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

[Screamer_2]

You need some KSP in your life. Best way to learn simple orbital mechanics.


Bsg did it better

Watching that does make me want to revisit the series, but that final season still hurts.

 

[Suel Forrester]

as funny as it is to say its DEI, it goes beyond that. quality takes a dip as customers (airlines) become more and more demanding and government pushes more and more retarded ideas about "sustainability" and explosive batteries and rushed autopilot systems

the problem is, boeing isnt really having enough time to REALLY r&D this shit

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

NASA is about to make its most important safety decision in nearly a generation (archive)

As soon as this week, NASA officials will make perhaps the agency's most consequential safety decision in human spaceflight in 21 years.

I trust NASA’s safety culture this time around, and so should you (archive)

There are significant downsides to not flying Wilmore and Williams home on Starliner. It will be a significant blow to Boeing's efforts to develop Starliner, which is already $1.6 billion in the hole and rising, and it could harm NASA's aim of having two lifelines to the space station. It will also create a significant logistics mess on the space station. But the engineers at NASA cannot make their call based on these reasons. Rather, they have to make a determination based on crew safety. I believe they will do just this.

 

[mindlessobserver]

as funny as it is to say its DEI, it goes beyond that. quality takes a dip as customers (airlines) become more and more demanding and government pushes more and more retarded ideas about "sustainability" and explosive batteries and rushed autopilot systems

the problem is, boeing isnt really having enough time to REALLY r&D this shit

Nigga, this isn't new tech. Space capsules have been a thing for almost a century, and in the 1950's we could make the damn things work with punch cards, vacuum tubes and hand operated turn cranks. The only thing Boeing needs to R&D is its retarded supply chain and overreliance on cheap sub contracted pajeets. A rube-goldberg machine level of complexity that has parts made in Indonesia designed by Engineers in Mumbai who at best were just checked over briefly by Engineers in Seattle before the order was given to assemble them into a working piece at a plant in who the fuck knows where, before being trundled to a launch pad in Florida. A system that exists because their CEO is an accountant and not an engineer, who cheaped out on the front end to make Q1 2016 look great, only to have Q1-through Q4 2024 blow up in his fucking face because he was only thinking three months ahead and trying to make the quarterly earnings report to investors look great at the expense of the long term viability of his company.

 

[Suel Forrester]

Nigga, this isn't new tech. Space capsules have been a thing for almost a century, and in the 1950's we could make the damn things work with punch cards, vacuum tubes and hand operated turn cranks. The only thing Boeing needs to R&D is its retarded supply chain and overreliance on cheap sub contracted pajeets. A rube-goldberg machine level of complexity that has parts made in Indonesia designed by Engineers in Mumbai who at best were just checked over briefly by Engineers in Seattle before the order was given to assemble them into a working piece at a plant in who the fuck knows where, before being trundled to a launch pad in Florida. A system that exists because their CEO is an accountant and not an engineer, who cheaped out on the front end to make Q1 2016 look great, only to have Q1-through Q4 2024 blow up in his fucking face because he was only thinking three months ahead and trying to make the quarterly earnings report to investors look great at the expense of the long term viability of his company.

New Boeing are not running on vacuum tube's.

Most of these new planes, like the 787 or 737 max are employing new tech like structural composites, new AP software, composite fanblades that almost killed a lady, etc

 

[mindlessobserver]

New Boeing are not running on vacuum tube's.

Most of these new planes, like the 787 or 737 are employing new tech like structural composites, new AP software, composite fanblades that almost killed a lady, etc

That's the joke. I know. My point was Boeing attempted to reinvent the wheel and used a bunch of retards in India combined with an international supply chain hitting every corrupt shithole in the third world in order to do it. The Mercury Capsule by contrast was simple in its design and construction, even though what was being done was completely unproven and theoretical at the time. Boeing had all the benefit of hindsight to look at literal gods of engineering who strapped people to the top of ICBM's and blasted them into orbit, in spacecraft that worked as intended. And they couldn't make their own. Why? Because they had to save whatever percentage points in costs looked good on the spreadsheet for their accountant CEO.

But there is an eternal rule of economics that supersedes all others. You get what you pay for. Accountants hate that rule because they can't actually quantify it. At least, they can't quantify it in ADVANCE. Its very easy to quantify after the fact though.

