Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Boeing

Discuss Stock buying Shares, tips and ideas for stock market dealing
scottnsilky
Lemon Slice
Posts: 255
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 8:07 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Boeing

#419102

Postby scottnsilky » June 12th, 2021, 7:45 pm

I've been reading this thread with interest for some time, as an engineer myself its always interesting to read about machines, and their faults and foibles. Never having anything pertinent to say, I haven't posted before, but by chance today I came upon an article written 18 months ago by a journalist called Natasha Frost, positing the view Boeing's troubles started in 1997 after their take-over of Macdonnell Douglas. Before that event Boeing was a paternalistic company seeking engineering excellence, cost was a secondary factor. Somehow the Macdonnell ethos of strict financial control took over in the Seattle boardroom, which then moved to Chicago, MD directors ruled the board and the result is the sorry mess of today. The author makes the point the 737 has been modified again and again to meet modern needs it should have been retired years ago and a brand new design introduced.

If you're interested, natashafrost. qz will find the article.

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3120
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3591 times
Been thanked: 1509 times

Re: Boeing

#419107

Postby ReformedCharacter » June 12th, 2021, 8:35 pm

scottnsilky wrote:I've been reading this thread with interest for some time, as an engineer myself its always interesting to read about machines, and their faults and foibles. Never having anything pertinent to say, I haven't posted before, but by chance today I came upon an article written 18 months ago by a journalist called Natasha Frost, positing the view Boeing's troubles started in 1997 after their take-over of Macdonnell Douglas. Before that event Boeing was a paternalistic company seeking engineering excellence, cost was a secondary factor. Somehow the Macdonnell ethos of strict financial control took over in the Seattle boardroom, which then moved to Chicago, MD directors ruled the board and the result is the sorry mess of today. The author makes the point the 737 has been modified again and again to meet modern needs it should have been retired years ago and a brand new design introduced.

If you're interested, natashafrost. qz will find the article.

They've embarrassed themselves in the space industry too. Boeing and SpaceX were both awarded contracts to take humans to the ISS under NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Boeing's price was 60% higher than SpaceX's and Boeing justified this on their 'engineering excellence'. Their first test failed to reach the ISS with at least two separate major problems, one of them essentially came down to not having run a full simulation with their software, but only piecemeal tests:

Following a botched first test flight in December 2019, during which Starliner failed to reach the International Space Station, a review team at NASA identified 80 issues for Boeing to fix, mostly in Starliner's software. This failure delayed the first Crew Flight Test (CFT), which is now scheduled to launch in September at the earliest.

https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-oft-2-test-launch-delayed-summer-2021

Meanwhile SpaceX have made two flawless crewed flights to the ISS. But it's not just embarrassing, it's really bad for future business. NASA has money to spend on commercial missions in space and it's likely that Boeing will lose out of at least some of the many $Billions of future contracts to other companies that can deliver the goods (or astronauts) on time. Not good for business.

RC

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#438574

Postby richfool » August 31st, 2021, 9:08 am

Ryanair 'very keen' on Boeing MAX 10.
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Ryanair is "very keen" to make a significant order for Boeing's 737 MAX 10 aircraft, but there has been no agreement on pricing so far in ongoing talks, Group Chief Executive Michael O'Leary said on Tuesday.

"We're certainly very keen to place a MAX 10 order but only when the timing and the pricing is right," O'Leary told Reuters ahead of a press briefing in Brussels. "Boeing needs an order."

Ryanair is already the largest European customer for the 737 MAX, with 210 firm orders of the 197-seat MAX 8-200 model, and has said it is interested in ordering the 230-seat MAX 10 for delivery once the current order is completed in 2025.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ryana ... 31586.html

I am losing track now, is that the new name for the ill-fated 737 Max?

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#440559

Postby richfool » September 8th, 2021, 10:43 am

Boeing's troubles, arising from the 737 max problem, are still far from over:
Boeing's board of directors must face a lawsuit from shareholders over two fatal crashes that killed hundreds of people, a US judge has ruled.

The manufacturer's 737 MAX was grounded for 20 months worldwide in March 2019 after 346 people died in two crashes -- the Lion Air disaster in Indonesia in 2018 and an Ethiopian Airlines crash the following year.

The lengthy ruling stated that "the Board should have heeded but instead ignored" a "red flag" about the aircrafts' safety systems, known as MCAS, following the first crash.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/boein ... 35802.html

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Boeing

#440614

Postby Lootman » September 8th, 2021, 1:32 pm

richfool wrote:Ryanair 'very keen' on Boeing MAX 10.

I am losing track now, is that the new name for the ill-fated 737 Max?

