Boeing could cancel the 737 MAX 10
That just reflects the broad differences between the two cultures. I have been in a few manufacturing facilities on both continents, and its always as you describe. Don’t ever subject yourself to an industrial factory tour in China.
The old Boeing had the technical expertise and imagination to make game changers. Back in the day the 747 was engineered by the “B” team while most of the talent was trying to get the SST off the drawing board. They were able, in about 15 years, to come up with the B-47, B-52, 707, KC135, 727, 737, 747. And do the SST engineering. And whatever other military/space projects I am forgetting.
That Boeing was more than capable of defining state of the art.
The old Boeing had the technical expertise and imagination to make game changers. Back in the day the 747 was engineered by the “B” team while most of the talent was trying to get the SST off the drawing board. They were able, in about 15 years, to come up with the B-47, B-52, 707, KC135, 727, 737, 747. And do the SST engineering. And whatever other military/space projects I am forgetting.
That Boeing was more than capable of defining state of the art.
The sort of 'gold plating' stuff I'm talking about on the new AF1 747s isn't the sort of thing The Donald (or any president I'm familiar with) would care or probably even know about. What I'm referring to is more associated with - shall we say - mission capability (and the sort of missions it added capability for have little to do with hauling the POTUS around). As for range, the 747-8 is already an 8,000 mile capable aircraft, and that's before they add the aerial refueling capability (which the current AF1 already has). That's why I wondered if the real desire was some new military platform based on the 747-8, but since the 747-8 will be out of production by the end of the year, either I was wrong or the 'plan' never made it to fruition.
BTW, the existing AF1 is very fancy and plush, but in a very businesslike way. Lots of nice leather and fine wood furniture. It's in no way lavish with the things like gold toilet fixtures that showed up on some of the VIP 747's bound for the Middle East. One of my special memories of working on the current AF1 was after an incredibly long two weeks (16-17 hour days for 12 days straight - the engines were a mess when I got there, and I had to cover both the day and evening shifts). Finally, we did engine runs on a Sunday (minimum disruption to the other activities) and the engines performed perfectly - I was done, but they had other engine running stuff to do (hydraulics/pneumatics/electrical generation) and they didn't want to shutdown to let me off. So I went down to the president's office and watched an NFL football game on the big screen TV with a couple of mechanics.
My briefing on the new AF1 didn't go into the interior furnishing, but I'd be surprised if they are much different than the current aircraft (oh, and I'm glad Trumps AF1 paint scheme is DOA)
BTW, the existing AF1 is very fancy and plush, but in a very businesslike way. Lots of nice leather and fine wood furniture. It's in no way lavish with the things like gold toilet fixtures that showed up on some of the VIP 747's bound for the Middle East. One of my special memories of working on the current AF1 was after an incredibly long two weeks (16-17 hour days for 12 days straight - the engines were a mess when I got there, and I had to cover both the day and evening shifts). Finally, we did engine runs on a Sunday (minimum disruption to the other activities) and the engines performed perfectly - I was done, but they had other engine running stuff to do (hydraulics/pneumatics/electrical generation) and they didn't want to shutdown to let me off. So I went down to the president's office and watched an NFL football game on the big screen TV with a couple of mechanics.
My briefing on the new AF1 didn't go into the interior furnishing, but I'd be surprised if they are much different than the current aircraft (oh, and I'm glad Trumps AF1 paint scheme is DOA)
then in reality Boeing would have failed to deliver what they promised, when they promised yet again, there has not been a single new program Boeing has been able to deliver on its promises, they are seen as being an unreliable supplier.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That just reflects the broad differences between the two cultures. I have been in a few manufacturing facilities on both continents, and its always as you describe. Don’t ever subject yourself to an industrial factory tour in China.
The old Boeing had the technical expertise and imagination to make game changers. Back in the day the 747 was engineered by the “B” team while most of the talent was trying to get the SST off the drawing board. They were able, in about 15 years, to come up with the B-47, B-52, 707, KC135, 727, 737, 747. And do the SST engineering. And whatever other military/space projects I am forgetting.
That Boeing was more than capable of defining state of the art.
The old Boeing had the technical expertise and imagination to make game changers. Back in the day the 747 was engineered by the “B” team while most of the talent was trying to get the SST off the drawing board. They were able, in about 15 years, to come up with the B-47, B-52, 707, KC135, 727, 737, 747. And do the SST engineering. And whatever other military/space projects I am forgetting.
That Boeing was more than capable of defining state of the art.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a new flash aircraft does not bring a game changing level of efficiency, any 737 replacement would have similar engines to the A320neo, the economics just would not justify the change for many airlines who are already invested heavily into 737 and A320 fleets and parts.
then in reality Boeing would have failed to deliver what they promised, when they promised yet again, there has not been a single new program Boeing has been able to deliver on its promises, they are seen as being an unreliable supplier.
then in reality Boeing would have failed to deliver what they promised, when they promised yet again, there has not been a single new program Boeing has been able to deliver on its promises, they are seen as being an unreliable supplier.
No, the world moves on. The big change of the 737-300 was the new CFM engine. They didn't continue with the long established, heavily invested in skills and parts on the 727 and 737-200 (and competing DC9/MD80), JT8D engine, and this was well before the A320. And they took all their customer base along with them.
I assume everyone is holding off major new clean sheet work due to the uncertainty of the powerplant future. I am personally most interested in H2 burning engines as the most likely practical solution but it’s a long way away.
It feels like everybody will stay or return to kerosene that can be made "green", called SAF. Everything gets certified for 100 percent SAF and that will be it. I don't see any way to get enough H2 made from green energy at competitive costs for a long time. Improvements will be made but evolutionary not step changes. Batteries will NOT power the next generation of airliners.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the world moves on. The big change of the 737-300 was the new CFM engine. They didn't continue with the long established, heavily invested in skills and parts on the 727 and 737-200 (and competing DC9/MD80), JT8D engine, and this was well before the A320. And they took all their customer base along with them.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 838
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing Clears Hurdle on Dreamliner
Reporting in The Wall Street Journal (Weekend July 30, 2022 ed.), indicates first delivery is expected within days.
"The [FAA] has approved Boeing's plan for dealing with problems and carrying out fixes for the planes, but would still need to clear each 787 delivery. The company still has to submit paperwork for the first planned delivery to the regulator" [attributed to person familiar with the matter].
(Posted here since the last active 787 thread is quite dormant, and resuming deliveries on an ongoing basis would be (obviously) good in general for the planemaker & thus relevant for thread here)
"The [FAA] has approved Boeing's plan for dealing with problems and carrying out fixes for the planes, but would still need to clear each 787 delivery. The company still has to submit paperwork for the first planned delivery to the regulator" [attributed to person familiar with the matter].
(Posted here since the last active 787 thread is quite dormant, and resuming deliveries on an ongoing basis would be (obviously) good in general for the planemaker & thus relevant for thread here)
I'm afraid we have been reading "leaks" about the 787 deliveries about to restart, it seems every week for the last year. We'll wait until it actually happens. It's an associated issue with the Max 10, because it shows Boeing PR, if not the company, wholly concentrated on "gloss" rather than reality.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 838
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, no major dispute on just the factual level .... but consider, the reporting indicates the FAA gave some type of official approval to the go-forward plan - by implication at least, a formally documented plan. The WSJ isn't Fx-snooze, least of all their aviation coverage,
And if the Journal has been duped (or is complicit) and the news isn't anything but hype, and just puffing, what in blazes is going on, wherein such a situation exists that the United States Department of Transportation lacks senior-level authoritative leadership, at the Cabinet as well as FAA level, not to squelch such nonsense? Any decently competent junior partner in even a regional, mid-size U.S. law firm could issue a statement putting an end to such misstatements or misrepresentations (if that's what they are), in their sleep. ....Or at least before their second cup of coffee.
And if the Journal has been duped (or is complicit) and the news isn't anything but hype, and just puffing, what in blazes is going on, wherein such a situation exists that the United States Department of Transportation lacks senior-level authoritative leadership, at the Cabinet as well as FAA level, not to squelch such nonsense? Any decently competent junior partner in even a regional, mid-size U.S. law firm could issue a statement putting an end to such misstatements or misrepresentations (if that's what they are), in their sleep. ....Or at least before their second cup of coffee.
I don’t think that the U.S. Department of Transportation is lacking cabinet leadership. And what business of theirs would it be to kibosh every stupid thing said in the Murdoch press?
That just reflects the broad differences between the two cultures. I have been in a few manufacturing facilities on both continents, and its always as you describe. Don’t ever subject yourself to an industrial factory tour in China.
The old Boeing had the technical expertise and imagination to make game changers. Back in the day the 747 was engineered by the “B” team while most of the talent was trying to get the SST off the drawing board. They were able, in about 15 years, to come up with the B-47, B-52, 707, KC135, 727, 737, 747. And do the SST engineering. And whatever other military/space projects I am forgetting.
That Boeing was more than capable of defining state of the art.
The old Boeing had the technical expertise and imagination to make game changers. Back in the day the 747 was engineered by the “B” team while most of the talent was trying to get the SST off the drawing board. They were able, in about 15 years, to come up with the B-47, B-52, 707, KC135, 727, 737, 747. And do the SST engineering. And whatever other military/space projects I am forgetting.
That Boeing was more than capable of defining state of the art.
Times change, perhaps the B787 will be considered as a great plane someday, but it has some big shoes to fill. The B777 may be more cost-effective, but it isn't a 747.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 838
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Various media outlets reporting, American Airlines did in fact take delivery of the first 787 aircraft following FAA overall approval of Boeing's plan as well inspection of the specific aircraft. Evidently the press report several days ago was accurate.
Boeing delivers its first 787 Dreamliner in more than a year | The Seattle Times
Boeing on Wednesday delivered its first 787 Dreamliner since May 2021, ending a blockage that has starved the manufacturer of cash, added $5.5 billion in costs and led to a buildup of more than 120 jets in storage.
The delivery pipeline was formally cleared Monday when the Federal Aviation Administration announced that it was satisfied with the changes Boeing had made to its production system to ensure that the 787s meet all certification standards.
The plane was delivered at Boeing’s North Charleston, South Carolina, plant. In an Instagram post, American Airlines CEO Robert Isom said the jet is the first of nine the airline expects to take this year.
The delivery pipeline was formally cleared Monday when the Federal Aviation Administration announced that it was satisfied with the changes Boeing had made to its production system to ensure that the 787s meet all certification standards.
The plane was delivered at Boeing’s North Charleston, South Carolina, plant. In an Instagram post, American Airlines CEO Robert Isom said the jet is the first of nine the airline expects to take this year.
These aircraft are stuffed with electronics and everything is custom made, but still has to be tested and qualified. Integrating the electronics is a software intensive task.
So the price of the hulls and engines are almost irrelevant, except that the engines are also modified to allow longer refueled flights.
Agree entirely that signing up to do this on a fixed price basis was foolish, but iirc, they were really determined to keep Boeing as the builder of Air Force 1.
So the price of the hulls and engines are almost irrelevant, except that the engines are also modified to allow longer refueled flights.
Agree entirely that signing up to do this on a fixed price basis was foolish, but iirc, they were really determined to keep Boeing as the builder of Air Force 1.
Looks like it, doesn't it ?
You see, nobody trusts PR releases any more. American may have got the title documents and have even transferred the final funds. But if the aircraft is then flown, not to the customer's base, but to a location where Boeing have a facility, it does look like it needs some more work.
Boeing AOG Victorville :
You see, nobody trusts PR releases any more. American may have got the title documents and have even transferred the final funds. But if the aircraft is then flown, not to the customer's base, but to a location where Boeing have a facility, it does look like it needs some more work.
Boeing AOG Victorville :
Boeing AOG is an extension of the fabled aircraft manufacturer's larger facilities that performs specialized repairs, maintenance, and modifications on Boeing aircraft. Boeing AOG also serves as a completion center for newly built aircraft requiring customized improvements.
Last edited by WHBM; 11th Aug 2022 at 14:01.
