737 Max Airliners Ordered Immediately Grounded in the US

bimmerphile

SuperCritical™ Member
... until you replace your first water-cooled alternator.
Anything after 2006, things get wacky. Water cooled alternator? Zis is gud. Electric water pump? What can go wrong?
Probably some weird tricks trying to eke a few more mpgs out of the newer, heavier chassis. My brand loyalty ended halfway through the E90.
 

Pilot Fighter

Well-Known Member
Anything after 2006, things get wacky. Water cooled alternator? Zis is gud. Electric water pump? What can go wrong?
Probably some weird tricks trying to eke a few more mpgs out of the newer, heavier chassis. My brand loyalty ended halfway through the E90.
Agreed. 2000 323i, 2000 540i, 2002 Z3 3.0i.
 

srn121

Well-Known Member
NPR had a so-called expert on yesterday who said that it was safe to fly on "737 Max NG's" because "they've all already been modified."

Face, meet palm.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I can't say it any better than Michael Crichton said after reading something filled with errors and sloppiness on a subject he was an expert on (the guy graduated from Harvard medical school and was brilliant). Knowing how poorly much of the news typically handles aviation it's amazing anyone largely trusts the rest of the stuff most of these outlets publish or put on TV.

“You read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know,” Crichton said.
Michael Crichton was right about fake news. And we love it
 

zmiller4

Well-Known Member
I can't say it any better than Michael Crichton said after reading something filled with errors and sloppiness on a subject he was an expert on (the guy graduated from Harvard medical school and was brilliant). Knowing how poorly much of the news typically handles aviation it's amazing anyone largely trusts the rest of the stuff most of these outlets publish or put on TV.



Michael Crichton was right about fake news. And we love it
Crichton was an incredibly entertaining author and tv show creator. And probably a really informed medical doctor. But that’s about it.
 

srn121

Well-Known Member
Crichton was an incredibly entertaining author and tv show creator. And probably a really informed medical doctor. But that’s about it.
The mass media loves its sensationalism in order to get you hooked on listening, watching and reading them and it wouldn't be so terrible if they weren't so damned lazy about it. Here's Jon Stewart calling out some of the ridiculousness that was being put out on MH370 (go to about 2:12 for Don Lemon asking about black holes and later on when they start bringing up pyschics). Maybe the mass media will behave better and more responsibly to some degree this time, but that's one source that was completely clueless about this incident the previous poster I quoted pointed out. All Michael Crichton asked is when a newspaper or a tv station presents bad information on subjects the reader/viewer is the expert on why does the reader/viewer so often continue to have so much faith in what else is presented by that media outlet.

If you subscribe to the TV or radio for your news do yourself a favor and take notes and try to verify what you're hearing which you can do pretty easily with the internet. There's no shortage of omissions and errors, but there is a shortage when it comes to retractions, because it's off to the next story.
 

Autothrust Blue

"...I know bait when I see it..."
The Dreamliner is amazing. I should be riding on one tomorrow but like usual LOT Poland has wet leased the flying to someone else.

The 737 sucks dee. One of the reasons I try and always fly Jetblue and I legit have never stepped foot on a southwest jet is I think the 737 pax comfort and experience is awful.
I’d rather ride in our -321, full, configured to 228, than a 737.

It sucks; I very much want Boeing to build good stuff and sadly it seems like all they can manage to do in the narrow body market is build crap.
 

srn121

Well-Known Member
I’d rather ride in our -321, full, configured to 228, than a 737.

It sucks; I very much want Boeing to build good stuff and sadly it seems like all they can manage to do in the narrow body market is build crap.
It's terrible how much Boeing's been outplayed by Airbus in the last 15 years at least. The MAX was a long over due design when Airbus was racking up record setting sale after record setting sale for the 320 NEO and they scrambled to make it available to prevent Airbus from running away with even more sales, possibly including Southwest. The A350's development was smoother and much, much cheaper than the 787 and the incompetent Boeing management's outsourcing idea for the 787 blew up in their faces. I'm not sure the 777x is going to be much of a winner due to weight compared to the A350, but it's probably too early to tell. Sure Airbus screwed up on the A380, but that was the last misstep I think they've made when it's come to airlines.

It will be fun to see how the new Chinese and Russian competitors to the 737 do as I like to think that either country with today's technology could build a better airliner than one built in the mid 60s. I hope that Boeing's able to dangle the 797 to potential customers if they haven't already to win orders with the option of converting the MAXs to 797s, but what the hell do I know.
 

Derg

Cap, Roci
Staff member
It's terrible how much Boeing's been outplayed by Airbus in the last 15 years at least. The MAX was a long over due design when Airbus was racking up record setting sale after record setting sale for the 320 NEO and they scrambled to make it available to prevent Airbus from running away with even more sales, possibly including Southwest. The A350's development was smoother and much, much cheaper than the 787 and the incompetent Boeing management's outsourcing idea for the 787 blew up in their faces. I'm not sure the 777x is going to be much of a winner due to weight compared to the A350, but it's probably too early to tell. Sure Airbus screwed up on the A380, but that was the last misstep I think they've made when it's come to airlines.

It will be fun to see how the new Chinese and Russian competitors to the 737 do as I like to think that either country with today's technology could build a better airliner than one built in the mid 60s. I hope that Boeing's able to dangle the 797 to potential customers if they haven't already to win orders with the option of converting the MAXs to 797s, but what the hell do I know.

Well, Boeing kept coming to competitive karaoke and singing “Sweet Caroline”. It’s a crowd pleaser.
 

dustoff17

Well-Known Member
Well, there are a lot of things that ALL Presidents do that aren’t specifically “legal” either, but that’s a conversation for another thread. :)
FIFY.....

I like Trump, but can he do this? Can the President say no one can drive Ford F150s anymore? Isnt that what this is?
Not only is this legal, it's been done in the past. It's a legal move in that he has ultimate control over the Nation's Airspace. So, while he can't "technically" ground a specific aircraft, he CAN restrict a specific aircraft from operating in U.S. National Airspace. This is semantics but the end results are the same.

My bet is that it was a discussion between Boeing and the White House. Restricting the MAX from operating in our airspace would indicate that Boeing and the WH were in at odds about this. In light of the recent crashes, this would not be a good move for Boeing.
 

Pilot Fighter

Well-Known Member
FIFY.....


Not only is this legal, it's been done in the past. It's a legal move in that he has ultimate control over the Nation's Airspace. So, while he can't "technically" ground a specific aircraft, he CAN restrict a specific aircraft from operating in U.S. National Airspace. This is semantics but the end results are the same.

My bet is that it was a discussion between Boeing and the White House. Restricting the MAX from operating in our airspace would indicate that Boeing and the WH were in at odds about this. In light of the recent crashes, this would not be a good move for Boeing.

It's usually just a matter of administrative law. On the request of the president the FAA will act.

Mandates of the FAA have the force of law and Administrative Law Courts enforce the law.
 
Top