Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:40 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 664 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:22 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.



I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8278
Saint wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.



I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP


The problem with that approach is that the industry needs the next game-changing technology to make designing a new aircraft profitable. The risk is that they spend $Xm to design something that is immediately made obsolete, the counter to that risk is that they have to do something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:46 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
blindcider wrote:
Saint wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.



I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP


The problem with that approach is that the industry needs the next game-changing technology to make designing a new aircraft profitable. The risk is that they spend $Xm to design something that is immediately made obsolete, the counter to that risk is that they have to do something.


Agree, ultimately that's the issue. Fundamentally it boils down to sticking with the basic 737 design for the NG has proven to be the wrong decision, as it's led them into this cul-de-sac.

The other side though is that the next major tech change isn't really on the horizon. So the risk is lower than it might otherwise be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5108
blindcider wrote:
Saint wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.



I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP


The problem with that approach is that the industry needs the next game-changing technology to make designing a new aircraft profitable. The risk is that they spend $Xm to design something that is immediately made obsolete, the counter to that risk is that they have to do something.


The problem was that Boeing decided that there was only one criteria that counted when selling an aircraft; COST !

To meet that single criteria, they cut the basic features of a new design down to the bare bones, & compromised the fundamental safety of that design as a result, (i.e. single points-of-failure sensors).

But much more egregiously; they pretended that this new design, wasn't fundamentally different from the previous design, & so, new flight crew didn't need to undergo the training associated with re-training flight crew on a totally new design.

... and of course they self-certified the software that was supposed to protect everyone from the foibles of the completely different flight characteristics of this new design.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:47 pm
Posts: 4551
Location: Chukity - puck!!!
Glad Boeing are being taken to the cleaners, but at some stage they have to take a good look at the FAA and its' cooperation with Boeing.

For years prior there had been videos of Boeing workers saying the company was taking shortcuts, worried only about profits and quality control was absent. Workers made complaints to the management and the FAA. Fcuk all was done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34182
Location: Planet Rock
fishfoodie wrote:
blindcider wrote:
Saint wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)


I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.



I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP


The problem with that approach is that the industry needs the next game-changing technology to make designing a new aircraft profitable. The risk is that they spend $Xm to design something that is immediately made obsolete, the counter to that risk is that they have to do something.


The problem was that Boeing decided that there was only one criteria that counted when selling an aircraft; COST !

To meet that single criteria, they cut the basic features of a new design down to the bare bones, & compromised the fundamental safety of that design as a result, (i.e. single points-of-failure sensors).

But much more egregiously; they pretended that this new design, wasn't fundamentally different from the previous design, & so, new flight crew didn't need to undergo the training associated with re-training flight crew on a totally new design.

... and of course they self-certified the software that was supposed to protect everyone from the foibles of the completely different flight characteristics of this new design.

I think the FAA are as culpable as Boeing and nothing has really changed in attitude of multinationals since the General Motors exploding petrol tank case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5108
Anonymous. wrote:
I think the FAA are as culpable as Boeing and nothing has really changed in attitude of multinationals since the General Motors exploding petrol tank case.


Well, if the FAA is culpable; & I tend to agree they are; then the last 20+ years of Politicians also need to take their share of blame too; as they were all very happy to let the FAA outsource quality control to the manufacturers, instead of funding the FAA to hire the people necessary to do the work in house.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8278
fishfoodie wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
I think the FAA are as culpable as Boeing and nothing has really changed in attitude of multinationals since the General Motors exploding petrol tank case.


Well, if the FAA is culpable; & I tend to agree they are; then the last 20+ years of Politicians also need to take their share of blame too; as they were all very happy to let the FAA outsource quality control to the manufacturers, instead of funding the FAA to hire the people necessary to do the work in house.


OEMs are allowed to do a lot of self validation based on DOA by the authorities. You lot might be surprised to find out how much of the certification validation is done by the aircraft manufacturers themselves. Under normal circumstances it's in the manufacturers best interests to exceed the air worthiness requirements for commercial and reputation reasons amongst others anyway. These are then validated by other authorities. Certainly being a DOA signatory is not something taken lightly in my experience and has to be delegated by a competence head and the recipient has to be able to demonstrate considerable expertise.

The heaviest contact with authorities is when you try to change a regulation to keep up with modern engineering ideas and specifically FCS. This is a good thing but often adds unnecessary weight due to the industry naturally moving quicker than the regs do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34182
Location: Planet Rock
blindcider wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
I think the FAA are as culpable as Boeing and nothing has really changed in attitude of multinationals since the General Motors exploding petrol tank case.


Well, if the FAA is culpable; & I tend to agree they are; then the last 20+ years of Politicians also need to take their share of blame too; as they were all very happy to let the FAA outsource quality control to the manufacturers, instead of funding the FAA to hire the people necessary to do the work in house.


OEMs are allowed to do a lot of self validation based on DOA by the authorities. You lot might be surprised to find out how much of the certification validation is done by the aircraft manufacturers themselves We might have been before but not anymore. Under normal circumstances it's in the manufacturers best interests to exceed the air worthiness requirements for commercial and reputation reasons amongst others anyway what wasn't normal about these circs. These are then validated by other authorities. Certainly being a DOA signatory is not something taken lightly in my experience and has to be delegated by a competence head and the recipient has to be able to demonstrate considerable expertise tbf I've only got limited experience of this case and delegated competence expertise stuff seems to be a load of bollox in this case. So I'd guess that could have been replicated all over the place.

The heaviest contact with authorities is when you try to change a regulation to keep up with modern engineering ideas and specifically FCS. This is a good thing but often adds unnecessary weight we have to disagree there. I see it as necessary. People who see it as unnecessary are more likely to cut corners. Which is what happened in this case when it comes to regulations due to the industry naturally moving quicker than the regs do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:35 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16176
Jeff the Bear wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
I'd decided in my early teens I was destined to be an Engineer, once I realized I wasn't creative enough to be an architect; and over the next few years, before I ended up in college, these were some of the International events I remembered pouring over the official reports of.

Bhopal Disaster - 1984
Challenger - 1986
Chernobyl - 1986
Piper Alpha - 1988

In ever single case, I saw, dogma, or short term monetary concerns; triumph over actual objective common sense, or simple human decency; & in each & ever case; the poor schmuck who stood up for those; got fucked !

In the case of Bhopal, it would have cost about $100 to prevent the disaster, Challenger was a few days delay; Chernobyl, another delay; or God forbid, pointing out that an experiment was catastrophically stupid & dangerous; piper alpha was a simple f**ked up LOTO procedure.

All preventable, & all disasters where the short term, 'Gain', was wiped out a million fold, by the reality of exactly the consequences the engineers warned about.


The one thing that I've noticed (and I once read a great article articulating this with regards to the Challenger disaster, but be buggered if I can find it now) is people's short-term memory/understanding of where the risk actually lies. i.e. in the Challenger disaster, the issue was taking off when the launch site was so cold. It was considerably colder than what was deemed to be the acceptable level, but because they had been dipping down below what had previously been agreed safe temp levels for previous launches, they had a false perception of where they sat within the risk profile.

And I see similar all the time. People push the envelope a little, see nothing catastrophic happens, and then move the 'safe line' to this new point, and once there, they do it again. They think they are smart, saving money and time...when in fact, all that is happening is either negligent or incompetent people are just playing inside the safety factors.


Jeff, you might be interested in the slow, ideologically fuelled, burn, that was the leaky building disaster here in NZ. If you are, read Rottenomics (by Peter Dyer), a play on the neo-liberal 'Rogernomics' that swept all before it in NZ in the mid 80s and still has multi-billion dollar repercussions in our construction industry now. We have yet to fix the fundamental changes set in place in the 80s and 90s* to our training, standards, laws and regulations.

* Deregulate and sell Govt assets and/or shut down organisations that provided training (especially of a practical and technological nature) and an element of public good; stop funding research that doesn't have an immediate commercial payoff; allow business interests to set technical standards and influence law. In particular, the disregard of history and why industry did things in certain ways and followed particular standards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18701
Ted. wrote:
* Deregulate and sell Govt assets and/or shut down organisations that provided training (especially of a practical and technological nature) and an element of public good; stop funding research that doesn't have an immediate commercial payoff; allow business interests to set technical standards and influence law. In particular, the disregard of history and why industry did things in certain ways and followed particular standards.

Sounds familiar to what happened here ...

Probably a phenomenon of the western world - or at least the 'anglosphere'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5979
Ted. wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
I'd decided in my early teens I was destined to be an Engineer, once I realized I wasn't creative enough to be an architect; and over the next few years, before I ended up in college, these were some of the International events I remembered pouring over the official reports of.

Bhopal Disaster - 1984
Challenger - 1986
Chernobyl - 1986
Piper Alpha - 1988

In ever single case, I saw, dogma, or short term monetary concerns; triumph over actual objective common sense, or simple human decency; & in each & ever case; the poor schmuck who stood up for those; got fucked !

