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!

Yes it does. Good point. Yet Airbus is ramping up the production of it and they are delivering them, this while no one knows when and even if, the 777X will start to be produced and delivered.

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.

We all hope so, even AIRBUS. We need multiple manufacturers on the market.

Boeing and MD merged and so the clients of MD became Boeing's clients.

You're right. But the engine problems are the least of Boeing's problems. They are not linked to all the corruption, deception and its collusion with the FAA.

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.

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 🙂

I never said they are ditching all their Boeing aircraft 😀

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.

Well I don't have all the info and searched online :-) But thank you for the info. This video was a follow-up on the previous one about long time loyal Boeing 737 clients switched to Airbus A320 fam.

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, 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.

Please elaborate on this :-)

@@intuitivAviationnews A slutty company that uses lobbying with a lot of money to win commercial disputes

They may be aesthetic for now, but they can become a safety issue over time if not fixed.

I did tackle the issue some time back: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGfPonuYfNCLd6M

Airlines like to be cautious, better that than sorry. You can't take risks when it comes to safety. Look at tge recent developments with both Boeing and Airbus. Different types and hundreds or even thousands of them will be inspected.

I guet what you're saying, yet they have issues too today, so basically no Boeing is safe (anymore) 😉 either by design or due to its aging. And Boeing needs a real wake-up call. The MAX crashes clearly were not. The management board sacrificed one of their members, compensated him well for this and continued on almost the same path. Then their lawyers colluded with the eterny general on tge case and there goes corrupt american capitalisme its usual way. Money rules, not people, not safety.

​@@intuitivAviationnewsactually, the 777s are just as safe as a typical Airbus. The NGs also has a stellar safety record. Having some ADs doesn't automatically unsafe, because Airbuses have had their fair share of ADs and the ADs for 777 and NG are of the same nature as the ADs found on an Airbus

I agree with you that the engine manufacturers are responsible for what they deliver. We are seeing the many more problems today with P&W and RR. Yet in the end it's the manufacturer (Airbus, Boeing...) who are been looked at as their planes have issues. And that is bad for business.

Yes, you're right. It turned out to be that. Yet every problem with the MAX is one too much at this point. And Boeing has not solved its quality issues across the board as well as the fact that most board members who were in place during the MAX mascaraed are still in power. . So we can't take things lightly, not in aviation and today especially Boeing problems as they may hide other issues that we do not know about yet.

Thank you for sharing this info 🙏

Thank you for clarifying. The way you put it it makes sense. I had the understanding that the autopilot and MCAS were connected. Yet any problem with the MAX is been looked at more carefully because of what caused the MCAS problem in the first place: bad management, deception and engineering mistakes (like having only one sensor's date been use... something that is absurd in aviation).

Well I wouldn't go that far. But I would have more inspections and especially unannounced ones at all Boeing factories as they have been plagued with all kind of issues: Boeing went from an engineering company to a money hungry business around the time of the merger with MD. And regarding the: Tenerife airport disaster (Wikipedia) KLM Flight 4805 · Pan Am Flight 1736 Total fatalities 583 Total injuries 61 Total survivors 61 It's still holding the record.

It's because after the MAX crashes, there have been instances in the past when people have pre-emptively blamed Boeing for incidents that would later turn out to not be Boeing's fault. Examples include Miami Air 293, Norwegian 787 engine failure, PR113, UIA752, AC837, Delta Fuel Dump, AF11, etc. For some early examples that happened in 2019 and 2020 such as Miami Air 293 and UIA752, mainstream media was actually in on the pre-emptive blame, trying to make connections to the MAX crashes, even though these incidents turn out to not be Boeing's fault at the end of the day. Maximus Aviation also uploaded a video in 2022 compiling 6 incidents involving Boeing airliners and 2 sagas involving Boeing Military planes, questioning whether it's bad luck or if it's caused by problems at Boeing. The 2 military sagas are a different story where Boeing will have to take responsibility. But when it comes to the 6 incidents involving airliners, 5 of the 6 turned out to not be Boeing's fault, and the last one (MU7535) is currently inconclusive, but considering that China Eastern ungrounded their 737-800s a month after grounding it, that was unlikely to be Boeing's fault because MU failed to find evidence against Boeing after a month of grounding and scrutinizingly inspecting 737-800s for evidence against Boeing.

Yes. No one would have predicted this prior to the two crashes. And even then, KLM waited to see how Boeing would respond. It has been the additional issues of safety and quality (as KLM itself had to refuse 787-10's due to quality issues upon delivery) that did them make the very expensive decition to switch to Airbus. Expensive because all the pilots need to be re-trained in simulators and can not be active for the airline for weeks.

Time will tell.

No. Nor KLM nor Transavia had A320's. The only AIRBUS aircraft they have (Januart 2023) are 6 A330-200 and 5 A330-300.

They are actually looking at a Chinese engine that is in development.

I use my Logitech 920 to record the audio, in my living room. But if people would want me to purchase a dedicated mic, they can support me by following the link in the description, tehy can become a monthly supporter or do a one time donation.

Well North Korea has no money. Also there is a trade embargo against it. And delivering aircraft to it would not go under the radar. Cubana, I honestly don't know. And their priority target is maturing the aircraft, hence the domestic market first.

It's interesting to see now, a year later, that 2023 has not been the year of Boeing's success. Out sold and out delivered by Airbus and the Boeing management is even considering breaking up the company as they want to walk away from the mess they made over the years.

Mentour did one, he goes in depth, watch it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXq2mXSoj5ZolZI

Shareholders value and sales ...

So how much is a life worth? (in money of course as we are talking business)

@@intuitivAviationnews yes it is

@@intuitivAviationnews being in business killing 346 people for share price ...

Speaking of money, I wonder how much boeing has lost due to the bad management. They may have lost the new bomber program and other military projects.

@@zlm001 greed is the problem here as always

Yes, the Boeing management has been so focused on pleasing the shareholders with tens of billions in share buybacks. They didn't care about the future of the company, non of them or the shareholders. They we all just in for the quick money.

Make your own and share the link 😄

One year later, I'm still waiting for the link of your podcast :-)

True, but as you know "Results from the past are no guarantee for the future" 😃 And we see that a lot is changing in the world and is changing faster than before. We may also see changes happening faster within the aviation industry, forcing manufacturers to adapt faster too. Time will tell.

@@intuitivme Boeing didn't adapt very well did they

Also at Boeing things will change eventually. Maybe the US government will step in some day and force a change as Boeing is the US's largest exporter.

Here is what ChatGPT has to say on this: In 1983, after the KAL007 incident, the global attitude towards Korean Airlines (KAL) became highly negative, especially in the immediate aftermath. The airline was operating in a geopolitical landscape marked by Cold War tensions, which deeply affected the perception of the airline following the tragedy. Key Factors Shaping the Reaction: Cold War Tensions: KAL007, a scheduled flight from New York to Seoul, deviated from its planned route and was shot down by the Soviet Union after straying into Soviet airspace. This occurred during an intense period of Cold War hostility, heightening the incident's political implications. The event worsened relations between the U.S. and the USSR, and KAL's perceived lack of control over its aircraft and navigation systems led to widespread criticism. Safety and Competency Concerns: Korean Airlines was scrutinized for its navigation practices. Many wondered how a commercial jetliner could veer so far off course-hundreds of miles into restricted Soviet airspace. KAL faced accusations of negligence, which impacted its reputation as a safe and reliable airline. Political and Emotional Reactions: The incident resulted in the deaths of 269 passengers and crew, including U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald. The loss of innocent lives led to an outpouring of grief and anger, especially from the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. Public and governmental reaction to the event was strongly critical of the Soviet Union for its actions, but KAL was not immune from the fallout, facing questions about its safety protocols and professionalism. Airline's Struggle to Recover: In the years following the incident, Korean Airlines worked to rebuild its reputation. It had to address concerns about pilot training, navigation technology, and overall safety. The airline's image was severely damaged in the immediate aftermath, and it took years of reforms and improvements before KAL could regain public trust, especially in international markets. The KAL007 incident cast a long shadow over the airline and was a significant moment in Cold War history.

And when I asked this: "How about it been used by the CIA to spy?" ChatGPT said: There have been theories and speculations that Korean Airlines Flight 007 (KAL007) was used by the CIA or the U.S. government as part of an intelligence-gathering operation, though no conclusive evidence has emerged to support these claims. Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments related to the idea that KAL007 may have been involved in espionage: 1. Coincidental Presence of a U.S. Reconnaissance Aircraft: One of the factors fueling these suspicions is that a U.S. Air Force RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft was reportedly flying nearby, off the coast of the Soviet Far East, at the time KAL007 strayed into Soviet airspace. Some conspiracy theories suggest that the Soviet Union might have mistaken KAL007 for this U.S. reconnaissance plane, which had a similar size and shape, especially in the dark skies at high altitude. According to this theory, KAL007 was part of a broader intelligence operation, either deliberately or inadvertently used as cover. 2. Soviet Suspicion: The Soviet Union itself seemed to believe KAL007 might have been on a spying mission. Soviet leaders at the time, including Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, chief of the Soviet General Staff, claimed the flight was deliberately entering sensitive Soviet airspace for intelligence purposes. They emphasized how strange it was for a commercial aircraft to fly so deeply into restricted Soviet territory, particularly near military installations. 3. Inadvertent Intelligence Collection: Another theory suggests that KAL007 was not deliberately used for espionage but was carrying equipment or signals that could have gathered intelligence, such as recording data on Soviet air defense responses to the airspace violation. In this scenario, the flight might have been part of a covert intelligence mission without the crew’s knowledge. 4. Official Denials: The U.S. government has consistently denied that KAL007 was involved in espionage. They maintained that the flight’s deviation from its flight path was accidental, caused by a navigation error, and there was no deliberate attempt to provoke or spy on the Soviet Union. 5. Technological Discrepancies: Some have questioned the technical reasons behind KAL007's deviation, arguing that modern airliners in 1983, particularly long-haul flights like KAL007, had sophisticated enough navigation systems that such a significant error should have been preventable. This has led to speculation that the plane was somehow intentionally off course, though there’s no hard evidence to support this claim. 6. The Role of Congressman Larry McDonald: U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald, an outspoken anti-communist, was among the passengers on KAL007, which has also fueled conspiracy theories. Some speculated that his presence on the flight might have attracted attention from intelligence agencies, but this remains speculative and lacks solid evidence. Summary of the Espionage Theories: The idea that KAL007 was used for spying has been largely speculative, with most mainstream accounts rejecting the notion that the flight was directly involved in espionage. However, Cold War paranoia, the presence of nearby U.S. military planes, and the strange circumstances of the flight's deviation have kept these theories alive in some circles. Official investigations have attributed the incident to a navigation error rather than deliberate espionage.

I personally don't have enough information on the topic. But I suspect that CIA operations in the area for months did have something to do with this. A legitimate target or an unfortunate coincidence, time will tell.

The relationship between Cathay Pacific, China, and the West is indeed an interesting and complex dynamic. Cathay Pacific, founded in 1946 by an American and an Australian in Hong Kong, has long been associated with Hong Kong's colonial past and British influence. This has shaped both its image and perception, especially in the context of Hong Kong's history. Why the West Likes Cathay Pacific: Brand Legacy: Cathay Pacific has a longstanding reputation in the West for being a premium airline with high service standards. Over the years, it became a symbol of luxury and efficiency in air travel, appealing to Western travelers. Its Hong Kong base also positioned it as a convenient gateway to Asia, which increased its appeal to international business travelers. British Colonial Connection: Because Cathay was established during Hong Kong’s colonial era and developed under British rule, it holds a certain sentimental value for those who view Hong Kong's colonial past as a period of prosperity, especially from a Western perspective. This gives the brand a kind of prestige that resonates with Western sensibilities about Hong Kong as a business-friendly, Western-influenced hub. Liberal Image: Cathay Pacific has been seen as a symbol of Hong Kong’s unique status-separate from mainland China’s more authoritarian governance. The airline has been perceived as representative of the “one country, two systems” framework, which promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy after the handover to China in 1997. China's View of Cathay Pacific: Relic of British Imperialism: From the perspective of Chinese nationalists and certain elements within the Chinese government, Cathay Pacific is often viewed as a remnant of British colonialism, which can be seen as undesirable. The airline is a symbol of Hong Kong’s colonial past, which doesn’t align with Beijing’s efforts to assert Chinese sovereignty and influence over Hong Kong. For some in China, the Cathay brand, with its historical ties to the West, represents the legacy of foreign dominance, which China is eager to leave behind. Hong Kong Protests and Political Tensions: In 2019, during the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, Cathay Pacific found itself in the crossfire of political tensions. Some of the airline's employees participated in the protests, and Cathay’s management initially appeared to tolerate these activities. This greatly displeased Beijing, which views the protests as a direct challenge to its authority over Hong Kong. The Chinese government put significant pressure on Cathay Pacific, resulting in the airline enforcing stricter policies to ensure staff did not support the protests. Beijing's Growing Influence: Post-2019, Cathay Pacific’s leadership underwent changes, with increased influence from Beijing. This marked a turning point, with the airline becoming more aligned with mainland China's expectations and policies. However, it is true that some nationalist voices in China may still see Cathay as a reminder of an era they would rather move past-an era of British rule, foreign influence, and autonomy for Hong Kong. The Dichotomy: This creates a fascinating dichotomy. In the West, Cathay Pacific is often viewed positively, associated with freedom, high standards, and Hong Kong's former role as a "Westernized" outpost in Asia. Meanwhile, in mainland China, some see it as a symbol of foreign influence that China is gradually trying to phase out or bring under closer control. It reflects the broader tensions between Hong Kong's identity as a unique, semi-autonomous region with deep ties to both East and West, and Beijing's growing efforts to fully integrate Hong Kong into its national framework.

What didn't you like about this video?