Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:10 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 596 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 424
Not directly related but apparently debris and tools have been left behind in the airframes of some of the kc-46 tankers that boeing manufacturers for usaf :lol:


Last edited by doodles.dude on Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20347
Location: Stellenbosch
assfly wrote:
Just had a meeting at a client company in Nairobi that lost two staff. Didn't realise it until I saw the memorial desk in their reception :(

Told you this is Africa
Quote:
.The captain of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight was unable to practice on a new simulator for the Boeing 737 MAX 8 before he died in a crash with 157 others, a pilot colleague said.

Yared Getachew, 29, was due for refresher training at the end of March, his colleague told Reuters, two months after Ethiopian Airlines had received the simulator


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3446
OomPB wrote:
assfly wrote:
Just had a meeting at a client company in Nairobi that lost two staff. Didn't realise it until I saw the memorial desk in their reception :(

Told you this is Africa
Quote:
.The captain of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight was unable to practice on a new simulator for the Boeing 737 MAX 8 before he died in a crash with 157 others, a pilot colleague said.

Yared Getachew, 29, was due for refresher training at the end of March, his colleague told Reuters, two months after Ethiopian Airlines had received the simulator

Jy is 'n regte dom poes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 51444
Location: Oundle
May I say, I've little knowledge of planes, or their operating systems but I'm very impressed with the knowledge from posters on here.

Waiting for a comment from Fat Albert. Great bloke and he knows about these things.

If a boat gets into trouble, I'm pretty good on that.

But at the end of the day, a lot of people have died. It won't stop us using the cigar tubes to go places.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13894
Location: South Oxfordshire
OomPB wrote:
assfly wrote:
Just had a meeting at a client company in Nairobi that lost two staff. Didn't realise it until I saw the memorial desk in their reception :(

Told you this is Africa
Quote:
.The captain of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight was unable to practice on a new simulator for the Boeing 737 MAX 8 before he died in a crash with 157 others, a pilot colleague said.

Yared Getachew, 29, was due for refresher training at the end of March, his colleague told Reuters, two months after Ethiopian Airlines had received the simulator



According to Boeing the simulator us not necessary. Nor us the extra sensir


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20909
Keith you seem to be assuming the role of Boeing pr spin doctor. How do you describe their response to losing the first plane? Why did they wait for a second one to go down without an adequate response? Having lost a second one why did they petition Trump to let them keep flying this deathtrap?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 4538
Location: God's own country
sewa wrote:
Keith you seem to be assuming the role of Boeing pr spin doctor. How do you describe their response to losing the first plane? Why did they wait for a second one to go down without an adequate response? Having lost a second one why did they petition Trump to let them keep flying this deathtrap?

Well that first assertion is a load of bollocks. I was pointing out to a poster a few aerodynamic facts to aid understanding. Nowhere have l defended Boeing. But you know, I'll give you a B for making shit up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20909
Keith wrote:
sewa wrote:
Keith you seem to be assuming the role of Boeing pr spin doctor. How do you describe their response to losing the first plane? Why did they wait for a second one to go down without an adequate response? Having lost a second one why did they petition Trump to let them keep flying this deathtrap?

Well that first assertion is a load of bollocks. I was pointing out to a poster a few aerodynamic facts to aid understanding. Nowhere have l defended Boeing. But you know, I'll give you a B for making shit up.


Well I may have misinterpreted the tone of your posts. Care to deal with any of the rest of it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20347
Location: Stellenbosch
Calculus wrote:
OomPB wrote:
assfly wrote:
Just had a meeting at a client company in Nairobi that lost two staff. Didn't realise it until I saw the memorial desk in their reception :(

Told you this is Africa
Quote:
.The captain of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight was unable to practice on a new simulator for the Boeing 737 MAX 8 before he died in a crash with 157 others, a pilot colleague said.

Yared Getachew, 29, was due for refresher training at the end of March, his colleague told Reuters, two months after Ethiopian Airlines had received the simulator

Jy is 'n regte dom poes.

