Hacker News Reader

Comment by gamedori | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, if another 150 people die that will be the end of the 737 program - and probably Boeing. 300 more deaths is highly unlikely.

View on HN

300 people died before Boeing started acknowledging that maybe this wasn't entirely pilot's fault...

I think you underestimate Boeing size, wealth, and importance to the federal government.

This. Even is Boeing had to drop out of the airplane game _entirely_, they have a ton of other lines of business.

If another 737 Max crashed then that would be the end of the Max, IMO, but I doubt older 737s would be dropped and Boeing would still be around easily enough.

This.

- Boeing is certainly well financially engineered in many financial vehicles,

- It’s alone the #1 net exporter of USA,

- USA needs Boeing, whether it exports or not. Boeing also funds candidates, just mentioning.

- Existing conpanies need to maintain their existing planes, and they need Boeing’s consultancy for that,

- I’d say even Airbus needs their competitor, or they would fall in a dangerous monopolistic position.

As much as one would enjoy the spectacle of a corrupted eating the dust, it is probably too stable to happen. But ever heard of De Havailland? That’s probably to do with their 4 crashes in a row, due to its airframe shredding of metal fatigue and material constraints being concentrated on the edges of their square windows. Ever flew in a DC-10 or MD-11? That’s probably to do with their 4 crashes in a raw, for a bad doorlock. Just saying.

But in the days of de Havailland & McD-D, there were maybe half a dozen companies which made airliners. That's a much more Adam-Smith world than when there are exactly two.

So one more plane crash is possible but two are not?? Huh?

Yes. After one more plane crash, it will probably become uneconomical for carriers to continue operating the 737.

How does a crash on the 737MAX effect operations on 737NG aircraft, or older ones - what suddenly makes it uneconomical?

Because people are made aware that Boeing wasn’t serious with engineering since 2012. And the FAA paid Boeing consultants to inspect Boeing, which by all layman’s definition fall under the terms of “corrupted”.

Who wouldn’t pay attention to the little mention in Google Flights with the brand of the plane?

I think you grossly overestimate the general public, and their ability to pay attention, or care. The 737MAX isnt the first aircraft to have an issue like this - and they kept flying them.

>And the FAA paid Boeing consultants to inspect Boeing, which by all layman’s definition fall under the terms of “corrupted”.

In my experience this is pretty normal for specialized stuff like this, it has nothing to do with corruption.

It's this way in my industry as well, it's really hard to find people who have not worked for one of the big two vendors in my field.

People's refusal to fly in anything with "737" in its name.

The whitewash is already starting.

The 737 Max name is now being replaced with the 737-8200 term (1). I assume they are hoping that 737-8200 is not tarnished like 737 Max is.

1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com