Does Boeing Stand a Chance Anymore?? 

don't tell me what to do xD

Video: 14 minutes ago, comment: 2 hours ago

Yep, it’s uploaded hidden first so my Patreon can preview it. They have had it since Friday.

what have you been drinking?

China map has Kyrgistan in it too...@@MentourNow

🤔😂😂

In fact Mentour made a small mistake: Boeing did NOT make a profit in Q4. Only the commercial Aviation division did. But your point is still valid: it’s in the commercial Aviation division that they saved on bolts!

Not to mention the enormous training cost savings from MCAS!

Top 'management' needs to forgo any and all bonuses, be replaced and move back to Seattle.

😂😂😂😂

Will probably get better when their DIE projects are completed!

@@elbuggo All you DEI people commenting all over every single RU-vid video citing it as the cause of ALL problems in the world is getting really old. You should understand that all rational people reading your comments are annoyed and simply see you as a programmed politically tribal mindless parrot suffering from a persecutory paranoid delusion that FOX News and the politicians they serve brainwashed you with. In other words, all you are doing is advertising the inner workings of your psychology to the world. The people reading the comments under a video about airplanes really aren't interested in what you think or how you feel with regard to your political brainwashing and your "done to" psychology. But I do hope that you have a wonderful day!

@@elbuggo This is an issue of cost-cutting, shareholder focused greed. ‘It’s the gays’ is a cop out argument. Take a closer look at the problem and come back with a smarter, well thought-out take.

@@Evan.01 That's is what I am saying. The DIE projects will be a HUGE improvement, probably!

👍

😂😂

Bloopppp adiosssssss

Boeing door: boring huh? Lemme show you something fun

So boeing

And now a whistleblower just happened to end up dead. Yeah I think Boeing is in for far less than a boring year.

​@@reinasherman8009 just when Boeing is under a microscope, what a year for boeing

And another Boeing incident with Southwest today. A boring year indeed.

Doesn’t Airbus also have this issue?

@@aycc-nbh7289About 25% of shares are state owned, several countries. They also have an ongoing program for employees getting shares. Not saying this is “better”, but it may contribute to transparency, and ability / bravery to report issues without losing your job / influence, by not focusing solely on nominal growth. Most employees think a little differently if they also “own” a small representation - very “unamerican”, but more “european” as values go…?

@OP: Doesn’t this go for *every* huge enterprise - private or state…? 😂

​@@aycc-nbh7289apparently no, airbus have a better reputation than boeing nowadays and their plane is better in almost every variable

Did Boeing achieve either?

Ludicrous, isn't it? 😳😐😔

They killed all their major competition (except Airbus) and spread out production all over the country. They axed quality control and cut corners to save money. They overworked and underpaid employees causing huge turnover so all the employees were new and had little experience, and so product quality went down the toilet. It's the same slow hypercapitalistic death every big company eventually dies, it's just scary when it happens to airplanes. Same reason Japanese made cars (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc) are so much better these days than American brands like Ford or Chevrolet.

​@@altaccount4697 Don't include the embarrassment that is Nissan in that list, plus it is no longer Japanese (it's more French than Japanese).

@@altaccount4697 Indeed. Just, capitalism. No need to even add the "hyper" adjective...

@@altaccount4697 Yeah, old news. The quality difference between Japanese cars and American cars is negligible. Of course, that wasn't always the case, but it's up to you to stay informed.

Installing bolts for starters. 🤣

I think it's partially that the worker protection laws in EU and Europe are stronger and way way more protective towards workers than in the US, so Airbus can't actually make the same little greedy games Boeing does with their own engineers and staff. For example, the unions here have a very strong political and negotiating power, even if there's only one supplier and the workers have no alternative, they will still fight and are thus feared by businesses. This usually can push greedy businesses away to China or other less protected countries, but in the case of companies that *need* to be on european soil, it forces them to not cheapen out on things and makes their quality stronger and more reliable.

I haven't checked but would assume there are more engineers and scientists in senior positions at Airbus. In France and Germany these professions are higher status and not dominated by clueless lawyers, accountants and MBAs.

@@DeadKraken Remember that the governments of France, Spain, and Germany have a large stake in Airbus. According to 1 site, they collectively make up about 25% ownership in Airbus. I'm sure that any of those would be less than happy in Airbus if they were to have fundamental QA issues. Also, Airbus has assembly facilities in the US and China as well.

@@No-mq5lw If it's even partially government owned, then it makes even more sense that the workers in Europe have major benefits and are more protected. Working in companies either totally or partially owned by the government in Europe means your job is 100% safe, the company will have more problems trying to fire you than just paying better or respecting your rights. And usually european companies export parts of their worker protection rules as well, especially if they need both the european and the non-european parts to work in harmoniously.

Really? The max is so unsafe that thousands of professional flight crews who make a living flying airplanes, get on board Max's everyday and do their job. The only thing that the unnamed search engine you speak of is doing is catering to mass hysteria fed by the media and RU-vid channels like this one to score likes. I'm pretty sure if the Max was unsafe that the pilot and flight attendant unions would be screaming bloody murder to get their members off of these airplanes.

No doubt many of those who are anxious about flying at all, will be less comfortable if they see it is a Boeing plane scheduled for their flight. I don't know how much having cheaper fares, say, for Boeing flights would make a difference or whether an airline would even be willing to do something like that as it would mean that having Boeing aircraft would be less profitable..

Oof!

Is this true? Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.

@@georgedyson9754Despite following so many pilot channels and reasonably understanding that crashes/accidents/dangerous situations are rare, I still decided to cancel my flight for spring break because neither my boyfriend nor I feel comfortable flying right now.

Much thanks for the post. NOTHING LIKE HEARING FROM THE GUY THAT WAS ON FRONT LINE.

Much thanks for the post. NOTHING LIKE HEARING FROM THE GUY THAT WAS ON FRONT LINE.

Exactly. Wall Street doesn't care how many people die. If I were a young engineer I would be ashamed to work for Boeing. Now if Elon Musk saw the opportunity to bring in a better product, I would work for him.

@@ejt3708 Yeah, you'd choose to work for an inveterate, pathological liar. Good call. Just terrific.

@@ejt3708 What? Because you think Musk is better? He's a total charlatan and capricious billionaire hack. And that's being polite. Holy molly, for the love of God, stop dick riding that snake oil salesman. And billionaires in general.

Noticed that too. Before you'd be a weirdo nerd if you talked about airplane types but now more and more normies are aware of what's flying them around

Right. I'll fly to Asia in the fall and will try hard to avoid flying on any Boeing aircraft.

@@PennPearson You probably won't be flying to Asia in a 737.. there's nothing wrong with flying on a 747, 767, 777, or 787.

@@n118nw I see. Thanks for the information.

Your average individual doesn't know jack, about aircrafts, let alone about maintenence, design, etc.

It is difficult to quantity their worth if not much happens. Similarly research will be represented as a Cost Centre.

Indeed, exactly.

The Quality of amazon electronic garbage is finally sucessfully scaled up to airplanes. 😂

If your claim to your job as a manager is an MBA you've already failed. An MBA, in my book, is a negative on a CV unless there are clear long term technical and other qualifications and education and clear experience being successful.

Oh but they got their bonus that year! That's all that matters I guess. I don't know how they can sleep at night.

Jerry Pournelle was a great writer. RIP

....and who would administer your plan?

Referring to Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy, there is no clearer example of this pronouncement than the Combo of the NATO/European Union Warmongering/Economic(Sanction) Barbarism, but multiplied Boeing’s scenario x 1000’s.

​@@NAP795 Economic sanction barbarism? Damn, it must hit you hard.

During a tour of an old castle I was shown the bureau from which the estate was administered. The ruler was a bureaucrat.

I feel like it started earlier, with the new composite rudder delaminations on 737s. The icing in the cake for me was calling that 2 out of 3 failed space capsule chute deployment a success 😂

And people that assumed they could increase those profits while divesting quality and logistics to new subcontractors and at the same time telling them to charge less for parts, or else. Boeing's accountant profiteering managers and planned "You have to give them to us cheaper as you need us.", are still scratching their heads over Spirit saying the heck with that and are now are building Airbus parts at increasing rates, forcing Boeing to compete for factory space. Irony at its finest.

