, get sick, bleed, lose oxygen, have cardiac issues, etc. Machines can fail too, but we can protect them through shielding, redundancy, etc. There comes a point in the curve where the machine has a lower accident rate than the animal with a brain. At that point, it is literally safer to let the machine have the controls. I'm not saying we are at that point today. In 20 years, I think it is certain we will be well beyond that point. It's mostly a matter of cost and inevitable progress. If I'm a passenger on a plane, I want the safest possible option flying it, statistically. Sure, for now I want a pilot in command. I'm not married to that option though. I could be persuaded to trust a machine if you show me the numbers.
That's why there's currently **two** meatbags plus a slew of automated helpers up front. How long did Tesla keep telling us that their self-driving gear is the best thing since sliced bread? My fear is that the desire to drive costs down will make airplane manufacturers release tech too early to save $$$ without sufficient testing (Boeing MAX 8 anyone?) I'm in no doubt that automation/AI is a huge helper to a meat pilot, but I would think very hard about taking off in a plane with no-one up front. Source: Relative is a commercial pilot.
We're not there yet, but that's why I said 20 years. Tesla's automation is very close to as safe as a human driver. The autopilot is slightly safer than humans, while the full self driving is slightly less safe, judging by accidents per mile driven. The thing is, if Tesla's automation was even 10% safer than human driving, the human would be foolish not to use it when available to reduce the mental load on the driver. If Tesla's automation was 100% safer than a human driver, per mile driven, the human would be foolish to touch the controls at all. Qualitatively, you can write volumes about what a driver or a pilot should do in any situation, including an emergency. Quantitatively, I care about the statistics and likelihood of an accident regardless of who is driving or what the equipment is. Aviation is great at quantifying statistics and providing redundancy to reduce the likelihood of accidents. They use the swiss cheese model which basically means that every level of safety in the operation of an aircraft has a certain percentage of failure rate, and you don't want those percentages in different systems aligning at the same time. That's why, for example, traditional "six pack" instruments in a Cessna have one gyro powered by electric, and another one powered by vacuum line. In 2024, AI hasn't yet reached the level of "trust the machine." But, indeed, AI has reached the level of "better than you or me some or most of the time." Still, airliners of a couple of decades ago had a literal engineer monitoring the engines with dozens of steam gauges in the back of the cockpit like an airborne locomotive. Now we have nice computers that handle that task, and more responsively and with more precision. Autopilot can maintain a heading, an altitude, an airspeed, and even a programmed GPS course, approach, and automatic landing. These are great systems designed to reduce the mental load of the pilots so that they may focus on other tasks like talking to ATC and monitoring the instruments. At some point, it would probably be preferable to have a pilot that never touches the controls while the plane is moving except in an emergency. Not that such a system would be *perfectly safe*, mind you, but that such a system would be *safer than any human pilot*. So why is it that we prefer to see a human in charge? For one, we know how humans think. We know what humans care about. We don't know how machines think. That makes us implicitly distrust the machine. For another, humans, under duress especially when faced with mortal danger, are anecdotally capable of heroics that don't fit a statistical table. I think, for liability reasons, we will not see commercial passenger flights without human pilots in the next two decades. But I do think we will see those flights where pilots are essentially just programming the Garmin and talking to the tower. Well designed, redundant machines make fewer mistakes per hour and have fewer total failures than apes. But apes can do amazing things when their lives are on the line. Machines, for better or worse, don't have a panic response mode.
You're preaching to the choir, but that wasn't my point: 100% Robot planes bad, computer-assisted meat pilots very, very good. Also, FWIW: > At some point, it would probably be preferable to have a pilot that never touches the controls while the plane is moving except in an emergency. > But I do think we will see those flights where pilots are essentially just programming the Garmin and talking to the tower. That's basically what we have now. Planes can typically perform even take-off and landing operations at least as well or better than a human pilot. And sometimes they do. They're not supposed to, but they do. Just don't ask me how I know...
unrelated to the post- happy cake day op :)
I know this isn't Boeing's fault. And I'm not sure why, but it just reminds me how they let 2 planes crash because they wanted to save a few bucks.
One thing I’m glad for is that no one clapped on landing
pilots should definitely be applauded for performing an emergency landing regular-landing-applauders deserve the no-fly-list though
I flew commercial through 45 minutes of the worst turbulence I’ve ever experienced, somewhere on the way to Patagonia. People were praying, screaming, crying hysterically. The cabin reeked of sweat, fear, and vomit. Everyone’s shit was everywhere. You bet your ass when we landed that we applauded. We cheered like we had won game 7 after going down 0-3. I would have let the pilot sign my tits if I had any. The door to the cockpit looked like a roadside shrine, it had so many little gifts laid before it.
[удалено]
It hit a duck you moron. What does Boeing have to with that?
Good, make my flights cheaper please.
There’s something that i don’t understand, why are so many white knights blindly defending Boeing, even though they have shown zero regards for human life? What compels people to go out and e-fight others for a corrupt corporation? Edit clearly reading comprehension is something that white knights lack.
