Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 14. March 21, 2025
- How good is the COMAC C919? March 20, 2025
- Boeing CFO Brian West: OK on tariffs for now, backlogs and inventories help March 20, 2025
- Pontifications: Southwest’s core problems are not solved by business model changes-yet March 19, 2025
- Boeing 2024 Proxy Statement: Executive Compensation includes retirement gifts for Calhoun, Deal; housing support for Ortberg, Pope, and other stuff March 17, 2025
Pontifications: One step forward, two steps back: Déjà vu all over again.
Aug. 29, 2023, © Leeham News: It’s déjà vu all over again.
By Scott Hamilton
Last March, I wrote a piece entitled One Step Forward, Two Steps Back discussing Boeing’s efforts to climb out of the very deep hole dug by the 737 MAX grounding, suspension of 787 deliveries and the pandemic.
I noted that for every step forward, something seems to happen to set it back two steps. (A Boeing official suggested the piece should have been two steps forward, one step back, but the underlying point is made.)
The backward steps seem out of Boeing’s control. But it’s Boeing’s name on the side of the airplane and its Boeing that delivers airplanes to the customers. It’s Boeing with whom customers are frustrated.
The latest step backwards that delays deliveries again of the 737 MAX comes from Spirit AeroSystems. Misdrilled holes for the aft pressure bulkhead are blamed this time. The full extent of the flaw, with impacts, number of planes affected, etc., is still being assessed at this writing. Spirit says a supplier is responsible for this issue.
This follows a previous setback when Spirit found that one of its suppliers provided parts that failed to meet specifications which attached the vertical tail to the fuselage of the 737.
These flaws, revealed within months of each other, negatively impact the delivery of new production 737s and delivery of some of the more than 200 MAXes that remain in inventory due to the 2019 21-month grounding of the MAX.
Before that, Spirit’s quality control on the 787 nose section it builds for Boeing was found to have flaws. Deliveries were suspended for nearly 20 months. Eventually, Boeing had 110 newly built 787s in inventory that require rework. The inventory won’t be cleared until the end of next year.
Bridges, politics
In between the above, a railroad bridge over a Montana river collapsed, interrupting transportation between Spirit in Wichita (KS) and Boeing’s 737 factory in Renton (WA). The fuselages are shipped via rail through Montana (among other states).
The collapse required Boeing to offload the fuselages from rail cars on the east side of the river and truck them six miles to the west side of the river. There, the fuselages were loaded on another train to complete the trip to Renton.
Who had this on their Bingo card?
Then there is the continuing geopolitical mess between then US and China. Boeing hasn’t received airplane orders from China (except for the odd freighter) since Trump initiated a trade war with China in 2017. Tensions over China’s acquiescence to Russia in the Ukraine war continue. Boeing had 140 737 MAXes built for China that remain undelivered. Bloomberg News reported last week the first two of these stored MAXes may be delivered soon. (Fifty-five of the 140 were remarketed to India.)
Analysts view the unconfirmed Bloomberg report as a positive. Bernstein Research’s note yesterday is typical.
Adjusting delivery guidance
“Assuming a restart, Boeing should deliver the 85 stored airplanes it has remaining for China. We would expect those airplanes to contribute roughly $2bn in cash over the next 18 months, adjusting for compensation and progress payments. We do not expect the opening of China to have much impact on 2025-26 Free Cash Flow guidance,” Bernstein wrote.
“Assuming deliveries restart, the focus will shift to the potential for incremental orders from China,” wrote JP Morgan. “Boeing’s own 20-year forecast shows China taking 20% of new aircraft over that period but negative developments in US-China relations have hampered Chinese demand for Boeing aircraft in recent years. This geopolitical overhang probably won’t go away but it is also unlikely that China can solely rely on Airbus and Comac to provide commercial jetliners. If MAX deliveries resume soon, the next step for Boeing in China would be for Chinese carriers to order new aircraft.”
Despite QC issues coming out of Spirit, Boeing still thinks it will deliver nearly 400 MAXes this year. Inventory deliveries could be as high as 120, with new production airplanes representing the rest.
Aerospace analysts pretty much shrugged off the latest Spirit news, at least with respect to Boeing’s end of the issue. The financial impact will fall on Spirit.
Obviously my friend and co-worker JL has retired as head of Quality at Spirit. Boeing got rid of all of us who gave a shit and said no to Bad managers and they are paying the price for it. I was a major player on the 737NG program. Brought down from Everett to clean up the mess.
Boeing put enormous pressure on suppliers to cut cost. The last thing they cared about was quality and safety. Supplier responded in kind. Where I was they couldn’t move engineering and manufacturing quickly enough to India and Mexico.
This..
..and the stuff from the “analysts” is Pollyanna-ish beyond belief:
assuming China will take all the MAXes, Spirit is not a problem,
grinding your suppliers to dust is not a problem..
Not reality-based, but maybe it’ll keep the stock price up.
Bernstein: “Assuming a restart, Boeing should deliver the 85 stored airplanes it has remaining for China. We would expect those airplanes to contribute roughly $2bn in cash over the next 18 months, adjusting for compensation and progress payments”
I’d love to see those Bernstein calculations in more detail.
$2B for 85 planes amounts to $23.5M per unit.
– The original unit sale price will have been around $50M.
– A large chunk (at least 50% ?) of that will already have been paid in the form of PDPs.
– Before delivery, BA has to pay the substantial de-mothballing costs per frame. Stan Deal told us recently that it takes as many man hours to de-mothball a MAX as it does to assemble it.
– BA will have to give a discount to make allowances for the fact that the customer is getting a 4-year-old plane rather than a new one.
– BA may give additional discounts to compensate for lost revenue due to the grounding of the in-service fleet in China: the company developed a habit of paying this compensation in the form of future discounts rather than cash out of hand at the time.
Put all of that into the mixer and it’s hard to see $23M per frame coming out.
Incidentally, this is cashflow — not profit. The costs to manufacture each frame were booked long ago (or parked in the deferred production balance). When those costs are taken into account, profit will flatline.
Today they should be able to sell them again for close to list price as there is a scramble for new jets and spares to get fresh engines onto the existing fleet. There are work to reactivate and update them to a new operator maybe having to swap engines for the latest and greatest LEAP-1B’s.
List price? Really?
No airline pays anything close to list for brand spanking new aircraft and all of a sudden, BA is going to get close to list for aircraft that have been sitting for years? List on a 737 Max 8 is about $120 million.
When you say close to list, to me that means $100 million.
There has been a huge demand for aircraft over the past year or two and the BA financials do not reflect anything like that.
During the first 6 months of 2023, BCA delivered 266 aircraft for $15.544 billion, which is an average of $58 million. That is already a 50% discount on Max list.
In that delivery mix there where 216 – 737’s and 50 widebodies, including 40 777/787.
Unless they’re giving away those WB’s for the same price as a Max, I would say BA is getting in the ballpark of $40 million, maybe less – per delivery. Two-thirds discount off of list.
“Two-thirds discount off of list.”
And since nominal unit manufacturing costs are ca. 1/3 of list, that leaves a unit margin of close to zero — which we continually see reflected in BCA’s earnings (even before debt servicing costs are factored in).
We will se how desperate customers will get as their A320neo with Pratt power get grounded for lack of spare engines and their V2500-A5 and CFM56-7B’s take time getting out of the engine shops. It will be approx. one year from now when the squeeze will feel the most. There might be a slowdown in travel causing some slack to help out. The A330’s might have to cover the troubles again.
@Claes
How long do you estimate Pratt will go through these pains? Forever with their GTF? You don’t think airlines know that;
1) There is a fix coming
2) Make do, until such time
3) P&W will compensate them
Engines are engine OEM problems. Not the airframe makers. Airbus does also sell the Leap equipped NB as well, you know. But the number is 1,200 engines – 600 aircraft, to be inspected and fixed. Airbus has almost 3,000 Neo family deliveries. 600 of that is 20%.
No way they pay ‘close to list’ to Boeing, just because Pratt is messing up.
Besides, if people were gagging for Max’s, they wouldn’t have 220 of them in inventory, would they?
@Frank, we will see 2024 how the PW1100G situation is, many airliners would like to have the Advantage package as well as soon it gets certified. The engine shops throughput as well before they catch up. The A220 fleet is growing as well and engines are forced off wing. Future leasing rates are a good indicator of the size of the problems.
Leasing an A320ceo for one year vs paying a 737 MAX at “near list price” + retraining dozens of crew/MRO worker + extra parts … etc.
I believe it’s not difficult to see which path is better, less costly to take.
@Bryce
😂
https://twitter.com/coloradotravis/status/1697746510602203330
>Today they should be able to sell them again for
>close to list price as there is a scramble for new
>jets and spares to get fresh engines onto the
>existing fleet
Sounds odd. The situation you describe is in part down to Boeing being so bad over a number of years (for various reasons) at actually delivering flyable aircraft. If Boeing were to put their prices up in response to this situation they have helped create, that (as we say over here in the UK) would be taking the .
Fleet planning whilst being a Boeing customer must be an absolute nightmare at the moment. You’re unlikely to get aircraft on the contracted-for date, and there’s a good chance that even when you do get them there’ll be a major QC issue that takes them out of service again.
All is not perfect over in Airbus either, but it’s no where near as bad.
That statement, taking out of service should be amended.
Delivered aircraft are handled under different rules (right or wrong)
So a MAX with a bracket issue that was delivered will be fixed on some future shop visit.
Same with 787s with the Shim issues.
As long as its not a safety of flight problem, they assess and determine when a fix is needed.
Just the way it is.
Tell that to UA, SIA, AC and others when their B787s were yanked out of service.
‘Commercial aircraft programs inventory included amounts credited in cash or other consideration (early issue sales consideration) to airline
customers totaling $3,625 and $3,586 at June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022.’
Who knows when BA will back this out of Inventory. It went up slightly over the past 6 months – we’ll see what happens with the balance over time.
“A Boeing official suggested the piece should have been two steps forward, one step back, but the underlying point is made.”
BA stock has been effectively going sideways since January 2 this year — bobbing up and down in a narrow band between $195 and $220. It made a brief excursion outside this band in July — up to $238 — but is now down again at $225 (this morning’s pre-trading). Here’s the graph:
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BA:NYSE?window=YTD
Looks like the Boeing official in question needs to go back to the drawing board.
And here’s a shareholder class action suit relating to the latest Spirit production flaw — someone evidently smells a rat:
“NEW YORK, Aug. 28, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of The Boeing Company (“Boeing” or the “Company”) (NYSE: BA). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
“The investigation concerns whether Boeing and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
“On August 23, 2023, Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, Inc. (“Spirit Aerosystems”), a key supplier of components for Boeing aircraft, issued a press release acknowledging “a quality issue involving elongated fastener holes on the aft pressure bulkhead on certain models of the 737 fuselage produced by Spirit AeroSystems.” Spirit Aerosystems stated that it “has implemented changes to its manufacturing process to address this issue” and is “working closely with [Boeing] to address any impacted units within the production system and address any needed rework.”
“On this news, Boeing’s stock price fell $11.27 per share, or 4.93% percent, to close at $217.31 on August 24, 2023.”
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-the-boeing-company—ba-301911568.html
elongated fastener holes get when you do manual drilling and riveting at suppliers instead of making them to automate the drill and fastening process with proper tacking in the holding fixture on automatic fastening system (takes the guess work out the process)
Gone are the days Boeing required suppliers to use automatic fastening equipment to produce parts (e.g. capital equipment $2.5-4m per system)…….just downflow to Spirit and Spirit downflows to the low cost bidder
Short cuts make looonnng delays…
“There’s never time to do it right, but somehow there’s always time to do it again.”
> Gone are the days Boeing required suppliers to use automatic fastening equipment to produce parts (e.g. capital equipment $2.5-4m per system)…….just downflow to Spirit and Spirit downflows to the low cost bidder <
This, then blame the suppliers and subs..
"Partnership for Poverty" is not an exaggeration.
Bad fastener holes in aft bulkhead- can be a MAJOR PROBLEM
Thats why the process was carefully monitored for decades , and usually done by special automated drilling and fastenening machines – sort of mini- gemcors especially adapted for the job.
LTV grand prarie used them in the 60’s- 70’s with unique handling fixtures for MD10 and 747 stuff- wuz there
I’m sure the youngsters here never heard of
https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/JA8119
“Japan Airlines Flight 123, JA8119
Gunma Prefecture, Japan
August 12, 1985
Approximately 12 minutes after departing Tokyo bound for Osaka, and just prior to reaching its planned cruising altitude of 24,000 feet, JAL 123 experienced an explosive decompression, caused by a rupture of the airplane’s aft pressure bulkhead. The resultant pressure surge into the unpressurized area aft of the pressure bulkhead resulted in extensive damage to the airplane. The airplane’s Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), rudder, and a large portion of the vertical stabilizer were lost. Additionally, all four of the airplane’s hydraulic lines were severed, resulting in complete hydraulic pressure loss which severely degrading the airplane’s controllability. Despite severe pitch (phugoid) and lateral-directional (dutch-roll) oscillations the airplane managed to stay airborne for approximately 30 minutes after the event before crashing in remote mountainous terrain in Gunma Prefecture. Out of the 524 passengers and crew aboard only four survived.-“-
Problem was traced to a poor repair job on aft pressure bulkhead . .
“T” did the right thing- made a very public apology tour and did NOT duck any questions or responsibility, etc.
Hopefully its NOT deja vue again ..
“The aft pressure bulkhead ruptured because fatigue cracks propagating from the spliced section of the bulkhead’s web weakened the bulkhead to the extent that it could no longer endure the in-flight cabin pressure.
The initiation and propagation of the fatigue cracks were attributable to improperly conducted repairs of the bulkhead in 1978. The fact that the fatigue cracks were not found in later maintenance inspections contributed to their propagation, leading to the rupture of the bulkhead.
“Diagram of Japan Airlines Aft Pressure Bulkhead Repair”
Diagram of Japan Airlines Aft Pressure Bulkhead Repair
The single (middle) rivet row became the origin of structural fatigue cracking. The cracks connected rivet-to-rivet and propagated through the “crack stop” straps. The modified splice error could not be found through visual inspection since the gap was filled with fillet sealant. The correct and incorrect configurations would appear identical when viewed from either side.
On June 2, 1978, during a landing incident at Osaka, the airplane experienced a tail strike. Several aft fuselage frames, skin, and aft pressure bulkhead were damaged. At the time, the airplane had 16,200 hours and 12,300 cycles. The airplane was repaired by a Boeing AOG team contracted to perform damage repair.
The AOG team replaced/repaired a major portion of the aft fuselage, replaced the lower half of the pressure bulkhead, and replaced the tail compartment pressure relief door.
“
Here’s a video of the train – truck – train fuselage polonaise that was/is going on in Montana:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LC8VlsZDbE
Looks like the affected bridge has now been reconstructed:
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/rebuilt-montana-rail-link-bridge-over-yellowstone-river-opens-to-traffic/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CMontana%20Rail%20Link%20has%20resumed%20operations%20with%20the,bridge%20at%20approximately%2011%3A30am%20on%20Saturday%2C%20July%2022nd.
I think the business culture, habits and responsibilities lead to companies like Boeing doing positive predictions all the time and the stakeholders / public again absorbing them. Happily skipping recent experiences of the contrary moving forward.
I see a full list of unsubstantiated assumptions; rosy 20 yr outlooks, market appetite for 737s, the supply chain cooperating with Boeing, Comac staying small, Spirits problem not Boeings, Boeing will dominate twin aisles, Airbus will sit on their hands etc., etc.
Agree on all points, keesje. See my brief comment above.
Let me roll this interesting little “grenade” down the hallway, and into the BA discussion. Peter Zeihan, a leading public geopolitical analyst ( he purports to give over 170 annual, current geopolitical presentations, and has written (among several books) an interesting 2022 book/audiobook “The End of the World is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization”), predicts a complete collapse of China in the next ten years. On this, he seems to primarily focus on Xi’s ruthless elimination of any (and all) existing and potential political power rivals, the complete cutoff of negative information flows “up the stovepipe” to Xi, China’s vulnerabilities re food and energy, and an almost certain coming national Chinese political collapse, massive famine (500 million dead), the political breakup of China into multiple regional power centers, and the return of city states, such as Shanghai and Hong Kong. He’s 50 years old, a proud “Gen Xer”, rose to VP status with Strategic Forecasting (“Stratfor”; “spook-related?”) over ten years ago, and now has his own consulting firm, Zeihan on Geopolitics. In a somewhat recent Joe Rogan Experience Spotify podcast (#1921), he goes into detail on China, and his other geopolitical outlooks. He very briefly, in this podcast, mentions his Federal government contact (CIA, DIA briefings?). While he’s a little “glib” (in my opinion) on projecting 500 million dead Chinese from coming famine, BA here may be likened to the US, in the quote misattributed to Otto von Bismarck: “God has a special providence out for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.” (Apple? Not so much! LOL)
There are also plenty of analysts who posit that the US is on the way out: declining industry, increasing debt, political dysfunction, declining social cohesion, decreasing share of global GDP, increasing de-dollarization,…the list goes on.
Interesting times ahead.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/canada-mulling-game-plan-u-162520271.html
The big change will happen if world trade switch from $ to €. Many see similarities between the late Roman empire and the USA. If no politician dares to raise taxes to improve and maintain its infrastructure and domestic safety for the next generations it will fall behind. Still the US are doing really well in some industries (like software systems)
The switch from the $ won’t be to a single replacement currency — it will be to a basket of currencies.
An example: the UAE recently announced that it will accept energy payments in $, €, yuan, ruble, rupee and dirham.
A new BRICS currency will really throw a spanner in the works.