In the case of Bhopal, it would have cost about $100 to prevent the disaster, Challenger was a few days delay; Chernobyl, another delay; or God forbid, pointing out that an experiment was catastrophically stupid & dangerous; piper alpha was a simple f**ked up LOTO procedure.

All preventable, & all disasters where the short term, 'Gain', was wiped out a million fold, by the reality of exactly the consequences the engineers warned about.


The one thing that I've noticed (and I once read a great article articulating this with regards to the Challenger disaster, but be buggered if I can find it now) is people's short-term memory/understanding of where the risk actually lies. i.e. in the Challenger disaster, the issue was taking off when the launch site was so cold. It was considerably colder than what was deemed to be the acceptable level, but because they had been dipping down below what had previously been agreed safe temp levels for previous launches, they had a false perception of where they sat within the risk profile.

And I see similar all the time. People push the envelope a little, see nothing catastrophic happens, and then move the 'safe line' to this new point, and once there, they do it again. They think they are smart, saving money and time...when in fact, all that is happening is either negligent or incompetent people are just playing inside the safety factors.


Jeff, you might be interested in the slow, ideologically fuelled, burn, that was the leaky building disaster here in NZ. If you are, read Rottenomics (by Peter Dyer), a play on the neo-liberal 'Rogernomics' that swept all before it in NZ in the mid 80s and still has multi-billion dollar repercussions in our construction industry now. We have yet to fix the fundamental changes set in place in the 80s and 90s* to our training, standards, laws and regulations.

* Deregulate and sell Govt assets and/or shut down organisations that provided training (especially of a practical and technological nature) and an element of public good; stop funding research that doesn't have an immediate commercial payoff; allow business interests to set technical standards and influence law. In particular, the disregard of history and why industry did things in certain ways and followed particular standards.

Cheers Ted, I'll be reading it. The stupid thing is the results of this, and changes in the education system at much the same time, all produced faults which were stated prior to implementation by the industry insiders as obvious repercussions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:20 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16176
kiap wrote:
Ted. wrote:
* Deregulate and sell Govt assets and/or shut down organisations that provided training (especially of a practical and technological nature) and an element of public good; stop funding research that doesn't have an immediate commercial payoff; allow business interests to set technical standards and influence law. In particular, the disregard of history and why industry did things in certain ways and followed particular standards.

Sounds familiar to what happened here ...

Probably a phenomenon of the western world - or at least the 'anglosphere'.


We had an enthusiastically vicious version here, put in place by a Labour Govt "Rogernomics" with the coup de grâce applied by the following National Govt "Ruthanasia" (conservatives). I think it was little man's disease, literally on the part of the adherents, short arses to a man (including the women) and figuratively on the part of the country, where nothing less than a world beating rark-up of the economy and society as a whole would do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:29 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16176
Flockwitt wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
I'd decided in my early teens I was destined to be an Engineer, once I realized I wasn't creative enough to be an architect; and over the next few years, before I ended up in college, these were some of the International events I remembered pouring over the official reports of.

Bhopal Disaster - 1984
Challenger - 1986
Chernobyl - 1986
Piper Alpha - 1988

In ever single case, I saw, dogma, or short term monetary concerns; triumph over actual objective common sense, or simple human decency; & in each & ever case; the poor schmuck who stood up for those; got fucked !

In the case of Bhopal, it would have cost about $100 to prevent the disaster, Challenger was a few days delay; Chernobyl, another delay; or God forbid, pointing out that an experiment was catastrophically stupid & dangerous; piper alpha was a simple f**ked up LOTO procedure.

All preventable, & all disasters where the short term, 'Gain', was wiped out a million fold, by the reality of exactly the consequences the engineers warned about.


The one thing that I've noticed (and I once read a great article articulating this with regards to the Challenger disaster, but be buggered if I can find it now) is people's short-term memory/understanding of where the risk actually lies. i.e. in the Challenger disaster, the issue was taking off when the launch site was so cold. It was considerably colder than what was deemed to be the acceptable level, but because they had been dipping down below what had previously been agreed safe temp levels for previous launches, they had a false perception of where they sat within the risk profile.

And I see similar all the time. People push the envelope a little, see nothing catastrophic happens, and then move the 'safe line' to this new point, and once there, they do it again. They think they are smart, saving money and time...when in fact, all that is happening is either negligent or incompetent people are just playing inside the safety factors.


Jeff, you might be interested in the slow, ideologically fuelled, burn, that was the leaky building disaster here in NZ. If you are, read Rottenomics (by Peter Dyer), a play on the neo-liberal 'Rogernomics' that swept all before it in NZ in the mid 80s and still has multi-billion dollar repercussions in our construction industry now. We have yet to fix the fundamental changes set in place in the 80s and 90s* to our training, standards, laws and regulations.

* Deregulate and sell Govt assets and/or shut down organisations that provided training (especially of a practical and technological nature) and an element of public good; stop funding research that doesn't have an immediate commercial payoff; allow business interests to set technical standards and influence law. In particular, the disregard of history and why industry did things in certain ways and followed particular standards.

Cheers Ted, I'll be reading it. The stupid thing is the results of this, and changes in the education system at much the same time, all produced faults which were stated prior to implementation by the industry insiders as obvious repercussions.


Yep. Treasury's fear and hatred of any other viewpoint, especially if grounded in technical expertise, met the perfect neoliberal storm. Uninformatively, from my POV at least, the book bangs on about unions a bit too much. I will say that the monetary consequences of the leaky building disaster are still being understated. The consequences of the policies to the NZ construction industry in general are larger still, and to NZ? Well, it beggars my imagination.

Not sure where the appropriate place is for this specific discussion, but apologies anyway to the topic contributors for going off piste.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:26 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5108
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Convert 'em all into 'Cargo' versions & flog then to FedEx ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:42 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Convert 'em all into 'Cargo' versions & flog then to FedEx ?


Won't be re-approved. Not for passenger, not for cargo. Will not be allowed to fly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12157
Thought they were still being produced for the USAF?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:41 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
Gavin Duffy wrote:
Thought they were still being produced for the USAF?


MAX does not have a military equivalent- it's civilian only. A system similar to.MCAS has been used on military refueling aircraft, primarily because the COG will change midflight on a fuel carrier, but the max production line will shut down this month indefinitely. They have over 400 airframes now in storage with no.udea if, let alone when, they might get rid of them


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10733
Dennis Muilenburg being removed with a 39m$ package is a shocker... Where is corporate responsibility?

I thought these guys had huge salaries because (1) they are the best at their jobs and (2) they bear high risks in highly exposed roles.

But... he wasn't obviously the best in his role and bore no risk as he retires with a comfortable pay off.

Not sure a simple engineer would have been entitled to such a pay off (pro-rata of his salary of course).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:32 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
TheFrog wrote:
Dennis Muilenburg being removed with a 39m$ package is a shocker... Where is corporate responsibility?

I thought these guys had huge salaries because (1) they are the best at their jobs and (2) they bear high risks in highly exposed roles.

But... he wasn't obviously the best in his role and bore no risk as he retires with a comfortable pay off.

Not sure a simple engineer would have been entitled to such a pay off (pro-rata of his salary of course).



Just seen that last year he picked up 23 million :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16320
Saint wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Dennis Muilenburg being removed with a 39m$ package is a shocker... Where is corporate responsibility?

I thought these guys had huge salaries because (1) they are the best at their jobs and (2) they bear high risks in highly exposed roles.

But... he wasn't obviously the best in his role and bore no risk as he retires with a comfortable pay off.

Not sure a simple engineer would have been entitled to such a pay off (pro-rata of his salary of course).



Just seen that last year he picked up 23 million :shock:


I feel for the poor bugger: how can he possibly get by on $39m?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 14860
Saint wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Convert 'em all into 'Cargo' versions & flog then to FedEx ?


Won't be re-approved. Not for passenger, not for cargo. Will not be allowed to fly

BlueStar airlines is where it’s at guys. Go big on them. :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10733
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Is this how rumors start spreading on the internet nowdays?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10733
Saint wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Dennis Muilenburg being removed with a 39m$ package is a shocker... Where is corporate responsibility?

I thought these guys had huge salaries because (1) they are the best at their jobs and (2) they bear high risks in highly exposed roles.

But... he wasn't obviously the best in his role and bore no risk as he retires with a comfortable pay off.

Not sure a simple engineer would have been entitled to such a pay off (pro-rata of his salary of course).



Just seen that last year he picked up 23 million :shock:


Damn, only 2/3 of the expected package. I too feel for the poor bugger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:37 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
TheFrog wrote:
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Is this how rumors start spreading on the internet nowdays?


That's come from PPruNe - supposedly test pilots inside Boeing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8278
Saint wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Is this how rumors start spreading on the internet nowdays?


