iamlucky13 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Maybe the EU took notice and did the same? https://news.aviation-safety.net/2012/0 ... -rib-feet/

In an ironic parallel, this was discovered not via routine inspection but because the EU made engine exploded and someone had to take the wing apart to fix it.

So what?
What has that post to do with the pickle fork issue?
Does that change anything on the pickle fork issue?
Does it change anything on that the pickle fork was a lifetime part?
Does it change that there was no inspection regime for the pickle fork?

The prior poster made a snarky, mock-nationalist, false claim (Boeing's basis for its claims about maintenance cost was the comparison of the actual in-service experience of the NG and CEO, not nationalism). It is relevant to that comment's implication that fatigue in lifetime parts that should not fatigue is a Boeing-specific issue.

Please substantiate your claim that the pickle fork is not covered by any current inspections.

But the 737 has a pretty bad record as far as corrosion and structural integrity goes compared to the A320. The corrosion of fuselage joining and general weakness due to the supposed illegal modification or force-fitting of noncomforming parts. You can see this often times when a 737 has a loss of hull but isn’t fatally destroyed the fuselage breaks in generally the same two places when it should not. In fact Boeing products other than the 737 do have corrosion issues. 757s and 767s also have pretty bad corrosion issues. Fixable, sure, but these fixes come at a price. Saying their products are stronger or require less maintenance is just chest thumping probably due to the idea that America makes it tougher than Europe. Remember everyone over here called the A320 the “disposable French plane” vs the “rugged and robust 737”. Those are based on stereotypes quite clearly but we have seen it’s the 737 that is more likely to corrode and crumble.

A comparison between in service experience of course is card stacked information because the service isn’t even close to done yet on most of them (or at least it shouldn’t be) so we don’t ultimately know over 30 years what’s cheaper to have. I also suspect as typical for Boeing such a comparison would be full of marketing half truths or other misleading figures. You can guarantee there’s a lot of fine print on that comparison.

767333ER wrote:

But the 737 has a pretty bad record as far as corrosion and structural integrity goes compared to the A320. The corrosion of fuselage joining and general weakness due to the supposed illegal modification or force-fitting of noncomforming parts. You can see this often times when a 737 has a loss of hull but isn’t fatally destroyed the fuselage breaks in generally the same two places when it should not. In fact Boeing products other than the 737 do have corrosion issues. 757s and 767s also have pretty bad corrosion issues. Fixable, sure, but these fixes come at a price. Saying their products are stronger or require less maintenance is just chest thumping probably due to the idea that America makes it tougher than Europe. Remember everyone over here called the A320 the “disposable French plane” vs the “rugged and robust 737”. Those are based on stereotypes quite clearly but we have seen it’s the 737 that is more likely to corrode and crumble.

And 777's too. Do NZ have some stories to tell?

This is one hell of a mountain being made out of a small hill.

767333ER wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

So what?
What has that post to do with the pickle fork issue?
Does that change anything on the pickle fork issue?
Does it change anything on that the pickle fork was a lifetime part?
Does it change that there was no inspection regime for the pickle fork?

The prior poster made a snarky, mock-nationalist, false claim (Boeing's basis for its claims about maintenance cost was the comparison of the actual in-service experience of the NG and CEO, not nationalism). It is relevant to that comment's implication that fatigue in lifetime parts that should not fatigue is a Boeing-specific issue.

Please substantiate your claim that the pickle fork is not covered by any current inspections.

But the 737 has a pretty bad record as far as corrosion and structural integrity goes compared to the A320. The corrosion of fuselage joining and general weakness due to the supposed illegal modification or force-fitting of noncomforming parts. You can see this often times when a 737 has a loss of hull but isn’t fatally destroyed the fuselage breaks in generally the same two places when it should not. In fact Boeing products other than the 737 do have corrosion issues. 757s and 767s also have pretty bad corrosion issues. Fixable, sure, but these fixes come at a price. Saying their products are stronger or require less maintenance is just chest thumping probably due to the idea that America makes it tougher than Europe. Remember everyone over here called the A320 the “disposable French plane” vs the “rugged and robust 737”. Those are based on stereotypes quite clearly but we have seen it’s the 737 that is more likely to corrode and crumble.

