Probably from whoever is fed up with CEOs doing a sh1tty job, getting bailed out, and making off with millions and millions of dollars. Because Boeing WILL get bailed out if things get really bad. And C levels will make out like the bandits they are.
So anyone who's against socialism should be hammering their incompetence in the hopes that government stops rewarding failure.
My American boss a few yrs back did his BSc and MSc in aeronautics and then promptly went into semiconductors which is how he became my boss. He told me virtually no airliners are profitable - they break even with the help of government subsidies. I am not in a position to judge this, but that’s what he said.
^ Airliners are not very adventurous when it comes to electronics. The technology is well behind state of the art.
And commercial aircraft manufacturers tend to be assembler of components nowadays... usually a prime contractor with a ton of subs... just like an auto manufacturer, only that if you build a Pinto you can sort of control the fiasco when it blows up on you... but if you're an airplane maker and a plane drops from the sky... generally the manufacturer is skrew'd.
If you want to see state of the art, look at smart phones or tablets. The SOCs in those babies are tremendous... so is stuff like solid state memory. Physics meets electronics. And now you got FPGAs meshed with hard cores meshed in the same SOC... that's where the growth is...
...Look at Smart TVs.
I don't know if airliners are profitable but the companies tend to pay dividends...
And commercial aircraft manufacturers tend to be assembler of components nowadays... usually a prime contractor with a ton of subs... just like an auto manufacturer, only that if you build a Pinto you can sort of control the fiasco when it blows up on you... but if you're an airplane maker and a plane drops from the sky... generally the manufacturer is skrew'd.
If you want to see state of the art, look at smart phones or tablets. The SOCs in those babies are tremendous... so is stuff like solid state memory. Physics meets electronics. And now you got FPGAs meshed with hard cores meshed in the same SOC... that's where the growth is...
...Look at Smart TVs.
I don't know if airliners are profitable but the companies tend to pay dividends...
I doubt it.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that and I believe that the best interests of people -in general- have nothing to do with the flow of money.
Sorry, no.
Do you know what the orderbook stands at with the A320 series?
SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED and NINETY SEVEN unfulfilled orders. (7,797) as of December 2023.
(Yes, that’s completely bonkers…)
They can produce about 650 a year. If you were to start an airline today, and order some new A320, you will have them in 2036.
https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/commercial-aircraft/market/orders-and-deliveries
Last edited:
Honestly I don't care if there are "mysterious" interests behind this. This company has had issues with culture for a very long time now. If they were making vacuum cleaners I wouldn't care. If I had the choice to fly a different make airplane I wouldn't care either.
Airplanes are literally a mass murder due to incompetence product. They should be pummeled until they start doing things right.
In my work culture, if someone finds a fault of any kind, he is rewarded for helping the company, because fault free products are the base of the company's success and existence. This needs some character, both for the one reporting and the person developing the problem, not an opaque system which allows covering up. It is not like Boeing...
I know when the money making people take over the lead, these individuals always try to suppress and ignore any problem, without even thinking or asking about consequences. In their small, limited, money fixated brains they can not think further than the next financial report and the resulting bonus. So fixing problems is a cost factor and ignoring them saves money. When, as a worst case scenario, multiple people die, they declare them selves technically incompetent and blame some technician for the disaster. Very simple system, well established. They get money if things work out well and pay no consequence when things go wrong.
You can not produce planes like you do in a car industry, where a certain amount of failures is a sign of a "well build" product. If a new car doesn't have a minimum number of defects, this is a sign the parts used are to well designed, materials used are too good or workers have too much time to install them carefully. This shows the money fixated manager, engineers had too much time, material could be worse and workers should move faster. So you could have spent less money and earned more, in the short therm. Only if a significant number of all different kinds of components fail, is the product build "cost effective".
Some guy called Lopez established this in the car industry. He ruined quite some brands with it, but that was the "Lopez effect" which got only visible later, after he already left the company with millions of bonuses collected. Seems some of his relatives work for Boeing now.
I know when the money making people take over the lead, these individuals always try to suppress and ignore any problem, without even thinking or asking about consequences. In their small, limited, money fixated brains they can not think further than the next financial report and the resulting bonus. So fixing problems is a cost factor and ignoring them saves money. When, as a worst case scenario, multiple people die, they declare them selves technically incompetent and blame some technician for the disaster. Very simple system, well established. They get money if things work out well and pay no consequence when things go wrong.
You can not produce planes like you do in a car industry, where a certain amount of failures is a sign of a "well build" product. If a new car doesn't have a minimum number of defects, this is a sign the parts used are to well designed, materials used are too good or workers have too much time to install them carefully. This shows the money fixated manager, engineers had too much time, material could be worse and workers should move faster. So you could have spent less money and earned more, in the short therm. Only if a significant number of all different kinds of components fail, is the product build "cost effective".
Some guy called Lopez established this in the car industry. He ruined quite some brands with it, but that was the "Lopez effect" which got only visible later, after he already left the company with millions of bonuses collected. Seems some of his relatives work for Boeing now.
Hey guys, really interesting stuff here from those in the know so cheers for that!
Have any of you seen that alleged startup, Global Airlines, that is apparently buying up A380's as the owner reckons passengers like them? If this is true, good luck with that mate. Imagine starting an airline in that manner. Just setting up the infrastructure from scratch to service the things would be a nightmare.
https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...lines-james-asquith-airbus-a380-b2445032.html
Have any of you seen that alleged startup, Global Airlines, that is apparently buying up A380's as the owner reckons passengers like them? If this is true, good luck with that mate. Imagine starting an airline in that manner. Just setting up the infrastructure from scratch to service the things would be a nightmare.
https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...lines-james-asquith-airbus-a380-b2445032.html
Quantas used to be all 747 at one time.
The A380 is out of production, and a few are headed for scrap because people do not like the hub and spoke pattern, they want direct flights.
Some airlines are bringing them back from storage, but the production run was nowhere near 747 in numbers.
However, as the requirement of mass transit increases with time, it is cyclic, they might just find it is quite a low investment per seat, if purchased at the right time.
I had seen photos of the un-ducted fan engine on a rear engined aircraft, in the 1980s, it was Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine.
It never went into commercial testing, for reasons I forget, may have been danger from uncontained blade release (it happens)...or the difficulty of making the open blades.
The CFM Rise seems to have been inspired by that design.
The A380 is out of production, and a few are headed for scrap because people do not like the hub and spoke pattern, they want direct flights.
Some airlines are bringing them back from storage, but the production run was nowhere near 747 in numbers.
However, as the requirement of mass transit increases with time, it is cyclic, they might just find it is quite a low investment per seat, if purchased at the right time.
I had seen photos of the un-ducted fan engine on a rear engined aircraft, in the 1980s, it was Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine.
It never went into commercial testing, for reasons I forget, may have been danger from uncontained blade release (it happens)...or the difficulty of making the open blades.
The CFM Rise seems to have been inspired by that design.
Airbus are currently making their money with narrowbodies. Sales for the A350 are falling behind B787 sales because Boeing are giving huge discounts and because airlines are not too enamored with the RR engines.In the chess game of global aviation that might be a pawn airbus are willing to sacrifice. If you give credence to some of the stories (and I don't) then Airbus have been setting things up to weaken boeing just enough to give them an advantage in the market but not enough for them to completely lose the plot. Getting them to spaff another pile of cubic dollars to gain traction against an already profitable model would seem a good next step. Hindsight of course enables all sorts of correlations that don't existBut if they were willing to spend $10^10 to build the A380 just to kill off the 747* who knows what they are plotting.
*not proven!
The B747 was killed mainly by the B777 that can carry nearly as many passengers, with a little help from the A330/340. It got an update, the B747-800 but LH was the only airline to order the pax version. By the time it entered serivice, the B787 was also around and the A350 was knocking on the door.
Yes, they did. GE36 and Pratt & Whitney/Allison 578-DX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney/Allison_578-DX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE36
IIRC the 777 was a $7 billion dev program. On the 747, Boeing bet the company. If it had failed, they would have gone under.
More evidence of negligence - no bolt marks on the door.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/recov...-up-chilling-theory-about-why-it-blew-off-wsj
https://www.thedailybeast.com/recov...-up-chilling-theory-about-why-it-blew-off-wsj
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01...-defects-ignored-aviation-regulator/103400468
Sobering reading
Geoff
Sobering reading
Geoff
Laugh all you want, but a flexible wing that has no external flight surfaces and dynamic curvature would be a Holy Grail.
Have you ever seen the many moving surfaces on a wing? They all cause drag.
A flexible wing could be programmed holistically, so the pilots don't need to worry about adjusting flaps, leading edges, etc... they would just fly the plane and the onboard avionics would "twist" the wing according to programmed heuristics: part of flight, mission parameters, altitude, velocity, pitch, yaw, engine settings, etc... the only part that would remain "external" are the airbrakes -as their job is to create drag after all.
If only the engines could be moved out of the wing's airflow... The deHavilland Comet was on the right track with that... so was the Concorde.
BTW, the Wright Brothers had a flexible wing.
Last edited:
"The company has taken shortcuts across all aircraft programs," Mr Pierson alleged to the ABC.
"The rationale, as I've been told, is that if you have less quality control inspections, you can move the product down the line faster and produce more aeroplanes. But those quality control inspections were there for a reason."
If I were in Boeing management, I sure wouldn't be sober right now.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.