Originally Posted by
armchairpilot94116
Love Boeing and their jets. But I feel Boeing let the people on those two planes down. In the very worst possible way. Not advising and training on a feature that can (and did) prove deadly and very quickly. Especially if it is thought that airline pilots that are not American are less trained and less able. If that is indeed so or even suspected to be so, then it is the supplier of the aircraft's duty to train them to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. The airplane manufacturer should, indeed must provide (more than) adequate supervision and after sales training ( both flying and maintenance) for the proper use of their product. At least that is what I feel.
If you supply nuclear reactors to a client you (the maker) should be at least morally responsible to provide adequate training in its operation.
You sell hundreds of the latest jets to a client, you should and indeed must provide training in their operation and maintenance to a proper level.
The client should not be allowed to 'wing it' so to speak.
Again my one penny.
Your first sentence demonstrates the modern phenomenon of fanboyism. But really the problem revolves around competing needs. Fundamentally A/C are tools with which to do a job, they are not, must not, be considered in terms of wafer-thin shallowness as say Nike vs Adidas.
- Passengers want cheap(est) fares. Cheaper fares = more passengers = higher load factor = airline profitability (for a given mean fare).
- So, airlines want lowest cost; low(est) leasing rates, low(est) fuel consumption, low(est) maintenance costs, low(est) training costs for new A/C types, lowest wage rates, maximum airframe and crew utilisation, lowest airport charges, etc, etc.
- Aircraft manufacturers want high volume sales for profitability to amortise fixed and development costs, in part to please investors and in part to create sufficient cash flow to allow development of the next model and so will make what they think the market will buy most of...to the minimum standard permitted in service (ie lowest cost). They will offer 'optional extras' at extra cost to the airlines/leasing agents (ie another profit centre).
- Governments and their aviation regulators want maximum safety (in theory). It's not helpful for your voters to suffer the consequences of your mistakes or to see others do so.
Just this simple construct (yes, I know it's more complicated than that), illustrates the tensions in decision-making and taking. Remember, there is no such thing as 'safe' or 'unsafe'. It's all a matter of degree based on thorough, objective, tested risk assessment. Or it should be. But then everyone has an agenda. Everyone.