NoharnessJan 10th, 2008 - 22:16:59

I wonder if the author of this article is a news reporter or ambulance-chasing lawyer. Right now, all anyone can know is that the beams failed. These aircraft started flying back in 1972. They are thirty-five years old. There is this thing called metal fatigue and there may have been nothing at all wrong with those members at the time they were constructed. There is thing called metal fatigue. The older a machine is, the more likely it is to have a failure of this kind. Do let's try to get our language right.

Report this comment

SP4: and you know...Jan 11th, 2008 - 03:39:15

We spent about x billion dollars developing a replacement called the F-22 paid for all the development (paid for!) went into production(paid for) and now, all we need to do is replace them. After all, they're only 35 years old!

Jesus cheeerist!

Report this comment

Stand Strong or Be GroundedJan 14th, 2008 - 11:31:17

We all know about government waste (in the billions)! Hey, bet we are saving on fuel costs with the grounding. Then again, when are our jets (passenger as well) going to fly on safer, more independent alternative energy source/sources? Where the heck is innovation when we need it?

The fat cats are getting fatter.

In the spirit,

Noharmness

Report this comment

SP4: This isn't a fuel problemJan 14th, 2008 - 22:06:34

It's an age problem. To my knowledge, there has never been a structural defect requiring remedial design and repair with this plane within it's original estimated life. It's record is stellar and the value is excellent.

It's old, we have a new one available, coming off the assembly line and they need to step up and just pay the money for it. At a 1 to 2 ratio we would get 6(?) times the effectiveness with half the aircraft. You just cannot beat that deal.

Report this comment