Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Boeing brings back the 737 Max but also lays off thousands, proving they still don't really know which way is up   (theregister.co.uk) divider line
    More: Followup, United States, Boeing's factory, Washington, brief statement, Line, Safety, Airline, CEO Dave Calhoun  
•       •       •

362 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 May 2020 at 3:35 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



16 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-05-28 2:47:26 PM  
LƐL Wɐx
 
2020-05-28 3:51:00 PM  
I can't find the article I saw yesterday, but it quoted Calhoun as saying they needed to keep their supply chain in business.

Don't ask me why they can't build other planes.
 
2020-05-28 4:01:08 PM  
Their planes don't go up but their stock does.  Go figure.
 
2020-05-28 5:04:47 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


\I preferred L-1011s and MD-80s
\\Yeah, DIAF Boeing management for farking the unfarkable!
\\\Just say no the scarebus.
 
2020-05-28 5:09:17 PM  
New ad campaign: The air inside our 737 Max will probably infect and kill you, why worry about software?
 
2020-05-28 5:18:57 PM  
My neighbor works for Boeing. I asked him today if he is going to survive the layoffs. He told me what number he was in seniority in his department, he will get laid off.
 
2020-05-28 6:06:47 PM  
The fix for the airplane is pretty simple. The FAA is dragging them through the coals, and rightfully so.

What is the fix? Installing 2 (3 would be overkill, but welcome) AOA sensors and have them compare, without charging buyers extra. Also, when the plane is overspeeding, the downward trim (a factor in both crashes) is inabled. That system currently exists on the 787, so it's a software fix that should be easy. The 787 and 737Max aren't all that different in many ways.
 
2020-05-28 6:20:19 PM  

SirEattonHogg: Their planes don't go up but their stock does.  Go figure.


I'll explain that for you. There is next to no redundancy for airplane manufacturers in that space. And the entire world is sort of addicted to transporting people and products by air. They said that AIG and their ilk were too big to fail and it was horseshiat. But air cargo needs planes and there aren't many people that can make them. Boeing isn't going anywhere.
 
2020-05-28 6:49:46 PM  

JohnBigBootay: SirEattonHogg: Their planes don't go up but their stock does.  Go figure.

I'll explain that for you. There is next to no redundancy for airplane manufacturers in that space. And the entire world is sort of addicted to transporting people and products by air. They said that AIG and their ilk were too big to fail and it was horseshiat. But air cargo needs planes and there aren't many people that can make them. Boeing isn't going anywhere.


Hence it ain't horseshiat is it then?
 
2020-05-28 7:15:49 PM  

cyberspacedout: I can't find the article I saw yesterday, but it quoted Calhoun as saying they needed to keep their supply chain in business.

Don't ask me why they can't build other planes.


secure.i.telegraph.co.ukView Full Size


Spirit Aerosystems IIRC is the subcontractor that assembles the 737 fuselages and sends them by train to Boeing. This particular derailment ended with 6 potential planes in the shredder
 
2020-05-28 8:59:11 PM  

centrifugal bumblepuppy: cyberspacedout: I can't find the article I saw yesterday, but it quoted Calhoun as saying they needed to keep their supply chain in business.

Don't ask me why they can't build other planes.

[secure.i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x387]

Spirit Aerosystems IIRC is the subcontractor that assembles the 737 fuselages and sends them by train to Boeing. This particular derailment ended with 6 potential planes in the shredder


Yeah, I remember when that one made FARK.

I don't see why they couldn't just produce other 737 models, though, It's a pretty expensive bet to spend a few billion on something that might be sitting unsold for a while.
 
2020-05-28 9:41:28 PM  

cyberspacedout: centrifugal bumblepuppy: cyberspacedout: I can't find the article I saw yesterday, but it quoted Calhoun as saying they needed to keep their supply chain in business.

Don't ask me why they can't build other planes.

[secure.i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x387]

Spirit Aerosystems IIRC is the subcontractor that assembles the 737 fuselages and sends them by train to Boeing. This particular derailment ended with 6 potential planes in the shredder

Yeah, I remember when that one made FARK.

I don't see why they couldn't just produce other 737 models, though, It's a pretty expensive bet to spend a few billion on something that might be sitting unsold for a while.


There are a lot of parts unique to the 737-MAX, you don't want those lines closed down. They can probably float a lot of inventory before it costs more than reopening those production lines.
 
2020-05-28 9:51:13 PM  

dywed88: cyberspacedout: centrifugal bumblepuppy: cyberspacedout: I can't find the article I saw yesterday, but it quoted Calhoun as saying they needed to keep their supply chain in business.

Don't ask me why they can't build other planes.

[secure.i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x387]

Spirit Aerosystems IIRC is the subcontractor that assembles the 737 fuselages and sends them by train to Boeing. This particular derailment ended with 6 potential planes in the shredder

Yeah, I remember when that one made FARK.

I don't see why they couldn't just produce other 737 models, though, It's a pretty expensive bet to spend a few billion on something that might be sitting unsold for a while.

There are a lot of parts unique to the 737-MAX, you don't want those lines closed down. They can probably float a lot of inventory before it costs more than reopening those production lines.


But enough about the above photo...

Really, though, I was not aware they were using so many different suppliers for the MAX line.
 
2020-05-29 6:48:52 AM  

cyberspacedout: I can't find the article I saw yesterday, but it quoted Calhoun as saying they needed to keep their supply chain in business.

Don't ask me why they can't build other planes.


OK, then I'll ask.

Why not just order the parts?

Because various issues, some of which Boeing is not in control over, building the actual plane, seems like a waste of time right now.
 
2020-05-29 11:56:09 AM  

SirEattonHogg: JohnBigBootay: SirEattonHogg: Their planes don't go up but their stock does.  Go figure.

I'll explain that for you. There is next to no redundancy for airplane manufacturers in that space. And the entire world is sort of addicted to transporting people and products by air. They said that AIG and their ilk were too big to fail and it was horseshiat. But air cargo needs planes and there aren't many people that can make them. Boeing isn't going anywhere.

Hence it ain't horseshiat is it then?


right. not horseshiat
 
2020-05-29 4:01:07 PM  

iron_city_ap: The fix for the airplane is pretty simple. The FAA is dragging them through the coals, and rightfully so.

What is the fix? Installing 2 (3 would be overkill, but welcome) AOA sensors and have them compare, without charging buyers extra. Also, when the plane is overspeeding, the downward trim (a factor in both crashes) is inabled. That system currently exists on the 787, so it's a software fix that should be easy. The 787 and 737Max aren't all that different in many ways.


If it were so easy, the 737 max would have been flying a month after the crash.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.