MrMango

That sort of things happen all the time - A Manufacturer will issue a advisory and the Airlines will inspect what was advised.

Yes, and Aloha is out of business and Hawaiian is still flying the DC-9's, even though they had to get a waiver from the DOT as they dont pass the latest noise rules and other things. Southwest is just putting its toe in the water here in Hawaii and is starting to fly interisland as well as mainland flights and of course, they use &37's....

99% of the interisland flights here in Hawaii use 717 (DC-9) So I use them frequently - Not my favorite bird, but I have no choice.

Yes, it's the same bird as Boeing acquired it when they Bought MD and let the production die. As for ground clearance, the DC-9 had tail mounted engines that were mounted on the fuselage so even if they upgraded the engines ground clearance would not be the problem, but production stopped before bigger diameter engines became available. Southwest Airlines ONLY flies 737's and they insisted on the Max to keep the same ground height as all of the infrastructure they have was designed for 737's and any new height would require a massive change and investment.

To me,the reason for 3 holers went away is the same reasons that 4 holers are also going away - They are too expensive to fly. The 2 hole DC-( ( Boeing 717) is still flying here in Hwaaii and it has 2 read mounted engines with a great safety record.

I too know nothing about aeronautical engineering - I was a EE major, but I do have knowledge as a pilot. No fixed wing bird I have ever flown was unstable and from what I understand none of the ones I mentioned were unstable as long as you keep within the approved W&B. To me a stable bird is one that is trimmed for cruze straight and level and you pull up and twist the stick, then let go, the bird will return to straight and level.

i read that opinion piece and its the usual more lift with the engines a foot or two forward of the CG, but they never mention how much extra lift is generated. My guess is very little and that can be offset b y other changes. Lots of jets have engines mounted in the tail, which is much farther away from the CG than the 737, but no one is saying that creates unstable downward lift and is unstable.

I agree

Sounds like pure BS to me. From what I read, SW airlines, who is the biggest customer of Boeing's narrow body tubes, insisted on the same low tube height so all of its ground infrastructure could be used on it. To do that, they had to mount the bigger diameter engines a few feet forwardard, changing the W&B a bit, but that does not make it unstable. They did come up with a hairbrained solution - MCAS that relied on a single pitot tube to tell it when it was about to stall and when that failed, they did not tell the carriers how to disable it when it failed. Any sane pilot can tell by the seat of his pants when a bird is close to stalling, and they have multiple instruments that also give a true airspeed reading, some requiring zero power. I have many flight hours in birds with NO electrical power.

Lots of blame to go around. The crew did not have a clue how to deactivate the MCAS system and spent precious seconds trying to figure it out, resulting in the crash. Bad design and lack of training IMHO.

Actually that was my case. My cataracts were mild and I was tired of the hassle of contacts. My regular Doc told me I really did not need it, but he told me how to lie (a little bit) so the insurance would pay for it... The surgeon was more than happy to do the work and he submitted the documentation to the insurance company and they approved. The actual procedure was different than the OP posted as they only did one eye at a time but there were 2-3 weeks of meds before and after the procedure.

Since I had been using mono vision with contacts, it was obvious to the Doc I would want the same with the replacement lens and there was no increase in price. I now live without any glasses for far or near.

But I cannot think of any other reason to have lens replacement surgery other than cataracts. Maybe a rare brain disorder or accident, but 99.9% of lens replacements are done for cataracts IMHO.

yes all correct and I was offered the option of the more expensive one, but he said that cataract replacement lens were more expensive than replacement lenses I believe, which does not make sense to me.

Are you saying the price difference is the lenses they use are different? That makes no sense to me.