Guest reader Posted July 8, 2024 Posted July 8, 2024 From Washington Post Boeing agreed on Sunday to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the government in a case linked to crashes of its 737 Max jets in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people — a stunning turn for the aerospace giant after the Justice Department determined that Boeing failed to live up to terms of a 2021 deal to avoid prosecution. Prosecutors alleged that two Boeing pilots concealed key information from the Federal Aviation Administration about a new automated control system on the Max. The system was implicated in both crashes, causing uncontrollable dives. By agreeing to plead guilty to the single felony count just before a midnight deadline Sunday, the company will avoid going to trial in the high-profile case. The Justice Department filed documents related to the deal in federal court in Texas late Sunday night, setting up a planned hearing where family members — who have criticized the pending agreement — will be permitted to speak out. The court subsequently must decide whether to accept the plea agreement. Boeing had already agreed to $2.5 billion in penalties and payouts in 2021. As part of the new deal, the company will pay an additional $487.2 million in penalties, agree to oversight by an independent monitor, spend at least $455 million to strengthen compliance and safety programs and be placed on supervised probation for roughly three years, according to a Justice Department official. Quote
Keithambrose Posted July 8, 2024 Posted July 8, 2024 13 hours ago, reader said: From Washington Post Boeing agreed on Sunday to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the government in a case linked to crashes of its 737 Max jets in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people — a stunning turn for the aerospace giant after the Justice Department determined that Boeing failed to live up to terms of a 2021 deal to avoid prosecution. Prosecutors alleged that two Boeing pilots concealed key information from the Federal Aviation Administration about a new automated control system on the Max. The system was implicated in both crashes, causing uncontrollable dives. By agreeing to plead guilty to the single felony count just before a midnight deadline Sunday, the company will avoid going to trial in the high-profile case. The Justice Department filed documents related to the deal in federal court in Texas late Sunday night, setting up a planned hearing where family members — who have criticized the pending agreement — will be permitted to speak out. The court subsequently must decide whether to accept the plea agreement. Boeing had already agreed to $2.5 billion in penalties and payouts in 2021. As part of the new deal, the company will pay an additional $487.2 million in penalties, agree to oversight by an independent monitor, spend at least $455 million to strengthen compliance and safety programs and be placed on supervised probation for roughly three years, according to a Justice Department official. Sounds like Thailand! Quote
PeterRS2 Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago Since those crashes, even though millions have flown safely on the 737 Max jets, I vowed I would never fly on one. After all the inspections and re-certifications it may well be now the safest plane in the air. Or not. Hours ago the FAA issued an airworthiness directive ordering the inspection of 451 US-registered 737 jets for cracks in the body of the plane. Worryingy, the directive covers not only both versions of the 737 Max but also the older 737-800 model. Cracks were found on some planes in a structural reinforcement around the forward service door on the right side of the airplane, next to the front galley, the FAA said. But this is not the first time Boeing has been faced with structural cracking in the 737s. In 2019 another airworthiness directive was issued after some planes were found to have cracks in the component connecting the plane's fuselage to the wings. Yet, other aircraft have also been subject to checks for cracks, notably in the wings of the popular A380. I'll happily fly the A380 any day as it is a great aircraft. But I'll still never fly a 737 Max. And although I'll be on a 787 to Europe next month, I still have some concerns about the quality control issues on that aircraft. But it's not on my "no fly" list. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/06/us/faa-737-max-cracks And then what is still going wrong with Boeing's newest aircraft, the 777X? This was due to enter service in 2020 as a twin-engine replacement for the ageing 777 fleet but with a greater capacity. It has flown quite a few times during testing, but something wrong always seems to be found. Due to this huge delay, two of the first customers Lufthansa and Emirates have already declined to accept some of the first models due to enter service in mid-2027. Emirates has rejected 10 of its first 11 orders because they were actually built in 2019 and so many changes have been made since then. As to what should Boeing do with them? At the Farnborough Air Show last month Sir Tim Clark the Chairman of Emirates, one of the most respected airline Chairmen, jokingly suggested they could be used to make Heinz Baked Beans cans. Although Boeing has said the plane will finally be ready to enter service in mid-2027, Clark said months ago it is unlikely to be in the air with passengers before 2028. Yet Emirates remains the carrier with the largest 777X order book - 270. Total orders to date are 561 for the two passenger versions and 85 for the freighter version. So what Sir Tim Clark says about the plane is doubly important. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airlines-lessors/emirates-rejects-early-build-boeing-777xs Quote
floridarob Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago 1 hour ago, PeterRS2 said: I vowed I would never fly on one You've also vowed that you always carefully proofread every post you make.... You may want to give this one another careful proofread 🧐 The FAA says the directive affects 471 U.S.-registered aircraft, not 451. It applies to certain Boeing 737-8, 737-9 and 737-8200 aircraft. The 737-8200 is part of the MAX family, essentially the higher-capacity MAX 8 variant. It is not the older 737-800. So the claim that this directive also covers the older 737-800 comes from misreading the aircraft designation ✈️ The 777X section also needs correcting. Emirates has not rejected “10 of its first 11 orders.” It is refusing particular early-build airframes produced for the airline. The Aviation Week article you linked says the first 10, while another Aviation Week report describes the initial group as 10 or 11. Either way, they are aircraft, not “orders,” and they were not all built in 2019. Three were built in 2019, four in 2020 and three in 2021 📅 Sir Tim Clark is also the President of Emirates Airline, not its chairman. Emirates’ Chairman and Chief Executive is Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum. Boeing has plenty of genuine problems worth criticizing without confusing the 737-8200 with the 737-800, getting the number of affected aircraft wrong, calling early-build airframes “orders,” claiming they were all built in 2019 and giving Tim Clark the wrong job title 🤷♂️ And while we are carefully proofreading, it is spelled “worryingly,” not “Worryingy.” 😝 10tazione and khaolakguy 1 1 Quote
PeterRS2 Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago I am glad you are there to correct errors and add additional points not in the newspaper articles from which I quoted and which are included in my post. Thank you. unicorn 1 Quote
PeterRS2 Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago https://airinsight.com/lufthansa-joins-emirates-in-rejecting-early-build-777-9s/ Quote
floridarob Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 7 hours ago, PeterRS2 said: I am glad you are there to correct errors and add additional points not in the newspaper articles from which I quoted and which are included in my post. Thank you. Thank you for the new link. Ironically, it confirms the correction rather than your original wording..... AirInsight says Lufthansa is preparing to reject “some of the early-built 777-9 aircraft allocated to it” and that Emirates “already refused the first 10 777-9s built for its fleet.” It does not say Emirates rejected “10 of its first 11 orders.” Aircraft allocated to an airline and orders placed by an airline are not the same thing 🤷♂️ So I wasn’t merely “adding additional points not in the newspaper articles.” I was pointing out that what you wrote did not accurately reflect what the articles said 🧐 If you’re going to emphasize how carefully you proofread your posts, surely checking that your summary actually matches the source is part of the proofreading 😉 I guess the lesson is that mistakes are easy to make and nobody is perfect. Probably worth remembering the next time you get worked up wondering how someone could possibly post something without proofreading it first or tagging the wrong person. 😝 Quote