Vok jou man, hoe de vok kan hulle n pilot op die vliegtuig sit wat nie opgelei is nie? Dis soos om n Kar te bestuur sonder lisensie. Jy sal dit net in Afrika kry. Nou gaan lek jou poes of hou jou vokken bek.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 4538
Location: God's own country
sewa wrote:
Keith wrote:
sewa wrote:
Keith you seem to be assuming the role of Boeing pr spin doctor. How do you describe their response to losing the first plane? Why did they wait for a second one to go down without an adequate response? Having lost a second one why did they petition Trump to let them keep flying this deathtrap?

Well that first assertion is a load of bollocks. I was pointing out to a poster a few aerodynamic facts to aid understanding. Nowhere have l defended Boeing. But you know, I'll give you a B for making shit up.


Well I may have misinterpreted the tone of your posts. Care to deal with any of the rest of it?


Nope :o

There is simply not enough information available in the public domain to give answers that I would be confident in backing. I have no idea how many or what Service Bulletins or Airworthiness Directives were issued by Boeing in relation to the 737Max.

It must also be said that we no idea about the Saftey Management Systems and internal cultures of the operators fo the crashed aircraft. Although my company is minute compared we still have to jump through many of the hoops of the large operators. Our safety committee regularly meets to discuss safety significant events that we have had within the organisation. Part of those meetings is alos to discuss incidents that other operators in the same filed have had, particularly ones operating the same aircraft types we utilise. If we see an investigation has shown that something has happened that can be prevented by human factors training, CRM (Crew Resource Management), or from an aircraft handling perspective, it is up to us to train our pilots to prevent another occurence. To relate this to the 737Max, follwing the Lionair crash, any operator of the 737 will surely have discussed this potential MCAS issue with crews and built it into smiualtor OPCs and LPCs, much like upset recovery training was emphasised following the Air France disaster. Again, I'd caveat this by restating my opening point - we have no idea about the safety management systems and internal cultures of the operators involved. Anything we say is speculation and conjecture.

Clearly something is wrong, somewhere, but to rely on lazy statements such as "the free market at its best" does nobody any favours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:30 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 897
I have never physically flown anything more advanced or with advanced control systems than a Navajo or Seneca. but have considerable experience with electronic autopilots in RPAS or drones as every body else calls them.
My experience with electronic systems is that a hands on pilot will almost never have the time to mentally assess exactly what the autopilot is doing in real time. Luckily my industry is based on zero human risk so our requirements are considerable different to manned passenger flights. I would stress that relevant training and publishing of known issues may be Boeing's biggest problem in this series of events. If you don't share the raw information pilots or controllers can't prepare or mitigate procedures. This is where commercial interests can be subverted to a possible criminal level. In my case this may result in a small amount of physical damage to a machine but for boeing lives are at stake which is a different ballgame.
Hope Boeing come clean and get over this because we need more than 1 major aircraft maker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6290
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
OomPB wrote:
assfly wrote:
Just had a meeting at a client company in Nairobi that lost two staff. Didn't realise it until I saw the memorial desk in their reception :(

Told you this is Africa
Quote:
.The captain of a doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight was unable to practice on a new simulator for the Boeing 737 MAX 8 before he died in a crash with 157 others, a pilot colleague said.

Yared Getachew, 29, was due for refresher training at the end of March, his colleague told Reuters, two months after Ethiopian Airlines had received the simulator

Quote:
Ethiopian Airlines, disputed those claims in a statement Thursday, saying its pilots had completed appropriate training, as recommended by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing.
Additionally, the airline said that the 737 MAX flight simulator was not designed to include problems with the new plane’s automated systems,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15784
Just FYI.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/19/boeing_repeats_737_max_software_update_promises/

Quote:
The Seattle Times, which covers the local area around Boeing HQ, reported that an internal Boeing safety analysis of MCAS "understated the power of the new flight control system" and failed to spot that "MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis".

It also reported that Boeing's analysis "failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane's nose downward".

The Indonesian authorities' initial analysis (PDF, 12.7MB, 78 pages) of the flight data recorder (black box) from Lion Air 610 showed the pilots repeatedly undoing trim settings made by MCAS, only for the software system to repeat its input.

Unlike the other automatic trim systems aboard Boeing 737s, MCAS was written to operate in 10-second bursts. The system reportedly takes its critical inputs, from which it decides whether the aircraft is near to stalling and therefore needs nose-down trim, from a single angle-of-attack sensor at a time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 865
Keith,

Danny's site has all the technical details. Basically, MCAS was a bodge, using HS trim to counteract the aerodynamic effects of the engines on reducing the column forces required for pitch up approaching stall AOA - a big no no for certification.

The problem seems to be that 1) this bodge is fed by one AOA sensor and 2) the presence and operation of MCAS wasn't briefed to pilots during conversion.

So, an unknown system acts the tit and the drivers are left clueless.

No doubt greater clarity will eventually emerge.

As an aside, Its somewhat troubling that the legal types have got involved so early. Analysis and learning are the stand out features of air accident investigations, I fear lawyers plodding around the debris field - so to speak - can only inhibit the useful output.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9586
Location: Kenya
OomPB wrote:
Told you this is Africa


Why do you feel it necessary to return here and push this narrative?

So far this thread has been filled with interesting, informed and technical debate on the various reasons and speculation behind this crash, and this is all you can add?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16533
Location: STRAYA PLUM
assfly wrote:
OomPB wrote:
Told you this is Africa


Why do you feel it necessary to return here and push this narrative?

So far this thread has been filled with interesting, informed and technical debate on the various reasons and speculation behind this crash, and this is all you can add?

TIO
(This is OomPB)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8117
Location: hovering over the red button
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
sewa wrote:
Garuda air canceled their 49 plane order, in negotiations on who will accept the hit on the one they already have and don't now want. Lion air next in line to cancel, what they do with the 10 they have already received is anyone's guess. No one in their right mind will want to be board a Max8


They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13894
Location: South Oxfordshire
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
sewa wrote:
Garuda air canceled their 49 plane order, in negotiations on who will accept the hit on the one they already have and don't now want. Lion air next in line to cancel, what they do with the 10 they have already received is anyone's guess. No one in their right mind will want to be board a Max8


They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


Yeah, it has potential to turn into a big problem for airlines.

Boeing currently have a backlog of about 90 NGs that they were planning to fulfil this year. There's only 1 production line still set up for these I believe. In the meantime they're still churning out new MAX 8s with 5,012 on order and 390-odd delivered. If Boeing get the plane re-certified in the near future that's not going to be a problem unless the Max has taken irreparable reputational damage

A320 Neos have a backlog of 6,000 or so on backlog and 500-odd delivered. Airbus are doing all they can to speed things up here, but they're starting to run into major supply chain issues getting past 65-70 planes per month.

If you as an airline wanted to switch your order away from a MAX then you have two choices:

1 - Take an NG. You'll probably get the plane quicker, but your fuel costs just increased 10-15%
2 - Go to Airbus. if your order id at the tail end of the MAX backlog, that's not going to hurt too bad, but if you were expecting delivery next month then you've now got an 8-9 year wait.

That's assuming that your maintenance can handle either moving entirely to Airbus, or supporting a mixed 320/737 fleet, both of which have their own issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20909
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
sewa wrote:
Garuda air canceled their 49 plane order, in negotiations on who will accept the hit on the one they already have and don't now want. Lion air next in line to cancel, what they do with the 10 they have already received is anyone's guess. No one in their right mind will want to be board a Max8


They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


But can't they refit where they were building A380's? Surely they can adjust to customer demand faster than Boeing who will have other issues to worry about


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:40 pm
Posts: 5790
Location: Suffolk ba
Saint wrote:
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
sewa wrote:
Garuda air canceled their 49 plane order, in negotiations on who will accept the hit on the one they already have and don't now want. Lion air next in line to cancel, what they do with the 10 they have already received is anyone's guess. No one in their right mind will want to be board a Max8


They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


Yeah, it has potential to turn into a big problem for airlines.

Boeing currently have a backlog of about 90 NGs that they were planning to fulfil this year. There's only 1 production line still set up for these I believe. In the meantime they're still churning out new MAX 8s with 5,012 on order and 390-odd delivered. If Boeing get the plane re-certified in the near future that's not going to be a problem unless the Max has taken irreparable reputational damage

A320 Neos have a backlog of 6,000 or so on backlog and 500-odd delivered. Airbus are doing all they can to speed things up here, but they're starting to run into major supply chain issues getting past 65-70 planes per month.

If you as an airline wanted to switch your order away from a MAX then you have two choices:

1 - Take an NG. You'll probably get the plane quicker, but your fuel costs just increased 10-15%
2 - Go to Airbus. if your order id at the tail end of the MAX backlog, that's not going to hurt too bad, but if you were expecting delivery next month then you've now got an 8-9 year wait.

That's assuming that your maintenance can handle either moving entirely to Airbus, or supporting a mixed 320/737 fleet, both of which have their own issues.


So much well-informed comment!

What are orders like for the A220? You MIGHT think there was more capacity in the (former) Bombardier setup, though with all the difficulties about ramping up production that other airframes would face.

I think there is a big question over the way in which Boeing CAN respond to this - to me it seems quite unlikely that the MAX will easily achieve re-certification. Authorities will be very reluctant to move, in my view, before the full investigation results are known for the two most recent accidents, and that's going to be a while. For example, there is speculation that there is an issue not only with the design of the software but with the hardware architecture/quality (some ARINC code, single bit failure). That, together with documentation and training issues will make this a hard one to justify as a quick fix.

It also seems to me that Boeing will be required to emit a substantial quantity of robust fixes, test (I understand some test flights are being flown), document, provide training syllabi and probably invest in SIM software. And then wait for certification.

In the meantime the travelling public will have increasingly lost confidence in the brand.

To date, pax sensitivity to brand, model and make of aircraft has been pretty low on short and medium haul flights. The accidents have raised the profile of the manufacturer and the make. Boeing have handled this classically poorly, in retrospect. After the first accident their response was only to issue an advisory note that "Pilots are reminded that they can switch things off if they want to" - in other words "not our fault, guv, if you can't fly". That was poor poor PR and the bite on their bum must be the size of a crocodile by now.

It should have been BOEING requesting/requiring airlines to cease operation, not the FAA and other bodies. Now they are in a PR hole and are still digging, claiming that they are committed to safety but seeking to rush fixes out as soon as possible rather than saying e.g. we will take our time, recover all the evidence, review the failure path, the human factors, reconsider the architecture and make sure the plane is RIGHT before it flies again.

Existential for Boeing? Probably not. Commercially damaging, reputationally damaging, yes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13894
Location: South Oxfordshire
sewa wrote:
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
sewa wrote:
Garuda air canceled their 49 plane order, in negotiations on who will accept the hit on the one they already have and don't now want. Lion air next in line to cancel, what they do with the 10 they have already received is anyone's guess. No one in their right mind will want to be board a Max8


They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


But can't they refit where they were building A380's? Surely they can adjust to customer demand faster than Boeing who will have other issues to worry about


Supply chain is the biggest problem. Even if they retooled the 380 production line they can't get the parts fast enough - engine availability will be the next biggest hurdle. Not to mention that the A380 line will be open till mid- to end 2021 to finish existing orders


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9802
I doubt it would be that easy for airlines to cancel their orders until it is proven that the Max is defintely unfit to fly.

Beside, Boeing may be happy getting rid of a few weak customers and to strengthen the quality of its order book (releasing delivery slots for other customers when this issue will be behind them).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13894
Location: South Oxfordshire
ManInTheBar wrote:
Saint wrote:
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:

They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


Yeah, it has potential to turn into a big problem for airlines.

Boeing currently have a backlog of about 90 NGs that they were planning to fulfil this year. There's only 1 production line still set up for these I believe. In the meantime they're still churning out new MAX 8s with 5,012 on order and 390-odd delivered. If Boeing get the plane re-certified in the near future that's not going to be a problem unless the Max has taken irreparable reputational damage

A320 Neos have a backlog of 6,000 or so on backlog and 500-odd delivered. Airbus are doing all they can to speed things up here, but they're starting to run into major supply chain issues getting past 65-70 planes per month.

