(01-10-2020 07:13 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  30 years of inflated test scores and pushing every idiot with iq above 85 through college and we build a ****** plane.

Im shocked. Just shocked

That's not the issue. This was a compromised aircraft because Boeing did not want to take the time to design an actual 737 replacement. Even since the switch to the CFM forward of wing engines, this planes design has been kit-bashed for almost 40 years.

Designed by clowns, managed by monkeys.

See it all the time. Young engineer wanting that stock option...sure boss, I can design that biplane to handle a ram jet.

We can talk about it at the save the porcupine benefit, drinks on me. My preferred pronouns are xe, xi.and schwa a.

My point stands

I just spilled mine with a full esophagus......don't do that shite again....

edit: invoice en route....

(01-10-2020 07:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 07:13 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  30 years of inflated test scores and pushing every idiot with iq above 85 through college and we build a ****** plane.

Im shocked. Just shocked

That's not the issue. This was a compromised aircraft because Boeing did not want to take the time to design an actual 737 replacement. Even since the switch to the CFM forward of wing engines, this planes design has been kit-bashed for almost 40 years.

Designed by clowns, managed by monkeys.

See it all the time. Young engineer wanting that stock option...sure boss, I can design that biplane to handle a ram jet.

We can talk about it at the save the porcupine benefit, drinks on me. My preferred pronouns are xe, xi.and schwa a.

My point stands

Well saying no will get you shown the door. But I put this on management because they knew from 737 NG experience that fitting even larger turbofans onto that aircraft would be a PITA. But Boeing lost $16B on the 787 development and the Airbus 320 NEO was a legit threat. So new development was out. Instead they gambled with what they figured would be a low investment high yield plan that crapped out.

the question then becomes, "by choice or not...."....

it's too fonzies when you have more than one and get to cornhole a few along the path to perdition....

the ol' adage, "don't burn bridges?" ..... yep, fk those dipshites too....

'nobody wins by sitting on their cods thinking it's a gem.....that's what va-jay jays do...."

(01-10-2020 06:01 PM)fsquid Wrote:  those emails will haunt the hell out of them when the civil cuits come in.

Yes.

Even if they were earlier in the process, you can't just brush them under the rug.

(01-10-2020 10:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 06:01 PM)fsquid Wrote:  those emails will haunt the hell out of them when the civil cuits come in.

Yes.

Even if they were earlier in the process, you can't just brush them under the rug.

unless your last name is Clinton....

(01-10-2020 07:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 07:13 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 05:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  30 years of inflated test scores and pushing every idiot with iq above 85 through college and we build a ****** plane.

Im shocked. Just shocked

That's not the issue. This was a compromised aircraft because Boeing did not want to take the time to design an actual 737 replacement. Even since the switch to the CFM forward of wing engines, this planes design has been kit-bashed for almost 40 years.

Designed by clowns, managed by monkeys.

See it all the time. Young engineer wanting that stock option...sure boss, I can design that biplane to handle a ram jet.

We can talk about it at the save the porcupine benefit, drinks on me. My preferred pronouns are xe, xi.and schwa a.

My point stands

Well saying no will get you shown the door. But I put this on management because they knew from 737 NG experience that fitting even larger turbofans onto that aircraft would be a PITA. But Boeing lost $16B on the 787 development and the Airbus 320 NEO was a legit threat. So new development was out. Instead they gambled with what they figured would be a low investment high yield plan that crapped out.

Well you also have passive aggressives who won't speak up and people who don't have courage to tell the boss he has no clothes. Of course there are Stalinist "emperors" who would immediately fire anyone who questioned them.

My brother-in-law tells of how he was ridiculed but kept pushing his point. He saw a flaw that would destroy a billion dollar project. In the end, they figured out he was right.

Had one boss who would go into a rage for any reason. Brilliant visionary, but unbelievably horrendous manager. Everyone was very careful talking around him. His top subordinates would simply ignore any stupid request until the 2nd or 3rd time. A lot of bad ideas got killed that way. Someone weaker would do it immediately.

This whole Boeing debacle is going to be a case study for years to come.

My aunt works in sourcing for them in Seattle, according to her it's just been a culture of putting out fires lately. I don't envy her.