JonesNL wrote:flipdewaf wrote:It seems that like the 779X fuselage blowout its the media and the opposing fanboys sensationalising it, no doubt we'll see it pop up on simple flying and verovenia next week as the most important news this century.
Like clockwork, there is already an article on Verovenia...
Yes, and pointing this out only generates more clicks for such sites.
FluidFlow wrote:Revelation wrote:FluidFlow wrote:Boeing raised two concerns, both got dismissed.
I think the word you are looking for is "agreed", not "dismissed". Check your PDFs, that's the word you will find in the "EASA comment disposition" column. In essence the comments were deemed redundant rather than incorrect.
You are right. As English is not my mother tongue I sometimes lack the vocabulary. EASA already addressed the concerns from Boeing in their assessment so the comments from Boeing were already implemented into the certification criteria.
Your written English skills are so good I didn't even think it could be an issue of language skills. I still think it's important to note that EASA was in agreement with Boeing's concerns, even if they found them to be already covered via the chosen certification criteria.
zeke wrote:Opus99 wrote:I guess Boeing is hoping Airbus will take some time to prove their design meets the special condition? I mean I’ve seen Boeing’s input does not change the special condition but my thing is won’t Airbus have known this from jump also?
I fail to see how you can turn this into an AvB thread when literally it’s Airbus seeking certification of an existing airframe, this has nothing to do with Boeing.
The only murky bit I see is the comment came from a person whose title is "Director, Global Regulatory Strategy, The Boeing Company". It is a fairly innocuous sounding technocratic title, but it'd a bit less murky if the word "Strategy" wasn't in their title. Yet, as I wrote earlier, this is all a tempest in a teapot.