• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Boeing 737 Max: The beginning of Boeing demise?

Danny Z

Danny Z

Legendary Member
So much about America's corporate culture. Not the first time Boeing unjustly blames the (dead) pilots who can't defend themselves to cover up technical defects while secretly searching for the fix. Sadly enough, the FAA let Boeing get away with it for economic reasons and the airlines back up Boeing against their own pilots because they don't want to incur losses grounding their planes while waiting for a fix that might take months or even years while flying relatively unsafe airplanes. There was another mysterious crash where Boeing and the media conveniently rushed into suggesting the pilots committed a suicide act..
That was MH 370 a boeing 777, there are enough reasons to believe that the pilot committed suicide because the plane didn't crash. there was no scattered debris and the plane looks like it was landed on water as the wing that washed off the African east coast shows that the flaps were open that means there was an attempt at landing and making the plane disappear and it is probably below water in big intact pieces. The pilot simulator at home shows he had simulated a flight to the same remote indian ocean area and when he flew after crossing the malay peninsula, he turned back to go ditch the plan in the Indian ocean he flew on the Malaysia Thailand border continuously switching airspace to avoid being chased by military planes, he also avoided flying over land in Indonesia Sumatra and turned 110 degrees and flew he plane above the ocean north of Aceh when his straight line would taken him over west Sumatra.
 
Last edited:
  • Advertisement
  • V

    Viral

    Active Member
    That was MH 370 a boeing 777, there are enough reasons to believe that the pilot committed suicide because the plane didn't crash. there was no scattered debris and the plane looks like it was landed on water as the wing that washed off the African east coast shows that the flaps were open that means there was an attempt at landing and making the plane disappear and it is probably below water in big intact pieces. The pilot simulator at home shows he had simulated a flight to the same remote indian ocean area and when he flew after crossing the malay peninsula, he turned back to go ditch the plan in the Indian ocean he flew on the Malaysia Thailand border continuously switching airspace to avoid being chased by military planes, he also avoided flying over land in Indonesia Sumatra and turned 110 degrees and flew he plane above the ocean north of Aceh when his straight line would taken him over west Sumatra.
    I chose not to specify the flight identity because I don't want to get into arguments based on what we hear from corporate media. If you care to learn more about that incident, explore the theory of sudden structural decompression that caused the pilots to lose conscience and airplane to fly errantly as such incidents had happened before.
    Let's go back to the Max accidents and review how Boeing and the media blamed the pilots and lied about many facts following the first crash but could not keep their lies alive following the second close crash. Without the second crash happening so closely, you might be flying an unsafe airplane today.
    Another example, B-737 older version had "rudder handover" causing multiple crashes. It took very long time to identify the problem while the airplane kept on flying passengers quietly.
    Boeing 737 rudder issues - Wikipedia
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    I chose not to specify the flight identity because I don't want to get into arguments based on what we hear from corporate media. If you care to learn more about that incident, explore the theory of sudden structural decompression that caused the pilots to lose conscience and airplane to fly errantly as such incidents had happened before.
    Let's go back to the Max accidents and review how Boeing and the media blamed the pilots and lied about many facts following the first crash but could not keep their lies alive following the second close crash. Without the second crash happening so closely, you might be flying an unsafe airplane today.
    Another example, B-737 older version had "rudder handover" causing multiple crashes. It took very long time to identify the problem while the airplane kept on flying passengers quietly.
    Boeing 737 rudder issues - Wikipedia
    These are not media report, these are aviation experts and people who participate in investigations and are assigned to cases like this who came up with the explanation for the sequence of events.

    He simulated the same flight he took
    He veered 170 degrees after take off right at the moment he was in the middle of the ocean the furthest point from land half way between Malaysia and Vietnam to avoid detection or communication
    He flew on the border very precisely criss crossing two countries to avoid being chased out of the airspace by military planes
    Background is mostly water (blue), at the boundary of the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand with the extreme southern tip of Vietnam in the upper right and a part of the Malay Peninsula at the Malaysia-Thailand border in the bottom left corner. Numerous air routes and a few waypoints are displayed, with some labelled, and the flight path of Flight 370 is shown in bright red. The boundaries of flight information regions are shown. The flight path goes from the bottom, just left of centre going north near air route R208, crossing from FIR Kuala Lumpur into FIR Singapore, but there is a note that air traffic control along R208 through FIR Singapore is provided by Kuala Lumpur ACC. A label notes where Flight 370 disappeared from primary radar just before turning slightly to the right at waypoint IGARI, which is along the boundary between FIR Singapore and FIR Ho Chi Minh, and the aircraft begins to follow route M765 towards waypoint BITOD. About halfway between IGARI and BITOD, Flight 370 makes sharp turn about 100° to the left, now heading northwest, and travels a short distance before making another left turn and heads southwest, crossing back over land near the Malaysia-Thailand border and flies close to air route B219.

    The plane responder went dead right before he made his return, no SMS no phone calls, no mayday. The plane was depressurized on purpose, so people would not call for help, not the cabin though because he needed to continue flying it.
    He turned 110 deg to avoid flying over Indonesia and again at the furthest distance from land between two countries
    Map of southeast Asia that shows the southern tip of Vietnam in the upper right (northeast), Malay Peninsula (southern part of Thailand, part of Malaysia, and Singapore), upper part of Sumatra island, most of the Gulf of Thailand, southwestern part of the South China Sea, Strait of Malacca, and part of the Andaman Sea. The flight path of Flight 370 is shown in red, going from KLIA (lower centre) on a straight path northeast, then (in the upper right side) turning to the right before making a sharp turn left and flies in a path that resembles a wide V shape (about a 120–130° angle) and ends in the upper left side. Labels note where the last ACARS message was sent just before Flight 370 crossed from Malaysia into the South China Sea, last detection was made by secondary radar before the aircraft turned right, and where final detection by military radar was made at the point where the path ends.


    The flaps were open when the wing was found, this is a landing approach, the wing was intact, there was no crash.
    No debris was ever found so no crash landing in the perimeter where satellites picked up its last location
    He decided to ditch it in the broken ridge area which is up to 400 km wide and reaches 1,000 m below sea level so it can never be found
    A bathymetric map of the southeastern Indian Ocean and western Australia, with the locations of search zones, sonobouy drops, and calculated flight paths. An inset in the upper left shows the path of the ADV Ocean Shield which towed a Towed Pinger Locator and where it detected acoustic signals; the same inset also shows the seafloor sonar search performed in April–May 2014.

    He flew over his hometown Penang in Malaysia to have a last goodbye


    Yeah it could all be when he was unconscious and a bunch of coincidence but if a player wins the roulette 10 times in a row, the casino will eventually single him for cheating

    The real proof will come out when the plane will be found but the pilot made sure this won't happen easily, he knew what he was doing
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    These are not media report, these are aviation experts and people who participate in investigations and are assigned to cases like this who came up with the explanation for the sequence of events.
    I hope this is not an aviation expert report you are quoting here. It reads more like a Hollywood script, and a bad one I might add. The vocabulary and the technical analysis are so amateurish even an 8th grader would laugh at the logic used by the narrator.
    The real proof will come out when the plane will be found
    I suppose you meant the real proof will come out when the data recorder and cockpit voice recorder are found. This is about the only statement I agree with. As a matter of fact, in the absence of such recorders, both Max crashes would look exactly like suicide crashes by the pilots. Don't you thinks? But you already made up your mind so passionately about the MH 370 when the official reports came as "inconclusive" including the possibility of a sudden decompression Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 - Wikipedia
    He flew on the border very precisely criss crossing two countries to avoid being chased out of the airspace by military planes
    How do you chase a suicide pilot out of an airspace? By shooting him down? Oh that will make his day LOL...
    The plane was depressurized on purpose, so people would not call for help, not the cabin though because he needed to continue flying it.
    This statement alone is enough to stop reading but I'm having fun so far so here it goes:
    How does anyone know the airplane was depressurized on purpose? (FYI if an airplane is depressurized, Oxygen masks drop automatically and the passengers have 10 minutes of O2 to call or text if a connection is available). But the real joke or even insult to the readers intelligence when you confuse cabin and cockpit and sound like you can depressurize the passengers cabin without depressurizing the cockpit. That is way Hollywoodish...


