wandererz wrote: » Please forgive me but the term potential immediately conveys conspiracy theory to me. The official statements released are what should be gone by until & otherwise disproved. Those are: a failure of a relatively new & recently maintained aircraft. Again: until otherwise disproved.
Fritzbox wrote: » In other words, it's a "bash Boeing" thread which you are looking for, and not a conspiracy thread?
cnocbui wrote: » Looking at the Daily Mail article...
wandererz wrote: » No. Approximately 522 people have lost their lives in 14 months in 3 events. The first two resulted in denials all the way to the top of the organisation until proved wrong. Now another one with 179 deaths. Added to that, there are now issues surfacing about wiring on the Max series. It seems to be a corporate culture of expediency, covering things up & forgetting about crew & passengers in order to maximise profit. It's taken them this long to stop manufacture of the Max series. It should have happened months ago until a clear path was established & certifications obtained.
Fritzbox wrote: » You're talking about the 737 MAX, which has been grounded. Yesterday's aircraft loss in Tehran was a 737 800, an "NG", thousands of which have been flying for the last 20 years without too much scandalous adoo... BTW, Airbus are in the business of producing planes to "maximise profit" too you know.
Fritzbox wrote: » BTW, Airbus are in the business of producing planes to "maximise profit" too you know.
wandererz wrote: » Posts 3 & 4 mentioned the MAX. Of course the Max has been grounded, so it's not possible for the Max to have been involved. It's a moot point so I did not bother responding to that. The 800 may have been flying for a considerable period of time but that does not negate lapses in QA being introduced into recently manufactured aircraft. Corporate culture in one part of the organisation can drift down to others. Every manufacturer is in the business of maximising profits. The problem occurs when things are intentionally hidden or brushed under the covers as has occurred here. If the issues with the Max are now surfacing, what other issues were brushed under the covers with previous models? The analogy with NASA was that they tendered for the cheapest parts, cheapest manufacturers, cheapest everything to build a rocket, stick a person on the top of it & hope to hell he survived. Well, here we are in the 21st century & almost into 2020 Boeing couldn't even get a rocket to the ISS. They blamed it on an incorrect clock for Petes sake. Where was the QA there? The world looking at them and.... pfffft
Kevski wrote: » This thread is about the UIA flight that crashed. You claim that you’re not Boeing bashing yet here you are complaining about 737 MAX and Boeing not sending rockets to ISS...
wandererz wrote: » I was the one who started this thread about the flight that crashed. I was not Boeing bashing but perhaps I am. Considering what's come to light about their corporate culture, it's easy to see it as Boeing bashing. It's about safety & transparency. That rocket was designed to carry human beings. It failed to get from A to B. It's the same organisation. Granted that they are different divisions, but corporate culture permeates. Mistakes & cover ups gravitate across divisions of the same organisation. People learn what works & how to bypass the system & pretty soon it becomes normality. Until people start dying.
wandererz wrote: » I was the one who started this thread about the flight that crashed.
Kevski wrote: » Correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying that the UIA flight crashed due to Boeing’s corporate culture and people within the organisation bypassing the system? If so, is there even a single grain of evidence to back up that claim?
wandererz wrote: » The only thing that will dictate why the UIA flight crashed will be the ultimate investigative report.
California Dreamer wrote: » Wanderez, It’s a good thing that the NTSB, Boeing, his holiness the pope, Allah, Bono, Waldo and the tooth fairy have you on board to point fingers, lay blame and ultimately pass judgement on this crash. ������
Fritzbox wrote: » Well indeed, why not wait until the report is released - and desist from propagandizing and Boeing bashing in the meantime?
wandererz wrote: » I'm not passing judgement. The original post was based on reports that it was mechanical failure.
wandererz wrote: » Yes, you are wrong. I'm saying that considering everything that's come to light out of the Max saga, confidence has been reduced. As has happened with other companies in the past they adopted a deniability model until questioned & proved wrong. I am saying that I don't believe that one passenger aircraft division of the same company is different from another in its culture, methodology and day to day operations. They are not islands unto themselves, otherwise they would not be able to pass technical research onto each other. The only thing that will dictate why the UIA flight crashed will be the ultimate investigative report.
L1011 wrote: » At the time you posted this thread, there was absolutely and utterly nothing at all suggesting mechanical failure on the link you posted considering it was minutes after it happened. You decided to blame Boeing yourself.
wandererz wrote: » There were multiple reports across different news agencies. I selected one rather than everything I read. I left it to people to go & research for themselves.
L1011 wrote: » You selected the one that implied it was a bomb? When now trying to claim that there were already reports, minutes after the incident, saying it was mechanical issues? This story doesn't wash at all.
wandererz wrote: » No, I selected one that mentioned that it was mechanical failure. As time progressed, the article has been updated & is NOT the original word for word article I linked.
L1011 wrote: » Except it didn't. I have linked to the state of the article at the time you linked to it, thanks to the wonders of an archiving site that has 24 different captures of it today alone. I checked before I pointed out that you were bluffing. Nobody was saying it was a mechanical failure then because it was incredibly soon after it happened and there was no info.
wandererz wrote: » "BNO Media reported the incident on Tuesday night and said Iranian media reported the plane suffered technical problems then went down minutes after take-off in Tehran" .
L1011 wrote: » And then implied it was a bomb. No actual reportage.
L1011 wrote: » You also need to learn that the Daily Mail is basically considered to be the last place you go for aviation content.
wandererz wrote: » 1+1 = 7
wandererz wrote: » No. Approximately 522 people have lost their lives in 14 months in 3 events.
wandererz wrote: » Added to that, there are now issues surfacing about wiring on the Max series. It seems to be a corporate culture of expediency, covering things up & forgetting about crew & passengers in order to maximise profit. It's taken them this long to stop manufacture of the Max series. It should have happened months ago until a clear path was established & certifications obtained.
wandererz wrote: » That being said, it reduces confidence in the 737-800's & other models recently manufactured.
