Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Boeing

Discuss Stock buying Shares, tips and ideas for stock market dealing
mtl3108
Posts: 13
Joined: August 11th, 2017, 8:52 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Boeing

#367417

Postby mtl3108 » December 18th, 2020, 2:37 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:
Lootman wrote:To be safe you really need to avoid any airline that operates one, since you could always suffer a last-minute equipment swap from a non-Max 737 to a Max. Or even from an A320 to a Max if your airline operates a dual fleet. It will be interesting to see if airlines waive all change fees if you decide at the last minute you don't want to board in a situation like that.

If you are worried then choose EasyJet over RyanAir, JetBlue over SouthWest or Alaskan, Delta over American, and so on.

I think many will have to. I think that newsflow in the modern world of the internet and the often negative press it can convey will make some airlines nervous about this. I am not convinced RyanAir's decision to purchase additional Max vehicles is a game changer for Boeing. RyanAir is a budget airline and its very existence is down to price. It operates a single supplier fleet to keep maintenance and training costs minimised. That's as much a risk to RyanAir as it is a benefit to Boeing.

AiY

The folks who shop for and buy Ryan Air tickets are unlikely to have any idea what they're flying on. Nor will they care. The vast majority, anyway. Any person with more than two brain cells would rather walk than fly with Ryan Air. Certainly, I just wouldn't travel if they were the only carrier available.

RVF


I have an IQ of 144 and have no qualms about using Ryanair, in any 737 variant. Punctual (often early), very efficient, affordable, don't lose luggage, and usually the best non-stop option. Not the most enjoyable travel experience - but they get you there.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Boeing

#367448

Postby dspp » December 18th, 2020, 3:44 pm

Transport Canada validates MAX
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/t ... 11322.html

- dspp

airbus330
Lemon Slice
Posts: 558
Joined: December 1st, 2018, 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Boeing

#367501

Postby airbus330 » December 18th, 2020, 5:43 pm

People in general use the same discernment about an aircraft as they do a bus. If it looks shiny on the outside, its probably ok. Totally ignoring that the driver might be new, the service mechanic inept and the busline unscrupulous. On top of that, the bus manufacturer could have pulled the wool over the eyes of the busline and sold it a vehicle which has wheels that fall off due to them trying to milk a 50 year old design, sacking most of the quality control guys and making sure that the drivers didn't know what to do if this occurred. But the busline has paid for the buses, so they have got to be used. The busline knows that the drivers won't complain as there is no shortage of new drivers trying to get jobs.
That pretty much encapsulates where we are with the MAX (and perhaps shortly with the 787 for different but related systemic failures). And because of these structural and ethical problems with the manufacturer and that manufacturers 20 year destruction of its world class engineering knowledge base, I won't be flying on a MAX anytime soon or investing in Boeing. Airbus had similar confidence issue 25 years ago with the introduction of FBW controls, but for reasons of pushing into new tech rather than the cost accountants pencil.
There used to be a saying back in the day, "If it ain't Boeing I won't be going". That was a testament to the products that they used to build. That is history.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Boeing

#367515

Postby dealtn » December 18th, 2020, 6:26 pm

airbus330 wrote:People in general use the same discernment about an aircraft as they do a bus. If it looks shiny on the outside, its probably ok. Totally ignoring that the driver might be new, the service mechanic inept and the busline unscrupulous. On top of that, the bus manufacturer could have pulled the wool over the eyes of the busline and sold it a vehicle which has wheels that fall off due to them trying to milk a 50 year old design, sacking most of the quality control guys and making sure that the drivers didn't know what to do if this occurred. But the busline has paid for the buses, so they have got to be used. The busline knows that the drivers won't complain as there is no shortage of new drivers trying to get jobs.
That pretty much encapsulates where we are with the MAX (and perhaps shortly with the 787 for different but related systemic failures). And because of these structural and ethical problems with the manufacturer and that manufacturers 20 year destruction of its world class engineering knowledge base, I won't be flying on a MAX anytime soon or investing in Boeing. Airbus had similar confidence issue 25 years ago with the introduction of FBW controls, but for reasons of pushing into new tech rather than the cost accountants pencil.
There used to be a saying back in the day, "If it ain't Boeing I won't be going". That was a testament to the products that they used to build. That is history.


Some of that might be true. However, I am fairly confident there is one person sharing that air trip with me that knows much more than I do about the plane and the likely safe arrival at our collective destination. I am fairly confident he wouldn't contemplate taking off if he felt in any kind of danger. I am very happy to outsource my "do I fly" decision to him.

