Boeing Brilliance - Sometimes I am just amazed that Airbus is even in existence
 

Boeing to send 270 jobs abroad
Seattle Times 06/12/03
author: Dominic Gates
(Copyright 2003)


On a day when legislators in Olympia scrambled to secure jobs with a huge Boeing 7E7 incentive package, some 400 Boeing technical employees in Seattle learned two-thirds of their jobs will be outsourced abroad.


One element of the move, according to a Boeing document, is to support the "global partner base" for the planned 7E7 jetliner.


The affected employees work in the Duwamish buildings south of Boeing's former corporate headquarters in Seattle. They produce technical publications Boeing provides to its airline customers, including maintenance manuals and service bulletins.


"After careful study, we've decided to change the long-term business model for that work by transferring it to companies with a lower cost base," said Boeing spokeswoman Jill Langer.


The first layoff notices are already going out, and the work will begin to move out in the fourth quarter of this year. Additional layoffs will follow over the next two years, with a loss of about 270 jobs here.


"We have to lower our cost of doing business," said Langer, "It's simply a reflection of the harsh business realities."


Additionally, Langer said, Boeing is studying other areas of fleet services and support for potential cost savings. Outsourcing of work in these areas may be considered.


"This is extremely disturbing news," said Bill Dugovich, spokesman for the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), which represents many of the workers. "There are indications that it could be more than 400 jobs."


The plan for the technical-publications unit is to transfer much of the work initially to Continental DataGraphics, a Boeing subsidiary acquired in 2000 with units in England and in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. The subsidiary will help to spin off the work to one or more overseas suppliers.


Boeing is considering Chile as one possible location.


The new business model Boeing has in mind is one in which all airlines would agree to use standard technical manuals rather than customize them themselves for their own mechanics. Boeing is seeking to bring in industry partners to help create standards for the manuals. Boeing would oversee the work, but the partners would do much of the production.


In a recent interview, Mike Bair, head of the 7E7 program, cited the technical manuals as an example of maintenance services that might be more efficient to outsource.


"It's unlikely we would physically do the maintenance," Bair said, "but there are traditionally schemes where we could manage it."


In justifying outsourcing, Boeing routinely refers to its desire to become a "systems integrator," assigning itself a role of system management and oversight of work done by global partners.


An e-mail from Rich Higgins, vice president of Boeing's Maintenance Engineering and Publications, to employees yesterday said "this change will result in a smaller Boeing work force focused on the most complex, value-added engineering portions of our process."


Langer confirmed that in addition to the outsourcing of technical publications, Boeing is studying ways to get "leaner" in a range of other aviation services.


These include dealing with airline in-service-fleet problems; sending routine technical service Telex messages; measuring service performance; and maintaining relationships with both suppliers and airline customers.


Boeing is using General Electric as a model for outsourcing of its technical publishing. GE partners with Adexus, a publishing company based in Santiago, Chile.


A presentation to Boeing managers yesterday included GE data on "worldwide business-cost assessments." The United States was second only to Japan in terms of high costs.


Chile, which ranked 26th, came out as the best outsourcing prospect in a scoring of various factors. Though it scored low in English fluency, it made up for it in other areas, including low investment requirements and low cost.


Boeing insists the quality of technical-service publications that it provides will be maintained. "Boeing stands behind that 100 percent," Langer said.

:mad: :O :mad: :{ :ok: :E :ouch:

Thats like having a french person write a recipe for apple pie

Scored low on English?!
 

Oh men!
Here we go, one more airplane manual that no one will understand. I don't know you guys, but out here in the US, some of the manual provided by the airlines to the pilots make no sense. I have personally seen this with the Embraer ERJ-145 manuals. Sometimes you just have to guess what they are trying to explain.
Good luck to all.

Racism
 

Why is it in your country anti-African American racism and anti-semetic racism is ( correctly ) illegal and punishable yet anti-french racism is ok? Also to the moderators of this board the same question?

This post will be the censored one not 747's post with the offensive postscript. :mad:

Wow.

Didn't know French folks were a different race. Black. Caucasian. Asian. Indian. French.

That explains alot!

PT:ok:

By the way, I've had some might fine French apple desserts. Of course thay have a different name for them. Must be a "racial" ethnic thing.

Race
 

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
race (PEOPLE) noun [C][U]
a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group:
People of many different races were living side by side.
Discrimination on grounds of race will not be tolerated.
An increasing number of people in the country are of mixed race (= with parents of different races).

race group noun [C]
a group of people who share the same language, history, characteristics, etc:
LITERARY The British are an island race.

The above definition is from the Cambridge dictionary online. :rolleyes:

Hindsight means you are looking at your own ass.
 

This action by Boeing is really stupid. In preparing technical publications the tech writer has to have direct contact with engineering, product support, and flight test as well as several other involved departments. When I worked on the A-310 program I questioned the technical writers about the lack of technical detail in the repair manuals. The lead tech writer told me that ATA-100 the manual that governs the writing of technical manuals allows the writer to put in as much or as little information and associated illustrations as the writer wanted to include. This caused the mechanic to assume a lot in the repair and return to service because the lack of technical content. The reason for this was a means of cutting costs. The manuals are provided to the airlines at no cost and so many sets of manuals are delivered with each aircraft so the less technical content the lower the cost to the manufacturer. I can only assume that Boeing is cutting costs by offloading the program to Chili and at the same time providing less technical content in the manuals.

Aviation manuals have to be written using “Aviation English” but to use this language the writer has to have strong English skills.

I can understand Boeing wanting to deliver a standard manual to each of its’ clients but not all aircraft of a given type have the same equipment installed to include differing engine types so it would be difficult to impose this requirement on the operators.


:suspect:

Faire d'income


The only race question in this thread is the one you are bringing in to it - without good reason.

.......is not a racist remark. It is simply a quip. Millions of people make them every day - including you unless you have no sense of humour.

So..........if you cannot offer something of interest to the thread I suggest you ignore it.

Perhaps Mr 747F [no bias meant of course] might realise that Airbus is a conglomerate of the EC so why not slag off "roast beef" as well.
There is "sense of humour" but the current piss taking of anything French is paranoia pending the day that there were no WMD and the sole purpose was to steal a coverted oilfield or two.
Get real USA and use your own oil reserves and apples.

Okay then PPrune Pop.

In support of Faire d'income, I would like to make a quip that 'that's like expecting Americans to understand that they too live in a global market' - time to wake up and smell the coffee y'all.

Tens of thousands of US jobs will be going to China, South America etc over the next few years, because the cost of production in the US is way too uncompetitive.

Modern technology makes outsourcing only too easy and the stockholders care about the bottom line.

But hey, that's free enterprise for you.

Since when was Indian a different race from Asian? Or did he mean Native American? Must be that inability to speak proper English that seems to be so funny. Tell me, when will Americans be able to speak and spell in English?

Remember after 911 when Americans started shooting the odd Hindu because they had no idea they were different from muslims. :p They aren't the sharpest people on the planet so if they want to try and be funny the rest of you should let them. Airbus are in existence because Boeing have done a p*ss poor job at retaining market share. And selling, sorry, leasing aging 767's to the US Airforce at 300 million each using taxpayers money to prop up a rudderless company is about as bad as the joke gets.

Mirror mirror on the wall.....
 

If so many of you from OZ, NZ, the UK and Europe find so much wrong with the United States why oh why are so many of you trying to emigrate to the States to find work?

:confused:

witchdoctor

"Since when was Indian a different race from Asian?"

I am no physician. But, at least I can tell the difference between someone from India and a Korean. Do you need a little help?
For your own edification, the term "Indian" was originally misapplied to the Native North American by the early British settlers: They believed they resembled the peoples of that nation.
The racial classification "Indian" does not apply to the "Native American".

Learn to read. Engage brain before mouth.

stillalbatross

Your exquisite commentary speaks for itself. Your logic is impeccably obtuse. Your views on how we choose to finance/buy aircraft is of little concern to me. I suggest you figure out how to get your own Euro Airlifter in the air before your C-17 leases come due. How'd that feel? It was a cheap shot, just like your post. Sorry to get in the gutter with you my friend.

It is obviously your inabilty to deal with your own personal issues that drives your thinking. That, or you are 11 years old.

PT
:ok:

My god. Prune Pop was correct, I meant no racism toward anybody with the quip regarding the French and apple pie comment. But, once again, it would appear their tendancy to be cranky is rearing it's ugly head.

DSR10,

Maybe now you understand why gas is $1.15 in the USA.:E

witchdoctor,

enough is enough, stop playin the 911 card. It's over, let it go.

:rolleyes:

Lu Zuckerman,

exactly! Anybody who can run, jump or swim is trying to get here so they can bask in the beauty of freedom(and hate every bit of it) and wait for the US govt to buy them a gas station or a 7 eleven(with tax payer money). :ok:

Planetruth, whatever. It was Senator John McCain who firstly asked why on the question of Boeing, the military and the overpriced 767s and then asked how they could bleat endlessly to Congress about Airbus and govt sudsidies.

For the last time. NO racist remarks are necessary. And I heartily agree with 747, that 9/11 should NOT be used to stress ANY points. We remember it each in our own way.

I think this actually a good thread for debate. So, I will leave it to see if those with the good sense shown thus far can keep it going. Otherwise it goes in the bin!

Now enjoy it please.

stillalbatross,

Sir, we agree.

McCain's point was valid. I agree completely that the lease arrangement is a dumb idea. Pay for the damned things and be done with it. Problem is, with this War on Terror sucking up some cash, the only way Congress would approve the appropriation for the full complement of aircraft (which we desperately need) was to go wil the lease arrangement. And they did so begrudgingly.

There is also NO argument whatsoever that each country MUST support it's own Military Industrial Complex. To buy arrows for your quiver from a less than reliable source compromises your security.

(By the way, the above point is one of the few points Senator McCain and I agree on. His run for President was one of the greatest shams foisted on the U.S. voter. The man is an egotistical loose cannon who is despised by much of his home base in Arizona and only got religion after the polls closed.

A coworker showed up to pick the good senator up in a DEA Citation one day for a big press arrival in Flagstaff after a fortuitous drug bust. Arriving an hour and a half late with no excuse, the senator was greeted by my friend as he approached the plane. The good senator brushed off his welcome with the comment, "Just don't kill me would you?"

That would endear the good senator to any pilot I would think. Schmuck! I'd have gotten one of those unfortunate "instant ear blocks" and made him drive to the press conference!)

PPRuNe Pop: "Now enjoy it please."

Yes Sir.

PT
:ok:

Planetruth, don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Boeing but there is an awful lot more ability and ingenuity in that company than what they're using. Watched Bullitt recently and there's a bit where Steve McQueen is chasing the bad guy underneath a few DC8s, B707, past a Convair 880 and I thought "forget consolidation, gimmee the good old days where everyone was makin' airliners"
I think that crowd that is trying to resurrect the worlds last Convair 880 to fly is from Arizona.

Indeed,

Believe me, on occasions there is no bigger critic of Boeing than I. I grew up flying the 737-200 in the early 80's and the Boeing engineers and tech-reps were messengers sent from On High. Their intellect and insight was uncanny. The Boeing of today is nothing like the Boeing of twenty years ago, nor could it be I suppose. I hope to hell they know what they are doing because it is unclear from the outside looking in.

The 737-700 intro was marred by a good example of their apparent intermittent ineptitude. During HUD certification films of the main tires touching down, it was observed that the mains (whose shimmy dampers were removed by Boeing reportedly to save weight) shimmied precariously. We had noticed this phenomena ourselves on the line. On landing, the plane shook "like a dog shaking off a pee." Boeings answer was that our pilots "were landing the aircraft too smoothly." The suggested a firmer touchdown. What a CROCK! When senior management saw the video, one of the VP's called Boeing and asked them to verify the safety of this aircraft as delivered. He wanted a letter stating this fact faxed within the hour. Within an hour, Boeing sent a letter stating that all new aircraft would be delivered with shimmy dampers installed. Al in-service aircraft would be retrofitted. What the heck were thay thinking? With this and a few other exceptions, the aircraft has been exceptionally trouble free. This shimmy damper issue would have never happened in the early 80's.

I have not heard about the 880, but there is a 990 in El Paso and it flew in there only about ten years ago. It is a strange bird indeed with the shock canoes on the upper wing. Ah, when the girls were single and the Jet A cheap.

At least my company will be buying a few airliners. We are scheduled to buy 400+ more between now and '12 to bring our total up to 800+. I learned one of the reasons for Boeing's move away from Seattle was the concern for volcano damage. I hauled the chief company maintenance technician out of SEA four or five years ago and he told me the last year of the construction of the -700, the whole area was on volcano watch for Ranier. I guess since St Helens blew, Ranier is now become intermittently active. He told me that computer simulations for a failure of the western face of Ranier would put the valley that Renton is in under 14 feet of ash and debris. Perhaps it is time to get your production capacity moved elsewhere. Everett is far enough North to be out of major danger, unlike Renton. I saw an article in the paper this week (Phoenix is trying to land the 7E7 facility). The article mentioned the volcano threat in Washington.

Good chatting with you,

PT.:ok:

Sorry Lu Z, but...
 

We are NOT all trying to get into you sadly overpolluted, overpopulated and self opinionated country.

Guess with the Boeing upheaval and Volcanic activity, they won't be heading here.

Yet a further example of the dumbing down of the aviation industry, at the expense of SAFETY.
The new concept of safety seems to be one of, "If we say SAFETY often enough, that is enough."

All Japan Air Lines staff have been issued with little credit card-sized cards, that they are urged to read to each other before (and perhaps during) work, stating how safety-oriented they are - in the meantime corners are being cut in all areas of training!!

Hey Lu and 747F, I resemble that remark (please note flag on left), and can also "..run, jump or swim" (in fact, in my case, it's and swim :O ), and I have NEVER had any desire to work in the land of "the free, the bold, and the brave" - even when I was out of work for 12 months, due to the influx to Australia of Americans.
I promise.

Indeed, not all of us are trying to get into the US... some of us are trying to get into Canada :D

Col. Blink

Can't blame you for not wanting to leave NZ after watching the Lord of the Rings movies, though I bet your tourist board wishes every copy of "Once Were Warriors" would quietly disappear - great show!

As for the topic at hand -

planetruth said:
Mr Planetruth? Some people from British Aerospace to see you! :D :D

MarkD,

The US and GB have had a long and established history of cooperation on aircraft development. Frank Whittle's engine was secretly sent to GE during the war because they were afraid it would get into German hands (plus the War Dept. didn't see "any wartime application for the thing."). The Harrier is another example. Rolls Royce frequently supplies engines for Boeing Aircraft. Our lackluster P-51 came into it's own when powered by the magic of the Merlin. Our lend-lease program kept the RAF equipped in sufficient quatity to execute a defense in WWII. Given our common history, it is no wonder.

While many died on both sides during the American revolution, many times that number of Americans have died to protect the British Isles. Not once but twice, we have shown what our response is to threats by those with hostile intent towards England. Incredibly, there are those who would suggest WWI and WWII never happened. In some countries, that whole period is omitted from the public school curriculum.

I for one know who buttered my bread. Those generations who went before and made the ultimate sacrifice have made this world a safer place fora great many of us. Those peoples who shared in this effort shall forever be linked by adversity. Should the need ever arise again, I'd be enroute to protect England in a heartbeat. Or Germany. Or France for that matter.

Hopefully we shall never again see the battles and destruction the likes of which characterised the first half of the twentieth century. God, I hope we have learned something.

PT

Doesn't Emerates order tell it all.
Airbus Good
Boeing Crap

Come on now DSR10, the bus has it's problems as well. :rolleyes:

Planetruth

I was referring more to uk.govs cosying up to Thales et al. Point taken though.

DSR

Yawn. Tells no such thing. 777 order is quite significant too.

DSR10,

Quite apparently, it does not. -PT

Boyd Group:

Hot Flash - June 16, 2003

The jetBlue Embraer Deal...
It's A Lot More Than A Jet Order
Airbus Just Took One Right On The Nose Cone...

Two very significant events took place last week. One caused a media frenzy. The other was hardly noticed, if at all.
The first was the jetBlue order for 100 Embraer E-190s. The second notable event was when Frontier, at the Paris Air Show, accepted the keys to the carrier's first Airbus A-318.
Airbus Thought Boeing Was The Competition. They're Thinking Again. The significance of these events has apparently been lost on most everybody, except maybe for some thunderstruck folks deep within the Airbus and Boeing strategic planning departments. While the media types babbled on about jetBlue's "regional" jets, the folks in Toulouse no doubt got the real message: the 170/190 E-Jet platform has launched Embraer into the forefront of the mainline airliner business. Worse, with the jetBlue order, Airbus just got kicked in the nose cone, and possibly even relegated to a secondary role in the 100-seat market as well. The A-318 is in deep trouble.
Consider: jetBlue ordered a fleet of 100-seat airliners. Simply because the manufacturer was Embraer, the veneer types in the media called it a big "regional jet order." (They must have missed the press releases from both the airline and the manufacturer: neither used the term "regional jet.") At the same time, Frontier took possession of the A-318, which Airbus describes as its "100-seat" airliner. But nobody called it a "regional jet" when Frontier ordered it. Frontier ordered a handful of A-318s. jetBlue ordered and optioned 200 Embraers.
The E-190 is a 100-seat jet with a range well in excess of 2,500 miles. The A-318 is what Airbus bills as its own 100-seat jet, and it also has a range in excess of 2,500 miles. The real-world, in-fleet mission capabilities of the two aircraft are not much different, but some media trendies, many of whom couldn't recognize a E-190 from a Curtiss Condor, saw the name "Embraer" and confidently referred to the aircraft as a "regional jet."

Airbus Just Got The Bionic Winkie. The 2003 Paris Airshow, at least behind the scenes, was likely not a real happy place for Airbus. While they were publicly tipping the bubbly, toasting a couple of A-380 orders, they where being zapped out of the lower end of the fastest growth airliner demand category.
Consider The Impact. The jetBlue order likely hit Airbus like a brick. The A-318 is almost 100% compatible with the A-320. Cockpits. Maintenance. Parts inventory. Training. Pilot exchangeability between the two. Consider: jetBlue has over 100 A-320s in operation and on order. From that perspective, the A-318 was the slam-dunk choice when jetBlue was looking for a smaller airliner, right? Wrong. The relative economics of the two airplanes apparently more than made up the difference. jetBlue clearly understands that it isn't the number of seats, it's the economics of the airplane.

The hard fact is that the A-318 and the E-170/190 series are direct competitors. Looking at what both airplanes can do, say, from Frontier's Denver hub, there isn't much difference. The A-318 is a little bigger, and has more range, but both aircraft have very similar in-fleet mission applications. Both, by the way, can reach either cost from Denver. Both can offer seats more than an inch wider than a 737. The only difference, and it's a big one: the economics of the Embraer are likely leagues better than the A-318, which is a downsized A-320.

The Beginning of The RJ End. Far from being an extension of the "RJ phenomenon" as some are trying to spin it, the emergence of the E-170/190 as a viable player in the US is another signal that the RJ order cycle is ending fast. While <51 seat jets (and their stretched 70-90 seat Canadair progeny) will continue to have a role, it's going to be one that will be in decline by the end of the decade.

Leveling The Playing Field. While jetBlue is a low cost airline, they do not have a permanent lock on operational efficiency. These smaller E-Jets can be used to great effect by network carriers. Not only do the economics lend well to feed roles, but the ergonomics are equal to larger jets, or better. Mega-carriers can apply these aircraft to building medium-size markets, generating more revenue through their hub operations than possible with 50-seat RJs.

Where The Demand Will Be: 70 - 150 Seats. As the fleet forecasts at our annual Forecast Conferences have made clear over the last four years, the main growth area in airliner demand in the coming decade won't be widebodies. And, as we alone first forecast, it sure won't be <51 seat RJs. The real demand in terms of units will be in the 70-150 seat narrowbody jets. The jetBlue order shows without any doubt that Embraer has staked out the lower end of this demand category.
We'd all better wake up and smell the Brazilian coffee: There are now three global producers of airliners: Boeing, Airbus, and - Embraer.

Airbus orders are up because of the changing nature of the airline executive boardroom.Used to be that pilots were often strongly represented at board level if not on them and as such they got the planes they wanted.Planes which were pilot friendly,planes which were designed to be flown by pilots,ie,Boeings and McD.This canvassing has all been slowly eroded and now fleet selection is entirely a commercial decision and to hell with the pilots.This is where Airbus has creeped in.Their aircraft are cheaper and their packages often come with additional incentives such as crew training.They're able to do this because of the huge subsidies that are afforded them.Boeing is not.It no longer matters that an airline is flying machines that are ergonomically designed for pilots but which manufacturer offers the best deal(best as in cheapest to the airline).Airbus' type-rating commonality has been a big factor here.An airline can fly short-haul on A320's and long-haul on A330's and save a big whack on crew training(a big overhead for any airline).Doesnt matter that pilot skills are being sacrificed and that we have a new breed of pilot who has never seen(and might never see) a real aircraft.And if the pilot doesnt know any better,the airlines get away with it.The new breed convince themselves that Airbus offer the superior product.After all it has bigger cabins and there's a table you can eat your meal on.And it corrects for an engine out all by itself.See..no hands.And I dont have to do anything but just sit in my seat and feed some data into this computer here.Its great isnt it?The man-machine interface has all but been disregarded in the decision process.Thrown on the rubbish tip as a burnt offering to Progress.
So when I see postings like the infantile one from our friend DSR I wonder what the world is coming to.Sure Emirates,the company, can buy Airbus if they want to and good luck to them.But when I hear a supposed pilot say he prefers an Airbus to a Boeing,I just know that this industry is in trouble.
Southwest's criteria for fleet selection has always been pilot-based.Their excellence in safety is concomitant of this pioneering spirit.

Rananim I just started the day with a relaxing morning coffee. With your post you made my day already. I totally agree.

It is interesting that Boeing pilots always say that about Airbus. However those that have converted to the Airbus never want to go back. I have flown many aircraft types, including the Airbus. If you feel that way about pilot skills then get yourself a helicopter rating! There is no skill in flying a Boeing after that.

Indeed, an Airbus is not a 'real' aeroplane to a Boeing and a Boeing is not a real aeroplane compared to the Wright Flyer..........

It's called progress.

(And automatic engine-out compensation? Hmmm....must read up on TAC in the 777 then....)

RUBBISH
 

I have flown both Airbus and Boeing. Both build fine machines. Boeings are more fun to 'fly' but the Airbus would have the edge overall.

Rananim if your pilot skills are limited to pulleys and cables and using your hands you have a lot to learn. Also might I point out that Airbus is more ergonomically designed with pilots in mind than Boeing.

Sorry I don't agree that the Airbus has been designed with the pilot in mind! The Airbus has been designed by engineers who thought they knew what pilot’s wanted/needed.

I have flown Boeing and am currently a TRE on the A320/1 and A330. I like the Airbus but it has its’ faults! The main problems are the screen displays which are difficult to see in strong sunlight, though this issue has been addressed with the new LCD screens, lack of feedback in the flight control system and ECAM! ECAM is a great concept and works fairly well with single failures but has limitations with multiple failures.

The pilot is left feeling a little detached from the aircraft at times and the lack of tactile feedback forces you to rely more heavily on visual acuity. With a little more thought a good aeroplane could have been great. Still I don’t suppose Airbus care what any of us think and they certainly don’t seem to be having any trouble selling them!

The Boeing v Airbus debate is pointless, they both do the job and at the end of the day you get paid to fly whichever aircraft your company operates. Frankly I thought it all went downhill when they put the tail wheel on the front, it will never catch on!


;)

Kinsman
 

The key word in my statement was 'ergonomically'. I was referring to the cockpit.

My opinion would be that the Airbus is designed by engineers ( inevitable differences with crew ) but the Boeings are designed by Accountants! :O

An interesting thread that I cannot possiboy comment on. However, one or two of the side comments ..

In the following, this is NOT a criticism of Plane Truth, simply using his words to highlight a more general trend: This sounds much like how it has been in telecommunications in the 25 years that I have been involved! I recall engineers who could listen to a telephone system and know what was wrong. They could sniff out problems. Nowadays, the 'engineers' have never seen a REAL telephone system! They look on their PC screen and say, "I'll have to call the Tech Support Centre". Happily, telephone systems are on the ground when they fail but their failure can still cost lives.

So, I suggest that, it is true to say that no company is anything like as good as it was. The reduction in cost has removed much of the good along with the bad and the outsourcing nonsense is another whole topic by itself! Hearing about the 737NG gear-shimmy problem did not surprise me and I am sure that there are many more like that - as there are in all aspects of commerce. It's just that most of them, like telephone systems, are on the ground when they stop working and do not have so far to fall.

On another thought (also illustrated by the interesting posts of PT): I doubt that we have. Humans are very good at forgetting things and once both wars are out of living memory, we shall see one change. Once the children of those who served (including myself) are gone - then we are likely to forget these lessons. Why such a pessimistic view of human nature? What I learnt about history taught me that we never learn.

Safe Journey to you all.

Fair d'income

Last time I looked the ECAM, screens and flight controls with no feedback were on the flight deck! The engineers did put a very nice table where the yoke used to be though.

As for Boeing designing aircraft for accountants, I think you have that round the wrong way. The Airbus sells so well because it keeps the accountants happy and they run the airlines these days not pilots! Boeing build great aeroplanes but Airbus build efficent ones.

As I said a pointless argument but fun!


:O

Airbus vs Boeing, Boeing vs Airbus, both fine aeroplanes. Competition is a healthy thing.

I'm off to slip into my wellies to take the sheep for some Freedom Fries.

Utter, astonishingly laughable, twaddle, and typical of the stuff still going around. The Airbus does not correct for an an engine failure, unless the autopilot is engaged, and any aircraft with a three channel autopilot will do that. If hand flying and you lose an engine then you have to apply rudder. Basic stuff eh? The 777, however, does have an auto rudder input in the event that an engine fails on takeoff whilst hand flying. Does that make it any less of an aircraft. No, I don't think so.

As for this 'real' aircraft, and degraded skills argument, this has been the case since the advent of the FMC/Glass cockpit which goes back to the early eighties. It's called progress.
I can't say that on any type I've operated, whether it was glass or not, that the skill levels of the majority of pilots whilst hand flying has fallen appreciably. Those who find it hard will do so regardless of instrumentation/automation. It is also interesting that people still think that they are pilots in the sense of stick and rudder flying. The majority are not, regardless of what type they operate. Very few hand fly todays aircraft to any degree, and with good reason. The flight deck can be a busy place after takeoff or during an approach; sometimes it makes more sense to keep the autopilot flying the aircraft.

But regardless of how much one handles an aircraft it matters not a jot whether it's a Boeing or an Airbus; the controls operate in the same way, hydraulics power the control surfaces, and only smaller aircraft have a direct cable connection. If having that direct cable connection makes an aircraft a 'real' one, then we lost that in the fifties/sixties.

I'm waiting for my first jet job - but I've done quite a few hours in the Level D 737 sim.

Read the recent write-up on the A318 in F.I. Seems stick inputs for bank angles up to 30 degrees don't require any back pressure on the stick from the pilot - the elevator input is automatic. I realise the planes are not there for our enjoyment but it just somehow seems like less fun than the old stiring the porridge! Also, I was a chopper pilot first so I'm concerned that if I'm given a stick I might automatically try and hover on the approach! :-)

I really enjoy both the new tech. side of jets and the hand flying side. My ideal world would have me on a 737 for a few years and then switch to Airbus once the initial thrill has worn off and I don't want to work that hard on every minor task anymore.. I'm asssuming the common cockpit makes it easier to move up to heavier types on the Airbus.

If I May ...
 

Gents, the business of an airline is not to provide the most comfy seat to the pilots; it's there to sell tickets and generate a profit. Someone once said "we don't fly aeroplanes, we fly passengers". Sums it all up really.

Therefore, the decision to buy this or that aircraft should rest with the people responsible for selling the tickets, and not the drivers. When the "beancounters" have decided which is the most economical solution, then by all means bring every other staff group on line and take their ideas/wishes onboard. Perhaps a HUD for the flightdeck, a revised crew rest area, aligning maintenance procedures to fit the engineering department, equip with a sliding carpet to please the loaders etc etc etc. But the bottom-line is to sell tickets.

If pilots ran airlines, the world fleet would probably consist of some fancy supersonic F-xx equipped with pods for the pax/cargo.

If handlers ran airlines, there would be only containerized aircraft.

If hosties ran airlines, passengers would be banned.

If engineers ran airlines, only Mercedes Benz would build aircraft.

In either case, it wouldn't work very well ...

PS
Just a quick edit to add: The article above said something about "Airbus happy over a couple of A380 orders". Well, if I could announce 12.5 Billion USD worth of orders to a single customer, then I'd be a bit happy about that too. Maybe I'm aiming too low?