tyb
>>6550251 lb re Niki Lauda
owned his own airline and was an accomplished pilot.
Lauda air almost went bankrupt, at the time, because of this crash. Habbened it 1991.
Fren of mine flew on this airline many times and nothing but positive things to say about it.
How did the Thrust Reverser Deploy in Lauda Air Flight 004 crash?
The FAA and official investigators could not determine the cause for the thrust reverser deployment. The FDR was completely destroyed. There isn't any way to tell why, hardware or software, that the thrust reverser deployed on 004. There is no factual answer to the first part of this question unfortunately. – Ron Beyer Jan 25 '17 at 20:11
2
Like Ron said, they were never able to determine the exact cause. In addition to the damaged FDR the actual components were looted from the crash site and when they got then back they had been tampered with. The airline was apparently none too cooperative in providing the maintenance records and what was provided was missing sections. Through testing they identified a few different failure modes but with no way of determining if they had occurred. I'd say that writer you quoted is going on specious assumptions – TomMcW Jan 25 '17 at 21:26
If the FDR was destroyed and no evidence was found to support the theory of a thrust reverser deployment, I don't see how anyone could conclude the accident was a result of an uncommanded TR deployment from the available evidence. But Boeing certainly concluded that must have been the most probable cause… "On Monday, 9 September 1991, the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group asked its customers to replace a valve in the thrust reverser systems that could cause the thrust reverser to deploy in flight." community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/… – Juan Jimenez Jan 28 '17 at 22:16
The investigation into Lauda Air Flight 004 determined that the probable cause was the deployment of the left engine thrust reverser (TR) during climb. An unsuspecting crew would not be able to recover control of the aircraft after such an event. Damage to the components involved in the crash prevented identifying a definite cause of the TR deployment.
TL;DR: The hydraulic system that opens and closes the TR includes two separate valves. The investigation found certain electrical and hydraulic failures that could result in both of these valves malfunctioning, resulting in uncommanded deployment of the TR. 767 aircraft with different engine models used a mechanical system to control the TR valves, which were not susceptible to those faults.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34962/how-did-the-thrust-reverser-deploy-in-lauda-air-flight-004-crash
fleet information
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Lauda-Air
snapshot on Lauda air
Lauda Air Luftfahrt GmbH, branded as Lauda Air, was an Austrian airline headquartered at Vienna International Airport in Schwechat.[1] It was owned by Niki Lauda during much of its existence, later becoming a charter airline subsidiary for leisure operations of Austrian Airlines. On 6 April 2013, Lauda Air ceased to exist and was replaced by Austrian myHoliday, a new brand name that is used for flights and leisure offers provided by Austrian Airlines.[2
Lauda Air was established in April 1979 by former Formula One world motor racing champion Niki Lauda and started operations in 1985, initially operating as a charter and air taxi service. One of the first jetliner types used by Lauda Air was the British Aircraft Corporation BAC One-Eleven series 500, with these aircraft being leased from the Romanian airline TAROM. It opened its headquarters in the Lauda Air Building in Schwechat, Austria.[3] Scheduled operations were licensed and initiated in 1987, and in 1990 licences for international flights were obtained.[4] In 1989 Lauda started its first long-haul flights from Vienna to Sydney and Melbourne via Bangkok. In the 1990s, it started to fly its Sydney and Melbourne flights via Kuala Lumpur and Bali. Daily flights to Dubai, Cuba, and Miami via Munich followed.
Lauda Air became a wholly owned subsidiary of Austrian Airlines in December 2000, and employed thirty-five people as of March 2007.[4] In 2005 the flight operation merged with Austrian Airlines, and the label, "Lauda Air" operated charter flights within the Austrian Airlines Group.