This isn't a disinterested, the wheel might fall off and inconvenience me thought process. It's closer to an "if it goes wrong I plunge out of the sky and die" kind of inconvenience.

If the pilot isn't confident neither of us are going anywhere.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Boeing

#367546

Postby Lootman » December 18th, 2020, 8:41 pm

airbus330 wrote:That pretty much encapsulates where we are with the MAX (and perhaps shortly with the 787 for different but related systemic failures).

Are you suggesting that the Dreamliner is unsafe? Why? To my knowledge there has never been a crash or major incident with the 787, other than some battery issues early on. Along with the 777 it is the mainstay of many long-haul airlines including BA.

That is not the case with the A330 (taking your handle as my cue there). 13 A330s have had hull loss accidents. I recall an Air France A330 (AF447) dropping into the Atlantic in a manner that reminded me of some of the MAX issues i.e. faulty readings from sensors confusing the pilots.

That said I have flown Aer Lingus, Air Canada, Finnair and TAP A330s regularly and without concern. A fortiori, 787s.

airbus330
Lemon Slice
Posts: 558
Joined: December 1st, 2018, 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Boeing

#367572

Postby airbus330 » December 18th, 2020, 11:17 pm

dealtn wrote:
airbus330 wrote:People in general use the same discernment about an aircraft as they do a bus. If it looks shiny on the outside, its probably ok. Totally ignoring that the driver might be new, the service mechanic inept and the busline unscrupulous. On top of that, the bus manufacturer could have pulled the wool over the eyes of the busline and sold it a vehicle which has wheels that fall off due to them trying to milk a 50 year old design, sacking most of the quality control guys and making sure that the drivers didn't know what to do if this occurred. But the busline has paid for the buses, so they have got to be used. The busline knows that the drivers won't complain as there is no shortage of new drivers trying to get jobs.
That pretty much encapsulates where we are with the MAX (and perhaps shortly with the 787 for different but related systemic failures). And because of these structural and ethical problems with the manufacturer and that manufacturers 20 year destruction of its world class engineering knowledge base, I won't be flying on a MAX anytime soon or investing in Boeing. Airbus had similar confidence issue 25 years ago with the introduction of FBW controls, but for reasons of pushing into new tech rather than the cost accountants pencil.
There used to be a saying back in the day, "If it ain't Boeing I won't be going". That was a testament to the products that they used to build. That is history.


Some of that might be true. However, I am fairly confident there is one person sharing that air trip with me that knows much more than I do about the plane and the likely safe arrival at our collective destination. I am fairly confident he wouldn't contemplate taking off if he felt in any kind of danger. I am very happy to outsource my "do I fly" decision to him.

This isn't a disinterested, the wheel might fall off and inconvenience me thought process. It's closer to an "if it goes wrong I plunge out of the sky and die" kind of inconvenience.

If the pilot isn't confident neither of us are going anywhere.


Well, I guess as as an airline pilot with 25 years flying across he globe that would be me.
While not wishing to dramatise, the go/no-go decision making process is a bit cloudier than you think.
The quality of pilot skill sets has degraded substantially with the growth of the global industry.
Why do you think the lo-co's have fleets of shiny new aircraft? There is a certain advantage in a very very low statistical likelihood of a system failure. The 2 MAX accidents were, in part, the product of Boeings cost cutting and the low experience of the crews. No conjecture here, its all in the public domain.

airbus330
Lemon Slice
Posts: 558
Joined: December 1st, 2018, 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Boeing

#367583

Postby airbus330 » December 18th, 2020, 11:57 pm

Lootman wrote:
airbus330 wrote:That pretty much encapsulates where we are with the MAX (and perhaps shortly with the 787 for different but related systemic failures).

Are you suggesting that the Dreamliner is unsafe? Why? To my knowledge there has never been a crash or major incident with the 787, other than some battery issues early on. Along with the 777 it is the mainstay of many long-haul airlines including BA.

That is not the case with the A330 (taking your handle as my cue there). 13 A330s have had hull loss accidents. I recall an Air France A330 (AF447) dropping into the Atlantic in a manner that reminded me of some of the MAX issues i.e. faulty readings from sensors confusing the pilots.

That said I have flown Aer Lingus, Air Canada, Finnair and TAP A330s regularly and without concern. A fortiori, 787s.


Currently, 8 787 airframes are grounded due to design and manufacture failures where the last section of the rear hull is attached to the tail section. A few weeks ago the investigation has spread into the fin attachments. Currently, Boeing are admitting that they have insufficient recorded manufacturing quality control data (!!) to prove or disprove that this fault will affect anymore airframes. The upshot for the airframes affected is that the aircraft will be unable to tolerate the stated design load limits. i.e, the tail might fall off.

