toucan82 said:

---

H.E. Pennypacker said:

---

Everyone's favorite president just grounded them in the USA.

---

Grover Cleveland?

---

no, the one who couldn't run away.

toucan82 said:

---

H.E. Pennypacker said:

---

Everyone's favorite president just grounded them in the USA.

---

Grover Cleveland?

---

or clearly the one who was never elected

Beer Baron said:

---

toucan82 said:

---

H.E. Pennypacker said:

---

Everyone's favorite president just grounded them in the USA.

---

Grover Cleveland?

---

Very upset that Ragoo had to post twice after this and ruin my plan to post "Grover Cleveland" again, non-consecutively to the first one.

---

also, it could have still worked as there were technically 2 presidents between his elections.

Well this pilot who has flown them didn't feel the same concern....

Guppy said:

---

Well this pilot who has flown them didn't feel the same concern....

---

you have piloted one?

Old joke
You know how someone's a pilot....

Guppy said:

---

Well this pilot who has flown them didn't feel the same concern....

---

So? Several have expressed concern and two have now crashed. There is no reason anyone who isnt a boeing stockholder would want these in the air right now.

Not a pilot. I have no concerns flying the max. Would fly on one all day with southwest crews.

GasAg90 said:

---

Not a pilot. I have no concerns flying the max. Would fly on one all day with southwest crews.

---

That's great but 500 people are dead

DallasAggie0 said:

---

GasAg90 said:

---

Not a pilot. I have no concerns flying the max. Would fly on one all day with southwest crews.

---

That's great but 500 people are dead

---

Grounding the Max 8s now isn't going to change that.

Not making light of that. Just saying that the plane has an issue that I believe has already been identified and somewhat adressed around the world but more so in the states. Granted the max behaves a little different in some aspects than the regular 737's but I believe those differences have been understood and appropriate countermeasures are already in place. I'm not aware of any instance of a pilot refusing to fly for any airline in the states, therefore id get on the plane with them.

DallasAggie0 said:

---

GasAg90 said:

---

Not a pilot. I have no concerns flying the max. Would fly on one all day with southwest crews.

---

That's great but 500 people are dead

---

more than 500 people died today alone while not on a max 8 air plane.

Interesting stuff, here. T&p's for all families affected.

Guppy said:

---

First, it was 157 people on Ethiopian Air and 189 on the Lion Air crash. To me, that's 346 people. So if you want to throw around numbers and be afraid to board an aircraft based on nothing but SPECULATION at this point at least do a service to those who have died to at least have a better idea of how many died. But ya, let's throw out a nice big round number. Shows how educated you are on the crashes.

---

What a weird thing to seize on. 346 and 500 aren't that far apart and they're both reasonable numbers to answer the question "how many people do you think two commercial airline crashes could kill combined?". It's not like he said "OMG 17,600 people died in these crashes!" That said, if 157 people died after eating at the Whataburger in Lubbock and then a few months later 189 people died after eating at the one in in Galveston, I don't think it would be unreasonable to SPECULATE that maybe I shouldn't eat at the Whataburger in Waco after precisely 346 people had died doing the same thing earlier.

Beer Baron said:

---

Guppy said:

---

First, it was 157 people on Ethiopian Air and 189 on the Lion Air crash. To me, that's 346 people. So if you want to throw around numbers and be afraid to board an aircraft based on nothing but SPECULATION at this point at least do a service to those who have died to at least have a better idea of how many died. But ya, let's throw out a nice big round number. Shows how educated you are on the crashes.

---

What a weird thing to seize on. 346 and 500 aren't that far apart and they're both reasonable numbers to answer the question "how many people do you think two commercial airline crashes could kill combined?". It's not like he said "OMG 17,600 people died in these crashes!" That said, if 157 people died after eating at the Whataburger in Lubbock and then a few months later 189 people died after eating at the one in in Galveston, I don't think it would be unreasonable to SPECULATE that maybe I shouldn't eat at the Whataburger in Waco after precisely 346 people had died doing the same thing earlier.

---

Continuing with that analogy though: I think you should absolutely have the choice to eat at whataburger or not eat at whataburger (for that it any other reason) but should the government mandate that all the whataburgers be closed "just in case".

I'm personally going to need at least 8 Whataburgers full of corpses before anyone does anything.

Goose said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

Guppy said:

---

First, it was 157 people on Ethiopian Air and 189 on the Lion Air crash. To me, that's 346 people. So if you want to throw around numbers and be afraid to board an aircraft based on nothing but SPECULATION at this point at least do a service to those who have died to at least have a better idea of how many died. But ya, let's throw out a nice big round number. Shows how educated you are on the crashes.

---

What a weird thing to seize on. 346 and 500 aren't that far apart and they're both reasonable numbers to answer the question "how many people do you think two commercial airline crashes could kill combined?". It's not like he said "OMG 17,600 people died in these crashes!" That said, if 157 people died after eating at the Whataburger in Lubbock and then a few months later 189 people died after eating at the one in in Galveston, I don't think it would be unreasonable to SPECULATE that maybe I shouldn't eat at the Whataburger in Waco after precisely 346 people had died doing the same thing earlier.

---

Continuing with that analogy though: I think you should absolutely have the choice to eat at whataburger or not eat at whataburger (for that it any other reason) but should the government mandate that all the whataburgers be closed "just in case".

---

You realize these airlines have OTHER planes they can use? I am not getting this defense force at all. Like, what is the downside here?

A ton of lost money. Airlines don't buy planes to not use them. Yes, they have lots of other planes. However the schedules are made months in advance, and parking 30 or so jets that cost $120,000,000 each instead of filling them with paying customers and flying them 6 or 8 times a day hurts.

GAC06 said:

---

A ton of lost money. Airlines don't buy planes to not use them. Yes, they have lots of other planes. However the schedules are made months in advance, and parking 30 or so jets that cost $120,000,000 each instead of filling them with paying customers and flying them 6 or 8 times a day hurts.

---

this.

And my reply to your "I am not getting this defense force at all." comment is that the overwhelming demand to ground those planes has been generated by the hysteria created from mass media, social media, and the uninformed opinions of related self interest groups, e.g. the flight attendants union. What's that, the flight attendants union thinks the planes should be grounded?, you don't say! Maybe I'm just a skeptic in my old age, but I suspect their training on how the plane actually works stops somewhere around when the masks drop down from the ceiling, how to remove the door on the exit row, and what to do in case the slide doesn't inflate. I'm not discounting their importance during times of emergency, but please forgive me if I don't value their opinion on sophisticated flight control systems any more than I do anybody else not labeled "trained pilot who flies that airplane".

Party Planes.
They could rent them out for parties & drive them around.

GAC06 said:

---

A ton of lost money. Airlines don't buy planes to not use them. Yes, they have lots of other planes. However the schedules are made months in advance, and parking 30 or so jets that cost $120,000,000 each instead of filling them with paying customers and flying them 6 or 8 times a day hurts.

---

Am I supposed to feel sorry these multi-billion dollar companies might lose some money when passenger safety could *potentially* be at risk?

This is mind numbingly stupid logic and I can't figure out why anyone would care about that.

babyshark said:

---

Party Planes.
They could rent them out for parties & drive them around.

---

I suggested this for all the unused drillships and MODUs when oil tanked but nobody liked it.

This article lays out some of the detail on how the system on the Max 8 works and how it got ultimately reviewed / approved.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

It looks like Boeing and the FAA are just a tad bit cozy.

Picard said:

---

I'm going to jump to conclusions and say it was a training problem

---

New reports coming out on flight recorder data.

It looks like the pilots did exactly what they were supposed to do, and the system kept kicking back on.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/ethiopian-air-pilots-turned-off-737-max-anti-stall-system-then-it-turned-on-again/

Quote:

---

The pilots of Ethiopia Airlines Flight 302 apparently followed the proper steps to shut down an errant flight control system as they struggled to regain control of the 737 MAX aircraft shortly after takeoff. But according to multiple reports, data from the ill-fated aircraft's flight recorder revealed that the anti-stall feature of the aircraft's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) was triggered at least three timesand at least one time after the pilots followed the correct steps to shut it down.

Both Reuters and The Wall Street Journal report that the air crew followed procedures laid out by Boeing following the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX in October, according to officials briefed on the initial findings of the investigation. But the pilots failed to regain control of the system, and the MCAS was reactivated againtriggering yet another automated correction of the aircraft's stabilizers that would have pushed the nose of the plane down.

---

Staff can you add a date to this title? Damn thing freaks me out every time it pops up.

Well, looks like I was right again. Not surprising.

DallasAggie0 said:

---

Well, looks like I was right again. Not surprising.

---

how so? BA stock is still rocking.