Ha! Pull the other one, it’s got bells on

Oh. Yeah. I really shouldn’t post late at night after drinking. Although I was surprisingly coherent despite my brain not fully working.

Schumer’s efforts during the shutdown aren’t really connected to the last paragraph. I was rambling and the two thoughts aren’t connected. Philosophically I have strong doubts that anyone in his position wouldn’t be swayed by special interest money, but that is a conversation for a different place. I’ll edit my original post when I’m a little more awake

It’s simple, really. You can’t get an economic downturn without human misery. And the big money people can’t consolidate their holdings and acquire profitable companies at bargain basement prices if the economy is doing well. They don’t want some messy financial crisis or pandemic creating unexpected problems. They want a predictable downturn that only affects the poors and a few unlucky upper middle class types. Then they can keep the funding they want and have a large and desperate labor pool to staff their newly acquired holdings. Win-win, at least for the people that matter.

You know. Not us

It’s not that “both sides are the same”. It’s just that enough on all sides are bought and paid for that it doesn’t matter if a few actually are trying to do good. Personally I don’t see a reality where Schumer is not bought and paid for. And any efforts to circumvent the powers that be will be a nonstarter while the compromised ones hold power

Edit: While the last part is still something I believe, I posted this late at night and started rambling. It’s not relevant to the OP and can be picked up in a more appropriate conversation another time

Is this Supply Side Jesus?

This one never fails to get a giggle out of me

Yeah you’re not wrong. I think the only real question is was this primary negligence (UPS cutting corners), secondary negligence (UPS policies encourage off the books corner cutting), or tertiary negligence (UPS parts procurement or supplier using dodgy parts.

I’m just kind of a pedant when it comes to bird lore. It’s not the age, it’s the maintenance/build quality. Sorry if it’s annoying. You see, I’m not wrong either, I’m just an asshole

I don’t know if the MD-11 (a trijet) can get into the air with only one engine.

They can’t. I believe this flight needed around 100k lbf of thrust to maintain V2, and those engines only provide around 60k each. If Engine 1 was dead and Engine 2 was stalling that’s an unrecoverable incident. Not sure on the numbers, I’m a hobbyist, but I should be close

This incident is reminding me of AA191 from the seventies. It was a DC10, a bit older and not exactly like an MD11, but close enough. A shortcut in the procedure of mounting the engine after a maintenance check damaged the engine mount. The engine separated and damaged the flight controls and hydraulics, and the slats retracted on one side only. This caused an asymmetrical wing stall, unrecoverable bank angle, and an unsurvivable impact on the ground

There was also El Al 1862 in the nineties. That one was material fatigue in one of the 747 engine fuse pins, leading to the separation of right inboard engine and the subsequent impact and loss of the right outboard engine next to it. This compromised the hydraulic system, and once again the slats retract, the wing stalls, and the plane goes down. Because of this incident they’ve identified and resolved that defect and methodology, but i do wonder about counterfeit parts. To the best of my knowledge the NTSB has been struggling with shady parts suppliers selling second hand and counterfeit parts as OEM. It’s mostly limited to smaller carriers and independent operators, but I doubt any supply chain is 100% secure.

Whatever words are spent on this one, at the end of the day it’s gonna be mostly speculation until the NTSB report comes out in the next 1-3 years. Somehow (so far anyway) the NTSB has escaped regulator capture in this oligarchy, so the report should be pretty accurate

I’m not saying you’re completely wrong, but if you’re not aware go look up a summary of what goes into a D check for airplane maintenance. No one in the US is flying a rust bucket commercially of they’re following the rules.

Of course if the company cuts corners on maintenance, training, or even methodology then you very well could have a flying lemon. It’s not because of the age of the aircraft, but it almost always comes down to saving money or time (which is also money)

Still not the most ruthless act of union busting in the history of the UK tho