fred, #160, brochure engineering, others' engineering issues.
Valiant spars do not demonstrate institutional incompetence. Nor did the Ansett/Viscount spar failure ("clap hands Case") which no more destroyed Vicker's business reputation than did Lockheed's comparable Electra case.
The BOAC 707 issue alluded to was a Certification matter where UK's Regulator required, and US FAA positively unrequired a feature (the small ventral fin). Common, then. When Dan Air acquired 727 they must install (IIRC stick pusher), which must then be uninstalled when the a/c moved into FAA Regulation.
Boeing engineering issues long preceded 737 MAX. Dan Air lost a 707 when the horiz. stab attachment failed: the fix was replqcement strengthened material; 747s built before (c.1983) must rebuild the Lower 41 front fuselage - a job beyond (most) Operators' engineering capacity; fuselage belly skin corrosion affected 737-200: highly competent Britannia A/W Engineering put 70,000 man hours into the fix.
What matters is not that such issues arise, but how all concerned respond. Pinto, Unsafe at any Speed, dished a generation of Ford/US Seniors...because they denied, dissembled. On the issues here Boeing, Lockheed, Vickers sorted promptly. On Valiant, if UK had so desired, a fix would have been sorted (as e.g. Buccaneer, grounded 2-7/80). Ministers took it as an opportunity for a saving (Nimrod, too, 31/3/10).
Reaction to the 737 MAX issue by IAG/BA and by Ryanair was to buy it in batches of 100... so impressed were they by Boeing's response.