Not exactly. There are three version of the Max, with suffixes of -8, -9 and -10. Such nomenclature typically reflects different capacities and configurations of the plane, with the higher numbers being a bit bigger.

The 787 Dreamliner has the exact same suffixes.

The problems with the Max were limited to the -8 and -9 variants. The -10 got grounded by airlines as well but, as I recall, a little while later.

Max planes have been flying around for a few months now without incident, so I suspect at some point people will not mind flying them. Their greater fuel efficiency will mean that airlines will want to operate them, and it is not like an all-Boeing airline like RyanAir or SouthWest can suddenly start using Airbus A320s. Moreover the Airbus order book is full so it would be a long wait or a very high price.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#440714

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » September 8th, 2021, 6:02 pm

Boeing: Directors to face investor lawsuit over fatal crashes

Boeing's board of directors must face a lawsuit from shareholders over two fatal crashes involving its 737 Max plane, a US judge has ruled.

AiY

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3120
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3591 times
Been thanked: 1509 times

Re: Boeing

#440760

Postby ReformedCharacter » September 8th, 2021, 7:25 pm

Meantime with the Boeing Starliner:

After an initial delay caused by a malfunction of Russia's incoming Nauka module at the International Space Station right before Starliner was scheduled to launch on July 30, NASA and Boeing pushed the launch to Aug. 3. However, this launch date then slipped by another 24 hours before being delayed indefinitely when engineers spotted trouble with valves in Starliner's propulsion system. They found issues with 13 valves that weren't opening as designed.

On Aug. 9, the company put out a statement sharing that mission teams had thus far gotten seven of the 13 problematic valves back to operating as intended. Today, Boeing revealed that now nine of those 13 valves "are now open and functioning normally after the application of electrical and thermal techniques to prompt and command them open," Boeing said in the statement. They added that "similar techniques are now being applied to the four valves that remain closed."

However, the company does not yet know the cause of the valve malfunction.


An unfortunate outcome for a company that once managed to be a lead contractor for the Saturn 5 and the manufacturer of the massive first stage that put man on the moon.

RC

torata
Lemon Slice
Posts: 521
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 1:25 am
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 210 times

Re: Boeing

#440820

Postby torata » September 8th, 2021, 11:18 pm

ReformedCharacter wrote:Meantime with the Boeing Starliner:

After an initial delay caused by a malfunction of Russia's incoming Nauka module at the International Space Station right before Starliner was scheduled to launch on July 30, NASA and Boeing pushed the launch to Aug. 3. However, this launch date then slipped by another 24 hours before being delayed indefinitely when engineers spotted trouble with valves in Starliner's propulsion system. They found issues with 13 valves that weren't opening as designed.

On Aug. 9, the company put out a statement sharing that mission teams had thus far gotten seven of the 13 problematic valves back to operating as intended. Today, Boeing revealed that now nine of those 13 valves "are now open and functioning normally after the application of electrical and thermal techniques to prompt and command them open," Boeing said in the statement. They added that "similar techniques are now being applied to the four valves that remain closed."

However, the company does not yet know the cause of the valve malfunction.


An unfortunate outcome for a company that once managed to be a lead contractor for the Saturn 5 and the manufacturer of the massive first stage that put man on the moon.

RC


I wasn't aware of this project until it was mentioned on a BBC Inside Science podcast a few weeks ago. It's been in development since 2010 (I'm sure on the drawing board long before), and has had only one, unmanned, orbital test flight in 2019 which had to be aborted due to "two critical software defects (that) were not detected ahead of flight despite multiple safeguards", either of which could have led to the loss of the craft had there not been intervention from the ground.

They were given $4.2bn by NASA in 2014 to complete and certify it by 2017.

torata

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#462992

Postby richfool » December 3rd, 2021, 9:40 pm

Hope you are all watching TV Chan 55 - 5 Select, on now, about the 10 Fatal mistakes involving the 737 Max.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#468191

Postby richfool » December 23rd, 2021, 11:22 am

US regulator proposes fixes on some Boeing 777s after engine incidents:

The US aviation regulator on Wednesday proposed modifications and safety inspections on some models of the Boeing 777 jet, following a number of engine incidents.

The most recent and dramatic one involved an engine on a United Airlines 777 bursting into flames shortly after takeoff in February, scattering debris over a Denver suburb.

No one was injured, but it led to scores of 777s equipped with Pratt & Whitney engines being removed from service worldwide. The US Federal Aviation Administration had ordered checks on all similar engines before any of those models returned to the skies.

On Wednesday, it said these 777 models needed modifications for safety.

"The FAA has determined that further action is necessary to address the airplane-level implications and unsafe condition resulting from in-flight engine fan blade failures," the regulator said in a statement Wednesday, citing three incidents including the one over Denver.

