The Flawed Inspection Process Under Scrutiny in Boeing 777 Engine Failures | WSJ
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- A type of Pratt & Whitney engine on Boeing 777s has failed catastrophically three times in a three-year span. Federal investigators are trying to figure out why.
More from the Wall Street Journal:
Visit WSJ.com: www.wsj.com
Visit the WSJ Video Center: wsj.com/video
On Facebook: / videos
On Twitter: / wsj
On Snapchat: on.wsj.com/2ra...
#WSJ #Boeing #Aviation
The passengers (and the airline) were extremely lucky that the fan blade did not penetrate the fuselage and kill someone, which has happened before.
or damage the wing.
That's actually part of the engine design, to fail safe.
@@anijeetkanjilal4183 woefully misinformed on the Concorde crash. The issue there was the Concorde’s destroyed tire hit the fuel tank, which absorbed the energy by popping open a panel to the fuel tank, leaking fuel. The leaking fuel ignited, and consistent with indicated engine fire procedure past V1, the pilots continued with the takeoff and throttled down the affected engines. Had the pilots continued with takeoff power on all engines, there likely would have been no crash, since the plane wouldn’t have stalled. The plane didn’t explode until it hit the ground.
@@qwerty112311 I see, sorry, I should learn more before commenting.
Fan case is designed to contain blade separation. And tested. Google “fan blade out test” slow-mo videos.
Imagine how nice cars would be if we had this sort of care about failures in them.
@Wall StreetJournal dude you aren’t tricking anyone with your scams, the real WSJ has a verification check mark
Car engine fails, u just pull to the side and stop, no engine pieces is going to pierce the car's firewall to kill you. In a plane's engine, it might.
Planned Obsolescence
Airlines spend ungodly amounts of money on regular maintenance and inspections.
All you do is change the oil every few months.
Can't really compare that...
I literally live now days feeding myself watching Wall Street journal videos.
Go read a book, literally.
*nowadays
Great job reporting on this. Someone has to motivate corporations to do what's needed and expected.
This goes for all industries. I am seeing a lot of irregularities in how even digital health products are being developed. Its only a matter of time before there are serious repercussions for patients and health care staff
That's what government is for. but somehow they chose to deregulate and give permission for the business owner to do it's own regulation. What could go wrong
I used to work at a Pratt Whitney engine overhaul facility in SEA.
The whole operations was about profitability over everything else with cutting corners being an operating standard rather than an exception.
Let me guess:
- Management was filled with MBA's?
- Engineers left on a daily basis, because management ignored their warnings?
- Engineers who didn't quit themselves were fired, because management found them annoying?
@@timmy7201 in Asia there tends to be a very compliant top down culture. Engineers in the mgmt will be more than willing to follow the MBAs.
Any who sit in positions like department head, area managers or chief of the safety department and dont kow tow to the trend will be either pushed out or start seeing their career stagnate.
The workforce was deunionised and most of the technicians are now foreigners with a work pass renewable every 2 years. The line process was also broken down to very specific and repetitive action so that anyone can be replaced at the drop of a hat and the replacement trained in a day or two because its no longer a skilled job.
This allowed the management to silence concerns from the actual workfloor.
Ive watched countless videos online regarding airplane structure and engine maintenance facilities. None reflected what I experienced in reality there. In reality the place looked like a diesel overhaul facility with oil spills and scattered parts all over the floor.
When there was a visit by clients or potential new clients, an army of cleaners from third party contract cleaning companies will be deployed to lick the place clean until the very moment the visitors register at the guard house. Than these guys go into hiding until the visit is over.
Thats because no client will want to send their engines if they saw actual conditions when work is being carried out.
So its no surprise when engines start failing frequently now more than ever. It all comes down to putting profit over all else and those in the management role having a common personal quality which is the willingness to bend their own ethics and professional ethos to go with the crowd.
@@theallseeingeye9388 Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
Work for Doncaster for 15 years and I quit on December 2018 for a good reason.
