Please bear in mind that American workers are highly unionized, which makes it difficult at times for disciplinary action to be taken.
If you want a fentanyl crazed assembly line worker on duty ....think that over...
Chinese workers are paid much less per hour than American and European workers, so are the company bosses and medium management, that also counts on the product price.
And they tend to go for volumes and self reliance.
As far as ability is concerned, they are quite up to date in composite structures, see their Y-8 and Y-9 aircraft, C-130 class machines with a huge amount of composites in the structures, all developed in China, engines were Pratt & Whitney Canada, now maybe licensed and made there.
If you want a fentanyl crazed assembly line worker on duty ....think that over...
Chinese workers are paid much less per hour than American and European workers, so are the company bosses and medium management, that also counts on the product price.
And they tend to go for volumes and self reliance.
As far as ability is concerned, they are quite up to date in composite structures, see their Y-8 and Y-9 aircraft, C-130 class machines with a huge amount of composites in the structures, all developed in China, engines were Pratt & Whitney Canada, now maybe licensed and made there.
Union membership is 10%, the lowest in decades. Contrary to "difficult at times disciplinary action to be taken" most states are at-will employment, where workers can be let go at any time for any reason, modulo protected classes.
The Y-8 is a derivative of an Antonov design (An-12), with assistance from Lockheed engineers on wind tunnel and flight testing. More here
The Y-8 is a derivative of an Antonov design (An-12), with assistance from Lockheed engineers on wind tunnel and flight testing. More here
Read the article fully...
Later Antonov people came and improved the design, and a further evolution / successor is the Y-9.
My point is that China now has the facility and ability to make large structures for aircraft frames in composite materials, so they can come and compete with the 787 and other similar technology aircraft.
Their quoted prices are about 40% of Boeing, and from the bill of materials, it is not a cheat price.
The Chinese are a bigger danger than Airbus for Boeing.
Later Antonov people came and improved the design, and a further evolution / successor is the Y-9.
My point is that China now has the facility and ability to make large structures for aircraft frames in composite materials, so they can come and compete with the 787 and other similar technology aircraft.
Their quoted prices are about 40% of Boeing, and from the bill of materials, it is not a cheat price.
The Chinese are a bigger danger than Airbus for Boeing.
Bonsai, was the head hold a compliment or a an indication that I was wrong?
I have seen for years that China is moving from a labor intensive assembly line style of work to the design stage, the Y-8 and -9 were gradually converted to high levels of use of composite material in the structure, the overall project was handled by Chinese scientists, the outsiders were consultants.
So as and when (not if) they start competing with Boeing and Airbus, they will be a formidable adversary.
I have seen for years that China is moving from a labor intensive assembly line style of work to the design stage, the Y-8 and -9 were gradually converted to high levels of use of composite material in the structure, the overall project was handled by Chinese scientists, the outsiders were consultants.
So as and when (not if) they start competing with Boeing and Airbus, they will be a formidable adversary.
At the world of advanced composite design/construction, everyone knows everyone. At this technical area, space/military/commercial aviation are interlinked. The consultancy is provided by a few small teams to all the major players.
George
Other members here with more extensive and closer association with the industry in general and Boeing in particular could comment, but IINM, the NMA was a clean sheet design to replace several retired types - including the 757 - rather than a Frankenjet.
All due respect to the engineers attempting to meet the goals at each of the numerous stages of the evolution of the 737, and it should be noted that many warned of the shortcomings of the cost constrained design choices.
“Redundancy in an attitude warning system? Specifically advising of new automatic flight control system and providing even tablet based instructions on its use and engagement features? Now, why would we do that?”
Or am I just being cynical and unfair to the CPA/MBA class, whose primary directive is to maximize market valuation and shareholders’ profits?
There are some products where reliability ( not breaking down) and robustness ( ability to safely handle break downs ) are the primary criteria... Airliners and Internetworking equipment come to mind.
If you build airliners that are safe ( reliable ) and provide the tools and training for the crews ( robustness ) then you will sell and make money.
If you build networking equipment that is robust and reliable ( here's seeing the Lucent 5ESS fiasco in the Chicago metro area ) you will sell and make money.
Sales and Marketing wants to sell planes, but they will push to lower the price to make more sales. The Engineers will push back if the configuration is not reliable and/or robust. The job of Management is to ensure that neither side goes too far. In the case of airliners and internetworking equipment, the Management should understand engineering and the pure MBA/Accountant class is not.
IMHO, MBA/Accountants should also be a "helper" group, not The Management.
Once upon a time, I was working out a financial contract for a vendor product that we were thinking of using in our own product... I told the vendor that "sometimes you got to spend money to make money". I was right, the vendor understood it too and so he gave us some upfront freebees and we went on to qualify his product and issue a big contract to his company.
My contact at the vendor was an engineer who had gotten an MBA. He understood the processes of R&D and manufacturing very well.
A pure MBA/Accountant would have stuck by the $100K they wanted up front to support our qualification... and that would have killed using that product as we had two other alternative vendors who were willing to do it for free... even though we really didn't feel their products were as good in the long term.
So, by giving us $100K up front, he got himself a manufacturing contract worth in the 8 figures. He was a dollar wise.
The fools at Boeing's HQ are a penny wise but a dollar foolish. Typical short sighted accountants and sales...
If you build airliners that are safe ( reliable ) and provide the tools and training for the crews ( robustness ) then you will sell and make money.
If you build networking equipment that is robust and reliable ( here's seeing the Lucent 5ESS fiasco in the Chicago metro area ) you will sell and make money.
Sales and Marketing wants to sell planes, but they will push to lower the price to make more sales. The Engineers will push back if the configuration is not reliable and/or robust. The job of Management is to ensure that neither side goes too far. In the case of airliners and internetworking equipment, the Management should understand engineering and the pure MBA/Accountant class is not.
IMHO, MBA/Accountants should also be a "helper" group, not The Management.
Once upon a time, I was working out a financial contract for a vendor product that we were thinking of using in our own product... I told the vendor that "sometimes you got to spend money to make money". I was right, the vendor understood it too and so he gave us some upfront freebees and we went on to qualify his product and issue a big contract to his company.
My contact at the vendor was an engineer who had gotten an MBA. He understood the processes of R&D and manufacturing very well.
A pure MBA/Accountant would have stuck by the $100K they wanted up front to support our qualification... and that would have killed using that product as we had two other alternative vendors who were willing to do it for free... even though we really didn't feel their products were as good in the long term.
So, by giving us $100K up front, he got himself a manufacturing contract worth in the 8 figures. He was a dollar wise.
The fools at Boeing's HQ are a penny wise but a dollar foolish. Typical short sighted accountants and sales...
Last edited:
My point was that a company operating like Boeing is, can make just as much of a mess out of a clean sheet design.
China has no doubt come along in leaps and bounds. I worked with engineers from China for 20 years and lived in Taiwan and China in semiconductors. Most countries very jealously guard their aerospace industries. But, everyone except Airbus and the European defense and jet engine manufacturers (UK and France) has a long, long way to catch up with the US in this industry. Boeing is struggling right now, not because they are not good at aerospace engineering, but because the company has been corrupted by stock market jockeys. It may be that the damage is so great that Boeing will not recover - I don't know. But, outside of their recent troubles, Boeing has one hell of a legacy in both commercial and military aviation. Further, Western jet engines typically go 1000 hours between services - other geographies are still on 100-200 hours. And the technology associated with aero power plants (P&W, RR, SNECMA et al) is very carefully guarded because it has taken decades to accumulate that know-how and no one is going to hand that over to anyone else. And, the US put men on the moon 50 years ago and has single-handedly populated Mars with perambulating robots. No one else has come close. So, let us recognize these accomplishments, despite the emotion everyone feels about the state of Boeing right now.
Bonsai, the new Chinese and Russian jets seem to use Western engines, and local air frames...they will come closer to state of the art over a period of time.
The Russians have very good metallurgy and design capability, the passenger jet engines are not so big a priority for them, as fuel is cheap for them...
I met an Army officer in a train from Delhi to Hyderabad, he was in charge of an anti aircraft unit, so I said which engines on the generators...he said (local) Ruston and Kirloskar needed overhaul at 4000 hours, the Soviet ones needed tappet setting at that run time.
They used hard on hard metallurgy on the bore and rings, fuel consumption was terrible, but the engines never failed.
In jet engines, some of the rolling action (ball / roller) bearings are made in High Speed Steel, basically a steel class used in cutting tools for lathes and mills, as they used to run about 30,000 rpm...this is old information.
A company in Hyderabad will make jet engine parts for GE, they will have to give technology locally, as the big aviation growth will take place in India and China, and the people who will not cooperate will lose business...money talks to the dumbest.
Boeing is making air frames, and the electronics, hydraulics and engines are purchased from suppliers...if that is done by Chinese suppliers building air frames and fitting engines from IAE /GE/P&W, Boeing cannot interfere.
And there will come a time when the suppliers will say bye bye to Boeing because the rivals' orders are larger...
The Russians have very good metallurgy and design capability, the passenger jet engines are not so big a priority for them, as fuel is cheap for them...
I met an Army officer in a train from Delhi to Hyderabad, he was in charge of an anti aircraft unit, so I said which engines on the generators...he said (local) Ruston and Kirloskar needed overhaul at 4000 hours, the Soviet ones needed tappet setting at that run time.
They used hard on hard metallurgy on the bore and rings, fuel consumption was terrible, but the engines never failed.
In jet engines, some of the rolling action (ball / roller) bearings are made in High Speed Steel, basically a steel class used in cutting tools for lathes and mills, as they used to run about 30,000 rpm...this is old information.
A company in Hyderabad will make jet engine parts for GE, they will have to give technology locally, as the big aviation growth will take place in India and China, and the people who will not cooperate will lose business...money talks to the dumbest.
Boeing is making air frames, and the electronics, hydraulics and engines are purchased from suppliers...if that is done by Chinese suppliers building air frames and fitting engines from IAE /GE/P&W, Boeing cannot interfere.
And there will come a time when the suppliers will say bye bye to Boeing because the rivals' orders are larger...
Last edited:
@NareshBrd
Airplane manufacturers are a consortium... the manufacturer designs the aircraft and breaks down components, with strict requirements and acceptance criteria to a set of first tier vendors ( very similar to an automaker ).
But, the aircraft per se, wings, fuselage, engine interface... the flight behavior, performance, etc... is entirely done by the airplane manufacturer, not the vendors.
Boeing is not going away.
Airplane manufacturers are a consortium... the manufacturer designs the aircraft and breaks down components, with strict requirements and acceptance criteria to a set of first tier vendors ( very similar to an automaker ).
But, the aircraft per se, wings, fuselage, engine interface... the flight behavior, performance, etc... is entirely done by the airplane manufacturer, not the vendors.
Boeing is not going away.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.