MOL is 1000000000000% correct. The reason why. The DOT/FAA and any Government doesn't have .000000001% of the engineering smarts that Airbus or Boeing have for ten minutes on any Sunday at 2am. If these guys could design anything then they wouldn't be working for the DOT.
The GOV is nothing but another set of Grifters.
Right to you MOL!
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4743 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21059 times:
I always get the various airlines with Ryan in them confused so forgive me if I'm mistaken but, isn't Ryannair the super economy airline where they want or have made passengers pony up change to use the lav? If this is correct, it would be amazing that they are flying the Dreamliner. It's akin to my purchasing a 2013 Porsche 911 brand new. My apologies in advance if I'm off topic.
Lucky for the rest of the flying public not many people agree with you or MOL. I have absolutely no problem with the regulators erroring on the side of caution.
billreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 20595 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 4): Lucky for the rest of the flying public not many people agree with you or MOL. I have absolutely no problem with the regulators erroring on the side of caution.
I do not trust politics over engineering. But I suppose we could follow your lead and turn over everything to those Engineers at TSA and the FAA to run the country and everything we do every day, afterall they are the most intelligent and highest educated individuals in the nation.
Why would anyone work for Boeing or Airbus when they could work for the Government? B and A obviously only get third and fourth rate engineers, all the good ones obviously work for the DOT. Look the secretary of transport, LaHood is a highly educated mathematician who publicly stated planes shouldn't be in the air that are not 1000% safe. Knowing that we all go back to trains, that are also 1000% safe and cars which are far safer!
I like that perspective that the real smart ones don't work for the designers and manufacturers, but instead they are the politicians.
I presume you similarly believe the NRA is "Only" interested in your rights and has no interest in making money selling guns and ammunition? Its the same argument.
Nothing is what it appears. The FAA and DOT isn't qualified.
Or let me ask you this would you let the Secretary of Health operate on your partner, rather than a up to date qualified doctor? Might be a bad example, but do you really prefer politicians over professionals?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16896 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 20462 times:
Considering that Ryanair is highly unlikely to ever fly the 787 (Even if they ever do start their rumored Transatlantic airline.), just noise from Mr. O'Leary. He seems to love the sound of his own voice and seeing his name in the papers.
The 787 problems are pretty serious stuff and the fact that the FAA and their equivalent in multiple countries grounded the type is hardly "regulatory crap". Passenger safety is the responsibility of not only the airlines but also the regulatory bodies in various countries and even the manufacturer of an a/c. Boeing is just lucky that there weren't any fatal incidents as the result of these issues.
SSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 452 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 20430 times:
From MOL's perspective, the regulators prevent a lot of envelope-pushing in favor of chasing extra 999s after the decimal place in aviation safety numbers. Not surprising "regulatory crap" is something he'd say.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 20065 times:
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 12): From MOL's perspective, the regulators prevent a lot of envelope-pushing in favor of chasing extra 999s after the decimal place in aviation safety numbers.
The man's an idiot. He's one of the main benefactors of the regulator's vigilance over the years. No one would insure his planes never mind fly on them if it weren't for their work over the years, much which was done with cheapskate idiots like him complaining only about the costs.
It's par for the course for him. He scoops the creme off the milk, then complains it's not thick enough for his liking.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2349 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 20063 times:
It makes you wonder what else does MOL consider "regulatory crap," to be dispensed with at the first opportunity... Not the best attitude for the CEO of an airline.
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1007 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19906 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 14): It makes you wonder what else does MOL consider "regulatory crap," to be dispensed with at the first opportunity... Not the best attitude for the CEO of an airline.
See my earlier comment. Anything O'Leary says needs to be taken with a truckload of salt, and the less attention we pay him, the better off we will all be.
The man is a Class-A [censored], but an annoyingly successful one.
[Edited 2013-03-19 14:05:42]
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
peterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19877 times:
No wonder he's pissed off at the regulators, they wouldn't let him fit in 539 people in his "standing room only" 737s, they said no to his idea to allow people to store their children in the overhead luggage compartments and they said no to his idea to get rid of pilots and "let the stupid passengers fly the **ecking plane themselves".
Yes, that is Ryanair who only fly 737-800's currently. However, he did say that if Boeing could offer him some "cheap" 787's, he would have no issue flying them as they are today.
MOL's opinions are starting to make more sense than your posts, and THAT is scary.
Why bring the TSA into this? They have nothing to do with the safety and engineering of aircraft. BTW, the DOT has more to worry about than just airliners.....they are also responsible for railroads, highways and vehicles and so forth and in any government agency, the head of that agency is more or less an administrator.....they don't have to be an expert in that field.
BTW, the surgeon general of the U.S. is usually a medical doctor, so that theory of yours is wrong.
I'm not a government apologist, but your portrayal of some of these gov't workers is very wrong........most of the people that work, doing investigations for the NTSB are very, very good at what they do.
Using your logic (such as it is) then MOL should be the best pilot that he has, but he's not a pilot at all, is he? He's basically an administrator, which is the same as any other airline CEO that you can think of.
Not everyone can be a designer nor an engineer, can they?
And, on a final note......why bring the NRA into this? It has absolutely nothing to do with this subject.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, RR: 14 Reply 19, posted (3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18585 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 4): Lucky for the rest of the flying public not many people agree with you or MOL. I have absolutely no problem with the regulators erroring on the side of caution.
This CEO is speaking out of the lavs he wanted to charge his flyers to use. He doesn't know squat about the reasons why the 787 was grounded and in all seriousness has no right to say anything about it since his airline has one of the lowest customer service records on the planet
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9273 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18481 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 20): This CEO is speaking out of the lavs he wanted to charge his flyers to use. He doesn't know squat about the reasons why the 787 was grounded and in all seriousness has no right to say anything about it since his airline has one of the lowest customer service records on the planet
Obviously, O'Leary has been out of the spotlight for awhile and he doesn't like that. Even if the subject has nothing to do with him, he'll stick his nose into it because it's newsworth (why, I don't know) and he'll get some free publicity out of it.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18201 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 21): Obviously, O'Leary has been out of the spotlight for awhile and he doesn't like that. Even if the subject has nothing to do with him, he'll stick his nose into it because it's newsworth (why, I don't know) and he'll get some free publicity out of it.
Is this just his personality or what is it? I don't know enough about FR or O'Leary except from what I read here and in newspapers. Japanese media don't like him much either apparently.
moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2020 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18201 times:
Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 16): his idea to allow people to store their children in the overhead luggage compartments
Now, if he suggested carrying children in the cargo hold...
Quoting billreid (Thread starter): If these guys could design anything then they wouldn't be working for the DOT.
I have a good friend who is an engineer for the FAA. He went to work for them after his position was eliminated by Grumman, where he worked on inconsequential programs like the F-14 and E-2.
cschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1052 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18077 times:
Quoting billreid (Thread starter): MOL is 1000000000000% correct. The reason why. The DOT/FAA and any Government doesn't have .000000001% of the engineering smarts that Airbus or Boeing have for ten minutes on any Sunday at 2am. If these guys could design anything then they wouldn't be working for the DOT.
The GOV is nothing but another set of Grifters.
Right to you MOL!
Well, considering that two of B's 787's had battery related fires, clearly Boeing isn't 1000000% there yet, or even 100% there yet. As a passenger, I'd err on the side of caution and not get on one of those until the problem has been fixed. There's nothing wrong with making certain it's not an issue going forward.
