You missed the bit where the Boeing sales people deliberately miss informed the airlines that no type conversation training was necessar, in order to increase sales. The pilots of the crashed jets had no idea that this system existed let alone how to deal with a failure of it.

Ford pinto levels of corporate competence.

[deleted]

I mean There is always the option not to buy a new iPhone, but you know people and priorities

I flew on a BA A380 two weeks ago from London. The big jets are a fantastic passenger experience (so much less turbulence, a much quieter plane) but the plane was like you mentioned only 80% full. They let me sneak up to premium from coach for most of the flight since they had empty seats

Nope, they could remove the port and keep the wireless charger there's nothing wrong with that (When it comes to the law)

The 747 series has 4 engines and a wing form optimized for higher cruise speed. You can't easily engineer your way around those without redesigning the whole plane. They already have the 787 and 777, which meet customers needs.

What, were you expecting free samples?

Magnetic charging ports that don't need a male female connection.

How about gizmo? Would it qualify as that?

We were there for several hours. Saw three different assembly lines including 777 and 787.

I don’t remember exactly but I think the EU is saying they can’t do that or something along those lines

Look at the brain on this one.

They'll just chuck an adaptor in you watch.

So we will get one more year of a lighting port IPhone, then Apple will do something ridiculous like release a completely portless IPhone.

I remember going to Hawaii in the early 80’s and having a whole middle row of 4 seats to myself. The flight was probably 20% full

It's actually mostly because airlines are unable to fill these jumbos as regularly so they have lower utilization.

The narrowbodies/modern widebodys do have slightly lower maintenance costs, but also actually have a higher load factor since they can be filled regularly and flown more often.

That’s how the 737MAX happened. Trying to extend the lifespan of a design long past when it should have been retired.

As in the 737 was designed during a time when many airports had no baggage handling equipment for loading, so it sits lower to the ground than every other extant Boeing design, which then forced them to move the engine nacelles up when they slapped in the truly massive high-bypass turbofan jets. Moving the nacelles changed flight characteristics of the plane but they put a flight control system from the military side (MCAS) on to bring the planes flight characteristics back in line with the OG 737. The MCAS system got faulty data from sensors on some flights and severely contributed to the downing of those flights. There were specific trim levels on the 737MAX that had/have more advanced troubleshooting features (that’s the safety systems locked behind a paywall of earlier posts), that the airlines of the flights that went down didn’t spring for (new cockpit setup would require that airline to send its pilots in for retraining on the new features).

This is what I pieced together working in Boeing’s fabrication division deburring and hand-finishing wing ribs and spar chords (ribs hold the upper and lower wing skins apart and the spar chords hold the wing skins to the fuselage.) Chances are if you’ve flown on any of the new 777X aircraft parts of the wings I fixed up with angle grinders and hand tools.

Dear EU PLEASE standardise fast charge, otherwise we are still going to have multiple adapters from Samsung apple haewai creating more e waste

All twin-engines need to be able to fly on a single engine regardless of ETOPS status.

the props are in the jet engine, right?

If I remember right the wing skins were last made in the 1990’s, so ~30 years lead time?

Higher complexity doesn't generally improve your reliability aspects though and whereas I don't know much about the 747 it's entirely possible the 4 engines aren't entirely independent.

They might share fuel-pumps per-wing, so if say something happened to fuel pump 1 out of 2 you might not have engines 1 & 2 while engines 3 & 4 are calmy doing their thing.

Less moving parts is generally always a good thing, and if it weren't a passenger aircraft potentially eliminating down to a single engine "might" be acceptable if the gliding capabilities were very good (much like some turbo-prop planes) and the risk of losing life was overall lower.

Also Moden jets are much much more fuel efficient.

Gonna miss these. Along with the a380. Lucky to have been able to fly both a few times intercontinental.

No, you are saying assembling. Production of it starts when whichever component started to be made. It could be the engine or radar system, which can be much longer.