Here is what I find very ironic. In the wake of an incident last March involving a tire issue on an old AA 777, I saw an interview where an AA worker argued that Boeing is to blame for maintainence issues like this because airlines have to hold on to older planes for longer because AA had to wait for longer than expectes for Boeing to deliver the replacement planes (787 in their case). But the irony is when it comes to airlines waiting for new planes from Airbus, such as UA replacing 757s with A321NEOs. So if Boeing is to blame for an incident involving an old AA 777 because AA is waiting longer than expected for more 787s, then Airbus must be to blame for whatever incident involves a UA 757 because just like how AA is waiting on more 787s, UA is waiting on more A321NEOs (otherwise their 757s would already be retired)
Thank you for making your point! You've got a valid point here. That maintenance worker is right to state that it's challenging for an airline to have to extend an aircraft's life past what was expected. But then an airline is not forced to keep flying them if they can't perform mandatory maintenance. They choose to because of.. of course MONEY. Most of United Airlines 777's are from the mid 1990's. So they are not that old yet. But they may require additional maintenance and part replacements.
I'm so glad my Hometown Airline, Delta is switching to Airbus. I don't feel confident or comfortable on any Boeing Aircraft made after the 737-900ER. I really feel at home on the A321, A321 NEO and A330 and A330 Neo.
You're not the only one. Many people feel this way, but it's far from the majority as most people watch the news today and by tomorrow they have forgotten everything as they keep getting distracted by new news highlights and nonsense. This last part is what I teach people, follow the link in the video description to the sponsor intuitiv.me 😀 With people being less distracted all the time, they will make more conscious decisions and this would mean the end of Boeing as the masses would refuse to set foot in one. Boeing would then really have to get its shit together. This new CEO has not changed much within the company, just look at how they were prepared to sacrifice 2 astronauts just not to loose face. The fact that their capsule did land without totally disintegrating does not mean it was safe. It was a very tough decision for NASA to do it this way.
@@intuitivAviationnewsto be fair, there have been instances where Boeing has been wrongfully blamed. Of course, Trent 1000 and PW4000 issues are prime examples, but there’s more. There have been a lot of headlines surrounding incidents involving planes that are old enough to have gone through maintainence, such as planes that lost wheels on takeoff (eg the United 777). Furthermore, I’d also argue that LA800 is caused by maintainence, Airlines knew since 2017 about switch caps becoming loose due to wear and tear, making it the airlines’ responsibility to replace them. Other examples of wrongful blame include viral videos of engine fires, SQ321 and the passenger that died, other turbulence incidents that caused injuries, tire burst incidents, and a nacelle component coming loose on a southwest flight due to a mechanic skipping a step when shutting a latch. There have also been some incidents that turn out to genuinely be caused by crew error, such as UA2477, Southwest incident over Hawaii, Southwest incident over Oklahoma, etc. The news has also spread some false narratives. For example, on UA2477, some news outlets reported that a gear collapse caused the runway excursion, but the reality is the other way around. Another example is that Joshua Dean has blown the whistle on Spirit Aero and he died before any acquisition was finalized, yet the press called him a Boeing whistleblower. Another example is that for SQ321, some news were pre-emptively blaming this on a faulty nose radar, but investigators did not find any faults with the radar, and even if they did, then this would imply that the A380 would also have a faulty radar since the A380 uses the same radar system as the 777. The press has essentially cried wolf on Boeing, and it only makes me want to fly on Boeing as an F-U to the sensationalist news. I won’t be defending Boeing for the instances when they are rightfully blamed, such as the 3 major MAX incidents, but I will be defending Boeing when they get wrongfully blamed, when Boeing gets blamed for things Airbus wouldn’t get blamed for even after some of these types of things happened on Airbus as well.
What was Douglas became part of MD and MD became part of Boeing. Since that merger things went down hill. At least to the outside world. Clearly things were already deteriorating prior to that as it takes time to become visible on the outside.
Well. we'll need the public to wake-up first and then they can make the statement. Maybe then the Boeing management will start to pay attention as declining sales affect the shares and thus the shareholders will get mad. All that has been done in the past 10 years has been shareholders focused.
True. The title may not be 100% accurate, yet they would not have ordered the A320neo or A321neo if Boeing would not have messed up as they did. And fact is: no airline is happy with the degree Boeing messed up. It's beyond what any reasonable person could have predicted 10 years ago.
You need to make a video about the Cathay Trent XWB incident and how Airbus has remained silent about that issue. If we truly believe that Boeing must take responsibility for their share of engine issues, whether by saying something, working to fix this issue, or by compensating affected airlines, then we must also expect Airbus to lead by example. However, there is no proof that Airbus did any of that for the Trent XWB issue. They made no statement in support of whatever EASA urged airlines to do about this issue, there is no receipt of Airbus compensating Cathay Pacific at all for this engine issue, and there is no proof of Airbus assisting Rolls Royce/airlines to mitigate or prevent a reoccurrence of this issue. If anyone says “at least Airbus responded to this issue”, that is a baseless claim because there is no proof to substantiate this claim, and these types of baseless claims are a form of blind trust, which is exactly what allowed Boeing’s safety culture to decline until it’s too late. If Airbus picks up on the public making these baseless claims, this creates a loophole that allows Airbus to repeat Boeing’s mistakes.
Well it is known that Airbus is in constant communication with RR and has been for a long time now. Not making a public statement for aviation enthusiasts to see, is not how it works 😄 Airbus does not care much about us at those times. Engine issues are a mega problem for Airbus and on several of its aircraft. It's bad for sails and it even lost a deal as RR didn't make a good enough offer (lack of warranty / maintenance costs) from the side of RR, I just can't remember the airline. I did a video on engine problems a few years ago. And regarding the problems at Boeing: too much trust was just a small part of it, intentionally hiding info on request of SouthWest Airlines (MCAS), and many other instances of falsification, destruction of evidence, collusion, bullying and harassment... maybe even murder.
@@intuitivAviationnews main problem is that Airbus was silent to airlines affected by the issue. After airlines reported the problem, the only entities that communicated to any airlines in the wake of the issue (e.g telling airlines to inspect, telling airlines how to mitigate the issue) were EASA and RR. Point is that there is no proof that Airbus responded to this issue (and PW1000G issue for that matter) better than how Boeing did to the Trent 1000 and PW4000 issues
@@intuitivAviationnews about the murder part, Boeing has been wrongfully blamed for some of the deaths. Examples include Joshua Dean, who actually blew the whistle on Spirit Aero (before any acquisitions were finalized), the man who had a heart attack on SQ321, MU7535 victims, SJ182 victims, and the Delta workers who were killed by an exploding tire (since the involved plane was 31 years old, the tire was a replacement installed by Delta’s maintenance department)
@@Blank00 It's a bit of a grey area: 1- Both you and I can not prove if Airbus did or did not contact the involved airlines 2- The contract for the engines are negotiated between the engine manufacturer and the airline after the airline has decided to buy an aircraft. Nor Airbus nor Boeing is legally involved in this. Therefore getting involved later on would be nice but not necessary for solving the problem.
People complained about the quality of the sound before. So I decided to try this out. And as I'm dyslexic, I can't read as fast and then people get bored too.
I think it might be nickyoliver. It's his style. If anyone criticises Boeing, he just says Airbus are exactly the same and rarely justifies the comment.
Here is what I find very ironic. In the wake of an incident last March involving a tire issue on an old AA 777, I saw an interview where an AA worker argued that Boeing is to blame for maintainence issues like this because airlines have to hold on to older planes for longer because AA had to wait for longer than expectes for Boeing to deliver the replacement planes (787 in their case). But the irony is when it comes to airlines waiting for new planes from Airbus, such as UA replacing 757s with A321NEOs. So if Boeing is to blame for an incident involving an old AA 777 because AA is waiting longer than expected for more 787s, then Airbus must be to blame for whatever incident involves a UA 757 because just like how AA is waiting on more 787s, UA is waiting on more A321NEOs (otherwise their 757s would already be retired)
Thank you for making your point!
You've got a valid point here. That maintenance worker is right to state that it's challenging for an airline to have to extend an aircraft's life past what was expected. But then an airline is not forced to keep flying them if they can't perform mandatory maintenance. They choose to because of.. of course MONEY.
