Boeing Troubles - One of the world's largest aerospace manufacturers keeps having problems with their planes.

[1Tonka_Truck]

As badly Boeing had fucked up with their KC-46, they still made less egregious mistakes than Airbus did. Since Airbus managed to screwed the pooch harder as the USAF saw it.

Yeah, Airbus fucked up so badly the MRTT represents 90% of the non-USAF jet tanker fleet and despite having 30% fewer airframes in service the MRTT has 3 times the flight hours. Airbus built a new version this year based on the A330-800 this year because they ran out of A330-200 airframes to convert to tankers. The USAF selected the MRTT for the KC-X contract. Boeing then whined to the GAO about losing. The GAO made the USAF rebid the contract to favor Boeing. This was 5 years after Boeing got caught bribing a procurement officer to lease tankers from Boeing to USAF.


It's been 10 years since the first test flight and the KC-46 still doesn't have the wing mounted aerial refueling pods that are required by contract. That's fucked up.

 

[Rei is Shit.]

To think in another world we would have the Avro Aerocar.

Its going to be very funny when the US tries to 'save' Boeing in the same way the Br*tish 'saved' their aviation industry.

 

[Car Won't Crank]

As badly Boeing had fucked up with their KC-46, they still made less egregious mistakes than Airbus did. Since Airbus managed to screwed the pooch harder as the USAF saw it.

Thanks to Clinton's merge or die directive, Boeing and Airbus [after mergers and buyouts] are the only manufacturers in the United States for the USAF to choose from for support aircraft.

Though not purely designed as an aerial tanker, the Brazilians have a really compelling transport support aircraft called the Embraer C-390 that seems like a promising replacement for the C130.

 

[Breadbassket]

In South Korea, a Boeing 737 carrying 175 passengers and 6 crew members veered off an airport runway and collided with a wall. It was making a landing apparently.

Spoiler

 

[mindlessobserver]

Restart the clock!

 

[ToEnsureVerification]

As an aviation enthusiast, I always had a soft spot for the 737. It had a long track record of reliability and seemed to be the "it just works" jap car of the planes. It's pains me a lot to see it become the nigger of airplanes.

 

[Among Us Gaming]

Though not purely designed as an aerial tanker, the Brazilians have a really compelling transport support aircraft called the Embraer C-390 that seems like a promising replacement for the C130.

On that note, it is utterly baffling to me that Lockheed doesnt offer a civilian variatiant of the C130. You would think that there'd be a huge market for it, particularly in canada where most runways are unimproved and short, to the point that they're the worlds largest operator beech 1900s, and friccin Boeing 737-200s since the -200s can still have a vortex disspator.

 

[No Batty Boys in Jamaica]

As an aviation enthusiast, I always had a soft spot for the 737. It had a long track record of reliability and seemed to be the "it just works" jap car of the planes. It's pains me a lot to see it become the nigger of airplanes.

The Classics and NGs are the Honda and Toyotas of planes. A triumph of engineering. They just work.

The MAX is like the Hyundai of planes. A niggerrigged bucket of shit engineered by beancounting MBAs and retarded Jeet poo engineers.

Don’t want to jump to conclusions but I don’t think Boeing was responsible for this one.

 

[geckogoy]

A hydraulic failure or something has killed 179 koreans in a 737-800 crash - Archive

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

I know deals like this actually occur months, if not years before final signings, but considering how far back the issues Boeing has had go that far if not further, how in the world did they get that deal?

We can shit on them constantly, but Boeing is still the #2 manufacturer of commercial airplanes. 737 MAX's problems aren't inherent to the design, and could be fixed. They have had a lot of cancellations, but are still approaching $1 trillion in orders for 737 MAX planes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Orders_and_deliveries

Pegasus Airlines, specifically, has jumped from Boeing to Airbus and now back to Boeing, so this could be the result of a bidding war.