 

[Google.com]

as funny as it is to say its DEI, it goes beyond that. quality takes a dip as customers (airlines) become more and more demanding and government pushes more and more retarded ideas about "sustainability" and explosive batteries and rushed autopilot systems

the problem is, boeing isnt really having enough time to REALLY r&D this shit

It's iffy I believe with boeing that is part of the issue but only because Airbuses offerings in this field are better than boeings. They had fallen behind due to lack of innovation and the a320 being a better platform than the 737 and then the a220 also making it to customers they were loosing market share fast. And since they had nothing in the works the only thing they could do was tape together a cheap 737 upgrade as quick as possible and sell it as no to minimal extra training to stop airlines from going to airbus.

Sustainability in aviation isn't retarded airlines have been trying everything for decades to use less or cheaper fuel down to weighing the paint on their planes and trying to figure out if it would be cheaper to just not paint it and polish the aluminum to prevent corrosion.

Things like battery powered aircraft are stupid for anything but small 10 seat aircraft doing 15-30 minute hops. But things like SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel(Basically plane biofuel)) fuel blends which airbus has a very noticeable lead in. It has way less emissions and is more efficient than Jet A and some blends can work on standard engines or with minimal modification. But currently is a lot more expensive than Jet A, however this seems more due to the limited supply. With world conflicts and the rising price of fuel it seems like something reasonable to invest in because in the next few decades either fuel will get more expensive than it or supply will go up and it will be cheaper. Airbus is also surpassing them in lighter composites which reduces fuel usage further.

The A320 also has more of a future ahead of it simply because it was originally made in the 80s and it's designed for larger modern engines while the 737 is simply too short and eventually boeing will run out of hacks to fit larger and larger engines under the wing, the 737 was supposed to die decades ago. When boeing has to make a replacement for the 737 Max they are going to have to take minimum 20 probably 30 years to put together a whole new plane with new systems where airbus can just re-engine the a320, plop on some new fancy wings and call it a day. I think the 737 Max is slightly more fuel efficient and that is about the only thing they have going for them.

Airbus also has way less quality control concerns compared to Boeing since boeing has cut costs to reduce the price of their more technologically dated aircraft and it really shows with how many egregious quality control fuck ups they've had.

So TLDR imo it is airlines being more demanding of boeing because airbus is innovating more than them and they are forced to take short cuts.

 

[Suel Forrester]

So TLDR imo it is airlines being more demanding of boeing because airbus is innovating more than them and they are forced to take short cuts.

airbus, particularly in the 320 family, is innovating and all that, but their real advantage is the cost, which is why you see budget carriers like Spirit and Allegiant buying them up.

all that aside, 320s are garbage. they are economical to operate, lease or buy. but as far as actual quality, theyre awful. for all the shade thrown at boeing, 737s, even old ones are solidly build and dont have a ton of issues. A320s are literally falling apart after 20 years of regular operation

 

[Betonhaus]

But there is an eternal rule of economics that supersedes all others. You get what you pay for. Accountants hate that rule because they can't actually quantify it. At least, they can't quantify it in ADVANCE. Its very easy to quantify after the fact though.

I don't believe it would be that hard to quantify. The money you save by skimping on quality control, oversight, safety, and worker morale you can expect to have to pay back interest over time. It's quite possible that you can derive a formula that predicts the risk level of future expenses. What we can see is that formula would have compound interest for every variable affected by cost cutting.

 

[Google.com]

all that aside, 320s are garbage. they are economical to operate, lease or buy. but as far as actual quality, theyre awful. for all the shade thrown at boeing, 737s, even old ones are solidly build and dont have a ton of issues. A320s are literally falling apart after 20 years of regular operation

I'm not sure where your getting that I've never heard of any reliability issues with the A320, the 737 does have lower maintenance costs but I am pretty sure that can be attributed to the fact that it is a very bare minimum aircraft to a flaw which is why they are having to beg the FAA to not apply new certification regulations to the Max-10.

Also, airliners only last 25-30 years on average because every 10 years about the whole plane has to be entirely taken apart, inspected, and rebuilt in whats called a D check which past 20-30 isn't really profitable compared to buying a new one. 20 is grandpa years for most airliners other than the lucky few.

