Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
SRJ94AB
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:54 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Thu Mar 11, 2021 6:24 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
He wasn’t promoted. He was already 777X chief engineer long before the first crash

Correct, but he'd already made all the key decisions on MAX when he was promoted to 777X Chief Engineer, such as no artificial AoA to act as a third AoA source due to cost pressure, and he still holds that title even after telling Congress he learned about MCAS's single AoA source via the media, which seems to be a contradiction. Bottom line: no accountability.


I’m not impressed with Teal, but for the opposite reason. On the 777X program he’s trying to overcompensate for his 737 Max failures by forcing all these new safety features. But he doesn’t have the working level expertise to know what he’s doing. Let the people who are actually experts in airplane alerting design the alerting and features. Not some executive who seems to not even understand the difference between various EICAS alert levels.


Case of once bitten twice shy! I guess the guy is putting himself under pressure not to miss anything again, the same as I imagine everyone else is too.

Out of curiosity is it a concern that the hardware changes and the added redundancy being added to the 777x to satisfy the regulators will add additional weight?
 
CFBFrame
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:09 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Thu Mar 11, 2021 6:37 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)

The terminology of corporation stakeholders seems to date to the 1980s. But the understanding that the privileges given to corporations was due to the perceived benefits to society as a whole is old. Copyrights and patents were granted not to enable cash cows, but to reward creativity. But all three have been co-opted in a variety of ways. Airbus acknowledges stakeholders and is succeeding.

Yes. Exactly. Companies such as Boeing are institutions of industry and they are not designed for creativity, they are designed to show the greatness of US industry. Stakeholders understood they were there to promote and support the institution. Want to break the mold? Well then do a start up but don't mess with the institution.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1695
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:11 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

Yeah, except I’m directly involved with development, testing, and certification of the 777-9. Darned if I don’t know just a little bit about the airplane. His statements that the 777-9 is no different from a legacy 777, other than the engines, is blatantly false.

You may or may not be involved with development, testing and certification of the 777-9, but doubt very much you are involved in the commercial negotiations, including performance guarantees and penalties being offered by Boeing and GE.

What EK and other prospective customers are demanding is production performance, confidence and resilience from the get go, backed by cast iron guarantees, and at least $ for $ compensation with low cost, neutral arbitration. Seems Boeing and GE are only guaranteeing 300ER performance plus 1-2%, and initially sub 300ER for the rest.

Boeing, and Airbus, GE and RR too, have to understand there has been a paradigm shift in the market. Customers with finance now have the power, unless the OEM's are in a position to provide or underwrite the finance.


Where in any post did I comment in any way about the negotiation or any commercial aspect of the airplane? Don’t put words in my mouth. Do you just reply without actually reading the comment?

I was commenting on some posts that said or implied the 777-9 is just a warmed over 777 with new engines.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You stated: 'His statements that the 777-9 is no different from a legacy 777, other than the engines, is blatantly false.'

If the 777-9 is no different from a legacy is 'blatantly false', why are Boeing offering 779 customers performance guarantees within 1-2% of the legacy 777, and in some aspects of confidence and resilience, below? Yes, this is a new model, and these relate to early builds, but with a 2-3 year rollout delay, why the caution? Presumably TC's inference is if Boeing hasn't got mature models sorted by now like MAX and 787, how much confidence can customers have in respect to the X? What has / is changing to ensure history doesn't repeat? Not a lot to his eyes, except OEM's being extremely conservative at the customer expense?

If OEM's play the conservative card, the only way to induce buyers, are even lower purchase prices on the already low bar set.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6566
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:28 pm

smartplane wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
You may or may not be involved with development, testing and certification of the 777-9, but doubt very much you are involved in the commercial negotiations, including performance guarantees and penalties being offered by Boeing and GE.

What EK and other prospective customers are demanding is production performance, confidence and resilience from the get go, backed by cast iron guarantees, and at least $ for $ compensation with low cost, neutral arbitration. Seems Boeing and GE are only guaranteeing 300ER performance plus 1-2%, and initially sub 300ER for the rest.

Boeing, and Airbus, GE and RR too, have to understand there has been a paradigm shift in the market. Customers with finance now have the power, unless the OEM's are in a position to provide or underwrite the finance.


Where in any post did I comment in any way about the negotiation or any commercial aspect of the airplane? Don’t put words in my mouth. Do you just reply without actually reading the comment?

I was commenting on some posts that said or implied the 777-9 is just a warmed over 777 with new engines.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You stated: 'His statements that the 777-9 is no different from a legacy 777, other than the engines, is blatantly false.'