FAA 'oversight' led to 737 Max failures also
737*
@@Kpaojd - And, the FAA allowed Boeing to “self-certify” the 737 MAX-8, so it’s more precisely “lack of FAA oversight” that contributed to the problems with the MAX.
Boeing was competing with Airbus. Hence the hurry
FAA is the simply a staff exchange between them and Boeing.
FAA instead of being an "overseer," is been known to be a "partner" of the industry, I say that's conflict of interest. China grounded Max before FAA did, China! if that wasn't embarrassing I don't know what is.
Results of 10 years of research, and HUNDREDS of test, hundreds??!
Why this loop hole that it allows emerging testing processes to have no training for testing professionals. It should even be more evident for new processes to have extensive training.
Cutting the cost?
Like what happen with boeing mcas system.
I can only see one possible use for such an exception: if the method is run in parallel to an existing, qualified test that carries the formal fault detection responsibility. Perhaps you’d want to collect comparative data for an eventual future formal change change of the test instruction. Why anyone would bother to do the test at all, without knowing how? A complete mystery. Sounds like a complicated way to waste money.
Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
If an engine is so expensive, why don't P&W suggest to replace all the blades before calculated life limits? Or at least some reinforcements? Inspection should not be the only method to maintain a hard life critical component, right?
Is the forever race to make things lighter and don't tell the customer they need to inspect more often 'cuz that will cost them $$$!
Money. Need to save Money and boost Profits.
@@jennychan5314 Bingo!
The customer(i.e.the airlines) have to perform the inspections. A given part has an expected life cycle and cost to replace. As the customer, you don't want to inspect more often because you have downtime for that engine (and lose money) and cost for more frequent inspections.
@@jsmithepa Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
Hope they get their act together when I’m ready to jump on a plane again 😰
It’s not Boeing’s fault. It is the fault of Pratt & Whitney
@@david3n544 Hopefully he hopes PW is the one that gets their act together
@@Blank00 Also, Airbus uses Pratt and Whitney engines.
@@dbclass4075 yes but specifically the PW4400 was the one used, the rest of the PW engines are not to blame
@@ryleymclean313 Airbus A330 uses PW4000.
FAA inspection procedure: Cover windows with blankets. Open bottle of bourbon. Knock it all back. Sleep next to toilet for three days. Sign off inspection.
Why am I watching this on the plane right now 🥲
LOL
Are you onboard of Boeing 777 ?
Obviously not on a plane bc airplane wifi doesn't support streaming
@@FriousBlackPanther this isn't a 777 problem; it's a PW4000 problem
@@Blank00 that's absolutely correct
Yt is getting real comfortable with these 15sec ads
Get an ad blocker for RUclips! :)
Its not Boeing's falt this time :3
I know those planes can fly with just 1 engine but I'd rather fly on ones that have 4 engines, thank you very much
I agree but probably new planes to come won't have 4 - cheaper to have 2
4 engines are inefficient
@@NyanyiC inefficient in saving lives?
4 engine planes are disappearing from the market, especially commercial market. They will become cargo planes.
I agree but unfortunately 4 engine planes are sadly becoming obsolete.
We need to know what fails next the engine pylon or wing if still along way from an airport.
Not likely to happen. Most of the stress put on the engine happens during take-off or landing. In both instances, it would be close to an airport. The engine cases are tested for and supposed to survive a free-blade incident, so any issues should never make it to the wing.
Another example of folks forcing government to back off on regulation and let industries to regulate themselves. Boeing 737max really shed light on this issue but it's not just aviation. Food industry is right there too.
So, blaming Boeing are we now?
@@ktjmitchell7722 nope. I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Reread statement a couple of times and can't see how u came to that conclusion.
@@justinkase7763 well you don't say anything specifically, and your comments are pretty close to other Boeing Bashers that I have read, of course now that you make it clear its fine!
Sounds like they need to switch to the carbon fiber blades the GE engines use made by C-FAN.
I guess those Rolls Royce single crystal tungsten blades were not so bad ..
Or why not use the Carbon Fiber blades found on GE engines?
You probably wanted to write "just as bad"
Trent 1000 have blade problems also. CFM also has had blade problems with southwest airline planes
But not on the same rate. Statistic is everything in that context. This engine was quick to be grounded after this incident, meaning the FAA/Operators already had some insight as their weakness and potential dangers. It is related to just one specific engine PW made for the T7.
So, General Electric? The recent engine issues are years ago.
Boeing would've been responsible if Boeing still owns PW like back in the 1920s, but Boeing no longer does since BA was forced to make PW an independent company under an antitrust act. This means that Boeing has no control over how PW designs, makes, inspects, or maintains engines. Also, while choosing PW as the sole supplier would be a cost-cutting move, the truth is that Boeing has multiple engine suppliers, which was a great choice and definitely not a cost-cutting move on Boeing's part; should PW engines start to fail, GE and RR engines are still good to power 777s.
Very interesting !
Considering there are 14,000 airports in the US, with 5,600 daily passenger flights.. They're doing very well. Always room to improve
Perfect video. Thanks.
So yeah. When are we going to give the FAA enough budget to operate?
This is the consequence if weddings, circumcisions, organizational events, music concerts, and other events are only one day every Saturday or Sunday, an airplane engine explodes and burns on one wing, especially a twin-engined airplane. The engine damage was not due to technical problems, the entry of birds, repair and maintenance, or engine leaks, but the plane's engine exploded one side because of God's punishment.
😂
"...citing the likelihood of further fan blade failures", happy flying everyone! 🤣
@Wall StreetJournal bruh no one is falling for it
Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
Additionally thermal acoustic imaging might not actually be an effective inspection technique (for these newer types of blades) - beyond "Training failures".
Am thinking they pushed the technology too far and shy of telling customers of the need for more often inspections and added down time. Regardless, when a blade breaks, it imparts so much energy I don't know they can design any lightweight containment cowling. Carriers would be wise to hold their enthusiasm of these latest generation engines. RR seems to have some same issue.
The Trent XWB is excellent, the CFM LEAP is really good, and GE90, GEnx, and now GE9X, are the best. It's really an issue with P&W, and the Trent 1000. Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
Was the bottle discharged on engine 1, as per photo ?
Engines from different manufacturers are very competitive. Maybe pushing out new tech too fast especially seen with PW.
The 2018 United fan blade engine failure 200 miles from Honolulu was particularly dangerous with the amount of damage to the engine and the resulting drag it caused.
I think the FAA should reconsider the standard for the design to contain fan blades in the event of a failure. The Southwest fatal incident and the mentioned Pratt and Whitney incidents were all technically contained. Containing the fan blades doesn't enhance safety when the containment devices are uncontained.
Boeing is already working on a better cowling.
Fun fact: the plane that was involved in that incident was the replacement aircraft for the incident in 2021
It may be interesting to note that another Boeing 777 freight-plane, leaving from Maastricht Airport, with the same engines, had exactly the same engine-problem on the same day (!) over the south of The Netherlands. Fanblades broke off and pierced cars and houses on the ground. The airplane had to make an emergency landing in Liege in Belgium.
Please don't spread false information!
The airplane in Maastricht was a 747, not a 777. While the engines are from P&W and of the same general design, they are smaller with an also smaller fan diameter. The P&W4000-112 on the 777 has a 112 inch fan diameter with blades made out of hollow titanium, while the P&W4000-94 on the 747 has a 94 inch fan diameter with older technology solid alloy blades.
The failure mode is (as of current state of investigation) directly related to fatigue formation on these new design of blades and therefore NOT PRESENT on the -94 variant. The failure in Maastricht is therefore NOT RELATED to the failure seen on the 777's.
Again, please refrain from spreading false information. If you not an expert in an area, either do your homework and research before opening mouthflap or keep mouthflap shut.
Amazing crew at United for avoiding a complete disaster! USA pilot training is unmatched
Nice video.
Pratt and Whitney is notoriously dangerous but most airbus a320s in india have those
I think the bigger question is, aren't these fan blades designed to withstand tens of thousands of rotation hours? Doesn't seem they're nearly old enough to suffer significant metal fatigue several times in different aircraft.
well you just never know
Profit before people.. The story in multiple industries !!
Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
Massive FAA / regulatory failure. How any regulator in any industry, let alone aviation, could allow technology in use for 13 years to be classed as “emerging” and therefore continue to bypass safety standards is just incomprehensible.
It’s Pratt and Whitney not Boeing
If I am the passenger. I probably won’t be flying again due to the trauma
What from an engine failure? Even though this was a severe engine failure, it’s still fine as planes are designed to climb on one engine, plus the pilots are trained for it
@@Tom-js3iz Generally yes, but these types of failures do carry significant risk. 2 of 3 failures were at least "sort of" uncontained, in that some fragments of the blades pierced unrelated areas. The rotational energy of a 112inch fan disk and its blades at cruise or climb power is significant and can cause damage, harm or death.
Also, the high vibration and disintegration of the cowling caused significant drag in these events. Check out the pilot's testimony on UA1175. They did not have a lot of excess performance.
So this type of failure should not be acceptable under any circumstances. P&W has to get it's inspection protocol up to snuff.
@@andreasbauer8668 I’m aware, but these type of failures are very rare
@@Tom-js3iz They should be, but are not for this engine blade design. That is why the NTSB is investigating.
@@andreasbauer8668 I know, I’m aware why they’re investigating this engine type but I’m just trying to tell old mate Alvin that it’s all g and safe
GOOD VIDEO.
Typical lackadaisical effort from the FAA and aerospace manufacturers. They forget they're dealing with people's lives.
So the failure lies with the FAA... Letting a manufacture for 13 years to not properly train personnel nor insure the safety of travelers and those on the ground.
Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
The title of this video is misleading and gives the impression that these failures were the fault of Boeing, which is not true.
innocent Boeing?
Haven't they learned the lesson to take care for their whole product since the first 2018 incident ?
2 Boeing 737 max had crashed meanwhile, 737 max had been grounded and NTSB - Boeing - P&W gang did not learn anything until a second incident had happened.
I avoid Boeing planes since and I guess that the past investigations had shown that Boeing fooled everyone and lied everywhere.
@@typxxilps far too many people like yourself focus the subjective nature of this as opposed to the objective fact as to why these things happen. A thousand little choices lead to big problems and no one ever notices where it’s leading until it happens. No one is immune to it. And besides, after all the scrutiny, a Boeing aircraft is the most safe thing in the sky, and flying is still massively safer than almost anything else you do in your day.
@Naim Miah while you are correct in the sense that an engine is supplied to the factory location where the aircraft is made, it is not the whole story. The person buying the aircraft purchases engines themselves whether direct or through a vendor and the buyer also has them installed. Boeing does not sell airplanes with engines. This is due to liability, expertise, and the variation in engines. Per the company’s own explanation. I’ve known quite a few employees at Boeing and the factory tour was pretty interesting. I recommend it.
@Naim Miah the buyer of the plane separately buys their own engines and as far as I’m aware it’s the purchasers responsibility to install the engines. And I thought that typically it was the airline’s mechanics that installed the engines on site in the Boeing facility.
@Naim Miah the engine is not a separate purchase at first, but engines periodically get replaced as routine for all commercial jets, and once the first replacement happens, then it's on the engine maker. As for the second part of your comment, who puts the engines together? The obvious answer is Pratt and Whitney.
5:07 dude sounds like that cat lawyer guy
Penny wise. Pound foolish.
Misleading title. Just put the Pratt and Whitney model engine in the title and get it over with
Didn't you move the whole Cali to SC or you left part of Bristol behind?
Wonderful .
United should have NEVER purchased these “little” PW engines ! They were unable to get DOD charters in the aircraft fitted with these engines. Should have ordered the GE engines like Continental did.
Exactly
why does the title make it seem like a Boeing problem?
Ummmm maybe because it’s only happening in 777’s at the moment. 3 in 4 years. And no other make. Statistically that’s telling.
@@xr6lad Technically, A330 uses identical engines, so it is a matter of time. This happened before on Rolls-Royce engine issues that affected both 787 and A350.
@@xr6lad not Boeing's fault.
The inspection process was flawed.... It should be studied in detail . Then corrections shud be made to the inspection procesd
With 3 Failures over a period of 3 years without the loss of an aircraft or life isn't something to get that excited about..Are they using other NDE examinations during a rebuild procedure?
LOL if your an airline just buy a 777 with the GE90s instead!
nowadays airlines can't buy 777 with pw4000 and rolls royce anyways since only 777-200lr/f, 300er, -8, -9 are sold. 777-200/ER and 300 that came with pw and rr are gone
3 times!? Hope W&P engines are never allowed to be installed on any plane ever again regardless of what the investigation outcome is.
It’s PW, not WP.
The federal government doesn't pay regulators enough to get good talent, so they all go to industry. Regulators aren't capable enough to oversee new technologies so they pawn it off on companies.
Just pay serious wages to skilled workers to get good regulators. FDA, FAA, FCC... the best and the brightest in those industries do not work for the federal government which is a huge mistake.
it think the hollow design itself that cause the problem of the engine.
plane rider really wish designer of plane engine take serious consideration to force inspect any new engine design diligently since its durability have direct correlation with flight safety.
The incompetence is shocking.
Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
ide guess the route cause of the fan blade cracking is either the design of the blade where they didnt use the right thickness of metal for the blade or another very likley cause would be when heat treating the metal, the metal experiences lots of internal stresses throughout the manufacturing process so its important to heat it up to the point where it releases the stresses in the atomic structure of the metal. so in that case bad quality control.
not an expert on fan blades made for planes but thats what i could think of.
If you cannot even spell "root cause", I would suspect that you have entered the realm of conspiracy theorist.
I see you have cogs and gears in your "logo", but I doubt very much you have even the slightest inkling about the metallurgy that's involved.
Go back to sleep, drone.
Is this why there’s problems with the A321 engines
I never liked PW4000, I much rather like the GE980
Is that Aragorn I can hear!??
Just like how your yearly car inspection. It is so troublesome, you know it will save you. But you are so annoyed by it
Moron
No methodical inspection method devised. someone inspected but since they don't know how to inspect it properly of course they will miss something inevitably.
They are playing with people's lives because of bureaucracy.
Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
Watching fr hongkong.
RR ftw
✔️❤️
N•i•c•e
O•n•e... . .. ....M•A•K•E•aN•O•T•E•to•M•y•T•r•a•d•e•
P•r•o•f•e••s•s•i•o•n•a•l• ....... .... .
T•o•G•e•tM•o•r•e••T•i•p•s&< >E•n•l•i•g•h••t•e•n•m•e•n•t👇 onD•i•g••i•t•a•la•s•s•e•t•s.. ...
T•r•a•d•eG•u•i•d•a•n•c•e... .. ... . 👇W•H•A•T•S•A•P•P
+ •1•7•7•4•3•2•0•4•3•1•4
I•n•v•e•s•t•inC•r•y•p••t•oA•N•DE•T•H..... .. .... .
wow good news and pay attention about the egine.
grazie
✔️❤️
N•i•c•e
O•n•e... . .. ....M•A•K•E•aN•O•T•E•to•M•y•T•r•a•d•e•
P•r•o•f•e••s•s•i•o•n•a•l• ....... .... .
T•o•G•e•tM•o•r•e••T•i•p•s&< >E•n•l•i•g•h••t•e•n•m•e•n•t👇 onD•i•g••i•t•a•la•s•s•e•t•s.. ...
T•r•a•d•eG•u•i•d•a•n•c•e... .. ... . 👇W•H•A•T•S•A•P•P
+ •1•7•7•4•3•2•0•4•3•1•4
I•n•v•e•s•t•inC•r•y•p••t•oA•N•DE•T•H..... .. .... .
Thy must stick to RR and GE engines !
FAA, what do you expect
Wow 😳
Please make video about Airbus planes if they hv same problems
@Boeing 737 MAX 8 Yeah, Pratt and Whitney is dragging everyone down...
Boeing can't catch a brake, first the MCAS debacle, now having multiple planes equipped with engines that failed catastrophically. Yes I know this is Pratt an Whitney's fault, but it still won't look good on Boeing.