 

[Suel Forrester]

I'm not sure where your getting that I've never heard of any reliability issues with the A320, the 737 does have lower maintenance costs but I am pretty sure that can be attributed to the fact that it is a very bare minimum aircraft to a flaw which is why they are having to beg the FAA to not apply new certification regulations to the Max-10.

I didn't say they 320 was unreliable I was saying the metal they're made from is scrap.

I worked aviation maintenance for about 10 years and the first job i got out of school was heavy structure repair on a320s for 3 years. I've never seen corrosion so bad on ANY PLANE of any age as I did on a320 fleets of spirit, jet blue, etc, at the time. Nearly every single one had catastrophic levels of corrosion, especially on the wing skins. And by catastrophic I mean the damage was so severe we had to get engineering orders on how to fix them

the oldest airplane ive ever worked was a gulfstream g3 and even with all of its hydraulic fluid leaks, it had very little corrosion

Also, airliners only last 25-30 years on average because every 10 years about the whole plane has to be entirely taken apart, inspected, and rebuilt in whats called a D check which past 20-30 isn't really profitable compared to buying a new one. 20 is grandpa years for most airliners other than the lucky few.

Depends on the airline. The majors do D checks with no problem and even spirit did D checks

 

[Google.com]

I worked aviation maintenance for about 10 years and the first job i got out of school was heavy structure repair on a320s for 3 years. I've never seen corrosion so bad on ANY PLANE of any age as I did on a320 fleets of spirit, jet blue, etc, at the time. Nearly every single one had catastrophic levels of corrosion, especially on the wing skins. And by catastrophic I mean the damage was so severe we had to get engineering orders on how to fix them

Ah I hadn't heard any of that before, though if that is an issue on the current neos and older a320 models I am curious how their composite ones going to hold up. I still think that in general Boeing is falling pretty far behind and if they keeps this course things are going to get worse.

I was pretty adamantly pro Boeing anti Airbus for a bit but it's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the poor decisions they are making.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I don't believe it would be that hard to quantify. The money you save by skimping on quality control, oversight, safety, and worker morale you can expect to have to pay back interest over time. It's quite possible that you can derive a formula that predicts the risk level of future expenses. What we can see is that formula would have compound interest for every variable affected by cost cutting.

These sorts of economic externalities are actually very hard to quantify, and assume, among other things, that Pradeep Pajeet Singh didn't lie on his CV about having a perfectly legit Masters of Computers Science from Gujarat Polytechnic University that he totally didn't cheat to get and smooth over with a bribe to the Dean. More importantly, it relies on assumptions and beliefs that supersede actual math. For example. I have two bars of "industry standard" steel. One is from China, and one is from Brazil. The China Steel is 30% less expensive then the Brazilian Steel. Both swear to God their steel meets spec.

Which do you use?

If you are an accountant, you use the 30% cheaper steel. If you are paranoid, you realize both the Chinese and the Brazilians are probably lying to you. But then the contract is borked. You need to delay to find a new source, your Q1 return will be a net loss. So the paranoid CEO gets fired by the shareholders and the board. The gullible retard buys the Chinese steel and 5 years later the building it was used in collapses, the company goes bankrupt and are sued into oblivion.

But by then you sold out already, so everything is gravy. At least for everyone involved in buying the 30% cheaper steel. For the people in the building or the retards who bought the stock in your company right before hand? Oh no. They are fucked. Fucked hard. In the case of the people in the building they are literally dead in fact. But that doesn't matter. You got yours, turned a quick profit during the boom time of the immediate quarterly reports and had the good sense to bail out before shit came home to roost. You aren't dumb. You knew Prandeep Pajeet Singh was a lying fucking liar. But that didn't matter. What mattered was line went up, and when it came time to put the task to the test, you knew to sell beforehand.

You win. Suckers lose, and Plebes die. But your bank account looks great. And that is all that matters in the end.

 

[George Lucas]

Can't the cosmonauts just use the escape pod?

 

[Betonhaus]

Can't the cosmonauts just use the escape pod?

that's only in emergency situations where the entire ISS is failing or falling.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Can't the cosmonauts just use the escape pod?

Fun Story, the ISS does not have "escape pods" per se, but it does have Soyuz capsules permanently docked at it. They can seat 6 people. The Boeing crew however brings the full crew compliment to 9. So if in an emergency, the current staff of the ISS will get to evacuate, while the station commander and the Boeing crew get to die.

At least if there is a just world. Unfortunately the Boeing crew may be classified as passengers rather then Crew. In which case two members of the ISS Crew get to die in exchange for the Boeing crew to get the escape seats.

 

[Bummer]

Is it retarded to buy a few grand of BA well they are fucking up? I don't mind a multi year holding and I can't imagine Uncle Sam let's Boeing go to zero.

 

[Betonhaus]

These sorts of economic externalities are actually very hard to quantify, and assume, among other things, that Pradeep Pajeet Singh didn't lie on his CV about having a perfectly legit Masters of Computers Science from Gujarat Polytechnic University that he totally didn't cheat to get and smooth over with a bribe to the Dean. More importantly, it relies on assumptions and beliefs that supersede actual math. For example. I have two bars of "industry standard" steel. One is from China, and one is from Brazil. The China Steel is 30% less expensive then the Brazilian Steel. Both swear to God their steel meets spec.

Which do you use?

If you are an accountant, you use the 30% cheaper steel. If you are paranoid, you realize both the Chinese and the Brazilians are probably lying to you. But then the contract is borked. You need to delay to find a new source, your Q1 return will be a net loss. So the paranoid CEO gets fired by the shareholders and the board. The gullible retard buys the Chinese steel and 5 years later the building it was used in collapses, the company goes bankrupt and are sued into oblivion.

It would be difficult to derive the actual formula as many of the factors are hidden or undocumented, but you can still make calculations based on things such as degrees of separation.

In your steel example, let's assume that there used to be a third option of buying steel from an American source. In that one you have a somewhat similar level of cultural expectations and morals, and will be operating within the same country's legal framework. Thus you would have a more realistic expectation of the quality of steel, and the maker would have a clearer understanding of the quality you demand. If you are buying steel from a different country, that adds degrees of separation that can become liabilities. Theoretically a chart could be derived to determine how much liability each specific nation creates. And you would also be testing the steel. Perhaps you have an in-house team to do spot tests. If you relied on a third party to test, or relied on the manufacturer to test, that would also add degrees of separation, and thus more liability.

A better example would be engineers. A traditional company could have the top engineers be part of management, and they have a full top down understanding of the function of the company. There would be effectively zero degrees of separation, and little liability. If you outsourced your engineering to a different company, then a company in a different country, that adds degrees of separation.

Mathematically it's very possible to derive a formula that determines future liability, but doing that is inconvenient to shareholders interested in short term profit - and may be declared racist or discriminatory.

 

[ConsentAccidentVictimNo98]

Fun Story, the ISS does not have "escape pods" per se, but it does have Soyuz capsules permanently docked at it. They can seat 6 people. The Boeing crew however brings the full crew compliment to 9. So if in an emergency, the current staff of the ISS will get to evacuate, while the station commander and the Boeing crew get to die.

At least if there is a just world. Unfortunately the Boeing crew may be classified as passengers rather then Crew. In which case two members of the ISS Crew get to die in exchange for the Boeing crew to get the escape seats.

Okay, that is definitely wrong. The Soyuz Capsule is far too small to host 6 people in. This is the capsule that was originally designed to host 3 people, without pressure suits in the 1960s when the Soviets started getting cocky after Voskhod-1 (which was a modified Vostok capsule done in haste to beat the Americans to have multiple crew members in a spacecraft before Gemini). It was only after the Soyuz-11 that the Soviets reverted back to using pressure suits, resulting in the crew being reduced to 2. It was only with the Soyuz-T model that the Soyuz spacecraft could carry three people on board.

I believe your misconception comes from how before commercial crew, there would be two Soyuz capsules at the ISS typically, which would mean they could bring 6 people down (3 per Soyuz). This misconception is also boosted by how you refer to the crew being distributed in groups of three I.E. 2 crews of 3 from the Soyuz and 1 crew of 3 from Starliner. This is false.

Commercial Crew also saw the crew increase to a regular 7 astronauts, with each commercial US spacecraft operating at 4 astronauts (though Starliner is capable of bringing up 5 but NASA instead chose to have 4 + cargo). There were only two people launched on Starliner. Now, at one point there were to be three Astronauts on Boeing's manned test flight but this was changed.

 

[George Lucas]

Why would they not build escape pods? Did they not see Star Wars?