Ethiopian plane crash

[captain_cynic]

Gandahar said:

They need to bet the company on the new 737 whatever it is called and have a modern plane.

It takes an absolute minimum of 5 years to design a new plane, Airbus started designing the A350 in 2005 and it didn't fly until 2013. I believe the 787 took 7 years from inception to flight.

What Boeing need to do in the short term is put the 737NG back into production (or at the very least, refit the MAX with the older CFM56 engines until ones that fit can be developed). Sure this will cause them to lose some customers to Airbus but right now they are loosing all their customers to Airbus. Single type operators like Southwest or Ryanair aren't going to change types because the extra costs in training, maint, et al. outweigh the savings the model may provide so the 737 will still sell (and in large numbers).

This won't happen until Boeing realises they can't manage their way out of an engineering problem.

[Lemming Train]

captain_cynic said:

What Boeing need to do in the short term is put the 737NG back into production

*sigh*

Not this st again..

[2fast748]

More concerns:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/05/business/boeing...

tl:dr potential wiring loom problems in the tail.

[eldar]

2fast748 said:

More concerns:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/05/business/boeing...

tl:dr potential wiring loom problems in the tail.

A few wires slightly too close together?

[captain_cynic]

Lemming Train said:

captain_cynic said:

What Boeing need to do in the short term is put the 737NG back into production

*sigh*

Not this st again..

Afraid to be yet wrong again?

If Boeing were still selling the NG... They'd still be selling a plane. Fewer sales of the NG are better than the current no sales of the MAX. It's not a difficult concept.

Narrow body planes in the 150 to 200 seat category are the biggest sellers at the moment and Boeing isn't selling anything in that category at the moment.

BTW, if you've got nothing to add to this thread besides childish digs at me because I said something that made you upset... then don't bother to add anything at all.

[alfaman]

Eric Mc said:

One of the great myths of modern business is that the sole reason why a business exists is to provide a return to its shareholders. Returning profits to shareholders is important, but it is not the ONLY important thing a business has to do and shareholders are not the ONLY people to whom a business has responsibilities. Once businesses wake up to this, maybe, someday, they will start making the right types of business decisions.

Absolutely - unless you have a monopoly or are in a cartel you'll need to put customers interest first.

Without customers and revenue shareholders aren't going to do very well.

The move of Boeing HQ to Chicago and incoming leadership from McDonnell (?) Plus shift in culture must have had an impact on the 737 development and ensuing safety issues

[jshell]

"This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51058929

[Eric Mc]

alfaman said:

Absolutely - unless you have a monopoly or are in a cartel you'll need to put customers interest first.

Without customers and revenue shareholders aren't going to do very well.

The move of Boeing HQ to Chicago and incoming leadership from McDonnell (?) Plus shift in culture must have had an impact on the 737 development and ensuing safety issues

McDonnell as an independent company had gone decades before Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas. The original McDonnell Corporation merged with Douglas in 1966. Boeing took over McDonnell Douglas in 1997.

What is interesting is that, after McDonnell and Douglas merged, McDonnell Douglas never instigated a 100% new design under the name of the new corporate entity. All of the subsequent airliners launched after 1966 were either designs started by Douglas (the DC-10) or developments of aircraft that had been started by Douglas (the stretched DC-8 and DC-9 families and the MD-11).

It does indicate that the McDonnell Douglas management were not keen on starting with a blank slate. And I am sure that their demise was partly down to that. I wonder if that fairly cautious approach has seeped into Boeing and was instrumental in encouraging them to launch yet another evolution of the Boeing 737 rather than go for a 100% new design?

[IforB]

Eric Mc said:

alfaman said:

Absolutely - unless you have a monopoly or are in a cartel you'll need to put customers interest first.

Without customers and revenue shareholders aren't going to do very well.

The move of Boeing HQ to Chicago and incoming leadership from McDonnell (?) Plus shift in culture must have had an impact on the 737 development and ensuing safety issues

McDonnell as an independent company had gone decades before Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas. The original McDonnell Corporation merged with Douglas in 1966. Boeing took over McDonnell Douglas in 1997.

What is interesting is that, after McDonnell and Douglas merged, McDonnell Douglas never instigated a 100% new design under the name of the new corporate entity. All of the subsequent airliners launched after 1966 were either designs started by Douglas (the DC-10) or developments of aircraft that had been started by Douglas (the stretched DC-8 and DC-9 families and the MD-11).

It does indicate that the McDonnell Douglas management were not keen on starting with a blank slate. And I am sure that their demise was partly down to that. I wonder if that fairly cautious approach has seeped into Boeing and was instrumental in encouraging them to launch yet another evolution of the Boeing 737 rather than go for a 100% new design?

I suspect it was purely down to what was the cheapest way they could react to the A320Neo. Designing a new aircraft from scratch is a massive and long term undertaking, however, right now, it looks as if this whole debacle will probably cost Boeing something similar to having done the job properly and done that...

This is a prime example of doing a job on the cheap and cutting corners to save a buck or two coming back and biting you on the backside.

[Munter]

jshell said:

"This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51058929

I think this is the key part for me from that story.

BBC said:

In February 2018, a Boeing worker asked a colleague: "Would you put your family on a Max simulator-trained aircraft? I wouldn't."

"No," came the reply.

[JuniorD]

Munter said:

jshell said:

"This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51058929

I think this is the key part for me from that story.

BBC said:

In February 2018, a Boeing worker asked a colleague: "Would you put your family on a Max simulator-trained aircraft? I wouldn't."

"No," came the reply.

That story is a load of meaningless balls...unspecified employees in unspecified roles saying negative things about the design engineers and/or the products they produce? That's evidence of fk all.

Go onto the shop floor of any aircraft factory and you will will find blue collar guys building the stuff - the fitters, riveters, sparks etc. - and you will find more than one who curse the engineers upstairs for their ste designs. I've been in quite a few and I've heard that kind of talk in all of them.

I've also heard plenty of aerospace workers say throwaway things along the lines "if you saw how they were built you wouldn't fly on them"

[IforB]

JuniorD said:

Munter said:

jshell said:

"This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51058929

I think this is the key part for me from that story.

BBC said:

In February 2018, a Boeing worker asked a colleague: "Would you put your family on a Max simulator-trained aircraft? I wouldn't."

"No," came the reply.

That story is a load of meaningless balls...unspecified employees in unspecified roles saying negative things about the design engineers and/or the products they produce? That's evidence of fk all.

Go onto the shop floor of any aircraft factory and you will will find blue collar guys building the stuff - the fitters, riveters, sparks etc. - and you will find more than one who curse the engineers upstairs for their ste designs. I've been in quite a few and I've heard that kind of talk in all of them.

I've also heard plenty of aerospace workers say throwaway things along the lines "if you saw how they were built you wouldn't fly on them"

Whilst that is very true, as a piece of PR, it is pretty devastating.

People who know nothing of aviation will read that and it will stick.

[alfaman]

IforB said:

I suspect it was purely down to what was the cheapest way they could react to the A320Neo. Designing a new aircraft from scratch is a massive and long term undertaking, however, right now, it looks as if this whole debacle will probably cost Boeing something similar to having done the job properly and done that...

This is a prime example of doing a job on the cheap and cutting corners to save a buck or two coming back and biting you on the backside.

Yep. All about speed to market and influence of the regulatory process to avoid need for simulator training.

Commercial considerations only _ with limited attention to safety

[IanH755]

JuniorD said:

Munter said:

jshell said:

"This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51058929

I think this is the key part for me from that story.

BBC said:

In February 2018, a Boeing worker asked a colleague: "Would you put your family on a Max simulator-trained aircraft? I wouldn't."

"No," came the reply.

That story is a load of meaningless balls...unspecified employees in unspecified roles saying negative things about the design engineers and/or the products they produce? That's evidence of fk all.

Go onto the shop floor of any aircraft factory and you will will find blue collar guys building the stuff - the fitters, riveters, sparks etc. - and you will find more than one who curse the engineers upstairs for their ste designs. I've been in quite a few and I've heard that kind of talk in all of them.

I've also heard plenty of aerospace workers say throwaway things along the lines "if you saw how they were built you wouldn't fly on them"

LOL, I moan about the idiot "if it fits on the autoCAD model then it WILL fit in real life!" designers of the aircraft I work on almost daily

You'll find that 99% of aircraft have dozens of design issues if not more but they're usually so innocuous that they never even come close to anything safety related, but they don't half make an engineers life bloody hard!

[Rude-boy]

IforB said:

Whilst that is very true, as a piece of PR, it is pretty devastating.

People who know nothing of aviation will read that and it will stick.

Sort of in that it will stick for a bit with a few but then once they are boarding their 737-400 to Megamuff all will be forgotten. 99% will not even know it is a 737 unless they are the 1:1001 who looks at the safety card or listens to the pre flight talk.

It's certainly not a Ratner moment.

[Eric Mc]

alfaman said:

IforB said:

I suspect it was purely down to what was the cheapest way they could react to the A320Neo. Designing a new aircraft from scratch is a massive and long term undertaking, however, right now, it looks as if this whole debacle will probably cost Boeing something similar to having done the job properly and done that...

This is a prime example of doing a job on the cheap and cutting corners to save a buck or two coming back and biting you on the backside.

Yep. All about speed to market and influence of the regulatory process to avoid need for simulator training.

Commercial considerations only _ with limited attention to safety

That is all very true. But what I am trying to get at is the mind set and culture that allowed the adoption this position. Boeing have been building airliners since the 1920s and jet airliners since the mid 1950s. I don't recall any of their designs that were conceived with such reckless abandon as this once seems to have been.

[eldar]

Eric Mc said:

That is all very true. But what I am trying to get at is the mind set and culture that allowed the adoption this position. Boeing have been building airliners since the 1920s and jet airliners since the mid 1950s. I don't recall any of their designs that were conceived with such reckless abandon as this once seems to have been.

Corporate arrogance and complacency. Look at VW emissions and the like. Too big to be wrong mindset.

[Eric Mc]

Possibly.

There are fewer players in the aerospace industry these days so they act more like monopolies and cartels rather than proper competing entities.

[aeropilot]

IanH755 said:

LOL, I moan about the idiot "if it fits on the autoCAD model then it WILL fit in real life!" designers of the aircraft I work on almost daily

I'd be seriously worried about any aircraft design that is done in poxy AutoCad!!

[Triumph Trollomite]

A380 had serious delays due to the cad guys ballsing up the wiring loom lengths. Fut on CAD...

I cant remember what version was used as I left 20 years back, it was so expensive that the bulk of experience came from India as they had no copyright laws so Jasinda Smith could pop along and claim experience

Eclipse or something beginning with E

For every 4 Indian we had to employ a european to QA as the Indians would just do what the fk they wanted / interpreted you wanted

You write a spec of X and they want to improve it