Max

On 2/14/2024 at 8:02 PM, mike carey said:

Not good for the environment, but they have done the calculations here, and less green house gases are produced using coal to produce the electricity to charge an EV than an ICE vehicle would produce to travel the same distances using petroleum-based fuel. Of course the more green energy in your local power supply the less CO₂ your driving will produce.

 

 

I've read that the break even for full electric is at least a decade given the energy consumed to produce the battery, etc. We need more nuclear and to focus on fusion; once there, we'll need a lot more grid and storage, and then this will all make much more sense. Toyota has teased a 750 mile batter with a 10 minute charge time. Game changer if that becomes available. 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:18 PM, BenjaminNicholas said:

Would never, ever buy a Tesla.  Their fit and finish is kinda garbage.  Perhaps in another decade when they've ironed out a decent suspension and can fit together an interior without it rattling after 5k miles.

Now, having driven the new BMW full EVs, those are something to consider.  Built like a goddamned tank.

That said, I still prefer driving my ice V-8 engine.  I have no sensible reason for it, but do enjoy it.

Love my BMW XM; best of both worlds. I can decide to drive battery only and get gas when the weather is nice, or add in the V8 and have plenty of power. It's a great toy. Of course, none of these are any good for the environment as long as we burn coal to power them. Once we get fusion and better batteries, they may make environmental sense as well.

Flew Concorde once westbound. Was a great experience but - at least eastbound - I'd rather fly in comfortable first class seat bed.

Honey, you always wanted ring door bell for the front door. You have one now. It's a bit larger than expected.

 

For sale. $9,999. This deal just dropped in my lap and I don't need it, so I'm passing on the savings.

BA0193 yesterday flew LHR-DFW with zero PAX.

New York (CNN Business)President Donald Trump said Tuesday that Boeing should get financial assistance from the federal government in the face of the coronavirus crisis.

Boeing confirmed that it is seeking $60 billion in federal help, primarily in loan guarantees for the aerospace industry. It did not say how much of that assistance it would seek to access itself.

Before it revealed the details of the package it was seeking, Trump had voiced support for helping the company.

Fortunately, I was out a long time ago.

Time to put politics aside.

We are facing an unprecedented public health threat that will likely put our economy into recession...if we are lucky.

Everyone stay safe. Wash your hands. Stay home if you can.

Shares of BA dived more than 18% to around $189.08 on Wednesday. The stock is down more than 40% year to date.

Precisely my point. Fortunately, my stop losses kicked in before my panic would have. No one is looking at their stock portfolio this week and having happy thoughts. Unless they were out of the market entirely.

Why oh why would they halt Boeing shares Maxi????

 

CNBC:

Boeing shares are halted after reports the manufacturer doesn't expect regulators to sign off on the 737 Max until June or July. That's months later than the manufacturer previously expected. The delays pose another headache for carriers who have already missed one peak travel season.

 

https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing-stock-is-halted-pending-news-737-max-jet-51579635059

Because that's what they do when there's big news. Shares ended the week about where they started. Have mentioned a time or two before, I bought for a decade, not a month or year. That said, I'm not loving the drip, drip, drip delay strategy.

I'm curious if any of you know who's paying for all of this. Is Boeing paying the airlines for the non-use of their planes? Is this coming out of Boeing shareholders' pockets? Or are the airlines eating the cost?

Complicated issue actually. BA will certainly be paying out $B. But airlines also seeing higher profits because of slower ASK growth.

The Boeing charm offensive in progress. Wonder if Max is there?

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/boeing-invites-industry-to-737-max-factory-in-charm-offensive.html

Nope. Thanksgiving in Europe. Hope all had a nice holiday. Was hysterical to ask our tour guides about the meaning of Black Friday. They don't celebrate Thanksgiving in Italy, but they do worship the day after!

Ok I've looked around and tried to get an answer to this question, but haven't found one. As I understand it, the new engines on the 737MAX are too large to fit under the wings; so Boeing placed them forward of the wings. This is one of the changes that created the instability which required the creation of MCAS. Can someone here explain to me first: Is my understanding correct? Second: Why didn't Boeing redesign the landing gear so that the engines would fit under the wings in the safest place? I'm not trying to second guess anyone. I'm not an engineer and I really want to understand the design decisions.

Essentially, you are correct. The engines on the 737Max are larger (and more efficient). To fit them under the wing without changing the landing gear, they were moved forward so that the largest part of the engine (the fan) could be raised without interfering with the wing structure. The change did not create instability but in some situations the difference in the engine placement could cause the aircraft to pitch up more than the 737NG and MCAS was designed to counteract this to prevent the aircraft from stalling. MCAS is only active when the autopilot is not engaged (because the autopilot has other stall prevention safeguards). The fatal flaw in the MCAS design (which, with the admitted benefit of hindsight really looks stupid to me) was that it took angle of attack (pitch) information from only one of the two sensors on the aircraft (alternating between them on each successive flight). The single failure point is very unusual and obviously inappropriate (again, with the admitted benefit of hindsight). Moving the engines wasn't the problem, MCAS dependency on only one input was. This was compounded by the intentional function of MCAS - to forcefully put the nose down - repeatedly if necessary. And it was that latter bit that was the second problem. It didn't just kick once...it did so repeatedly.

Another area of contention is whether Boeing told pilots enough about MCAS. It's not clear whether engineers considered the possibility of MCAS malfunction but if they did, they apparently assumed that pilots would react to a malfunction of MCAS in the same way they would any other similar automation run amok. The runaway-trim scenario is one with which all pilots are familiar (or at least should be if they fly an airplane with electric trim controls). And if followed, the procedure corrects the MCAS malfunction problem. Basically, whether in a Cirrus like I fly or a 777 (or 737NG or 737MAX), when the plane does something you don't want it to, or don't understand, you turn off that system (whether by switch or turning off the power to the system). This happened a week or so ago with an Embraer regional jet.

The main landing gear in all 737 aircraft fold under and tuck into the body of the aircraft. My understanding is that there's basically not enough room to make them longer.

Ya think?

 

I suggested months ago, the Max may become the world's largest and most expensive paperweight. We will see...

Only time will tell, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that outcome.

Same was said about the "radical" use of battery power in the 787, particularly after the ET fire.

If the Max program stalls, maybe Boeing will proceed with NMA. They probably wish they'd already done at this point.

Given that your attitude about all this has been relatively cavalier until recently, to the point where you appeared cheerful about design flaws that killed people, it's pretty rich for you to be this condescending toward the person who has harped the most on what Boeing has done wrong.

 

Whether and when Boeing's share price will recover isn't the point of this thread. That you think it is is telling. For one thing, the share price for any business that isn't imminently going out of business usually rebounds, either because of future good news or because of a general market upturn. Suggesting that share prices will rebound is not the revelation you seem to think it is.

Actually, my poking the bear with respect to @Oaktown is an admittedly childish response to his doing the same. So, that's my "he started it" defense. IDGAF if you think it's condescending frankly.

That said, I'm not at all cavalier about the design flaw. And I don't disagree with the general skepticism and distrust of Boeing (see below) in this circumstance.

And I have not suggested - at all - that share prices will rebound in the short term. In fact, I'd prefer they not do so. What I've said, several times, is that I've invested (and have provided details for share prices IIRC) and I believe that over the next decade, BA will outperform the market, much as it did in the decade subsequent to the date of the original post in this thread. @Oaktown claims to have taken a short position and I've simply invited him to share the strike price and expiration date of his options. We've each taken a wager, the game is set, and I've shown my cards.

And, if you go way back to the first few posts in this thread, they (to paraphrase/summarize) posit that the flawed battery design in the 787 would or at least might result in the termination of what has become one of the most technologically transformative aircraft development programs in history.

And here's why they keep moving the goal posts:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-08/delays-in-boeing-max-return-began-with-near-crash-in-simulator

 

(BTW, Boeing said it was okay before & after the crashes, so I’m not sure why saying it will be okay in March would be reassuring to anyone.)

I strongly suspect that the FAA will be taking a much closer look at the details of MCAS and other automation systems before the plane flies again. Certainly shareholders and their attorneys will be doing so. Another fatal crash would very likely be the end of the program.

Interestingly, an Embraer 175 had a loss of trim control incident a couple of days ago as well.

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/11/08/american-e175-diversion/

Given that your attitude about all this has been relatively cavalier until recently, to the point where you appeared cheerful about design flaws that killed people, it's pretty rich for you to be this condescending toward the person who has harped the most on what Boeing has done wrong.

 

Whether and when Boeing's share price will recover isn't the point of this thread. That you think it is is telling. For one thing, the share price for any business that isn't imminently going out of business usually rebounds, either because of future good news or because of a general market upturn. Suggesting that share prices will rebound is not the revelation you seem to think it is.

Actually, my poking the bear with respect to @Oaktown is an admittedly childish response to his doing the same. So, that's my "he started it" defense. IDGAF if you think it's condescending frankly.

That said, I'm not at all cavalier about the design flaw. And I don't disagree with the general skepticism and distrust of Boeing (see below) in this circumstance.

And I have not suggested - at all - that share prices will rebound in the short term. In fact, I'd prefer they not do so. What I've said, several times, is that I've invested (and have provided details for share prices IIRC) and I believe that over the next decade, BA will outperform the market, much as it did in the decade subsequent to the date of the original post in this thread. @Oaktown claims to have taken a short position and I've simply invited him to share the strike price and expiration date of his options. We've each taken a wager, the game is set, and I've shown my cards.

And, if you go way back to the first few posts in this thread, they (to paraphrase/summarize) posit that the flawed battery design in the 787 would or at least might result in the termination of what has become one of the most technologically transformative aircraft development programs in history.

And here's why they keep moving the goal posts:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-08/delays-in-boeing-max-return-began-with-near-crash-in-simulator

 

(BTW, Boeing said it was okay before & after the crashes, so I’m not sure why saying it will be okay in March would be reassuring to anyone.)

I strongly suspect that the FAA will be taking a much closer look at the details of MCAS and other automation systems before the plane flies again. Certainly shareholders and their attorneys will be doing so. Another fatal crash would very likely be the end of the program.

Interestingly, an Embraer 175 had a loss of trim control incident a couple of days ago as well.

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/11/08/american-e175-diversion/

Would you ever question a F/A?

 

“It is clear there were serious breakdowns in the supervision of the 737 MAX,” Lori Bassani, president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, wrote in a letter to Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg dated Oct. 30. “We have fundamental questions about whether the FAA has the resources necessary for oversight moving forward.”

 

Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, which represents flight attendants at 20 airlines, including United Airlines Holdings Inc., also said the hearings raised fresh questions.

 

“We will not work the 737 MAX until and unless we have full assurance from regulators around the world, our colleagues in the flight deck, engineers, and our airlines that the 737 MAX is safe,” she said. “This week took a step backward in this process, not forward.”

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/flight-attendants-question-safety-of-max-737

Got it. No, I'd not look to the head of the flight attendant's union to judge the airworthiness of an airliner. I'm pretty sure the FAA and at least one congressional committee are taking a microscopic approach to evaluating the plane's future. As it should be.

My own post from April 9, 2019 Maxi.

And your point is?

No promises Maxi, but I found it surprising coming from the Administrator of the FAA.

Should not have.

Entirely predictable...OakieTownie?

Still not going to share you short position with us I assume? Haah!

Maxi, I italicized whether your name sake should be brought back to service

New and deeper layers of stupidity and malfeasance just keep emerging in this particular tale, and there's no particular reason to think we've hit bottom.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-ceo-faces-second-day-of-grilling-on-737-max-crashes

WOW, I didn't see that! [There must be a roll eyes emoji here somewhere.]

You mean they might not fly ever again? Really? Promise? You should short BA shares! Go all in my friend!

I sure hope the shares haven't hit rock bottom. Would love to buy more in a month or so.

Anything else I missed? Oakie? Townie? I'm not sure how you'd suggest I refer to you. I'm not familiar with the name calling tactic, maybe you can help me out and I'll try to play along. I'm sure I'll never be as cool as you are though.

"The FAA is fully committed to address all of the recommendations raised by investigators, including those that pertain to when, whether or how the 737 Max will return to service. As we have said repeatedly, the aircraft will fly only after we determine it is safe."

 

Steve Dickson, FAA Administrator

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/29/faa-admin-boeing-737-max-will-it-fly-again-column/2487912001/

One would certainly hope that will be the case.

Maybe this is actually a healthy trend.

I just entered Trimix into GoodRx and nothing came up. I'm not surprised. Since it's compounded from three different medications, GoodRX doesn't really cover that kind of thing as far as I can tell.

 

As for inserting a screenshot, you can't insert pictures directly into the Forum. Except for our personal icons, they have to be hosted on the web somewhere. For personal pictures what I do is -

 

1. Take the screenshot

2. Upload it to Dropbox

3. Get the link from Dropbox

4. Post the link in the Message Center Picture Function.

5. There's a small modification you have to make. The initial Dropbox link leads to some kind of in between page which the Forum software can't handle. When you post to the Message Center, change the last part of the picture link to raw=1 from the dl=0 that Dropbox gives you.

 

For posting web pictures, I use the Chrome Browser. There you click (or press if using your phone) until you get the option 'Open Image.' Choose that and copy the link. Then post that link in the Forum picture function.

 

Gman

Thanks. And I tried to drag into the message box. LOL.

I’m paying $300 for what is about a 60-90 day supply (I forget how many mL’s), but I buy it thru the compounding pharmacy used by my doc. I’m sure it’s available for less elsewhere but it’s really convenient. I make a call to my Dr, he writes the refill and forwards it on, they package and ship it and I have it in a couple of days.

It is *much* more effective than viagra for me.

Might investigate options with GoodRx or other. Sometimes cheaper to pay cash for drugs in cash than to use insurance and there is often a huge price range for a given drug. For #30 generic sildenafil 50 mg tablets, range is $22 to $462 locally. Tried to insert screenshot but cannot figure out how to do.

Fascinating. I had forgotten it was the Cessna till you mentioned it. I wanted to try the Auster but they wouldn't teach in it as it was supposed to be tricky. I think they were pretty clear with me I was never going to get "it" while it sounds like you had a basic talent for it, they, or you, just had to find a way to tap it. I won't be trying again.

Yeah, never for a second felt safe in the high wing...whether I was flying or not. Funny stuff I suppose.

Another option - if you enjoy flying but not the pressure - is to take a "lesson" periodically with the clear message to the instructor that you just want to fly around some. They won't care, most are building hours to apply to airlines and they get paid either way.

insurances will generally never cover something specifically for sex... chances are they will have the medication wrapped up under coverage that says only covered for prostrate problems.. ie cancer, surgery etc... but not for sex or sexual issues.

While many consider sex optional or recreation, and not medically necessary, some do cover the PDE5 drugs (often limited to seven tablets per month). Fortunately, sildenafil and tadalafil are generic and very inexpensive (via GoodRx.com or similar).