The problem was "likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design," it added, of which it said there were 54 in the United States and 128 worldwide.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-re ... 46212.html

scottnsilky
Lemon Slice
Posts: 255
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 8:07 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Boeing

#481164

Postby scottnsilky » February 17th, 2022, 12:39 pm

'Boeing's Fatal Flaw', TV programme on tonight, Feb17th at 1935GMT, PBS America, Freeview 84. Hopefully some new info on the 737 debacle.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#487974

Postby richfool » March 21st, 2022, 8:27 am

Just hearing on Bloomberg of a Boeing 737 crash in China. 137 passengers on board. No more news yet.

This has popped up on the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-60819760
Last edited by richfool on March 21st, 2022, 8:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

BullDog
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2445
Joined: November 18th, 2021, 11:57 am
Has thanked: 1966 times
Been thanked: 1197 times

Re: Boeing

#487977

Postby BullDog » March 21st, 2022, 8:36 am

richfool wrote:Just hearing on Bloomberg of a Boeing 737 crash in China. 137 passengers on board. No more news yet.

Any idea if it's a 737 Max, or an earlier version? Very sad to hear anyway. Myself, I would be very nervous getting on a 737 Max even after the "fixes".

BullDog
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2445
Joined: November 18th, 2021, 11:57 am
Has thanked: 1966 times
Been thanked: 1197 times

Re: Boeing

#487982

Postby BullDog » March 21st, 2022, 8:58 am

BullDog wrote:
richfool wrote:Just hearing on Bloomberg of a Boeing 737 crash in China. 137 passengers on board. No more news yet.

Any idea if it's a 737 Max, or an earlier version? Very sad to hear anyway. Myself, I would be very nervous getting on a 737 Max even after the "fixes".

From The Telegraph -
There was no word on the cause of the crash of the plane, a 6-year-old 737-800 aircraft, according to Flightradar24.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Boeing

#488062

Postby Lootman » March 21st, 2022, 1:32 pm

BullDog wrote:
richfool wrote:Just hearing on Bloomberg of a Boeing 737 crash in China. 137 passengers on board. No more news yet.

Any idea if it's a 737 Max, or an earlier version? Very sad to hear anyway. Myself, I would be very nervous getting on a 737 Max even after the "fixes".

It wasn't a MAX. The MAX has actually been flying again for a year now, without any incidents. How many years of further incident-free travel would convince you that it is now at least as safe as any other plane out there? And possibly safer with all the extra training, testing and refinements?

jackdaww
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2081
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:53 am
Has thanked: 3203 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Boeing

#488072

Postby jackdaww » March 21st, 2022, 1:54 pm

.

737 - bargepole..

:roll:

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#488078

Postby richfool » March 21st, 2022, 2:12 pm

Its a 737 800 iaw the latest BBC News:
A Chinese passenger plane with 132 people on board has crashed in a forested hillside in southern China.

The China Eastern Airlines Boeing 737-800 was flying from Kunming to Guangzhou when it plunged to earth in Guangxi province and caught fire.

The number of casualties and reason for the crash are not yet known. Rescuers have seen no signs of survivors.

Chinese airlines generally have a good safety record - the last major accident took place 12 years ago.

The crash has caused shock in China where President Xi Jinping has ordered an immediate investigation to determine the cause. China Eastern Airlines has reportedly grounded all its 737s.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-60819760

I can't say I would want to fly on any 737.

No doubt we will find out the cause of the particular crash in due course.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Boeing

#488121

Postby scotia » March 21st, 2022, 5:18 pm

Lootman wrote:It wasn't a MAX. The MAX has actually been flying again for a year now, without any incidents. How many years of further incident-free travel would convince you that it is now at least as safe as any other plane out there? And possibly safer with all the extra training, testing and refinements?

