Max
-
Posts
232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Donations
News
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Max
-
-
I wanted to learn to fly. It wasn't an obsession or desperate need, but started when I was very young and was always something in the back of my mind while I was growing up. But I was late in coming to a position where taking lessons became practicable.
It soon became obvious that I had no natural gift for the physical act of controlling a plane. Much of the theory was easy to grasp or already there but actually flying, maintaining level flight during a turn, for example, I just found extremely difficult. So much so, that when I eventually managed some of these basic skills, my instructors and I agreed it would be very costly for me to carry on, with no great indications of final success. I gave up
I accepted the fact that it was not going to happen but it hasn't eradicated the, yearning is too strong a word, the feeling I have about planes. I cannot see a plane,
even today, without thinking myself into the pilot's seat. Some of you who can fly may recognise this. It is a feeling about soaring but also about coming to earth, it is a feeling about control but also about being controlled by natural forces, it is the sideslip and the bank. It is the thrust and the slowing. And for some reason, the feeling happens in the seat of your pants.
How many hours in a plane did you have total? Were you in steam gauge or glass cockpit?
-
So it won't cover Trimix. I was wondering if compounded medications were a common exclusion.
Gman
Unfortunately, yes, this is a common insurance hurdle. Trimix should not be terribly expensive though?
-
I agree, @Max but I'm not sure what point you were making. If it was that for all the issues with the B787 ten years ago, everything is fine now, then yes. If it was just about the B737, I suspect you are correct again. But that doesn't mean that the B737 Max will be the aircraft that carries the brand forward. The MAX may emerge from the current unpleasantness, but equally Boeing may back off and develop a different 'new' version of the B737.
I think we are in agreement. The label is not important however - in the long term.
My point (primarily in response to @Oaktown) is that there is a difference between a remediable design flaw (whether battery construction or software engineering) and a fatal flaw in an airframe. And the difference is critical when your investment horizon is a decade but irrelevant with regard to each news item in the short term.
The 787 and A380 are excellent examples. Early on, 787 was a PR nightmare, BA stock took a big hit, etc. But the airframe (and concept of point to point travel being preferred over large hubs) has been very successful over the decade and the stock total return reflects that. OTOH, the A380 design was fatally flawed based on the assumption that hub to hub traffic would support it.
-
I've done it before, here I go again, posting tangentially related things, although in this case it's a) in keeping with the 'Will it ever fly' subject of the thread and b) featuring the aircraft type that the thread started on. So, to QF7879 JFK-SYD that flew over the weekend.
https://thepointsguy.com/news/qantas-project-sunrise-sydney/
The Boeing 787 has become a PR nightmare for Boeing, I also think a financial catastrophe at the end of the day. Having just announced another delay yesterday after saying it was going to make a maiden flight by the end of this month. The Paris Air Show crowd must have known that Boeing Execs were bullshitting them...Gonna go out on a limb here and predict (again) that in a decade, the 737 will still be one of the most widely operated aircraft in the history of commercial flight.
Hey Max, you better get ready for the axe!No idea to what "axe" you refer. But for the upcoming election, I'd be a buyer again at $325 to average down cost. I'm still quite comfortable with the ten year outlook.
-
Boeing took a $5B charge last quarter to account for some of these costs.
The grounding has had a paradoxic effect for many airlines. By limiting new ASK, ticket prices (and profits) have been higher.
Predicting the future is hard, no way to know what the impact on share price will ultimately be. Certainly impossible to know in the short term.
-
Paraphrase the first post in this thread and see what comments follow...
"The Boeing 787 737 has become a PR nightmare for Boeing, I also think a financial catastrophe at the end of the day. Having just announced another delay yesterday after saying it was going to" be back in the air by the end of the year. The aviation engineering experts on the massage blog forum must have known that Boeing Execs were bullshitting them...
It's a free country. I've purchased BA shares (details of prices in prior posts) and I'd encourage anyone who disagrees to take short positions on the stock. Place your bets! Haters are gonna' hate and I'm certainly not trying to prop up the share price.
I'd like to buy more at a discount.
-
This is name calling.
Ad hominem
Did I piss in your corn flakes at some point without knowing it? You are counting my posts (seriously?).
'tha fuck dude?
I'm not going to waste my time counting the shit you've posted and I'll not be replying again to your posts in this thread. I have no idea what you are trying to prove and don't care.
But, good luck with all that.
-
Qantas seems to have a few heavy routes where it uses the A380s. SYD/MEL to LAX, SIN, HKG, SYD to LHR and SYD to DFW. I suspect the pax like them. Going heavy on premium cabins may well keep them profitable.
Yes and DFW-SYD doesn't work with 744. I think the 788, 789 and 77W have the range but apparently the passenger/cargo mix works for the A380.
-
Totally unrelated to where the thread has gone, this about whether the A380 will continue to fly in Qantas colours (spoiler: it will).
The type seems to be continuing to fly with a number of carriers. A friend of mine is flying to London from the US in premium economy on a BA A380 next month
Looking forward to first (and maybe last) A380 flight LHR-IAD this fall.