A comparison between in service experience of course is card stacked information because the service isn’t even close to done yet on most of them (or at least it shouldn’t be) so we don’t ultimately know over 30 years what’s cheaper to have. I also suspect as typical for Boeing such a comparison would be full of marketing half truths or other misleading figures. You can guarantee there’s a lot of fine print on that comparison.

Googling A320 Corrosion brought up 1.2 Million hits so it seems to have some issues as well.

Looking through A320 and 737 crash images they both showed breaking the fuselage breaking off in front or behind the wings - which is what one would expect.

All planes corrode.

morrisond wrote:

Googling A320 Corrosion brought up 1.2 Million hits so it seems to have some issues as well.

Looking through A320 and 737 crash images they both showed breaking the fuselage breaking off in front or behind the wings - which is what one would expect.

All planes corrode.

Google hit counts are a terrible metric for any purpose I've been able to come up with, although the overall point is legitimate. A wide variety of issues affect all manufacturers, and any time there is an accident, the media loves to focus on strictly those related to the manufacturer in the spotlight.

Just out of curiosity, I looked and see that 3 of the 5 most recent airworthiness directives on FAA.gov are for Airbus.

A320 - cracking on frame 16 and frame 20. As far as I know, these are lifetime parts

A330 - Disbonds on the engine inlet cowl causing cowl collapse - update to an existing AD

A330 - Heat damage to structural parts of the thrust reverser

Actually, it's interesting to browse the AD database just to see how regularly new AD's come out for all manufacturers, and the variety of issues they deal with.

Another Airbus AD from last week mandates new software for controlling bleed air temperature in response to overheating some parts. A Boeing AD from early this week details a quality control issue requiring inspection of one of the 787 ribs in case of cracking. Yet another AD affects numerous aircraft manufacturers related to a USB charging port installed by Fokker for charging devices electronic flight bags that has been subject to multiple reports of smoke.

AD's are a reason flying is so safe.

This really is an almost non event.

Not all ADs are created equal. Some address very serious and very expensive problems, and some address USB chargers

No doubt this AD makes 737NGs safer.

But much like the MAX it opens questions about Boeing, as they have introduced a change via designating the pickle fork as a part not requiring inspection without sufficient thought, testing or documentation that has the potential, though thankfully not the outcome in the case, of causing loss of life.

Mostly wrote:

Not all ADs are created equal. Some address very serious and very expensive problems, and some address USB chargers

Your point is good, but your example not so much, alas. I'll admit that USB chargers are possibly not "very expensive", but I'm inclined to think that multiple reports of smoke is a very serious issue, just as serious as reports of cracks.

PITingres wrote:

Your point is good, but your example not so much, alas. I'll admit that USB chargers are possibly not "very expensive", but I'm inclined to think that multiple reports of smoke is a very serious issue, just as serious as reports of cracks.

Fair point.

moa999 wrote:

No doubt this AD makes 737NGs safer.

But much like the MAX it opens questions about Boeing, as they have introduced a change via designating the pickle fork as a part not requiring inspection without sufficient thought, testing or documentation that has the potential, though thankfully not the outcome in the case, of causing loss of life.

This is still an open question in this thread: Do the pickle forks require inspections in the maintenance plan? You add the additional question of whether a previously required inspection was removed.

I reiterate before the point gets repeated that cracks being discovered on aircraft at the end of a heavy maintenance interval, or in between intervals does not indicate cracks were present at prior heavy checks and therefore missed because of lack of inspection.

Note that it is an assumption on my part that the original cracks were discovered at a heavy maintenance interval, based on the fact that maintenance intervals are a common time for cargo conversions for economic reasons, and would explain why pickle forks were in fact being inspected on the aircraft where this was first discovered.

Another open question is whether full airframe fatigue testing was done on the NG.

I have found a couple references to a fuselage fatigue test conducted to 225,000 cycles, which was how crown splice issues that were a big topic several years ago were found, but I don't know if the wings were on that test airframe, or it was effectively just a pressure cycle test, not a full airframe and flight load test.

The P-8 Poseidon was fatigue tested, but to very different load cases, and it had some reinforcements specifically for its expected use profile:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-225584/

So will Boeing take some of these cracked forks and put them in a test bed frame to see what the true impact to aircraft integrity is? Go through some stress tests to see what it would take to break them and therefore what happens when they do break?

morrisond wrote:

767333ER wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

The prior poster made a snarky, mock-nationalist, false claim (Boeing's basis for its claims about maintenance cost was the comparison of the actual in-service experience of the NG and CEO, not nationalism). It is relevant to that comment's implication that fatigue in lifetime parts that should not fatigue is a Boeing-specific issue.

Please substantiate your claim that the pickle fork is not covered by any current inspections.

But the 737 has a pretty bad record as far as corrosion and structural integrity goes compared to the A320. The corrosion of fuselage joining and general weakness due to the supposed illegal modification or force-fitting of noncomforming parts. You can see this often times when a 737 has a loss of hull but isn’t fatally destroyed the fuselage breaks in generally the same two places when it should not. In fact Boeing products other than the 737 do have corrosion issues. 757s and 767s also have pretty bad corrosion issues. Fixable, sure, but these fixes come at a price. Saying their products are stronger or require less maintenance is just chest thumping probably due to the idea that America makes it tougher than Europe. Remember everyone over here called the A320 the “disposable French plane” vs the “rugged and robust 737”. Those are based on stereotypes quite clearly but we have seen it’s the 737 that is more likely to corrode and crumble.

A comparison between in service experience of course is card stacked information because the service isn’t even close to done yet on most of them (or at least it shouldn’t be) so we don’t ultimately know over 30 years what’s cheaper to have. I also suspect as typical for Boeing such a comparison would be full of marketing half truths or other misleading figures. You can guarantee there’s a lot of fine print on that comparison.

Googling A320 Corrosion brought up 1.2 Million hits so it seems to have some issues as well.

Looking through A320 and 737 crash images they both showed breaking the fuselage breaking off in front or behind the wings - which is what one would expect.

All planes corrode.

A one-sided "statistic" means nothing.

I did the test (same browser):
- googled "a320 corrosion", returned 334,000 results in 0.57 seconds;
- googled "737 corrosion", returned 3,140,000 results in 0.56 seconds.
Per your "analysis", the 737 has about 10 times the corrosion problem that the A320 has.

Dare to offer rebuttal?

WayexTDI wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Googling A320 Corrosion brought up 1.2 Million hits so it seems to have some issues as well.

Looking through A320 and 737 crash images they both showed breaking the fuselage breaking off in front or behind the wings - which is what one would expect.

All planes corrode.

A one-sided "statistic" means nothing.

I did the test (same browser):
- googled "a320 corrosion", returned 334,000 results in 0.57 seconds;
- googled "737 corrosion", returned 3,140,000 results in 0.56 seconds.
Per your "analysis", the 737 has about 10 times the corrosion problem that the A320 has.

Dare to offer rebuttal?

Dare? Pfft. You're seeing things that were never stated. Nowhere did morrisond's post quantify or even compare the number of A320 problems and 737 problems. The statement was "it seems to have some issues as well". Are you claiming it doesn't?

Google hit counts are completely useless as an actual event comparison metric and I'm going to make no attempt to say which plane has had more issues. (and, given that the 737 has been in service a lot longer, and some of its earlier issues were spectacular, I'd be surprised if there weren't more corrosion problems as well as more hits referring to them.)

Spacepope wrote:

So, have any actually been repaired and put back in service yet?

I don't know about other carriers but two of the three WN aircraft have been repaired and returned. Though one went straight from VCV to PAE for a scheduled heavy check.

PITingres wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Googling A320 Corrosion brought up 1.2 Million hits so it seems to have some issues as well.

Looking through A320 and 737 crash images they both showed breaking the fuselage breaking off in front or behind the wings - which is what one would expect.

All planes corrode.

A one-sided "statistic" means nothing.

I did the test (same browser):
- googled "a320 corrosion", returned 334,000 results in 0.57 seconds;
- googled "737 corrosion", returned 3,140,000 results in 0.56 seconds.
Per your "analysis", the 737 has about 10 times the corrosion problem that the A320 has.

Dare to offer rebuttal?

Dare? Pfft. You're seeing things that were never stated. Nowhere did morrisond's post quantify or even compare the number of A320 problems and 737 problems. The statement was "it seems to have some issues as well". Are you claiming it doesn't?

Google hit counts are completely useless as an actual event comparison metric and I'm going to make no attempt to say which plane has had more issues. (and, given that the 737 has been in service a lot longer, and some of its earlier issues were spectacular, I'd be surprised if there weren't more corrosion problems as well as more hits referring to them.)

Of course Google hit count is useless. I was just using the same (flawed) logic than morrisond did: Google search hit gives you an idea of the extent of the "damage".