@@zakirsiddiqui1 everyone jumps on 'it was the greedy business people' bandwagon

@@smalltime0 maybe it's because if all the times we've heard, "we can increase profits by reducing quality" from all directions, not just boeing.

@paulholmes672 every time i hear so.ebody say they can contract things out cheaper than they can do it in house, the math requires a reduction in quality to offset the cost of adding a middleman.

Problem is, in todays world they more probably negotiate 51% or more woman, aliens, green etc. species than engineers. They are now push this in Europe… Instead capabilities and qualification we are hiring thru some strange and idiotic criteria.

Tripping over a quarter to pick up a penny

That's the new math of the century....COMMON CORE... PPL stop being such a jellyfish, it's a joke about common core

Juan was also a 737 captain before he converted up to the 777. This all started with trying to screw the engineers on their pay and pensions, that was a small cost of a few hundred million over ten years compared to what Boeing lost on the 787 (development went from $10 billion to $34 billion). Every Boeing disaster is related to the damage they did to their engineering capability and each one comes with a multi billion dollar price tag.

Agreed, but he also once said US pilots are better than all others because of the 1500hr requirement, even if those 1500hr is in a cropduster 🤣

@@MQT-oml shut up that's not the point

There have been some safety disasters in pharma that have been dramatic and well published (e.g. Thalidomide).

@@apveening I said "not normally".

@@apveening Sure, but that is 60 years ago. If the the example in your mind is that old, they are doing reasonably good job. Rofecoxib is a more recent example of a company withholding info about problems with the drug.

​@@apveeningno mention of the recent one that's causing 10% excess deaths in the populations that took it then? The fact is that the pharmaceutical industry kill more people than any other.

Uh yeah the scamdemic that just happened a few years ago?

Come on, you are being unfair. Bad habits are mainly at management level and at that level they are not even seen as bad habits!

​@@danp576what has the GA accident rate to do with the CV of an engineer? (Unless those accidents are linked to manufacturing defects. Which I don't think they are)

​​​@@Jehty_those where mainly maintenance or Pilot Errors. Those huge costly birds have way more Error mitigation systems and current trained pilots than those GA Planes. And Higher cost and lower staff in maintenance has Just drawn more mechanics out of GA and risen Ticket prices.

I said the same elsewhere in these comments. How boring it would be to work for a company that subordinates mathematics to greed! I would be afraid to fly in my own plane!

@@danp576 Your assertion that airliner design quality and GA accidents caused by pilot error somehow relate to each other or somehow indicate anything regarding engineering quality in commercial vs. GA is illogical. Data is very important.

Absolutely. Nothing will improve while the same people are in charge.

Changing the CEO isn't going to do much. You have to change the board too, and anyone in management positions that have been incompetent or felonious at their job.

@@fighter5583 Well, yes. They need to move their headquarters back to Seattle for that matter. Why is their entire management staff on the opposite side of the American continent?

Yep, if they are really big on safety, they would be stopping the development of 737 Max 7 and 10, instead start a brand new design.

Boeing has died out because of the 1997 merge but they have still have a chance to beat Airbus by basically reengineering the 737 MAX with the following: The new engines will be smaller but will be 10% more efficient and powerful compared to its competition (still the CFML). MCAS will be removed after they have tested all 737 MAX variants with the new engine with the MCAS disabled and should have no high attitude upon takeoff. With the door problems on the 737-9, Boeing will either replace the door with a window panel (with tight bolts ofc) or use a custom fuselage with no emergency door instead. Boeing will recommend airlines to use the new standards I just said and it should have no problem. This is their chance to beat Airbus and to fix the 737 MAX problems with better engineering and no profits made by the CEO.

They didn't drop the ball. They dropped the bolts.

I don't see how that's possible when the CEO stated that they don't plan on even starting development of a new model within this decade. They may have a new type ready by mid 2040s if all goes reasonably well.

A clean sheet design with an inexperienced workforce could be problematic.

Not only did they not focus on safety, they fired all the QA staff causing door plugs to start falling out of aircraft.

I think their position is perilous. They need a clean sheet replacement of the 737 in the long term. When the new plane launches it will have a few crashes as most new systems do and then Boeing will really struggle in credibility. Especially if basic things like bolts etc. The malaise, sadly, is in the corporate culture. Safety first means a short term hit on shareholder return. There's the rub.