From the article:
O'Leary said, "Look at the economics of the 737, the 800 [series] has 189 seats. The [Airbus] A320 has 180 seats. And those nine extra seats when you're flying them eight times a day, 365 days a year are a compelling competitive advantage for Boeing."
Kind of points to the feeling that Airbus would be wasting time trying to sell to Ryanair. John Leahy knows when not to waste resources.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3263 posts, RR: 33 Reply 24, posted (3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17709 times:
If he views the government response to two potentially life-threatening thermal runaways as regulatory crap, then remind me to never fly on Ryanair. It's scary to think of what other regulatory crap he may be trying to evade.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, RR: 60 Reply 25, posted (3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18024 times:
I don't like agreeing with MOL, but I've been calling this same "crap" from the beginning of this unprecedented grounding without enough evidence to do so. And if you read the comments to the linked story, the FAA (by following the lead of the Japanese authorities rather than following their own procedures) has done immense damage to Boeing. Many people now see the 787 as UNSAFE despite there being no evidence that it is unsafe. Yet the public doesn't have the same perception about aircraft that have actually crashed and killed people due to defects, because the fleets weren't grounded.
What MOL is saying, and rightfully so, is the 787 IS a safe aircraft and if he had a need for wide-bodies, he would buy it without question. Why is he saying such things? Because he is being questioned about buying ANYTHING Boeing as collateral damage from the perception of the 787 being unsafe.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Markam From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 279 posts, RR: 2 Reply 27, posted (3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17801 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 9): Why would anyone work for Boeing or Airbus when they could work for the Government? B and A obviously only get third and fourth rate engineers, all the good ones obviously work for the DOT.
Without getting into the issue of whether your (sarcastic) comment is correct, you should realize that it is not all about potential, incentives, among other things, also matter. The folks at A and B may well be the smartest around, however they may also be under pressure to meet tight deadlines, to keep their bosses and shareholders happy, to reduce cost, etc. etc., and those incentives may not be necessarily aligned with those of passengers who would prefer not to perish in an airline crash (although, concededly, too many crashes will make bosses and shareholders unhappy, just one crash is one too many from the perspective of the passenger onboard, especially if it could have been avoided by taking reasonable precautions).
Anyway, we could argue whether the 787 landing in particular is overkill, whether public adminstration specialists should be more qualified, or have more resources, etc., but if you cannot see why in general terms it is a good idea to have an overseeing body with more "neutral" incentives (and I say more neutral because A and B can put pressure on the legislative and executive powers, who in turn can put pressure on the FAA and DOT, so it is not as if they have totally "neutral" incentives), then I've got a bridge to sell you...
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 28, posted (3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17480 times:
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 15): The man is a Class-A [censored], but an annoyingly successful one.
MOL is the ultimate Grifter. He gets everyone else to pay for things like safety advancements and aviation infrastructure, and to keep people's eyes off this fact he proceeds to rant and rave about the crazy things he think he should be able to do and the few things he actually does pay for, usually at pennies on the dollar. The fact that he's successful shows that other people are just as self-centered as he is.
Hey, WN is a very fiscally responsible outfit, but you don't hear them talking about how they've (sexually assaulted) their vendors...
bendewire From UK - England, joined May 2011, 21 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16709 times:
MOL does from time to time spout some real nonsence, however one thing is true the 787 is at the cutting edge of technology and the FAA and NTSB have a lot of catching up to do in regards this kind of technology and perhaps it is wise to err on the side of caution, but this can lead to missing the real issues which may get lost in translation. The incidents involved a small proportion of frames in service and highlighted a potential wider problem, I stress, potential.
The knee jerk reaction by the authority's to ground all aircraft, effectively has affected ongoing testing and service reliability which may now show up at a later date, which could have been discovered on test aircraft.
If the problem was as potentially widespread as the actions of the FAA and NTSB have acted on then surely it would have occured during on at least one of the test aircraft before deliveries took place. as these aircraft are worked to the edge of the envelope way above what any in service frame would ecperience!
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 31, posted (3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16679 times:
MOL hates govenment and their regulators (especially the EC 'government') but love their subsidies in taxes, for airports, for support services to get pax to/from the airport. Just like every other rich guy, he talks out of both his mouth and ...um... anus.
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3979 posts, RR: 14 Reply 32, posted (3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16549 times:
Quoting bendewire (Reply 32): If the problem was as potentially widespread as the actions of the FAA and NTSB have acted on then surely it would have occured during on at least one of the test aircraft before deliveries took place. as these aircraft are worked to the edge of the envelope way above what any in service frame would ecperience!
Thats the whole point why the NTSB is so concerned! It wasn't picked up by the "testing"!!!
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1030 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16443 times:
Quoting billreid (Thread starter): The DOT/FAA and any Government doesn't have .000000001% of the engineering smarts that Airbus or Boeing have for ten minutes on any Sunday at 2am. If these guys could design anything then they wouldn't be working for the DOT.
To develop and build airplanes or to be the regulatory body takes two different skill-sets.Airbus and Boeing engineers are good at what they do. FAA and NTSB are experts in their area. To say that one is smarter than the other makes no sense.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2755 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 15804 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 18): BTW, the surgeon general of the U.S. is usually a medical doctor, so that theory of yours is wrong.
And a highly trained, up to date, one at that, I would have no problem having the surgeon general treat me or my family.
Quoting mayor (Reply 18): I'm not a government apologist, but your portrayal of some of these gov't workers is very wrong........most of the people that work, doing investigations for the NTSB are very, very good at what they do.
Plus they are generally neutral. Boeing engineers are maybe top range, but that does not mean they are free to create perfect airplanes. They are bounded by budgets and time.
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2113 posts, RR: 10 Reply 35, posted (3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15543 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 9): The FAA and DOT isn't qualified.
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 33): FAA and NTSB are experts in their area.
NTSB, I agree. FAA? FAA is a political agency run by fools and tools. People at the operational level, ie, systems techs, air traffic controllers, maybe a few first line sups., they have the flick. FAA mangaement? They have no idea how the system works, or that the people in the field are why it works.
The FAA has failed time after time to heed NTSB warnings and recommendations involving air safety. Remember, FAA is known as the "Tombstone Agency".
The FAA needs to be destroyed. Attempts to bring it into reality or functional worthiness have failed too many times.
Privatize or give ATC to NASA. Leave the promotion of aviation to the private sector. Find a way to salvage the air safety branch, and infuse it with operational people from the real world, with real operational knowledge and experience.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
Polaris From Canada, joined Feb 2000, 1123 posts, RR: 1 Reply 36, posted (3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14682 times:
"Regulatory crap", or what little of it is left, is what protects the "little folks" from the "big folks". Without safety standards, how secure would you feel about an aircraft or airline or any other product? Regulatory standards define a civilized society.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 37, posted (3 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14374 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 9): Or let me ask you this would you let the Secretary of Health operate on your partner, rather than a up to date qualified doctor? Might be a bad example
Of course it's a bad example, it's a horrible example. The FAA Administrator isn't doing anything with regard to the 787 batteries. Nor is the head of the NTSB. Both of them are far removed from the technical aspects of the process.
Quoting billreid (Reply 9): but do you really prefer politicians over professionals?
Your "professionals" are responsible for the design of batteries that had a nasty habit of catching fire. And you trust them entirely to come up with a solution? I don't.
Not that I'm saying they're not qualified either - they're good people, and they're skilled. But nobody is infallible, and that's why we have other professional engineers (which is what the FAA and NTSB people who are actually working on this are) to check their work.
EDIT: I should add that my use of quotations is not intended to disparage the engineers at Boeing, but rather to highlight the term that Billreid used. I have great respect for the 787 design team (though I still don't think they're infallible).
-Mir
[Edited 2013-03-19 21:59:01]
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4096 posts, RR: 12 Reply 38, posted (3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13891 times:
Another hilarious A.net thread about Ryanair. He (or anybody else for that matter) won't care diddly squat about the individual opinions that posters in this thread have about him, but he'll love the fact you ARE talking about him and his airline.
So carry on giving him that publicity if you wish.
blueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3160 posts, RR: 1 Reply 39, posted (3 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13306 times:
I guess there is karma in life.
First MOL rapes Boeing, now he is their bitch...
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 21): Is this just his personality or what is it?
I strongly dislike him, but I happen to think he is one of the smartest marketeers in the aviation industry. A clown certainly, but a clown who constantly manages to get his low-cost airline mentioned for free in newspapers far beyond his carrier's service area, getting tons of publicity without buying advertising.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 40, posted (3 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13086 times:
Quoting billreid (Thread starter): The DOT/FAA and any Government doesn't have .000000001% of the engineering smarts that Airbus or Boeing have for ten minutes on any Sunday at 2am.
Clearly you haven't been following the 787 saga too closely.
First, the aircraft has real problems. Did the government design the failing parts ? No. In fact even the testing and certifying was mainly done by Boeing !
On top of that, it has been revealed recently that Boeing was grounding the 787 even before the regulators did.
[Edited 2013-03-20 01:24:20]
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1007 posts, RR: 1 Reply 42, posted (3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12299 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 21): Is this just his personality or what is it? I don't know enough about FR or O'Leary except from what I read here and in newspapers. Japanese media don't like him much either apparently.
It is calculation. He figured out long ago that if he says something controversial, it gets airtime and column inches worldwide. Everytime he launches one of his tirades, traffic (and bookings) on the Ryanair website go up. He's getting free publicity at the expense of people thinking he's a [count minus 1]. Since he doesn't care what people think of him, that's a great deal.
Quoting seachaz (Reply 29): If the problem was as potentially widespread as the actions of the FAA and NTSB have acted on then surely it would have occured during on at least one of the test aircraft before deliveries took place. as these aircraft are worked to the edge of the envelope way above what any in service frame would ecperience!
Quoting trex8 (Reply 32): Thats the whole point why the NTSB is so concerned! It wasn't picked up by the "testing"!!!
Boeing cut corners in the first round of testing, and the price they paid were the two high-profile incidents in Boston and over Japan. It was right of the NTSB and FAA to call for further measures and testing.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1091 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (3 months 1 day ago) and read 11567 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 9): I do not trust politics over engineering
Quoting CXfirst (Reply 34): Boeing engineers are maybe top range, but that does not mean they are free to create perfect airplanes. They are bounded by budgets and time
... and what is properly even more important: in an organisation like Boeing and Airbus it is NOT the engineers who run the business. The higher management will balance the engineering input over against that of the PR, Sales and Bean counter departments of their respective organisations. That is why it is extremely important that there is an outside agency. We have often seen that the ones with the least important word unfortunately has been the engineers! The fact the Boeing and Airbus has the most qualified engineers is not the same as to say that they rule their companies. Far from.
Eurohub From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 230 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (3 months 23 hours ago) and read 10950 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 19): This CEO is speaking out of the lavs he wanted to charge his flyers to use. He doesn't know squat about the reasons why the 787 was grounded
Neither do most of the posters on this forum and yet they are no less entitled to express their opinions about the 787 than he is! The only difference is that when MOL expresses an opinion, it gets reported by the media.
Forget A vs B - Give me E or BAe any day of the week!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 45, posted (3 months 22 hours ago) and read 10566 times:
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 31): MOL hates govenment and their regulators (especially the EC 'government') but love their subsidies in taxes, for airports, for support services to get pax to/from the airport. Just like every other rich guy, he talks out of both his mouth and ...um... anus.
There are a lot of so called 'entrepreneurial' CEO's like him around, way beyond aviation.
Their diet consisting largely of the hand that feeds them.
As for the thread starter, sounds like the sort of nonsense spouted at CPAC, y'know, like 'they are performing abortions on women who are not even pregnant'.
JValjean From Belgium, joined Mar 2013, 47 posts, RR: 1 Reply 46, posted (3 months 20 hours ago) and read 9259 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 45): As for the thread starter, sounds like the sort of nonsense spouted at CPAC, y'know, like 'they are performing abortions on women who are not even pregnant'.
Where third-party payers like governmental entities and insurance companies are responsible for providing payment, health care providers seeking payment for unnecessary procedures is not unheard of. Outright fraud by health care providers is thought to be at least 15-20% of the cost of government health care programs like Medicare & Medicaid in US.
pvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 571 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (3 months 19 hours ago) and read 8355 times:
Safety should always be taken very seriously, grounding the 787 was the right thing to do instead of waiting for a total disaster to happen like with DC-10 for example.
And like many here have said MOL just keeps talking all kinda BS to stay in the news, no point taking him seriously.
Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 48): I do not believe the B787 is unsafe......the batteries however are still an immature technology.
Any airplane with a faulty system that keeps starting in flight fires is unsafe.
shankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1477 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (3 months 19 hours ago) and read 7876 times:
Pretty good interview. I like MOL...just not so keen on his airline!
He was however being a little disingenuous regarding regulation. The passengers and crew of TK981 would have benefitted from a bit of "regulatory crap"
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (3 months 15 hours ago) and read 5620 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 25): I don't like agreeing with MOL, but I've been calling this same "crap" from the beginning of this unprecedented grounding without enough evidence to do so.
Quoting bendewire (Reply 30): The knee jerk reaction by the authority's to ground all aircraft, effectively has affected ongoing testing and service reliability which may now show up at a later date, which could have been discovered on test aircraft.
If the grounding is crap and a political knee-jerk reaction, why is it that both McNerney and Conner basically said they knew a grounding was imminent when they heard of the ANA incident. I would suggest it is because they knew they had a pretty major problem on their hands.
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 35): NTSB, I agree. FAA? FAA is a political agency run by fools and tools. People at the operational level, ie, systems techs, air traffic controllers, maybe a few first line sups., they have the flick. FAA mangaement? They have no idea how the system works, or that the people in the field are why it works.
However the FAA tends to be more "industry friendly" than the NTSB. I am pretty certain the NTSB, if they had grounding authority, would have moved even quicker to ground the aircraft.
billreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (3 months 15 hours ago) and read 5586 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 18): Why bring the TSA into this? They have nothing to do with the safety and engineering of aircraft. BTW, the DOT has more to worry about than just airliners.....they are also responsible for railroads, highways and vehicles and so forth and in any government agency, the head of that agency is more or less an administrator.....they don't have to be an expert in that field.
Why bring in TSA is because they are run by the EXACT same people as the FAA or the DOT or the FDA or the CIA or the FBI and 100000000 other Government agencies. It is the politics. Take this a step further ..... isn't it the DOD. Department of Defense that establishes the airline foreign ownership laws, so we should ask what in heavens name does foriegn ownership have to do with Defense. Its the same politics that links all the same groups together including TSA and the DOT and the FAA. SAME BOSS!
Quoting mayor (Reply 18): And, on a final note......why bring the NRA into this? It has absolutely nothing to do with this subject.
Mirro vs. Macro.
Because it makes a point that nothing is as it appears. If we do not understand that the government is Political and not working towards what is needed then I think we need a loud wake up call. We need LaHood to drive decisions on the 1000% B787 or the A350 battery as much as we need assault rifles. Neither make a lick of sense.
So lets get back to the original question, what brain power does the FAA/DOT have to tell Boeing about how to design an aircraft system? MOL is right, the Government doesn't present anything other than a bureaucratic roadblock. If they had the expertise they would be a manufacturer and not Government!
So if the Government is so good, as claimed. Where is their plan to fix the problem? Why can't they tell us what happened, why can't they give us the solution? So what do they do, spend weeks reading a plan supplied by Boeing and then they eventually grab the "APPROVED" stamp and on we go with a 10 to 15 week roadblock time wise. Where is the added value we get from politics?
The Government dabbles in a million things and accomplishes little at best.
But we can still buy an assault rifle because they can not even solve that problem. So how in heavens name can they fix an engineering problem that requires specific skills if they cannot fix any of the thousands of problems they are supposed to fix as well?
Micro vs. Macro. Which are you looking at?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
He doesn't seem like an idiot,he is basically trolling you and plenty of others.Sure aren't we here entertaining his pr.
We all know whats going on here.
bhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (3 months 15 hours ago) and read 5546 times:
billreid..the battery in an enclosed space was on frikken FIRE!!!! And the investigation is still not done on the actual engineering and testing that may have been dodgy....
Yeah, it all the regulators' fault.....
Do you own any Goldman Sachs stock? The CEO of that "company" does not like regulations either....
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1007 posts, RR: 1 Reply 57, posted (3 months 15 hours ago) and read 5493 times:
billreid, if you're not trolling, then you need to go see your doctor. I think your medication needs to be adjusted. And don't forget to put your tinfoil hat back on before you go outside.
Quoting cc2314 (Reply 55): He doesn't seem like an idiot,he is basically trolling you and plenty of others.Sure aren't we here entertaining his pr.
We all know whats going on here.
Exactly. While there are many things I would call O'Leary (most of which would probably get my post deleted), idiot is not among them. He's very smart, and he knows exactly what he is doing. It's a calculated game on his part. It's the same thing Richard Branson does all the time, except Branson stops short of being vulgar. O'Leary happily goes there, time and time again.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
pvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 571 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (3 months 14 hours ago) and read 5433 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 54): So lets get back to the original question, what brain power does the FAA/DOT have to tell Boeing about how to design an aircraft system?
What is your suggestion then? No regulation of airplane design at all? Some private companies doing the certification process?
Government should ALWAYS have control over things like aviation safety, healthcare safety etc. History has very well shown that you can't trust safety entirely on hands of private companies, their goal is to make money as well as they can, and unfortunately that goal usually goes over human life if there's no government to make sure that these companies do not cut from safety.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 61, posted (3 months 14 hours ago) and read 5368 times:
Again several people including the OP didn't follow the saga closely enough. One thing some us learned of it is that MANUFACTURERS HAVE A HUGE INFLUENCE ON CERTIFICATION. The regulators don't just say "follow my rules and don't try anything new". Lithium-Ion batteries were considered and new rules made for them, with input from all concerned. At no point did Boeing seem to be unhappy with the result, and if they found the rules too harsh, well, that would be scary considering they didn't even work !
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49): The FAA is a monopoly on safety standards, and i doubt anyone here would argue that monopolies are good.
A national monopoly only. If the FAA does something foolish pertaining to planes that will fly everywhere, other regulators will surely intervene, including if they want to put a rule considered too stringent that would cause trouble to non US manufacturers, not just Boeing.
Aside from that, in my country many are for monopolies, state monopolies that is.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9273 posts, RR: 13 Reply 62, posted (3 months 14 hours ago) and read 5344 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 54): Why bring in TSA is because they are run by the EXACT same people as the FAA or the DOT or the FDA or the CIA or the FBI and 100000000 other Government agencies. It is the politics. Take this a step further ..... isn't it the DOD. Department of Defense that establishes the airline foreign ownership laws, so we should ask what in heavens name does foriegn ownership have to do with Defense. Its the same politics that links all the same groups together including TSA and the DOT and the FAA. SAME BOSS!
No, it IS NOT the DOD that establishes the foreign ownership laws. Those were esablished by congress when they passed them and they are probably administered by the DOT or the DOJ, but I'm not sure of which one. So, you just answered your own question, in a backhanded way......the DOD has NOTHING to do with it.
The TSA has no mandate to regulate aircraft safety......that is the job of the DOT and FAA.
And as far as who runs the government, it is indeed those people, on behalf of "We the People".
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
RomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 497 posts, RR: 1 Reply 63, posted (3 months 14 hours ago) and read 5279 times:
Quoting pvjin (Reply 59): What is your suggestion then? No regulation of airplane design at all? Some private companies doing the certification process?
I don't think i'd go that far. But you speak as if airlines have no incentive to prevent crashes and that the government is able to calculate the millions of variables that go into safety cost/benefit decisions and successfully choose the right level and kinds of regulation.
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1007 posts, RR: 1 Reply 64, posted (3 months 13 hours ago) and read 5231 times:
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63): I don't think i'd go that far. But you speak as if airlines have no incentive to prevent crashes and that the government is able to calculate the millions of variables that go into safety cost/benefit decisions and successfully choose the right level and kinds of regulation.
That is of course, a ridiculous notion.
It is absolutely not a ridiculous notion. The idea behind having a regulator is to have an independent check on what those directly involved are doing. It would be great if we could simply trust businesses to always do the right thing, even if the right thing could mean less profit. Unfortunately, we have seen time and time again that that is wishful thinking at best and gross negligence at worst. You need to have some form of auditing and arbitration to keep people honest, and the government fulfills this function very well for the most part. If you have a better solution, let's hear it.
Think of this way - in sports, referees may occasionally make the wrong call, but for the most part we're better off having them than not having them. (And by the way, I don't mean to say that the 787 grounding was the wrong call - quite the opposite, I think it was the safest choice.)
[Edited 2013-03-20 12:50:58]
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
RomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 497 posts, RR: 1 Reply 65, posted (3 months 13 hours ago) and read 5152 times:
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 64): It would be great if we could simply trust businesses to always do the right thing, even if the right thing could mean less profit.
You are suggesting that it is profitable to crash planes and kill people. It simply isn't. Please note that JL and NH pulled the flights voluntarily.
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 64): It is absolutely not a ridiculous notion.
It is ridiculous, though you've got to make sure you're reading what i'm saying here. I'm saying it is impossible for a person or a group of people to calculate and set a level of safety based on the cost benefit analysis of safety procedures as well as calculating the population's individual regards to safety themselves. I mean by virtue of the fact that different people are willing to take different risks it is impossible to make one determination to fit all.
Personally i would get on a 787, even now. Nobody has actually been killed yet in 50,000 flight hours.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 66, posted (3 months 13 hours ago) and read 5101 times:
Well since nobody can calculate it (again, the 787 saga suggests many probabilities are in fact calculated as part of certification) then a relatively independent body will err on the side of caution, and I'm sure the ultimate customer is fine with that. Everything costs a lot in designing and operating an airplane, yet we see that at the end of the day you can both have safe and cheap flights, so things are working out pretty well.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1007 posts, RR: 1 Reply 67, posted (3 months 12 hours ago) and read 4943 times:
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65): You are suggesting that it is profitable to crash planes and kill people. It simply isn't. Please note that JL and NH pulled the flights voluntarily.
No, I am not. I am suggesting that it may be more profitable for Boeing to skimp on its testing programs. And that it may be more profitable for airlines to fly an aircraft they are 99% sure is safe, rather than let it sit on the ground while that safety margin is pushed up by several orders of magnitude.