 

[close]

737 MAX's problems aren't inherent to the design, and could be fixed.

Correct, the problems are inherent to the company and can only be fixed with a couple of suits' heads rolling.

A hydraulic failure or something has killed 179 koreans in a 737-800 crash - Archive

Ok well first off, "hydraulic failure" is not mentioned in that article, but let's move on.

veering down the runway without its landing gear deployed

Interesting.

Photos of the smoking wreckage showed only the plane’s charred tail intact

Even without the gear down, there's some yaw control authority from the tail at high speeds, and you're gonna stop reasonably fast with your whole belly down. It would have to go really wrong really fast.

The pilot issued a mayday alert about two minutes before the crash

Interesting, and no go around? If it was JUST a gear situation, they'd likely call pan pan and fly by the tower for visual confirmation, then go around and decide what to do, while burning some fuel such that the emergency crews have an easier time of it if the landing goes poorly.

Still, it was ALL gear not down, not just one, so that's interesting.

the airport’s control tower warned the plane of a potential bird strike minutes before the crash

A cursory search doesn't turn up any South Korean birds that are particularly large, perhaps it was a huge flock. That could cause engine issues, maybe a compressor stall or something. That still wouldn't be a mayday followed by a gear up landing and death of almost everyone aboard in two minutes though.

ruled out the possibility of poor aircraft maintenance playing any role

Important.

one of the flight’s two surviving crew members told rescuers that an engine began smoking after a suspected bird strike, before exploding.

Engines don't explode after a bird strike. It's not mentioned whether the surviving crew members were pilots or not. If this was a bird strike, it was either the largest birds ever, or the worst handling of the situation.

I'll find out in six years on Mentour Pilot, Pilot Debrief, or Green Dot Aviation, I suppose.

 

[pro drivor]

I concur, something must have went seriously wrong to turn a bird strike into this mess. That plane was visibly going much too fast to actually land.

 

[ToEnsureVerification]

IMO that the people heard a "bird strike" when it's unlikely that people were looking directly at the engine, makes me thing some sort of loud malfunction/explosion sound happened, and everyone assumed it was a bird strike. Bad enough to fuck the landing gear, flaps and engine control.

Personally I don't buy the smoke in the cabin theory. Pilots have their own dedicated oxygen tubes and masks. The smoke in the cabin could explain a "bad" landing, not a catastrophic collision with the ground, like we saw.

 

[mindlessobserver]

As an aviation enthusiast, I always had a soft spot for the 737. It had a long track record of reliability and seemed to be the "it just works" jap car of the planes. It's pains me a lot to see it become the nigger of airplanes.

Well, this is what happens when you hire Pajeets with fake credentials to design and maintain your aircraft.

 

[Google.com]

inherent to the design

I mean it kind of is. They fixed the piece of shit software but they can't fix the reason they need it in the first place. The shity aerodynamics is caused by the engine being so far forwards which is a result of Boeing insisting on using an outdated design and just throwing newer engines on it.

Airbus still has life left on the a320s design, Boeing doesn't. They need to replace the 737 next generation but they are in financial trouble and their executives are too retarded to put money into new aircraft designs. They are stagnant and I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years they don't somehow hack together an even shittier 737 variant somehow.

 

[Among Us Gaming]

I mean, it kind of is. They fixed the piece of shit software but they can't fix the reason they need it in the first place. The shity aerodynamics is caused by the engine being so far forwards which is a result of Boeing insisting on using an outdated design and just throwing newer engines on it.

Airbus still has life left on the a320s design, Boeing doesn't. They need to replace the 737 next generation but they are in financial trouble and their executives are too retarded to put money into new aircraft designs. They are stagnant and I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years they don't somehow hack together an even shittier 737 variant somehow.

