MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

[groundbum]

said suppliers could be pointing out to Boeing that exclusivity contracts are based on Boeing actually buying items, and with production rates the way they are, or could be, it could be the suppliers are getting a little restless.

G

[Water pilot]

The only way the US government and financial sectors would be able to stop Boeing from going under after another crash, would be to so heavily subsidise its products, that airlines have no choice but to buy them. Boeing would then be effectively a state-aided nationalised company in all but name.

Well, to be honest that is not too far off of the current situation. $8.7 billion in tax subsidies from Washington state alone (after removing their headquarters to another state), which of course pales compared to the $27 billion they get in revenues from defense contracts, and that is nothing compared to $64 billion in federal loans and loan guarantees. Don't fear for the survival of Boeing, commercial aviation accounts for somewhat more than half of their revenue but they could dump the commercial division and still have a pretty nice company by anybody's standards.

[krismiler]

And yet Boeing complain about Airbus being subsided ?

Many parts of an airliner these days aren’t specific to a single type or would need minor modifications, engines, APU, brakes, FMS, AVIONICS, cabin interiors, galleys, lavatories etc can easily be outsourced. The fuselage, wings and tail you need your own design for but I doubt anyone would be wanting to copy too much of the B737 design given its age and recent record.

Back in the 1960s, virtually ever British car manufacturer had its bodies made by a company called “Pressed Steel”, this was bought by the British Motor Corporation which then had all its rivals secrets.

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by krismiler

And yet Boeing complain about Airbus being subsided ?

That's the game, try everything to hinder your rival's progress.
Especially when your engineering is lagging behind...

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by krismiler

Many parts of an airliner these days aren’t specific to a single type or would need minor modifications, engines, APU, brakes, FMS, AVIONICS, cabin interiors, galleys, lavatories etc can easily be outsourced. The fuselage, wings and tail you need your own design for but I doubt anyone would be wanting to copy too much of the B737 design given its age and recent record.

The landing gears, for instance, are no longer designed by the airframe manufacturer. Safran designed most Airbus gears, as well as those of the 787.
So it maybe that the OEM has industrial secrets, not Boeing or Airbus.

[neville_nobody]

That's the game, try everything to hinder your rival's progress. Especially when your engineering is lagging behind...

Exactly. Just look how they handled the CSeries when US airlines started buying it over 737s.

[Speed of Sound]

Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt

The landing gears, for instance, are no longer designed by the airframe manufacturer. Safran designed most Airbus gears, as well as those of the 787.
So it maybe that the OEM has industrial secrets, not Boeing or Airbus.

Although Boeing and Airbus would need every technical detail of those parts, including manufacturing and source material specifications, for certification purposes.

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by Speed of Sound

Although Boeing and Airbus would need every technical detail of those parts, including manufacturing and source material specifications, for certification purposes.

In my opinion, the certification agency would need that, not the airframe "client".
Boeing or Airbus provide the specs : geometry, resistance, etc.
The landing gear manufacturer do the design and certification job through his certified manufacturing facilities and expertise.
Think of installing a certified Garmin GPS appliance in a TC aircraft, for instance.
The product is certified, 'DO-160ed' etc

[Lake1952]

https://airlinerwatch.com/faa-to-begin-flight-tests-with-the-737-max-in-october/

I would have thought this was an ongoing process.

[krismiler]

Basically then, an aircraft manufacturer approaches specialist equipment suppliers with a description of their requirements and sees if they are currently producing anything suitable. If not, then would they be willing to design and supply something new in return for a commitment of a minimum number of orders or sole supplier status.

A modern commercial airliner is far too involved to be built by a single entity. Airbus and Boeing simply couldn't produce everything in house as it would be too expensive to develop the expertise to match outside suppliers who have been concentrating on a single area, such as landing gear or brakes for the last fifty years.

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by krismiler

Basically then, an aircraft manufacturer approaches specialist equipment suppliers with a description of their requirements and sees if they are currently producing anything suitable. If not, then would they be willing to design and supply something new in return for a commitment of a minimum number of orders or sole supplier status.

A modern commercial airliner is far too involved to be built by a single entity. Airbus and Boeing simply couldn't produce everything in house as it would be too expensive to develop the expertise to match outside suppliers who have been concentrating on a single area, such as landing gear or brakes for the last fifty years.

I don't think A or B have an 'in house'. Components have always been outsourced engines tires etc. But it is more than that the major factories become assembly lines more than construction, with all the parts for the kit being shipped in. So what is needed is space to build the factory and a local workforce that can carry out aero-engineering. Enter the politicians both real and the ones in management with MBAs. They will decide where assembly lines will be placed based on geopolitical considerations. Airbus has assembly lines in the USA for example and Boeing has a plant in China ironically building 737-Max, GE/Safran has engine factories in China. These sourcing/outsourcing and assembly line placing deals are all seen as ways of securing or increasing sales of 'locally built' aircraft and making local politicians wary of rocking the boat that provides jobs to their constituents in what is an extremely narrow market.

[Speed of Sound]

Originally Posted by Ian W

These sourcing/outsourcing and assembly line placing deals are all seen as ways of securing or increasing sales of 'locally built' aircraft and making local politicians wary of rocking the boat that provides jobs to their constituents in what is an extremely narrow market.

Or in the case of Boeing in Charleston SC, to de-skill and de-unionise the workforce.

[esscee]

Heard that before regarding assembly line at Charleston. Even as far as some people working there would not fly on any particular aircraft assembled there. Seems strange statement to make, however if they are have the proof of that then everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by Ian W

Components have always been outsourced engines tires etc.

Just to complement, even before WWII, components like pumps, filters, fittings, instruments, electric motors, propellers were outsourced and certified by their respective manufacturers.

[Speed of Sound]

Originally Posted by esscee

Heard that before regarding assembly line at Charleston. Even as far as some people working there would not fly on any particular aircraft assembled there. Seems strange statement to make, however if they are have the proof of that then everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Supervisors there were told that they could not reject substandard parts from subcontractors and would therefore have to ‘make them fit’ which in most cases meant re-drilling misaligned holes or bashing parts with a hammer.

So yes, if I worked there, I would think twice about anyone I cared about flying on any aircraft assembled there.

[Loose rivets]

Lucas lighting sets . . . oh.

Boeing has been fixing the stall-prevention system (MCAS) of the aircraft, which was concluded to be the cause of both crashes.

Here we go again. Stall Prevention. "Not really, but sort of". Cause of both crashes. Really? The data coming from that single system was it seems, causal, but the bizarre fact is that it was two quite unrelated facets of that system that initiated the crisis.

[Longtimer]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-fraud-460532/

[Water pilot]

Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt

Just to complement, even before WWII, components like pumps, filters, fittings, instruments, electric motors, propellers were outsourced and certified by their respective manufacturers.

Yes, but in World War II they didn't have problems getting paid. If you were to put yourself in the shoes of a supplier who has to pay for the raw materials 30 days after delivery, but whose customer will not pay for 120 days you can see how at the very least quality could suffer, and at worst how suppliers could go out of business -- these same suppliers who are supposed to be holding the parts. This means, by the way, that instead of having to carry the bill for two months you have to carry the bill indefinitely. Imagine that I order five planes from Boeing on the condition that they build 20 more planes and keep them in a hangar just in case I decide that I need to buy some more.

One could imagine that a company who made this sort of super intelligent decision to maximize their cash flow might find that they had a shortage of parts on the floor, as well as a shortage of suppliers willing (or able) to supply them.

Boeing Co is stepping up efforts to conserve cash, cut costs in its supply chain and trim inventory of parts in its factories, while telling vendors that it will take longer to pay bills, Boeing and aerospace industry executives said. Under the new terms, Boeing is taking up to 120 days to pay, rather than 30 days in the past, these people said. The new payment schedules are being rolled out this year. Boeing is reducing its factory inventory and relying on suppliers to hold parts instead, these people said. These moves come at a time when investors are closely watching Boeing's cash flow.

By the way, I am not a supplier or anything like that, just a water rat who hears things on the Seattle waterfront. What Boeing was doing was an example of how to boost the stock in the short term, a technique that I became familiar with when working for a company that was often on the verge of bankruptcy back in the wild west days of the tech industry. (We played the game and got bit by it when a huge customer bought a bunch of multimillion-dollar machines and paid for them on net-never.) You haven't really improved your cash flow, you have simply shifted your liabilities to your suppliers in the short term. 90 days does come eventually.

[cooperplace]

Originally Posted by esscee

Heard that before regarding assembly line at Charleston. Even as far as some people working there would not fly on any particular aircraft assembled there. Seems strange statement to make,

Really? Do you care to elaborate on their reasons? Maybe they feel their employer works them too hard? Or are there reports of poor quality? or something else?

[krismiler]

This could open the floodgates, how many other airlines have ordered and received the MAX or have unfulfilled orders for the aircraft but had routes and timetables already in place based on its arrival on a specific date ? The Lawyers must be rubbing their hands at the thought of the potential fees.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection might be the next step as there is no way Boeing could pay out for all the lost income airlines have suffered due to the grounding.