At an AAG board meeting in November 2006, plans were approved to retire the Airbus wide-bodied fleet by mid-2007 and to operate with just a Boeing 767 and Boeing 777 fleet. As a result of subsequent fleet cuts, Austrian Airlines suspended some long-haul services and Lauda Air withdrew from the long-haul charter market over the next year.[5] This led to a refocus on the short/medium haul market and led to the addition of a 737–800 to take over most of the charter routes. Lauda Air also had an Italian subsidiary, Lauda Air S.p.A.,[6] which ended its operations in 2007.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air
Tesla Slashes Car Prices For The Third Time In 3 Months
Tesla is cutting prices yet again, a clear sign that "demand hell" has set in for the embattled automaker, and that the weather in Shortsville may continue to be 85 degrees and sunny heading into the summer where Morgan Stanley now sees the "bear case" scenario for the stock as low as $10 per share.
Perhaps Tesla has finally figured out that there is simply not enough demand for its cars at the current price point, or worse, that its business model isn’t sustainable, resulting in what has been a 2019 full of business model changes, price cuts and employee layoffs.
On Tuesday morning, electrek reported that Tesla had again lowered the base price on its Model S and Model X vehicles. The company's demand issues were highlighted on Tuesday morning in a Morgan Stanley note that saw former Tesla uber-bull Adam Jonas lower his worst case price target for the the company to a paltry $10.
Tesla brought back a ‘Standard Range’ option for both vehicles as a part of the cuts. Tesla has reportedly updated its online configurator to reduce the price of the Model S and Model X by $3,000 and $2,000, respectively. This represents the third price cut in three months for these models.
Bizarrely, the company's attempt to fine tune the equilibrium price only took place after a modest price hike which was immediately reversed: Reuters reported that according to a Tesla spokesman "Last week, we raised U.S. Model 3 prices by 1%". Shortly after, the company cut prices.
In any case, the company still has not consistently offered a $35,000 base model for the Model 3 on its website and the vehicle can reportedly only be ordered by going into a store or calling the company. Recall, the promise of a $35,000 Model 3 with a full EV credit is how Musk drummed up "420,000" Model 3 reservations more than 3 years ago.
Tuesday morning's MS note saw Jonas ponder if a collapse in the company's stock price could become a self-fulfilling prophecy among counterparties and employees. He also called into question the year's "sharp deceleration in demand":
We have long held that Tesla’s share price performance is driven by: demand for its products, ability to generate cash flow, and access to capital markets. This year’s sharp deceleration in demand has led to a substantial curtailment of the company’s ability to self-fund through free cash flow generation, at the margin potentially impacting the firm’s access to capital. Tesla’s recent $2.7bn equity and convertible debt raise may provide an extra year of liquidity to run a business of this size and cash consumption. However, Tesla may now find itself in a cycle where a lower share price may itself contribute to a potential deterioration of employee morale as well as potentially increased counterparty risk with both customers and business partners (suppliers,governments)… potentially further impacting fundamentals.
He then reminded the Musk collective of the importance of demand, or lack thereof, saying it is "at the heart of the problem" and adding that the company may have over-saturated the market outside of China:
We believe Tesla may have over-saturated the retail market for BEV sedans outside of China. Tapping into new demand could require aggressively expanding into: 1) the Chinese domestic market, 2) lower-priced SUVs, 3) and logistics/mobility fleets. Tesla is a large and highly vertically integrated company, capacitized to build between 500k and 1 million units annually. In our opinion, Tesla has grown too big relative to near-term demand, putting great strain on the fundamentals.
The timing of Tuesday morning's Morgan Stanley note seems to be prescient. After all, price cuts are generally only offered when a company that is trying to spur more sales and move inventory. Even the pro-Tesla propaganda at electrek couldn't help but admit that "…it’s also becoming difficult to navigate Tesla’s price structure because it changes so often."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-21/tesla-slashes-car-prices-third-time-3-months
from May 9th
VW’s new electric car passes 10,000 orders in just 24 hours
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/09/volkswagens-new-electric-idpoint3-car-passes-10000-orders-in-24-hours.html
> buy stock
not a place for that, plenty of places for offering opinions about that. This is not one of them.
keep doing it and you will see nigger bitch.
was a huge problem in here late last year and early this. but go ahead and continue.
