I read $5bn but of course really depends what was counted in and out. For example over $1bn on factory expansions. Also I think that was the first use of CATIA in Boeing and IIRC from my areospace days that was 250k a seat (but so cool for the time). Either way that would be $13bn in 2024 dollars. What I couldn't find was a comparable cost for the 787 which has been a serious money sink*.
If I have my history right 777 was one of the last 'old Boeing' aircraft before the borg came along and the 787 was one of the first afterwards?
Edit: *I think I found something that suggests 787 has cost Boeing 7x as much as the 777 but not calculations for me to furtle around in.
Last edited:
Me neither. I'd be at the beach sipping rum knowing that my dismissal would result in an even bigger bank account.
InterestingLY, CATIA is a French outfit and came out of Dassault in 1981
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATIA
I watched a TV show on the 777 dev where they were showing 3D rendered parts and discussing fit and tolerances etc using it.
BAe used CATIA for satellite design. Ate some 90% of the site IT budget as mainframe based. But was the first fully integrated CADCAM system I was exposed to.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATIA
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATIA
OUCH!
The Vickers VC-10, as well as more famous airliners such as the Caravelle, DC-9 and B727, had their engines mounted on the tail so that the wing could provide better performance. The VC-10 had particularly good take-off performance on shorter runways.
As with most engineering matters, you don't get something for nothing: there are issues with having the engines in the wings, a la Comet/Nimrod, Vulcan etc. Firstly, maintenance is a little harder than with a pod mounted engine. Pod mounts can make it easier to change the make and model of engine, as seen in the KC (Boeing 707) tankers which replaced their turbojets with turbofans. Secondly, an engine failure with bits flying everywhere is less easily contained inside a wing than in a pod: the Comet actually had armour plate around parts of the engines for that reason.
Most early aircraft had flexible wings instead of ailerons, they used 'wing warping' to bank the machine; not terribly precise and soon replaced by ailerons.
If airliner wings don't flex, then you worry!
Geoff
I wonder about the ground safety of that thing, if the blades extend down to, let's say, within 8 feet of the ground. People and other things have been sucked into engine intakes of current aircraft. The latest story I heard about seems to have been intentional, but still ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/26/texas-airport-worker-jet-engine-suicide
https://www.quora.com/Has-a-human-ever-been-sucked-into-a-commercial-jet-engine
I hope so but I'll believe it when I see it. And anyway, C levels at any large company are millionaires many times over. They're set for life. Getting fired is a "whatever" for them. They'll just play more golf.
You just described every single company in the US that isn't "mom and pop" sized.
AFAIC these eggheads (who all seem to think exactly alike) have been very instrumental in destroying any semblance of integrity in all industries across the board. And having worked in the financial industry during the 2008 meltdown, I can say that it was thinking like this that tanked the market and ultimately caused a few trillion dollars to evaporate.
And they're doing it again, exactly like before. And the flunkies push solar energy door to door with the mentality that they're going to sell you their solar service whether you want it or not. It's disgraceful.
Competence is no longer a virtue. People like me are a pariah in the workplace now.
This ^^^ is the destruction of capitalism. A quick review of capitalism: customers vote with their wallet and that's how you live and die. Strive to be the best and you'll be financially rewarded.
America now: there is no need to be the best, not even good. After you muck it up, you'll get bailed out. Plus, since all your competitors are equally crappy, customers don't have a reason to leave you for something better.
America now: there is no need to be the best, not even good. After you muck it up, you'll get bailed out. Plus, since all your competitors are equally crappy, customers don't have a reason to leave you for something better.
Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich.
That is where we are today.
That is where we are today.
From my take on Juan’s video, it’s the 737’s lack of auto control of the engine de-icing function on the latest generation of LEAP engines - something that is standard on newer generations of airliners - and the conflicting instructions on when and for how long to manually engage them that represents the real risk.
Not green lighting the 797/NMA is looking more and more like a huge effen miscalculation?
Not green lighting the 797/NMA is looking more and more like a huge effen miscalculation?
Taking shortcuts all over the place is the miscalculation. Given how the company operates, how confident are we that a 797 wouldn't be even worse?
Sorry, do I understand this right: The certification process prohibits this fault to be fixed by some simple addition to the parts in question? So, if only an automated heating function was retrofited, the plane was not allowed to be build on the same certification? Even if it was only a software fix and and a different lamp in the cockpit?
So in reality it is not the construction which is the problem, but the unflexible certification. Such a bureaucracy pushes manufacturers to NOT FIX problems they find in their planes. Let us be realistic, a modern plane is much to complicated to be build 100% fault free and not any problem can be found in testing prior to production. A team of real specialist should be able to decide what a change on one system has on others. Punishing manufacturers for improving products makes no sense.
Maybe Boeing has become more interested in pleasing the certification bureau than buildin safe planes and keep them safe, just because these guys are not competent enough (any more)? So they know of problems and just pray nothing happens, because honesty and fixing problems would cost them billions?
In the automobile industry retrofixes are a constant occurence. If in case of a minor, possible defect, all cars of a certain type would be prohibited to drive and the manufacturer had to pay rental cars for the owners, what would happen in this industry? If any improvement in the production process makes the car illegal to sell, what would that mean?
Back to planes, in times of online connected systems, it should be very simple to find which plane needs a fix first and keep the rest in the air until the next service. Punishing fixes by revocing certifications for planed planes sounds ridiculous.
In the end this boils down to the problem that not Boeing engineers decide how planes are build, but technical incompetend accountants, fixated on cost cutting, which ignore airplane safety. So Boeing can not be trusted any more to build safe planes, which expands the need for some external, dead slow, incompetent state bureaucracy, to check the whole construction. Which, once checked, can not be changed. Seems a little bit crazy.
On the other hand, this means no Chinese build plane will ever fly in the US, right? As anything in China is a state secret, how can someone check these planes for safety? While Boeing seems to loose technological competence, China never had any, but is world champion in cost cutting. Which basically is similar to corruption if you think it over.
So in reality it is not the construction which is the problem, but the unflexible certification. Such a bureaucracy pushes manufacturers to NOT FIX problems they find in their planes. Let us be realistic, a modern plane is much to complicated to be build 100% fault free and not any problem can be found in testing prior to production. A team of real specialist should be able to decide what a change on one system has on others. Punishing manufacturers for improving products makes no sense.
Maybe Boeing has become more interested in pleasing the certification bureau than buildin safe planes and keep them safe, just because these guys are not competent enough (any more)? So they know of problems and just pray nothing happens, because honesty and fixing problems would cost them billions?
In the automobile industry retrofixes are a constant occurence. If in case of a minor, possible defect, all cars of a certain type would be prohibited to drive and the manufacturer had to pay rental cars for the owners, what would happen in this industry? If any improvement in the production process makes the car illegal to sell, what would that mean?
Back to planes, in times of online connected systems, it should be very simple to find which plane needs a fix first and keep the rest in the air until the next service. Punishing fixes by revocing certifications for planed planes sounds ridiculous.
In the end this boils down to the problem that not Boeing engineers decide how planes are build, but technical incompetend accountants, fixated on cost cutting, which ignore airplane safety. So Boeing can not be trusted any more to build safe planes, which expands the need for some external, dead slow, incompetent state bureaucracy, to check the whole construction. Which, once checked, can not be changed. Seems a little bit crazy.
On the other hand, this means no Chinese build plane will ever fly in the US, right? As anything in China is a state secret, how can someone check these planes for safety? While Boeing seems to loose technological competence, China never had any, but is world champion in cost cutting. Which basically is similar to corruption if you think it over.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.