Most of United Airlines 777's are from the mid 1990's. So they are not that old yet. But they may require additional maintenance and part replacements.
I'm so glad my Hometown Airline, Delta is switching to Airbus. I don't feel confident or comfortable on any Boeing Aircraft made after the 737-900ER. I really feel at home on the A321, A321 NEO and A330 and A330 Neo.
You're not the only one. Many people feel this way, but it's far from the majority as most people watch the news today and by tomorrow they have forgotten everything as they keep getting distracted by new news highlights and nonsense. This last part is what I teach people, follow the link in the video description to the sponsor intuitiv.me 😀 With people being less distracted all the time, they will make more conscious decisions and this would mean the end of Boeing as the masses would refuse to set foot in one. Boeing would then really have to get its shit together. This new CEO has not changed much within the company, just look at how they were prepared to sacrifice 2 astronauts just not to loose face. The fact that their capsule did land without totally disintegrating does not mean it was safe. It was a very tough decision for NASA to do it this way.
Me too.
@@intuitivAviationnewsto be fair, there have been instances where Boeing has been wrongfully blamed. Of course, Trent 1000 and PW4000 issues are prime examples, but there’s more. There have been a lot of headlines surrounding incidents involving planes that are old enough to have gone through maintainence, such as planes that lost wheels on takeoff (eg the United 777). Furthermore, I’d also argue that LA800 is caused by maintainence, Airlines knew since 2017 about switch caps becoming loose due to wear and tear, making it the airlines’ responsibility to replace them. Other examples of wrongful blame include viral videos of engine fires, SQ321 and the passenger that died, other turbulence incidents that caused injuries, tire burst incidents, and a nacelle component coming loose on a southwest flight due to a mechanic skipping a step when shutting a latch. There have also been some incidents that turn out to genuinely be caused by crew error, such as UA2477, Southwest incident over Hawaii, Southwest incident over Oklahoma, etc. The news has also spread some false narratives. For example, on UA2477, some news outlets reported that a gear collapse caused the runway excursion, but the reality is the other way around. Another example is that Joshua Dean has blown the whistle on Spirit Aero and he died before any acquisition was finalized, yet the press called him a Boeing whistleblower. Another example is that for SQ321, some news were pre-emptively blaming this on a faulty nose radar, but investigators did not find any faults with the radar, and even if they did, then this would imply that the A380 would also have a faulty radar since the A380 uses the same radar system as the 777. The press has essentially cried wolf on Boeing, and it only makes me want to fly on Boeing as an F-U to the sensationalist news. I won’t be defending Boeing for the instances when they are rightfully blamed, such as the 3 major MAX incidents, but I will be defending Boeing when they get wrongfully blamed, when Boeing gets blamed for things Airbus wouldn’t get blamed for even after some of these types of things happened on Airbus as well.
They actually arent switching to Airbus totally. They recently ordered 100 737 Max 10's to replace the -900ER.
@dmcr9525 yeah! That will happen.
The MD88 and MD90 aren’t made by Boeing 2:25
What was Douglas became part of MD and MD became part of Boeing. Since that merger things went down hill. At least to the outside world. Clearly things were already deteriorating prior to that as it takes time to become visible on the outside.
Boeing never made the MD88 or MD90 they only made the Boeing 717 with was the MD95 Boeing never any other aircraft or renamed any
Get the message, airlines!
"If it's called Boeing, WE'RE NOT GOING!"
Ditch Boeing or lose our business.
Well. we'll need the public to wake-up first and then they can make the statement. Maybe then the Boeing management will start to pay attention as declining sales affect the shares and thus the shareholders will get mad. All that has been done in the past 10 years has been shareholders focused.
Most airlines dont care and no one has significantly been affected. MAX operators are continuing to sell out seats.
I just uploaded a new video: Another Dark Week For Boeing: Emirates, Strikes, Q3 2024 6 Billion loss ua-cam.com/video/s2CCnlIOCiA/v-deo.html
Delta and United are not ditching Boeing. Just leaning towards Airbus. Both airlines have the MAX on order.
True. The title may not be 100% accurate, yet they would not have ordered the A320neo or A321neo if Boeing would not have messed up as they did. And fact is: no airline is happy with the degree Boeing messed up. It's beyond what any reasonable person could have predicted 10 years ago.
@@intuitivAviationnews I have no argument with you there and totally agree!
@dmcr9525 I just uploaded a new video: Another Dark Week For Boeing: Emirates, Strikes, Q3 2024 6 Billion loss ua-cam.com/video/s2CCnlIOCiA/v-deo.html
You need to make a video about the Cathay Trent XWB incident and how Airbus has remained silent about that issue. If we truly believe that Boeing must take responsibility for their share of engine issues, whether by saying something, working to fix this issue, or by compensating affected airlines, then we must also expect Airbus to lead by example. However, there is no proof that Airbus did any of that for the Trent XWB issue. They made no statement in support of whatever EASA urged airlines to do about this issue, there is no receipt of Airbus compensating Cathay Pacific at all for this engine issue, and there is no proof of Airbus assisting Rolls Royce/airlines to mitigate or prevent a reoccurrence of this issue.
If anyone says “at least Airbus responded to this issue”, that is a baseless claim because there is no proof to substantiate this claim, and these types of baseless claims are a form of blind trust, which is exactly what allowed Boeing’s safety culture to decline until it’s too late. If Airbus picks up on the public making these baseless claims, this creates a loophole that allows Airbus to repeat Boeing’s mistakes.
Well it is known that Airbus is in constant communication with RR and has been for a long time now. Not making a public statement for aviation enthusiasts to see, is not how it works 😄 Airbus does not care much about us at those times. Engine issues are a mega problem for Airbus and on several of its aircraft. It's bad for sails and it even lost a deal as RR didn't make a good enough offer (lack of warranty / maintenance costs) from the side of RR, I just can't remember the airline.
I did a video on engine problems a few years ago.
And regarding the problems at Boeing: too much trust was just a small part of it, intentionally hiding info on request of SouthWest Airlines (MCAS), and many other instances of falsification, destruction of evidence, collusion, bullying and harassment... maybe even murder.
@@intuitivAviationnews main problem is that Airbus was silent to airlines affected by the issue. After airlines reported the problem, the only entities that communicated to any airlines in the wake of the issue (e.g telling airlines to inspect, telling airlines how to mitigate the issue) were EASA and RR. Point is that there is no proof that Airbus responded to this issue (and PW1000G issue for that matter) better than how Boeing did to the Trent 1000 and PW4000 issues
@@intuitivAviationnews about the murder part, Boeing has been wrongfully blamed for some of the deaths. Examples include Joshua Dean, who actually blew the whistle on Spirit Aero (before any acquisitions were finalized), the man who had a heart attack on SQ321, MU7535 victims, SJ182 victims, and the Delta workers who were killed by an exploding tire (since the involved plane was 31 years old, the tire was a replacement installed by Delta’s maintenance department)
@@Blank00 It's a bit of a grey area:
1- Both you and I can not prove if Airbus did or did not contact the involved airlines
2- The contract for the engines are negotiated between the engine manufacturer and the airline after the airline has decided to buy an aircraft. Nor Airbus nor Boeing is legally involved in this. Therefore getting involved later on would be nice but not necessary for solving the problem.
The issue was noted that it was not a Rolls-Royce issue, but actually the wrong cleaning products used by the airlines itself.
United and delta are still Boeing customers
I never said they are ditching all their Boeing aircraft 😀
Boeing are on reset mode? They will come out stronger and Better product ? just let water take it course :)
We all hope so, even AIRBUS. We need multiple manufacturers on the market.
arghh more AI voice crap!
People complained about the quality of the sound before. So I decided to try this out. And as I'm dyslexic, I can't read as fast and then people get bored too.
crazy....300 subs and already sponsored video?
world is completely crazy
thumb down
You can sponsor your own video you know :-) If you're in IT you'll probably know JayzTwoCents or others who promote their services and or products 🙂
Airbus suck$ too
Please elaborate on this :-)
@@intuitivAviationnews A slutty company that uses lobbying with a lot of money to win commercial disputes
Is that you Nicky?
I think it might be nickyoliver. It's his style. If anyone criticises Boeing, he just says Airbus are exactly the same and rarely justifies the comment.