Boeing 737 Max
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, August 21, 2026 17:40
VIEWED: 21693
PAGE 9 of 22
Many folk have become far too complacent about Aircraft Safety, Airline Safety.
Hopefully this has helped wake the masses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:NEITHER DID FDR WHEN HE WAS FIRST ELECTED.
Originally posted by SECOND:
Obama did not have a super majority in Congress.
Quote:BUT NOT WHEN HE WAS FIRST ELECTED. FDR was in the exact same position regarding Congress during his first 2 years as president as Obama was during his first 2 years as president.
FDR did.
Quote:AFTER 2 YEARS IN THE PRESIDENCY, FDR WAS SO POPULAR REPUBLICANS WERE SWEPT FROM CONGRESS, and FDR achieved a supermajority.
FDR did not create his super majority.
Quote:He sure did - BY FAILING TO VIGOROUSLY PURSUE HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES during his first 2 years, UNLIKE FDR.
Obama did not create his subpar majority, either.
And that's as far as I got. I couldn't take the lies anymore.
Anyone who wants to see the facts has merely to go to wiki and look up the 72nd, 73rd, and 74th congresses, and FDR's term of office. I'm not going to argue what is CLEARLY factual with a pathological liar.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To get back to Obama's abysmal failure to act as a populist president after being elected as a populist president (data from various wiki pages and ballotpedia) ... Obama was routed in the midterms. It can't be overstated what a disaster for democrats the 2010 mid-terms were. This is in contrast to FDR whose strongly populist actions caused him to rout republicans during his midterms. Attempts to paint Obama as a hapless victim of outside forces instead of as having justly earned the result of his own failures are shown false by the data.:
Here were the standings before and after the 2008 elections, where the Democrats gained large numbers in Congress as a result of Obama's campaign:
Senate
Seats contested 35
D Seats before 49
D Seats after 57
D Seat change +8
House
Seats contested (all) 435
D Seats before 236
D Seats won 257
D Seat change +21
Nominee Barack Obama
Electoral vote 365(68%)
States carried 28 + DC + NE
Popular vote 69,498,516
Percentage 52.9%
But the 2010 midterms were a reversal in the Senate resulting in a 1seat majority:
Senate
D Seats before 57
D Seats after 51
D Seat change -6
And a rout everywhere else:
House
D Seats before 256
D Seats after 193
D Seat change -63
State legislatures
seats up for reelection 6,125 of 7,384
R +>660
D state senates before election 23 of 41
D state senates after election 15 of 41
D state houses before election 29 of 45
D state houses after election 16 of 45
Gubernatorial elections
positions up for election 37
D governorships before election 19
D governorships after election 9
This can't be attributed to 'racism'. People who voted overwhelmingly for Obama and democrats in 2008 didn't suddenly become racist by 2010.
And the 2012 general election showed a waning of support for Obama
Electoral vote 332(-33)
States carried 26 + DC(-3)
Popular vote 65,915,795(-3,582,721)
Percentage 51.1%(-1.8%)
And only minor D recoveries in Congress Senate +2, House +6; with a gain of 1 state Senate, and 4 state Houses.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you saying Obama won 28 States plus Nebraska in 2008?
Originally posted by rue:
To get back to Obama's abysmal failure to act as a populist president after being elected as a populist president (data from various wiki pages and ballotpedia) ... Obama was routed in the midterms. It can't be overstated what a disaster for democrats the 2010 mid-terms were. This is in contrast to FDR whose strongly populist actions caused him to rout republicans during his midterms. Attempts to paint Obama as a hapless victim of outside forces instead of as having justly earned the result of his own failures are shown false by the data.:
Here were the standings before and after the 2008 elections, where the Democrats gained large numbers in Congress as a result of Obama's campaign:
Senate
Seats contested 35
D Seats before 49
D Seats after 57
D Seat change +8
House
Seats contested (all) 435
D Seats before 236
D Seats won 257
D Seat change +21
Nominee Barack Obama
Electoral vote 365(68%)
States carried 28 + DC + NE
Popular vote 69,498,516
Percentage 52.9%
But the 2010 midterms were a reversal in the Senate resulting in a 1seat majority:
Senate
D Seats before 57
D Seats after 51
D Seat change -6
And a rout everywhere else:
House
D Seats before 256
D Seats after 193
D Seat change -63
State legislatures
seats up for reelection 6,125 of 7,384
R +>660
D state senates before election 23 of 41
D state senates after election 15 of 41
D state houses before election 29 of 45
D state houses after election 16 of 45
Gubernatorial elections
positions up for election 37
D governorships before election 19
D governorships after election 9
This can't be attributed to 'racism'. People who voted overwhelmingly for Obama and democrats in 2008 didn't suddenly become racist by 2010.