    He flew on the border very precisely criss crossing two countries to avoid being chased out of the airspace by military planes
    He turned 110 deg to avoid flying over Indonesia and again at the furthest distance from land between two countries
    He decided to ditch it in the broken ridge area which is up to 400 km wide and reaches 1,000 m below sea level so it can never be found
    He flew over his hometown Penang in Malaysia to have a last goodbye
    Again and again you are telling us you know for sure what and how the pilot is thinking.
    The flaps were open
    This is not an aviation technical term. Flaps are extended or retracted, down or up... The term used is another vulgare term.

    I can go on and on pinpointing holes in that "expert report" like, did both pilots (captain and F/O) plan the suicide mission together on that specific route on that particular date and did the company help planning both pilots to fly together for the mission? And how nitpicking are those suicidal pilots to fly so maliciously to a precise destination to burry themselves and not becoming found. Did they leave a manifesto telling us the purpose of their action?

    In conclusion, I'm not trying to confirm or deny any specific theory because I'm not that smart. But those who fancy BS Hollywood movies I can refer them to this one. It took me 3 attempts to finish watching this move because of all the unreal BS that uninformed audience kill to watch and argue its veracity.

    I'm done with this story. I believe there is a thread for it somewhere here.
     
    Last edited:
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Don't worry I'm not going away. I'm done with the MH 370 story on this thread.
    But just a minute, was I talking to you?
    Looking for some attention I see:argh:
    "Don't worry I'm not going away" - I am relieved.
    "was I talking to you?" - you weren't? Strange, I can swear I saw your post on public forum. My bad.
     
    NMA

    NMA

    Well-Known Member
    Buy Boeing stock now.
    you can thank me later... like in 10 years or so,
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    Buy Boeing stock now.
    you can thank me later... like in 10 years or so,
    Double or nothing...………...


    Boeing Is Broke

    As predicted, Boeing blew all of its cash (and possibly much, much more) on buybacks and now has to borrow money to stay in business. First, it successfully sold $3.5 billion worth of bonds on Tuesday to buyers who are under the impression that the company is a very safe bet. Boeing also opened a $1.5 billion line of credit "with three U.S. banks." No one in the mainstream finance world it seems is at all surprised that a company that spent $20 billion on its own stock in 2018 suddenly needs "a boost of liquidity."

    What makes this situation so spooky is the role played in this bond purchase by S&P Global Ratings, the Manhattan firm that four years ago paid $1.5 billion to settle lawsuits concerning its "overly rosy ratings" of obviously dodgy Bush-era mortgage-backed securities. Without these AAA ratings, it would have been much harder to pack so much dynamite into the markets that exploded in 2008. This rating company—one that essentially committed fraud to keep the value of stock prices up long enough for those who were ahead to leave the market filled with those who were behind—has maintained its A rating of Boeing's debt. Why? We have heard this tune not too long ago.

    According to MarketWatch, S&P Global Ratings maintains that Boeing's debts are good because it's positioned "as one of the two global producers of large commercial jetliners and as one of the largest U.S. defense contractors.” This does sound very rosy indeed. In an unprecedented orgy of greed, Boeing wiped out all of its liquidity and is now borrowing on the belief that the grounding of its most popular, but badly designed, product, the 737 MAX, will be lifted soon. What is rosy about this? It is all muddy.