WayexTDI wrote:

morrisond wrote:

767333ER wrote:

But the 737 has a pretty bad record as far as corrosion and structural integrity goes compared to the A320. The corrosion of fuselage joining and general weakness due to the supposed illegal modification or force-fitting of noncomforming parts. You can see this often times when a 737 has a loss of hull but isn’t fatally destroyed the fuselage breaks in generally the same two places when it should not. In fact Boeing products other than the 737 do have corrosion issues. 757s and 767s also have pretty bad corrosion issues. Fixable, sure, but these fixes come at a price. Saying their products are stronger or require less maintenance is just chest thumping probably due to the idea that America makes it tougher than Europe. Remember everyone over here called the A320 the “disposable French plane” vs the “rugged and robust 737”. Those are based on stereotypes quite clearly but we have seen it’s the 737 that is more likely to corrode and crumble.

A comparison between in service experience of course is card stacked information because the service isn’t even close to done yet on most of them (or at least it shouldn’t be) so we don’t ultimately know over 30 years what’s cheaper to have. I also suspect as typical for Boeing such a comparison would be full of marketing half truths or other misleading figures. You can guarantee there’s a lot of fine print on that comparison.

Googling A320 Corrosion brought up 1.2 Million hits so it seems to have some issues as well.

Looking through A320 and 737 crash images they both showed breaking the fuselage breaking off in front or behind the wings - which is what one would expect.

All planes corrode.

A one-sided "statistic" means nothing.

I did the test (same browser):
- googled "a320 corrosion", returned 334,000 results in 0.57 seconds;
- googled "737 corrosion", returned 3,140,000 results in 0.56 seconds.
Per your "analysis", the 737 has about 10 times the corrosion problem that the A320 has.

Dare to offer rebuttal?

I like to compare compare AC624 to an incident like AA331, granted a rough comparison, but somewhat relevant to my argument. The 737 in question exited the runway at merely highway speed and proceeded to break up in the same usual places 737NGs have tended to break. The A320 was at approach speed and struck power lines and the ground 3 times before stopping and the fuselage was in one piece. A 727 was crash landed as an experiment in 2012 in the desert more violently than either of these and only the nose caved in, the fuselage did not sever like the 737-800’s.

All planes corrode because planes are made of metal and metal corrodes. Not all planes are built equally or to the equal standard of quality so not all planes corrode equally and the fact that we are here discussing the 737’s corrosion issues and that we have seen other bad corrosion issues on the 737NG in the bad does not paint a good picture for the 737 or the one sided “stat” you give and the fallacious conclusion you draw from it.

I never said the A320 doesn’t corrode, it just seems to not be as likely or as intensive.

CALTECH wrote:

And believe that this is a close up photo of one of the cracks.

I have two dumb questions about the part on the picture. It seems to me like the crack propagated all the way to the edge, so the part apparently has to be replaced.

So if the crack would only go halfway to the edge, could the crack be stopped by drilling?

The second dumb question is: Would be possible and financially feasible to design and certify a reinforced pickle fork as a replacement part so the aircraft with the replaced pickle forks wouldn't have to be inspected in that area again?

767333ER wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Googling A320 Corrosion brought up 1.2 Million hits so it seems to have some issues as well.

Looking through A320 and 737 crash images they both showed breaking the fuselage breaking off in front or behind the wings - which is what one would expect.

All planes corrode.

A one-sided "statistic" means nothing.

I did the test (same browser):
- googled "a320 corrosion", returned 334,000 results in 0.57 seconds;
- googled "737 corrosion", returned 3,140,000 results in 0.56 seconds.
Per your "analysis", the 737 has about 10 times the corrosion problem that the A320 has.

Dare to offer rebuttal?

I like to compare compare AC624 to an incident like AA331, granted a rough comparison, but somewhat relevant to my argument. The 737 in question exited the runway at merely highway speed and proceeded to break up in the same usual places 737NGs have tended to break. The A320 was at approach speed and struck power lines and the ground 3 times before stopping and the fuselage was in one piece. A 727 was crash landed as an experiment in 2012 in the desert more violently than either of these and only the nose caved in, the fuselage did not sever like the 737-800’s.

All planes corrode because planes are made of metal and metal corrodes. Not all planes are built equally or to the equal standard of quality so not all planes corrode equally and the fact that we are here discussing the 737’s corrosion issues and that we have seen other bad corrosion issues on the 737NG in the bad does not paint a good picture for the 737 or the one sided “stat” you give and the fallacious conclusion you draw from it.

I never said the A320 doesn’t corrode, it just seems to not be as likely or as intensive.

I'm assuming you didn't mean to respond to my comment; because you are just proving my point if you were...

WildcatYXU wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

And believe that this is a close up photo of one of the cracks.

I have two dumb questions about the part on the picture. It seems to me like the crack propagated all the way to the edge, so the part apparently has to be replaced.

So if the crack would only go halfway to the edge, could the crack be stopped by drilling?

The second dumb question is: Would be possible and financially feasible to design and certify a reinforced pickle fork as a replacement part so the aircraft with the replaced pickle forks wouldn't have to be inspected in that area again?

Your questions were fine, nothing dumb about them at all.
Part will be replaced, too critical of a load structural area.
Do not think they'll allow stop drilling if it only went halfway. Probably wouldn't stop the crack from finishing it's journey to the edge. Might make it worse. Too much load in that part.
Solution....

'Boeing has commanded full speed ahead with the production of replacement pickle forks and a repair line is set up at Victorville by its AOG (Aircraft On Ground) team. The first aircraft starts the replacement of its rear pickle forks Friday. It’s expected to take two to three weeks for the first job, which also serves as the master for a Service Bulletin from Boeing how to carry out the repair.'

WayexTDI wrote:

767333ER wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

A one-sided "statistic" means nothing.

I did the test (same browser):
- googled "a320 corrosion", returned 334,000 results in 0.57 seconds;
- googled "737 corrosion", returned 3,140,000 results in 0.56 seconds.
Per your "analysis", the 737 has about 10 times the corrosion problem that the A320 has.

Dare to offer rebuttal?

I like to compare compare AC624 to an incident like AA331, granted a rough comparison, but somewhat relevant to my argument. The 737 in question exited the runway at merely highway speed and proceeded to break up in the same usual places 737NGs have tended to break. The A320 was at approach speed and struck power lines and the ground 3 times before stopping and the fuselage was in one piece. A 727 was crash landed as an experiment in 2012 in the desert more violently than either of these and only the nose caved in, the fuselage did not sever like the 737-800’s.

All planes corrode because planes are made of metal and metal corrodes. Not all planes are built equally or to the equal standard of quality so not all planes corrode equally and the fact that we are here discussing the 737’s corrosion issues and that we have seen other bad corrosion issues on the 737NG in the bad does not paint a good picture for the 737 or the one sided “stat” you give and the fallacious conclusion you draw from it.

I never said the A320 doesn’t corrode, it just seems to not be as likely or as intensive.

I'm assuming you didn't mean to respond to my comment; because you are just proving my point if you were...

I was mainly responding to morrisond and I was too lazy to cut you out of it. I figured you’d probably like reading somewhat reaffirms your point anyway.

Can anyone confirm if United are taking proactive steps like most airlines and checking their entire 737 NG fleet immediately regardless of cycle count?
I’ve emailed their Customer Care team on this and they just fed me the line of “safety is our number 1 priority at United and we can confirm we are acting in compliance with all FAA directives”. I went back snd asked for a specific answer on whether they’re going above and beyond the mandated timelines in the FAA directive like real safety conscious airlines such as Qantas and checking even young planes but have not heard a peep out of them on this. I even posted the question to their Facebook page and they’ve since blocked me which I find strange. I’ve seen vague reports around both AA and United checking their fleets but when this problem initially surfaced United said “we don’t have any 737NG planes with more than 30,000 cycles so we’ll check ours when they need to be checked”. Does’nt inspire a lot of confidence in me. Why hasn’t the FAA updated the directive to have all planes regardless of cycle count inspected immediately as we’ve seen plenty if younger planes showing up with this issue. For a critical part like the pickle fork I would have thought a change to checking all planes immediately would be justified.

I think its unfair to say United is not safety conscience. They have a fantastic track record of safety.

StTim wrote:

This is one hell of a mountain being made out of a small hill.

It's nothing like MCAS but it's interesting in itself.

QANTAS says it takes 3000 man hours per plane for repairs, which is much longer than expected.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-737-crack-repair/

RickNRoll wrote:

QANTAS says it takes 3000 man hours per plane for repairs, which is much longer than expected.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-737-crack-repair/

Did Qantas really underestimated the man-hours? Or did Boeing provided an "over-optimistic" number?
Or, are Qantas the first one to do this repair and act as "guinea pigs"?

