Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What the hell is going on with Boeing?

Options
  • 26-02-2021 3:02pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭


    Another Boeing emergency landing this time at Moscow after the incident from Colorado a few short days ago.


    https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0226/1199501-boeing-777-landing/






    Once a great American company and a trusted titan of global aviation - now quite literally falling apart with stuff like this and the rolling disaster that is the 737 MAX.

    A criticism of modern Boeing is that it used to be a company run by engineers up to the highest level, whereas these days they have Harvard MBAs and accountant corner cutters in charge leading to disaster after disaster.

    The same people also got sick of well-paid and trained aviation construction staff (often inter-generational expertise) in their home of Washington State, so they moved a lot of functions to non-union Southern States. There were stories of Boeing literally going into Burger King asking burger flippers did they want to make planes.

    'If it's Boeing, I ain't going'


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭AlphabetCards


    Yurt! wrote: »
    whereas these days they have Harvard MBAs and accountant corner cutters in charge leading to disaster after disaster.

    The scourge of the sciences.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Boeing dont build jet engines, engines need to be checked after a certain no of hours, all the planes with that engine are grounded and they are being checked .
    theres only a few companys who make jet engines ,
    rolls royce, pratt etc


    https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/travel/news/2021/02/22/boeing-777-grounding-engine-failure-pratt-and-whitney-united-flight-328-who-makes-the-engines/4541359001/
    one of the problems with the 737 is the flight control software is complex and pilots
    where not being properly trained and did not understand how it works.

    https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/political-social-justice/boeing-parts-scandal.html

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/production-problems-prompt-broad-faa-review-of-boeing-dreamliner-lapses-11599498118


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,277 ✭✭✭Your Face


    Operated by Rossiya Airlines brought to you by Aeroflot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Yeah I'm not getting this one. MCAS is a valid argument, but jet engines? Boeing have never made those.


  • Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Looking out the plane window at a burning, disintegrating engine must be a little disconcerting. I think I'd be finding something to distract myself rather than filming it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭AlphabetCards


    Yeah I'm not getting this one. MCAS is a valid argument, but jet engines? Boeing have never made those.

    They choose, test, procure and qualify the engines that their aircraft are supplied with, surely?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    They choose, test, procure and qualify the engines that their aircraft are supplied with, surely?


    I recall reading that Boeing lobbied heavily the last decade or so to self-certify aspects of designs and modifications as opposed to US aviation regulators having the final say on safety.


    I'm no aviation expert but that was a recurring theme with the 737 Max problems. A bit like builders self-certifying sh*tty apartments during the Celtic Tiger.


  • Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭Mr Meanor


    What the hell is going on with Boeing?
    The legacy of Mcdonnell Douglas


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,997 ✭✭✭Adyx


    They choose, test, procure and qualify the engines that their aircraft are supplied with, surely?

    And after many, many years of service, issues are beginning to appear. As you'd expect. I'm no fan of Boeing but if anything this is an issue with maintenance rather than manufacture. Besides, the engine would also be certified by the various aviation authorities too and the engines in these two incidents aren't even from the same manufacturer.

    Not to downplay the incident either but what happened in Russia isn't that big a deal. Engine issues (wasn't a failure) are relatively common and the 777 is more than capable of taking off or landing with one engine. The only reason it made the news was because of the United flight.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    With airlines hit by Covid you'd expect a few corners to be cut from here on unfortunately by certain companies.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,891 ✭✭✭gifted


    Be grand.......drive her on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,943 ✭✭✭✭the purple tin


    The lad who lives here will probably get a few bob anyway :eek:st_20210222_xflight_6347961.jpg?itok=F7GTjJz_&timestamp=1613933582


    Thank God nobody was hurt anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭Bobblehats


    Boei-oi-oi-oi-ing.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭0lddog


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Another Boeing emergency landing this time at Moscow after the incident from Colorado a few short days ago......

    Jeez Yurt! if you want to have a go at Mr B you might at least pick something that they are supposed to be responsible for.

    Reuters report from Yesterday :

    "Boeing is beginning painstaking repairs and forensic inspections to fix structural integrity flaws embedded deep inside at least 88 parked 787s built over the last year or so, a third industry source said.The inspections and retrofits could take up to a month per plane and are likely to cost hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars, though it depends on the number of planes and defects involved, the person said."

    ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-787-exclusive-idUSKBN2AP2SL )


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    I read article about a year ago, it said an expert said i do not not fly in boeing planes, made after after a certain date because there are planes with many metal fragments sealed inside as part of the building process .if a piece of metal gets hot and moves around it could damage wires used to control the wings or connect up the computers that control sensors or
    other parts of the flight control systems.
    it s cheaper to leave random screws , metal parts fragments inside than remove them all.
    this is nothing to do with covid ,its part of a process controlled by managers with the goal of reducing the cost
    of building planes .
    A modern plane contains 1000s of wires and cables connected to computers and display units and sensors.
    Just google boeing safety problems and you,ll get dozens of articles
    about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    riclad wrote: »
    I read article about a year ago, it said an expert said i do not not fly in boeing planes, made after after a certain date because there are planes with many metal fragments sealed inside as part of the building process .if a piece of metal gets hot and moves around it could damage wires used to control the wings or connect up the computers that control sensors or
    other parts of the flight control systems.
    it s cheaper to leave random screws , metal parts fragments inside than remove them all.
    this is nothing to do with covid ,its part of a process controlled by managers with the goal of reducing the cost
    of building planes .
    A modern plane contains 1000s of wires and cables connected to computers and display units and sensors.
    Just google boeing safety problems and you,ll get dozens of articles
    about it.


    I recall an Al Jalzeera undercover documentary about standards at a Boeing plant in the southern US. A journalist with a hidden camera posing as a worker asks a supervisor would he fly in this plane as a passenger. The response was "f*ck no" or to that effect.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,874 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,345 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    Yurt! wrote: »
    I recall an Al Jalzeera undercover documentary about standards at a Boeing plant in the southern US. A journalist with a hidden camera posing as a worker asks a supervisor would he fly in this plane as a passenger. The response was "f*ck no" or to that effect.

    having worked in rolls royce for several years in the past i always feel better getting on a plane when i see the RR logo on the side of the engine


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭Bobblehats


    :confused: There’s like one poc in that tweet. Far right...


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,334 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    This is a nothing incident.
    Plane lands with faulty engine - happens every day of the week. Its a General Electric engine so no connection with the major failure last week.

    I like the 777 and Id arguably pick the 777 as the plane id chose to fly on based on nothing more than its performance is accident situations that ive seen.
    Many of its incidents have been due to the pratt and whitney engine and the grounding should finally sort this.
    In the situations where they have crash landed, the performance of the structure has been incredible. BA into heathrow landed short. All safe.
    Into San fran, the crash could easily have been total fatality but the hull for the most part stayed intact which having seen the footage seems miraculous.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Yurt! wrote: »
    I recall an Al Jalzeera undercover documentary about standards at a Boeing plant in the southern US. A journalist with a hidden camera posing as a worker asks a supervisor would he fly in this plane as a passenger. The response was "f*ck no" or to that effect.

    The Dreamliner in it's current iteration has been criticised quite a bit for it's fit and finish privately but when asked by media all the airlines go "we love our Dreamliners" This is what happens when there are just two aircraft makers of scale, you have to stay friendly with both all the time.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,048 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Also this week bits fell off a 747 in the Netherlands.


    Mr Meanor wrote: »
    What the hell is going on with Boeing?
    The legacy of Mcdonnell Douglas
    The legacy of Mcdonnell Douglas accountants.

    Before that takeover/merger/cultural reverse take over Boeing was engineer led. Since then not so much.

    The 737 Max was a cascade of failure. Way too many software issues. Design issues, build quality issues.

    They've also missed lots of milestones in building stuff for NASA


  • Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭AlphabetCards


    Adyx wrote: »
    And after many, many years of service, issues are beginning to appear. As you'd expect. I'm no fan of Boeing but if anything this is an issue with maintenance rather than manufacture. Besides, the engine would also be certified by the various aviation authorities too and the engines in these two incidents aren't even from the same manufacturer.

    Not to downplay the incident either but what happened in Russia isn't that big a deal. Engine issues (wasn't a failure) are relatively common and the 777 is more than capable of taking off or landing with one engine. The only reason it made the news was because of the United flight.

    Hang on, when aircraft manufacturers pick a supplier, they are vouching for this supplier to their customers. They have decided that all aspects of the supply chain are safe enough for a safety-led industry. We are not just talking about the single engine that leaves the Boeing hanger destined for the airline, we are talking about the full services that are supported by the engine manufacturer for after-sales. The replacement parts, the upgrades, the long-term surveillance programmes for weaknesses.

    If you see a series of unconnected incidents, that is fine. But in terms of risk management, the increase in smaller, non-fatal incidents surely has an incremental rise in the chance of a larger mass casualty event. In this case, we know Boeing have been pushing out unsafe products - if you need a reminder, just ask the families of the 157 people on board Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.

    I for one wont be travelling on any of Ryanairs 8200-MAX (737 in incognito mode).


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Unfortunately it seems to be a case of American engineering going the way it always goes - Pioneers in their field to utter dung. Same with all the car manufacturers, they all went the same way pretty much.
    I tend to sweat more when I fly on a Boeing jet, but not so much on an airbus :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭The Tetrarch


    riclad wrote: »
    Boeing dont build jet engines, engines need to be checked after a certain no of hours, all the planes with that engine are grounded and they are being checked.
    theres only a few companys who make jet engines, rolls royce, pratt etc
    That is the story. An aircraft is millions of parts made by hundreds of sub-contractors.
    Engines and other major parts of the big smooth shiny thing are monitored, and must be removed after a number of hours use, or number of landings/events, and dismantled, examined, rebuilt, tested, and then put back into use.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,997 ✭✭✭Adyx


    Hang on, when aircraft manufacturers pick a supplier, they are vouching for this supplier to their customers. They have decided that all aspects of the supply chain are safe enough for a safety-led industry. We are not just talking about the single engine that leaves the Boeing hanger destined for the airline, we are talking about the full services that are supported by the engine manufacturer for after-sales. The replacement parts, the upgrades, the long-term surveillance programmes for weaknesses.

    If you see a series of unconnected incidents, that is fine. But in terms of risk management, the increase in smaller, non-fatal incidents surely has an incremental rise in the chance of a larger mass casualty event. In this case, we know Boeing have been pushing out unsafe products - if you need a reminder, just ask the families of the 157 people on board Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.

    I for one wont be travelling on any of Ryanairs 8200-MAX (737 in incognito mode).
    Yes an engine manufacturer that is used by several aeroplane companies including Airbus. Even the same engine that failed in the United flight is a variant used in some Airbus planes. I wouldn't fly with Ryanair full stop but not because of safety issues. And I'm not saying there aren't serious problems at Boeing, but you can't use this incident as a stick to beat them with if this is the fault of Pratt & Whitney.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭0lddog


    0lddog wrote: »
    Jeez Yurt! if you want to have a go at Mr B you might at least pick something that they are supposed to be responsible for.

    Reuters report from Yesterday :

    "Boeing is beginning painstaking repairs and forensic inspections to fix structural integrity flaws embedded deep inside at least 88 parked 787s built over the last year or so, a third industry source said.The inspections and retrofits could take up to a month per plane and are likely to cost hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars, though it depends on the number of planes and defects involved, the person said."

    ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-787-exclusive-idUSKBN2AP2SL )
    The Dreamliner in it's current iteration has been criticised quite a bit for it's fit and finish privately but when asked by media all the airlines go "we love our Dreamliners" This is what happens when there are just two aircraft makers of scale, you have to stay friendly with both all the time.


    :confused:


Advertisement