[IanFromHKG]

[postquote quote=1225474]

I assume you haven’t flown on a modern Airbus or Embraer single-aisle jet recently as the Embraer E2 series are the quietest of all, followed by the A220, and then the A32x neo and the MAX

Interestingly Airbus are quieter in the modern twin-aisle sector too, with the quietest being the A380, then the A350, then the B787 and finally the B777 as the noisiest of all

[LuganoPirate]

There was a recent documentary on the 747 Max, though I can’t remember the programme name or channel.
What I found especially disturbing (among other things), was the fact that many Boeing execs and employees sit on the board and advisory / investigative panels of the FAA.

Here’s a link to the DoJ report that’s also interesting.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/boeing-charged-737-max-fraud-conspiracy-and-agrees-pay-over-25-billion

Personally I don’t trust Boeing and would be very reluctant to fly the Max or the new 777.

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[AMcWhirter]

Maybe QR is getting impatient with its Airbus dispute.

At the end of the Farnborough airshow the CEO made a firm order for 25 737 Max aircraft.

The order was placed this morning (Thursday).

Note that this is the ’10’ variant which awaits FAA certification to enter service.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/qatar-airways-says-orders-25-boeing-737-max-2022-07-21/

[IanFromHKG]

[postquote quote=1225611]

I suspect, Alex, that it is not just impatience but the fact that Airbus cancelled QR’s order for the A321neo (presumably in retribution for QR’s litigation and refusal to accept more A350s) – a decision that was initially paused by a UK judge in February pending an April hearing:
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/112773-court-tells-airbus-to-pause-cancellation-of-qatars-a321neo
and then upheld at the April hearing:
https://www.airfinancejournal.com/articles/3586952/court-upholds-airbus-cancellation-of-qatar-a321neo-order
thus meaning that QR needed a replacement

This is what I was referring to above in my post on 27 June when I said “Although Qatar hasn’t really done itself any favours with the court case so far…”

1 user thanked author for this post.

AMcWhirter

[cwoodward]

Its interesting to take a look at the customer profile of Max.
Fortunately few air airlines with which I would fly by choice. sad about Fiji as it is an airline that I like a lot
Americans of course who would undoubtedly have had their arms twisted. Several low end operators attracted by the desperation pricing I would suspect few unlikely early orders and others with large mixed fleets filling in gaps.
Not a lot of willing premier purchasers though.

The US government cannot let Boeing go bust and so one wonders how many well hidden subsidy’s and diplomatic arm twisting (Delta ?) has been employed to keep this dangerous dog of an aircraft in production.
Fortunately this sort hidden manipulation seldom works long term.

[Tom Otley]

737 MAX: Boeing to pay $200m over charges it misled investors

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63003632

“Boeing is to pay out $200m (£177.5m) over charges that it misled investors about two fatal 737 MAX crashes.

The US stock market regulator said the aviation giant and its former chief executive Dennis Muilenburg made false statements about safety issues.

Boeing “put profits over people” in an effort to rehabilitate its image, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The 737 MAX was grounded for 20 months after two crashes killed 346 people.

As part of the settlement Mr Muilenburg will also pay a penalty of $1m….”

[IanFromHKG]

While I quite understand the emotional perception that a perpetrator should pay for the consequences of their misdeeds, fining an airline (or any other large corporation) is largely pointless. The people who lose out as a result of such actions are the (generally innocent) shareholders. So I am heartened to see that in this instance an executive is going to have to pay a hefty (but no doubt easily affordable) fine. Let’s hope this is the start of a trend where the people who are actually to blame bear the costs rather than innocent investors (and let us remember that even if we don’t own an airline’s stock, our pension fund or mutual fund or whatever may well do)

2 users thanked author for this post.

Jacob, cwoodward

[cwoodward]

With respect Ian

Although you may be correct in principle the SEC must surely need to carry out its legislated function and fining Boeing was thus appropriate and unavoidable although very probably of no assistance to travellers.
I would have liked it to have been the directors who were personally fined the US$200 million as in my view they were directly culpable in the hundreds of deaths that were caused by the boards actions re that rotten aircraft that is in my view very likely still unsafe and likely to kill again.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jacob

[Johnnyg]

[quote quote=1233619]I would have liked it to have been the directors who were personally fined the US$200 million as in my view they were directly culpable in the hundreds of deaths that were caused by the boards actions re that rotten aircraft that is in my view very likely still unsafe and likely to kill again.[/quote]

Not only fined but banned from further directorships as well.

[IanFromHKG]

[postquote quote=1233619]

I think (but correct me if I am wrong) that we are in agreement, cwoodward, that innocent shareholders should not suffer the double whammy of stock price falls due to such incidents (which, let’s face it, are not part of the business plan they bought into as investors) AND fines because the management – or, indeed, anyone in the company hierarchy – made mistakes. The stock price risk is fair. The fines, though??

So yes, the SEC have to carry out their designated function. I suggest, however, that if their designated function is to punish shareholders for management mistakes then there is a whole new problem that needs to be fixed.

You concede (apparently somewhat begrudgingly – at least that is the impression that comes across) that I am right “in principle”. But what else is there? Should shareholders – in principle – suffer that double whammy when directors and senior management get away scot-free? I don’t think so and that is why I lauded the fact that a fine was levied on a director, not because I bear then any personal animus, but because fault, blame and liability should lie where it is due. Although I strongly suspect this will be covered by director liability insurance and the individual will in fact again escape scot-free

[Author]

Posts