Max

I've read that the break even for full electric is at least a decade given the energy consumed to produce the battery, etc. We need more nuclear and to focus on fusion; once there, we'll need a lot more grid and storage, and then this will all make much more sense. Toyota has teased a 750 mile batter with a 10 minute charge time. Game changer if that becomes available.

Love my BMW XM; best of both worlds. I can decide to drive battery only and get gas when the weather is nice, or add in the V8 and have plenty of power. It's a great toy. Of course, none of these are any good for the environment as long as we burn coal to power them. Once we get fusion and better batteries, they may make environmental sense as well.

Flew Concorde once westbound. Was a great experience but - at least eastbound - I'd rather fly in comfortable first class seat bed.

For sale. $9,999. This deal just dropped in my lap and I don't need it, so I'm passing on the savings.

BA0193 yesterday flew LHR-DFW with zero PAX.

Fortunately, I was out a long time ago. Time to put politics aside. We are facing an unprecedented public health threat that will likely put our economy into recession...if we are lucky. Everyone stay safe. Wash your hands. Stay home if you can.

Precisely my point. Fortunately, my stop losses kicked in before my panic would have. No one is looking at their stock portfolio this week and having happy thoughts. Unless they were out of the market entirely.

Because that's what they do when there's big news. Shares ended the week about where they started. Have mentioned a time or two before, I bought for a decade, not a month or year. That said, I'm not loving the drip, drip, drip delay strategy.

Complicated issue actually. BA will certainly be paying out $B. But airlines also seeing higher profits because of slower ASK growth.

Nope. Thanksgiving in Europe. Hope all had a nice holiday. Was hysterical to ask our tour guides about the meaning of Black Friday. They don't celebrate Thanksgiving in Italy, but they do worship the day after!

Essentially, you are correct. The engines on the 737Max are larger (and more efficient). To fit them under the wing without changing the landing gear, they were moved forward so that the largest part of the engine (the fan) could be raised without interfering with the wing structure. The change did not create instability but in some situations the difference in the engine placement could cause the aircraft to pitch up more than the 737NG and MCAS was designed to counteract this to prevent the aircraft from stalling. MCAS is only active when the autopilot is not engaged (because the autopilot has other stall prevention safeguards). The fatal flaw in the MCAS design (which, with the admitted benefit of hindsight really looks stupid to me) was that it took angle of attack (pitch) information from only one of the two sensors on the aircraft (alternating between them on each successive flight). The single failure point is very unusual and obviously inappropriate (again, with the admitted benefit of hindsight). Moving the engines wasn't the problem, MCAS dependency on only one input was. This was compounded by the intentional function of MCAS - to forcefully put the nose down - repeatedly if necessary. And it was that latter bit that was the second problem. It didn't just kick once...it did so repeatedly. Another area of contention is whether Boeing told pilots enough about MCAS. It's not clear whether engineers considered the possibility of MCAS malfunction but if they did, they apparently assumed that pilots would react to a malfunction of MCAS in the same way they would any other similar automation run amok. The runaway-trim scenario is one with which all pilots are familiar (or at least should be if they fly an airplane with electric trim controls). And if followed, the procedure corrects the MCAS malfunction problem. Basically, whether in a Cirrus like I fly or a 777 (or 737NG or 737MAX), when the plane does something you don't want it to, or don't understand, you turn off that system (whether by switch or turning off the power to the system). This happened a week or so ago with an Embraer regional jet. The main landing gear in all 737 aircraft fold under and tuck into the body of the aircraft. My understanding is that there's basically not enough room to make them longer.

Only time will tell, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that outcome. Same was said about the "radical" use of battery power in the 787, particularly after the ET fire. If the Max program stalls, maybe Boeing will proceed with NMA. They probably wish they'd already done at this point.

Actually, my poking the bear with respect to @Oaktown is an admittedly childish response to his doing the same. So, that's my "he started it" defense. IDGAF if you think it's condescending frankly. That said, I'm not at all cavalier about the design flaw. And I don't disagree with the general skepticism and distrust of Boeing (see below) in this circumstance. And I have not suggested - at all - that share prices will rebound in the short term. In fact, I'd prefer they not do so. What I've said, several times, is that I've invested (and have provided details for share prices IIRC) and I believe that over the next decade, BA will outperform the market, much as it did in the decade subsequent to the date of the original post in this thread. @Oaktown claims to have taken a short position and I've simply invited him to share the strike price and expiration date of his options. We've each taken a wager, the game is set, and I've shown my cards. And, if you go way back to the first few posts in this thread, they (to paraphrase/summarize) posit that the flawed battery design in the 787 would or at least might result in the termination of what has become one of the most technologically transformative aircraft development programs in history. I strongly suspect that the FAA will be taking a much closer look at the details of MCAS and other automation systems before the plane flies again. Certainly shareholders and their attorneys will be doing so. Another fatal crash would very likely be the end of the program. Interestingly, an Embraer 175 had a loss of trim control incident a couple of days ago as well. https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/11/08/american-e175-diversion/

Actually, my poking the bear with respect to @Oaktown is an admittedly childish response to his doing the same. So, that's my "he started it" defense. IDGAF if you think it's condescending frankly. That said, I'm not at all cavalier about the design flaw. And I don't disagree with the general skepticism and distrust of Boeing (see below) in this circumstance. And I have not suggested - at all - that share prices will rebound in the short term. In fact, I'd prefer they not do so. What I've said, several times, is that I've invested (and have provided details for share prices IIRC) and I believe that over the next decade, BA will outperform the market, much as it did in the decade subsequent to the date of the original post in this thread. @Oaktown claims to have taken a short position and I've simply invited him to share the strike price and expiration date of his options. We've each taken a wager, the game is set, and I've shown my cards. And, if you go way back to the first few posts in this thread, they (to paraphrase/summarize) posit that the flawed battery design in the 787 would or at least might result in the termination of what has become one of the most technologically transformative aircraft development programs in history. I strongly suspect that the FAA will be taking a much closer look at the details of MCAS and other automation systems before the plane flies again. Certainly shareholders and their attorneys will be doing so. Another fatal crash would very likely be the end of the program. Interestingly, an Embraer 175 had a loss of trim control incident a couple of days ago as well. https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/11/08/american-e175-diversion/

Got it. No, I'd not look to the head of the flight attendant's union to judge the airworthiness of an airliner. I'm pretty sure the FAA and at least one congressional committee are taking a microscopic approach to evaluating the plane's future. As it should be.