Reply to thread

I don't see any reason not to treat this as an attack on my professionalism as an aerospace engineer. With that in mind, I would remind you that a considerable part of my career, both civil and military, was spent working on Boeing projects. Never met a Boeing engineer I didn't like, or a project I wasn't proud to have worked on. Whereas the closest I got to working on an Airbus project was Eurofighter, where DASA/EADS/Cassidian was merely part of a consortium I worked for another member of. If anything I should be arguing in favour of Boeing, but I'm an engineer, facts matter. These are certificated airliners. When you claim we are arguing without factual support, you aren't just accusing us of being corrupt, and I use that word very deliberately, you are accusing EASA and the U.S. FAA of corruptly favouring Airbus and certificating an unsafe design. What exactly was the FAA's motive here?


Your argument about historical engines actually betrays that you are the one arguing from a lack of understanding, not that we are corrupting favouring Airbus.


Back
Top Bottom