I don't believe that It (the MAX and earlier 737s) is as safe as any other plane out there. Its based on a very old design, and to retain a "look and feel" to previous models (to avoid the need for crew re-training) it does not have safety features of more modern aircraft. For example, it still uses a mechanical steel cable based system for the major flight controls - with no duplication. More modern Boeing aircraft and all Airbus aircraft use an electrical system with duplication. The 737 has no fuel dump system - in an emergency with a full fuel load, the plane must loiter, or land overweight. And during the two MAX crashes, the co-pilot had to thumb through large paper-based operating manuals in an attempt to find out what was happening. In more modern planes, such information is available on a touch screen display system. Although this is now mandatory in new aircraft, it is not required in updated models. Once again, this was deliberately missed out in the MAX so that the crew interface looked like the previous versions. So its probably as safe as aircraft built more than a decade ago, but certainly not as safe as current offerings from other manufacturers (e.g. Airbus).
And looking at the causes of the MAX crashes, I was completely astonished to discover that the software had a single point of failure which crucially depended on a faulty transducer - when this could simply have been avoided by checking the two transducers that were available.
What got Boeing into this mess? Could I advise the book "Flying Blind" by Peter Robison (ISBN 978-0-241-45557-9). The author believes that the decline was caused by the merger with McDonnell-Douglas, with the Boeing engineering philosophy being taken over by the McDonnel Douglas accountancy philosophy - in particular the worship of the late Jack Welch approach (at GE - who retired with a payment of $417M in 2001).
It is also worth reading to hear about the cost savings that were introduced by out-sourcing parts for the 787 Dreamliner, and moving the construction of the major parts to lower wage areas (with less skilled employees). Just Google "Dreamliner problems" - the problems keep coming. As late as February of this year the FAA stated that it will retain the authority to issue airworthiness certificates until it is confident that "Boeing's quality control and manufacturing processes consistently produce 787s that meet FAA design standards"

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Boeing

#488126

Postby scotia » March 21st, 2022, 5:38 pm

Too late to edit my submission, I saw that previously
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18362&p=488121#p419102
also reported another source which blamed the fall of Boeing to the McDonnell Douglas merger

airbus330
Lemon Slice
Posts: 558
Joined: December 1st, 2018, 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Boeing

#488236

Postby airbus330 » March 22nd, 2022, 9:52 am

scotia wrote:
Lootman wrote:It wasn't a MAX. The MAX has actually been flying again for a year now, without any incidents. How many years of further incident-free travel would convince you that it is now at least as safe as any other plane out there? And possibly safer with all the extra training, testing and refinements?

I don't believe that It (the MAX and earlier 737s) is as safe as any other plane out there. Its based on a very old design, and to retain a "look and feel" to previous models (to avoid the need for crew re-training) it does not have safety features of more modern aircraft. For example, it still uses a mechanical steel cable based system for the major flight controls - with no duplication. More modern Boeing aircraft and all Airbus aircraft use an electrical system with duplication. The 737 has no fuel dump system - in an emergency with a full fuel load, the plane must loiter, or land overweight. And during the two MAX crashes, the co-pilot had to thumb through large paper-based operating manuals in an attempt to find out what was happening. In more modern planes, such information is available on a touch screen display system. Although this is now mandatory in new aircraft, it is not required in updated models. Once again, this was deliberately missed out in the MAX so that the crew interface looked like the previous versions. So its probably as safe as aircraft built more than a decade ago, but certainly not as safe as current offerings from other manufacturers (e.g. Airbus).
And looking at the causes of the MAX crashes, I was completely astonished to discover that the software had a single point of failure which crucially depended on a faulty transducer - when this could simply have been avoided by checking the two transducers that were available.
What got Boeing into this mess? Could I advise the book "Flying Blind" by Peter Robison (ISBN 978-0-241-45557-9). The author believes that the decline was caused by the merger with McDonnell-Douglas, with the Boeing engineering philosophy being taken over by the McDonnel Douglas accountancy philosophy - in particular the worship of the late Jack Welch approach (at GE - who retired with a payment of $417M in 2001).
It is also worth reading to hear about the cost savings that were introduced by out-sourcing parts for the 787 Dreamliner, and moving the construction of the major parts to lower wage areas (with less skilled employees). Just Google "Dreamliner problems" - the problems keep coming. As late as February of this year the FAA stated that it will retain the authority to issue airworthiness certificates until it is confident that "Boeing's quality control and manufacturing processes consistently produce 787s that meet FAA design standards"


All 737 flight control systems are duplex hydraulic actuated by cable systems to the hydraulic power units. The cable system can also be used, in emergency, to directly actuate the flight control surfaces, split between the 2 pilots. So effectively a third redundancy. Even the 777 has the same. Its been the standard and safe system in airliners for 50yrs and is still in newly built small airliners. Boeing came later to fly by wire when Airbus were crashing their new hi tech planes at an alarming rate 25 yrs ago. FBW and pilot understanding of the flight management systems, is at the center of investigations for quite a few serious safety incidents just now.
Extremely few shorthaul aircraft have the facility to dump fuel. It isn't necessary as all current models can land with maximum fuel on board. The only reason to dump fuel is to lose weight on a very large aircraft so that it can land under its max structural weight. The 737 has a phenomenal safety record over its life.If it anecdotally seemms to be in more crashes, it is because there are so many of them flying. Even some of the 60's ones are in service. The MAX issue is different and is the result of Boeing losing its way for various HR, Financial and Engineering reasons. "If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going" has a hollow ring to it today.


Return to “Stocks and Share Dealing Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests