Atlas Air, a U.S.-based airline, experienced an engine malfunction with one of their Boeing 747-8 cargo planes shortly after takeoff. Key information to focus on includes:

According to Reuters, on the local time of the 19th, Atlas Air, an American airline, reported that shortly after takeoff from Miami International Airport, an engine failure occurred, and the aircraft has now safely landed. Flightaware, an aviation information website, data shows that the aircraft involved in the incident is a Boeing 747-8 cargo plane. (CCTV News)

The Downfall of the Mighty Goose

The goose has exploded!

Power Generation Concluded.

The aircraft involved, registered as N859GT, MSN62441, LN1526 (the 1,526th Boeing 747 manufactured), was delivered in November 2015.

At that time, the 747 production line in Everett had not yet been influenced by abstract figures from Renton and South Carolina. Therefore, we might hope that this incident isn’t due to a craftsmanship issue with the 747, a product from Boeing’s golden era when they still maintained a conscience.

If it’s not an issue with the aircraft, then it must be with its engine—the only engine option for the entire 747-8 series is General Electric’s GEnx.

Ah, General Electric…

Of course, it could also be a maintenance issue, but discussing it further might only add fuel to the fire.

Currently, there’s very limited information available. From the video, the intermittent flames seem to suggest engine surge or compressor stall, but there were no loud banging noises typically associated with surge backfires. The sparks emitted were also much larger than what’s usual for compressor stalls or surges. It’s suspected that some rotor components might have scraped against the engine casing.

Additionally, the GEnx engines on both the 787 and 748 have a “distinguished” tradition of in-flight shutdowns and non-contained failures. It wouldn’t be surprising if GE has embarrassed itself again.

We await further information disclosure.

The Crisis of American Industrial Production

Due to prolonged “deindustrialization,” the United States is facing a severe crisis in industrial production.

For instance, compared to the aging workforce of the F35 production line and the often delayed naval shipyards, the U.S. Army’s production capabilities are perhaps in the worst state. The lack of skilled technicians and high costs mean that the U.S. has essentially lost its ability to domestically produce tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery. They don’t even have a tank production line anymore, only a refurbishment and modification line.

This is why South Korean tanks and self-propelled artillery have been selling so well in recent years. Purchasing military hardware is a process of choosing sides, and currently, within the entire U.S. alliance, only three countries - Germany, France, and South Korea - can mass-produce heavy ground equipment. Compared to the French military industry, known for charging premium prices per customer, and the high-quality yet expensive German military industry, South Korean products are economical and reasonably priced. For countries with limited budgets wanting to align with the U.S., South Korea offers an attractive choice.

Although one cannot step into the same river twice, reviewing the past always helps in summarizing experiences. Experience and logic are two sources of human wisdom.

By looking back, we might predict the future to some extent.

As all bourgeoisies are detached from enterprises, the Anglo-Saxon capitalism gradually fostered the system of professional managers.

In the earliest Anglo-Saxon capitalist enterprises, top managers were often recruited through nepotism or patronage, introduced by shareholders. Most were young elites, with a few coming from middle-class backgrounds as secretaries, clerks, tutors, or attendants.

These individuals often had limited understanding of actual business operations and served as managers for only a short period, as this career was just a minor stop in their grand life journey. They might have been gathering business experience or needing a salary temporarily. Ultimately, their life goal was to become a “gentleman living off income” (what we now call financial independence).

Such management was probably unproblematic in the beginning, partly because early enterprise management issues were relatively simple, making decision-making easier. Since the general public was almost uneducated, a well-educated elite, even without business knowledge, was better than an illiterate person.

Moreover, enterprises had few hierarchical levels, with top managers often directly interacting with foremen and agents, eliminating the need for a large bureaucratic structure.

However, as time passed, especially with increasing market saturation and intensified competition, managing a business became a specialized field. With the growing complexity of corporate bureaucracy, a considerable middle management layer was necessary. Elites were unlikely to take these positions, creating a void in the expanding corporate structure. By the mid-19th century, following railway accidents, complex and large companies like railway corporations began establishing rigid bureaucratic management systems.

This led to the rise of corporate bureaucrats. Top managers were often promoted from the middle ranks based on performance and seniority. They understood business operations and were skilled in management, gradually replacing the high-level managers who entered through connections.

However, even selected bureaucrats might not satisfy shareholders' expectations for profitability and dividends in a fierce and saturated market.

Unaware of internal corporate workings, shareholders' only option to increase returns was to replace top managers. This made the position of top managers unstable. To secure their jobs, managers began maximizing short-term profits and dividends for shareholders.

If lucky, crisis awareness might inspire greater creativity and generate profitable ideas. More often, they sacrificed long-term benefits for short-term gains.

A common method in modern Anglo-American companies is cutting R&D budgets, quickly boosting profits. However, reduced R&D hinders future product development, eventually leading to market elimination. But for a professional manager, job security is the priority over concerns about the company’s future in five or ten years.

A classic example is the decline of General Electric, once one of the greatest manufacturing companies, created by Edison and Tesla. Under CEO Welch in the 1980s, he slashed various R&D projects, redistributing the funds as dividends to shareholders, gaining the board’s favor. During his tenure, GE’s high-tech manufacturing R&D in all areas shrank significantly, except for gas turbines, as many expenses were government-funded defense contracts.

By the 1990s, cutting R&D was insufficient for new dividends. Welch quickly shifted the company’s focus from manufacturing to finance and real estate, capitalizing on the booming U.S. economy and the Federal Reserve’s lax monetary policy.

He then invested in the oil industry, as earning from natural resources was easier than complex manufacturing.

Through these methods, Welch maintained double-digit shareholder dividends, earning the title of the greatest CEO of the 20th century.

However, when his successor took over, the company had been thoroughly depleted, relying on bond issuance for high dividends, financial manipulation to transfer debts, and maintaining book profits for market confidence—a tactic traceable to the Dutch East India Company, which did the same in its dying decades.

Boeing also met its downfall similarly, as professional managers, to maintain short-term high returns, continually postponed new aircraft development, relying on patching a 60-year-old plane to meet market demands.

Eventually, even the quality of these patches couldn’t be assured. After outsourcing to a country known for creating legends, the disaster became uncontrollable.

Indian aircraft maintenance is generally handled by the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). With its “strong” aircraft repair skills, 90% of the aircraft serviced by HAL over 30 years have crashed, earning it the nickname “Indian Widow Factory.”

Another Boeing Incident?

On January 5th, shortly after takeoff, a window and part of the fuselage of a Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft operated by Alaska Airlines went missing, forcing an emergency return.

On the evening of January 10th, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft operated by South Korea’s T’way Air experienced an engine fire on the right side due to a bird strike before landing at Incheon Airport. The cabin filled with the smell of burning, and there were moments of panic. However, the plane successfully landed, and all 122 passengers onboard were unharmed.

On January 14th, a Boeing 777 aircraft owned by Japan’s All Nippon Airways collided with a Boeing 717 aircraft operated by Delta Air Lines during taxiing at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in the United States.

On January 17th, a Boeing 737 aircraft carrying U.S. Secretary of State Blinken experienced an oxygen leak-related issue, leading to a brief delay in Davos, Switzerland.

Late on January 18th (Eastern Time), Atlas Air issued a statement that one of its Boeing 747-8F flights, shortly after takeoff from Miami International Airport en route to San Juan, Puerto Rico, had an engine fire. The flight circled for 10 minutes before returning to the airport.

These recent incidents involving Boeing aircraft have raised concerns and questions about the company’s safety record.

Source Video: {Link}

Boeing, once known for its strong technology, managed to defeat McDonnell Douglas, acquire it, and eventually become what was once McDonnell Douglas.

Confirmed, it’s not Simplified Chinese, everyone can speak freely.

From the videos taken by bystanders, it appears that there was a significant fire in the air.

Atlas Air Flight 5Y95 was a Boeing 747-8 (N859GT) that experienced engine issues after taking off from Miami International Airport (MIA) in Florida. The flight returned and landed at Miami International Airport just 14 minutes after takeoff.

Boeing has certainly had a tumultuous year in 24!

Why isn’t it over yet? It’s only been three weeks this year.

American aircraft are advanced, and they come equipped with heat-seeking missiles.

The rich and prosperous heavens have bestowed upon Airbus.

Let’s see if Airbus dares to accept it.

Whether they can catch it or not.

Feels like there are more and more shootings happening, just like in the United States, and it’s becoming overwhelming.

Airbus: Can’t keep up, orders just keep coming…

It is well known that business battles are plain and simple, so…

Civil aviation passenger aircraft are equipped with infrared interference flares Or physically simulated flames Amazing Can’t compare, can’t compare

MD, more and more inclined to choose option 2, not fun…

Engine and Aircraft Are Separate Entities

Although… but…

Let’s put it this way, the engine and the aircraft have nothing to do with each other…

The engine is the engine, and the aircraft is the aircraft. If you are happy, you can buy three aircraft of the same model and equip them with four different engines… one PW, one CFM, one LEAP, and one V2500…

It’s like buying a car, and the salesperson asks you to choose between a V12/W12/V8/V6 or an L or T engine… You choose one, and if that engine has problems, you can’t blame it on the car; you have to go to the manufacturer of that engine…

To put it simply, if you buy a Mercedes but choose to install an engine provided by Audi, and the engine has issues, you can’t go to Mercedes for that.

To address the increasingly complex international situation and ensure the safety of air transportation, even cargo planes in the United States are equipped with incendiary bombs. Isn’t this proactive awareness worth reflecting on for the Chinese people? America, victorious!

The United States is really amazing. It’s indeed the world’s top military power. This is the first time I’ve seen a cargo plane deploying flares.

{An Atlas Air Boeing 747-8 cargo plane carrying five crew members experienced an engine failure shortly after takeoff and made an emergency landing at Miami International Airport. - Bilibili}

Ah? If it weren’t for seeing the cargo plane, I would have thought it was the previous news.

Boeing has been having constant issues lately. Speculation suggests that Boeing is opposing the Loli Island list in a counterattack against Trump.

Blame it all on the C919. Ever since COMAC entered the aviation industry, the aviation circle has been in chaos!