777x woes
The B777X will probably be the new Jumbo jet when it eventually gets into service, it will replace the B747/A380 with a twin engine modern aircraft having lower running costs. Pushing the entry into service date back a few years would give Boeing time to address all its issues and present a safe, thoroughly checked aircraft to its customers when the travel market recovers in 2024.
At that time it would be a decent option for airlines looking to replace their A340/A380s and B747s which were grounded during COVID and may not be worth bringing back given the expense of operating quad jets with a limited life remaining.
At that time it would be a decent option for airlines looking to replace their A340/A380s and B747s which were grounded during COVID and may not be worth bringing back given the expense of operating quad jets with a limited life remaining.
On any significant long haul run, for a given total seat count/day fewer big twin engine airplanes make more profits than more smaller twin engine aircraft. For that reason there will be a future significant market for 777X sized aircraft. The challenge for Boeing is not to Fu*k it up like they did the MAX. Early signs are not promising.....
Amazing to look at the original 777 programme and compare it to the absolute proverbial show that everything Boeing have done these last 10 years or more has been. I remember when they broke the machinist and engineering unions, started the factory in Charlston to undercut the Ts & Cs of their Washington staff, cut every financial corner possible, it all added up to ruin what was once the company the rest of the world envied. When you treat your staff as the enemy, the best and brightest of them won't stay around for long...
Didn't the board cut the development budget of the 787 by a couple of billion, only to have the cascade of problems that ensued end up costing multiples of the original budget? Even before the issues over the last 12 months affecting the 787, they hoped at best to just about break even on the programme with the current order book.
They built pretty much the best airliner of all time in the original 777, and got it certified damn quick too. It's depressing to see what they have become.
Didn't the board cut the development budget of the 787 by a couple of billion, only to have the cascade of problems that ensued end up costing multiples of the original budget? Even before the issues over the last 12 months affecting the 787, they hoped at best to just about break even on the programme with the current order book.
They built pretty much the best airliner of all time in the original 777, and got it certified damn quick too. It's depressing to see what they have become.
Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 4th Jul 2021 at 16:30.
Una Due Tfc
The original 777 had its fair share of issues too. I worked on the 777 Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) in the late 90s. We had entire ship sets of the ultrasonic probes for the aircraft already in service back for rework/replacement. Most new models of aircraft will have components which don't have same performance, reliability or life as those further down the production run.
The original 777 had its fair share of issues too. I worked on the 777 Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) in the late 90s. We had entire ship sets of the ultrasonic probes for the aircraft already in service back for rework/replacement. Most new models of aircraft will have components which don't have same performance, reliability or life as those further down the production run.
Aircraft development routinely includes design problems and challenges. The original 777 certification was probably the most challenging, complex and yet supremely successful and as far as I know unequalled. The 777 service bears that out as well. It was a different, pre-1995, Boeing then. Blessed with world-class technical and engineering talent. Highly experienced, the envy of the aviation world. Boeing still possesses many great engineers, but it’s not the company it once was.
Mechta
"The original 777 had its fair share of issues too. I worked on the 777 Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) in the late 90s. We had entire ship sets of the ultrasonic probes for the aircraft already in service back for rework/replacement. Most new models of aircraft will have components which don't have same performance, reliability or life as those further down the production run.."
Yes, you could replace 777 with just about any airliner developed in the last 60 years, and the above statement would still hold true, That's just the nature of certification and service entry.
"The original 777 had its fair share of issues too. I worked on the 777 Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) in the late 90s. We had entire ship sets of the ultrasonic probes for the aircraft already in service back for rework/replacement. Most new models of aircraft will have components which don't have same performance, reliability or life as those further down the production run.."
Yes, you could replace 777 with just about any airliner developed in the last 60 years, and the above statement would still hold true, That's just the nature of certification and service entry.
I was in the middle of the original 777 design, and it did seem like a train wreck to those of us involved. AIMS and the FQIS were both very, very bad early on (FQIS used a new technology for measuring the fuel levels in the tank and it had more than it's share of teething problems). I was responsible for the engine running functional test and so spent many hours on the first aircraft (WA001) between initial engine runs and first flight, monitoring engine ground runs. At one point, we'd run engines (sometimes at power) for several hours before the engine run guys took a meal break. When we got back on the aircraft, the FQIS reported we had 20,000 lbs more fuel on board than when we'd started running engines hours earlier 
.
During another engine run functional test, we took a break and a young fresh faced Electrical Engineer was talking to his lead and asked if 'the 747-400 electrical system had ever been this bad'. His lead (a good friend) looked him straight in the eye and responded "the 747-400 electrical system is still this bad".
.During another engine run functional test, we took a break and a young fresh faced Electrical Engineer was talking to his lead and asked if 'the 747-400 electrical system had ever been this bad'. His lead (a good friend) looked him straight in the eye and responded "the 747-400 electrical system is still this bad".
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
5 Posts
Just reading a magazine article about the ODA issue.
I found this interesting: ".......the percentage of work delegated to the ODA's - measured in certification plans and deliverables within each plan - routinely tops 90% and has for years. The FAA estimated that more than 95% of certification work on the 747-400 program was delegated, a 1993 US government report said."
A different article regarding certification costs said: "The certifications costs alone on a small business jet or a small regional aircraft programs runs about $10 million per month, while larger model aircraft can cost four times that amount."
$40 million per month.
I found this interesting: ".......the percentage of work delegated to the ODA's - measured in certification plans and deliverables within each plan - routinely tops 90% and has for years. The FAA estimated that more than 95% of certification work on the 747-400 program was delegated, a 1993 US government report said."
A different article regarding certification costs said: "The certifications costs alone on a small business jet or a small regional aircraft programs runs about $10 million per month, while larger model aircraft can cost four times that amount."
$40 million per month.
Originally Posted by Jonty
Boeing dropped them in the 
with the MAX, the FAA are in payback mode!
with the MAX, the FAA are in payback mode!Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After the 787 development drama (2002-2011), industry & congress stood shoulder to shoulder to streamline FAA aircraft certification. To speed up the process, reduce bureaucracy and strengthen the competitive position of the US industry.The worlds airlines were ordering NEO's like there was no limit and loyal 777 customers were ordering A350s in big numbers. The pressure was on. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...rc-4202012.pdf
FAA was forced to comply, their budget re-authorizations by Congress being held hostage since 2012. Targets were being based on this streamlining and responsibility delegation by the FAA. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-508t-highlights.pdf. Boeing had the FAA in the pocket & felt invincible.. Boosted by their record orders, stock prices, and clear political support. A wining mood. Afterwards Senate & Congress faulted FAA oversight of Boeing (*!?$!)
The 777x certification strategy (certify as a 777-300ER derivative, the "changed product rule") approval, amazed many already in 2014. FAA to Fast Track Boeing 777X Certification | Frequent Business Traveler.
The 777x has new wings, engines, landings gears, tails, cockpit and systems. The fuselage has different length, load patterns, door locations, window structure. -> A new aircraft really..
The unexpected fuselage rupture during 777x ultimate load testing, has focused investigators on the used certification strategy. Changed Product Rules (e.g., 14 CFR §§ 21.19 & 21.101) and associated guidance (e.g., Advisory Circular 21.101-1B and FAA Orders 8110.4C and 8110.48A) should be revised to require a top-down approach. Whereby every change is evaluated from an integrated whole aircraft system perspective. As advised by international experts: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...Control_System
-> That means no patching while using reliability numbers of the previous design, when those are not representative. Or they are based on grandfathered design and requirements.
Another, more objective look was taken on new to be certified aircraft (777-9, 737-10, 737-7). Now FAA requires full compliance and is less vulnerable to the political / industrial pressure of the previous decade.
The politicians who pushed for relaxation, exemptions and delegation in the 2012-2018 period, are keeping low profiles now, want to look forward. With just a few brave exceptions..
FAA was forced to comply, their budget re-authorizations by Congress being held hostage since 2012. Targets were being based on this streamlining and responsibility delegation by the FAA. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-508t-highlights.pdf. Boeing had the FAA in the pocket & felt invincible.. Boosted by their record orders, stock prices, and clear political support. A wining mood. Afterwards Senate & Congress faulted FAA oversight of Boeing (*!?$!)
The 777x certification strategy (certify as a 777-300ER derivative, the "changed product rule") approval, amazed many already in 2014. FAA to Fast Track Boeing 777X Certification | Frequent Business Traveler.
The 777x has new wings, engines, landings gears, tails, cockpit and systems. The fuselage has different length, load patterns, door locations, window structure. -> A new aircraft really..
The unexpected fuselage rupture during 777x ultimate load testing, has focused investigators on the used certification strategy. Changed Product Rules (e.g., 14 CFR §§ 21.19 & 21.101) and associated guidance (e.g., Advisory Circular 21.101-1B and FAA Orders 8110.4C and 8110.48A) should be revised to require a top-down approach. Whereby every change is evaluated from an integrated whole aircraft system perspective. As advised by international experts: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...Control_System
-> That means no patching while using reliability numbers of the previous design, when those are not representative. Or they are based on grandfathered design and requirements.
Another, more objective look was taken on new to be certified aircraft (777-9, 737-10, 737-7). Now FAA requires full compliance and is less vulnerable to the political / industrial pressure of the previous decade.
The politicians who pushed for relaxation, exemptions and delegation in the 2012-2018 period, are keeping low profiles now, want to look forward. With just a few brave exceptions..
Last edited by keesje; 10th Oct 2022 at 15:04. Reason: spelling, odd sentences ;)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 54
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B777X will probably be the new Jumbo jet when it eventually gets into service, it will replace the B747/A380 with a twin engine modern aircraft having lower running costs. Pushing the entry into service date back a few years would give Boeing time to address all its issues and present a safe, thoroughly checked aircraft to its customers when the travel market recovers in 2024.
At that time it would be a decent option for airlines looking to replace their A340/A380s and B747s which were grounded during COVID and may not be worth bringing back given the expense of operating quad jets with a limited life remaining.
At that time it would be a decent option for airlines looking to replace their A340/A380s and B747s which were grounded during COVID and may not be worth bringing back given the expense of operating quad jets with a limited life remaining.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing halts 777-9 flight testing following GE9X engine issue
https://www.flightglobal.com/airfram...151175.articleDetails unclear but apparently after a borescope of a GE9X core, heat related findings serious enough to check all engines & halt flight testing came up.
I talked to a buddy a few days ago who is currently working the 777X (specifically the -8F). I asked him why the program was taking so long. For a while it was 'all hands-on-deck' to fix the MAX, later on the same thing to get 787 deliveries going again. So resources were directed away from the 777X - but now that stuff is pretty much handled, what were the holdups?
He said the FAA was establishing all sorts of new requirements for cert - but hadn't figured out how to implement them yet. So it was being pretty much made up as they went...
Somehow I don't think this is going to be an improvement. 
He said the FAA was establishing all sorts of new requirements for cert - but hadn't figured out how to implement them yet. So it was being pretty much made up as they went...
Somehow I don't think this is going to be an improvement. 