They have burned too much cash. Now they deperately need to sale, fast and a lot. Proper engineering strategy and R&D are just wishful thinking, no time for this, Airbus is way ahead. Plus new various regulations on emission and so on will soon be a new burden.

I agree, I would also bet on Comac too, in a decade or so, I am sure we will have Comac-, exciting times for aviation

@@vikos78 problem is, we're seeing what comes of doing it the other way. If Boeing keeps trying to do that, I doubt things will get better for them.

This is the problem in healthcare also. C-suite is focused on profits only. They have removed the doctors and the humanity from the leadership positions

​@@RohankrishnaBcan we please, PLEASE not bring a CCP company into this conversation 😭😭😭

and Taiwan

+10 social credit points for Mentour

CCP APPROVED!

Also recognises Kashmir, except the bit China controls

It's a map from 2040.

Like the US is an open market anyway - try selling aircraft to the US military without using a US contractor as a front ( and probably having to re-engineer the thing to use local content ).

What do you expect from the most corrupt nation on earth.

Many aerospace companies are effectively part of the Department of Defense. @@Karibanu

@@jamesprice4647 Or the other way around, as it is in other places ( UK waves hi ). Armed forces-govt defence & procurement department-defence contractors are a merry-go-round of carreer posts circling the black hole of defence costs. That doesn't stop other govts being open to buying abroad ( even France, occasionally! ). I get there's notions of national security, but that also doesn't stop the US buying abroad dressed up as local product... and homegrown contractors are as liable to fail as foreign ones. Just got to have that cut, I guess. I wonder how many civil Airbus sales there'd be without local construction.

And is highly subsidized with free taxpayer capital infusions

I don´t know if I heard it in another video of Petter or readed it somewhere else: Another problem of Boeing is indeed that they have a narrower range of customers for their most important product: The 737-MAX-Production depends mostly on a relatively small number of really big customers like Southwest, Ryanair, United and Alaska. If only these four customers would jump off from their orders it would be a huge blow for Boeing at a whole. The whole 737MAX8-200 program is specialized on the needs of Ryanair. The whole 737MAX7 program will be specialized on the needs of Southwest. There´re of course other customers, but they would never be able to compensate these few big ones. This is dangerous for Boeing. In opposite Airbus has a much wider range of customers for their A320neo-family program. Even if all the Indian Airlines, who ordered more than 1500 A320family-aircrafts only in the last year, would jump off as customers, this would of course be a loss for Airbus, but not a really threatening beat. So Airbus does not depend from special wishes of a few big customers.

@@NicolaW72 Long line of airlines waiting to snap up those 1500 A320, too

@@NicolaW72 United has already a few A321 in its fleet and is eager to take more as Petter said. Alaska had A320 in its fleet till a few years ago from the Virgin America merger (such a pity, Virgin America was awesome) so only SWA and Ryanair are really "safe" customers for now. But I doubt Boeing leadership has the leadership skills to play this game.

Both airlines should buy enough Boeing stocks to get a seat at the table and steer the company in the right direction, that might be a matter of survival for them

I don’t on any of their stock and I never will. I don’t buy penny stocks.

Agree, but Boeings focus on short term quarterly numbers is killing them. The guy getting the aircraft delivered on time isn’t concerned about the long term maintenance profits. Removing quality control layers that can be a check on that bias is costing them. I don’t think for a minute that a Boeing employee would intentionally let a defective aircraft leave the plant, but we’re all humans and managers pushing schedule creates a lot of pressure. In this industry 90% quality isn’t good enough.

@@danp576 yeah you live in a former nation turned out country that is now run by israelis, extremely decrepit old folks and women. so yeah, not a great outlook.

During my last several years at Boeing, the saying "stepping over dollars to save dimes" was common around many areas...

@@danp576 What exactly are you even trying to say?

And it's costing them billions.

How was this commented two days ago?

@@utuber34500I think Bearcub is the editor (and thus has the direct link when it’s still unlisted and not public yet)

​@@utuber34500I saw that also 😂

@@utuber34500 Patreon?

bearcubdaycare Boeing has been around for many years. Having said that, looking back over the years, they always gave MD a run for there money. Hopefully whatever is happening, hope that all goes well. There will be always a competitive whether whom has the edge, MD, Boeing, Airbus. A question is did Boeing merge or buy out MD.

The E-Jet cannot compete with the 737/A320. It’s a regional jet

Basically 0. Embreaer deliberately choose to not go toe to toe with Airbus and Boeing by designing the E-Jet family for a niche market segment which wasn't originally served by the two juggernauts. That only changed somewhat with the accuisitaion of the Bombardier C-Series by Airbus.

Another reason for the Airbus & Boeing duopoly is that it's not just about building planes, you need to have the capacity to train thousands of crew on the aircraft type for their certification, the capacity to train the mechanics and the supply and network of parts all over the world Embraer can realistically only grow slowly developing all that

@@shi01 C Series -> A220, because Boeing tried to abuse "buy america first" to keep bombardier out of the american market. By the time they lost, Airbus had already acquired it. The would try the same... unless they could shallow Embraer. But that is no longer a option.

@@tomstravels520 it can compete with the A220/CSeries though, as intended.

Even worse when the CEO is incompetent.

That's what QA is supposed to be for.

@@StratMatt777 But that is a real challenge when QA happens to be staffed with the incompetents shuffled there from other branches

@@apveening When I was hired at Boeing in 1997 as a 747 wingline assembly mechanic I went through 2 or 4 weeks (I can't remember) of training to read and interpret drawings, drill (ream) accurate holes etc. Your assertion that QA people are not given any training seems illogical to me. Also, the FAA wouldn't allow QA people to not be trained to do their job. Of course, I have no idea what has been going on at Boeing for 25 years, but your assertion seems quite illogical.

I will not fly inside a 737 MAX anymore. Or for that matter any "newer" type Boeing planes.

Thank you!

I agree. Thanks for your nice comment

I prefer Airbus as a passenger, much quieter than Boeing.

And this is effing sad

lol 😂 airbus actually could that’s the funny part

@@tomasinasau3309did you watch the video?

Boeing will survive because serious airlines do not want to see a monopolistic market.

I don't know that Boeing ending up going under would necessarily mean Airbus would have a monopoly. Boeing would likely be bought out by new owners (probably some venture capital firm), restructured, maybe renamed, and then continue making airplanes. It is a profitable industry and they do have all the logistics and systems in place to build airplanes, after all. Not that venture capitalists would be much better at managing the company than current Boeing execs are - they're even more "profit-first" in "managing." Or Boeing could be broken up and sold off piece-meal. At which point, it's possible that companies that currently make parts for Boeing (but aren't subsidiaries as Boeing has sold off a lot of the stuff they used to do in-house) could come together to form a conglomerate that makes airplanes. Isn't that how Airbus basically got started? A joint venture between a lot of companies and countries? I could be remembering wrong. After all, if Boeing goes under and those companies don't find new buyers for those parts? They go under too. And Airbus already has its own supply chains. Hell, I could see Lockheed Martin or another large military contractor that's flush with cash swooping in and buying up Boeing. It's similar to a lot of stuff they already do and comes with a supply chain already pre-built - a supply chain that is dependent on selling to Boeing. Although I will note that a monopoly doesn't _have_ to be bad. The airline industry is heavily regulated enough that they might be able to get away with a monopoly without any compromises in safety (compared to the current situation at least). And I don't really know how much Airbus would be able to raise their prices and still sell new airplanes at the current rate (or even increased rate without a competitor). Raise the prices too much and the used market will see a drastic uptick in appeal to airlines, even if it does mean increased maintenance costs. As for innovations in design and fuel usage? There's enough pressure in the industry to be more fuel efficient overall (as fuel is the single largest operating expense of an airline) that I think even with a monopoly, Airbus would feel pressure to continue innovating in that area. Not as much as they currently do ofc, but it would still be present. The fact that Airbus is based in the EU which has stricter regulations in general than the US is also to our advantage here. But overall, I don't think an Airbus monopoly would last too long. Simply because too many other companies would see an opportunity to make money by getting into the field - most likely companies that are currently best known as military contractors. And I suspect that the US government would happily sponsor/fund/etc such efforts as well simply so they don't have to rely on another country for all of their airplanes (but especially government owned/run airplanes such as Air Force One and all the planes operated by the military). Cuz the US loves capitalism until their pet industries and companies start failing. And then they absolutely love bailing out those corporations or using tax-payer funds to create new private and independent companies that don't share their profits with the very ppl that got them started in the first place. ...Sorry for the essay. 😅

Not really. I agree on the monopoly but all we need is some second major manufacturer, doesn't have to be Boeing, and in fact it would be beneficial for competition if it was someone more competent than Boeing.

Just imagine if Airbus didn’t exist. It would be impossible for Boeing to make anywhere near the number of aircraft required worldwide.

@@SadisticSenpai61 No problem with the essay, I mostly agree with it. You are only overlooking the possibility of a competitor from somewhere else. And the PRC is already trying to get into the game (Comac 919) and is doing that slowly and carefully (very unlike most recent endeavors from there), so I have to give them better than even odds in succeeding.

@@apveening Technically an outside company could start at any time and probably do somewhat well within the industry as a whole. That's why I didn't really go into that part. I'm not surprised that China is looking to start their own airline manufacturer. I'm only surprised they didn't get in earlier. It wouldn't surprise me if Russia started their own up again as well (and they're probably already working on it TBH). Esp with the difficulties they've been having with the trade embargos in airline parts. You can only cannibalize parts from grounded planes for so long before you start running out of spare parts. But the main reason I highlighted military contractors is cuz they not only have the capital to do so, but some of them used to make airplanes. Lockheed Martin used to be in the commercial airline business, after all - well, a couple mergers ago anyway.

Their hydrogen projects are very interesting but 2035 is a very optimistic target...

Politics forces aggressive estimates ​@classydave75 Politicians only care about being on the correct bandwagon $$$$$$$

I'm still curious as to how the whole hydrogen supply infrastructure is going to be created. Hydrogen is a very explosive gas and it is very good at leaking because of the size of the molecule, it also embrittles many metals. So likely it will need shipping as another gas such as ammonia, for example, which also has many safety issues because of toxicity. Then tehere is the issue of manufacturing hydrogen - electrolytical or chemical. Is either of these actually better for the environment. The thing about environmental issues is they have to be looked at from cradle to grave - the fact that the final product is greener is NOT the whole issue.

The fuel cell aircraft is unlikely to happen. The issue is speed. A fuel cell and electric motor have less power density so they have to fly slower to compensate. Range and fuel handling ks also a issue Doing the math of it, it just don't line up as a profitable aircraft compare to day using SAF.

@@classydave75 Hydrogen has a few huge advantages, it is on the radar of almost everyone now, from shipbuilders to semi trucks to using it to stock solar and wind energy when not needed, the development can benefit a lot of the research that is done all over.... We know how to make it and it seems to be widely accessible (including in countries without petrol - France found a huge deposit in Alsace a couple of month ago)

LOL!

GE engine development troubles + Covid?

Yep. And I'd feel safer on any one of those 60s era jets than a brand new Boeing.

​@@StratMatt777Excuses.

@@StratMatt777 There were engine development troubles with the B747 as well.

If they were not a major defense contractor I suspect they would have had much harder times at getting repeated bailouts. its not just that they are our only civil airliner company with a huge workforce that gets them easy access to bailouts but its considered a national security issue. They are also one half of ULA which is the only US satellite launch provider other than SpaceX.

US let their metals industries slip away. Companies like Boeing is the next step.

True. And corruption will secure the US market for them. But if Comac gets serious, the could become the new duopoly (with Airbus) outside the US.

Question is if the public are aboard, after all they are paying the tickets. Or not. Flight booking pages allowing to sort out flights with the 737 is not necessarily the best foundation to operate with.

Where’s McDonell Douglas? Etc. Yep, they don’t go broke so much as absorbed.

Probably.

That's crazy, I didn't know the laws of physics changed within the last 60 years

Laws of physics don't change, but engineering standards do. Back in the 60s, the engines were a lot smaller and less efficient. And the current airframe just cannot be fitted to modern ones properly anymore. The thinking that a design could be infinitely upgraded killed 338 people. So far. @@robroilen4441

@@robroilen4441well aerodynamics certainly changed lol. We saw how well that bodied with first maxes crashed because there has to be installed MCAS because plane was prone to stall of putting bigger engines on 50+ year old design ;)

It has nothing to do with laws of physics @@robroilen4441

@@tonisimeunic7717 I encourage you to read the actual crash investigations and original certification materials about the plane. It was found multiple times from 2012 to 2022 that the plane is completely stable with or without MCAS.

I'm Dutch and I do the same...In Nordic languages the trailing "s" is a slightly "hissing" sounds. In English it is closer to a soft "z". It's ed versus ed ;-)

My favourite one is the way he pronounces "jets" ❤

I rather like his pronunciation of zero as "serro" too. :)

👍 Maybe including the story of Frank Borrman, the man who saved Airbus.

And that contributed to Airbus's decision to not even offer the A380 for consideration for the next Airforce One, thus restricting the choice the Pentagon had (and leading to massive cost overruns).

Actually, the GAO (which nixed Airbus winning the original contract) made the right call on that one. The USAF laid out the criteria the planes had to meet, and specifically said no "extra credit" would be given for exceeding the criteria. But then in the report awarding the contract to Airbus, said the primary reason Airbus' entry won was because it exceeded the range criteria. Boeing's argument was that if they'd known additional consideration would've been given for exceeding the criteria, they could've submitted a design based on the 777 rather than the 767. I thought Airbus still had a good shot at winning the second time around, but they withdrew from the competition. If you're gonna blame someone, blame the Air Force brass who made those rules - zero consideration for exceeding requirements seems rather shortsighted.

@@solandri69 the main reason I say, that Boeing screwed/lobbied them out of it is, that the A330MRTT/KC45 was already flying and refueling planes left and right, doing everything it was supposed to, whereas Boeing‘s KC46 was a paper plane.

Don't forget Boeing tried to prevent the sale of the A220 in the US too

@@apveening Get real, Airforce One being a European designed & built aircraft? Why would Airbus even waste their time bidding? Nobody I knew at Airbus were that stupid.

Carbon fiber is not a good heat conductor, isn't it?

@@huwzebediahthomas9193 It is probably better than glass fibers

😂😂😂

Hey up mate I agree totally in this modern world a temp sensor or 50 is a pretty good view ov what's going on with the heat but why wasn't that done on the engine test bed

Then the airplane is grounded when the air temperature sensors fail. Better to design it properly now than to apply a patch to try to prevent the airplane from eating itself.

I have stock options that expire in June and December of 2025. I'm betting big on the stock price being higher then...

@@tomsorrell4918 For which company? Airbus or Boeing?

HUH?!?. Airbus is typically considered cheaper than Boeing. As for safety Airbus has had its issues. Air France 447 (A340) crashed due to software issue reminiscent of 737 MCAS problem. AA587 (A300) vertical stab ripped off overstressed by pilot rudder inputs. Airbus doesnt have a monopoly on quality and safety.

@@chaffsalvo I don't think it's fair to blame Airbus for the Air France 447 incident. A frozen pitot tube could have happened to any other plane, and it was the pilot's response to an otherwise manageable technical issue that led to the crash. This incident is not comparable to MCAS, and it's not the fault of Airbus software, either.

@@chaffsalvo Bruh... What are you even talking about? The Air France 447 accident involved the plane flying through some terrible weather which started to overwhelm the heating elements in the pitot tubes and caused a small build-up of ice in the pitot tubes which temporarily caused them to deliver erroneous airspeed data which resulted in the FMC (Flight Management Computer) reverting into Alternate Law where certain protections are not available. The accident was caused by the FO commanding maximum pitch-up from the aircraft for several minutes resulting in a stall that they never recovered from. The FMC would have limited the aircraft's pitch had it been operating in Normal Law which it unfortunately was not. The only "software issue" identified was that the stall warning and stick shaker event only lasted for the first few seconds after the aircraft entered the stall since after that the aircraft's indicated airspeed had dropped below 60 knots and the Flight Computer silenced the stall warning as it was deemed that such low airspeeds would only be possible on the ground where a stall warning would be irrelevant. The investigators concluded that while the stall warning being silenced was a contributing factor to the crash, a quick look at the artificial horizon would have shown that the plane was in a 46-degree nose-up attitude and that combined with their rapidly decreasing altitude would have clearly indicated that they were in a stall. The final investigation report states that the primary reason for the accident was a complete lack of situational awareness on behalf of the pilots. I wonder how you would justify calling this a "software issue reminiscent of MCAS". I do not see any similarities between this incident and those involving MCAS, especially since the only "software error" to have occurred here had nothing to do with the flight controls and the pilots were 100% in control of the aircraft when this accident happened. Stop making up random $#!T and spreading misinformation. Mentour himself has made a very good video explaining the crash of Air France 447. Maybe you should watch that. 👉ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e5AGHEUxLME.html

If it's a boeing, I'm NEVER going!

If it's MAX, I ain't PAX.

I'd rather fly on a Tu-104 than on a 737Max at this point.

@@Pekiii92 should have said: If it's a MAX, I ain't gonna be a PAX

Literally days ago they found that at least 50 737(non-MAX) frames have misplaced rivets that could lead to sudden decompression and hull loss in the air.

Boeing haven't been an engineering company for a long time. Their sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value and it is run by accountants. The problem is not QC, manufacturing or bad engineering those problems are only the symptoms of a bad company culture created by the incompetent leadership.

Boeing does not care...the PG&E mentality and cozy with govt

"Company centered in engineering" 😂

“plugging stopgap measures” is an interesting phrase in light of the Alaska Airlines blowout ;o)

Post again in 10 years. I'd be very curious to see how you're doing then.

People were flying DC-10s in the 1980s and 1990s with no awareness they were flying on a DC-10. But it took time... time enough for a new generation of people to be produced who hadn't experienced that hadn't experienced the 1970s news cycles (just kidding on that last part). ;)

Well said. At he end of the day "informed" passengers decide the fate of an airline or a type of airplane. Whatever the extra cost I don't want to fly in a plane that has a reputation of losing a door in flight. You might argue it was an accident in a single plane. But the root cause is a lack of QA: if the defect was not detected in a single plane it might occur in multiple planes.

Though it will be hard to measure how many passengers will look ahead of time and make decisions that monetarily affects airlines. As the passenger aren't Boeing's clients accountability from the mass public will be hard.

DC-10s continued to be flown in large numbers long after the celebrated crashes. After the early '80s recession was over, plenty of DC-10s continued to be ordered and sold. It continued to beat the L-1011 in sales competitions, especially for long-haul routes. "previous MD executives" were gone a long long time ago.

I mean I now look ahead and make sure I’m not on a max or a boeing if I have the option to fly on an airbus

I hope so too, but with a board of directors that is focused on the long term, which may mean a wholesale change of members. What may be required are federal income tax rules that collect heavily on short term gains and are much easier on long term gains. Something like this would discourage the greediest from even wanting to serve on the board. Plus, this would make it so it's in every board member's interest to do the right thing for the company's future.

Pilots? A lot of pilots from around the world might have useful views on flight controls.

@@20chocsaday Really? I worked at several airlines, ran several maintenance bases and we even got into light aircraft manufacturing. Pilots are the last group of people I would call on for wise words, seriously. I remember once having to explain to a senior training Capitan that the reason his car wouldn't move was he was pressing the brake rather than the accelerator.

@@rorykeegan1895in the pilots defense both pedals in an airplane sort of do the same thing. Lol

@@rorykeegan1895 Thanks for that. I had thought it would be easy to get the person involved in the activity thinking of what he needed and what was a distraction.

"And Boeing will become yet another extinct aviation company." That won't happen as Boeing is too big to fail.

Maybe they could either buy Embraer or build a “B717 MAX” plane.

No, there is no 220-500, it would kill the a320neo

P&W saving boeings ass then with the engine issues with A220

As Mentour Pilot explained in another video, A220 program is not profitable yet. Until they reduce the costs, Airbus will not develop an A220-500. BTW, did you know that A220 fuselages are manufactured by Spirit?

@@euloge996How? It would likely not hold as many passengers or as much cargo.