If you as an airline wanted to switch your order away from a MAX then you have two choices:

1 - Take an NG. You'll probably get the plane quicker, but your fuel costs just increased 10-15%
2 - Go to Airbus. if your order id at the tail end of the MAX backlog, that's not going to hurt too bad, but if you were expecting delivery next month then you've now got an 8-9 year wait.

That's assuming that your maintenance can handle either moving entirely to Airbus, or supporting a mixed 320/737 fleet, both of which have their own issues.


So much well-informed comment!

What are orders like for the A220? You MIGHT think there was more capacity in the (former) Bombardier setup, though with all the difficulties about ramping up production that other airframes would face.

I think there is a big question over the way in which Boeing CAN respond to this - to me it seems quite unlikely that the MAX will easily achieve re-certification. Authorities will be very reluctant to move, in my view, before the full investigation results are known for the two most recent accidents, and that's going to be a while. For example, there is speculation that there is an issue not only with the design of the software but with the hardware architecture/quality (some ARINC code, single bit failure). That, together with documentation and training issues will make this a hard one to justify as a quick fix.

It also seems to me that Boeing will be required to emit a substantial quantity of robust fixes, test (I understand some test flights are being flown), document, provide training syllabi and probably invest in SIM software. And then wait for certification.

In the meantime the travelling public will have increasingly lost confidence in the brand.

To date, pax sensitivity to brand, model and make of aircraft has been pretty low on short and medium haul flights. The accidents have raised the profile of the manufacturer and the make. Boeing have handled this classically poorly, in retrospect. After the first accident their response was only to issue an advisory note that "Pilots are reminded that they can switch things off if they want to" - in other words "not our fault, guv, if you can't fly". That was poor poor PR and the bite on their bum must be the size of a crocodile by now.

It should have been BOEING requesting/requiring airlines to cease operation, not the FAA and other bodies. Now they are in a PR hole and are still digging, claiming that they are committed to safety but seeking to rush fixes out as soon as possible rather than saying e.g. we will take our time, recover all the evidence, review the failure path, the human factors, reconsider the architecture and make sure the plane is RIGHT before it flies again.

Existential for Boeing? Probably not. Commercially damaging, reputationally damaging, yes


Yeah, Boeing tried to catch up on this by issuing a global "cease fly" notice, but it was too little too late.

Re the A220 - the 1st production line is about to come on stream, and they're pretty much full now till 2024. Even then the -300 is a bit small to mop up any demand - it's only 160 seats, so it sorta kinda competes with the Max7 rather than the Max8.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9802
Saint wrote:
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
sewa wrote:
Garuda air canceled their 49 plane order, in negotiations on who will accept the hit on the one they already have and don't now want. Lion air next in line to cancel, what they do with the 10 they have already received is anyone's guess. No one in their right mind will want to be board a Max8


They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


Yeah, it has potential to turn into a big problem for airlines.

Boeing currently have a backlog of about 90 NGs that they were planning to fulfil this year. There's only 1 production line still set up for these I believe. In the meantime they're still churning out new MAX 8s with 5,012 on order and 390-odd delivered. If Boeing get the plane re-certified in the near future that's not going to be a problem unless the Max has taken irreparable reputational damage

A320 Neos have a backlog of 6,000 or so on backlog and 500-odd delivered. Airbus are doing all they can to speed things up here, but they're starting to run into major supply chain issues getting past 65-70 planes per month.

If you as an airline wanted to switch your order away from a MAX then you have two choices:

1 - Take an NG. You'll probably get the plane quicker, but your fuel costs just increased 10-15%
2 - Go to Airbus. if your order id at the tail end of the MAX backlog, that's not going to hurt too bad, but if you were expecting delivery next month then you've now got an 8-9 year wait.

That's assuming that your maintenance can handle either moving entirely to Airbus, or supporting a mixed 320/737 fleet, both of which have their own issues.


And going to Airbus therefore means flying your NGs another 8 years, so you may as well get a new NG in the meantime I guess.

A220 would be too small and not a very good middle term solution?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3126
jdogscoop wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
julian wrote:
I am not by any mean a plane expert or pilot or anything near that, just another reader of plane's stuff. I have read some opinions by local pilots who have flown 737 for decades that an older more trained pilot would have figured out immediately how to manage the situation by disengaging some automatic functions related with the trim wheels and trim brakes.

No need to srudy the data from the Black boxes then


I heard the same thing. They have called off the expensive investigation, ordered short blacks all around and plan to interview julian at their earliest convenience.

I am not available at the moment, they'll have to wait.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13894
Location: South Oxfordshire
TheFrog wrote:
Saint wrote:
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:

They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


Yeah, it has potential to turn into a big problem for airlines.

Boeing currently have a backlog of about 90 NGs that they were planning to fulfil this year. There's only 1 production line still set up for these I believe. In the meantime they're still churning out new MAX 8s with 5,012 on order and 390-odd delivered. If Boeing get the plane re-certified in the near future that's not going to be a problem unless the Max has taken irreparable reputational damage

A320 Neos have a backlog of 6,000 or so on backlog and 500-odd delivered. Airbus are doing all they can to speed things up here, but they're starting to run into major supply chain issues getting past 65-70 planes per month.

If you as an airline wanted to switch your order away from a MAX then you have two choices:

1 - Take an NG. You'll probably get the plane quicker, but your fuel costs just increased 10-15%
2 - Go to Airbus. if your order id at the tail end of the MAX backlog, that's not going to hurt too bad, but if you were expecting delivery next month then you've now got an 8-9 year wait.

That's assuming that your maintenance can handle either moving entirely to Airbus, or supporting a mixed 320/737 fleet, both of which have their own issues.


And going to Airbus therefore means flying your NGs another 8 years, so you may as well get a new NG in the meantime I guess.

A220 would be too small and not a very good middle term solution?


If you're going to stock with NGs you'd do better to try and fly your existing fleet into the ground (metaphorically anyway) rather than buy new to be an exact replacement.

See one post above yours for a220 suitability


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 134
Saint wrote:
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
sewa wrote:
Garuda air canceled their 49 plane order, in negotiations on who will accept the hit on the one they already have and don't now want. Lion air next in line to cancel, what they do with the 10 they have already received is anyone's guess. No one in their right mind will want to be board a Max8


They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


Yeah, it has potential to turn into a big problem for airlines.

Boeing currently have a backlog of about 90 NGs that they were planning to fulfil this year. There's only 1 production line still set up for these I believe. In the meantime they're still churning out new MAX 8s with 5,012 on order and 390-odd delivered. If Boeing get the plane re-certified in the near future that's not going to be a problem unless the Max has taken irreparable reputational damage

A320 Neos have a backlog of 6,000 or so on backlog and 500-odd delivered. Airbus are doing all they can to speed things up here, but they're starting to run into major supply chain issues getting past 65-70 planes per month.

If you as an airline wanted to switch your order away from a MAX then you have two choices:

1 - Take an NG. You'll probably get the plane quicker, but your fuel costs just increased 10-15%
2 - Go to Airbus. if your order id at the tail end of the MAX backlog, that's not going to hurt too bad, but if you were expecting delivery next month then you've now got an 8-9 year wait.

That's assuming that your maintenance can handle either moving entirely to Airbus, or supporting a mixed 320/737 fleet, both of which have their own issues.


Mentioned a few pages ago that the supply chain won't be able to get beyond rate 63 [where it should be now] for some years, and that's only being achieved due to a slowing of A330/340 build rate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9802
Saint wrote:
If you're going to stock with NGs you'd do better to try and fly your existing fleet into the ground (metaphorically anyway) rather than buy new to be an exact replacement.


I guess it depends at what price you can negotiate the NGs as a settlement for your Max, versus the cost of maintenance and additional fuel burn resulting from degraded airframe and engines?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13894
Location: South Oxfordshire
TheFrog wrote:
Saint wrote:
If you're going to stock with NGs you'd do better to try and fly your existing fleet into the ground (metaphorically anyway) rather than buy new to be an exact replacement.


I guess it depends at what price you can negotiate the NGs as a settlement for your Max, versus the cost of maintenance and additional fuel burn resulting from degraded airframe and engines?


A new NG vs an old NG will have roughly the same fuel burn. Maintenance checks might be an issue, interior refurb as well. It would be a difficult business case to stack up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13894
Location: South Oxfordshire
Still Playing wrote:
Saint wrote:
blindcider wrote:
sewa wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:

They may still buy Boeing though, as both companies will have handed over spondulicks by the train load in advance


Well yes but the issue is they won't want normal 737's as they are relatively inefficient and it would take six years to develop Boeing's fulltime replacement. Airbus are in a great position to capitalise


No, they aren't. Take a look at their backlog


Yeah, it has potential to turn into a big problem for airlines.

Boeing currently have a backlog of about 90 NGs that they were planning to fulfil this year. There's only 1 production line still set up for these I believe. In the meantime they're still churning out new MAX 8s with 5,012 on order and 390-odd delivered. If Boeing get the plane re-certified in the near future that's not going to be a problem unless the Max has taken irreparable reputational damage

A320 Neos have a backlog of 6,000 or so on backlog and 500-odd delivered. Airbus are doing all they can to speed things up here, but they're starting to run into major supply chain issues getting past 65-70 planes per month.

If you as an airline wanted to switch your order away from a MAX then you have two choices:

1 - Take an NG. You'll probably get the plane quicker, but your fuel costs just increased 10-15%
2 - Go to Airbus. if your order id at the tail end of the MAX backlog, that's not going to hurt too bad, but if you were expecting delivery next month then you've now got an 8-9 year wait.

That's assuming that your maintenance can handle either moving entirely to Airbus, or supporting a mixed 320/737 fleet, both of which have their own issues.


Mentioned a few pages ago that the supply chain won't be able to get beyond rate 63 [where it should be now] for some years, and that's only being achieved due to a slowing of A330/340 build rate.


You and I had that debate......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:46 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16943
Location: balbriggan
https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... comments=1

Well this is rather disturbing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:47 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16943
Location: balbriggan
https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... comments=1

Well this is rather disturbing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20909
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0327/1038862-boeing-737-max/

This Boeing did not need, thankfully no one hurt but this will not add to their reputation with passengers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17966
Laurent wrote:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/simulations-show-lion-air-737-crew-had-little-time-to-prevent-disaster/?comments=1

Well this is rather disturbing.


Feel very sorry for those crews, not only did they die, but they were sent out woefully untrained - at least by going through the manuals they were trying to work out wtf was going on. Probably decent enough pilots , just undone by some IT system they were not familiar enough with.

This is what happens when IT people run projects without enough training of line staff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20909
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/simulations-show-lion-air-737-crew-had-little-time-to-prevent-disaster/?comments=1

Well this is rather disturbing.


Feel very sorry for those crews, not only did they die, but they were sent out woefully untrained - at least by going through the manuals they were trying to work out wtf was going on. Probably decent enough pilots , just undone by some IT system they were not familiar enough with.

This is what happens when IT people run projects without enough training of line staff.


Bollocks, top management at Boeing made the decision to roll out the MAX without much or in some cases any retraining to keep costs down. Not some IT nerd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:47 pm
Posts: 3247
sewa wrote:
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/simulations-show-lion-air-737-crew-had-little-time-to-prevent-disaster/?comments=1

Well this is rather disturbing.


Feel very sorry for those crews, not only did they die, but they were sent out woefully untrained - at least by going through the manuals they were trying to work out wtf was going on. Probably decent enough pilots , just undone by some IT system they were not familiar enough with.

This is what happens when IT people run projects without enough training of line staff.


Bollocks, top management at Boeing made the decision to roll out the MAX without much or in some cases any retraining to keep costs down. Not some IT nerd

It seems like the go-to plan in explaining this by Boeing fans (no idea if backrow is one or not) is
1) Blame the pilots
2) Blame the software nerds


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17966
de_Selby wrote:
sewa wrote:
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/simulations-show-lion-air-737-crew-had-little-time-to-prevent-disaster/?comments=1

Well this is rather disturbing.


Feel very sorry for those crews, not only did they die, but they were sent out woefully untrained - at least by going through the manuals they were trying to work out wtf was going on. Probably decent enough pilots , just undone by some IT system they were not familiar enough with.

This is what happens when IT people run projects without enough training of line staff.


Bollocks, top management at Boeing made the decision to roll out the MAX without much or in some cases any retraining to keep costs down. Not some IT nerd

It seems like the go-to plan in explaining this by Boeing fans (no idea if backrow is one or not) is
1) Blame the pilots
2) Blame the software nerds


Sewa is clearly an IT need with a problem of authority , and seeks to blame ‘management ‘
Clearly IT nerds never make management decisions eh ???

Boeing are scumbags, same as pretty much any other large US firm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19395
de_Selby wrote:
sewa wrote:
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/simulations-show-lion-air-737-crew-had-little-time-to-prevent-disaster/?comments=1

Well this is rather disturbing.


Feel very sorry for those crews, not only did they die, but they were sent out woefully untrained - at least by going through the manuals they were trying to work out wtf was going on. Probably decent enough pilots , just undone by some IT system they were not familiar enough with.

This is what happens when IT people run projects without enough training of line staff.


Bollocks, top management at Boeing made the decision to roll out the MAX without much or in some cases any retraining to keep costs down. Not some IT nerd

It seems like the go-to plan in explaining this by Boeing fans (no idea if backrow is one or not) is

0) Blame Africa
1) Blame the pilots
2) Blame the software nerds

fixed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4100
Location: Monmouthshire
backrow wrote:
de_Selby wrote:
sewa wrote:
backrow wrote:
Laurent wrote:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/simulations-show-lion-air-737-crew-had-little-time-to-prevent-disaster/?comments=1

Well this is rather disturbing.


Feel very sorry for those crews, not only did they die, but they were sent out woefully untrained - at least by going through the manuals they were trying to work out wtf was going on. Probably decent enough pilots , just undone by some IT system they were not familiar enough with.

This is what happens when IT people run projects without enough training of line staff.


Bollocks, top management at Boeing made the decision to roll out the MAX without much or in some cases any retraining to keep costs down. Not some IT nerd

It seems like the go-to plan in explaining this by Boeing fans (no idea if backrow is one or not) is
1) Blame the pilots
2) Blame the software nerds


Sewa is clearly an IT need with a problem of authority , and seeks to blame ‘management ‘
Clearly IT nerds never make management decisions eh ???

Boeing are scumbags, same as pretty much any other large US firm


Considering the whistle blowing at Boeing this will be due to a management decision and pressure. Being pressured into decisions by unethical manager types (who you can bet won't be the signature on the technical sign off) at large engineering companies is the default and not folding can result in lost promotions/salary increases, being intentionally bypassed or cut out of key meetings and even having your technical work edited without you knowing then presented at the meeting they have cut you out of. Protection from this sort of behaviour is the only reason I eventually joined a union.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9802
Petej wrote:

Considering the whistle blowing at Boeing this will be due to a management decision and pressure. Being pressured into decisions by unethical manager types (who you can bet won't be the signature on the technical sign off) at large engineering companies is the default and not folding can result in lost promotions/salary increases, being intentionally bypassed or cut out of key meetings and even having your technical work edited without you knowing then presented at the meeting they have cut you out of. Protection from this sort of behaviour is the only reason I eventually joined a union.


Those are very serious allegations! :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 596 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bert, BillW, Bokkom, Crazy Ed, danthefan, Fat Old Git, flaggETERNAL, Google Adsense [Bot], Gordon Bennett, handyman, JB1981, Jeff the Bear, Laurent, Pat the Ex Mat, Short Man Syndrome, Toddyno7, Yourmother and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group