Last sentence - is he implying that they'll be bringing the majority back in-house again or will BCA continue to subcontract it out to the lowest bidder, etc, etc....
It's always a tricky decision, isn't it? But as the CEO wrote, they are going to apply lessons learned. IMO it's a bad thing to have to go to Cedar Rapids to host the review of your own flight control computer. That stuff should be in house, IMO. And guess what? Boeing has set up it's own avionics division.
Ref: https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/08/1 ... echnology/
“We don't need to be vertical everywhere, but there are a few areas where when we look through a customer value lens, it's clear that we can add value,” said Muilenburg, adding that avionics is “another area” where Boeing feels it can provide value on the airplanes they’re manufacturing.
While Boeing still has not confirmed a launch date for its new mid-market aircraft (NMA), Muilenburg said they’re projecting a 2025 entry into service for the new aircraft type if and when they decide to launch it.
Would that mean then that Boeing plans on developing the flight controls, navigation and information systems completely independently for the NMA? That is unclear, but CFO Greg Smith did discuss the company bringing more production in-house in the wake of displeasure surrounding the 787.
Maybe the NMA "shelving" allows time for them to "go vertical" with regard to avionics. Note the division is tucked underneath Boeing Services, and a big part of NMA was changing the traditional business model. It seems to me the cockpit would be a key to such a strategy.
Apparently, you didn’t read my entire post. I said systems logic “in terms of flight control systems” shouldn’t change from what is on the 757/767 for example. Innovate all you want, make systems better and more reliable, But, in the end the pilot should absolutely have the ultimate authority to override said flight control system if he/she feels it is in the best interest to do so. The computer shouldn’t decide for you, rather it should advise you.
I appreciate your point of view, but I'm thinking it's coming from a 20th century / boomer perspective. Airbus has full envelope protection since the 80s now and it's safety record is stellar. You advocate for the pilot being the last line of defense but clearly we have plenty of pilots already in the worldwide fleet who suck at being the last line of defense and many I presume who would really prefer to not have such a burden. Also we have airlines focused on cost who don't want to train pilots to the level of holding all those checklists in their heads when computers can hold them just fine, and don't want the liability when they show they can't remember memory items nor can't execute them flawlessly with three seconds notice.
More improvements by CFM/PW and better aerodynamics from a new composite wing.
Not sure if CFM, PW or RR are in any shape to be investing in more improvements for the current generation. NMA clearly was going to get a LEAP variant but that was before GE Aviation stopped getting revenue from MAX via CFM and is still spending heavily on GE9x. I think the engine industry is happy to get a bit of a breather, a few years to take in revenues and build up some reserves.
The Chinese would have to procure system integration tech that the Russians aren't going to sell them. and then procure Engine Technology that nobody will sell them. They are at best 2035 before they are able to build a suitable and reliable airliner. More than likely with Indian help.
Uhm, the Comac C919 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMAC_C919
) already has CFM LEAP engines and lots of Western partnerships developing the systems:
While the airframe is entirely made by Chinese Avic, most systems are made by Western-Chinese joint-ventures: with UTAS for the electric power, fire protection and lighting; with Rockwell Collins for the cabin systems and avionics, with Thales for the IFE, with Honeywell for the flight controls, APU, wheels and brakes; with Moog for the high lift system; with Parker for the hydraulics, actuators and fuel systems, with Liebherr for the landing gear and air management; and the CFM engine and Nexcelle nacelle are entirely foreign.