-
You demonstrate this to everyone here with each of your fact free posts.
Not sure how your name-calling advances the engineering science either...and as far as I can tell, you've posted precisely zero facts about the aircraft. There have been very few posts here with facts (mine or otherwise)...almost all are opinion. Either the opinion of the person who writes the post, or the opinion described in a linked article like the above one from Seeking Alpha. I think that's kind of the point of a thread like that. Absent a Boeing engineer contributing, it's all opinion.
Non sequitur, moving the goalpostsNot so much...look at my early posts. This is not a short term investment for me. I've even posted the prices at which I have purchased BA shares.
I get it - we fundamentally disagree about whether the aircraft is inherently unstable. As a pilot and frequent commercial passenger, I'll be happy to fly the 737 when they are back in the sky. Just as I was happy to board a 787 last week...again, the original subject of this thread which started a decade ago. My point is that in ten years, the 737 will still be flying I'm confident that my investment will be just fine.
The Max account was created Nov 4, 2016. Out of 189 posts so far, ~77 are in this thread alone.Because the subject of this thread is something I find interesting. Max is my name, entirely unrelated to the airplane.
Pretty funny...someone above asked why I hadn't posted in this thread in a few days. Now you've taken time to look and see when my account was created and how many times I've posted here.
-
You demonstrate this to everyone here with each of your fact free posts.
Except that I have said several times, I’m playing an investment for a decade at least. Look at the title of this thread. Then explain how the 787 is a failure ten years later.
-
The Max is an example of what happens where companies are focused on short term profits above all else and the government is a pushover thanks to lax regulations and weak regulators.
Would be a great argument were it not entirely contrary to fact and unencumbered by evidence. Boeing routinely invests billions of dollars in development of an aircraft to be commercially viable a decade later. They do not have short term focus on anything. A decade or so ago, some of the C level folks discussed trying to take the company private so they wouldn't have to report quarterly earnings and keep short term investors happy. Elephant was just too big do eat though.
have we lost Max?.....Still here, but not much to add at this point. Closed minds will remain so.
-
Instant Pot works great, shells often come off the eggs in two pieces; never get the crumble fight.
-
Boeing in MAX-imum trouble
The FAA is working frantically to re-certify the MAX, but this is not proving to be easy. Further complications are reported to have arisen, delaying the process. It is imperative that this be done only after a comprehensive review, as any further problems could prove to be fatal to the type. In addition to this, the US regulator is seeking consensus from other national regulators in order to ensure that the public’s confidence in the MAX is assured. Recent reports suggest that the European regulator (EASA) will certify the MAX independently of the FAA’s licensing, an unprecedented move that could lead to further delays.
While re-certification needs to be thorough, it also must be expeditious. It is quite likely that if it is not completed as expected, Boeing will be facing a financial crisis. Talks of a US government bailout are already being floated, which is alarming to say the least.
http://www.ft.lk/columns/Boeing-in-MAX-imum-trouble/4-685753
Where do you find this bullshit? And more importantly, why?
Seriously, "working frantically to re-certify the MAX?"
Frantic: "conducted in a hurried, excited, and chaotic way, typically because of the need to act quickly"
No, of course neither Boeing nor the FAA are working frantically. That's just nonsense. And if they were rushed and excited, they'd have been done by now.
And a government bailout? More absolute nonsense.
But hey, let us know how that short position is going. When did you say those puts expire?
I'm still very happy with my purchases at about $370.
-
Yes to all of that, but I'll reserve judgment on whether I'll fly in them, at least in the initial period after they return to service (if they do). Which regulators approve them will be one factor. I have flown on one once (AA from LAX to DCA last January, so after the Lion crash) so I know they can operate safely. I may chose my flights in the US more carefully (say, QF metal to JFK rather than AA to other east coast destinations). All this is in the future.
With a US trained flight crew, particularly given all the press coverage and the simplicity of recovery when you know what to expect, I'd fly on one today. And I agree with others that the FAA is going to be more thorough this time around.
-
??♂️ So, they are at fault...
By definition. They produced a system that malfunctioned. They are not the sole bearer of fault however. There were at least three proximate causes of each accident; the MCAS software design, erroneous input from the attitude indicator, and inappropriate pilot response to MCAS activation.
-
The biggest difference I can see is that the Concorde was a niche market and the 737MAX is a mass market aircraft. Passenger reactions to the two will be different. One thing potentially in favour of the MAX is that the passenger base may be less likely to be paying attention to what sort of aircraft they are flying in.
As to when it will return to service, the FAA and other regulators will be aware of the perception, right or wrong, that they were lax in their original approvals of the operating certificates and will be careful to ensure that they don't leave themselves open to such impressions about the return of the type to service.
Agree with both thoughts above entirely. No one boarded a Concorde (after the Le Bourget crash) unaware of its history.
Or, it’s this? The changes created a flaw that requires a fix....The relocation of the engines created a circumstance where Boeing thought it appropriate to modify the flight control laws. The circumstance for which MCAS was designed should not happen, the system was added as a safeguard against a very rare occurrence. Had the MCAS not malfunctioned - twice at least - the engine move itself would have been essentially transparent.
Did you mean to say may be different? You're usually so precise with your use of language, MC...I think he meant "may" as well. No way to know until it happens.
-
thanks for the reply......there has been much made of the engine modification and related mounting concern in this thread and in the news......do you have any observations at all about this other than to say you've seen nothing about it (in "professional aviation publications")?........appreciate your comments
The larger engine nacelle required a more forward and upward mount below the wing. This lead to the development of MCAS. It's not a fundamental flaw that renders the aircraft unsafe. The flawed design of the MCAS (primarily that it relied on only one input source) is the issue.
-
https://www.travelmarketreport.com/articles/Many-Consumers-Dont-Want-to-Fly-the-737-Max-When-it-Returns
ha!....the Concorde's travails and the 737 Max's hardly compare......
by the way, still waiting for a reply about my engine mount question!
How are they different? Both flawed design to be corrected and returned to flight.
I'll go find the missed question too...didn't ignore intentionally.
-
My question is will people avoid the plane, and for how long after it returns to the air
Judging by the return to flight of the Concorde, not likely to be a factor.
-
More important question, when will your namesake be back in the air?
I keep my cards close to the vest Oakie.
-
LATimes, not a professional aviation publication, but this will give Max a start:
Must Reads: How a 50-year-old design came back to haunt Boeing with its troubled 737 Max jet.
By RALPH VARTABEDIANSTAFF WRITER
MARCH 15, 2019
6 AM
A set of stairs may have never caused so much trouble in an aircraft.
First introduced in West Germany as a short-hop commuter jet in the early Cold War, the Boeing 737-100 had folding metal stairs attached to the fuselage that passengers climbed to board before airports had jetways. Ground crews hand-lifted heavy luggage into the cargo holds in those days, long before motorized belt loaders were widely available.
That low-to-the-ground design was a plus in 1968, but it has proved to be a constraint that engineers modernizing the 737 have had to work around ever since. The compromises required to push forward a more fuel-efficient version of the plane — with larger engines and altered aerodynamics — led to the complex flight control software system that is now under investigation in two fatal crashes over the last five months.
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html
Sure. LA Times. About as authoritative in aviation as is your "hold my cards close" investment advice.
My planned 10 year hold investment is up about 2%.
When do your put options expire @Oaktown?
Cheers!
-
Well, in your defense, it was almost six weeks ago after all...and many thought the planes would be back in the air by now.
-
An aircraft design should allow hands-off horizontal flight, i.e., center of gravity should align with the center of lift. This is violated for the 737Max because the new engines would not fit properly under the wing due to the relatively short landing gear (designed for the smaller engines) so the engines were moved forward enough to require constant deployment of control surfaces. This is a inherent design flaw, for which there is no fix.
You are incorrect. All airplanes should fly without pilot input in level, unaccelerated flight when trim settings are appropriate. And the 737 (all versions) will do that. If you define the use of trim as "deployment of control surfaces" then essentially all aircraft have that same requirement. The MCAS has nothing to do with straight, level, unaccelerated flight.
I'm still not clear as to why the 737MAX isn't back in the air yet. Isn't this just a matter of fixing the software and providing the pilots with some additional training? Or am I missing something?And lots of paperwork. And while they were re-working the MCAS, they identified other issues to address. Once the software is done, they have to decide how much and what type of training pilots will need. Then they have to document all that, get it reviewed by the FAA and others. Wouldn't surprise me if it's early 2020.
There is also some concern that a mid-development decision to change the engine size affected the integrity of the entire plane.I have seen no such discussion in professional aviation publications.
Flying by the seat of your pants.
in The Lounge
Posted
I had a hell of a time with steep turns (45 degree bank angle). Probably spent ten hours trying to get that down and was killing me. I was flying with several instructors and I called the guy I thought was best at teaching and told him the problem. We went flying, turned off the PFD and MFD and he flew steep turns while I watched outside. Probably two in each direction. Then I did the same with eyes outside the plane. Never had trouble with them again.
And while you can legally get PPL in 40 hours or something, I had about 120 when I got mine. The DPE told me my flying was among the best he had seen for a PPL check ride; similar feedback from instrument rating check ride.
If not economically unrealistic, you might consider flying one or two more hours in a different plane with a different instructor to see if you enjoy flying or not. If you do, and if you can afford it, so what if you take a hundred hours to become a safe pilot.
I had instruction in steam gauge Cherokee, steam gauge 172 and then glass SR20 (thru instrument rating) and then glass SR22. I never (ever) felt safe in the 172 but always did in the Cirrus (and in the Cherokee - so wasn't the parachute). In retrospect, I think my fear of heights was the cause of my discomfort in the 172 and had I never flown in a low-wing plane, probably wouldn't have finished my training.
Feel free to PM me if you'd like to discuss further or have questions.