Every aircraft has whats called a "Minimum Equipment List" that an aircraft can operate with - which means that things can and do break and so long as it doesn't violate the MEL then operations can continue.

Its perfectly possible that you pointed out something that the pilot was either already aware of or that they could diagnose from the cockpit and a brief visual inspection when next on the ground.

If the issue didn't violate the MEL, then the next flight can go ahead without concern.

Southwest Airlines operates nearly 820 Boeing aircraft and has more than 3000 flights per day. And they *only* operate Boeing aircraft.

I don't at all find it surprising that if you actually looked you could find incidents for Southwest pretty much any day of the year, at that operational tempo - and of course all of them are going to be involving Boeing aircraft....

Engines are the responsibility of the engine manufacturer, but often cowlings (which is what failed here) are not. These are highly optimised coverings for the engine which have a big effect on airflow efficiencies, and are often designed by the aircraft manufacturer rather than the engine manufacturer (the engine manufacturer often designs the intake, as that has a lot of effect on the engine efficiency itself).

But this is a 737NG, been in service for years, so its probably a maintenance issue or failed part rather than a design defect.

People need to stop highlighting every failure of a Boeing aircraft now, the vast majority of the ones we have seen talked about this year have nothing to do with Boeing or its culture, and instead are pretty normal failures that wouldnt have been talked about prior to the MAX issues. There are thousands of flights a day, sometimes shit does happen a few times a year - the last time this type of failure was featured on a prime time news segment it had nothing to do with Boeings culture, and it doesnt this time either

Just because a part failed does not mean there is an inherent culture or cost cutting issue, in either the construction or maintenance.

You forget that Boeing (and Lockheed) both got quite a way down the path of designing supersonic passenger aircraft to rival Concorde, only stopping when government money dried up.

Of course, the American alternative needed to be better, so it started iff as a swing wing mach 3 design which vastly increased costs and complexity - ultimately, the final Boeing design looked surprisingly similar as Concorde and had pretty much identical operating specs.

Concorde was designed for a purpose, and so was the 747 - as such, you cant really compare the two without taking the design considerations into account. No supersonic aircraft is going to be as efficient as a subsonic one, thats just basic physics.

Sure, theres a lot of info about it, but...

How much of that info is both:

1. Cutting edge technology, and
2. Detailed enough to actually help assist in reproducing the design

Next time you fly, take a look at the engine on the commercial jet aircraft you are about to board. Look hard at the intake, Its just a round hole, right? Wrong - lots of cutting edge design and engineering goes into each generation of jet engine aircraft around the intakes, as its one of the key areas where you can gain or lose performance in the engine.

Often when an aircraft manufacturer offers two engine options for a commercial aircraft, both engines will use the same intake design, and there are differences when it comes to who designs the intake - if the aircraft manufacturer designs it, the efficiency is midpoint between both engines, but sometimes one of the engine manufacturers gets to design it. When that happens, the efficiency is always skewed toward that manufacturers engines, and the other engine option is slightly less efficient as a result.

During its day, Concordes intakes were actually cutting edge - to the point where the Tu-144 didnt have intakes anywhere near as good and as such the Soviets tried several times to steal the plans. So yeah, Concordes intake design was a closely guarded secret for many years during its early service.

No ones really that worried about China having 1970s tech, its China getting hold of 2020s tech which is the issue.

Not all jets, just supersonic ones, which tends to be military so these sort of things tend to be restricted as a result.

The difficulty for subsonic flight is different to that of supersonic - with commercial subsonic, you want a smooth flow of air into your fan and compressor stages, where its actually accelerated in order to compress it, and it needs a wide open intake to accomplish that for high efficiency . With supersonic, the engine still has to do its thing, but it cant do it with supersonic airflow, so it needs to slow it down in such a way that the airflow isn’t turbulent by the time it reaches the fan and compressors.

So the issue here is to do what is done on military aircraft, without being able to lean on a lot of the practical and up to date knowledge that those military aircraft use, because you also dont want China to have that knowledge.

Will be interesting to see how the US government handles this as an export.

You are spouting the same bullshit that Boeing was back when the accidents occurred.

The same arguments that were proven false by the ENTIRE FUCKING FLEET BEING GROUNDED and the subsequent FAA and NTSB reports into the crash. If it was just a training issue, an Air Worthiness Directive would have been issued to that effect. But no, it wasnt, the FAA and civil aviation authorities around the world GROUNDED THE ENTIRE FLEET until Boeing fixed it.

You are the same vile sort of person that decided at Boeing to implement this system in the first place, blaming the pilots and the airlines.

Oh more anti-Airbus bollocks.

No, an Airbus aircraft did not override a pilot at an airshow - you are talking about the Mulhouse–Habsheim Airfield crash in 1988, and that was entirely pilot induced. Too low, power at or near idle, below surrounding structures and applied power too late - no jet aircraft is going to go from lower power to high power quickly, it takes time for the engines to spool up.

That pilot was an idiot. That crash was not caused by Airbuses flight envelope protection.

And your understanding of Airbuses software is pretty darn well off track - there are multiple levels of protection, and there are plenty of procedures for putting the aircraft into direct mode where the pilot has the final say.

People need to stop with this bullshit that Airbus is as bad as Boeing - stop trying to make a false equivalency.

The ones that crashed... the airlines just didn't bother to train the pilots.

Ok, this right here, this has been proven to be false many many times since those crashes - the MCAS debacle had NOTHING to do with pilot training, and everything to do with there being a system which isnt even mentioned in the training manuals, nor was there a procedure to disconnect it and keep it disconnected.

In addition to that, the amount of force that the pilots would have had to apply to the trim wheels to counter the MCAS inputs is something you cannot do with one hand while seated - and the time in which you needed to make those adjustments was extremely short, in the manner of a few seconds, before the MCAS induced oscillations were fatal.

You are doing nothing but spouting pro-Boeing bullshit that has been disproven over and over.

Oh stop with that bullshit.

The crash you are talking about (Air France flight at Mulhouse–Habsheim Airfield) was an idiot pilot that attempted a low altitude fly by with no engine power and expecting the engines to supply immediate power from idle when the throttles are moved - that doesnt happen on any jet aircraft, there is always a delay when power is applied.

The idiot pilot was too low (below surrounding structures), with engines at idle, and applied power too late to avoid hitting the tree line. It was entirely pilot error. What he should have been doing was flying with a lot of power applied and controlling the speed using flaps, speed brakes and other aerodynamic devices. Instead, he was flying the aircraft pretty cleanly with minimal power.

It had nothing to do with Airbus software.

And the only Airbus crash which even vaguely matches "mysterious loss of an Airbus over the Atlantic" is Air France 447, which was due to a pitot-static error which induced pilot error - the pilots literally stalled the aircraft by not following proper procedure. If the pilots had followed correct procedure, they would have recovered from the incident without issue.

Stop with your bullshit attempts to paint us a picture that Airbus has similar software issues to Boeing - they do not. That bullshit only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

The injuries are why this made it into the media.

The comment from the pilot about displays blanking is what made people sit up and pay more attention.

Turbulence happens, but when there are significant injuries involved and a comment like that from the pilot, it becomes newsworthy.

When are they opening up Fortnite to third party stores?

Couple of things to add to your post, which might be of interest to some people.

When it comes to the 787, remember the multiple issues with the fasteners - firstly, using non-aviation grade ones to get the first fuselage ready to be rolled out to great fanfare for the 7/8/07 date, only for that to result in a 2 year delay in first flight. And then the replacing of those fasteners causing subsequent issues with cracks and needing further rework.

And people also tend to forget that Boeing has one of the most successful aircraft projects in history in the 787, but its yet to make a profit - they are very quiet on the “deferred production costs” debt that they accrued over the first 1000 airframes, but its still over $15Billion. Normally, an aircraft programme is making profit for the company by the time its delivered 300 or so, but the 787 wont be profitable by the time its hit 2000 deliveries.

How did this happen? Because while the 787 was undergoing its development issues, racking up debt, rather than booking this “now”, Boeing booked it against future deliveries, so they could promote a larger profit “now” instead.

The moneys been spent, and its internal debt, but what it means is that Boeing has less available cash to hand than it suggests it does, because of that deferred debt.

Heh, see my other post about bitumen products, the government definitely fucked up there by being about as hands on as you can get

Not the same fuel pump provider, the same payment processor.

Which when you consider how fucking tiny NZs population really is, its not surprising that theres only a handful of providers in the first place - that one of the specialises in fuel station services is not surprising.

Z Energy is also a major wholesale importer for other fuel outlets as well.

But theres a lot of retail competition here - where I live, a modest town of 22,000 people, there are 2 Z fuel stations, 2 BP fuel stations, 1 Challenge fuel station, 1 Mobil fuel station and a Waitomo fuel station.

Travel 20 minutes up the road to the nearest city, and you can find 50 fuel stations covering a population of 185,000, of which only 8 are Z Energy fuel stations.