Boston Fed's Rosengren sees ‘no clarion call’ for interest-rate hike soon
Senior Fed officials more wary of low inflation than rising prices.
The head of the Boston Federal Reserve said he sees “no clarion call” to raise interest rates any time soon, suggesting the central bank’s hands-off approach could help counter the risk of dangerously low inflation.
Eric Rosengren, president of the Boston Fed, said mixed economic signals and a festering trade dispute with China means “the Fed can afford to wait and see” before it takes any action. Earlier this year the Fed tabled previous plans to raise interest rates again in 2019.
Rosengren is not a voting member of the Fed board that sets a key U.S. interest rate, but his remarks in a speech on Tuesday to the Economic Club of New York echo recent comments by other senior Fed officials.
While the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years indicates the Fed should raise interest rates, Rosengren said, the low rate of inflation normally would result in the central bank cutting rates. The jobless rate stood at 3.6% in April, and inflation as measured by the core PCE price index grew just 1.6% in the 12 months ending March.
The Fed still expects inflation to reach or exceed its long-run target of 2%, Rosengren, but “given that inflation has underrun the target over the last several years, it is wise to admit to some uncertainty about this part of the forecast.”
Another complicating factor is the recent flareup in trade tensions with China after it seemed like a far-reaching deal might be near.
Rosengren said stiff U.S. tariffs applied to Chinese goods are basically a tax on American consumers and would add to upward pressure on inflation, but he still expects both sides to “work to reach agreement” before serious economic damage is done.
What is more worrying to Rosengren is the possibility that inflation grows even weaker and causes a deflationary spiral similar to what happened in Japan. Falling prices are often accompanied by falling wages and even a decline in living standards.
“While policy should not overreact to temporary inflation misses from the Fed’s target, it would not be desirable to continue consistently undershooting inflation,” Rosengren said.
The Boston Fed president also expressed openness to the idea of letting inflation run slightly above 2% for awhile as a way to persuade Wall Street that the central bank is serious about meeting its target and staving off deflation.
“It might reinforce the notion that policymakers aim to achieve 2% inflation on average, not allowing long periods of below-2% inflation to reset inflation expectations below the 2% inflation goal,” he said.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.55% has climbed 10% this year, and the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury TMUBMUSD10Y, +0.52% has fallen more than a quarter percentage point in 2019.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/boston-feds-rosengren-sees-no-clarion-call-for-interest-rate-hike-soon-2019-05-21?siteid=rss&rss=1
NAR: Existing-Home Sales Decreased to 5.19 million in April
Existing-home sales saw a minor decline in April, continuing March’s drop in sales, according to the National Association of Realtors®. Two of the four major U.S. regions saw a slight dip in sales, while the West saw growth and the Midwest essentially bore no changes last month.
Total existing-home sales, completed transactions that include single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops, fell 0.4% from March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.19 million in April.
Total sales are down 4.4% from a year ago (5.43 million in April 2018).
Total housing inventory at the end of April increased to 1.83 million, up from 1.67 million existing homes available for sale in March and a 1.7% increase from 1.80 million a year ago. Unsold inventory is at a 4.2-month supply at the current sales pace, up from 3.8 months in March and up from 4.0 months in April 2018.
According to the NAR, inventory increased to 1.83 million in April from 1.67 million in March. Headline inventory is not seasonally adjusted, and inventory usually decreases to the seasonal lows in December and January, and peaks in mid-to-late summer.
Inventory was up 1.7% year-over-year in April compared to April 2018.
Months of supply was at 4.2 months in April.
This was below the consensus forecast. For existing home sales, a key number is inventory - and inventory is still low.
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2019/05/nar-existing-home-sales-decreased-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CalculatedRisk+(Calculated+Risk)
(according to official numbers-take alook around your 'hood-how many homes for sale?)
>Why ISN'T this the place for one sentence about stocks?
it's not the place to offer advice about buying/selling stocks retard. anons are smart enough to do own research and make own decisions without having commentary about what to do with those.
apparently they failed to read the first response given to them.