WayexTDI wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

QANTAS says it takes 3000 man hours per plane for repairs, which is much longer than expected.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-737-crack-repair/

Did Qantas really underestimated the man-hours? Or did Boeing provided an "over-optimistic" number?
Or, are Qantas the first one to do this repair and act as "guinea pigs"?

Some of A-net's "resident experts" were estimating 2,200 for a replacement a few months ago. The estimated repair hours were as low as 150. It probably won't matter to some that the estimates are so far away from reality.

WayexTDI wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

QANTAS says it takes 3000 man hours per plane for repairs, which is much longer than expected.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-737-crack-repair/

Did Qantas really underestimated the man-hours? Or did Boeing provided an "over-optimistic" number?
Or, are Qantas the first one to do this repair and act as "guinea pigs"?

Some of A-net's "resident experts" were estimating 2,200 for a replacement a few months ago. The estimated repair hours were as low as 150. It probably won't matter to some that the estimates are so far away from reality.

RickNRoll wrote:

QANTAS says it takes 3000 man hours per plane for repairs, which is much longer than expected.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-737-crack-repair/

At $100/h, that's $300.000 per plane, which equals to about 1% of its book value or so. The damage is probably more significant in lost revenue.

tomcat wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

QANTAS says it takes 3000 man hours per plane for repairs, which is much longer than expected.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-737-crack-repair/

At $100/h, that's $300.000 per plane, which equals to about 1% of its book value or so. The damage is probably more significant in lost revenue.

A 18 year old 737-800 with a bock value of 30 million USD, are they gold plated or something? Does Qantas not write their frames down in regards to age and use?
If I assume a new price of 60 million USD (40% discount) and a 25 year straight line write off, I get to 18,8 million USD book value. With a 20 year straight line wright off, 4.8 million USD book value

And does 300,000 USD include the parts in your opinion?

Are the replacement pickle forks provided and shipped free from Boeing or do the airlines have to pay for them as well?
And any other parts and tooling that might be needed?

tomcat wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

QANTAS says it takes 3000 man hours per plane for repairs, which is much longer than expected.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-737-crack-repair/

At $100/h, that's $300.000 per plane, which equals to about 1% of its book value or so. The damage is probably more significant in lost revenue.

Yes. The QANTAS planes won't be available for the Xmas peak.

mjoelnir wrote:

tomcat wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

QANTAS says it takes 3000 man hours per plane for repairs, which is much longer than expected.

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-737-crack-repair/

At $100/h, that's $300.000 per plane, which equals to about 1% of its book value or so. The damage is probably more significant in lost revenue.

A 18 year old 737-800 with a bock value of 30 million USD, are they gold plated or something? Does Qantas not write their frames down in regards to age and use?
If I assume a new price of 60 million USD (40% discount) and a 25 year straight line write off, I get to 18,8 million USD book value. With a 20 year straight line wright off, 4.8 million USD book value

And does 300,000 USD include the parts in your opinion?

Sorry, I had in mind reports mentioning cracks found in aircraft which had less than 30.000 hours. I'm just trying to put things in perspective and I agree that my book value estimate may be too high.

About the 300,000 USD, I've only applied an assumed hourly labour rate to the 3000 man hours. From what I've read (*), the first batch of spare parts coming from LMI Aerospace will be titanum parts. My somewhat educated guess is that they will cost Boeing more than 300.000 USD each.

(*) LMI Aerospace is now a subsidiary of a Belgian aerospace company, so the Belgian press reported about the contract for the supply of an emergency batch of titanium pickle forks:

Cette pièce, qui relie la structure du fuselage à celle de la voilure, est aujourd’hui fabriquée en urgence par LMI, filiale de la Sonaca, dans son usine de Washington, Missouri.

Ces pièces n’étant pas d’usure, devant durer toute la vie d’un appareil dont la production est terminée, il n’existait quasi pas de rechanges. C’est LMI, filiale américaine de la Sonaca, qui a relevé le défi d’usiner ces grandes pièces en titane dans son usine de Washington, Missouri.

https://www.lalibre.be/economie/entreprises-startup/la-sonaca-vole-au-secours-de-boeing-pour-le-737-next-gen-5dc1c0bef20d5a264d45c615

Korean carriers having issues, they are having to ferry aircraft to the United States for repairs. Talk about added cost.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2 ... 79906.html

It's interesting how some countries and airlines (particularly Korea and Australia) have been very forthcoming with factual data and commentary on the check and repair process, yet its radio silence from many others.

pugman211 wrote:

What does 3000 hrs equate to in day/people??

It's 3,000 person-hours. So 3,000 hours for one person, or one hour for 3,000 people.

Or more realistically, 3,000 hours divided by a sensible number of people so they won't get in each other's way!

Is that 3000 hours to do one picklefork or two pickle forks on one airplane?

Is 3000 to replace it or repair it?

Normally in such instances, the OEM contributes a sliding scale % towards the cost of the part/s and hours, depending on the aircraft's current hours and cycles.

The gross hours per aircraft to replace parts is advised by the OEM, based on real life experience, or predicted, at an agreed hourly rate (there is an accepted formula for the latter expressed in USD).

Where multiple modifications / replacements are involved, the OEM predicts an average hours figure, based on learning. This appears to be the current focus of customer / Boeing dialogue. Presumably the formula for the actual parts isn't an issue.

Airlines will have three choices. If they have internal expertise, the customer can undertake the work inhouse - Boeing will pick up their agreed share (higher if the customer opts to take as a credit). Or the airline can place the work externally - Boeing pick up their agreed fixed share, and the customer the balance, including overruns. Or the airline can ask Boeing to place the work - the customer pick up their agreed fixed share based on Boeing's time predictions, and Boeing the balance, including overruns.

If customers believe the predicted hours are understated, they will pass the problem to Boeing. If customers believe the predicted hours are accurate, they may manage the repairs, as in theory they have more time control. If customers believe the predicted hours are accurate, and there are genuine learning opportunities, they will definitely manage the repairs.

If comments attributed to QF, and actions of Korean-based airlines are accurate, it appears customers are not confident the hours currently offered by Boeing are realistic.

I heard at DL zero cracks were found. Roughly 30 aircraft are into the higher inspection hour range. The plan is to proactively replace the pickle forks on those aircraft. Most likely a mod line will be set up in ATL to do the work. A crew went out to VCV it observe the process. Very similar to the 767 pickle fork replacements we have already done in house.

EL AL 4X-EKM 19 years old, was at VCV between Nov 20th and Dec 2nd for pickle fork repair. So it is aproximatelly ten days job.

3000 hours. 10 days. The math to shove 3000 hours into 10 days, even with 3 shifts per day, just doesn't add up.

smokeybandit wrote:

3000 hours. 10 days. The math to shove 3000 hours into 10 days, even with 3 shifts per day, just doesn't add up.

Indeed. I'd like to see a full accounting of what is counted in the 3000 hour tally, if that includes the initial inspection, the man-hours for the ferry flight, etc. Something is suspect here as it looks like a Gol and possibly WN airframe may have been fixed already as well, based on what's been coming in and out of VCV.

smokeybandit wrote:

3000 hours. 10 days. The math to shove 3000 hours into 10 days, even with 3 shifts per day, just doesn't add up.

3,000 MH into 10 calendar days, that's 12.5 person working in 3 8-hour shifts; maybe not that crazy if the 3,000 MH include the whole process (including paperwork and all).

smokeybandit wrote:

3000 hours. 10 days. The math to shove 3000 hours into 10 days, even with 3 shifts per day, just doesn't add up.

3000 man hours. Multiple people can be working at once.

Polot wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

3000 hours. 10 days. The math to shove 3000 hours into 10 days, even with 3 shifts per day, just doesn't add up.

3000 man hours. Multiple people can be working at once.

Of course. But the math still works out to 37 people working each day (12 per shift) for 10 days straight.

These 3000 man hours represent the first set of repairs where the guys doing the repair are "building" the optimal procedure or is that the final number?
Also, if the spare pickle forks are made of titanium, won't it cause problems with electrochemical corrosion?

smokeybandit wrote:

Polot wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

3000 hours. 10 days. The math to shove 3000 hours into 10 days, even with 3 shifts per day, just doesn't add up.

3000 man hours. Multiple people can be working at once.

Of course. But the math still works out to 37 people working each day (12 per shift) for 10 days straight.

Between the people actually working on the plane, the supervisors, the ones in the inventory warehouse, all the admin, etc, 37 people working each day is a possibility.