Is safety an optional extra?

[ellal]

According to Boeing it is!

Doomed Boeing planes lacked two optional safety features

"Boeing reportedly sold the 737 Max planes that crashed in Indonesia and Ethiopia without two safety features that the US aircraft manufacturer offers airlines for an additional cost."

And it may not just be Boeing either...

"It is up to airlines to decide whether to pay for upgrades to a standard plane – a practice that is common among aircraft manufacturers and allows them to charge extra, often for aesthetic features relating to seating or lighting, but for other features relevant to the operation of planes, too.

Regulators do not require airlines to buy optional extras, and many low-cost carriers opt not to."

And if the regulators are turning a blind eye to safety 'optional extras', then it's just yet another case of 'profit before people'...

If proven to be the cause in these crashes, Boeing should be taken to the cleaners!

 

[Notch7]

I suppose if I was buying a car, I would want to choose the optional upgrade that included brakes and a steering wheel.

 

[Ihavenojob]

People want "cheap" people get "cheap". If they were made mandatory then it would be better. Some car makers offer auto braking, its an optional safety feature, cost you more, or you don't have it.

 

[Ihavenojob]

Do other aircraft have these missing extras ?

 

[durhamplumber]

People want "cheap" people get "cheap". If they were made mandatory then it would be better. Some car makers offer auto braking, its an optional safety feature, cost you more, or you don't have it.

Precisely....extra airbags.bullet proof glass...on and on...

 

[SirGalahad]

Do other aircraft have these missing extras ?

No as they don't need MCAS software to override the problems inherent with a plane design. No MCAS no need for a warning light.

The FAA let Boeing certify the plane in large parts and guess what - when you cut the funding of regulators this is what happens.

This is a failure of Boeing Top Brass and the regulator.

 

[durhamplumber]

No as they don't need MCAS software to override the problems inherent with a plane design. No MCAS no need for a warning light.

The FAA let Boeing certify the plane in large parts and guess what - when you cut the funding of regulators this is what happens.

This is a failure of Boeing Top Brass and the regulator.

Military aircraft are inherantly unstable,computers keep them airborne,but they have the luxury of a MB chair!!!.

 

[Ihavenojob]

This is a failure of Boeing Top Brass and the regulator.

So we can expect mass prosecutions for corporate manslaughter then.

 

[SirGalahad]

So we can expect mass prosecutions for corporate manslaughter then.

not a chance.

look through boeing history and the current furore over Patrick Shanahan

https://qz.com/1572381/the-relationship-between-boeing-trump-and-the-federal-government/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/politics/boeing-pentagon.html

 

[SirGalahad]

Military aircraft are inherantly unstable,computers keep them airborne,but they have the luxury of a MB chair!!!.

So comparing Military Aircraft that have a different purpose to defend Boeing who did not inform some pilots of MCAS and a 57 minute ipad training video sufficed, yeah you make a great point. NOT

 

[Ihavenojob]

not a chance.

look through boeing history and the current furore over Patrick Shanahan

https://qz.com/1572381/the-relationship-between-boeing-trump-and-the-federal-government/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/politics/boeing-pentagon.html

Surely if the charges were bought by several of the victims nations they may start to sh1t themselves.

 

[SirGalahad]

Surely if the charges were bought by several of the victims nations they may start to sh1t themselves.

Charges already brought in the state of illinois ( Boeing HQ) exist, your not going to win in the home state of Boeing.

 

[big-all]

the evil off this situation is they factor in the compensations risk
there was a ford car design i think the elderado where the fuel tank was dangerously exposed at the back bumper so in collisions would catch fire butt it would be cheaper to pay compensation to people that died as most would not go that far on the compensation route so in balance cheaper to pay compensation rather than make it safer

"EDIT"
it appears to be the pinto that was the car concerned
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto12.htm

 

[durhamplumber]

So comparing Military Aircraft that have a different purpose to defend Boeing who did not inform some pilots of MCAS and a 57 minute ipad training video sufficed, yeah you make a great point. NOT

Where do i defend boeing? Dopy...just making a point about aerodynamics...you jumped to the conclusions.

 

[durhamplumber]

So comparing Military Aircraft that have a different purpose

Last time i looked,,,all aircraft have the purpose of flying!!!