Aiya Boeing shares taking a nosedive (pun intended) now that Airbus is eating into their market share, many people hating on Boeing. Their customer handling may be bad, but that doesn't mean they're obliged to provide a simulator training if not covered in purchase contract.

They're in the airplane building bitness, not in the pilot training bitness. Mati lo if losing money already still have to train pilots.

Your ignorance is amazing....lol

Muricunts

Some Americans are really dumb.

Bodoh ke apa tulis like that in office email? Meh abam ajar.

“Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I’m scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots,” o
Lion Air still insist on simulated training the pilot, even after <insert standard procedure> completed, kindly advise.

“WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!”
With all due respect, the procedure is already as per the standards used by their sister airline. Anything more we will need to review back our service level agreement and charge accordingly. Kindly communicate that to respective party.

Then ajak each other pergi mamak and then ko nak maki ke apa ke do it there lah aiyooo.

What weed u smoking? seems more and more retard.

Aku de tgk 1 documentary ni few years back pasal boeing plant ni even dieorg punya staff pun x berani nk naik the plane

But not sure 787 or 737 max

Bersangka baik, malindo air pilot pndai and skilfull, sohai plane ain't no problem

The pilots couldn’t disable it in time or at all

If this material had been part of a training, the crashes would have been avoided.

Duno what bitnes u in but sell industrial machines also have to provide training how to use lah, especially if requested by customer.

the main reason why boeing is so reluctant to provide additional training is because they pitched that the new 737-max is almost exactly same as older planes n nothing new is added (this is because competitor airbus released bigger n more powerful planes that operates the same as their older planes, if boeing admits that they added MCAS to overcome the plane tilting movement n additional training is required to fly the new planes (while airbus new planes doesnt need any new training) , then it will make boeing new planes look inferior compared to airbus's n airlines will prefer airbus instead

Yes, can. Why cannot? You've probably never operated a machine before.

In other words, it's the same as flying a 737ng sim with an email about the stabilizer.

Man no wonder you guys are losing out in the value chain.

Look at the way he answer question you can tell , he is no where technical, nor high tech.

Wow look at all the pilots in this thread!

So the training material is 737ng sim + instructions on rebooting a software.

If industrial machines produce model A and then next time they produce model A+ and say it's the same but here is the instructions to reboot a feature, do you need an entire training on model A+?

In that case, I suggest you all go back to driving school each time you change car.

Therein lies the reason for the disaster, and what caused the slide in Boeing technology.....

"Value chain".....

I was waiting for the "drive car" analogy....

Here it comes....

Yes, pilots actually go back to driving school when switching aircrafts....it's called conversion....

Or a simple a communication problem. Learn how to look for root cause instead of blame la

We're talking about the same aircraft here.

Ah....that's the point..... Boeing wants people to think it's the same....it's not....

When the Ng was launched in 97, pilots needed to undergo conversion training....because of significant cockpit differences....

However, the more advanced a320 changed the game maintaining the same operations across the family 319/320/321/CEO/neo.....thus allowing pilots to be rated to fly all of them....that fact helps sell a lot of 320s (not to mention close similarity with the 330/340 as well, making conversion easy)....

So Boeing wants the same "value chain" to sell the max.....

Except the max had one big problem: engine too big for the low wings.... solution: put it in front.....

Guess what happens to the centre of gravity when you move 2 heavy engines forward?.....

Good "value chains"?.....lol

I tire of this nonsense being thrown about

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610

Basically, a co pilot who never took the sim already briefed the crew how to fix the malfunction, but the next crew failed to heed the advice, and because of lousy pilot skills, crashed the plane. I'm not saying Boeing is not at fault (never did) but you can't deny that a training sim is unnecessary, as Boeing also issued an operational guide to inform pilots.

You also seem to be obsessed with the words "value chain", not only do you not know how you use them, you had demonstrated you can't add value to the discussion proving me right in my judgement that you have not moved up the value chain. Being too busy finding fault can do that to people.

This post has been edited by MAGAMan-X: Jan 15 2020, 11:36 PM

Rubbish.....

Boeing never inform pilots.of the mcas....

An intrinsic defect in the aircraft to be corrected by a co-pilot's advice?....seriously? That's how you would solve this problem?

Would a sim training avoid the crashes?.... subsequent SIM simulation crashes.....because pilots reaction to mcas was different from Boeing's expectation.....so it may certainly pick up problems with pilot reactions....

Finding fault?....me?....Why would the whole world ground all maxs, if it's not at fault?....I didn't ground them....

As to value chain....its obsession with the whole idea that caused Boeing to keep modifying an aged frame instead of a new aircraft....even to the extend a /k discussion needs to "move up the value chain".....lol