And the 2012 general election showed a waning of support for Obama
Electoral vote 332(-33)
States carried 26 + DC(-3)
Popular vote 65,915,795(-3,582,721)
Percentage 51.1%(-1.8%)
And only minor D recoveries in Congress Senate +2, House +6; with a gain of 1 state Senate, and 4 state Houses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to toss in a different twist on the topic ... "Self regulation" is exactly how the FDA operates. The drug companies do theiir own testing and submit their own data. (so what if they have to perform ten tests to get one that shows what that want?) There is a revolving door between the FDA and big pharma. Much university research is funded by, and therefore the data owned by, big pharma (and any uncomfortable data can be stuffed in a drawer)
I could point to any regulatory agency and you'll see much the same story. This has been going on for decades, not just under Trump for
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Drugs or medicines may be withdrawn from commercial markets because of risks to patients. The Boeing 737 MAX could be withdrawn permanently, not temporarily grounded. That's one way to get Boeing to make a totally new design to replace it, one with fewer side-effects such as sudden death.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Just to toss in a different twist on the topic ... "Self regulation" is exactly how the FDA operates. The drug companies do theiir own testing and submit their own data. (so what if they have to perform ten tests to get one that shows what that want?) There is a revolving door between the FDA and big pharma. Much university research is funded by, and therefore the data owned by, big pharma (and any uncomfortable data can be stuffed in a drawer)
I could point to any regulatory agency and you'll see much the same story. This has been going on for decades, not just under Trump for
List of withdrawn drugs (without worry about economic damage to the manufacturer or the disappointment of satisfied consumers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
Checkout the Aircraft Museums with aircraft designs too old and dangerous to fly. That's where the 737 MAX should be, along side of the Space Shuttle, which also crashed two times, killing everyone onboard.
www.cnn.com/travel/article/best-aviation-museums/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
American Airlines is extending Boeing Co 737 MAX cancellations through Aug. 19.
Once the aircraft is recertified, which the executives said they expect will happen “soon,” American plans to initially bring its MAX aircraft back on line as spares to supplement its operation as needed.
www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-american-air/american-air
lines-extends-boeing-737-max-cancellations-through-august-19-idUSKCN1RQ0FL
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm wondering about something I haven't seen mentioned.
After the 2nd Flight Failure, were there any America-based Airlines which self-grounded their own 737 MAX birds?
Also, are these 300 grounded birds just sitting at random Airports, wherever they were when the grounding was announced?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm wondering about something I haven't seen mentioned.
After the 2nd Flight Failure, were there any America-based Airlines which self-grounded their own 737 MAX birds?
Also, are these 300 grounded birds just sitting at random Airports, wherever they were when the grounding was announced?
Good question!
I'm too busy to look up the answer myself but ... (maybe put this in the predictions thread) my guess would be no. Self-grounding would result in an economic loss. No company is going to voluntarily take a loss unless competitors are doing the same thing. (Gotta' keep the shareholders happy with them quarterly reports!) So businesses - especially publicly-traded ones - will wait until the government forces them do something they should do.
This I think is generally true for other expenses as well - pollution mitigation, worker safety, and product safety come to mind.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm wondering about something I haven't seen mentioned.
After the 2nd Flight Failure, were there any America-based Airlines which self-grounded their own 737 MAX birds?
Also, are these 300 grounded birds just sitting at random Airports, wherever they were when the grounding was announced?
Good question!
I'm too busy to look up the answer myself but ... (maybe put this in the predictions thread) my guess would be no. Self-grounding would result in an economic loss. No company is going to voluntarily take a loss unless competitors are doing the same thing. (Gotta' keep the shareholders happy with them quarterly reports!) So businesses - especially publicly-traded ones - will wait until the government forces them do something they should do.
This I think is generally true for other expenses as well - pollution mitigation, worker safety, and product safety come to mind.
Loss of All Souls On Board is a significant PR blemish.
Risking that is what I would consider different than your other 3. Having an economic impact is true, but garnering a reputation as the leader in passenger Safety could also have economic impact.
Besides the Airline decision, I wonder how many 737 Pilots refused to fly them. Many times, a Pilot will declare a bird Not Airworthy during Preflight Inspection. Which then means the Airline shuffles in another Pilot who is less fussy, or they make the bird more Airworthy (the more expensive option).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME