[conspire] That costs extra

[Texx]

OK so FFA doesnt have the technical expertise to actually regulate the
industry.
What the neo cons are all about de regulating industry and actual
dismantling
of the govt in the name of tax relief.

If the FFA doesnt have the expertise, then lets just get RID of it?
Lets cut some taxes.
Maybe a few planes will slam into a few Trump properties.

Its uncomfortable to admit, but this lifelong republican is starting to
wonder if its time to bring socialism to the US.
Its absolutelt frightening to even THINK of it, but maybe its time to think
about it.








On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:48 PM Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Quoting Tony Godshall (togo at of.net):
>
> > Wow.  Too big to fail and all that.  When there are just two major
> > passenger aircraft manufacturers in the world and only one is American,
> > I would cynically expect the American regulator to gut them too much
> > slack.
>
> I fear you're right.  That having been said, the FAA policy of letting
> manufacturers most 'self-certify' safety has been applied to all ~30
> regulated companies, not _just_ Boeing, so it was stupid but not
> _necessarily_ corrupt.  That policy revision dates back to 2005:  IIRC
> that the 737 MAX (MAX 8 and MAX 9) is the first aircraft certified under
> the new regime (or nearly so).
>
> Aside from that, yes, after Lockheed Corporation ended production of the
> L-1011 TriStar in 1984 (and withdrew from commercial aviation entirely,
> owing to below-target sales), and then McDonnell Douglas was gobbled up by
> Boeing in 1997, I thought 'Oh-oh, we're going to have a monopoly problem.'
>
> I mentioned Boeing's serious knuckle-dragging problem, on account of
> needing to put larger engines on the 737's low-slung 1950s-style wings
> to compete with the Airbus A320neo, but one picture's worth a thousand
> words, so:
>
> https://www.ge.com/reports/weve-got-an-exclusive-look-at-boeing-brand-new-737-max-jet/
>
> Notice the bottom of the engine is right around the man's _shins_.  There
> is _very_ little ground clearance, and that's after Boeing's deeply
> problematic kludge of mounting the engines higher and further forward
> than the plane's basic design contemplated.
>
> I'm nobody's idea of neutral towards Boeing Company on account of that
> whole Inigo Montoya thing -- but, um, 'res ipsa loquitur'.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
>


-- 

R "Texx" Woodworth
Sysadmin, E-Postmaster, IT Molewhacker
"Face down, 9 edge 1st, roadkill on the information superdata highway..."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/attachments/20190409/0e8c7c4e/attachment-0001.html>