The point is this - if business can get away with skimping on safety, they will do so if it saves them money in the short term. It may - and probably will - bite them in the @$$ in the long run, but today's business culture sadly does not think long-term term anymore. It's all about meeting this quarter's profitability targets, and then we'll see about next quarter. Hardly anyone thinks years down the road anymore.
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65): It is ridiculous, though you've got to make sure you're reading what i'm saying here. I'm saying it is impossible for a person or a group of people to calculate and set a level of safety based on the cost benefit analysis of safety procedures as well as calculating the population's individual regards to safety themselves. I mean by virtue of the fact that different people are willing to take different risks it is impossible to make one determination to fit all.
Personally i would get on a 787, even now. Nobody has actually been killed yet in 50,000 flight hours.
Wow, that's ever so comforting. No one's been killed yet, and the plane has been up in the air for what adds up less than six years on a single airframe. Wonderful, let's give Boeing a frickin' medal for the awesome job they did!
But before that, let's focus on the fact that an event that they said would happen once every 10 million flight hours happened not once but TWICE in 50,000 flight hours. Clearly something went very wrong, and I would prefer to have the problem sorted out without putting lives at risk. Yes, no one was killed during previous incidents, but who knows what would have happened if either event had happened in the middle of an ocean, hours away from the diversion alternate.
You said it yourself, crashing aircraft is not profitable. How profitable do you think it would be for Boeing if one of their brand new airplanes went down in flames over the Pacific whilst trying to reach an airport? It might not have happened, but aviation regulators the world over decided not to let businesses take that risk. Rightly so, in my opinion. Better safe than sorry.
And personally, I wouldn't get on a 787 right now. Not until regulators are satisfied with whatever fix Boeing comes up with.
Oh, and one other thing: read the article I linked to in Reply 42. You will probably find it very interesting.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 68, posted (3 months 10 hours ago) and read 4800 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 54): So if the Government is so good, as claimed. Where is their plan to fix the problem?
If you gave the problem to the engineers at the FAA Certification Branch, they'd solve it, and they'd solve it well. But it's not their responsibility. The taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for Boeing's mistake. Boeing comes up with a fix, and the FAA engineers review it to make sure it'll be effective and then sign off on it. That's how the process works.
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65): Personally i would get on a 787, even now.
I would fly on one as well, but only over land. Any more than 45 minutes from a suitable diversion airport would be out of the question.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4290 posts, RR: 4 Reply 71, posted (3 months 10 hours ago) and read 4771 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 54): Why bring in TSA is because they are run by the EXACT same people as the FAA or the DOT or the FDA or the CIA or the FBI and 100000000 other Government agencies.
No. If you actually studied what the government did instead of just spouting uninformed, knee-jerk anti-government rants, you'd see just how wrong that is.
Quoting billreid (Reply 54): isn't it the DOD. Department of Defense that establishes the airline foreign ownership laws, so we should ask what in heavens name does foriegn ownership have to do with Defense.
No, that would be Congress, via the Air Commerce Act of 1926 and subsequent legislation. DOD has nothing to do with it.
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 57): I think your medication needs to be adjusted.
[Edited 2013-03-20 16:13:30]
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 51 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (3 months 8 hours ago) and read 4596 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 4): Quoting billreid (Thread starter):
Right to you MOL!
Lucky for the rest of the flying public not many people agree with you or MOL. I have absolutely no problem with the regulators erroring on the side of caution.
MOL is spot on. Bureacracy gone made. Next you'll be telling us that the joke called the TSA is a good thing.
MOL is brilliant at milking the media for free publicity.
One minute he says we'll charge to use the toilets, or take out the toilets, or have standing only fares. Media runs with it for weeks.
Then he comes & & says not going to charge for toilets & media runs with it again.
No such thing as bad publicity ever.
[Edited 2013-03-20 18:34:52]
& beleive Ryanair are making lots of money, unlike many of it's competitors so they must be doing a lot right.
SYDAIRPORTS From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 51 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4145 times:
In light of what MOL said in interview about 738 over 320, why wouldn't Ryanair want the 739ER with 215 seats, compared to the 738 with 189 ? Or does his order allow for changes to 739ER ?
Surely this would also decrease per seat costs, without introducing another type (another subtype yes, but surely lots of commonality)
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3045 posts, RR: 2 Reply 74, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4117 times:
"Regulatory Crap" has provided a regime where flying is so safe that despite the huge increase in flights and passengers hull losses and passenger fatalities continue to decline.
Much has been said in this thread regarding the technical ability of "government pen pushers" In the main its not their technical ability they are employed for. Their job is to see that the manufacturers have a documented system for ensuring that their designs are safe and fit for purpose, the system then depends on the integrity of the designers and testers to fill the forms in correctly.
Unless the situation has changed recently I believe that Boeings engineers have said that they can't presently identify why the battery fires occurred. Thats being truthful, which then has a consequence as the paper trail for the approval has a hole in it. The regulators would be looking for fire - cause - solution. a nice closed case.
The problem here is that the press like gobby leprechauns and their ilk, as the rubbish they spout makes instant headlines
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1007 posts, RR: 1 Reply 75, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3921 times:
Quoting SYDAIRPORTS (Reply 76): In light of what MOL said in interview about 738 over 320, why wouldn't Ryanair want the 739ER with 215 seats, compared to the 738 with 189 ? Or does his order allow for changes to 739ER ?
Surely this would also decrease per seat costs, without introducing another type (another subtype yes, but surely lots of commonality)
For Ryanair, the problem with the 739 is that it requires an extra flight attendant. You need one flight attendant for every 50 seats or portion thereof, so the B739 needs 5 FAs rather than the B738's 4 FAs. Ryanair do pay their flight attendants peanuts, but still, it's an additional cost, and the fifth flight attendant is there because of only 26 additional seats which may not be worth it. I think what they would like to see is an aircraft with exactly 200 seats. Or 250.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
aerowrench From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3831 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 9):
I do not trust politics over engineering. But I suppose we could follow your lead and turn over everything to those Engineers at TSA and the FAA to run the country and everything we do every day, afterall they are the most intelligent and highest educated individuals in the nation.
Why would anyone work for Boeing or Airbus when they could work for the Government? B and A obviously only get third and fourth rate engineers, all the good ones obviously work for the DOT. Look the secretary of transport, LaHood is a highly educated mathematician who publicly stated planes shouldn't be in the air that are not 1000% safe. Knowing that we all go back to trains, that are also 1000% safe and cars which are far safer!
I like that perspective that the real smart ones don't work for the designers and manufacturers, but instead they are the politicians.
I presume you similarly believe the NRA is "Only" interested in your rights and has no interest in making money selling guns and ammunition? Its the same argument.
Nothing is what it appears. The FAA and DOT isn't qualified.
Or let me ask you this would you let the Secretary of Health operate on your partner, rather than a up to date qualified doctor? Might be a bad example, but do you really prefer politicians over professionals?
Beautiful, as if pulled right from Atlas Shrugged.
aerowrench From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3768 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 9):
I do not trust politics over engineering. But I suppose we could follow your lead and turn over everything to those Engineers at TSA and the FAA to run the country and everything we do every day, afterall they are the most intelligent and highest educated individuals in the nation.
Why would anyone work for Boeing or Airbus when they could work for the Government? B and A obviously only get third and fourth rate engineers, all the good ones obviously work for the DOT. Look the secretary of transport, LaHood is a highly educated mathematician who publicly stated planes shouldn't be in the air that are not 1000% safe. Knowing that we all go back to trains, that are also 1000% safe and cars which are far safer!
I like that perspective that the real smart ones don't work for the designers and manufacturers, but instead they are the politicians.
I presume you similarly believe the NRA is "Only" interested in your rights and has no interest in making money selling guns and ammunition? Its the same argument.
Nothing is what it appears. The FAA and DOT isn't qualified.
Or let me ask you this would you let the Secretary of Health operate on your partner, rather than a up to date qualified doctor? Might be a bad example, but do you really prefer politicians over professionals?
Beautiful, as if pulled right from Atlas Shrugged.
mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1647 posts, RR: 50 Reply 78, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3522 times:
1. Draw a big + on a piece of paper.
2. In the top left space write "Mandatory and unnecessary"
3. In the top right space write "Mandatory and necessary"
4. In the bottom left space write "Not mandatory and unnecessary"
5. In the bottom right space write "Not mandatory and necessary"
The truth is that there are aspects of aircraft design that fall into all these categories. There is a spectrum of severity, and a spectrum of regulatory "harshness". If you could plot each issue faced in the design and operation of an aircraft on that scale the points would be massively concentrated on the bottom half.
Even in a horribly over-regulated industry such as aviation there are still literally hundreds of thousands of design decisions made by designers and operators that are not strictly determined by a government rule. Like it or not, it is the people actually doing the work (designing airplanes, flying them, maintaining them) that keep you safe.
A regulatory state merely codifies old knowledge into law, and enforces it under the threat of force. Knowledge evolves much faster than law can, therefore the upper left of the spectrum gets continuously populated by outdated rules that have not been rescinded.
Technology forges ahead at accelerating pace, and fills the bottom right of that spectrum with potential issues that the government has not gotten around to arbitrating one way or the other. Like it or not, it is us (the people actually designing, flying, and servicing aircraft) that bring these issues to the attention of the government officials. Your life is in our hands.
Most people feel safer due to the regulatory state. That does not mean they actually are safer. The current status quo has bred a very bad mindset in large parts of the industry: the idea that "if it is certifiable, then it is safe". Trust me, you are far less safe under that mindset than you would be if each developer and operator felt fully responsible for their actions.
Whether you believe regulation is necessary or not, whether you believe airplanes are safer this way or not, as you look at that spectrum keep in mind that you are paying for the whole thing - the necessary and the unnecessary, all the way to the completely idiotic. With a nice government overhead on top. This pushes the costs of flying up, which in turn pushes people to less safe modes of transportation (cars, buses). This is the unseen effect of over-regulation. No one counts the lives lost in car accidents because people were driving much less safe cars instead of flying slightly less safe airplanes.
Also, O'Leary is an idiot. The 787 battery issue is a big deal.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 79, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3432 times:
I've never flown Ryanair but am considering them for a last minute trip next week because it's cheaper. However I would never consider it if there was no regulators to keep them in check, that's for sure !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
billreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2655 times:
Quoting pvjin (Reply 59): What is your suggestion then? No regulation of airplane design at all? Some private companies doing the certification process?
Business cannot afford accidents. The cost is too high. If the Gov is wrong what is the cost to them? Therefore logically the risk of being wrong is a quantum greater for Boeing than the Government that only makes noise and nothing else.
MOL understands this and anyone who deals with both business and the Government understands this.
To quote the former President of UPS Airlines. Government makes the rules and business figures out how to circumvent thase rules because those rules are usually 24 to 36 months behind industry.
If you recall 9/11 both AA and UA made the decision to ground all Aircraft not the DOT or the FAA. After they were informed by the two airlines they then put out an order 20 minutes later. The proof there is that business to care of business, but the head of the DOT later stated that they put out the order because they couldn't accept any responsibility for further catastrophes. The point being there was no need for the FAA/DOT because they were 20 minutes behind those with REAL responsibility.
Source Wall Street Journal.
Government should ALWAYS have control over things like aviation safety, healthcare safety etc. History has very well shown that you can't trust safety entirely on hands of private companies, their goal is to make money as well as they can, and unfortunately that goal usually goes over human life if there's no government to make sure that these companies do not cut from safety.
Quoting mayor (Reply 62): No, it IS NOT the DOD that establishes the foreign ownership laws. Those were esablished by congress when they passed them and they are probably administered by the DOT or the DOJ, but I'm not sure of which one. So, you just answered your own question, in a backhanded way......the DOD has NOTHING to do with it.
Interesting comment. Who do you think tells the lawmakers what to write?
No you are right the lawmakers design everything ever made. In fact I believe your representative/congressman was the true designer of aircraft, Tax laws, Medical Science, Space Stations, Submarines, everything possible! No concept here of bureaucrats telling lawmakers what to make law. The Lawmakers came up wiith everything while drinking a martini and designing the next vehicle to go to mars.
Known fact that the ownership laws were written by the DOD and passed into law by congress.
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 64): Think of this way - in sports, referees may occasionally make the wrong call, but for the most part we're better off having them than not having them. (And by the way, I don't mean to say that the 787 grounding was the wrong call - quite the opposite, I think it was the safest choice.)
How many people have lost their lives directly from a bad call at a game?
Bad analogy.
Money talks and the risk of failure with the B787 is a billion times greater than to the DOT or FAA. (They have virtually no skin in the game)
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65): You are suggesting that it is profitable to crash planes and kill people. It simply isn't. Please note that JL and NH pulled the flights voluntarily.
You get it. I like those who can think this through!
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 67): No, I am not. I am suggesting that it may be more profitable for Boeing to skimp on its testing programs. And that it may be more profitable for airlines to fly an aircraft they are 99% sure is safe, rather than let it sit on the ground while that safety margin is pushed up by several orders of magnitude.
Of course Boeing or Airbus will NEVER take that type of risk. The shareholders which include management would not accept that level of risk. Everyone at Boeing believes the bird is safe so prove it isn't. From a financial perspective Boeing will work to fix its problems because it is in its best interest to sell a safe product. In contrast an unsafe product would be disastrous to the company.
If the government is wrong then what is the cost to them?
Lets see, lower taxes collected ..... Nope.
Well then whats in it for them? Oh, I got it, NOTHING AT ALL.
So who should we trust more ........ A bureaucrat who has no reason to be correct OR a company that could go upside down?
Damn, MOL also sees that.
And incidentally, Boeing has worked quite well for MOL, thank you very much!
Quoting Mir (Reply 68): If you gave the problem to the engineers at the FAA Certification Branch, they'd solve it, and they'd solve it well. But it's not their responsibility. The taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for Boeing's mistake. Boeing comes up with a fix, and the FAA engineers review it to make sure it'll be effective and then sign off on it. That's how the process works.
You are serious?
Who do you believe we have in Washington to do this?
I missed the press release announcing the hiring of 20,000 new engineers for the NTSB this year, because according to your statement they have more engineering power than Boeing or Airbus....... they obviously just don't use it.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 71): No. If you actually studied what the government did instead of just spouting uninformed, knee-jerk anti-government rants, you'd see just how wrong that is.
Where is your data? Oops, none at all.
The Government doesn't design a darn thing, they are supposed to regulate. So how do they do this because the systems are far and far too complex for a small office to begin to understand. It cost billions to design the next generation aircraft from Airbus and Boeing and Embraer and Canadair etc, etc. Where is the expertise to go through the designs within the Governments.
In short MOL and others understand that the Government doesn't have the resources to begin to evaluate what the large manufacturers design, its cost prohibitive. So all they can do is look over the shoulder and try to steer clear of blame if something goes wrong.
MOL buys aircraft from Boeing because they tell him it is safe and he understands Boeing can not afford to not be safe. The same applies to every airline. If we believe for one minute that any airline believes that the safety is a result of the government then we are living in a glass house.
If we believe that any airline CEO would take the word of the Government over the word of the manufacturer we are out of touch with basic economics.
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 74): Because the then-President refused to read anything but the Bible (including intelligence reports).
Perhaps 9/11 is a prime example of Government not working well and eliminating problems before they occur.
Governments are "reactionary" not pro-active.
Look, the underwear bombers father told the US Government that his son was crazy and would try to do something. So what did the government do ....... The let him board an aircraft headed for DTW. The point is the Gov once again failed to react to a situation they knew was coming. So eventually industry installed new equipment costing billions globally as a result of the FBI, State Department and TSA not being able to communicate. I repeat industry has paid billions as a result of this Dereliction Of Duty.
So if this is the case then how can we look at Government being anything other than reactionary on the B787, and adding NIL value what-so-ever??
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
Kaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2587 posts, RR: 24 Reply 82, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 25): the FAA (by following the lead of the Japanese authorities rather than following their own procedures) has done immense damage to Boeing.
Why do you keep repeating this when you've been corrected on at least 3 other threads?
NH and JL voluntarily grounded their own fleets, then the FAA issued a grounding AD, and then JAA and EASA followed suit.
Repeating an untruth over and over does not make it true.
L410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5411 posts, RR: 18 Reply 83, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
I am certainly glad that it is not O'Learys of this world who defining safety standards in civil aviation.
Quoting billreid (Reply 85):
MOL buys aircraft from Boeing because they tell him it is safe and he understands Boeing can not afford to not be safe. The same applies to every airline. If we believe for one minute that any airline believes that the safety is a result of the government then we are living in a glass house.
What prevents MOL from cramming 300 people into a 738 regardless of any safety implications this idea may have? Boeing it is not...
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 84, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
Quoting aerowrench (Reply 79): Beautiful, as if pulled right from Atlas Shrugged.
Yes, the poisonous woman who wrote that, who also alienated just about everyone she ever knew as well, ended up living on the sort of social assistance programs she deemed so evil.
Ironically, many in the US who follow her creed also call themselves 'christians', they are clearly not too bright for Rand's ideas sound a lot like satanism. Or they they use that fig leaf to try and justify their essential rottenness.
There is a link to MOL here, as Boondog pointed out, this terrible regulation has made flying so safe, even as it expands, Ryanair is of course a beneficiary of this.
I could suggest that perhaps he gets too easy a ride in the media, his always stupid missives not being challenged. But I've seen this done and all he does is get even more offensive and literally, runs away from the questioner.
The only time I can recall that maybe the regulators might have been over cautious, was during the Icelandic volcano episode in 2010.
But who did the work to gather more evidence to change this.
Not Ryanair (nor Branson either), it was those terrible ex state run airlines like LH, BA, KLM.
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1007 posts, RR: 1 Reply 85, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2309 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 88): Not Ryanair (nor Branson either), it was those terrible ex state run airlines like LH, BA, KLM.
And before them, it was the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), the German Aerospace Center, who sent up the first yet aircraft to test the skies.
They are - horror of horrors - a government-funded research institution!
Unlike some posters upthread would have you believe, you cannot leave everything in the hands of the market. I suggest you all open up your Economics textbooks and read the chapters on Market Failure. Aviation safety is a market where Market Failure is almost certain to happen, and when it does, it can have disastrous consequences. The point of safety regulations is to draw a line at which the envelope has been pushed enough.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
The FAA can't choose the right level of safety to suit everyone of significant proportions of the population because they are a monopoly, there is no one level because people are different and are willing and/or able to take different risks. I would still be willing to fly the 787, others are not.
Comparing the west to the poorest country in the world is ridiculous and just show you don't understand the market dynamics, Congo can't afford the levels of safety we enjoy in the west. People value getting from A to B safely, but safety costs money. The consumer should decide at what point the level of risk is not worth the price - a monopolistic regulator is very unlikely to get it right, just like it's unlikely to be able to set the right price of beer, or the right interest rates (in fact it's spectacularly bad at doing this). If the FAA was massively truncated airlines would naturally find the correct level of safety that consumers want because believe it or not, few people are willing to fly an airline that crashes a lot of planes.
There is a simple engineering criteria - one human life costs a few million dollars, sometimes they say 3M, sometimes 5-10M.
Anyway, it is pretty easy to estimate how harsh regulators should be: if it costs $1B to prevent one widebody crash and safe 200 lives, it is close to breakeven.
Given that entire 787 program did cost $15B or so - most of those are not spent on regulatory requirements - probably FAA is not overly harsh doing their job.
RomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 497 posts, RR: 1 Reply 87, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2259 times:
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 89): I suggest you all open up your Economics textbooks and read the chapters on Market Failure. Aviation safety is a market where Market Failure is almost certain to happen, and when it does, it can have disastrous consequences.
It's no good pompously telling people to go and read about economics and not actually explaining the mechanism as to why market failure would occur.
That is just an admission that you don't know why, and don't want to defend the point.
The idea that market failure would occur is nonsensical. Go back hundreds of years, was travelling by boat safe? Of course not, it was extremely dangerous. But did that prevent a thriving shipping industry? No.
Go back 70 odd years, was flying anywhere near as safe as it is today? No, but was there market failure in the airline industry? Of course not.
Do people like dying today? No. So people will be willing to pay a premium for an airline with a reputable safety record. Airlines will be incentivised to offer safety, just like they're incentivised to offer good seating products with low fuel consumption for cheaper tickets. Not only that but a plane crash is extremely expensive in terms of equipment loss - and therefore insurance - and compensation payouts.
In fact by introducing imposing regulations you are creating inefficiencies because you are dictating to people how much they should value their safety. Many people may be happy to sacrifice safety for cheaper tickets and thus the resources gone to ensuring better safety have been wasted.
JimJupiter From Germany, joined Sep 2011, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 88, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91): Many people may be happy to sacrifice safety for cheaper tickets and thus the resources gone to ensuring better safety have been wasted.
It should not be the customer's obligation to obtain a degree in engineering first, to enable him to evaluate the risks he/she might take with his/her choice of an airline ticket. It's the regulatory bodies that create the "customer" and allow the market to function properly.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 12): The man's an idiot. He's one of the main benefactors of the regulator's vigilance over the years. No one would insure his planes never mind fly on them if it weren't for their work over the years
RomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 497 posts, RR: 1 Reply 89, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2190 times:
Quoting JimJupiter (Reply 92): It should not be the customer's obligation to obtain a degree in engineering first, to enable him to evaluate the risks he/she might take with his/her choice of an airline ticket.
Yeah the customer shouldn't be obliged to think.
I don't need a politics degree to know it's not a good idea to go on holiday in Iraq. Poor airlines will be weeded out and go bankrupt and if it was so hard, rating agencies would apply their own impartial assessments. Just like how companies in other industries get voluntarily audited by 3rd parties to gain selling point to customers.
If there is a demand for airline safety, it will be satisfied.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9273 posts, RR: 13 Reply 91, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 87): What prevents MOL from cramming 300 people into a 738 regardless of any safety implications this idea may have? Boeing it is not...
Probably the laws of physics keep him from doing that, but it is certainly Boeing that provides the engineering data to the airline so they can write up the weight and balance figures for each aircraft. The regulators have no hand in that. All the regulators want is to make sure that the airline is DOING the weight and balance properly.
Quoting GDB (Reply 88): I could suggest that perhaps he gets too easy a ride in the media, his always stupid missives not being challenged.
Perhaps, it is because, in this day and age, the media isn't all that knowledgeable about the subjects that they're reporting on, so they don't know HOW to dispute what he says or even that they should.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
flyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 624 posts, RR: 0 Reply 92, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
What would MOL know about it? Ryan Air has never flown an all new aircraft type. The 737 was decades old when Ryan Air started buying them.
JValjean From Belgium, joined Mar 2013, 47 posts, RR: 1 Reply 93, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2107 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 92): in this day and age, the media isn't all that knowledgeable about the subjects that they're reporting on, so they don't know HOW to dispute what he says or even that they should.
What's new about the media being largely ignorant about the subject they're reporting on? It's been the case since the dawn of mass media in the Nineteenth Century.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9273 posts, RR: 13 Reply 94, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2048 times:
Quoting JValjean (Reply 95): Quoting mayor (Reply 92):
in this day and age, the media isn't all that knowledgeable about the subjects that they're reporting on, so they don't know HOW to dispute what he says or even that they should.
What's new about the media being largely ignorant about the subject they're reporting on? It's been the case since the dawn of mass media in the Nineteenth Century.
I think perhaps that it's more noticeable and obvious nowadays, considering how we receive our news, now.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1917 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 92): Probably the laws of physics keep him from doing that, but it is certainly Boeing that provides the engineering data to the airline so they can write up the weight and balance figures for each aircraft. The regulators have no hand in that. All the regulators want is to make sure that the airline is DOING the weight and balance properly.
Nonsense. Regulators also define safety, egress, seating crash resistance, oxygen, medical kits, and other such restrictions. If you think an airline can physically just cram in people into the tube without taking into account all of these factors into account, you are dead wrong.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9273 posts, RR: 13 Reply 96, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 97): Nonsense. Regulators also define safety, egress, seating crash resistance, oxygen, medical kits, and other such restrictions. If you think an airline can physically just cram in people into the tube without taking into account all of these factors into account, you are dead wrong.
Please read carefully, what I said.........I was talking about the WEIGHT & BALANCE of the a/c, nothing more. Where you got the rest of that, that you have attributed to me, God only knows. Again......the regulators have no hand in the weight and balance figures.......those come from the manufacturer. Now, the regulators, specifically the FAA, wants to make sure that the airline is doing the weight and balance properly, for sure.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3998 posts, RR: 4 Reply 97, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
My view is that there is no evidence that the system in place would not have worked. As for the NTSB bureauocrat who pontificates about being 1000% sure, I say to him/her if you really mean this you should pull the operating certificate or whatever it is called on every commercial airliner type operating in the USA. Of course being NTSB you can say what you like, it is not your decision.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1841 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 98): Please read carefully, what I said.........I was talking about the WEIGHT & BALANCE of the a/c, nothing more. Where you got the rest of that, that you have attributed to me, God only knows.
Well, L410Turbolet had written:
"What prevents MOL from cramming 300 people into a 738 regardless of any safety implications this idea may have? Boeing it is not..."
To which you responded:
"Probably the laws of physics keep him from doing that, but it is certainly Boeing that provides the engineering data to the airline so they can write up the weight and balance figures for each aircraft. The regulators have no hand in that. All the regulators want is to make sure that the airline is DOING the weight and balance properly."
To which I wrote:
"Nonsense. Regulators also define safety, egress, seating crash resistance, oxygen, medical kits, and other such restrictions. If you think an airline can physically just cram in people into the tube without taking into account all of these factors into account, you are dead wrong.".
EIDL From Ireland, joined Apr 2012, 222 posts, RR: 0 Reply 99, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1799 times:
Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 94): What would MOL know about it? Ryan Air has never flown an all new aircraft type. The 737 was decades old when Ryan Air started buying them.
They got the ATR42 relatively early in its service life, compared to how late after introduction they got the 1-11s/737s/etc.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8497 posts, RR: 42 Reply 100, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1800 times:
Quoting JimJupiter (Reply 91): By planes dropping from the sky? No, thanks. I'll stay in my socialist wonder land then. You enjoy.
An airline that does not maintain it's aircraft properly is going to have a host of other issues unrelated to accidents, like poor aircraft reliability, low on-time performance and inability to actually complete flights. For that matter, in an industry where airlines demand 99.99% reliability out of their aircraft, you have to wonder if an airline with the aforementioned problems could even remain economically viable.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1788 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 102): An airline that does not maintain it's aircraft properly is going to have a host of other issues unrelated to accidents, like poor aircraft reliability, low on-time performance and inability to actually complete flights
And planes dropping from the sky (which could happen at any time given the above scenario). Not too many would drop out of the skies though, as they'd be shut down soon enough. But why wait for that?
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9273 posts, RR: 13 Reply 102, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1756 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 100): To which I wrote:
"Nonsense. Regulators also define safety, egress, seating crash resistance, oxygen, medical kits, and other such restrictions. If you think an airline can physically just cram in people into the tube without taking into account all of these factors into account, you are dead wrong.".
Which I WAS NOT talking about........I was referring to WEIGHT & BALANCE, only. Of course the regulators are involved in all those other things. Do I look like I just fell off the turnip truck? I HAVE done weight & balance on 737s, 727s and 757s, so I AM familiar with these things.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 103, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1714 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 104): Which I WAS NOT talking about........I was referring to WEIGHT & BALANCE, only. Of course the regulators are involved in all those other things. Do I look like I just fell off the turnip truck? I HAVE done weight & balance on 737s, 727s and 757s, so I AM familiar with these things.
Then you clearly either did not understand the point L410 was making, or you intentionally gave a disingenuous response. I don't think there is any ambiguity about his point, nor for your response which implied regulators would have no say in how many people can be crammed into an aircraft, that only the laws of physics would. Before you went into your tanget about weight and balance.
I think it's fair to say that's just a high level of alarmism. Not too discimilar to politicians attempting to invoke fear that the FAA may have to shutdown "hundreds" of ATC Towers around the country. Sounds pretty scary, but it ain't that big of a deal.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9273 posts, RR: 13 Reply 105, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1557 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 105): Before you went into your tanget about weight and balance.
Tangent?? My reply was entirely about weight and balance.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 107): I'm pretty sure there are many regulations about weight & balance. If you have a few pounds more than allowed too aft (or over the MTOW) nothing will happen. So what's to prevent a manufacturer from pushing the boundaries, after all if the aircraft crashes because of incorrect weight & balance it wouldn't be their fault ?
What would be the purpose for the manufacturer to go beyond the boundaries? Does the airline have no responsibility of how they load it?
[Edited 2013-03-23 18:16:19]
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 106, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 108): What would be the purpose for the manufacturer to go beyond the boundaries? Does the airline have no responsibility of how they load it?
Well airlines are always happy to put heavy stuff (be it first class suites or cargo) wherever on the floor/holds. I'm saying that there is a safety margin, and that's where regulations are crucial, to keep it wide enough.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 852 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4743 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 109 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6390 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2012, 81 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 25118 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2349 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 237 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, 
From UK - England, joined May 2011, 21 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1030 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2755 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2000, 1123 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1734 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1091 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2013, 47 posts, 
From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1634 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 571 posts, 
If you actually studied what the government did instead of just spouting uninformed, knee-jerk anti-government rants, you'd see just how wrong that is.
From Australia, joined Mar 2013, 51 posts, 
From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5411 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11350 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