You know, in today’s global marketplace, perhaps a basket isn’t going to be a bad thing. It would lessen the impact of being tied to one currency if something bad happens to that particular nation/group of nations.
I guess we’ll see.
Yah – I saw clips of him on the Rogan podcast. He does seem to ignore some important economic matters though;
The US and China are in a symbiotic relationship; they need each other. China needs the US to purchase the inexpensive goods they produce (look no further than Walmart) and the US needs China to produce those cheap goods as they keep wages low. As far as food shortages go, what happened when Donnie slapped tariffs on China and they stopped importing soybeans from the US? They simply went elsewhere and countries like Brazil were too happy to oblige. Back home, in the meantime, they had to give billions to farmers to survive.
After Japan, China is the second largest foreign holder of US debt.
Look at the billions that China has cost BA by simply not taking their aircraft. As the middle class expands in China, companies will be tripping over each other to do business there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ACCHxF4Afc
Busted, buddy…
Zeihan makes some important points on the current competitiveness of Mexican labor vs. Chinese labor, and how demographics is driving a massive decline in amount and competiveness of Chinese labor. Also, deglobalization will drive a further decline into regional blocs..i.e. a U.S., Mexico, and Canadian bloc!
BRICS was already slightly larger than the G7 in terms of GDP — and BRICS just added 6 more (wealthy) member countries.
The “West” is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
I’m waiting to see when Embraer and COMAC announce their engagement 😉
https://twitter.com/zeithistoriker/status/1694555287133516224
https://twitter.com/davidpgoldman/status/1631290370582626304
I think it’s more of the kind of wishful thinking from Mr. Zeihan
(probably still a spook) that the West adores and craves.
“Relax; China’s gonna go down.” Mmm, we’ll see.
On one particular point: I don’t see Mr. Xi leaving;
not in the least.
wrong analysis…China versus Vietnam low cost labor, China versus African countries low cost labor. As an example 40% of Nike footwear produced in Vietnam
Plus India making strides in attracting foreign manufacturers who want to diversify their production base away from China.
Yup. Time to move more jobs offshore to countries like India.
Actually Africa with its demographics is the medium to long term play in terms of looking for low waged production centers. Even the Chinese recognize that and are starting to move some of the basic manufacturing to countries like Ethiopia (large and young population with median age under 21, high levels of education up to secondary school matriculation). Note the just announced deal by Boeing with Ethiopian Airlines to do harness assemble in Ethiopia.
Currently Morocco and South Africa are the biggest beneficiaries of this trend, but countries like Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Tanzania are very good candidates not only for basic manufacturing but for tech developments centered on IT and Software development. They have large University educated young population in engineering and the sciences who can work for a third of the wages in India and produce equal or better results in the IT field. Companies like Microsoft, IBM and Google have quietly relocated some of their Russian software work to these countries (Especially Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria).
Hopefully guys have figured out how to make tools profitable AGAIN before you stopped trading with others.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/why-america-s-largest-tool-company-couldn-t-make-a-wrench-in-america/ar-AA1ec81R
TSMC has also delayed the opening of a fab in the US because it can’t find sufficiently skilled US workers — it has to ship personnel in from Taiwan to do the job.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/tsmc-delays-us-chip-fab-opening-says-us-talent-is-insufficient/
@Bryce
Denverpost:
United hires hundreds from island of Guam for its ramp team at DIA
https://t.co/5Zv0KqgQmG
With a $25k signing bonus!
War of words
‘They would not listen to us’: inside Biden’s troubled $53bn chip plant
https://t.co/SaTgn5PGye
-> “TSMC’s investment in the U.S. from a business perspective makes no sense at all.”
https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/22/tsmc-arizona-plant-4/
“After Japan, China is the second largest foreign holder of US debt.”
Japan and China are actually very busy divesting their US treasuries.
Just a few years ago, China had $1.3T worth of them…but that has now whittled down to $890B.
Some are just naturally maturing without being replaced, while others are being sold (e.g. to backstop the yen/yuan).
Just 22% of US treasuries are now foreign owned — and that percentage is decreasing.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/bonds/dedollarization-china-economy-treasury-bond-market-outlook-selling-american-debt-2023-8
Those are interesting stats, Bryce- very interesting. Thanks.
Yes — they’re very interesting indeed.
You’ll probably find this informative (despite the sterile computer voice):
https://youtu.be/XDgCAvcNo-o?si=C-hGGeH76ONk9bEe
Interesting take.
Zeihan, in his most recent book you cited, actually has a section on Boeing. Although I tend to agree with most of his views, I have been unable to align his analysis of Boeing with my direct experience within the company. His position is that since Boeing is inside the US and largely disconnected from a global supply chain (incorrect), it will survive and prosper as a monopoly, whereas Airbus and COMAC will fail because of the fragility and interdependency with a globalized world and/or internal political instability. Whereas I tend to agree that Boeing is less globalized than Airbus (and certainly more stable than COMAC), I think he discounts the long-term effects of the brain drain and Boeing’s inability to execute on simplest of tasks for totally internal reasons. He may have assumed it is easy to roll back the tape on issues like that, maybe by absorbing people from Airbus, but I disagree. In a deglobalized world, talent won’t move freely across borders either. I disagree with Zeihan that Boeing is invincible due to geopolitical luck. If Boeing can’t develop and deliver products, it won’t survive and will be replaced by other (as of yet unknown to us) emerging players with lots of economic pain to everyone involved. Avoiding it will require a fundamental change to how it conducts business in all areas, and I just don’t see any indication that this may happen.
I think it would be a good idea for Scott to get Peter Zeihan on a podcast and ask him more specifically about Boeing. I’d be happy to assist.
Peter Zeihan strikes me as an individual who things that making aircraft is just like any other corporation making cars, for instance.
If he only knew how complex the process was and how ‘aircraft guys and gals’ are the backbone of the industry – you can’t just plug and play any warm body into the program.
+1
Frank and Bryce
Thanks for restating that Boeing isnt building effing toasters. What is being missed by many is that the 737 is a very old design relying on skilled assemblers to compensate for tolerance accumulations and old sheet metal assy concepts. There is a significant amount of artistry and craftsmanship needed to build it. Just as Boeing (and everyone) suffers from a Brain Drain, the 737 makers suffer from the loss of magic fingers. The artisans that used to be everywhere on assembly lines are also leaving the industry……. Spirit is making more mistakes today, as Boeing does, because in older program manufacturing where lots of little pieces are used to shim, twiddle, massage and hundreds of other terms for using superior craftsmen to backstop complicated old school designs like the 737 and to a lesser degree the 767, the magix fingers are leaving. Why doesnt Airbus report the same problems???? Simple Airbus is 2 generations newer in their assembly processes, and the loss of artisans while still a problem, is backstopped by newer assy methods, so problems occur less often and to a smaller magnatude.
That tells me that fixing Spirit will be really hard, expensive and while the improvements needed are driven home the decrease in gross worker skill will present a never ending litany of new stuff to fix…… The answer to the 737 assy problem lies in patching it as often as needed until you replace it with something much more producible. This is one of the goals of the TTBW to make it snap together like Lego so unskilled workers can assemble it just like a toaster……
@ SC
It was Frank who made the comment about toasters, not me — although I agree with it, of course.
Reading between the lines of what you’re saying: we can expect a continuing (and, potentially, worsening) catalog of manufacturing quality issues with the MAX…sounds like a nightmare to me.
And not just the MAX, it seems: shimming the 787 also appears to be a “magic fingers” operation, so we can expect continuing misery on that front also.
Did you see the article below on AB’s new A321XLR production hall in Hamburg?
‘This is one of the goals of the TTBW to make it snap together like Lego so unskilled workers can assemble it just like a toaster……’
You would know far more about production than I do, but I’m going to challenge you on this:
Boeing and Airbus haven’t been the only aircraft makers in the world and lots of aircraft have come out, since the advent of the original 737. Here we are in the 2020’s and aircraft manufacturing is still a complicated and skilled/artisanal process, meaning you still need those ‘plane guys & gals’ to make the darn things.
While there may have been some improvement/streamlining in how things are done, has anybody been able to make a Lego type, snap together (large commercial aircraft) that mimics the ease at which cars are made?
Embraer? Bombardier? Any of the defunct/gobbled up airplane OEM’s of the past? How about any of the engine OEM’s?
I’m guessing that there have been a ton of guys like you around the world, who have been trying to make it easier/smoother/more efficient since way back when, but given the complexity involved and the regulatory requirements…there’s no way.
———————————————————
Here’s an example for you:
I heard yesterday from my buddy up the road and asked him about a particular aircraft that was being currently produced.
https://aviation.flights/aib/family/A220
Usually, a new aircraft off the line gets around 4-6 test flights, before delivery. There’s this one plane (not his, he added) that has had 10 test flights.
10.
I asked him why?
Sometimes, things just don’t fit properly and you have to continue to work it out until the customer is happy with it. And this is on the most advanced, newest aircraft, currently produced in the west.
Rooks can’t do this work. They can stand by and watch, as the old hand of 30+ years explains to them what the problem is. And sometimes even the old guys run up against something which they haven’t seen in the past.
It’s just the nature of the business….
Thanks for that comment, Scott C.
I’ve been trying to stay out of this discussion as we end up with the same group plowing the same ground over and over again. But this evening I watched “The Big Short” again, and all I could think about all the way through it was the total insanity of Boeing’s stock price. Even with it’s nonGAAP financials, it hasn’t had a P/E ratio since 2018. If one were to do the right thing and write off the entire remaining R&D costs for the 787 and then restate going back a decade, the P/E would disappear for that entire length of time. So I got to thinking, what percentage of the S&P 500 has no P/E? The answer is 5%.
Just as what happened with the housing bubble 16 years ago, the investment community is not enforcing any honesty in financial reporting, and the SEC is letting them get away with it. So while the incompetence of Boeing’s leadership and management culture since the 1997 merger is well documented by the company’s product quality and program execution in every market in which it participates, nobody who is supposed to penalize that sort of incompetence seems to care.
Scott has talked about writing something on the topic of “the way back.” Sure there is a long list of technical and basic process management things we can and have talked about here, how does one create a culture of basic honesty and common decency? This problem seems to be bigger than just Boeing. As for the way back – I’m losing hope that it is even possible, even with a mass swap out of the leadership team. It would probably take an infusion of well into ten figures, and finding a CEO who is both qualified and who would not want the job. The right person would have to be begged to take it just for the sake of keeping the air transportation system safe. Mulally is too old at this point. I do know someone who has the technical hutzpah and basic honesty to do the job, but getting her to take it would require an incredible sales job.
@ RetiredTechFellow
Nice that you bring up the P/E ratio — which hasn’t been measurable at BA for years.
On the other side of the line, have you looked at the (TTM) PE ratios of WS darlings such as Nvidia (158), Amazon (109), Tesla (73) and SalesForce (138)?
Did someone say “bubble”?
Hoping it won’t be a 3rd step back…
I think it’s fine.
J. Ostrower is a journalist,
A little straw man to attract attention
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1696316359901343958?t=HBNzgeebtfFilYKLpWs7qQ&s=19
I posted the same thing on Twitter Monday morning.
Idalia won’t destroy Boeing’s plant in Charleston (and hopefully they’ve got the planes on the flight line secured), but flooding and downed powerlines will keep people from getting to work for a couple days.
This will be a long-term issue, however: the Charleston airport and much of the land around the Boeing plant is reclaimed swampland that lies only a few feet above sea level. As sea levels rise, the flooding in this area will get worse. I’ve seen projections that put some of the roads around the plant and the airport underwater by 2050.
Bryce
”…Interesting times ahead…”
Others say it’s the whole western world. Lots of predictions from them I don’t know
Is this true or wishful thinking I don’t know,
But you, you want it to be just the USA, it’s certainly wishful thinking when it comes from you
That’s why you’ll never be objective
Interesting times indeed, I would be extremely laughing to see that it won’t happen as you predicted (Armageddon)
Bryce
Quote
…”Looks like the Boeing official in question needs to go back to the drawing board….”
Unquote
—
Scott’s statements turn out to be extremely true.
“One step forward and two steps back”.
D. Calhoun had praised the person who raised his hand at Spirit last winter for the aft section fuselage issues. Now with fairly recurring problems
I wonder what Calhoun’s intentions are. Many had wanted him ousted because he had left the drawing board for a new aircraft development in Q4 2022
He was the man who righted the ship in the 2020-2022 period but progress has become mixed.
A clean sheet design design is not the solution if you do not place the pawns correctly on the industrial chessboard. Spirit as a subcontractor of Boeing and Spirit which also has a subcontractor, becomes something quite unhealthy and complex, there is a real lesson to be learned here.
Launching a new program to please AvGeek is not enough, it’s still too risky. The so-called “more profits” has only killed the profit.
I expect a decision from Calhoun and their shareholders to make some industry adjustments. Because that’s what hurt their delivery targets.
The 737MAX remains competitive but suffers industrially.
The 787 is the leader, but had also suffered industrially.
Launching a new aircraft is not the solution if you maintain the same policy.
Industrially, there are things that definitely need to be readjusted …
Thks
Theoretically/legally/Actually – Any shareholder with a few Thousand $$ worth of BA stock who agrees to hold it for a year or so can make a shareholder proposal and if properly worded the company is obligated to publish it. (see Rule 14a-8 Shareholder Proposals ). Sometimes ( rarely ) the voting is such that the company is obligated to act on the proposal.
But it takes a majority of shareholders to agree. With approx 600 Million shares, mostly held by various funds who look mainly at return and dividends and low risk, etc financial stuff, facts and technical sounding proposals rarely get ‘ approved’- Yep benthere dunthat, andgot more than 10 percent about 20 years ago with 60 plus million shares in favor..
Thus the bloviating about ‘ shareholders will . . .( insert technical argument here because ( insert allowed facts and data NOT about business here ) is just that.
Used to be that even though a proposal failed- Management would implement much of a proposal or even a written suggestion made during the meeting. ( dunthat too )
Also used to be a Billion $$ was a rare number-
But that was then- now its a gimmmiee gimmeee
Discussion on issues -facts are still worthwhile- but in many cases – reality seems to be ignored.
Just sayin . .
“City of Charleston to begin initial preps for Tropical Storm Idalia”
“City officials said they are expecting around an 8-foot-high tide in the Charleston Harbor on Wednesday when Idalia arrives, bringing flooding to the area. Last year, Hurricane Ian made landfall as a Category 1 system near Georgetown, bringing heavy flooding and strong winds to the Lowcountry.”
https://www.live5news.com/2023/08/28/city-charleston-begin-initial-preps-tropical-storm-idalia/
Sure looks more like X steps sideways and 1 step back.
Focusing only on the 37, the Issues of supplier quality have been communicated for a generation now, and been either ignored or mitigated with PR. So, let’s spend resources to build another line in Everett as we close out year 4 in not meeting capacity in Renton.
The risks of the rail line from Wichita to Renton were thoroughly evaluated years back when a shipment went into the river. Rail disruption is a medium likelihood, and grows each year. Only going to mention that there’s also the bullet holes.
Thanks for this comment.
The trouble with ignoring quality issues is that, whilst PR is seen (by PR people) as a way of mitigating any problem, Mother Nature doesn’t read press releases. The aircraft that has a fatal problem will crash no matter how much PR says it won’t.
Boeing’s long standing approach to such catastrophes appears to be to PR their way out again – blame the pilots, do a deal with the Department of Justice, smother the bad news with torrents of “good” news, hope people forget, move on.
However, the other anthropomorphised character that doesn’t read press releases is the Final Accountant. Always, eventually, there is a reckoning.
I don’t disagree Matthew, but I would add a qualification to your comment. There was the “Boeing of the totem” and there is the “Boeing of the swoosh.” Those two companies could not be more different. Your comment applies quite accurately to the “Boeing of the swoosh.” However, the way we reacted to catastrophes in the “Boeing of the totem” was quite different – JAL-123 being the classic example.
mickey said in part
” he risks of the rail line from Wichita to Renton were thoroughly evaluated years back when a shipment went into the river. Rail disruption is a medium likelihood, and grows each year. Only going to mention that there’s also the bullet holes.”
In 1960-62 the issue of bullet holes in railroad cars was well known. The pentagon whiz kids provided money to develop the ‘ Mobile minuteman ‘ concept. pre surveyed ‘ parking spots were established, and a test train with launch control, dummy missiles, living quarters, etc was put together. trains were to be rounted on a ‘ random’ basis such that they might be at a location from 1 to 5 or 6 days and then moved to another location.
They rapidly determined that the missile car and others had to be armor plated enough to withstand at least a 50 cal round at close range.
The number of 22w thru 30 cal rounds fired was even then very high.
Since the 3rd stage had a significant percentage of ‘nitro’ – shock sensitive makeup in its propellant, a test was run in a remote area of an air force base. Filled a protype 3rd stage with said propellant and put it on a blast pad, and located several high speed cameras at various distances. Set up a remote fired 50 cal at a few hundred yards.
Chemical explosions are often rated as low to high order re effects of detonation.
Result was that the resulting explosion went to a much higher order than predicted. There were other issues . Mobile minuteman was cancelled. Point is in 60 years the same problem exists, with no easy solution- except that empty aluminum structures do not explode with 22 and 30 cal rounds.
We could do a long discussion on the history of what has come to be called lean manufacturing in Boeing. Suffice it to say, that Boeing invented much of it as a part of the TWI program during WWII. It was then forgotten as we moved into monumental tooling with the 707/717 program (the 717 was the KC-135 and variants). Then after JAL- 123 we started to rediscover that stuff, and as productivity on line 1 of the 777 surpassed what was projected as being possible, eliminating the need for the second line, it became clear that we could work toward reworking all of the assembly lines into a b-17 style “Make it flow like a river” approach, and that once that was accomplished, the entire heavy transport aircraft production of the company would easily fit into the Everett site.
One should not think about the addition of a 737 line to the Everett plant as adding a fourth line nearly so much as thinking about it as the first step in consolidating all of Renton into Everett. Even then, there will be lots of unused space left over for line reconfigurations, experimentation, test fixtures, and new models if there ever are any new models.
Even though the incompetent GE-thinking folks running the place are wasting big bucks expanding BSC, I would be shocked if they were not thinking about and starting to execute a consolidation plan for what is left in the Puget Sound region.
After WWII the federal government (I forget which department) did a comprehensive study of production efficiency of all factories in the United States that produced war material. The metric they used to compare the many different kinds of things being produced was tons of finished goods per square foot of plant space. The top producing factory in the entire country was Boeing’s Plant II. That led to additional studies of what became known as the “Boeing Multi-line System.” Key features was a U-shaped assembly floor, total flexibility with everything on wheels, and balanced production at each station so there would be no time lost to task queuing. If you take the public tour of the Everett plant you can see the old B-17 system reimplemented on the 777 line.
As to the public tour – the most impressive sight used to be from the balcony looking over 747 line and getting the impression ( where is everyone ? ) or how many 747s were inside. Few realized that major assemblies of 747 were simply floated around on airpads.
RTF
WW2 was the high point for lean mfg. It was implemented by very good people and was universally used in shipbuilding, weapons and vehicle manufacture. What a time to be an Industrial Engineer. Of note in Everett along the waterfront are a number of old buildings that still have rivets dropped between the flooring after all these years.
Its hard to believe we have so completely lost our way inside BA.
Indeed. But the institutional memory has been completely erased. If you look at every major line of business (commercial, defense, and space), the last program that was successfully executed was 777. First flight was in 1994. I measure success by three simple criteria: IOC or first revenue within a few months of the schedule that was in place when the program began, performs on day one at least as well as promised to the customer at program kick-off, and made money from a GAAP perspective (that would mean actually burning down the accounting block at least somewhat close to the initial plan on commercial programs).
OK, so 1994, that’s coming up on 30 years ago. That means that there is not a single person in management or engineering leadership left in the company who has management or technical leadership experience on a program that was successful – not one. They literally don’t know how to do their jobs right. Some of the most fundamental aspects of how to run a business like this are totally alien to the current Boeing leadership culture.
” Some of the most fundamental aspects of how to run a business like this are totally alien to the current Boeing leadership culture.”
AKA the GEJWelchMcDummy virus still infecting the executive and gubbermint offices.
For an example – check the date of the last BA stock split as an simple indicator of growth and financial status.
And the integrity of Boeings Primary legal firm Perkins- Coie then and now.
For any current BA employee to consider speaking truth to power is a radical- risky thought unless one enjoys seeing their head on a pike or being a sacrificial lamb. The Jack Welch process was to cut the bottom ‘ ten percent’ almost every year.
But AFTER retiring- he then admitted it was a stupid idea.
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/yakovlevs-prototype-domesticated-superjet-carries-out-maiden-flight/154724.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/aapa-warns-of-travel-spending-slowdown-as-strong-demand-continues/154711.article
An airline executive would order the Russified SSj only after a gun in pointed to his head.
That includes Aeroflot execs.
Why on earth would anyone think that this aircraft would be anything other than a commercial disaster?
Iran would probably buy it.
I can think of lots of other candidates also.
The only reason why the previous iteration was a flop was because the Russians didn’t take after-sales service seriously…but such shortcomings can be amended.
There are also examples of such flops in the “west” — for example, the current PW GTF fiasco…not to mention the MAX debacle.
U.S. aviation regulators have issued an updated directive regarding a cracking issue with all of Boeing’s 777 model airplanes, according to a notice posted online on Tuesday.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-faa-updates-airworthiness-directive-132301668.html
“Although Boeing submitted an initial report of errors in late 2022, the company did not produce “detailed and complete documentation of these errors [ ] until late July 2023″ due to the length and complexity of the requirements bulletin, the FAA said in the notice.”
“Although Boeing intends to revise the bulletin, the FAA issued the new directive as “this work will take longer to accomplish than the risk to public safety allows,” the agency said.”
“FAA orders 777 inspections to address ‘urgent’ risk involving fire prevention”
“An “urgent unsafe condition” has led the Federal Aviation Administration to order airlines to ensure their Boeing 777s have correctly installed “cap seals” – components used to prevent fuel-tank fires.
“The FAA issued the new requirements in an airworthiness directive (AD) released on 29 August, saying ** the move responds to risks Boeing introduced by publishing incorrect information in a 2021 service bulletin **.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/faa-orders-777-inspections-to-address-urgent-risk-involving-fire-prevention/154736.article
Boeing-developed maintenance information used by regulators to mandate 777 structural inspections in 2022 includes *numerous errors* that may create more risks for affected aircraft than it addresses, forcing the FAA to issue new requirements that tackle some of the issues while Boeing finishes revamping the instructions.
.https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/boeing-service-instruction-errors-prompt-new-777-inspections
The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing…
…And yet the 777 is the strongest and safest aircraft ever built.
Checklist.
Where are definitive numbers to support this claim?? Ive never seen Boeing make this claim, so Im curious about your data allowing yiu to make this claim when the OEM wont
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Accidents_and_incidents
As of August 2023, the 777 had been involved in 35 aviation accidents and incidents,[248] including a total of eight hull losses (five in-flight and three on-ground incidents), resulting in 541(including one fatality due to ground casualties) fatalities along with three hijackings.
The global A350 fleet has zero fatalities and no hull loss accidents as of 23 June 2023.
The global A380 fleet has zero fatalities and no hull loss accidents as of November 2021 (needs an update)
As of August 2023, the A220 family has zero accidents.
Yes, the A220, A350 & A380 are all younger than the 777 family, but still zero hull losses & zero fatalities makes these 3 the safest aircraft in the skies.
The 777’s fatal crash rate is 3 times higher than that of the 747-400…
(0.18 vs. 0.06 fatal crashes per million flights)
Bryce.
You missed what I said……
Chklst said the trip 7 was stronger and safer than anything else and I called for him to show us the numbers behind his claim……
Anyhow, you and I can see the same stuff and reach the same conclusions here…. no problem at all, have a great day
I found your comment to be perfectly clear — didn’t miss anything 😎
Just throwing in some data to prove you right and “The Thing” wrong.
It was supplemental to Frank’s comment.
So in these statistics are we counting the plane that was shot down by the Russians and the one that was dumped into the Indian Ocean by one of the flight crew? Proximate and root causes both matter when we start making claims about how safe or not something is, especially if the point being made has something to do with design. Now I’ll grant you that the “Boeing of the swoosh” is an irresponsible corporate monstrosity, but the “Boeing of the totem” was something else entirely. It’s a little hard to talk about a product that was developed by one and then continued in production by the other. However, except in the swoosh idiots in ability to execute on the 777x, and their having turned the Everett plant into a fairly unpleasant place to work, the pre-X designs are sufficient robust to endure a lot of that and still be a good value and a safe product.
It should be reminded that the Boeing of the totem refused to admit that the 737 rudder had a lethal problem.
Equally with the Lauda Air 767, it was denial.
While crashes were more accepted back when jets came into existence, Boeing was in denial on training needed to deal with the much faster flight and approaches, it was not just another prop job.
Read the book on the 747 development and how close they came to ignoring issues with that aircraft.
Like the FAA was the gold standard for Aviation, it was not and to this day it ignores airline issues.
The myth is seldom if ever true and Boeing was never a paragon of engineering. No disagreement it has gone far over the edge in the last 20 years.
The Boeing of the totem made plenty of mistakes. The rudder icing thing on the 737 was one. The engineers involved were too confident that what was happening was impossible. It took too long to get past that confidence. Other mistakes included the small vertical stabilizers on the prototypes of the 299, 307, and 314. Then there was the Paisley affair. There was also a fairly long list of things that have never been made public. One particular example I’ll allude to is a failure at the Frederickson skin and spar plant to properly recalibrate their milling machines after the Nisqually earthquake which in turn led to some out of spec parts that made it into revenue service. It goes on. But the point is not that we made mistakes on a regular basis, but rather what we did about them once we got it through our thick skulls that one had been made. The way T handled the JAL-123 situation made it crystal clear as to what the expectation was. Now compare that to the way the MAX crashes were handled.
Checklist said
Checklist
August 29, 2023
…And yet the 777 is the strongest and safest aircraft ever built.
Scott Correa asked you to show the numbers why its the safest.
You never did. Perhaps you might do that now and quit berating the man for asking you a simple question to back up your comment. I expect you wont because you are never admit being wrong.
And with that Im back to lurking
Scott Correa said strongest numbers, sorry
https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status/1696609750446903300
You have to fight evil from the root and try to understand why many 21st century companies have come up with something mediocre, doing things quickly and being $o money driven.
This kind of repetitive media $arcasm lead$ nowhere.
A senior Pentagon official who wants to investigate Boeing did something much smarter and productive, for American industry. Finally an American who has “jealousy” for his country and his industry.
A true patriot -*-👍
Boeing keeps pointing the finger at suppliers.
It is high time Calhoun got his arms around supplier management.
The company needs to rethink its whole approach. They should bring in an expert in the field from outside Boeing.
Now it not the time for amateurs.
Oh, don’t worry — Mr. Mounir is now in charge of supply chain management at BA.
You remember him, don’t you? He’s the guy who was in charge of sales while all those planes were being sold at unsustainable discounts.
Really on the ball 😉
Boeing could do with taking a leaf out of Toyota’s book on supplier management. Typically, Toyota sets quality targets, not production targets, and works with the supplier to help them achieve those quality targets. Also, Toyota are careful not to put price pressure on their suppliers and they pay their bills on time, in full. It takes time and money to bring about such harmonius relationships, but in the long run it’s extremely efficient.
The result is that Toyota has a fanatically loyal supplier base, who all do good work.
Time and money. Things Boeing has always seemed unwilling to spend, and now can’t really afford to spend. I’d estimate that, even with the best will in the world, it’d take 5+ years of dedicated hard work to convert Boeing and its suppliers from being a Boeing to being another Toyota, during which time their production rate would be initially very low. They might not survive that, financially.
There’s no point spending either, unless there is a sea-change in attitudes at the top of the company. For companies like Toyota, QC starts with the Chairperson, and permeates the entire company and supplier base. Unaddressed QC issues are treated as the Chairperson’s fault. For companies like Boeing, QC seems to be treated as an overhead to be minimised.
Pity the world doesn’t have a Japanese aircraft manufacturer 🙁
Did you see the film “The Last Samurai”?
Exposed some nice contrasts between Japanese and American attitudes.
Bryce
Lol
See also European.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Your bias and your value judgment are insignificant’…
For the last five years or so each day is like turning a new page in “Atlas Shrugged”.
I read that when I was a teen, phew,
Sadly what Ann missed badly was that no one stands alone and there is no hero corporation that cares a whit about anything other than money.
https://www.businesstoday.in/industry/aviation/story/dgca-halts-air-indias-boeing-simulator-training-facility-over-certain-lapses-report-396145-2023-08-29
Keesje
Obviously you have not read the message from SteelyMB and me explaining the industrial problem which is affecting the delivery of aircraft.
A clean sheet design wouldn’t fully guarantee industrial success, just look at the 787 Dreamliner, and as you mention “2007”, they were already at the beginning of the problems with the fastner shortages. I think you remember that. While it’s true that an all-new aircraft would have been better than the 737MAX in 2011, there would certainly have been some nasty industrial surprises as well. Many agree that since the merger with McDonnel Douglas / Suite -C there has been a craze about excessive profits, negligence has been the main argument of those who have denounced Boeing’s policy pre-merger until ‘to put the sh*t together in 2019. You know the story…
And then they launched the 777-X, 2 years after the 737MAX while the 787Dreamliner was at the start of delivery. They protected the Widebody sector and launched a re engines 737 (MAX) with a lot of “procedural negligence”,
Or if you prefer with a lot of poor program execution while the ex CEO Mc Nerney boasted of buying back and redistributing the shares . In other words if they had executed the 787, 737MAX and 777-X program correctly today, they would have made a lot of money. Boeing’s stock would have been $600 in 2023, it was ~420 in 2019 and now it’s actually just (but bigger than Airbus) at ~$230.
Finally, a well-executed 737MAX program would have made a lot of money faster than a clean sheet design. The problem is that even a 737 has been produced for almost 60 years, they can’t even make deliveries correctly. As I said, D. Calhoun should really look into this. It’s been 3 years since he became CEO of Boeing, replacing D. Muillenberg sullied by the Bean Counters policy. What about the next few months?
Well I fear that if the delivery issues are not fixed definitively so that no one raises their hand every 60 days, then the shareholders and D. Calhoun will have to gone.
Don’t forget that the Pentagon started to get involved and launched an investigation. The only hope for people who don’t want to see Boeing go under and have some sort of “coup” by the Pentagon with a warrant arguing ” danger for security and economic loss to the US through negligence through BCA.
In short, a real “Cassus belly” to clean up once and for all and bring Boeing back to where it was in 2000…
Thks
This article is a wonderful example of talking without actually saying anything…full to the brim of meaningless hot air:
“Jim Hileman, vice president and chief engineer of Sustainability & Future Mobility at Boeing, shared details about next-gen aircraft, new technologies, operational efficiency, and more in an interview with Avionics International.”
Here’s a choice cut:
“Jim Hileman: Safety is the primary consideration when Boeing engineers design an airplane or incorporate new technologies.
“In addition to meeting regulatory requirements before certification, each airplane must meet Boeing’s design standards. Often these standards are more stringent than regulatory requirements.
“New technologies are subject to robust processes that ensure safety throughout design, testing, certification, and operation.”
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2023/08/30/the-next-generation-of-aircraft-insights-from-boeing/
Time to get out the “Bullsh*t Bingo” cards 🙂
https://onfirstup.com/boeing/BNN/articles/hileman-named-vice-president-of-sustainability-future-mobility-1?bypass_deeplink=true
Hey, at least he didn’t start blathering on about ‘Diversity’ (in your quoted section , anyway).
“We can’t make airplanes, but here at Boing, we’re ultra-Woke.”
Cultivate yourself a little. Diversity is the same thing at Microsoft, Disney, Sony and many others.
You seem very vehement to me. I can sense to what extent your resentment towards Boeing was due to a past of painful spankings…👋
Relax, the game is not over.
In my opinion, over the last decade, it became clear pushing out a 737 replacement (no game changing engines) was a bad strategic decision. Even without the crashes.
If Boeing had decided to build a replacement in 2007 for EIS full rate production in 2015 they would be in a much better position.
It would not have to be a game changing design. Just 80+ inch fans, engine choice, container options and better payload range, lighter materials, fbw etc.
Maybe 3-8% more efficient than a A321NEO. Thousands would have been sold at good margins.
Now Airbus will efficiently keep dominating with small incremental improvements instead of pushing for step change innovations. So it is bad for the industry / environment too.
But that wouldn’t have been to the taste of the almighty Southwest…
Keesje
..”Maybe 3-8% more efficient than a A321NEO…”
—–
-> 8% better? It is at least a reengined “737” with CFM’s RISE Engine. Being available only in ~2035. Your point is a non sens.
-> 3% better with a brand new CFRP aircraft with Leap-56 from CFM.
-> Both solutions are impossible.
As I already said here somewhere in 4Q2022, after Calhoun’s devastating announcement.
“It is both too early to launch a 737MAX replacement and both too late to do so”…
Wait until 2026-2027 to start hearing something quite interesting in the industry
->20% @ 30% efficiency
Best with potential TTBW Leap-56 @ Rise Engine.
Thks
True Keesje. Boeing should have called AA’s bluff and let them go all Airbus (they wouldn’t). Instead Boeing went with plan B instead of sticking to plan A.
But spot on Keejse. And yes, SWA was involved with the new gen aircraft too.
Exactly correct….. Boeing was shopping the 737 replacement long before the max was announced. The aorlines with a very significant installed base and infrastructure to support it said no thank you. Specifically they demamded a 737 derivative so they could continue to operate without a fleet risk brought on by a new aircraft…….. So we got the MAX
The irony is that, had Boeing said “no, we’re replacing the 737”, they’d have made just as many sales of a new aircraft, at good margins (assuming good execution of the devil program). Airbus could not possibly have absorbed all the orders from miffed 737 operators, they’d have bought Boeings anyway.
This isn’t quite right, but close. 20xx airplane #2 was indeed a 737 replacement, and some of the mockup work was shown to a few customers in its very early concept development stages. For example, Herb Kelleher was given a tour of the design studio, by Alan Mulally in 2001, and shortly afterward, Carolyn Corvi gave the same tour to Michael O’Leary. So you got that part right. What you got wrong was their reaction. Both were as eager as puppies to see that plane coming into their fleets. Make significant sales to those two customers and the rest is easy.
Only if you can produce the aircraft at a price they want to pay and no program problems and Boeing is not noted for avoiding problems, more they jump into the deep end of the pool.
The 737 should have had a replacement on the way for the NG and did not and after that it was too late.
I totally agree. We had a plan for that, and Prince Jim decided that the money for it would be used for stock buy backs instead. As a result of that and other things he did, execution became impossible.
This is the thing that Rand (someone mentioned “Atlas Shrugged”) and others of her ilk don’t seem to understand. Everyone in the organization from top to bottom has to do their part with a sense of ownership and devotion to task. People are not factors of production to be squeezed to least cost, especially in aerospace.
If you think about the normal distribution curve of talent and what we have allowed the investment community to do to the United States, it really is disgusting. Imagine you are flying along on a Qantas flight from LA to Sydney. Now about the folks that designed and built the plane you are in. Do you want them to have been at the high end or the low end of the wage pool of the whole economy?
OK, now what have we done? We’ve let big tech scarf up an unreasonably large percentage of the the high cost talent pool and put it to work on things that sell advertising. And we accelerated that process by making war on the labor costs in aerospace. Those MAX crashes were an inevitable result of that. No other outcome was possible. But the really sad thing is that we haven’t learned from that stupidity, so it is going to happen again. Who on this forum is going to be on one of those new planes with controls that were not fully vetted by a competent failure mode analysis simply because the analysis has become impossible to perform because of the systems design, and the fact that neither the people working on them, nor their leaders seem to recognize the issue. Of course the people who would see the problem are off trying to increase your contact time on their platform so their ad conversion rate will go up.
It’s like party time in old Rome in the year 410.
@SteelyMB
We agree, as I said above, offering such an ungrateful position to I. Mounir, will not change anything, he or another is to move the heartburn of D. Calhoun, towards I. Mounir or x or y.
Mission Impossible until they rethink how the supply chain works.
@Bryce,
I. Mounir is a Boeing veteran.
It has nothing to do with some incompetence.
Just ridiculous… Be objective and have a little knowledge of the file before reacting.
Keesje
…”’Now Airbus will efficiently keep dominating with small incremental improvements instead of pushing for step change innovations…”
—
Your speech around 2027 will be outdated.
Airbus will be obliged to comply with Boeing standards as we have already seen in 2006 with the A350-XWB relaunched to Boeing 787 and 777 standards.
I think Airbus will enjoy for another 4-5 years, after which a page in history will turn,
… The pages of history always end up turning.
Boeing and Airbus know it…👍
Airbus just keeps moving forward……………….
Airbus opens pulse line in Hamburg for equipping A321XLR aft fuselages
“The hangar is equipped with a full range of state-of-the-art technologies for operations and manufacturing, such as automated logistics, fully digital systems, and test stations that can output the status of each fuselage section – both in terms of logistics and resources – at any time,” says the airframer.”
“Airbus is intending to ramp-up production of A320neo-family aircraft to 75 per month in 2026, and has been modernizing and digitalizing its industrial systems to support this rate rise.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/airbus-opens-pulse-line-in-hamburg-for-equipping-a321xlr-aft-fuselages/154750.article
Here’s a version of that story without paywall:
https://ukaviation.news/airbus-opens-new-a321xlr-equipment-installation-hangar/
AB is still expecting the A321XLR to be certified at the end of this year, with EIS in early 2024:
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/airbus-hopes-to-certify-a321xlr-by-the-end-of-2023
75 A320 plus A220 …(e.g. 10 a month) ..that’s 85 single aisle a month
And that number will climb further if/when AB opens a FAL in India…
When I was presenting at a aerospace conference in India (2019), the leading expert in India said they want FAL so they can “fly out” aircraft from India Second, they want to build wings. AB can duplicate the China strategy to achieve both Both FAL and wing (e.g. like Xian) will be exact duplicate of Airbus facilities right down to the bicycles they ride in the plant!
Advance where?
With an XLR thing that even you (I’m sure didn’t even understand the thing) Lol!…
It is worth arguing that a narrowbody flying below Mach.80 betwin the Atlantic.
Worse yet,
I’ll give you Hamburg and Vancouver.
That’s possible, in narrowbody ?
I think Airbus wants to take the least risk with so many painful past developments
and another bad widebody strategy against Boeing
I don’t really know what an A321XLR means but I hope it would be for flying ~4h with more heavy cargo.
Otherwise this thing makes absolutely no sense…
After using an Air Transat A321LR from BSL to YUL i would beg to disagree.
Space in the seat was quite ok, yes it was slower, but you regained that time by going thru a 2nd tier airport with shorter lines. The fare made my try out the route.
I would not be surprised if more routes within the XLR range will fragment and switch to the narrowbody as more and more of them are made.
Icelandic and Copa already show that they can fill narrowbodies on loooong routes.
In the end most customer will choose based on their wallet, not the airframe sidze
JetBlue just started a 4th route between the US and Europe using an A321 LR. This time it’s JFK-AMS — at a much lower fare than that charged by legacy carriers.
The employed aircraft has a very comfortable interior:
https://thepointsguy.com/news/jetblue-airways-new-york-amsterdam/
I have the feeling more that you want to defend this new strangeness from Airbus without really understanding the reality of the market.
You say you made a stopover. Isn’t it better not to have to make a stopover since that’s the trend?
You see the -XLR is an oddity.👎
Checklist.
Your argument fails because the airplane was full. The market has spoken, and for now, they are willing to fill the airplane, take a stop and fly from smaller airports. The flight duration didnt slow them down from booking the trips.
Its difficult to object to what the masses have decided works for them, so perhaps you should ask the guy in the mirror to help you find better discussion points.
That isn’t me, BTW. Someone else is posting under that name. I really don’t reply to the OP.
Sorry I missed your call.
Scott Correa
I’m just asking you what the role of the A321XLR is, it’s simple and clear!
So explain it.
Don’t say that my argument fails, I see that you are blabbering without understanding the oddity of this Airbus.
So explain or respect my arguments.
-> 600 orders represent a small percentage compared to the A321neo order.
What mass are you talking about?
Thks
Checklist wrote on September 2, 2023
I’m just asking you what the role of the A321XLR is, it’s simple and clear!
So explain it.
OK. As always, the role of a commercial transport category aircraft is to fly from one location to another generating revenue for the operator. The 321XLR does that
He also wrote “So explain or respect my arguments.”
Piece of cake. Your argument is that the 321xlr is an oddity. Synonyms of oddity (noun rarity; peculiarity) abnormality. anomaly. The 321XLR is neither. Suggesting it is abnormal for an airline to identify a route between two airports, sell enough tickets to make it economically viable, fly the route and generate revenue makes your position nonsensical if not patently wrong.
Checklist continued What mass are you talking about?
The Masses have spoken is a widely used colloquialism for a large group of like minded individuals making a point through their collective action… In this case it is the large group of passengers buying tickets in your supposedly anomalous aircraft to fly trans-Atlantic from secondary airports..
If you wish to have your arguments respected, create arguments worthy of respect.
Also don’t take this personally, Bryce and I also split hairs over different things, and we still converse with each other in a friendly manner.
I’m not sure if this helps this discussion or not, but the shape of the fuse is not all that important so long as the basic design, derivative engineering, and production adaptation costs can be held down. The trick is to design three or four base models, and then make it super cost efficient to add variants because your initial design and production system enable that. The big question that one has to answer (and then hold the answer very close) is how many of a given variant do you have to sell to be able to make the incremental dev costs pay off? What you want to be able to do is to be able to say ‘yes’ to a customer who wants some relatively small number of some variant you are not yet producing. The more niches you can fill profitably, the more customer satisfaction you are going to have.
BTW, this is something that the GE idiots that took over Boeing never seemed to be able to get through their thick skulls, or else they just weren’t interested in the business, and just wanted to drain away as much of the company’s wealth as they could get away with before it cratered. I actually think that it was the latter that was their priority and that they were so arrogant and full of themselves that the believed they could drain away the wealth, and that anyone with no in depth industry knowledge could run the place. Whatever. My point here is that niche airplanes are a good thing if you can do them profitably. It doesn’t matter how many you sell if the marginal unit costs plus the per unit dev burden add up to substantially less than your selling price.
Scott Correa
Lol!!
Looks like Scott Correa still hasn’t been able to explain what this A321XLR thing is after 100 lines of production.
Wow!!!
He is defending an aircraft that doesn’t even understand the thing.
The 707, DC-8 ‘s were narrowbodies and flew long distances.
And most private jets are narrowbodies…
The Concorde did it too but at least it had the privilege of flying ~Mach 2,
The Airbus-XLR strangeness is less than Mach 0.78!👎
Checklist.
Cruise speed alone is not a great measure because it discounts climb time as well as descent time. There’s also the small difference in actual airspeed. .83 and .78 are only 6% apart, hardly a huge difference. When I fly from SEA to PSP, it takes longer door to door than flying from PAE to PSP which is 60 miles further, but almost am hour faster.
Scott:
I got a good lesson in long flights on a single aisle.
5.5 hours bad enough. The load on time and pilots late so add in another hour sitting on the plane.
My butt was as sore as 10 hours on a cycle (and that was broken up by fuel stops every 150 miles or so)
6 hours clearly is a MAX or A320 limit for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not an argument,
The 707 and DC8 being even less capable.
This is why there were widebody launches such as the L-1011, 747, DC10 and even A300 barely a decade later…
Airbus WEIRDNESS struck AGAIN!
The DC-8-62 had a range with full payload of about 5,200 nautical miles, exceeding the A321XLR of 4,700nm. The DC-8-72 with CFM56-2’s a bit longer.
Thks Claes
Many said that the 707 flew further, but that doesn’t matter.
My question, why do you think despite the fact that the DC8 could fly +5,000Nm, the DC10 was also launched as a trans-Atlantic flight?
The -XLR remains a weird thing from Airbus, because they put a lower lobe tank, to sacrifice luggage space. Although the DC8 was long, so what is the capacity of the thing -XLR ??
What is the real role of this thing?…
(!) Can’t I order an A321neo (non-XLR) and offer 2 or 3 classes, fly a little further and carry more cargo compared to the -XLR thing?
Thks
Checklist:
Clearly some airlines think they can make money with fewer passengers and longer range. The verbiage would be long thin routes, much like a 787 (which may or may not morph into a bigger draw on the route and a larger aircraft)
Singapore was at one time looking at 170 some odd passengers on an A350 from Singapore to New York. While I see it as a vast waste, if Singapore can charge enough for those 170 odd such that it makes money, economically it works.
Would there be room for a equal to the A321-XLR? Maybe not.
But the bottom line is some airlines think they can make it work ans Airbus is supplying an aircraft that does that and stay tuned.
It seems BA has quit the market, I wonder why. 🙄
Market too weak…
Not everything is humming along in the European aerospace industry.😮
ESA postpones Ariane 6 hot-fire test again
“The European Space Agency says a test-firing of an Ariane 6 core stage has been postponed again…”
“ESA acknowledged earlier in the month that the inaugural launch had slipped to some time in 2024, but has not provided a more specific date.”
https://spacenews.com/esa-postpones-ariane-6-hot-fire-test-again
One-week delay: Aug 29 –> Sep 4
“A longer test firing remains planned for Sept. 26, also at the spaceport”
What a shocker! 😅
You didn’t believe me when I claimed that the first Ariane 6 launch wasn’t going to be till 2024. And, surprise, surprise, here it is. They won’t even say when in 2024. It’s only 4 years late. I guess all those 1 week delays add up.🤣
Yea sometimes those State sponsored programs don’t work out (well vast majority of the time)
Of course there are no cheap Chinese launches and people got a bit worried they were stealing tech off the payloads despite the subsidy China paid for their very expensive rockets.
Maybe now that the 929 is officially kaput they will invest in a new generation of rockets.
Another one bites the dust: A third relatively-young 787 is being scrapped.
This time it’s a LATAM frame from 2014, which sustained damage to the underside of its forward fuselage after an incident with a tow truck.
Repair didn’t appear to be a (commercially viable) option.
“The decision to dismantle the 9.2-year-old aircraft followed an incident in early May 2023 when it was involved an incent at Bogota El Dorado Luis Carlos Galan Sarmiento International Airport (BOG), Colombia. The aircraft was being repositioned by a tug when a towbar snapped, resulting in the tug becoming stuck underneath the fuselage of the aircraft.”
The link contains a video of the tow truck incident — actually looks rather innocuous.
“Previously, two former Norwegian Boeing 787s were scrapped at Glasgow Prestwick Airport (PIK), Scotland in February 2023. The pair, registered as VP-CVL and VP-CVM, had been stored at PIK since May and September 2019, respectively. While neither was involved in an incident, presumably no operator was interested in purchasing the aircraft on the second-hand market after almost four years in storage.”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/third-787-dismantled
Not good news for (787) composite fuselages !
Bryce.
1) it broke the keel beam laminate.
2) It was worth more as parts in the newly expanding 2nd hand parts business for 787s. This will be the case until the expansion of 3rd party parts reaches critical mass and prices rationalize. Right now, you get premium pricing for your yellow tagged parts as there is a very limited supply.
I suspected that you’d weigh in on this.
If you’re a 787 owner/operator, won’t you find it scary that a relatively minor incident with a tow truck can write off your entire plane?
It did concern me that this occurred, but the reconstruction of the one with the RLT battery fire surprised me also I was sure they would solve that one years ago….
Relatively minor incident, as assessed by our resident structural expert.🙄
I bet I could put two 12″ long gashes in the underbelly of an A350 that would render it uneconomical to repair.
The forward fuselage of the A350 sits 73cm higher above the ground than the foward fuselage of the B787…so you’d have to try somewhat harder to make your gashes with a tow truck 🙈
Another screw-up by McB.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=771271
Plenty of other airport vehicles that could gash the belly of an A350.
You’re once again exaggerating and attributing a common issue to Boeing because you are apparently unaware that it is a common issue. The Airbus Hooligans strike again.👺
Bryce.
Respectfully, the ground clearance of the 787 is dictated by getting the ability during rotation to generate the CL necessary to get required runway performance. If they put longer legs on the 787, it would only add unnecessary weight to the aircraft, compromising overall performance. It has no identified runway limitations of note that I am aware of. Your thinking that added fuselage height would be beneficial in that some ground equipment would pass under the fuselage has a flip side. Right now, taller equipment cant get under the fuselage to gut it. Given the myriad of differently configured GSE on the ramp, All aircraft are at risk of being gutted by some GSE. The idea of actually designing the aircraft with GSE avoidance as a consideration seems like something very near to, if not the bottom of the list of design considerations.
A couple other things. Yes, I liked the reporting on the new AB fuselage facility. Its always neat to see further investments in higher rate needs on both sides of the pond.
Did you see that Indonesia bought 24 F15XLs. That’s an immense help keeping that line open.
Lastly, with an open mind consider this. Is it possible that offshoring production to places like India, Morocco and other places where manual labor and working with your hands is much more the norm is actually a great idea because the population there is much more accustomed to manual labor tasks and were raised with much better work ethics, both of which are cornerstones of creating ‘Magic Fingers”….
Mike.
No doubt that some skin damage is REALLY expensive to fix properly, assuming its even in the SRM to begin with….. You’re right about a couple gashes doing the same thing to an A350
@ Scott Correa
I’m not suggesting that aircraft should be designed specifically with GSE in mind — though it certainly is a benefit, isn’t it?
The link that I posted indicates that the 787 has the lowest forward fuselage ground clearance of any widebody — and, now, LATAM has paid a hefty price for that.
We can all think of ways to cause irreparable damage to a structure — but it’s pretty sad when that arises from a mishap during routine, low-speed operations.
Here’s a link with a clearer picture of the LATAM situation. Rather pathetic, isn’t it?
https://airlive.net/emergency/2023/05/05/latam-chile-boeing-787-damaged-in-a-towing-incident-in-bogota/
@ Scott Correa
“…offshoring production to places like India, Morocco and other places where manual labor and working with your hands is much more the norm is actually a great idea…”
So, rather than modernizing its products and processes to the standard of its peers (and the 21st century), BA will instead invoke basket weavers and pot makers in developing countries to manufacture its antiques…?
That’s quaint 😉
One small problem: the FALs are still in the US, and that’s where all the shimming and FOD screw-ups are occurring.
A Mc Boeing mistake ?
1,600 orders for 787 Dreamliner vs 950 A350 cannot be error
McBoeing seems to be more skillful than Airbus visibly.
Ground clearance is not a disadvantage for the other 1200 787s delivered.
Your Boeing bashing is very weak
Lufthansa is taking its last two A380s out of storage and returning them to revenue service — bringing the total to eight.
Despite the high cost of de-mothballing the planes (Alan Joyce recently gave us lots of detail on that), it evidently pays to re-deploy them.
“Lufthansa has attributed the return of the Airbus A380 to two factors:
– The steep rise in customer demand, as we’re seeing the demand for international air travel recover more quickly than airlines had anticipated
– The delayed delivery of aircraft on order; in particular, the Boeing 777X has been delayed by at least five years, and now won’t enter service until at least 2025”
https://onemileatatime.com/news/lufthansa-airbus-a380/
Etihad is also taking (four) A380s out of storage and returning them to service.
Qantas recently announced that it will keep its A380s in service until 2032, at which point it will start to replace them by A350s.
Global Airlines is currently setting up as a luxe carrier, with four secondhand A380s in its fleet.
Looks like the plane is getting a second lease of life.
Sure it is…
Hate to burst your A380 resurgence bubble
Best of luck Global Air…
You’ll need it !!!
China Southern officially says bye-bye A380…
Joining Thai with an abundance of unwanted A380’s looking for homes !!
https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/china-southern-confirms-exit-of-a380/154759.article
Seems those reading comprehension challenges aren’t abating…🙈
What’s a matter Bryce ..
My link doesn’t suite your tastes…👶👶..take it up with flight global ..
If you don’t like it..
A380 comeback !!😆😆😆
China Southern bought the A380’s to fly out of Beijing airports but was stopped by politicians protecting Air China. So then a big write off was created annoying its share holders.
US-China trade: market sees clouds clearing for Boeing after Raimondo visit elevates hope of an order frenzy
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3232969/us-china-trade-market-sees-clouds-clearing-boeing-after-raimondo-visit-elevates-hope-order-frenzy
US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo made a point of wrapping up her four-day China visit with a press conference at Boeing’s maintenance hangar in Shanghai
But with geopolitics playing a role in Boeing’s fate, any concessions by China may have to wait for future high-level exchanges, if history is any indication
Analysts say China-US trade, tech and geopolitical disputes over the past six years have hurt Boeing’s China business. And any order of planes now would represent a “change in stance from both sides, and perhaps an easing of tensions”, Grant said.
However, some analysts caution against expecting a deal right away.
A resumption of sales “needs some exchanges for both sides”, said Lu Xiang, a US-China relations expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
“Boeing’s near-term future in China hinges much on a Beijing-Washington rapprochement, which appears unlikely any time soon,” said Shukor Yusof, founder of Singapore-based aviation consultancy Endau Analytics. “China seems content to drag deliveries of existing 737 orders, never mind placing new ones.”
I very much doubt that China will be ordering anything from BA until US semiconductor export restrictions are lifted — which probably won’t be happening any time soon.
And with the current waiting times for western slots, China could better fulfill its needs using its own C919 — in addition to the hundreds of AB aircraft that it has on order. It might even show interest in the Superjet and/or MC-21…China could even help Russia with MRO for those models.
Bryce
You nailed the key issues on the head with if and when ever Boeing sells commercial aircraft to China (e.g. last order 2017)
HW launched 5G phone with local chip. The boat has sailed or is about to sail.
Alibaba already had an AI chip back in 2019, and various Chinese companies (Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu) are busy designing next-gen AI chips.
The problem isn’t chip design or chip fabrication — at which the Chinese are perfectly competent. The problem is that the US is bullying The Netherlands, South Korea and Japan into not supplying cutting-edge semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China — equipment which China needs if it’s to progress below the 7nm node.
So, China has retaliated by putting curbs on exports of Germanium and Gallium — which are essential to chip manufacturers worldwide.
Another example of how sanctions always backfire.
There is no ‘AI’: it’s just heavy number-crunching; no sentience involved.
@ Vincent
You are, of course, correct: I should have put “AI” in quotes.
It’s the latest hype du jour…copiously used by analysts and executives to try to talk up the stock price of particular companies. In reality, they don’t know what they’re truly referring to, or how it is achieved.
It’s a wonder that McB hasn’t jumped on the bandwagon: saying that AI is being rolled out so as to address QC screw ups would surely add a few dollars to the stock price 😉
What happened to this aircraft which was flown to China to be completed back in March 2022?? Anyone?
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/boeing-737-max-jet-headed-toward-china-completion-plant-source
Fake Spare Parts Were Supplied to Fix Top-Selling Jet Engines
-> European aviation regulators have determined that an obscure London-based company supplied bogus parts for repairs of jet engines that power many older-generation Airbus SE A320 and Boeing Co. 737 planes.
https://twitter.com/byEricMJohnson/status/1697332319118643573
Pedro
Fake Spare Parts Were Supplied to Fix Top-Selling Jet Engines
This isn’t news anymore. Counterfeit yellow tagged parts are everywhere that high value parts exist. You want to see where its bad, go maintain a helicopter and purchase dynamic components.
Remember this conversation we have had?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuGEqnmySvo
Why Airlines Won’t Fix Inefficient Boarding
The term is Counterfeit, not fake.
A fake part would be one that looked like the part but did not function at all.
What are our English language experts coming to when someone like me has to point that out.
‘Boeing readies 737 MAX deliveries to China after 4-year halt’:
“..This month, Boeing moved two of the single-aisle jets originally built for Chinese airlines out of storage. However, it wasn’t clear until now if those planes were destined for their original buyers, since Boeing has diverted some planes from inventory to alternate customers..”
Breathtaking news! “Preparing to begin to start to ready to..” Wouldn’t it be better to simply report the fact that a few MAXes have been delivered- if that ever, finally happens? I feel a bit sorry for the reporters, who have the “catapult the Narrative” like this.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-readies-737-max-deliveries-to-china-after-4-year-halt/
>..who have to..<
In the LNA story just below this one, Scott also pointed out that it wasn’t at all clear that the two planes taken out of storage were indeed destined for China Southern. BA hasn’t commented on the matter, which is odd — you’d expect the company to be trumpeting something like this (if it were true).
Fits into a pattern: 2 weeks ago, several media outlets were reporting that “Qantas was favoring 787 for A330 fleet replacement” — but, in the end, it turned out to be a split order for the A350 and 787, with the AB part of the order worth more than the BA part.
Makes you wonder if the BBO is covertly putting out stories in a desperate attempt to manipulate sentiment (on WS and in DC) 😉
False,
1. orders are shared with a small majority for the 787 when you count the 1st 787 ordered in 2015-2016.
2. The 787 replaces the A330 not the A350.
Hold your breath.
https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/1697465057754722375
Lovely! Only barely back up in the air, and it already needs repairs to its aft pressure bulkhead — which will continue for a month.
And the Chinese are supposed to be wanting more of these gems…?
If BA is going to deliver a few dozen 737 MAX to China before year end, they have to get their acts together. It takes upto a month to fix the rear bulkhead.
Makes you wonder what percentage of the inventory frames *don’t* have aft bulkhead issues…🤔
(if any)
.
Confidence inspiring, no? “We think they’re OK.”
Engine replacement for inventory aircraft; work thru Oct??
tps://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/1697827864249548917
Replacement engine?
That will put a nice shine on BA’s de-mothballing bill…
The 737MAX is more popular than the C919, so yes it’s a gem.
The Chinese have never been in a hurry to put the 737MAX back in the air.
There is no immediate danger for the 737MAX and if the Chinese have a problem it is with the USA because of economic war,
So please put things in their context!
The Chinese put the MAX back in the air when traffic picked up and they could do so quicker than standing in long lines waiting for an A320!
They will do the same with ordering MAX aircraft if they don’t suffer economic meltdown.
Boeing despite the MAX issues makes more in 3 months than the Chinese will make in a full year years from now.
Iron Bowl Industries Inc is really slow.
Sign of the times:
Unfilled orders China:
C919: 1200
737MAX: 85
This is completely normal.
It must also have sold more C919s than A32Xneos isn’t it’ ?
You have a serious problem with context.
Your objective of absolutely wanting to do Boeing bashing makes you not credible.
Too bad for you …
LATAM got rid of all its A350s.
They are stored in the A350 cemetery in Tarbes, Midi Pyrénées in France.
Someone here was gloating when they claimed that a 787 was scrapped due to two tarmac accidents, while the A350 was not.
What are the reasons for LATAM to get rid of the A350s and keep the 777s and 787s?
Well, I think it’s a bit like the overall market.
The 787 is a necessity while the A350 is “only” an opportunity
~1600 787’s have been sold since 2004
~900 A350’s have been sold since 2005-2007
Delta took a lot of A350s from LATAM.
Delta and Lufthansa took all LATAM’s A350s — which were removed from the fleet as part of a Chapter 11 re-organization.
@Checklist
Interesting bit ;
How many A350 operators are there in the Americas’??
How does (1) sound to you ?
🤭😅
Azul was the last one in S.Anerica to bid farewell to the type !!
Ofcourse (0) A380’s ,and a mere handful of 330 n ‘s.😂😂
Great coverage AB !!
How many 777X orders are there from the Americas?
A big fat zero 😉
Same for Australia and Africa.
Of the remainder, most/all are in ASC606…
p.s. Air Caraibes (central America) also operates A350s 😉
p.p.s. Tell your erudite friend that A350 orders are now at 1050 — his needle seems to be stuck 😉
p.p.p.s. Also tell him that no 787s have been “sold” — they’ve all been dumped below cost. All the details are there in BA’s 10-Q filings.
Nice try
When deflection is your only form of Defense!!
Tells you something about the character of this commenter..
I see your steaming in your juices again..😆😆😆
When someone must stray off topic, to save his hide,; I for one love to see it..
What are you crying about..??
Remember ,the 777 x will never enter production, or are you going to renege on your promise, and look like a fool again ;!😆😂
Okay Bryce ,a whopping (2) A350 operators in the Americas’ !!
That changes everything !!😆😆
Who will be the first US based 777-9 airline? It was launched 10 years ago.
Bryce,
ASC 606 does not mean net orders after cancellation. In general it is a Joker card when a Boeing hater uses it not finding any way out.
In truth, they think it’s a Joker card but in reality, it’s not.
Me, I play with real cards.
Look,
1. Now let’s look at what has become of the A350 United ghost order supposedly ordered since 2009 -2010, in limbo.
Bryce and Keesje,
2. American Airlines was also the only airline to have ordered the 777-300ER and, moreover, ordered late.
3. The 777-300ER had garnered nearly 300 sales when it began flight tests in February 2003.
Can we say that it is a flop aircraft ?
Absolutely not.
Especially since Keesje, the A330neo was also launched almost 10 years ago, and the low sales of the A350-1000 launched in 2006, almost 17 years ago, are no better.
I keep repeating it like a Mantra though…
Finally, AA’s 777-300ER fleet is relatively young, just like China Airlines.
They are the last ones served so I am expecting some orders one day from them maybe….
Thks
Hi Robert L
The term “Poor” would be very appropriate when we see the number of orders for 787s and 777s in American and global airlines vs A350 orders ?
Despite Airbus establishing the Boeing standard after relaunching the A350 in 2007 after two years of poor sales starting in 2005…
The “-XWB” become Boeing standard with the 787 Dreamliner and the 777-300ER.
What should we say about European airlines such as AF/KLM, British Airways and Lufthansa who no longer even look at the A330 even the A330neo and who have ordered many 787 Dreamliners?
We should indeed be dying of laughter, isn’t it’ ?👍
-> “GE90s get an AD issued owing to metallurgy issues.”
https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/1697595215438065950
As I said for the 777 the other time, the GE90 is also robust and safe…
(!) The 777 and the GE90 were remarkable, landmark programs in the industry.
God bless the US industries -*-
@Checklist
The almighty one loves to rip into every Boeing order listed under ASC 606, yet all Airbus orders are under no obligation to list their questionable ones under their lame IFRS 15 accounting system, as Scott eluded to.
Remember that next time he falls back on that, which , by the way ,he does so on a daily basis !!
-> … certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 disks, HPT stage 2 disks, and stages 7-9 compressor rotor spools were manufactured from powder metal material suspected to contain iron inclusion. This proposed AD would require the replacement of the affected HPT stage 1 disks, HPT stage 2 disks, and stages 7-9 compressor rotor spools.
Also metallurgical problems with the PW GTFs.
Someone isn’t doing proper QC…
“Unveiled by the US government on September 1st, the proposed rule, once approved, would mandate airlines to replace certain components within select GE90 engines **‘before further flight.’** The components in question comprise high-pressure turbine discs, rotor spools, and compressor seals.”
“In 2022, the FAA issued airworthiness directives (ADs) indicating that certain GE90s, GEnx, and CFM International Leap turbofan engines might incorporate components manufactured using material suspected of containing iron inclusion.
“Subsequently, additional Leaps and GEnx engines were identified as potentially affected in the current year.”
“The FAA’s most recent proposed directive follows GE’s discovery that additional components within GE90 engines were constructed using material associated with the presence of iron inclusion.”
https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2023/09/02/boeing-777-likely-to-be-grounded-amid-new-ge90-defect/
***
“before further flight” — rather urgent, after all.
Bryce doesn’t insist.
The reliability rate of both the GE90 and GEnX surpasses the competition, both RR and P&W…
Bryce doesn’t insist.
The reliability rate of both the GE90 and GEnX surpasses the competition, both RR and P&W…
In 2020 the Trent XWB had a wear problem. Don’t try to create controversy.
All RR engines are a disaster, including the Trent 1000 fitted to the 787 Dreamliner.
Moreover, this is the reason why the GEnX is selling more and more.
There is even an airline that changes its Trent 1000 to GEnX, it is also one of the characteristics of the 787 Dreamliner to be able to easily change the engine
I think it’s Qantas.
To be checked!👍
ANA and Air New Zealand did change their engine supplier from the Trent to the Genx on the 787 !!
….. and of course you can provide real, factual evidence for your assertions? No? Thought not!
Roger,
I fear unfortunately for you that RobertL is right
But is this surprising when we see the RR Trent failing?
(!)It appears ANZ has done the same thing.
https://airinsight.com/anz-deals-r-r-blow-with-genx-787-10-choice/
https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-ana-boeing-787-9-and-rolls-royce-trent-1000-engine-111653442.html
https://airinsight.com/ana-opts-for-genx-for-latest-787-order/
->Qantas still to check
I’m not disputing that these airlines changed engine suppliers, but your post implied that at least one airline changed the make of engine on existing aircraft, and as far as I’m aware that simply isn’t true. Feel free to prove me wrong, though. As far as the general issue of switching is concerned, I think you are adding two and two and coming up with a figure of five to try to prove your theory of why the switch was made. We have recently heard how RR are becoming less aggressive in their pricing and looking to improve their margins – could that not be a factor too? Or perhaps you were a party to the negotiations and have first hand knowledge? I don’t claim to know, I just prefer to keep an open mind – a practice I commend to you!
Roger
…”We have recently heard how RR are becoming less aggressive in their pricing and looking to improve their margins..”
—
No, simply because the Trent 1000 is less reliable.
Like many Trent series,
not the price
(!) For Qantas, the choice was for the GEnX from the first 787 Dreamliner order in 2015.
So, I was wrong in confusing Qantas with ANZ.
Thks
“No, simply because the Trent 1000 is less reliable.
Like many Trent series,
not the price.”
That’s your opinion, I think. Opinions aren’t facts!
Well its indisputable that the Trent 1000 and the Trent 10 are and were unreliable. They6 may have overcome that now (they keep trying)
And you add into that they fail the economics competition as they are less fuel efficient than a GE engine and they both cost more and are more costly to maintain (you don’t get something for nothing with 3 spools and in that case you get negative something for paying more)
P&W has a more efficient engine so there is an offset there though its going to be another year before they catch up with the early maint issues.
A330NEO buyers are stuck with a derivative of the Trent Ten. It has to hurt to know if they had a GE option they could make money (maybe that explains low A330NEO sales?)
The so called XWB which is a Trent is wearing out too soon.
All those are facts.
India’s Enforcement Directorate arrests Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal – source
https://t.co/NWRKIu4Dre
The Boeing TTBW concept, could only be an option for 2035,
Other concepts are lying around in the drawers of design offices
Some concepts of environmental-friendly planes, the study of biofuel and even hydrogen already were observed around the mid-2000s.
This is also the reason why since 2012 Boeing has been flying the “EcoDemonstrator” with biofuel. This article proves that Boeing’s commitment to being eco friendly goes back almost 18 years before any competitor today (Airbus, Embraer etc.).
God bless Boeing and thé US industries -*-
Enjoy
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20060505&slug=boeingconcepts05
“This is also the reason why since 2012 Boeing has been flying the “EcoDemonstrator” with biofuel. This article proves that Boeing’s commitment to being eco friendly goes back almost 18 years before any competitor today (Airbus, Embraer etc.).”
I’m not sure why it takes 18years of test flying to show committment to biofuels. Surely this is a waste of fuel and generation of useless CO2 on a colossal scale!
Most of the viability of SAF can be demonstrated in the lab: does it burn in a similar way to kerosene, does it have a similar freezing point, and is it more or less hygroscopic, and can it be produced with the same batch to batch consistency as kerosene? These are basic physical parameters, what more useful information does 18 years of test flying add?
It’s a PR stunt…a cheap way of getting semi-positive attention without spending much money.
Bryce
Quiz question for 1000 USD for Bryce! (Several answers at once possible) :
What makes you angry?
1. Biofuels and Hydrogen 18 years before Airbus?
2. Because Airbus is far behind Boeing?
3. Where because Boeing is far ahead of Airbus?
Good Luck
And Hydrogen fuel scam is not a stunt?
Pull the other one.
Time to stop flying. 😱
Explain to us, TW, why hydrogen fuel is a “scam”…
Yes. SAF is a chimera, a short-term feelgood Op.
Roger
The EcoDemonstrator is not only for burning biofuel but also for testing technologies.
You sometimes have to know how to read between the lines or at least have a minimum of knowledge about the activities.
Roger,
The EcoDemonstrator is not only for burning biofuel but also for testing technologies.
You sometimes have to know how to read between the lines or at least have a minimum of knowledge about the activities.
I understand the difference between drawing inferences and drawing conclusions from limited data – do you? Perhaps you could explain why Boeing are so far ahead of Airbus and give us specific examples to illustrate your point, because afaik Boeing have dismissed the possibility of hydrogen as an aerospace fuel, for example whereas Airbus are working on it. Moreover, whilst Boeing have the truss-braced wing demonstrator planned, Airbus are already flying a semi-morphing wing demonstrator and a second demonstrator testing flapping wingtips and multifunctional trailing edges. As far as I can tell both manufacturers are looking at advanced technology, only one is actually testing some of it – whether or not it proves to be any good or not is, of course a different matter, but I’d submit that to say that one lots as yet unflown technology is far ahead of the other’s already flying testbeds is rampant fanboyism!
Roger, it’s impossible to have an intellectual conversation with an entity that is devoid of intellect.
There’s a reason why sea cucumbers haven’t developed algebra…😏
Others here are ignoring its ramblings…you should consider doing the same.
I’m inclined to agree, but it is sometimes hard to swallow half baked, heavily partisan gibberish passed off as logic or even facts – someone has to challenge it, however wearisome it may be!
When you see convoluted posts that lack internal consistency — yet alone mutual consistency — then you know that reasoned discourse is futile 🙈
Bryce
Lol !! It looks like His his lordship
talked…👍
Up against the wall and without a Joker card, insults as the only arguments.
Lower the bottle of Sake
Roger
Fanboysm ? Poud of it !
As I have already said, you do not have such an important test bench for both Boeing’s X-66A and JetZero’s BWB.
Do you realize that there are the systems that go with it for the wings, the control surfaces etc?? This is a first in history for almost 70 years!
Remember that the first flight of the A320 came somewhere in the late 80s, 20 years after the 737. Just imagine the battle of the 787 vs A350. Compare sales for a launch in 2004 for Boeing and 2005-2007 for Airbus.
Look at the A340 launched almost 3 years before the 777 in 1990 and watch how it set new standards. It took 16 years after the 777 for Airbus to integrate large bins on the A350s in 2006.
Adopting, like the 787) Dreamliner and the 777-300ER, rest areas for flight crew above the cabin and preserving the hold volume for Freight revenue.
But also big windows, better Air quality, more humidity, low altitude cabin printing, Double Bubble cross section, CFRP material.
The A32Xneo adopting “AirSpace” copying the “Boeing Sky Interior” on the 737MAX which simply takes the Big bins of the standard Boeing 787) Dreamliner.
Not convinced this advance ? Regardless, what is ing to happen is going to be very exciting, Boeing has a real X-66A demonstrator while Airbus has scale models, are you following me?
Who is sure of him? And who plays Liar Poker? Also expect a real test bench from McDonnel Douglas’s former team with JetZero’s BWB. Exciting times seeing American industry ahead of the world including Europeans and Chinese in the next decade…
Fanboyism? You surprise me Lol!
https://www.jetzero.aero/
https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/1683852447767228422?t= ztHZeZZTwC_fJ5Zh5CD0gw&s=19
A couple things that would be well to remember. First, let’s talk about that word “pride.” In English two diametrically opposed concepts are conflated into this one word. One is the foundational element of the seven deadly sins, and the other is that sense of satisfaction one gets from doing one’s best at something in order to be respectful of the activity at hand. The wrong kind of pride leads to horrific results.
The other point is that the details of a plane’s physical structure are no longer nearly as important as the processes by which it is produced. Both companies have serious problems in this space, but Boing has been accelerating in the wrong direction ever since the funding was pulled for the supplier management part of the 787 program plan.
Based on the best available airframe process management knowledge available in the year 2000, a single 787 assembly line should be able to produce defect free planes at a rate of about one a day. And, the supply chain should be able to be able to adjust the rate up or down with about a one month lead time for each unit being added or subtracted from the rate on a weekly basis. This is where the truly staggering management incompetence of the GE mentality that came into the company shows most glaringly. Their performance deviation away from that is staggering. They can’t achieve defect free, and are so far off that the “finished” planes have to be run down a second line where major disassembly occurs, deep inspections, and the a massive rework undertaking that takes longer than the initial assembly process. On top of that, they have about twice as much space in the BSC final assembly bay as required for the program, and yet they are building a second bay so they can keep up with their incompetent process flows.
This is being quite kind. The deviation from a reasonable capital requirement for the assembly operation, and unburdened unit costs are way out of control and getting worse.
The keys to this industry are not about the planes and hasn’t been for quite a long time. It’s about how they are produced. Debating which new or existing design is best is truly one of the better fits to that old saw about arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic that I have ever seen.
RetiredTechFellow
…’One is the foundational element of the seven deadly sins, and the other is that sense of satisfaction one gets from doing one’s best at something in order to be respectful of the activity at hand. The wrong kind of pride leads to horrific results…”
—-
Completely agree with you. Personally I think I don’t have this bad pride unlike others here. I have seen people being too extremist and following their ideologies and primary anti-Americanism it has nothing to do here,
It’s stupid, bad, and reprehensible
Frustred people are repressing what they have accumulated as frustration over several decades and have been letting go behind their keyboard since the internet was democratized ~25 years ago.
What do you want,… we can’t change the world.
For the second part, I don’t entirely agree with you,
however I respect your point of view.👍
Thks
There is a very close relationship between whatever one wants to call the principles embedded in the seven deadly sins and the scientific method. They are both critically dependent on humility and a willingness to hold up one’s most dearly held beliefs to scrutiny, especially in the light of new evidence or information. The method has three main pillars: models based on Occam’s Razor; directed experimentation or investigations aimed at both testing what the model predicts, and validating its assumptions; and a constant sense of skepticism in which one is quite open that as good as the model seems to be after lots of successful experimentation and testing, that it almost certainly still has some flaws, and perhaps some serious ones.
The legendary leaders of Boeing used to talk about these challenges quite openly. Humility is very hard to keep a good grip on when you are being successful. Of course, that was the whole point of Thomas Kuhn’s book (“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”).
Mulally used to talk about this a lot and how hard he had to work on the humility part. T. Wilson continued to live in the same quite modest home that he and his wife bought when he was a young engineer. This is perhaps the single most difficult thing to get right when one is in a position of leadership, and it is one of the things that was lost the day Condit was promoted to CEO. Phil thought way too much of himself, as did Harry, Prince Jim, Dennis, and the current idiot. It has led all of them to make one horrific mistake after another. Probably the single biggest mistake each of them made was thinking that they were actually worth their salaries.
I’m a big fan of Boeing, American manufacturing, and aviation, but it does none of us any good to not be super critical of the things we get wrong, and we have made plenty of screw ups, and some of them have cost innocent people their lives.
Flying is a dangerous business. If you stop and think about the proposition of stuffing people into a pressurized structure with a design safety factor of only 2x assuming that it was assembled correctly, and then shooting them through the air at .85 Mach, it’s an outrageous proposition. And yet we do this.
But, to do it safely such that we merit the public’s trust, we have to be super vigilant. This whole business of stripping the company of its talent and other resources, and then pretending that this hasn’t happened, but instead, cheering it on is foolish at the very best.
The thing about being a responsible adult is to actually be accountable for what one has done. That requires those with a role in holding people to account to actually do their jobs. The investment community has totally failed on this count, and we have allowed them to actually purchase of the regulatory and political processes such that they can get away with it. Sure, McNerney belongs in jail for the MAX fiasco, but so do the investment bankers that keep pumping the stock and enabling that kind of behavior.
Now the sad thing is that nothing is going to change until we lose a few more planes full of people, and even then it will be the underlings that get blamed and punished, and not the folks that took home multi-million dollar salaries for making it happen. It’s pathetic and disgusting, and I sure as heck am not going to root for that crap.
RetiredTechFellow
It was a big cataclysm when Alan Mulally left Boeing in 2005.
If Boeing had not absorbed McDonnell Douglas with its C Suite he would have deserved to be CEO of Boeing.
He even says that he begged Harry Stoncipher (ex McDonnel D. CEO Bean counter) to launch the 787.
Oh God, could you have imagined a world without the 787 Dreamliner? Lol!
Instead, the appointment of Jim McNerney would have got the better of him.
After the departure of Phil Condit initially, and that of H. Stoncipher secondly.
This is how we started to see some strange changes at Boeing.
A. Mulally led the development of the 777 with a smile, humility and respect.
(!)This is perhaps the reason why the 777 program was so successful but also the 757/767 program in which he would have participated
They didn’t even keep it or retain it for the 787 Dreamliner program. And it was a factual error
Rare people! 👍
He later became Ford CEO…
Alas, Mulally is now too old to come back to lead the place out of the abyss, which would also require an infusion of capital well into the ten figure range. That’s beyond what the capital markets can provide, so it would have to be a political decision. But if the politicians were to decide to intervene and rebuild American aerospace, including Boeing, I would like to put forth someone as an example of exactly the kind of person Boeing needs. She is easily the best leader for a technical organization that I’ve encountered since Mulally.
She is Canadian and happily retired in rural Alberta doing YouTube videos of her machinist hobby. But, she has extraordinarily deep expertise in four areas relevant to Boeing. She knows computing hardware down at the level of having used an oscilloscope to watch what comes out of a microprocessor so she could repeat the feat that Ed Roberts (Altair) and Steve Wozniak (Apple) pulled off by building a working computer from scratch. She also knows software as a video game developer, including how to play games with video and standard bus I/O to “beat” things like the refresh rates. She is an accomplished machinist with thousands of followers and enough folks doing the Patreon thing that she was able to retire early. And, she knows pressure vessels made of critical materials and having a safety margin of only 2x and less (same as aerospace vehicles). On top of that she has been an engineering project manager, and routinely gives lectures on the importance of respect for heritage and the critical role of humility. This is exactly what Boeing needs at the top (and down through the ranks as well). Her name is Quinn Dunki and has friends like Adam Savage (Myth Busters).
If Boeing were to ever once again be a real engineering company, leadership of the quality that Mulally provided, and that someone like Dunki could provide would be a baseline requirement. Meanwhile, I continue to fret about the complexity that has been needlessly allowed into control systems, especially flight controls, and the price that is going to have to be paid for that mistake.
RTF:
No one in a complex industry can ramp up and down in a month.
Boeing management has severe issues but you also cannot blame reality of production ramp up or down on that.
Airplanes are not computers, cars or chips and each and every item that goes into an airframe has to be exactly right.
That is not easy, its not cheap and it requires an investment which has to be paid for.
@TransWorld – so there’s ramping up and down, and there’s ramping up and down.
If you want to make a dramatic rate adjustment, you are exactly right, that takes a long time. But if you want to tweak your rate by one unit at a time, at what rate can you do that, and do it repeatedly? Running a production system is like running anything else. If you aren’t looking far out ahead and making small incremental adjustments constantly, then you will be jerking around. That’s the traditional way of thinking and doing things. But, what we were trying to get to was something quite different, or at least we were before the ham handed idiots took over.
RetiredTechFelow
..”Alas, Mulally is now too old to come back…”
—
More than D. Calhoun ?
He’s 78. so yes he could do it for a couple years, but it would probably kill him. Rebuilding the company would be an incredibly demanding job with very long days. Essentially the person doing it would have to rebuild the entire culture of the company. The finance and engineering parts would be easy in comparison to that. You can’t just fire everyone who has their head on wrong. That would be half of the company. Plus, despite the fact that the Charleston area workforce is not up to supporting an aerospace operation like the 787 program, just pulling it out and moving it back to Everett would be a political nonstarter, and political support would be critical. Somehow you have to keep your communities happy while you take them to task for some of their cultural issues, and in this environment that would be a Herculean task all by itself. Basically, the whole BSC workforce would need to be retrained.
Space is a disaster zone including the JV with Lockheed. Fixing that may be impossible, but assuming that you wanted to do that, it would mean hiring a whole new technical leadership team, probably out of the national labs plus some key people at Relativity, SpaceX, and Blue Origin.
Renton would have to be shut down and whats left for aircraft assembly consolidated into Everett. That would be hugely disruptive. Then you would need to get back on track with 20xx, which would be another hugely expensive thing, which would entail a complete change of attitude and approach to working with the suppliers.
There are similar drastic changes needed in Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma (move it back to Wichita????), Arizona, and California. Then there would be the begging for money and flexibility from Congress, and this all assumes that the debtor shareholders can be dumped like they should have been at least five years ago. Congress probably needs to help with that. The person doing this would essentially be sleeping on a company plane for their first two or three years on the job. This is a much more difficult job than what being POTUS is like at the moment, and normally we think of that as being one of the tougher jobs around, but then it is much better resourced and supported.
Mulally knows what needs to be done along with having the leadership qualities and charm to pull it off. Someone else like my suggestion would need him as a close advisor, but this is going to take someone with one heck of a lot of stamina. That’s asking a lot of anyone. But no, Dave and the whole tribe of frat boy thieves tainted by Jack Welch need to be excised and sent packing. What is needed is someone that the folks in both engineering and down on the shop floor will see as one of their own, and who knows enough to not be fooled by the steady stream of lies that all status reporting inside the company has become, and who has enough technical hutzpah to understand the big issues associated with the systems complexity and FMA problems. And they have to have an ethical North Star that is unquestioned, which all by itself rules out Dave and that whole tribe of self important numskulls.
RetiredTechFellow
…”He’s 78. so yes he could do it for a couple years, but it would probably kill him…”
—
Oh ! I Never thought he would be this old.
His physique and his smile betray!…
Good men are getting harder and harder to find in leadership positions in this era.
Look at how “Beaker Concept” was certainly a precursor to the folding wingtip of the 777-X for airport gate of the 777-300ER 8 years before the launch of the 777-X in 2013.
Communication according to Bryce Boeing bashing?
Really?
Certainly “Fozzie and Beaker” certainly the same 5-Abreast MD-90 tube and long fenders anticipating the arrival of something like the future CFM RISE engine.
Very similar to the future X-66A Truss-Braced flying bench today based on an MD-90 since the ” Fozzie” wing is already very long.
Didn’t Boeing CEO D. Calhoun mention the possibility of folding wings even for the TTBW? Oh oh !..
This led a few years later to a fairly successful concept, “SugarVolt” in 2012, which would become the TTBW almost a decade later with some improvements for a speed gain.
Very unconvinced of so-called simple, low-cost communication.
Boeing has been just visionary once again as usual since 1917 and anticipates the sustainable aircraft of the future with the NextGen team of engineers such as Jim Hileman, Todd Citron, or Chris Raymond to name but a few. them for a new aircraft which will set new standards as usual in ~6-8 years.
Forcing Airbus to do better while the latter definitively lost the battle against the 787) Dreamliner with its A350-XWB relaunched to Boeing Widebody Modern standards
https://youtu.be/oz3tzG9RxKI?si=vX4bakzsD4fcF4AH
https://youtu.be/OKUxh-MMeBs?si=n_K0h4QsV3gBtee_
https://onfirstup.com/boeing/BNN/articles/hileman-named-vice-president-of-sustainability-future-mobility-1?
Thkd
” ook at how “Beaker Concept” was certainly a precursor to the folding wingtip of the 777-X for airport gate of the 777-300ER 8 years before the launch of the 777-X in 2013”
Folding wingtip was considered in 1993-94 for the 777- digitally printed test parts were made at that time. Wuz there..
Got the silver rimmed dark blue mug and t shirt
So that must be a very mature idea out there. 👍
Thks
Checklist ” So that must be a very mature idea out there. 👍”
depends on reason for folding wingtip. On 777 was primarily to handle gate/taxi space limits-with a possible benefit for range.
At the time the added complexity was not really needed due to great performance of basic wing and engines and market.
So while no real negatives, the positives were not sufficient AT THAT TIME to devote available resources.
Of course folding wings/wing ‘tips’/ etc go back many decades via military and navy so mechanisms and locking were well understood.
And by then the Aeropartners upturned tips were aborning on the 737 BBJ simply cuz of the ‘ flashy hubcaps concept’ to denote the ” executive ” version of the model ” A” 737 from those used by the unwashed ..
Also, the 767 Stretch 2000 program developed a wingtip that proved to be of benefit to the 777 as well, where it was quickly made baseline for the updated models.
“Russian Airlines Have Imported Over $1 Billion In Parts For Airbus & Boeing Aircraft Since May 2022”
“Russian airlines have managed to import approximately $1.2 billion worth of parts for Airbus and Boeing aircraft since May 2022, according to a report by Reuters. This loophole has allowed Russian-registered planes to continue flying, bypassing Western sanctions aimed at restricting the access of parts for their Airbus and Boeing fleets.”
“These imports were facilitated by countries like Tajikistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Turkey, China, and Kyrgyzstan, according to the report. None of these nations have aligned themselves with Western sanctions against Russia.”
https://simpleflying.com/russian-airlines-imported-1-billion-dollars-parts/
Alluded to above:
“EASA Claims Supplier Faked Certification & Distributed Unapproved Parts For CFM56 Engines”
“The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has reportedly found that AOG Technics provided uncertified parts for older-generation Airbus and Boeing jets.
“CFM International, the engine supplier, is assisting in the investigation of allegedly faked documents and the distribution of unapproved parts for CFM56 engines, Bloomberg reports.
“EASA recommends inspecting records to determine if parts were obtained from AOG Technics and taking necessary actions to verify their eligibility for installation.”
“The specific engine under scrutiny, the CFM56 high bypass turbofan, is utilized to propel aircraft like the Airbus A320ceo, Airbus A319ceo, A318ceo, A321ceo, Boeing 737NG, and Boeing P-8 Poseidon”
https://simpleflying.com/easa-supplier-unapproved-parts-cfm56-engines/
Bryce and Scott Correa
I don’t know where you get your sources and accounts from.
The 777 has had ZERO deaths since its entry into service in 1995.
-> Only 1 hit by an emergency service truck during an evacuation from a crash due to a lack of training of a 2013 pilot (previously trained on a 4 engine aircraft) of an Asian airline.
(!) The reaction time of the thrust was different beetwine the 2 types
Now just imagine that the AF A330 in 2009 (Paris-Rio) which caused ~250 deaths + the Toulouse crash in 1994 during flight test where 4 pilots and some engineers lost their lives.
In simple calculation this represents that the A330 is +250 times more lethal than the 777 which actually has ZERO for the latter.
(!)The A350 did not cause fewer deaths than the 777 since the dead person was struck by a vehicle on the ground.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777
He’s counting MH17 and MH370, and ignoring the causes of the losses.
Surely not!🤣😆
Definitely yes…👍
(As painful as it is for you. I only feel sorry for you)
Did not a pilot on an A320 crash his aircraft a while back?
As I recall they did not follow US procedure which is to put a Flight Attendant in the cockpit before the PNF goes for a walkabout.
Not that of course means Europe has issues or anything.
TransWorld yes it was a GermanWings A320 in 2015. But the aircraft was not involved in the deaths of the passengers, that’s what you have difficulty understanding. This is not the right argument for [Edited] people who want to include the 2 crashes of 2014 without knowledge of the file. Just to downgrade the safety record of the 777
and to give oneself a “good conscience”…
Bingo! RetiredTechFellow !
You understood everything.
Bryce tries everything for everything when it comes to Boeing, he rushes headlong without suspecting our knowledge of the files and I congratulate myself (without excess pride) in correcting and cleaning up all the dirt.
Imagine if we let all this go? People will believe what is false and fake, especially since the gentleman (who indirectly proclaims himself intellectual by making us look like sea cucumbers and for ignorant)..
is very active and only lives for that.