It doesn't look any which way for them. You cannot reasonably attribute this to Boeing...aircraft have had trouble with these engines.
@@genevieve571 I didn't say that it could be attributed to boeing. Just that it's going to look badly on them either way
The tile should be Pratt and Whitney not going Boeing is not the one that designed the engines or manufacture them
Nah, they need to reinforce the "Boeing bad" title...even though you are entirely right, it seems the people actually telling us the news are not
Yep! 🤬
Should I not fly?
Well never flying on a Boeing
This wasn’t Boeing’s fault
Airbus aircraft literally have these same engines...so never fly on Airbus as well I suppose!
Do you literally not know that Pratt & Whitney designed and manufactured these engines, NOT Boeing?
Boeing wiring issues speed of production over safety nah dags nah
@@Alpha-Ultra what?
You would be amazed at how many people "cut corners" just to get da money. PW does not ACTUALLY know what goes on.
Honestly, P&W really should have had complete training and resources fully in place for inspections for this type of fan blade upon entry into service in 1995. It should never have been classified as an emerging technology. If P&W had complete training and resources fully in place for these inspections from the very beginning of entry into service in 1995, in addition to truly dependable safety, they would also have had a very competitive, unsurpassed, and high quality product for the market.
they need to sack their managment
A well done video. I have to say though, I have no more confidence in Boing or the FAA. I the future, I will be flying with anyone but Boeing and anyone not certified by the FAA.
Flying Airbuses doesn't guarantee that because A330 also uses PW4000.
This problem isn't Boeing's fault. This incident was completely on PW
Clearly you didn’t watch the video
"anyone not certified by the FAA" literally every commercial aircraft has been certified by the FAA...
@@ktjmitchell7722 Besides, FAA can only restrict planes flying within and into USA airspace. There are other aviation authorities too.
Flights that will not fly into USA airspace at all can theoretically ignore FAA, and comply whatever aviation authority it is in.
So don't ever fly on Airbus or Boeing
i am pooping while watching this
what are you doing....???
Bruh
That last flight to Hawaii could have been a disaster If happened halfway to Hawaii. With That much drag and vibration, the Engine pylon would separate hopefully before the wing would have problems. Plus the plane would have to fly slower and lower with
More fuel usage.
Decline of the US military_industrial complex?
Is Airbus any better?
What the alternatives for global aviation.consumers?
Nobody died so there is no real pressure to fix this issue
Logic...
Ground all Boeing 777 with Pratt & Witney engines until all engines are replaced.
More engine failure, pls! 👍🏻
A 777 has a GE90 engine
the first generation 777-200/ER and 300 have PW4000 and Trent 800 too
GE>>>>PW
No one had died yet so they are taking their sweet ol time
Saludos gente maravillosa y bella ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🐾🐾🐾🐾🐾🐾🐾
Fly airbus . European standards are higher than American that also includes moral standards
Except Airbus also uses Pratt and Whitney engines, with A330 engines identical to 777.
@@dbclass4075 I think they will have to ditch the pw4000 now as it has proven to be a fail .
@@omerahmed3959 Neo versions maybe, but not the ceo versions. Besides, airlines have the say on their choice of engines. Post-delivery, they can switch to other engines, if they want.
@@dbclass4075 Not with the hollow fanblades though.
pw engines are on airbus planes aswell, so you’re incorrect 😀
Don't use Boeing
This is the voice from the police watch youtube channel lol
this almost sounded like a VOX video lol
I drank the vodka
Engine failure metel broken
Boeing, Pratt & Whitney... I have zero confidence in anything made or tested in the USA.
Because those are the only aerospace companies in the Us
@@JayJayAviation I did not specify aerospace. Since I am not willing to write a full itemized list of industries and products I went with two examples followed by a principle. Feel free to use your inductive reasoning skills to interpolate.
@@c273 GE is excellent, though ☺
GE is the best engine maker
@@rafaelwilks Okay, maybe their CFMs, but that's a joint venture, so it doesn't count. :P