after a few hundred people had payd the price for the errors commited by others.

;-)

Plane not bad! looking sharp there in fact.
needs more testing!

True.
Also pay attention , things got much better compared to 60s and 70s in the way the planes are designed and put into service.

That might be true but I refuse to play guinea pig in an aircraft that still seems to have some problems. I actually don't care whether an airliner crash will improve future designs when I was aboard that airliner and I'm definitely not willing to pay a price in human lives for the next step in technological evolution when this is not necessary! We do have safe air planes. No need for gambling with lives!:shifty:

Alas, progress always has a cost somewhere...but progress we must.

Can I blame Boeing itself for moving out of Washington state, in favor of cheaper non union in Southern Mexifornia?

Cheaper is always better!

God bless the job creators *salutes the flag*

Hey at least they aren't Airbus! (Not yet)

Yes, Airbus are well known for aggressively pursuing non union labour :confused:

Airbus has had weird accidents. IMHO it is not as safe as a Boeing, I see Boeing going that way.

I was not accusing Airbus of not being a great employer, just being inferior in design. (IMHO)
Asiana was caused by WEE TOO LO, and his co-pilot WEE TOO SLO.


Oh and the non working glideslope beacon at SFO.....

Batteries not at fault:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23302722

Pah, i'd prefer a flight with a DC3 anytime, to any modern jetliner :D
And my car at least sounds like a T34 :O:

And regarding over-electrification, the Airbus is as bad as the 787. The accident happening to the 777 recently was based on an automated thrust landing, especially the far eastern airlines try to automate everything. The Airbus also has that of course, and had its own share of problems with it.

When it comes to my personal preferences, i would take an older hydraulic-controlled and well-maintained Boeing from the 1980ies, with a russian pilot. I take it this combination would have the highest survival rate :03:

okay...?!! why a russian pilot?

Hydraulics ....
http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/p...uran/brn12.jpg

:haha:

^ 'xactly, that's what i had in mind :up:

American components

Russian components

ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!

Usually China these days :)

Actually no. Sure we progress but we aren't forced to do so by playing Russian roulette. Planes can be extensively tested and we do have safe designs that are available. It's not like we have to scrap all proven designs and go with a modern, probably less safe design just because of progress. If I buy a flight ticket I want to be sure I actually arrive at the destination and I don't give a hoot whether the aircraft is a Boeing an Airbus or an Ilyushin as long as it gets me safely where I want to go. We can't risk lives just for "progress" when more reliable solutions are at hand.

.....

:hmmm:

They had pretty safe, available and reliable designs for prop driven airliners. Does that mean we should have stayed with them and not developed jetliners?
No-one is asking the worlds companies to scrap all modern airliners and adopt 787s only (although Boeing would quite like to do that) so there are plenty of options for airlines to take, the 787 is just attractive because of the miles per gallon it has, and once it shakes its bad karma from the battery issue (which, I remind people, does not seem to be the cause of this latest fire in the first place) then it will likely go on to be a successful aircraft in its own right, just like the Comet which is still flying today in a modified form as the Nimrod, despite killing some 426 people durings its career as an airliner (the Comet is not to blame for all of those, five of the crashes were controlled flight into terrain from pilot error). No aircraft is perfectly safe, no machine is perfectly safe, and to be honest, every time you get on an aircraft you could very well be playing Russian roulette, just the same as if you get in a car, on a train or on a boat, sure safety records and improvements can tilt the odds in your favour but nothing is perfect, even the fabled A340 could still have a fatal accident one day, it's just been incredibly lucky so far.
Besides, as an aircraft passenger, you pay your money and take your chance, unless you have enough money to spare that you can afford to not take the cheapest fare, or reject boarding the flight if you see it's a 787.

Beijing would say that it's the same thing. :03:

In a nutshell:
Don't use me for Guinea pigging! Give me a reliable ride that works.
Test the stuff thoroughly and only give it into mass productions once it works as intended. Bug fixing after the release might be too late for several hundred people. This is not a video game that you can patch after you have screwed your customers over at release with a half finished product.
(I'm not talking about the 787 here but about aircraft / vehicles in general)

But all do it, it is called bananaware.
Ripens at the customer ..

(jealous tongues say this is how Mickeysoft improves its products)