A retiree who needs to spend some time perhaps?
To return to the subject,
in February 2022 there was a fairly serious incident on the part of an AirFrance pilot on a 777-300ER. Through an obvious lack of professionalism and taking advantage of Boeing’s setbacks in terms of safety, he potentially blamed the plane by declaring an absurdity such as this.
I quote…
“The aircraft did just about anything”…
End of quote.
Is this a professional and serious response?
Really ?
An investigation by the French BEA placed the blame on the pilot.
Moral of the story, the 777 is one of the safest, most robust and most reliable aircraft ever built.
Which only indicates in the slightest doubt that the disappearance of the two 777s in 2014 is potentially due to a factor external to the aircraft. Understand that I am jubilant to see others biting their hands.
Considering the reliability of the 777 and that there have been no other disappearances provides something tangible enough to affirm that the 777 until now has killed ZERO people.
The AF pilot only revealed some of the 777’s reliability record against his will.
Thank you so much!👍
@Checklist
Excellent point !!!
Thank you so much Robert L !
I will wait for the response from the “intellect
Checklist. You said the 777 was the strongest and safest aircraft built. Please explain exactly why it is strongest. This was my point. Not even BA says this. As far as safest, that’s a weak argument you make in not counting injuries in incidents, fatalities are not the only data point you can use here. You are far more likely to be injured on a 777 than some other aircraft, and the accident history and stats are quite clear on this.
Scott C:
The reality is there have been no 777 failures due to Boeing mfg. One loss was due to an RR system that had not been seen before, bad luck to RR.
So yes, a pilot muck up is not attributed to an aircraft. The 777 throttle issue was an in between as was the A330 AF 447 crash. Both had training that dealt with it and both had contributing factors from crew issues.
There have been a number of Airbus crashes due to the control system (as have Boeing for other reasons).
The MAX crashes were different as no training and a hidden system that did not work the way Boeing said it would (even post Indonesia crash)
Two 747s colliding at Tennarife had nothing to do with aircraft and all to do with human muck up.
@TW: AF 447 wasn’t a throttle issue. It was frozen pitot tubes wrecking the air speed indicators, which tripped off the autopilot; and pilot error in responding to the situation.
Hi Scott.
AF and Airbus were acquitted by the Paris Criminal Court,
however their civil liability was incurred.
This simply means that both Airbus and AF share the blame.
From the moment they enter into sharing in the
civil liability
In other words Airbus is symbolically also guilty…
Thks
Looks like someone needs to brush up on the difference between culpable and liable…🙈
Come on Bryce, do you have a word to play up your sleeve?
Another fake Joker card?
Oh yeah wait that’s like saying the Qatar Airways A350 was just a cosmetic problem.
This is just the visible part of the Icberg.
Either you are responsible or you are not,
Don’t play with words, we’re not stupid…
Scott:
I have been gone a week and just looking back on the discussion.
While its not the best wording, the ref was not to throttle issue on both crashes but the result of controls logic.
In both cases while totally different, there was training that addressed the problems that were an MCAS like cause.
Frozen Pitots have a standard response though it gets complex as the lack of invoking a Frozen Pitot at altitude and the subsequent change of control laws clearly boggled the AF447 crew.
Boeing Auto Throttle is turned off when you go into FLCH, its a hidden feature in that there is no save on a stall speed or brought back in due to altitude.
While there have been major strides in relevant training to a real crisis as opposed to the same old same old training that pilots know exactly what is coming in the US and Europe, that is not true for the rest of the world.
Pilots should be challenged by unexpected Sim failures and trained in unusual attitudes (though in the case of AF447 failing to understand it was a stall is mind boggling)
Full on power stalls are part of flight training though clearly the AF447 was so far from their roots that they remembered none of it and it was never presented in a Sim (nor the degraded control law that kicked in).
The MCAS issue is much more complex than the final reports on it suggest. A full discussion is more than what is reasonable to go into here. Suffice it to say that in my opinion the two most critical root causes have not been addressed. Those are systems complexity and an engineering behavior that I call Excessive Software Dependency Spectrum Disorder. It’s a behavior that easily meets the criteria for listing as a mental disorder in the DSM-5.
@TW
That wasn’t the claim. The claim was it was the safest and strongest. Any numerical value greater than zero (since Airbus has 3 aircraft that are sitting on zero fatalities) make the ‘safest’ claim invalid.
People flew on a 777 and for whatever reason, did not survive.
As far as the Malaysian disappearance goes, Scott has an interesting theory about that. Perhaps he’ll share, if we ask him nicely…
Franck P
…”Airbus has 3 aircraft that are sitting on zero fatalities) make the ‘safest’ claim invalid…”
—
Oh yes which ones??
—
Franck P
…”People flew on a 777 and for whatever reason, did not survive…”
—
Except you don’t know the reason. You can say anything, just to satisfy your wishful thinking, it’s not serious. Refer to the AF pilot who was talking nonsense. The 777 has no hidden faults it wouldn’t know. The two aircraft are considered Missing and there was not one 3 to say for sure there is something.
Franck P
…”As far as the Malaysian disappearance goes, Scott has an interesting theory about that. Perhaps he’ll share, if we ask him nicely…”
—-
Indeed, if Scott wants, but will tell you that it is a THEORY and not an ABSOLUTE truth.
Do you see the difference ??
Scott Correa
…”’Not even BA says this. As far as safest,..”
—-
Does Airbus do this too?
No need to discuss TransWorld understands that the 777 has not been involved in any accident.
And it’s very clear
It’s not a question of arguments but of facts.
If you can understand what that means?…
Checklist.
Thank you for the master class on avoiding simple questions. Your inability to answer why yiu said the 777 is the strongest airplane ever built is astonishing…..
Yes of course.
That’s because the 777 is the best program of all time so far.
and because I know it bothers you
Are you happy now?
…and that’s why you don’t engage. Let it rant on….
@ Frank
Not sure that “rant” is the correct term for structureless, self-contradictory rambling — but your underlying point is still valid.
@SC
Don’t feed the troll — you’ll just put it on a sugar high.
Observe all of Bryce’s legendary intellectuality. Brilliant knowledge. With an open debate, arguments and above all a lot of helplessness which frustrates him 👍
Checklist:
While the 777 has been an outstanding aircraft, it has been involved in three crashes.
One was the fuel freeze up into Heathrow.
The Heathrow was a mechanical issue (no disagreement it was not foreseen anymore than the GP7000 engine that let go over Greenland)
The other was Boeing controls the the FLCH Trap that requires a work around and in depth knowledge of what Auto Throttle does and when its permanently disabled when you did not do that. The NTSB wants it changed, Boeing will not do it. Hiding stuff like that is a bad thing, very bad.
Lastly of course is Malaysia flight that was purely pilot induced but the end result was a 777 loss.
Checklist said in part ” The 777 has had ZERO deaths since its entry into service in 1995.”
Thus setting off a round of ‘ yeah but– or no way or ?? ” all depending on how the count is made and from what reason and . . . ad naseaum .
But IMHO – another 1995 Boeing event had much larger significance re safety, new design, production issues ( for all BA models )
I speak of ‘ the Golden Handshake ‘ Boeing gave to get rid of most of the ‘ senior’ engineers and workers at all levels. Figured on gettting rid of maybe 2000 or so. Actual numbers closer to 9000 took the offer.
Now try to list a reasonably successful new program that came ***close to cost and schedule and safety *** as compared to before 1995.
Not holding my breath – and yes I am one of those who bailed. :)))
Bubba2
…”I speak of ‘ the Golden Handshake ‘ Boeing gave to get rid of most of the ‘ senior’ engineers and workers at all levels. Figured on gettting rid of maybe 2000 or so. Actual numbers closer to 9000 took the offer…”
—
This is unfortunately a common thing in an industry like this. See the same thing at competitor Airbus a decade later with the launch of the A350-XWB after a deleterious climate of a Power8 plan in 2006.
Layoffs and savings followed. But the difference is that the 777 was both an industrial and commercial success.
In almost two decades it has sold 1,500 copies compared to just under 1,000 A350s sold in almost two decades after launch.
But it is surprising that Boeing had already done the same thing in 1995. It is to believe that the launch of a new aircraft was already perceived as a big risk.
Thks
As a general rule, the engineering standard for aerospace equipment going into commercial service is a safety factor of 2x. Generally, if you exceed this standard, you’ve needlessly added weight. Occasionally, we were significantly guilty of this mistake, but not so much on the 777. The 737 seems to be a bit overbuilt in a few areas, at least that appears to be the case when it is built to spec.
Probably our most egregious over engineering mistake in recent decades was on the 787 wings. The static test plane returned several pieces of interesting data. BTW, you want boring data, not interesting data coming out of your static and fatigue tests. The wing structure could not be broken by the test fixture. It was quite a bit stronger than 2x. Alas, a couple other structural components failed well below the 2x target. One of those became public (the so-called side of body fastener supports). At least one other equally serious one did not and remains unknown outside of the company, or at least it didn’t make the press as far as I know.
It turned out that transferring major composite structures technology from defense applications to commercial ones held some surprises. However, to get the desired peak strength and fatigue resistance qualities, the composite tape layup and curing does have to be done per specifications. Just saying …
Don’t forget that the Qantas A330 and A380 pilots also miraculously saved their passengers.
The A330 in particular could have suffered another disaster
Scott Correa,
the 777 never had this kind of problem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
Richard Champion De Crespigny the other hero pilot
The story of the Qantas A380
What the article doesn’t say is De Crespigny’s composure at having had to manage 20 alarms in the cockpit in 2010…
https://simpleflying.com/qantas-flight-32-uncontained-engine-faliure/
In addition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32
I read his book and some parts were impressive and some parts I was shocked at.
One aspect he shinned in was testing the A380 down to lower speeds to see what he had left. With that kind of damage they needed to know.
But he was obsessed with landing distance and getting the aircraft down was what was important, not if they went off the end of the Runway at slower speeds.
The other aspect was not evacuating the Aircraft (on right side). He harped on image a lot and the last thing you care about is image at that point.
As for alarms, I believe it was far more than 20 but can’t find the information.
While most of the time the correct procedure is to follow the checklist, in this case the aircraft desperately needed to be on the ground ASAP.
With the damage inflicted, they could have easily lost the aircraft.
A great deal was made by Richard on how much support he got but there were disagreements and the non flying group put in their 2cents worth when they were neither the NFP or the FP.
In that case the only action by the others should have been a reminder if a procedure was not being followed or missed. I have been on the pilot side of that and its both hugely distracting and they are not the ones responsible.
The decision to not evacuate was harped on as the right one, I totally disagree, he got away with it, the right decision would have been to evacuate out the right side, they had a hugely volatile situation on the left side with engine running, fuel everywhere and the risk of fire huge.
Unfortunately, as I said recently here.
This is indeed another RR Trent 900 problem on the Qantas A380 with an
Uncontained explosion engine!
After verification
Beautifull re-entry of a SpaceX Dragon capsule.
God bless US industries-*-
https://twitter.com/JDFloridaSun/status/1698549685433045256?t=lJETFWewcxKCn_IMetYAQw&s=19
https://twitter.com/JDFloridaSun/status/1698549685433045256?t=1-DsE0ijyMAEAWgMiPvWnQ&s=19
China Airlines is putting the 777-X and the A350-1000 into competition.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-29/china-airlines-studies-airbus-boeing-widebodies-to-renew-fleet#xj4y7vzkg
(!) CA has very recent 777-300ERs, delivered only in 2015 as I said the other time, also mentioning American Airlines.
The 777-X, despite being “notoriously” favored, is still not certified.
Would this give way to an A350-1000 order?
This is very likely, unless they are in no hurry to replace aircraft delivered only 8 years ago. What would be more relevant.
From there, several scenarios are possible…
https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/commercial-aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a350-family
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/
Transworld damn it, you’re wasting my time!
Understand the difference between accident and loss of life due to the aircraft.
Learn to tell the difference, for example, between a crash involving the machine or the driver or an external element.
Absheim A320 AF crash in 1988 and an A320 GermanyWings crash loss of life due to the pilot external element in 2015 are TWO different things
Observe yourself saying in 2015 that the A320 is a killer?
No!
So understand things properly. The 777 caused ZERO deaths by ITSELF.
This is how you judge the safety file of an aircraft and no other way. Controversy “yes but” makes the thing clear and you are not objective in wanting to prove I don’t know what.
That’s not how you judge the reliability of an aircraft.
. The 777 has an excellent track record.
It is RIlOBUST jet for having SAVED its passengers despite HUMAN errors.
Those who are NOT happy with this can take a tissue or bang their head against the wall they will not change history and neither will you…
(!)From now on I will no longer respond to nonsense like this.
Sorry
@Checklist. There has been NO accident I’m aware of where the aircraft “itself” caused the accident. Every accident has a sequence of events in a “chainlink” that leads to an accident. Break the chain, anywhere, and the accident doesn’t happen.
Thanks for this explanation Scott.
But if in a “chainlink” there is not the manufacturer’s error, then the 777 should not be impacted in its safety file.
Of course the accident remains inevitable.
Thanks
I had to crawl back a bit to understand Checklist and the 777.
I have to disagree its zero, clearly the RR engine freeze up was a system failure (I have never seen any reports that anyone understood it)
The Asianna crash into SFO was partly blamed on the FLCH Trap. NTSB ruled as such.
I agree that the 777 has a remarkable record.
And I missed the missile shootdown in Ukraine as a loss which again has nothign to do with the 777 and all do to an insane war.
TransWorld
You seem to be justifying yourself.
If you don’t agree with zero, suggest a number.
I tell you again ZERO
I repeat the 777 has killed ZERO passengers since it entered service in 1995. Factual evidence.
Transworld do you want to invent deaths like the others?
In the name of what ?…
TransWorld
”…clearly the RR engine freeze up was a system failure (I have never seen any reports that anyone understood it)…”
—
Clearly the Trent series equipping the A380 and 777 were dangerous due to their poor design.
(!) See also my intervention about the uncontained engine explosion of the A380 Qantas in 2010
Thks
China Southern could potentially order 777-Xs in some time in my opinion.
CS will scrap 5 A380s.
Here is its current fleet, around a hundred widebody aircraft, including 10 Airbus A330-200, 26 A330-300, 18 A350-900, 15 Boeing 777-300ER, 10 787-8 and 17 787-9…
Your predictions?
Article in French
https://www.air-journal.fr/2023-09-03-china-southern-airlines-confirme-la-fin-de-ses-vols-avec-lairbus-a380-5250997.html
Pursuant to the (hilarious) rambling above, per Wikipedia:
“As of August 2023, the Triple Seven has been involved in 35 aviation accidents and incidents, including 8 hull losses (three ground casualties) with 541 fatalities (one ground casualty).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#:~:text=As%20of%20August%202023%2C%20the,fatalities%20(one%20ground%20casualty).
🙈
Bryce
Wikipedia ignores that we cannot associate an passenger loss with because of the aircraft loss.
You cannot say for example that the GermanWings crash of 2014 that A320 killed X passengers when it was a suicide.
There were deaths but not because of the A320.
On the other hand, the crash at Absheim and Mt Saint Odile were crashes due to poor Airbus design at the same stage as the neglected design of two 737MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019.
As a result the 777 has carried billions of passengers and flown further than the Moon in nearly 30 years with ZERO death involving thé aircraft.
Is it difficult to understand?
Wikipedia allows almost anyone to edit and correctd- but typically the ‘ranking’ editors have recently been mostly woke- and unable to or refuse to verify sources or allow only those who agree with them. I’ve spent months trying to correct an wiki article that I personally knew was wrong only to get it changed back. So dug up 50 to 100 yr old records, google maps and satellite images ( apple maps useless and still partly wrong ) state university interviews over 50 years ago, and a half dozen photos, only to have it rejected the first time. added arrows and exact geo coridnates plus links and finally got the 2 decades old misinformation corrected and it seems now to be permanent.
So be careful of wiki check the linked support very carefully IF you want to be sure or believe the summary data is not complete or misleading.
benther
Vincent
..”Yes. SAF is a chimera, a short-term feelgood Op..”
—
Pair SAF with a BWB or something like TTBW and see what you can get out of it.
Pair it more with a CFM RISE engine and see again…
So maybe there is a point to this back and forth and maybe not. From the point of of view of dead passengers, crews and their families, the type of plane involved in over 5oo fatalities was a 777. To what extent were any of those due to something Boeing should have done differently? I think that a fair answer to that is zero.
On the Trent issue, propulsion is not my area, but I can offer one bit that could have a long term safety improvement, however minor. One of Mulally’s goals for the 20xx program was to make life a lot easier for leasing companies trying to place a plane coming off of lease. Standardizing the interface between the strut and the assembled power pack package would make a big contribution in this space. Getting the engine manufacturers to agree on an interface design seems impossible. So the strategy adopted, for good or ill, was to pick one engine type for new aircraft models and tell the losers that they were welcome to adapt their designs to that interface. Of course that is grossly unfair, but finding a way toward agreement on an alternative approach eluded us.
Finally, the sales and brand management folks do tend to make a mess of things when it comes to aircraft model names and designations. This tends cause some planes to be treated as different types when they should not, and others to be treated as being the same when they should not. So one has to be mindful as to where one puts boundaries around the statistics when comparing different planes. Two examples I think will make this point.
Lumping all 737s together as a single type to talk about its safety record would be a bit silly. At least it should be broken into three very different groups (-100 and -200, -300 through -900, and anything after that). On the DC-9 series similar boundaries should be inserted, but not one between the -8 models (aka MD 8x) and the so-called 717-200 (pathetic naming and brand management that).
So carrying this back to the 777, the new X planes are sufficiently different in their systems designs (especially flight controls) that they definitely should not be lumped in with the prior models for any meaningful use of statistics.
Beyond that, I think folks have been talking past each other on this topic. And whether one wants to draw the boundary between the Boeing of the totem and the Boeing of the swoosh at Condit’s promotion to CEO, or at the golden handshake that let too much engineering experience go out the door, or with the merger with MD, clearly the Boeing Company that existed before those three events bears virtually no similarity to the one that exists subsequent to them.
RTF
This whole discussion of 777 dead people is occuring as a result of Checklist saying the 777 is the safest and strongest airplane ever made and .e telling him to post the strength data.. He keeps whipping the dead people horse because there is nothing in existance to support his claim on 777 strength. Sorry to everybody
Scott Correa,
what are you looking for trouble? Tell me what crash the 777 was involved in and how many deaths there were..
For the most robust program in terms of safety, technical and commercial success. When you point out what you don’t know.
We are 3 people here accusing you and your friends of having taken into account the two 777s that disappeared in 2014. So give we proof or please shut up,.
If you have a personal problem (the worst there can be) then defuse it’s better for you
UHH SCOTT C ?? Seems that your word play is getting more than old.
conflating ‘ strength ‘ versus ‘safety’ – ” accidents ” – ” lives “appears to be more of a debate game than fact common sense.
One such ” strength ” example I would appreciate/challange you to dispute with FACTS follows
Please dig up or find a ‘strength ” test/example that exceeds the wing test of the 777 as shown in the following video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
Both wings failed at the same time (within fractions of a second ) and within inches of predicted location and slightly above the required 150 percent level
And yes I viewed the test and attended the following near immediate ( 1/2 hour ) post test briefing. Rounded break percent was 154 percent compared to 157 percent predicted- still 4 percent ABOVE requirement for Ultimate.
The wing was predicted to break between stringers 20 thru 25 on upper surface and about half way between body and tip. [dont have the rib numbers] ( data from handout given before test of which I have a copy filed in pdf form )
Further data per handout was to be available in Document
D550W008 TR and D550W009 TR after April 1995.
Now go find if you can the same data/videos/facts for any other similar sized commercial aircraft wing test ( strength ) in the last 40 years which has a higher than 154 percent number
If you cannot or willnot do so please let us know
Thanking you in advance :)))
Bubba2
Good post Bubba2!
It looks like Scott Correa has been punished by the facts and visual evidence of what robustness is! Lol!
I knew the video of a series bringing together several episodes on the design of this magnificent aircraft.
Indeed, the 777 is the most robust aluminum aircraft ever built and the program was well executed.
I think the A380 must be pretty good too.
If anyone knows how much the A380 wing was broken, please let us know but I don’t remember 154% for the Airbus Jumbojet
Alan Mulally’s surprised face always makes me smile.
Thanks again for this video Bubba2👍
And a few more chuckles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_115
only part of story
I knew person who was on AOG for that incident. According to him- but I admit I have NO hard data – Turns out wings were bent a few degrees upward and after close exam and minor repairs, plane was put back in service. Seems that later records showed a slightly better fuel ” milage” ( for the non pilots like myself ) than other 707 in that era.
In mid 60’s was on a Lufthansa 707 non stop flight from Frankfurt to Vancouver during winter returning from a multi week ski vacation.- As we were descending at night into Vancouver , a VERY loud Bang ( like hitting a large empty tin can with a hammer ) which seemed to come from aft was heard, and lights blinked. All else seemed normal. A few minutes later, an announcement came saying we had just had a lightning strike but no significant problems. landing was normal, etc.
Not so much a ‘ strength ‘ issue as a good electrical design re EMP issues.
I’m sure most others of that and later era had ‘ robust’ designs also.
Except maybe the MD-80 tail falling off with hard landing during a test flight.
” Aircraft Crash Landing Video a Plane hits Runway Tail Falls Off an MD 80 on Test Flight Hard Landing”
many links available
@Bubba2 – a bit of a confession here, the 787 static test plane did not have its wings break when they were supposed to. They turned out to be much stronger than was intended. Of course, the side of body fastener area failed way under strength and had to be redesigned. And, the so-called “terrible teens” had to have some butt ugly expensive rework as a result. There was one other under-strength failure on that test article that had to be redesigned and retrofitted, but I can’t talk about that here since awareness of it somehow managed to remain internal. How that happened, as leaky as Boeing is, one can only wonder about and be amazed.
Lets not forget the 777 was the first mostly computer aided design LCA ( large commercial aircraft ) which indirectly benefitted from Similar( but NOT identical ) work Boeing did
on the composite B2 wing and major body structure nearly a decade earlier. So one still wonders why a decade plus later, the 7late7 had such a body join design issue.
Of course the 767 had a body issue during the wing test ( bending the aft section several degrees from ” vertical ‘ ), but that was a decade earlier.
Those who do not learn from history – dont learn from history.
I think everything related to your question is in the clear. Me bad if it isn’t.
Ok, the composite wing structures experience on the defense side was of two pedigrees. As you correctly pointed out, the biggest influence on the 787 wing design from a materials point of view was the B-2. But, that plane does not have much of a structural similarity with the 787 at its joins. The B-2 wing was built in sections that were joined, and if you look at a picture of the plane you can pretty much guess where they are. They were designed to be able to fit into a C-5, which used to fly into Boeing Field to pick them up for transport to Palmdale. That’s what the C-5 traffic in and out of BFI in the 1980s was all about.
Inside the composite layups of the B2 structural components there are some significant pieces of titanium.
OK, the 787 and new 777 wings are quite different. They both mate up to a center wingbox the same as on an aluminum plane. And, the structures have the same basic components (baffles, spars, skins, stringers, side of body, etc.). Just like on an aluminum wing, the stringers get really thick in the area of the side of body, so unlike the joined B-2 wing, you don’t end up with a structure that more or less uniformly flexes through the join area. The dynamics are quite different.
A test wing article was built at the DC and shipped to Auburn where it was rigorously tested. But, they did not include any mounting tests. In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea to get an old 767, take the wings off and modify its wingbox, and then do some testing of that, but it wasn’t done, so the static test plane produced some “interesting” data instead of “boring” data like you want it to. There was some other interesting data as well.
BTW, one of the bigger early concerns dealt with damage reparability and processes. The stuff that came out of that work was solid – nothing “tender” like what turned out to be the case on one of the other early all composite aerostructures, which probably isn’t in the clear yet.
The last time I saw the test wing it was at the Kent site, but that was before more than half of it was sold off to become an Amazon distribution center.
OH BTW Scott – a five minute search for a plane like A-380 can bring up the following ;))
Airbus A380 test wing breaks just below ultimate load target
https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a380-test-wing-breaks-just-below-ultimate-load-target/65521.article
The wing of the Airbus A380 static test specimen suffered a structural failure below the ultimate load target during trials in Toulouse earlier this week, but Airbus is confident that it will not need to modify production aircraft.
The airframer has been running load trials on a full scale A380 static test specimen in Toulouse since late 2004 (pictured below). After completing “limit load” tests (ie the maximum loads likely to experienced by the aircraft during normal service), progressively greater loads have been applied to the specimen towards the required 1.5 times the limit load. Engineers develop finite element models (FEM) to calculate the load requirements.
“The failure occurred last Tuesday between 1.45 and 1.5 times the limit load at a point between the inboard and outboard engines,” says Airbus executive vice president engineering Alain Garcia. “This is within 3% of the 1.5 target, which shows the accuracy of the FEM.” He adds that the ultimate load trial is an “extremely severe test during which a wing deflection of 7.4m (24.3ft) was recorded”.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) says that the maximum loading conditions are defined in the A380 certification basis. “The aircraft structure is analysed and tested to demonstrate that the structure can withstand the maximum loads, including a factor of safety of 1.5. This process is ongoing and will be completed before type certification.”
Now about ” strength ” – please explain why 1.54 is NOT more than 1.45-1.5.
Could it be the ‘ new’ math ??
Should I hold my breath ?
or is that just “Robust” data ?
Thank you for a hoped for considered response with supporting data re ‘strength ”
Bubba2
I never addressed the safety component of Checklists claim. I am still waiting for his proof that the 777 is the strongest aircraft ever built. That data isnt out there and Boeing has never made that claim. Perhaps you need to return to the actual question instead of continuing to miss the point. Checklist still has not addressed the question, and quite honestly im tiring of maintaining the request for strength data and seeing gibberish as replys
Scott C ???
Please provide YOUR definition of ” strength ” as it applies to an airplane eg 777 787, 767, 280,380, etc.
Strength in wings that have been proven to meet requirements, strength of body re pressurization ? strength of landing gear, minimum unstick speed test dragging tail without major structural damage ? strength of pressure bulkheads ? strength of engine mounting pylons during extreme flight conditions, etc
or do you mean strength as in robust or debate word games
Absent a clear and specific answer, I suspect myself and others will simply ignore you
Have a nice evening
Hey, I thought of a component on the 777 that probably is stronger than any other commercial plane. I’m pretty sure that the main gear design with its six tires per side does have the highest MTOW per square inch on the tarmac. In terms of the fuse structure, the 787 (when built to spec) is probably the strongest. Now how many of them that have been built meet the spec is a completely different question. Anyway, it’s probably time to lighten up and be a bit silly about this, since as has been pointed out, there are minimum safety factors for almost every aspect of aerospace engineering, and as a general rule one tries hard to not exceed those by very much because doing so wastes weight. The goal of all “test to fail” exercises is to fail just a little bit beyond the requirements if a weight is a factor in the test article. If you think commercial and defense are tough on this requirement, try space. The math on wasted weight in terms of the implications for vehicle size gets super ugly and expensive in a hurry. This has engineering human resource implications as well, but that’s another story.
” clearly the Boeing Company that existed before those three events bears virtually no similarity to the one that exists subsequent to them.”
Well there is ONE similarity- Boeing still builds/assembles flying machines.
“Robust” seems to be the word our friend Scott Correa hates. .
What comes to mind about the 777 is the robustness of the safety record, and robust when twice saving its passengers by falling on the runway due to a damaged Rolce Royce Trent engine and a pilot poorly trained on twin engine.
In discussion forums at the time, people applauded the robustness of the fuselage!👍
If we have to classify which aircraft has the best safety record with the passenger/km ratio transported the 777 comes in FIRST position, then
the 787 comes in 2nd position
the 767 in 3rd
then 757 in 4th ,
the A380 in 5th,
the A350 in 6th
comes after then
the A340-500 /-600 in 7th
then A330/A340, 8th and
747-400 9th.
Let our friend Scott Corea take note. If he admits the facts…🙏
Checklist.
You said the 777 is the strongest and safest airplane built
I am still waiting for your proof of strongest as that was your claim. You didnt say robust, you said strongest. Show me those numbers that prove that point and we can conclude this discussion. There is a distinct indirectness with your responses to this simple question. Show us the proof……
Scott Corr
You are trying to find a way out despite your ignorance.
Beaten across the board and your pathetic friends who have been wishful thinking and who realize that the 777 has an impressive safety record. It’s not my place to be held accountable and stick to your own ignorance ok?
I used the word robust or strong (I have the right to interpret whatever I want as long as it is) where is this damn difference?
On the other hand, Mr Enstein you still haven’t managed to explain to me what an A321XLR is and that’s why you’re upset. Because you are unable to explain it and you felt your ego being attacked.
So ?…
Scott Correa
Quote
…”Show me those numbers that prove that point and we can conclude this discussion. There is a distinct indirectness with your responses to this simple question. Show us the proof…”
Unquote
—–
Accept it. Very blind is he who does not want to see
ZERO deaths. (zero is an number)
If you don’t understand “Zero” I can’t do anything for you.
Checklist
August 29, 2023
…And yet the 777 is the strongest and safest aircraft ever built.
Scott Correa asked you to show the numbers why its the strongest, NOT robust.
You never did. Perhaps you might do that now and quit berating the man for asking you a simple question to back up your comment. I expect you wont because you will never admit being wrong. I think we all would benefit from your strength info on the 777 being the strongest airplane ever built……
And with that Im back to lurking
Yes, and sometimes they actually fly, but get delivered on time, perform as needed (let alone as promised), with no or almost no squawks? The reality would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
The A380 was also (it must be said) very robust when the explosion of the unconfined blades of the RR Trent engine pierced the wing and saved its passengers (we must give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, just remarkable! ).
Just as much as the robustness of the 777 fuselage which also saved its passengers. I am posting 3 links involving very serious accidents due to the RR Trent series NOT robust.
Just scary!…
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vol_British_Airways_38
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice-Trent-800-Heat-Exchanger_inset.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vol_Qantas_32
For those who search the truth,
Happy reading!👍
I think I’m going to like that word “robust”.
Too bad for Scott Correa!
Small historical and anecdotal fact
For those who have a minimum of culture (real connoisseurs, not fanboys!) must remember the commercial failure of the very good Lockheed-1011 against the mediocre DC10/DC11/MD11 from McDonnel Douglas.
And this was because of Rolce Royce Engine which at the time had gone bankrupt.
The airlines could no longer wait for the delays of the excellent L-1011/Tri-Star which had better performance than its direct competitor and a better safety record.
Fate willed otherwise.
Imagine Lockheed more aggressive than a McDonnel Douglas bean counters of the C-Suite, if Rolce Royce was not bankrupt while in 2023 people are counting Boeing and hoping for its bankruptcy…
Thank you Rolce Royce and the Boeing haters !👍
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar
https://youtu.be/TN25MO-1p0I?si=-pT9QhL4JVHB66N_
https://youtu.be/fqu-YEcl0e8?si=ijCUyoqnE3ZhLzMP
Enjoy
A Boeing analysis of jet accidents from 1959 through 2021 is perhaps more instructive than some of the comments above.
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf
Interesting analysis, quite complete but does not include the number of deaths involving the model aircraft.
I observe that the Lockheed L-1011 which was a safe aircraft and which avoided disasters due to the redundancy of the flaps has the same result unlike a “hull loss” aircraft compared to the 777, except that the “Triple 7”, sold in the longer term, certainly carried billions of passengers and flew the equivalent of stopping on the moon if not more.
And this is why the need for an aircraft to be sold at the symbolic milestone of “1000 aircrafts” makes it possible to gauge not only its commercial success but also to establish its safety record.
For exemple the A380 does not do this but has carried a little more since 2007 EIS until now than the A350 2015 EIS, but should catch up thanks to deliveries more A350s for example.
This is just a theory.
This is why I ranked the 777 in first position in my analysis above. The 787 in 2nd, the 757, 767, then the A380, A350, then the A340-500/-600 and the A330/A340-200/-300. Then the 747-400.
Let’s observe the impressive number of A32Xceo “Hull losses” and “Fatal Hull losses” not to be confused with “death” but contribute to it because the two 777s that disappeared in 2014 for example are “Fatal Hull losses” but do not imply necessarily a defect or poor design of the aircraft model.
In other words given the impressive number of A32Xceo “Hull losses” and “Fatal Hull losses” does not mean that the A32Xceo does not have a good safety record.
This leaves a confusion which suggests the opposite when in fact, no. On the other hand, the Concorde has a very poor safety record.
This one being rarely sold and flown “only” ~24 years. It has transported little on stages shorter than widebody. This is how an aircraft’s safety case should be judged.
Thank you so much Scott
Seems like someone else over at a financial website is trying to boost BA stock on the news of Chinese deliveries:
‘The restart of deliveries will be important for Boeing to reduce its inventory. The company initially had 140 Boeing 737 MAX airplanes in inventory built for China. 55 airplanes have been remarketed since, most likely to Air India which ordered more than 500 airplanes from Boeing and Airbus. That leaves 85 airplanes for China, which is significant. In total, there are 220 airplanes in inventory. Not being able to deliver those 85 jets would render around 40% of the inventory undeliverable which means no revenue and no cash. Once deliveries recommence, the inventoried airplanes for China could render $4.5 billion in revenues and around $900 million in profits to Boeing. ‘
It’s really humorous how numbers get thrown around, without any thought given to what they actually mean.
$4.5 billion in revenue and $900 million in profit, for aircraft that have been sitting around for some 4 years, means a per unit sale price of $53 million an aircraft and BA will make $10.5 million on each one.
This guy is supposed to be an aeronautical engineer, too…
At the same time, even discounted stock is not easily sold.
It seems that airlines prefer to pay more and have new aircraft.
It’s not bad for cash flow but there will be losses until ~2026-2027
We already knew that from the mouth of the CEO D. Calhoun
But thanks for the reminder👍
The donkey told the tiger, “The grass is blue.”
The tiger replied, “No, the grass is green .”
The discussion became heated, and the two decided to submit the issue to arbitration, so they approached the lion.
As they approached the lion on his throne, the donkey started screaming: ′′Your Highness, isn’t it true that the grass is blue?”
The lion replied: “If you believe it is true, the grass is blue.”
The donkey rushed forward and continued: ′′The tiger disagrees with me, contradicts me and annoys me. Please punish him.”
The king then declared: ′′The tiger will be punished with 3 days of silence.”
The donkey jumped with joy and went on his way, content and repeating ′′The grass is blue, the grass is blue…”
The tiger asked the lion, “Your Majesty, why have you punished me, after all, the grass is green?”
The lion replied, ′′You’ve known and seen the grass is green.”
The tiger asked, ′′So why do you punish me?”
The lion replied, “That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is degrading for a brave, intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with an ass, and on top of that, you came and bothered me with that question just to validate something you already knew was true!”
The biggest waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who doesn’t care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on discussions that make no sense. There are people who, for all the evidence presented to them, do not have the ability to understand. Others who are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and the only thing that they want is to be right even if they aren’t.
When IGNORANCE SCREAMS, intelligence moves on.
I would hope the forum reinstates Bryce, he was abrasive at times but did contribute intelligent content. Have a great day