Interesting article, mixed views, and plenty for conspiracy theorists to ponder on. What I don't understand is that if those standards described are too much to ask and Boeing wants to do only one of three precautions (like it was before if I understand it correctly), why does the FAA not propose making two of them the standard?
I suppose we've got to trust Boeing that the inerting system means it can do without, the system sounds excellent, but that 10day rule seems a bit strange, no flight back to the airliner's service hub takes 10 days, nor any flight back to Boeing.
Anyway, I'm way out of my depth here. Anyone else who's read the linked article, also read the comments, some insightful ones from (former) Boeing's and other engineers. Apparently, according to one comment, the A380, which is referred to in the article, doesn't have a centre tank and thus still meets the new FAA rules, even though it went through before the new rules came into effect. If my memory serves me correctly, I do remember something of that nature mentioned in some A380 documentary.
Off-topic, but what I don't understand, is why people have such a big problem with the A380 every time the aerospace industry (yah, Boeing mostly) is mentioned. Be it state financing or meeting FAA regulations. People see the A380 as such a huge threat to Boeing and unfair product, while Boeing officials have repeatedly gone on record saying Boeing does no longer believe the market wants a bigger Airliner. Time will tell, if the A380 becomes the new 747 then there's no denying in my eyes that Boeing just missed the boat. The 787 will do great (as well) and Boeing won't have trouble maintaining a sizeable amount of market share in the overall airliner market. Missed opportunity, yes... threat to Boeing's survival, nope.
Back to Index
Move to Top 
