Not surprising . Flight mentioned a week ago that Airbus wouldn't be happy with Mr B taking back the Spirit operation. The bits building Airbus kit make a loss anyway so I doubt it'l be a tough negotiation.

Yup. The antitrust issues probably complicate negotiations, but it does seem like the most sensible way to deal with Spirit.

Mentour Now had a good video on this previous weekend:

Mainly A350 fuselages at Wichita and A220 wings in Belfast - between them they lost US$ 200 mm last year

Mood Lightener !

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2d4ea2b9a.jpeg

Nothing new. In 1989 my mob was receiving brand new 737-400s. One had an engine change after about 40 hrs of flying from delivery. Apparently a whole row of guide vanes was missing from inside the brand new CFM56 engine…

And yet people will continue to blame Boeing every time something goes wrong.
There is a good writeup in today's Seattle Times

Quote:

---

Have Boeing planes really had more problems lately? Look at the numbers

---

Have Boeing planes really had more problems lately? Look at the numbers | The Seattle Times

Short answer is no, they haven't.

Your CFM reminds me of something that happened with a PW2000 back around year 2000. I was responsible for the PW2000 on the 757 at the time. We had an engine run functional test they did during prior to first flight - one thing they checked was the idle N2 speed and verified it was in a specific range. I got a call that an engine had failed the test - what should they do. I said 'go check the burner pressure line for leaks' (there is a 'select high' schedule for idle speed for N2 and PB - the PW2000 was pretty close between those so depending on the efficiency of the compressor it might run on either one). They called back, said they'd done multiple checks on the PB line and the engine in general - couldn't find anything wrong but N2 was still 2% high. Pratt claimed that was 'normal' - it was just normal variation - I responded that if it was 0.2% I might accept that, but not 2.0%. Pratt then claimed there was no reason to even do the check - they didn't check that during engine pass off runs - I maintained we'd delivered nearly a thousand PW2000 engines, they all passed except this one - something wasn't right. Eventually they did a borescope - and sure enough something was wrong. They'd installed the wrong variable stator vanes in one stage of the compressor, and they'd actually clashed with the compressor blades.
They had to replace the engine.
Pratt never complained about the idle speed check again...

Good Lord ... there appears to be more (systematically?) undocumented work.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisag...h=484cd0833603

@tdracer: Yes because this is a Communications /Public relations issue and its #1 rule is that perception is more important that the facts.
That said , Boeing has always had issues , if you take the 737 alone , remember the convertible version in Hawaii , the Rudder hard over issues,, etc.. not to mention the central tank issue on the early 747s.. all made huge headlines at the time.
We all know engines and maintenance are not really Boeing responsibility per se, yet the perception is very different.

Totally unrelated but showing how communications are difficult in our business, last week the USAF in a move to show off their capabilities took a CNN film crew on board one of their B52s missions ( Commanded, of course by a young woman) . All went well, except an engine failure on #5 , well , the beast still flies well on 7 ..but a bit more tricky when one of the main gear would not go down on final approach .. It all ended well, and the video is on the CNN web site .
I know this aircraft has long passed his" best before " date, but it shows how things are difficult to control when one wants to communicate . At least they did not emphasized that the B52 was a Boeing aircraft .

The death of expertise
 

The recent views on blame etc in this thread, (also see Latest Boeing News) resonate with this article; which also reflects many aspects of Pprune - or even Boeing themselves.

"I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all."
…
What has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.
…
The death of expertise is a rejection not only of knowledge, but of the ways in which we gain knowledge and learn about things. Fundamentally, it’s a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself.
…
Remember: having a strong opinion about something isn’t the same as knowing something.

https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17...-of-expertise/
_

ATC watcher, I saw the CNN B52 item , didn't notice the lady commander tho i must admit.

I thought they didn't make it very clear than losing an engine on B52 is less of an issue than a Triple 7 as they still have another 7 running. They also lost the 'Right main Gear ' on landing , on B52? what actually is the right main gear!
Interesting overall story tho-I would not relish spending too much time on the flight deck of a buff- very cramped even without taking into account the 8 of everything engine controls/dials.

Thread drift
While Boeing is rightly getting a lot of scrutiny over its Profits before People policy Netflix has another interesting docudrama on the same theme . this time big Pharma is the one in the cross hairs covering up critically dangerous aspects of a drug because it is such a big seller and cash generator . Called Dopesick and it focusses on the Opioid Crisis-- senior management know the problems and cover them up, huge huge high pressure sale force, revolving door for a senior and influential DEA exec who joins the drug makers after giving them a clean bill of health as a regulator. Generally treating the regulators like they dont matter. One interesting point is that the CEo wants to open the German market up -needless to say that doesnt work and his sidekick tells him-'you can't do this stuff in Germany, you can't work around the regulator like we do. Sound familiar?

@ PEI 3721 : A very interesting article Thanks . . A couple of very nice sentences in it , my 2 favorites in the context of this Forum are :
and
@ pax britanica : at the beginning and at the very end.
Do not know, never flew on one ;) but that is how the lady in command ( at least the one on the left seat) identifies the one malfunctioning.

Looks more and more like a cul de sac or dead end than a cross roads from outside the fence .

ATC
i missed the beginning and the end so that explains that
I assume she meant the outrigger without going into all the details to the journo in the other seat.

Ive been inside a B52 a few times and it struck me how small it was internally and inded its not actually as big an airplane as its fame suggests along with 8 engines and massive tailplane etc

I think Pax Britannica was referring to the fact that the B-52 has two right main gears. :)​​​​​​​

Yes I' ve seen the photos of the unusual gear they have, but possibly the left an right double gears work in parallel on the same system , as they must be connected t somehow to steer together ? Maybe a military mech , could answer that one

The turn came when a government made up a story about how their pilots performed perfectly and the plane still was impossible for any human to control and for some reason the CEO of Boeing clearly stated "It's ENTIRELY our fault."

It's a business case in how a CEO murders their own company.

The strangest part? Against the constant demand that corporations take full responsibility, when one does, the public tears them apart like a pack of wolves going after a wounded buffalo.

More Boeing woes now they have got proof that the soon to leave CEo cheated on his taxes by using a private jet ofr personal travel, and not declaring it as taxable. I mean do you really have to be a criminal to pass the C suite test in USA these days. He is an accountant too so its not like he clan claim ignorance of the IRS is it.

Also it said it was company policy that he used private jets on business trips , authorized no doubt by the board who also use private jets . This is for security reasons apparently. So what does that men does one person ina million in USA know what the CEo of Boeing looks like? Is he afraid of flying on his own products, is he afraid he might end up on an Airbus which would make an amusing story? Doesn't he have any interested in finding out just how comfortable a middle seat at the back of a 73 really is doesnt he have any experience whatsoever of using the very thing the company he presides over actually makes . Its just laughable, I mean he isnt really that important; if he died they would have a replacement inside a week.

This is not having a go at the USaA we have our own troubles in UK if you follow the story of the people who ran the post office in the UK .who seemingly committed fraud and perverted the course of justice and behaved in a discussing way when discussing the issue internally.. It seems we have a whole slew of people who are actually psychotic in the way they behave and yet end up running corporations

,