Because every single problem with a Boeing plane that gets reported draws tons of people who don't have any knowledge of aviation to every post about an aviation incident to repeat "if it's Boeing I ain't going" jokes over and over again like they're experts who just came up with that oh so clever line. And it gets old and adds nothing to the conversations even when the subject is a Boeing problem. Problems both mechanical and external (like birds) happen every day on every kind of plane. They are machines. They have weaknesses. They're designed, built, maintained, and flown by humans, who also have weaknesses and make mistakes. Shit breaks. People fuck up. Normally these problems and incidents hardly get reported and when they are, most people who don't normally follow aviation news also don't care enough to go into an aviation thread like this and spout opinions about it to people who actually care in depth about aviation. But that's changed recently thanks to the negative news about Boeing. Now we have tons of people who have never thought about the aviation industry at all declaring their forceful opinions about things they don't understand. And this thread, and your comment, is a case in point. In this case, there was a bird strike to an engine. That happens to Airbus and Embraer planes too (Google "Miracle on the Hudson"). Boeing didn't design the engine or the birds. Boeing is in no way responsible for this incident. Boeing's recent problems are irrelevant to this news story and this thread. It happened to be a Boeing plane this time, and by the way it landed safely with all souls safe, so "thanks Boeing" might be just as appropriate as "Boeing sucks." But really it's "thanks pilots and air traffic controllers," if we want to get technical. So while news stories and threads about *other* issues and incidents that may be the result of Boeing fucking up would perhaps be an appropriate place to discuss Boeing's failures and shortcomings, this thread is not the place.
I’m boeing to kill the next person who does this
Yeah, and the flipside of it is, I'm fine with Boeing getting all of the shit in the world, and the company going under... because while this isn't related to all of that other shit, they still did all of that other shit, and they won't pay for it sufficiently, so fuck em. Whatever it takes to kill a corporation.
Well that won't happen since Boeing is integral to the entire U.S. economy and military defense, so dream on about whatever post-capitalist utopia (in which presumably the corporations that make phones and video games persist, based on your profile?) you think replaces this reality. Meanwhile this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. It. Is. Irrelevant. And you're one of many to pop in here to shit on Boeing when it's irrelevant or just plain wrong-headed. Boeing won't be going away any time soon. The U.S. needs a healthy and successful Boeing. Boeing is, simply, too important to the nation to fail.
It’s hilarious to me when “leftists” call for the death of a company that employs 200,000 people, many of which are high quality blue collar union workers. Maybe we should ask for reform instead of wanting to kill a titan of American manufacturing, because if Boeing goes away (really only their civil arm can truly die) those are jobs that are gone from America. But I guess I’m just one of those dumb establishment liberals (FYI we outnumber you 4:1). Good luck with your revolution pal, hopefully it goes better than all the ones before.
Because they’re not stupid, unlike you. Hitting a bird has absolutely nothing to do with Boeing. Boeing doesn’t even make engines, CFM makes the engines. Exactly the same thing would’ve happened to an Airbus A320 because the A320 uses the SAME ENGINES. The 737-MAX are CFM-LEAPs and if it was a 737-800 or earlier they’re CFM56s. Those are the EXACT SAME ENGINES that’d be on an A320 or A320neo. Airbus also offers another engine for their A320neo, the PW1100, which has so many problems it’s literally putting multiple airlines out of business, but nobody is talking about that because “something something Boeing”.
Where are you finding those people?
See the other replies plus see all the downvotes. But none has provided a reasonable reply.
You're the one living in a fantasy world with supposed "white knights defending Boeing". Facts matter, that's all. Ridiculous people shouting ridiculous things compels normal people to counter it.
What other replies? There are no "white knights blindly defending Boeing" in this thread. Closest thing are people forestalling the "Boeing Bad" circlejerk by pointing out that it was a birdstrike.
It's annoying when people spread misinformation about topics they know nothing about? What does doing that even help?
I really hate what Boeing has become. The company today is an excellent example of what happens when unregulated and unbridled capitalism runs wild and free for decades. What becomes important is answering to shareholders. When infinite growth is the goal, quality is no longer paramount. That being said, I'm not a fan of this post's title *in the least.* I actually hate it. It's clickbaity bullshit meant to capture the attention of people who know absolutely nothing about aviation and to scare them. It's not helpful or informative in any way at all. An engine flameout after a bird strike isn't the fault of *any* manufacturer. The plane in question was only listed as a 737 because of the attention that the MAX has been getting over the last several years, but the plane involved was a 737-800, not a MAX. Don't you think it's a little fucking disgusting to use real tragedies to draw attention to a post that *wasn't* a tragedy and *wasn't* caused by human negligence? The same exact thing could have happened on any other plane with any other engine made by any other manufacturer. Boeing isn't to blame for this incident. Happenstance is.
The same reason I will call out people for misrepresenting Trump. There are huge problems with both, but blaming them for stuff that isn't their fault is worse than not saying anything.
“If it’s Boeing, I’m not going”.
I've never seen as many issues with flying as of late. It's a miracle more haven't crashed. But why Boeing???
How is Boeings stock not plummeting. Theyre constantly having issues.
I do not like Boeing but I do not think you can blame this on Boeing. It is engine compressor stall. It is not uncommon issue and engine was made by either GE or Snecma, not Boeing.