If the 777-9 is no different from a legacy is 'blatantly false', why are Boeing offering 779 customers performance guarantees within 1-2% of the legacy 777, and in some aspects of confidence and resilience, below? Yes, this is a new model, and these relate to early builds, but with a 2-3 year rollout delay, why the caution? Presumably TC's inference is if Boeing hasn't got mature models sorted by now like MAX and 787, how much confidence can customers have in respect to the X? What has / is changing to ensure history doesn't repeat? Not a lot to his eyes, except OEM's being extremely conservative at the customer expense?

If OEM's play the conservative card, the only way to induce buyers, are even lower purchase prices on the already low bar set.


“His” was in reference to the previous poster, not Sir TC. I made a simple statement that there are in fact some significant technical upgrades and new features on the 777-9 compared to the legacy 777. Nothing more. That should have been very clear by anyone who actually read my posts. I wake up this morning to find several people who twisted my straightforward comments into things I didn’t say.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2254
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:33 pm

smartplane wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
You may or may not be involved with development, testing and certification of the 777-9, but doubt very much you are involved in the commercial negotiations, including performance guarantees and penalties being offered by Boeing and GE.

What EK and other prospective customers are demanding is production performance, confidence and resilience from the get go, backed by cast iron guarantees, and at least $ for $ compensation with low cost, neutral arbitration. Seems Boeing and GE are only guaranteeing 300ER performance plus 1-2%, and initially sub 300ER for the rest.

Boeing, and Airbus, GE and RR too, have to understand there has been a paradigm shift in the market. Customers with finance now have the power, unless the OEM's are in a position to provide or underwrite the finance.


Where in any post did I comment in any way about the negotiation or any commercial aspect of the airplane? Don’t put words in my mouth. Do you just reply without actually reading the comment?

I was commenting on some posts that said or implied the 777-9 is just a warmed over 777 with new engines.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You stated: 'His statements that the 777-9 is no different from a legacy 777, other than the engines, is blatantly false.'

If the 777-9 is no different from a legacy is 'blatantly false', why are Boeing offering 779 customers performance guarantees within 1-2% of the legacy 777, and in some aspects of confidence and resilience, below? Yes, this is a new model, and these relate to early builds, but with a 2-3 year rollout delay, why the caution? Presumably TC's inference is if Boeing hasn't got mature models sorted by now like MAX and 787, how much confidence can customers have in respect to the X? What has / is changing to ensure history doesn't repeat? Not a lot to his eyes, except OEM's being extremely conservative at the customer expense?

If OEM's play the conservative card, the only way to induce buyers, are even lower purchase prices on the already low bar set.

The two are not interrelated though. I mean the performance guarantee does not mean the 777-9 isn’t different from a legacy though in terms of the changes that have been made.

Secondly where did this performance guarantee come from

And do you really think Boeing will do all that for 1-2%. Would anyone even buy that jet for 1-2%? That’s an engine PIP
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6566
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:39 pm

Opus99 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

Where in any post did I comment in any way about the negotiation or any commercial aspect of the airplane? Don’t put words in my mouth. Do you just reply without actually reading the comment?

I was commenting on some posts that said or implied the 777-9 is just a warmed over 777 with new engines.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You stated: 'His statements that the 777-9 is no different from a legacy 777, other than the engines, is blatantly false.'

If the 777-9 is no different from a legacy is 'blatantly false', why are Boeing offering 779 customers performance guarantees within 1-2% of the legacy 777, and in some aspects of confidence and resilience, below? Yes, this is a new model, and these relate to early builds, but with a 2-3 year rollout delay, why the caution? Presumably TC's inference is if Boeing hasn't got mature models sorted by now like MAX and 787, how much confidence can customers have in respect to the X? What has / is changing to ensure history doesn't repeat? Not a lot to his eyes, except OEM's being extremely conservative at the customer expense?

If OEM's play the conservative card, the only way to induce buyers, are even lower purchase prices on the already low bar set.

The two are not interrelated though. I mean the performance guarantee does not mean the 777-9 isn’t different from a legacy though in terms of the changes that have been made.

Secondly where did this performance guarantee come from

And do you really think Boeing will do all that for 1-2%. Would anyone even buy that jet for 1-2%? That’s an engine PIP


I was referring to systems like Avionics, Flight Controls, new features such as the Overrun Warning System, Brake to Exit, Backup Air Data, Folding Wingtips, etc.

I said nothing about economic performance guarantees, nor is that my area of expertise. I’m not qualified to speak on the specific area you are mentioning.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2254
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:41 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth.

You stated: 'His statements that the 777-9 is no different from a legacy 777, other than the engines, is blatantly false.'

If the 777-9 is no different from a legacy is 'blatantly false', why are Boeing offering 779 customers performance guarantees within 1-2% of the legacy 777, and in some aspects of confidence and resilience, below? Yes, this is a new model, and these relate to early builds, but with a 2-3 year rollout delay, why the caution? Presumably TC's inference is if Boeing hasn't got mature models sorted by now like MAX and 787, how much confidence can customers have in respect to the X? What has / is changing to ensure history doesn't repeat? Not a lot to his eyes, except OEM's being extremely conservative at the customer expense?

If OEM's play the conservative card, the only way to induce buyers, are even lower purchase prices on the already low bar set.

The two are not interrelated though. I mean the performance guarantee does not mean the 777-9 isn’t different from a legacy though in terms of the changes that have been made.

Secondly where did this performance guarantee come from

And do you really think Boeing will do all that for 1-2%. Would anyone even buy that jet for 1-2%? That’s an engine PIP


I was referring to systems like Avionics, Flight Controls, new features such as the Overrun Warning System, Brake to Exit, Backup Air Data, Folding Wingtips, etc.

I said nothing about economic performance guarantees, nor is that my area of expertise. I’m not qualified to speak on the specific area you are mentioning.

Yeah I agree with you. That’s what I’m saying that the performance guarantees does not mean the aircraft has not significantly changed.

But I was asking smartplane specifically about the performance guarantees
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:03 pm

This 100%! Shame they won't do any of it :(

B777LRF wrote:
The best way forward for Boeing would be to de-list their stock, getting out of the grips of short-sighted Wall Street vultures and their perpetual desire for ever improving quarterlies.

Secondly they need to recognise that they're an engineering company first, second and last. Their mission should never be to "maximise shareholder value", as that will only lead to never ending cost cuts, but rather to "produce the safest, most efficient and most reliable products in the industry". Profits will naturally follow, provided they do indeed meet those mission targets.

Thirdly they need to have as a stated objective never to engage in stock buy-backs, but rather to invest the vast majority of their profits (75% or more) into R&D. Whatever is left can be split equally between workers (including management) and owners, in the form of bonuses and dividends.

Fourthly, it must be a prerequisite for joining the Boeing board that they've never worked for GE/Jack Welch or any other company with a similar ethos, and must never have been employed by a management consultancy firm. The majority of the board must come from an aerospace background in the fields of either safety, engineering or quality. The chairman must be a long-time Boeing employee from either of those fields, with a long and unblemished record of having safety as their number one priority.

That is the cultural change need to drive Boeing out of the cesspit they're caught in; the rest will follow.
 
IADFCO
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:33 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
IADFCO wrote:
The recent passing of Allan McDonald https://www.npr.org/2021/03/07/974534021/remembering-allan-mcdonald-he-refused-to-approve-challenger-launch-exposed-cover made me think about how few (if any) Boeing engineers stepped forward to warn about the potential dangers of MCAS, especially after the first accident. Of course, the situation was not quite the same. Also, it's easy for me to pontificate, anonymous behind a keyboard and not risking my career. Still, perhaps I was hoping for a bit more from fellow engineers. Maybe someone did speak up and I'm not aware of them, or did so with investigators. This goes to the issue of rebuilding trust, which is the topic of this thread.


Engineers started working on a fix days after the first accident with management direction. Unfortunately a huge software redesign on an airplane Flight Controls isn’t something you do quickly and the second accident occurred. If the only thing that had happened was the LionAir incident the day before the accident, I believe it still would have been fixed.


I'm glad they did and I agree with your comment. However, my own comment concerned something different.

I looked at the first postings here on A.net after the Lion Air accident, and within just one or two pages the large altitude changes, and the problem with the sensor disagree of previous days with that aircraft, had already emerged. Maybe none of the Boeing engineers involved with MCAS connected the dots, and maybe they did. If they did, is it possible that nobody had an "oh, sh--" moment, and decided to come out, the way Allan McDonald did with Challenger, to prevent that problem from happening again? If not publicly, at least anonymously, with a Dominic Gates or with the NTSB (maybe not the FAA, given the circumstances)? Of course, the ideal thing would have been for Boeing itself to come out right away, but that's probably too much to expect.

This goes to the culture of the organization, and to its trustworthiness, IMHO.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 13522
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:43 am

I am latte to the thread, and I have read little. but i know Clark is right on this.
From the time Boeing decided to move the HQ to Chicago, we all knew Engineering was not at the forefront. Boeing has greet engineers, but they were not driving the bus. The weight to thrust issue demanded a new design to reduce risk on the 738 , yet Boeing went with software( which can succeed, but with thorough and turbulent test cases( SW engineers knew what i am talking about)). The 787 has sloppy delivery records. The union at Boeing needs to stop throwing lobs at the SC build facility and get to task with quality, The management has to let the engineer properly access and develop for risk
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did..So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.--Mark Twain
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2651
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:33 am

Opus99 wrote:
WA707atMSP wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
100%. It’s the shareholder value focus. Like I don’t understand the obsession. They have the talent, they just need the re focus like you’ve pointed out


It won't happen, but the solution to Boeing's problems would be if Warren Buffet / Berkshire Hathaway were to buy them. Mr. Buffet is a strong believer in nurturing companies for the long term, and if Boeing were owned by him, it would be great not just for the company, but for the aerospace industry as a whole.

I doubt that will happen either tbh


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Haha! Warren Buffet is no fool. He would want like 10% interest on any loan and preferred stock, Haha, y'all think it's so easy to hit up WB for $10B, he's the one screwing you on your way out his office in Omaha. See Occidental.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys. Citizenship/Residence::: Washington DC, US; Vaud, CH; Providenciales, TCI (hence my avi)
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:47 am

dopplerd wrote:
Problem is you can't separate the MAXs business case from its implementation, it was the drive to keeps costs low that led to MCAS.

MCAS existed prior to the 737MAX... it isn't even Boeing's first aircraft to feature it.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
889091
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:22 am

B777LRF wrote:
The best way forward for Boeing would be to de-list their stock, getting out of the grips of short-sighted Wall Street vultures and their perpetual desire for ever improving quarterlies.


Michael Dell managed to pull this off with Dell, but I doubt Boeing will do so, unless they spin off BCA.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3162
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:15 pm

Opus99 wrote:
They are the same engineers that built planes that you get on every day. If you don’t trust it, then please don’t get on a Boeing plane again that’s your personal problem.

Well, not really. My "everyday" plane pre-covid was NG, which was designed 20 years before MAX. 20 years is a lot of time in a career, so a few people who were at entry level jobs in NG project have made it to MAX. It is a different cohort who worked on MAX.
And there is quite a few to be said about generational changes in US from Depression-WWII generation to Boomers to modern times.
A best summary for this forum would be: Apollo 11 - Nixon had a speech prepared for a failure. Challenger - management didn't listen to concerns from below believing it is totally safe. MAX - it crashed twice, but the plane is safe.
 
tomcat
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:35 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
dopplerd wrote:
Problem is you can't separate the MAXs business case from its implementation, it was the drive to keeps costs low that led to MCAS.

MCAS existed prior to the 737MAX... it isn't even Boeing's first aircraft to feature it.


It doesn't matter who was first to make use of a MCAS. There was a way to make the MAXs MCAS safer but it meant a lengthier and costlier development. There was even a way without MCAS but it meant a clean sheet design which was even costlier and lengthier. I mean, costlier up until the entry into service because the badly executed MAX has eventually cost Boeing as much if not more than a new design, not to mention the loss of potential revenue in comparison of a new design. If at least they had invested in a more reliable pitot to feed their badly designed MCAS.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:40 pm

Opus99 wrote:



What does 300ER plus 1-2% mean? In terms of what exactly


I read it as 1-2% better than the current 777ER. In reality it could be more. We won't know until the 779 is service.

As to TC looking for better pricing, that's his job, isn't? List price on the 779 is approx $67M more than a 777ER....but it's a whopping $150M more than a 787-9!!!

Could be an attractive reason they are seeking smaller.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10819
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:44 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure that we should be listening to advice from someone who thought it was a good idea to order over 120 A380's. That much capacity was ways going to be a problem even without a pandemic.


I agree, the idiot thought it was a good idea to order 150 777X as well. He has no clue, right? :sarcastic:


He also promised 200 x A380NEOs. Neither Airbus nor RR took a sip of that Kool-aid.

The result of that decision is clear for all to see.......
 
Opus99
Posts: 2254
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:47 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:



What does 300ER plus 1-2% mean? In terms of what exactly


I read it as 1-2% better than the current 777ER. In reality it could be more. We won't know until the 779 is service.

As to TC looking for better pricing, that's his job, isn't? List price on the 779 is approx $67M more than a 777ER....but it's a whopping $150M more than a 787-9!!!

Could be an attractive reason they are seeking smaller.