    Now, you can believe you can fly if you want. The imagination is that free. But here are the facts: The situation for Boeing is so bad that the Federal Aviation Administration has turned to NASA to help it make sense of the ever-spreading mess. Also this week, Barclays, one of UK's big four banks, downgraded Boeing's stock because the end of its 737 Max troubles is very hard to see, and, to make matters worse, people do not want to fly the plane even if it returns to service. The 737 Max does not look like a jet to them, but a coffin with wings.
    And there is more! Norwegian Air, an airline that was bleeding cash before the Boeing crashes, and is now bleeding more money after it grounded its 737 MAX fleet, is demanding compensation from the cash-strapped American airplane manufacturer (all of the real and virtual cash it used to have is now—and sorry to repeat this—in the pockets of execs and shareholders). Legal experts are expecting other airlines around the world to form a line behind Norwegian Air. The resulting lawsuits will be long and staffed by powerful lawyers. All of this will cost a very pretty penny.
    But there is another great danger that is not being properly baked into the current value of Boeing's stock, which is still way too high, around $350 a share (it peaked $400 at the end of last year, after the company's five-year buyback blasts rocketed it out of the gravity of $70, the value it could not escape for first three years of this decade—and if I'm right, the cash for the buybacks in the second half of the decade was mostly borrowed). The real risk that's still external to the present value of Boeing's stock is a "smoking gun."
    If it is proved that the company's execs knew the planes were not safe or ignored important safety procedures in the rush for profits, then the lawsuits demanding compensation will have what Michael Y. Park calls a "smoking gun." S.V. Dedmon, an associate professor of the aeronautical science department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University explained to Park how all of this could go down. The Boeing lawyers representing pissed airlines or the dead of the crashes will be looking for this smoking gun everywhere. They are looking for it now. And though it will be hard to find, it's not impossible to find. The risk of finding this document is not imagery.
    Park writes:
    If such a smoking gun were to be uncovered, it would be a whole new ballgame. Boeing executives would be facing criminal charges for fraud, among other things, as well as significantly more punitive civil damages. Company officials would be facing potential prison time.
    So far, FAA has received four calls from Boeing employee whistleblowers. This is what we know about. Those planes did not just fall out of the sky. They crashed because they were designed badly. And if they were designed badly, it looks like it's because execs wanted them to make cash fast, and the cash was badly needed to justify buybacks, a practice that transfers the spoils of production to those who had little or nothing to do with it. This is the vicious cycle that many blue chips are now in.

    The A rating is bizarre. The only world it can make any kind of sense in is one where it represents a signal to the few who are ahead to leave the market and the many who are behind to enter, stay, and end up with no seats when the music suddenly stops.
     
    mikeys71

    mikeys71

    Well-Known Member
    Double or nothing...………...


    Boeing Is Broke

    As predicted, Boeing blew all of its cash (and possibly much, much more) on buybacks and now has to borrow money to stay in business. First, it successfully sold $3.5 billion worth of bonds on Tuesday to buyers who are under the impression that the company is a very safe bet. Boeing also opened a $1.5 billion line of credit "with three U.S. banks." No one in the mainstream finance world it seems is at all surprised that a company that spent $20 billion on its own stock in 2018 suddenly needs "a boost of liquidity."

    What makes this situation so spooky is the role played in this bond purchase by S&P Global Ratings, the Manhattan firm that four years ago paid $1.5 billion to settle lawsuits concerning its "overly rosy ratings" of obviously dodgy Bush-era mortgage-backed securities. Without these AAA ratings, it would have been much harder to pack so much dynamite into the markets that exploded in 2008. This rating company—one that essentially committed fraud to keep the value of stock prices up long enough for those who were ahead to leave the market filled with those who were behind—has maintained its A rating of Boeing's debt. Why? We have heard this tune not too long ago.

    According to MarketWatch, S&P Global Ratings maintains that Boeing's debts are good because it's positioned "as one of the two global producers of large commercial jetliners and as one of the largest U.S. defense contractors.” This does sound very rosy indeed. In an unprecedented orgy of greed, Boeing wiped out all of its liquidity and is now borrowing on the belief that the grounding of its most popular, but badly designed, product, the 737 MAX, will be lifted soon. What is rosy about this? It is all muddy.

    Now, you can believe you can fly if you want. The imagination is that free. But here are the facts: The situation for Boeing is so bad that the Federal Aviation Administration has turned to NASA to help it make sense of the ever-spreading mess. Also this week, Barclays, one of UK's big four banks, downgraded Boeing's stock because the end of its 737 Max troubles is very hard to see, and, to make matters worse, people do not want to fly the plane even if it returns to service. The 737 Max does not look like a jet to them, but a coffin with wings.
    And there is more! Norwegian Air, an airline that was bleeding cash before the Boeing crashes, and is now bleeding more money after it grounded its 737 MAX fleet, is demanding compensation from the cash-strapped American airplane manufacturer (all of the real and virtual cash it used to have is now—and sorry to repeat this—in the pockets of execs and shareholders). Legal experts are expecting other airlines around the world to form a line behind Norwegian Air. The resulting lawsuits will be long and staffed by powerful lawyers. All of this will cost a very pretty penny.
    But there is another great danger that is not being properly baked into the current value of Boeing's stock, which is still way too high, around $350 a share (it peaked $400 at the end of last year, after the company's five-year buyback blasts rocketed it out of the gravity of $70, the value it could not escape for first three years of this decade—and if I'm right, the cash for the buybacks in the second half of the decade was mostly borrowed). The real risk that's still external to the present value of Boeing's stock is a "smoking gun."
    If it is proved that the company's execs knew the planes were not safe or ignored important safety procedures in the rush for profits, then the lawsuits demanding compensation will have what Michael Y. Park calls a "smoking gun." S.V. Dedmon, an associate professor of the aeronautical science department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University explained to Park how all of this could go down. The Boeing lawyers representing pissed airlines or the dead of the crashes will be looking for this smoking gun everywhere. They are looking for it now. And though it will be hard to find, it's not impossible to find. The risk of finding this document is not imagery.
    Park writes:

    So far, FAA has received four calls from Boeing employee whistleblowers. This is what we know about. Those planes did not just fall out of the sky. They crashed because they were designed badly. And if they were designed badly, it looks like it's because execs wanted them to make cash fast, and the cash was badly needed to justify buybacks, a practice that transfers the spoils of production to those who had little or nothing to do with it. This is the vicious cycle that many blue chips are now in.

    The A rating is bizarre. The only world it can make any kind of sense in is one where it represents a signal to the few who are ahead to leave the market and the many who are behind to enter, stay, and end up with no seats when the music suddenly stops.
    Here is a snap shot of Boeing finance as of yesterday.
    12503
     
    mikeys71

    mikeys71

    Well-Known Member
    Buy Boeing stock now.
    you can thank me later... like in 10 years or so,
    In the late nineties Boeing took a big hit and everyone thought that airbus is eating Boeing’s lunch. I got in at 27. It was one of the best move I have ever done. There is a Boeing plane landing or taking off every minute of the day. Still the safest airplane in the world. Like they say in the south :”I ain’t going if it’s not Boeing “.
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member

    Before Ethiopian Crash, Boeing Resisted Pilots’ Calls for Aggressive Steps on 737 Max




    Weeks after the first fatal crash of the 737 Max, pilots from American Airlines pressed Boeing executives to work urgently on a fix. In a closed-door meeting, they even argued that Boeing should push authorities to take an emergency measure that would likely result in the grounding of the Max.
    The Boeing executives resisted. They didn’t want to rush out a fix, and said they expected pilots to be able to handle problems.
    Mike Sinnett, a vice president at Boeing, acknowledged that the manufacturer was assessing potential design flaws with the plane, including new anti-stall software. But he balked at taking a more aggressive approach, saying it was not yet clear that the new system was to blame for the Lion Air crash, which killed 189 people.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    Initially, Boeing spokesmen and other industry insiders would come on TV to blame the pilots, specifically the ability and training of foreign pilots. One after the other would arrogantly point out that U.S. pilots are better equipped to deal with such a crisis... Indirectly, painting a picture of foreign pilots being somehow inferior. Had airlines around the world not grounded their 737 Max fleet, Boeing would have done nothing to fix the root of the problem, but probably sent out more training programs to pilots.
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member

    China has been building its aviation prowess for decades. Could the Max crisis help its ascent?




    Less than 24 hours after a second Boeing 737 Max crashed out of the sky in March, China made a sudden move.
    The Civil Aviation Authority of China, the country’s airline regulator, announced that because of its “zero tolerance for safety hazards,” the nearly 100 Boeing 737 Max planes in operation in the country had to stop flying passengers by the evening. It was a notable departure from typical protocol: Not only does a home-country regulator of an aircraft manufacturer normally make the decision about whether to ground its own aircraft, the US Federal Aviation Administration’s judgment tends to be viewed as the gold standard for regulators worldwide. China was effectively saying: We don’t believe the FAA when they say it’s safe. Regardless, its move was quickly followed by groundings across Asia and Europe. Three days later, the US finally followed the rest of the world and grounded the plane.
     
    Top