This is somewhat ignorant of the situation. Boeing didn't build off the 737 because they're hacks. Every airplane certified in the US must be classified under what is called a "Type Certificate Data Sheet" (TCDS), referred to often as a "TC". The impetus for creating the 737 MAX was to compete with the airbus A320 NEO, which had better range and fuel burn than Boeings offering (the 737-900 series). Additionally, one of the large differences between Boeing and Airbus products is that Airbus has A LOT more autopilot systems than boeing does, to the point that its a running gag in the industry that the pilots of an Airbus are facilitators rather than pilots. This makes Airbus products a big and easy sell for 3rd world nations where pilots may not be as well trained. Boeing did not want to introduce a brand new (i.e. new TCDS) aircraft, as that would take years, and cost obscene amounts of money, and require the airlines to retrain all their pilots (as all commercial pilots have to be whats called "type rated" i.e. trained for that specific airframe), meaning that not only does Boeing incurr immense cost, so too do its customers. Thus, what they chose to do was try to squeeze in these improvements onto the 737 Airframe and, thus, avoid all these headaches. Obviously this went swimmingly for everyone involved.

Point fingers where you will
Is Boeing arrogant and resting on their laurels? Absolutely
Was the FAA way too buddy-buddy with the company? Absolutely
Is the system overly complex and stifles innovation? Absolutely.

Finally, if you want to talk about DEI issues at Boeing, look at the entry plug blowout. The MAX stuff isnt really anything DEI related

 

[Google.com]

"Type Certificate Data Sheet" (TCDS)

I'm aware of this process I'm also aware that if they were to start work now on a 737 replacement they'd be outdated by the time certification was completed because they aren't lining up with the new generation of jet engines in development.

They should have however already been working on a new design years ago. Engines were and are getting bigger not smaller and the 737 was simply not originally designed to fit what's on the market now. The only way they could do it was weird work arounds and pushing the engine further and further forwards.

They put themselves in the situation that they are in and they seem to be set to continue this route. I don't think it's wrong to call the stagnant with how unwilling they are to do more than upgrade their existing products.

 

[Betonhaus]

This is somewhat ignorant of the situation. Boeing didn't build off the 737 because they're hacks. Every airplane certified in the US must be classified under what is called a "Type Certificate Data Sheet" (TCDS), referred to often as a "TC". The impetus for creating the 737 MAX was to compete with the airbus A320 NEO, which had better range and fuel burn than Boeings offering (the 737-900 series). Additionally, one of the large differences between Boeing and Airbus products is that Airbus has A LOT more autopilot systems than boeing does, to the point that its a running gag in the industry that the pilots of an Airbus are facilitators rather than pilots. This makes Airbus products a big and easy sell for 3rd world nations where pilots may not be as well trained. Boeing did not want to introduce a brand new (i.e. new TCDS) aircraft, as that would take years, and cost obscene amounts of money, and require the airlines to retrain all their pilots (as all commercial pilots have to be whats called "type rated" i.e. trained for that specific airframe), meaning that not only does Boeing incurr immense cost, so too do its customers. Thus, what they chose to do was try to squeeze in these improvements onto the 737 Airframe and, thus, avoid all these headaches. Obviously this went swimmingly for everyone involved.

They were also competing with the Bombardier C-series, which were a from scratch design for the bigger engines. Boeing should've been working on a new design a decade ago, but instead bribed the FAA to block the C-series and slap together something that the frame simply could not support without being deathly unbalanced.

seems there may be a design flaw

 

[Hunter Hearst Helmsley]

It’s Y2K finally hitting. This is why you don’t use a pre-2000 plane design.

 

[Among Us Gaming]

They put themselves in the situation that they are in and they seem to be set to continue this route. I don't think it's wrong to call the stagnant with how unwilling they are to do more than upgrade their existing products.

Fair enough, I don't dissagree. Ive actually spoken to an FAA admin who said himself that Boeing is arrogant, and is just resting on their laurels.
The worst part is that we all know it wont ever bite them, nothing ever happens, but also because the government will just bail them out again