I assume it’s meant to be much better. Boeing is expecting 13% reduction in fuel burn vs the ER. 1-2% there’s no reason why this plane should get any sales. And it got a few a few weeks ago.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:08 pm

May I kindly remind you to provide links to your sources when stating facts, thanks.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6566
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:28 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
dopplerd wrote:
Problem is you can't separate the MAXs business case from its implementation, it was the drive to keeps costs low that led to MCAS.

MCAS existed prior to the 737MAX... it isn't even Boeing's first aircraft to feature it.


The KC-46 has MCAS although it was designed with some more robust logic, so wasn’t susceptible to the 737 issue. I don’t think the 767-400 has it. I believe the 46 is the only other Boeing model to have it, although not 100% certain.
 
CFBFrame
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:09 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:35 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth.

You stated: 'His statements that the 777-9 is no different from a legacy 777, other than the engines, is blatantly false.'

If the 777-9 is no different from a legacy is 'blatantly false', why are Boeing offering 779 customers performance guarantees within 1-2% of the legacy 777, and in some aspects of confidence and resilience, below? Yes, this is a new model, and these relate to early builds, but with a 2-3 year rollout delay, why the caution? Presumably TC's inference is if Boeing hasn't got mature models sorted by now like MAX and 787, how much confidence can customers have in respect to the X? What has / is changing to ensure history doesn't repeat? Not a lot to his eyes, except OEM's being extremely conservative at the customer expense?

If OEM's play the conservative card, the only way to induce buyers, are even lower purchase prices on the already low bar set.

The two are not interrelated though. I mean the performance guarantee does not mean the 777-9 isn’t different from a legacy though in terms of the changes that have been made.

Secondly where did this performance guarantee come from

And do you really think Boeing will do all that for 1-2%. Would anyone even buy that jet for 1-2%? That’s an engine PIP


I was referring to systems like Avionics, Flight Controls, new features such as the Overrun Warning System, Brake to Exit, Backup Air Data, Folding Wingtips, etc.

I said nothing about economic performance guarantees, nor is that my area of expertise. I’m not qualified to speak on the specific area you are mentioning.

Over time, design parameters change, the technology used to design and test designs change, all drive aircraft performance. 20 years in a company like Boeing is a career these days, so the design principles to approach use of a technology in a prior aircraft can change. All of these things address performance. 1-2% might be major, and if it addresses the nagging issues from a prior design might make sense because operating costs, and mean time between failures increase 15-20%. It's not just the 1-2% you mention, and I think that's what he is saying.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:23 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
I don’t think the 767-400 has it.

It doesn't.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
I'm with you, but given how pensions are funded in the US, it's a lot more than the 0.1% who are relying on corporations to keep generating "shareholder value".


In a way it is some kind of "auto cannibalism" then.

But are the pension funds the major gamers or someone else?
How much influence do pension fund beneficiaries have to influence the profits demand further up?

Do they actually understand the mechanics at work?
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:07 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
I don’t think the 767-400 has it.

It doesn't.


and the tanker MCAS seems to
(A) work off a synthetic "sanitized" AoA value
(B) is designed to only cope with slow to medium fast attitude changes.
CoG shifting from fuel transfer. not instantaneous. timeframe: some minutes!

while on the MAX the basic idea was hamfistedly (round hole, square plug ) into
that ancient bifurcated 737jurassic design.

Without Checks
to cope with fast dynamic attitude changes. timeframe <<30 seconds!
Murphy is an optimist
 
sxf24
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:11 pm

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I'm with you, but given how pensions are funded in the US, it's a lot more than the 0.1% who are relying on corporations to keep generating "shareholder value".


In a way it is some kind of "auto cannibalism" then.

But are the pension funds the major gamers or someone else?
How much influence do pension fund beneficiaries have to influence the profits demand further up?

Do they actually understand the mechanics at work?


Pension beneficiaries want a check every month, so there’s some profit incentive there.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3162
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: EK Chairman says Boeing “not getting it” on 737MAX, 787

Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:55 pm

sxf24 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I'm with you, but given how pensions are funded in the US, it's a lot more than the 0.1% who are relying on corporations to keep generating "shareholder value".


In a way it is some kind of "auto cannibalism" then.

But are the pension funds the major gamers or someone else?
How much influence do pension fund beneficiaries have to influence the profits demand further up?

Do they actually understand the mechanics at work?


Pension beneficiaries want a check every month, so there’s some profit incentive there.

But there is also a long enough period of accumulating benefits, when future returns may be more important than current numbers. Funds report current portfolio price, though, removing long-term information from the equation.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos