Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

777x woes

Old 4th Jul 2021, 01:13
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,529
Received 45 Likes on 27 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.
krismiler is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2021, 01:31
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,169
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
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.....
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2021, 15:15
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,389
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
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.

Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 4th Jul 2021 at 15:30.
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2021, 23:55
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,529
Received 45 Likes on 27 Posts
krismiler is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2021, 16:22
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: At home
Posts: 1,232
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
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.
Mechta is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 02:54
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,069
Received 151 Likes on 53 Posts
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.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 06:28
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,784
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 06:40
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
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".

tdracer is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 05:20
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,083
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
tdracer

Well
you can’t just leave that last statement out there !
Care to elaborate ?
stilton is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2021, 01:15
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,529
Received 45 Likes on 27 Posts
Now the FAA aren't happy with the flight manuals. Obviously it doesn't pay to get on the wrong side of your industry's regulatory authority.

krismiler is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2021, 08:40
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: big green wheely bin
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing dropped them in the with the MAX, the FAA are in payback mode!
Jonty is online now  
Old 26th Aug 2022, 04:20
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 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.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2022, 12:08
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Home
Posts: 112
Received 28 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Jonty
Boeing dropped them in the with the MAX, the FAA are in payback mode!
To be fair, it's probably less a case of payback and more that the FAA can't afford to let through anything that might come back to bite them.
Equivocal is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2022, 17:55
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by punkalouver
Just reading a magazine article about the ODA issue.

$40 million per month.
That's low. For something like the 777X, 2x that at least during the flight test program (at least after TIA is granted and cert testing can start).
tdracer is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2022, 09:33
  #75 (permalink)  
 
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..



Last edited by keesje; 10th Oct 2022 at 14:04. Reason: spelling, odd sentences ;)
keesje is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2022, 22:56
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by krismiler
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.
Absolute rubbish yet again Krismiler. I believe I called you out in 2020 with your ridiculous thread about the end of the A380…..
White Knight is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2022, 09:48
  #77 (permalink)  
 
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.article

Details unclear but apparently after a borescope of a GE9X core, heat related findings serious enough to check all engines & halt flight testing came up.
keesje is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 19:38
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,784
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
That will certainly give Boeing some comfort.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 20:57
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
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. 
tdracer is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.