Re. the A330, which I have flown for 16 years. You're quite correct in that it has had hull losses, as has the entire airbus fleet, but that is over a massive lifetime going back to 1984. It is also why I referenced the Airbus in my original post. The failures they have largely experienced are to do with the full authority flight control systems which were cutting edge tech and have largely bedded in to make the airbus series (by seat pax mile) extremely safe and reliable. Aircraft are never designed, built and released into service perfectly developed, the Airbus was no exception. An old Airbus pilot saying was "What's it doing now?" and previous generation pilots were often very anti the addition of the computer between themselves and the aircraft doing what you want it to do. This, together with some poor training, led to quite a few incidents and crashes which were largely down to the pilot intervening from ignorance and exacerbating an issue the automatics could have sorted. If you check the records only 2 of those hull losses were due to faulty tech. Most were terror or pilot handling errors. The tragic Air France event (which I have partially repeated in the flight simulator) would most likely have been recoverable had both (relatively) inexperienced pilots left the flight deck and left the machine to do its thing. What you won't have heard about are the several very close calls where the same misreading instruments caused an upset. What was learnt from these incidents was very comprehensively dealt with by modification of parts and training. It is, after a long period of time in blissful ignorance, acknowledged that over reliance on automation and a great many inexperienced pilots in the system has led to a need degrading of skills. This is being corrected in many parts of the world. In a long winded way, what I'm trying to draw your attention to, is the fundamental difference between Airbus and the airlines learning to adapt to new tech and Boeings willful degradation of its safety culture in order to save money.
The main reason that the MAX's crashed was the saving of a few thousand dollars per airframe by not fitting a 2nd. sensor, which was offered as an optional extra. Naturally enough, the cost accountants in the airlines concerned, elected to not spend their cash on the option. They then exacerbated the problem by not propagating the information to the people training pilots onto these new machines, that the issue was potentially there and what to do about it if it occurred. This was also connected with an attempt to save money on training. Anyway, again, all this is in the public domain. Boeing's reputation stands or falls on the MAX being safe to operate. I'll let others be the guinea pigs for that for a few years. The real bottom line is that Boeing overextended the life of a 1966 design to do too much in the interests of saving money. Their corporate culture prevented them from acknowledging and acting on engineers and test pilot reports of problems, together with a far too cosy culture with the overseeing authority which in itself turned a blind eye to what were unhealthy practices. If Boeing has a complete culture change from the top down, I'd invest in them, but not before.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Boeing

#367585

Postby Lootman » December 19th, 2020, 12:03 am

airbus330 wrote:
Lootman wrote:
airbus330 wrote:That pretty much encapsulates where we are with the MAX (and perhaps shortly with the 787 for different but related systemic failures).

Are you suggesting that the Dreamliner is unsafe? Why? To my knowledge there has never been a crash or major incident with the 787, other than some battery issues early on. Along with the 777 it is the mainstay of many long-haul airlines including BA.

That is not the case with the A330 (taking your handle as my cue there). 13 A330s have had hull loss accidents. I recall an Air France A330 (AF447) dropping into the Atlantic in a manner that reminded me of some of the MAX issues i.e. faulty readings from sensors confusing the pilots.

That said I have flown Aer Lingus, Air Canada, Finnair and TAP A330s regularly and without concern. A fortiori, 787s.

Currently, 8 787 airframes are grounded due to design and manufacture failures where the last section of the rear hull is attached to the tail section. A few weeks ago the investigation has spread into the fin attachments.

I know that but surely the point is that Boeing identified that problem before there was an incident, which is a sign of diligence.

As for the A330 I have no issue, and fly them routinely without thinking about them. A better analogy with the 787 would be the A350, since both use carbon fibre construction. I have not flown an A350 yet but am excited to do so, as I have no more issue with that than with the 787. They are probably the two safest planes in the sky and neither has had a hull loss incident, to my knowledge. Nor the A380 of course, notwithstanding the scary Qantas incident with one,

airbus330
Lemon Slice
Posts: 558
Joined: December 1st, 2018, 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Boeing

#367590

Postby airbus330 » December 19th, 2020, 12:29 am

@lootman It would appear that the airframes left the factory without these manufacturing faults being discovered. The lack of quality control data (after Boeing laid off most of their QC engineers) is appalling. They have come to light as the older 787's have undergone heavy maintenance.

There is a fundamental difference in the A350, which is constructed in panels conventionally, and the 787 which is made from rolled sheet material. The Boeing method is less conventional and requires extraordinary close manufacturing tolerances to be successful.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#367611

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 19th, 2020, 8:15 am

737 Max: Boeing 'inappropriately coached' pilots in test after crashes
US Senate investigators say that Boeing officials "inappropriately coached" test pilots during efforts to recertify the company's 737 Max aircraft.

...

"It appears, in this instance, FAA and Boeing were attempting to cover up important information that may have contributed to the 737 Max tragedies."


I'm not a seasoned flyer. Covid aside, whenever the family finances permit, I'm grateful to be able to enjoy the odd trip to somewhere warm for a week . There is "some evidence" that the MCAS crashes are not the first occasion within Boeing that safety has been compromised for profit. Of greater sadness and perhaps dismay is that there's also evidence to suggest this is an industry wide problem. It's possible that there's an added variable behind the MCAS deaths. Politics.

AiY

airbus330
Lemon Slice
Posts: 558
Joined: December 1st, 2018, 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Boeing

#367653

Postby airbus330 » December 19th, 2020, 10:08 am

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:737 Max: Boeing 'inappropriately coached' pilots in test after crashes
US Senate investigators say that Boeing officials "inappropriately coached" test pilots during efforts to recertify the company's 737 Max aircraft.

...

"It appears, in this instance, FAA and Boeing were attempting to cover up important information that may have contributed to the 737 Max tragedies."


I'm not a seasoned flyer. Covid aside, whenever the family finances permit, I'm grateful to be able to enjoy the odd trip to somewhere warm for a week . There is "some evidence" that the MCAS crashes are not the first occasion within Boeing that safety has been compromised for profit. Of greater sadness and perhaps dismay is that there's also evidence to suggest this is an industry wide problem. It's possible that there's an added variable behind the MCAS deaths. Politics.

AiY

The phenomenal aviation safety that we enjoy today was literally built on the corpses from the accidents of the past. Safety is always in tension with profit. A balance exists where safety just trumps profit because an accident is so expensive. Although manufacturers don't broadcast design flaws, neither do they usually suppress them. Redesign and modification is the norm, sometimes it takes a lot longer than the end user would like. What makes me so angry about Boeing is there willful reversal of this tension. This has not been a blip, but an orchestrated 20 year culture shift away from their position as the safest a/c manufacturer in the world. Politics and greed have played their part, no doubt of that.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#367662

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 19th, 2020, 10:39 am

airbus330 wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:737 Max: Boeing 'inappropriately coached' pilots in test after crashes
US Senate investigators say that Boeing officials "inappropriately coached" test pilots during efforts to recertify the company's 737 Max aircraft.

...

"It appears, in this instance, FAA and Boeing were attempting to cover up important information that may have contributed to the 737 Max tragedies."


I'm not a seasoned flyer. Covid aside, whenever the family finances permit, I'm grateful to be able to enjoy the odd trip to somewhere warm for a week . There is "some evidence" that the MCAS crashes are not the first occasion within Boeing that safety has been compromised for profit. Of greater sadness and perhaps dismay is that there's also evidence to suggest this is an industry wide problem. It's possible that there's an added variable behind the MCAS deaths. Politics.

AiY

The phenomenal aviation safety that we enjoy today was literally built on the corpses from the accidents of the past. Safety is always in tension with profit. A balance exists where safety just trumps profit because an accident is so expensive. Although manufacturers don't broadcast design flaws, neither do they usually suppress them. Redesign and modification is the norm, sometimes it takes a lot longer than the end user would like. What makes me so angry about Boeing is there wilful reversal of this tension. This has not been a blip, but an orchestrated 20 year culture shift away from their position as the safest a/c manufacturer in the world. Politics and greed have played their part, no doubt of that.

I'm in complete agreement. My knowledge of the industry is extremely limited. It comes from information gleaned from the internet. However, the stench of the culture that Boeing has adopted is, as you infer appalling. I think there's some evidence that may suggest Boeing's demise began a little more than 20 years ago and I think it's possible to see some failings in Boeings [safety] culture much earlier than this.

AiY

Heinous
Posts: 23
Joined: December 14th, 2020, 9:19 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Boeing

#367668

Postby Heinous » December 19th, 2020, 10:57 am

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:737 Max: Boeing 'inappropriately coached' pilots in test after crashes
US Senate investigators say that Boeing officials "inappropriately coached" test pilots during efforts to recertify the company's 737 Max aircraft.

There are also accusations that Boeing is too cosy with the FAA, with safety functions being delegated to Boeing, rather than kept independent.
Those kind of issues are the kind that could seriously damage Boeing going forward, because they're about trust. It never fails to amaze me, but an air crash or two can (and will) be forgiven in just a couple of years. There's no doubt about that, just as Ryanair can spit on their customers without losing their status as one of the most profitable airlines in Europe. ;) But lost trust can be a different ball game.
Point is, so long as Boeing can keep supplying aircraft, they will make a profit (obvs. long term all things are possible). The question really is how much profit, and how will the share price be affected? The jury is still out on that, I reckon, but the next few months will show if Boeing has learned from their mistakes. Or not.
Meanwhile, it's a shame about the A380, long factored in, but Airbus will sail on into the sunset (Obvs. long term etc.)

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#368391

Postby richfool » December 21st, 2020, 2:54 pm

European regulator says Boeing's 737 Max is safe:
"We went further and reviewed all the flight controls, all the machinery of the aircraft", he explains.

The aim, he says, was to look at anything which could cause a critical failure.

In order to return to service, existing planes will now have to be equipped with new computer software, as well as undergoing changes to their wiring and cockpit instrumentation.
'Confident' of safety

Pilots will need to undergo mandatory training, and each plane will have to undergo a test flight to ensure the changes have been carried out correctly.

US regulators have set out similar conditions.

As a result, Mr Ky insists, "We are very confident that it is now a very safe aircraft."

Most of the initial safety certification work on the 737 Max was carried out by the FAA, and simply endorsed by EASA under the terms of a long-standing international agreement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55366320

Heinous
Posts: 23
Joined: December 14th, 2020, 9:19 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Boeing

#369475

Postby Heinous » December 24th, 2020, 10:56 am

richfool wrote:
Most of the initial safety certification work on the 737 Max was carried out by the FAA, and simply endorsed by EASA under the terms of a long-standing international agreement.
(BBC)

That's the key point, I suspect. Boeing and the FAA have got far too close in recent years; I reckon it'll be a while before EASA adopts FAA positions without question.
Safety oversight and profit need to be kept entirely separate.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#374601

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 8th, 2021, 4:10 am

Boeing to pay $2.5bn over 737 Max conspiracy
The US Justice Department said the firm chose "profit over candour", impeding oversight of the planes, which were involved in two deadly crashes.

AiY

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Boeing

#375070

Postby XFool » January 9th, 2021, 11:24 am

May or may not be relevant:

Indonesia passenger plane missing after take-off

BBC News

A passenger plane with more than 50 people on board has gone missing after take-off from the Indonesian capital Jakarta.

"The Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737 lost contact en route to Pontianak in West Kalimantan province, officials said.

Flight tracking website Flightradar24.com said the aircraft had lost more than 3,000m (10,000ft) in altitude in less than a minute.
"

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#375082

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 9th, 2021, 11:36 am

XFool wrote:May or may not be relevant:

Indonesia passenger plane missing after take-off

BBC News

A passenger plane with more than 50 people on board has gone missing after take-off from the Indonesian capital Jakarta.

"The Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737 lost contact en route to Pontianak in West Kalimantan province, officials said.

Flight tracking website Flightradar24.com said the aircraft had lost more than 3,000m (10,000ft) in altitude in less than a minute.
"

The EU banned all Indonesian carriers a while back due to poor safety records. I think they lifted the ban mid 2018. I think the most interesting part of the BBC report is that they stated the aircraft was not a 737 Max. Clearly the eyes of the media are focused on that particular variant.

AiY

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: Boeing

#375406

Postby tjh290633 » January 10th, 2021, 10:10 am

XFool wrote:May or may not be relevant:

Indonesia passenger plane missing after take-off

BBC News

A passenger plane with more than 50 people on board has gone missing after take-off from the Indonesian capital Jakarta.

"The Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737 lost contact en route to Pontianak in West Kalimantan province, officials said.

Flight tracking website Flightradar24.com said the aircraft had lost more than 3,000m (10,000ft) in altitude in less than a minute.
"

I went to Indonesia in 1979, and at that time Garuda seemed to lose planes on a regular basis. Unfortunately I could not avoid them, as Quantas were on strike, but I survived.

TJH

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Boeing

#375410

Postby Dod101 » January 10th, 2021, 10:19 am

Indonesia has apparently started lots of new small airlines over the last few years and as TJH says Garuda had an appalling safety record at one time and Indonesia in general does not seem much better today. This was an old aircraft belonging to an almost unknown carrier so I do not think too many conclusions should be drawn.

Dod


Return to “Stocks and Share Dealing Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests