Search

Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

Lost Window

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-07-2024, 09:34 AM
  #71  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,403
Default

Originally Posted by Neosporin
China's C919
Non-certifiable in the west. Maybe the next generation.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 10:33 AM
  #72  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 38
Default

Just published technical review of how the plug-type exit option works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maLBGFYl9_o
HouseOfPAE is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 11:00 AM
  #73  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SonicFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,821
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
BCA top management recently said that they have no timelne for a new NB design, the technology doesn't exist, and they'll look at it for the next decade.
Bingo! There are no plans for Boeing to do a clean sheet design, because airlines don't wan't to spend the money training their people on a new type rating. Also they don't want to take a chance with innovation because it's risky. They want proven technology. And Boeing doesn't want to incur that level of risk either.



Originally Posted by rickair7777
they may be afraid to commit to a clean-sheet design ($$$) at this moment while there's a real looming possibility that carbon hysteria will drive a need for drastic changes to current operations, which could include radical technology and designs. It would suck to make the multi- $B R&D investment now only to have the new design outlawed and have to repeat the whole process in ten or fewer years.
Excellent point I hadn't considered. Although it does factor into the risk of a new design. But yeah... government...

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
You originally implied that AIRLINES didn't want to pay for a new narrow body. They do. The C series/A-220 for one.
That's a different animal. As the problems with the bs governmental protectionism were already pointed out, they had to practically give them away to get proven. Baltic Air flew them first for almost a year before anyone else did. And as pointed out it nearly bankrupted Bombardier. Not to mention, let's be honest, the C-Series is basically a souped up regional jet. Boeing doesn't want to build aircraft that small apparently. At least that's how it appears.


Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
Boeing is the one who doesn't want to spend the money on designing and certifying a new airplane. Boeing outsourced so much of its operation that it can no longer efficiently develop a new airplane. New airplanes always take a long time to reach an ROI and the board for Boeing doesn't have the stomach to wait a decade before they can see a profit. Much better to kick the can down the road and let future investors deal with the problem.
And yes that is part of it too.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
The fact that such a small company can do the hard part of designing an all-new aircraft proves it can be done. Boeing doesn't have an excuse. They know that you take a bath on the first hundred or so planes to fill the order book up and then you can start charging airliners more. It's the designing and certification that Boeing struggles with.
And that their cost per unit is probably not worth it to them.
SonicFlyer is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 11:44 AM
  #74  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Position: 73FO
Posts: 356
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
A350?


Some mitigation in their favor... they may be afraid to commit to a clean-sheet design ($$$) at this moment while there's a real looming possibility that carbon hysteria will drive a need for drastic changes to current operations, which could include radical technology and designs. It would suck to make the multi- $B R&D investment now only to have the new design outlawed and have to repeat the whole process in ten or fewer years.

But with all that said, I think this door incident is just going to come down to a very localized QA issue and will be easy to fix. Door frames are not hard technology, I'm sure the design is just fine, and has been for a long time. The install work was probably done on a Fri afternoon in a weed-legal state.
This is by far the 2 most absurd statements I've ever read on this site. In what world do you think there is going to be not only a consensus on climate change, but to make it so strict that commerical aircraft that are already designed and built are banned? And you think a drug tested maintainer is more to blame than Boeing cutting costs and deciding to pay new A&P's $20 a hour to work in Seattle?

If you truly believe that I think you're the one smoking the ol wacky tobaccy.
BlueScholar is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 01:04 PM
  #75  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,403
Default

Originally Posted by BlueScholar
This is by far the 2 most absurd statements I've ever read on this site. In what world do you think there is going to be not only a consensus on climate change, but to make it so strict that commerical aircraft that are already designed and built are banned? And you think a drug tested maintainer is more to blame than Boeing cutting costs and deciding to pay new A&P's $20 a hour to work in Seattle?

If you truly believe that I think you're the one smoking the ol wacky tobaccy.
Lighten up frank. The part about weed was hyperbole. The point is that it should be a quick fix, regardless of the root cause. I don't think BCA suddenly forgot how to design a door frame after 100 years.

The carbon thing is very real though, your lack of awareness on that is fairly absurd. There is actually a bunch of new technology being developed via government/industry partnerships on both sides of the Atlantic specifically to reduce carbon. A lot of that is expected to reach an appropriate TRL within ten years. You might not want to shoot your R&D wad now only to have the other guys wait for the new tech and then market something which blows your new-ish plane out of the water WRT to carbon efficiency.

I tend to agree that regulators cannot go full Greta and mandate impossible standards which would shut down the global airline industry. Usually the regulators try to keep up with industry... if somebody builds a significantly improved airliner, then regulators will use THAT as the new standard. The euros are more likely than the US to take draconian climate positions, they're already cutting back slots for that reason as we speak.

Anyone who pays attention to the technology and mfg side of the industry knows all that. Maybe get a subscription to AW&ST... excellent cliffs notes.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 01:29 PM
  #76  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,703
Default

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
That's because it was Bombardier. They have an... interesting approach to aviation. Their commercial aviation department was very small. They did the hard part and certified a new plane, but they didn't have the cash to sustain production to their break-even point. No airline wants to buy an orphan plane so they had to sell the first few hundred cheaply. I don't think Bombardier was planning on that. Then the Boeing lawsuit made them think it was going to take even longer to sell enough to justify the cost. In the end, they realized their time was spent building business jets and trains. The fact that such a small company can do the hard part of designing an all-new aircraft proves it can be done. Boeing doesn't have an excuse. They know that you take a bath on the first hundred or so planes to fill the order book up and then you can start charging airliners more. It's the designing and certification that Boeing struggles with.
Delta has always loved adopting orphans! Convair 880, L1011, 737G, MD90, MD11, 717, A330-900. I am seeing C919's in Delta's future!
sailingfun is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 04:51 PM
  #77  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ugleeual's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,737
Default

Any Max9s back flying again?
ugleeual is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 05:12 PM
  #78  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 42
Default

It's really time for Alaskan to be shutdown. Flight 261 2.0 is right around the corner. Them and southwest, worst safety culture I've ever witnessed.
Lileskimo is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 06:11 PM
  #79  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Apr 2021
Posts: 22
Default

Originally Posted by Lileskimo
It's really time for Alaskan to be shutdown. Flight 261 2.0 is right around the corner. Them and southwest, worst safety culture I've ever witnessed.
This wasn't Alaska's fault. But thanks for your aviation expertise.
magiccarpet is offline  
Old 01-07-2024, 07:36 PM
  #80  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 78
Default

Originally Posted by Lileskimo
It's really time for Alaskan to be shutdown. Flight 261 2.0 is right around the corner. Them and southwest, worst safety culture I've ever witnessed.
"261 2.0"... "Alaska shutdown".... quite the strong statements there buddy. Look forward to seeing all the specific examples on Alaska's safety culture you're going to provide to back that up. I'll wait...
LineGrinder400 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
hockeypilot44
Delta
3
05-15-2023 11:25 PM
MEFLIGHT
American
112
10-29-2020 01:41 PM
Excargodog
COVID19
75
10-27-2020 09:55 AM
Inop2
American
5
03-18-2018 11:05 AM
Inop2
Piedmont Airlines
2
03-18-2018 06:44 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices