In what industry has that happened? Is it worth considering its maybe not always ideal for companies to enter markets with minimal investments, cutting costs in safety, quality, labour, certification etc.? And of course the US could join the rest of the civilized world where your mentioned problems arent a concern.

(Written on 19/12/2019)(Permalink)

Im not sure what part the FDA has in regulating prices. But, I think they do in regulating drugs, their manufacture and who sells them. The government has done its part there. Now the government still needs to make sure regular people arent getting screwed over by corporations jacking up prices, or succumbing to lobbyist to keep healthcare away from people to allow pharmaceuticals, insurance companies and other private institutions that peddle healthcare at absurd costs to you. The governments job should be to protect its citizens, and sure it has in some ways, but in the US the fundamentals still lay in the hands of people and corps that look at profits over humans. Some people want that to change and some people are adamant that it doesnt, screaming socialism/communism at every turn, and we should all know what party those people belong to. Same people who advocate for deregulation of the FAA.

(Written on 17/12/2019)(Permalink)

All i can say is, watch the 787 documentary by Al Jazeera. Safety problems and FAA ineptitude and Boeing going full "profits over quality" all around. Dont take it from me, take it from Boeing safety and quality engineers. One of them said he waits on the day a 787 drops out of the sky...

(Written on 16/12/2019)(Permalink)

Uh... you just contradicted yourself as far as I know. If the 737 max needs a computer system to make it stable in certain aerodynamic situations, can you say it is aerodynamically stable? You mentioned how older versions were aerodynamically stable without the help of computers, so how can the 737 Max be if it needs MCAS? i think the point made by the original commenter was that the 737 MAX is indeed not stable unless it has a computer to aid it in some situations. Sure, level flight should be ok, but if there has to be a computer to aid it to not stall at takeoff, is that really not an unstable airplane? The F117 was inherently unstable unless aided by computers that made thousands of corrections to flight surfaces every second. Doesn't mean it wasn't flyable, it wasn't stable unless the computers worked. The 737 max can fly normally, but the engineers made a decision that it needed a system to push the nose down because it became unstable in certain situations in what i would con

(Written on 16/12/2019)(Permalink)

Good, as it should be. And as it should be in the aviation industry as well. Governments role is to make sure regular people arent getting screwed by corporations with money and power. Government is elected by the people, for the people.

(Written on 16/12/2019)(Permalink)

Listen, man, its only people like you who think its because shes mentally handicapped. Its your excuse to lambast her for taking a flight for speaking at the UN. Most people who heard of her never knew she had these conditions. Its irrelevant to why she was there. Its only now that you know who she is that youre saying that. Her story was that she wanted to raise awareness about climate change, organized a protest at her own school that caught attention. This attention caught worldwide attention. Thats why she was invited to speak, because she became the voice of thousands if not millions of chlidren protesting for lawmakers to make a change. Think about that for a second. You, and i mean you personally, caught on cause some social media influence taught you to believe she was only there cause she was ”a person with asbergers and funded by soros”. Jesus man, its unfathomable how gullible people are to this propaganda that tries to blacklist people, and blacklist a child who wanted to ge

(Written on 15/11/2019)(Permalink)

You just proved how stupid you all are. I never said anything about what youre commenting about. I realize the reality of the situation. I get it. Im not gona stop flying. The point is you people keep shitting on a 16 year old girl who is trying to raise AWARENESS. Its silly how many people dont realize that. And it seems all the replies to my comment prove that. Christ. Im not gona repeat myself, just take a good, critical, look at whats happening and get back to me...

(Written on 15/11/2019)(Permalink)

A bunch of old men yelling at a 16 year old girl trying to make the world a better place by doing pretty much the only thing she can in the face of governments and corporations unwilling to change themselves because of money. Calling her names, insulting her conditions, calling her a puppet, putting it all down as a conspiracy because youre too god damn dumb to draw any other conclusions. You all should take a good look in the mirror. Disgusting that the aviation community is filled with such narrow minded bigots like we see in the comments here. Sure we can accuse her of being hypocritical taking planes and all, but even the inventor of the combustion engine had to use horse and carriage to get around first. Its not about her, and shes said that mulitple times. Its about listening to scientist. Im sure the aviation community has the common sense to believe people who know what they are doing, given the nature of what pilots do for a living. You all should hang your heads in shame and i

(Written on 15/11/2019)(Permalink)

This is true, but that speaks of bad strategy making decissions on Boeings part. Again, it has nothing to do with Airbus. Airbus is the competition, but they have no part in what kind of product Boeing releases. Boeing should have made a replacement for the 737 30 years ago, and thats where they failed the first time. One could say the pressure to push out a product is what doomed boeing in this case, but it was also entirely their decission to fit these engines, install MCAS, get it inspected, change it after inspection and then circumvent the FAA to change it again, lobbying for more self regulation, ignoring engineers and pilots, and lying about it up to this day saying things like "its unfortunate our pilots said things like this about the MAX and were investigating what it really means". No Boeing, everyone and you know exactly what it means, you just dont want to hurt your ego and stock price. I understand the conflict here, Boeing felt pressure from Airbus product, sure. I ge

(Written on 25/10/2019)(Permalink)

Yeah, the symptom is isolated on Boeings side. Their inability to make a safe product and decision to use a 60 year old airframe in response to airbus' product, has nothing to do with airbus. Blaming the accidents on Boeing AND Airbus is the most absurd thing i have heard regarding this, or even correlating their competition to a god damn crash. Boeing and only Boeing is responsible for making the 737, and for its safety and reliability. If Boeing cant handle the pressure, thats on Boeing. And in that case they shouldnt release that product. It was Boeings reaction to the competition, they could have done something else, but they didnt. Ultimately no responsibility lies on Airbus to make sure Boeings products are safe, or vice-versa, in fact its quite impossible when you think about the trade secrets of both companies. I understand if youre a Boeing fan youre looking for scapegoats, and Airbus is just such a convenient one. But in this case they are nothing more than just that, a sca

(Written on 24/10/2019)(Permalink)