All
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing Needs to Be Led by Engineers, Time is Not On Its Side, Emirates President Says
Boeing needs to be led by engineers if it wants to pull itself out of its current crisis, Tim Clark, the president of Emirates Airline, said Wednesday (www.cnbc.com) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The customers will have the final word, not the company executives, investors and government agencies.
Absolutely agree, I think this is the point that is behind Tim Clark's (Emirate Airline chief) comments If airlines begin to see major delays with their programmed deliveries from one sauce they will inevitably consider looking elsewhere. Equally, if they sense a passenger distrust of a product they will look for an alternative.
He is very clear that the best way to restore faith in Boeing is to put it back in the hands of engineers and who can argue with that??
He is very clear that the best way to restore faith in Boeing is to put it back in the hands of engineers and who can argue with that??
And here lies the problem-"looking elsewhere" When you have a duopoly there is no realistic elsewhere. Airbus could never take up the new business. Where else? COMAC, Sukoi? Nope.
If Airbus tried to increase production they would end up cutting corners and would be in the same situation as Boeing. When you have essentially 2 worldwide commercial aircraft makers the only solution is to create enough change in Boeing to produce defective free aircraft that ensures public trust. That is why a complete overhaul of management and the BOD is necessary.
If Airbus tried to increase production they would end up cutting corners and would be in the same situation as Boeing. When you have essentially 2 worldwide commercial aircraft makers the only solution is to create enough change in Boeing to produce defective free aircraft that ensures public trust. That is why a complete overhaul of management and the BOD is necessary.
And don’t forget, Spirit which may be part of the problem, also makes part for Airbus
Nobody
Anyone at that company that promoted the massive stock buybacks in recent years is complicit. When the priority becomes stock value and not your product, the results speak for themselves. In the case of Boeing, the direct result is people die. Nobody at that company has truly paid the price for their greed. Top management and the entire board should all be gone.
True, the results speak… one person died in a commercial flight operated by a U.S. airline anywhere in the world in the past 13 years. By your metric, stock value must not have been a priority over product and no one has been greedy. But in 2023 about 43,000 people died in the U.S. in automobile accidents. That's a whopping 117 people dead per day! What price did you recommend automobile manufacturers—American, Japanese, German—should have paid for their greed?
Wow. You sure had you way with those goalposts.
Would you prefer I compare 13 years of deaths due to automobile accidents?
These are dissimilar in so many ways!
How can you compare sophisticated, expensive aircraft to automobiles? How can you compare the sensor and equipment on an aircraft to what is in an automobile?
How can you compare airline pilots to automobile drivers? Airline pilots are generally mature, well trained and responsible. Large aircraft have a crew flying a plane, not some joker behind the wheel.
A closer comparison might be between passenger aircraft and buses.
How can you compare sophisticated, expensive aircraft to automobiles? How can you compare the sensor and equipment on an aircraft to what is in an automobile?
How can you compare airline pilots to automobile drivers? Airline pilots are generally mature, well trained and responsible. Large aircraft have a crew flying a plane, not some joker behind the wheel.
A closer comparison might be between passenger aircraft and buses.
The statement falsely alleged that Boeing's priority being on stock value and not the product caused people to die. I pointed out that the argument didn't hold water when evaluating the practically zero deaths over 13 years in a region that comprises a significant chunk of global air transport operations, regardless of the manufacturer, and that for the same region 43,000 people die per year in ground transport vehicles. Your logic in denying the comparison seems to be based on the technological sophistication of the vehicle. Are you suggesting that it is ok for 43,000 people to die per year because a car is less sophisticated than an airplane?
At least you said "generally …well-trained…". In places where pilots weren't well-trained they crashed two 737 MAX airplanes that didn't have any design deficiencies. That much is discernible from the data recorded on those flights, which contradict the news media's version of events. Since I can understand both, I know which one to believe. The data also showed the pilots to have really poor airmanship. Still, I wouldn't refer to them as the "joker behind the wheel" because I believe their lack of training was not their fault. In fact nobody knows whose fault it was because the circus created by the news media blaming the airplane's design for the crashes gave the politically-pressured investigators an opportunity to conveniently skip any meaningful investigation of the pilot's training.
You seem to hold pilots in high esteem, and for good reason, but remember that by function a pilot is to an airplane as a taxicab driver is to a taxicab. News reporters haven't grasped that concept and believe a pilot should and does know everything about aviation and ask their opinion on topics they are ill-equipped to provide anything valid. Still, a few airline pilots pretended competence in aero engineering and not only provided the seminal notions that led the news media down the path of techno-nonsense hypotheses as to what was wrong with the MAX, but they also provided the media with flight simulator demos that they purported to be re-enactments of events on the flights that crashed, but were in fact fraudulent misrepresentations which allowed them to blame Boeing for "hiding" training on MCAS. That was pretty bold considering that if anyone bothered to compare the demos with the crashed flight data recorders… I wonder how they would have explained the egregious lapse in ethics.
At least you said "generally …well-trained…". In places where pilots weren't well-trained they crashed two 737 MAX airplanes that didn't have any design deficiencies. That much is discernible from the data recorded on those flights, which contradict the news media's version of events. Since I can understand both, I know which one to believe. The data also showed the pilots to have really poor airmanship. Still, I wouldn't refer to them as the "joker behind the wheel" because I believe their lack of training was not their fault. In fact nobody knows whose fault it was because the circus created by the news media blaming the airplane's design for the crashes gave the politically-pressured investigators an opportunity to conveniently skip any meaningful investigation of the pilot's training.
You seem to hold pilots in high esteem, and for good reason, but remember that by function a pilot is to an airplane as a taxicab driver is to a taxicab. News reporters haven't grasped that concept and believe a pilot should and does know everything about aviation and ask their opinion on topics they are ill-equipped to provide anything valid. Still, a few airline pilots pretended competence in aero engineering and not only provided the seminal notions that led the news media down the path of techno-nonsense hypotheses as to what was wrong with the MAX, but they also provided the media with flight simulator demos that they purported to be re-enactments of events on the flights that crashed, but were in fact fraudulent misrepresentations which allowed them to blame Boeing for "hiding" training on MCAS. That was pretty bold considering that if anyone bothered to compare the demos with the crashed flight data recorders… I wonder how they would have explained the egregious lapse in ethics.