That's come from PPruNe - supposedly test pilots inside Boeing


Massive potential risk from a wiring issue being reported now as well. Systems is not my area but apparently the wiring systems are not isolated as much as regs demand and could lead to multiple system failure in case of an incident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5108
blindcider wrote:
Saint wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Is this how rumors start spreading on the internet nowdays?


That's come from PPruNe - supposedly test pilots inside Boeing


Massive potential risk from a wiring issue being reported now as well. Systems is not my area but apparently the wiring systems are not isolated as much as regs demand and could lead to multiple system failure in case of an incident.


Christ, I hadn't heard that part :shock:

You couldn't even haul one of the airframes into a trailer park, & live in it. You'd never get home insurance :frown:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4165
Location: Monmouthshire
blindcider wrote:
Saint wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Is this how rumors start spreading on the internet nowdays?


That's come from PPruNe - supposedly test pilots inside Boeing


Massive potential risk from a wiring issue being reported now as well. Systems is not my area but apparently the wiring systems are not isolated as much as regs demand and could lead to multiple system failure in case of an incident.

Is there still the risk with the emergency oxygen tanks on the 787 as well or has that disappeared?

EDIT Boeing should have done a clean sheet design as the 737 wing being so low means you can't get a nice big fan on them to improve the fuel efficiency. Boeing must be a bit pissed that the Trent 1000 is not so good (costing RR a predicted 2.4billion) while the Trent XWB on the Airbus is doing really well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19245
So, I flew on a 787 for the first time yesterday through turbulence - was quite alarming to see quite how much the wings on it flexes !
I’m a good flyer and don’t get scared on them even though I’ve had a lighting strike , emergency descent , some go around as, dumping of fuel and a landing gear fail to lock - but even I was a bit peturbed yesterday.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9901
Location: Kenya
backrow wrote:
So, I flew on a 787 for the first time yesterday through turbulence - was quite alarming to see quite how much the wings on it flexes !
I’m a good flyer and don’t get scared on them even though I’ve had a lighting strike , emergency descent , some go around as, dumping of fuel and a landing gear fail to lock - but even I was a bit peturbed yesterday.


Which airline and route?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8278
backrow wrote:
So, I flew on a 787 for the first time yesterday through turbulence - was quite alarming to see quite how much the wings on it flexes !
I’m a good flyer and don’t get scared on them even though I’ve had a lighting strike , emergency descent , some go around as, dumping of fuel and a landing gear fail to lock - but even I was a bit peturbed yesterday.


They are supposed to, start worrying when they stop flexing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19879
blindcider wrote:
backrow wrote:
So, I flew on a 787 for the first time yesterday through turbulence - was quite alarming to see quite how much the wings on it flexes !
I’m a good flyer and don’t get scared on them even though I’ve had a lighting strike , emergency descent , some go around as, dumping of fuel and a landing gear fail to lock - but even I was a bit peturbed yesterday.


They are supposed to, start worrying when they stop flexing

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:58 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
Petej wrote:
blindcider wrote:
Saint wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Saint wrote:
Some leaks starting to come out that the Max will not get re-approved. Ever.

if you have shares in Boeing, and haven't sold already, now might be a good time......


Is this how rumors start spreading on the internet nowdays?


That's come from PPruNe - supposedly test pilots inside Boeing


Massive potential risk from a wiring issue being reported now as well. Systems is not my area but apparently the wiring systems are not isolated as much as regs demand and could lead to multiple system failure in case of an incident.

Is there still the risk with the emergency oxygen tanks on the 787 as well or has that disappeared?

EDIT Boeing should have done a clean sheet design as the 737 wing being so low means you can't get a nice big fan on them to improve the fuel efficiency. Boeing must be a bit pissed that the Trent 1000 is not so good (costing RR a predicted 2.4billion) while the Trent XWB on the Airbus is doing really well.


There's been no followup to that since the initial claims, so I'm guessing that Boeing actually did do something at the time that addressed this that the whistleblower wasn't aware of. If not, that would have meant an immediate grounding of the 787 fleet until each plane had been tested

EDIT - on the XWB issue, there's some murmerings recently that Airbus may offer a GENx engine option, at least for the -900 (GENx currently can;t support the -1000). If true, that will cause serious problems for RR


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2801
Boeing must be close to toast.
Well remember the DC10 stuff, simply you didn't fly airlines that had them.
Boeing had a reputation for standards.
Once you loose your reputation you are gone.
Would still fly 747 but not newer planes.
Started flying in 1964, days of BOAC and PAN AM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27172
Location: Chickenrunning...
Glaston wrote:
Started flying in 1964, days of BOAC


Phew! 10 years after the Comet exploded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19245
assfly wrote:
backrow wrote:
So, I flew on a 787 for the first time yesterday through turbulence - was quite alarming to see quite how much the wings on it flexes !
I’m a good flyer and don’t get scared on them even though I’ve had a lighting strike , emergency descent , some go around as, dumping of fuel and a landing gear fail to lock - but even I was a bit peturbed yesterday.


Which airline and route?


Lighting strike was a BA 747 - huge bang but that’s all, capt on a few seconds later to reassure everyone
Emergency descent was a delta Boeing something going to cancun, got diverted to a military base in Newfoundland as we didn’t have enough fuel to get to Mexico - was due to a broken something and was just a precaution but was interesting for a few mins. Got to Mexico about ten hours late and got some compensation.
Go arounds were a shite etihad airbus coming into Abu Dhabi on a clear day and he fecked up, and a KLM 737 coming into schipol on a windy day
Dumping of fuel due to landing gear not locking was a SAA flight JHB to LHR, was just boring and delays getting to hotel as we landed at 2am and all the staff had clocked off for the night.
Also had a wizz air flight slam into tarmac at Luton and skid and slide all over the place, weather was fine so reckon he just got it a bit wrong and realised end of runway coming up a bit fast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11456
Location: Mostly London........Mostly
backrow wrote:
So, I flew on a 787 for the first time yesterday through turbulence - was quite alarming to see quite how much the wings on it flexes !
I’m a good flyer and don’t get scared on them even though I’ve had a lighting strike , emergency descent , some go around as, dumping of fuel and a landing gear fail to lock - but even I was a bit peturbed yesterday.


Used to be a pretty hard as nails flyer but had a few incidents that made me a bit twitchy of late.

Flying out of Nice airport through a storm was a bit of a shite experience, plane got knocked all over the shop, engines groaning, passengers actually wailing and crying, cabin crew looking a bit nervous and me watching out the window as aircraft rolled all over the place in the darkness. Turned out we were the last flight out before they closed the airport. Good start to the honeymoon.

Other incident was a flight to Thailand, perfectly smooth flight when without warning we just seemed to drop about 1000ft, I was not strapped in and found myself floating above the seats before slamming back down again. I did not like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:29 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
Glaston wrote:
Boeing must be close to toast.
Well remember the DC10 stuff, simply you didn't fly airlines that had them.
Boeing had a reputation for standards.
Once you loose your reputation you are gone.
Would still fly 747 but not newer planes.
Started flying in 1964, days of BOAC and PAN AM.


There's only 500-odd still flying, and I'd bet half of them are Cargo. BA are slowly sending their s to the graveyard and they're scheduled to get rid of the last one in the next 5 years or so.

787 is fine, once they sorted out all the new tech in it, and a 777 is a great aircraft (although grim in the back where they've got 10 and 11 abreast)

Don;t forget that Boeing is effectively state funded, so as long as Congress keeps letting them charge of "over-spend" on military projects they'll be OK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:31 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14434
Location: South Oxfordshire
danny_fitz wrote:
backrow wrote:
So, I flew on a 787 for the first time yesterday through turbulence - was quite alarming to see quite how much the wings on it flexes !
I’m a good flyer and don’t get scared on them even though I’ve had a lighting strike , emergency descent , some go around as, dumping of fuel and a landing gear fail to lock - but even I was a bit peturbed yesterday.


Used to be a pretty hard as nails flyer but had a few incidents that made me a bit twitchy of late.

Flying out of Nice airport through a storm was a bit of a shite experience, plane got knocked all over the shop, engines groaning, passengers actually wailing and crying, cabin crew looking a bit nervous and me watching out the window as aircraft rolled all over the place in the darkness. Turned out we were the last flight out before they closed the airport. Good start to the honeymoon.

Other incident was a flight to Thailand, perfectly smooth flight when without warning we just seemed to drop about 1000ft, I was not strapped in and found myself floating above the seats before slamming back down again. I did not like that.


Only truly scary experience I've had was three go-arounds inbound to Geneva on a BA A321. By number 2 the whole plane stank of vomit, and it got worse after that. Never seen cabin crew look green before


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 664 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elcamino, ElementFreak, Google Adsense [Bot], Harvey2.0, Kiwias, Newby1, Saint, Sundy, Ted., WoodlandsRFC 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