- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It's especially insane considering DEI hires probably got those hundreds of people killed.
Boeing Troubles - One of the world's largest aerospace manufacturers keeps having problems with their planes.
- Thread starter Breadbassket
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
When I said earlier in the thread that Boeing's corporate slogan should be "DEI or Die Tryin'" it was just supposed to be a shit post.
But clown world, uh, finds a way...
Interesting, sure, but definitely not valuable. You spend tens of thousands and the best years of your life to learn 9 things you'll never use and 1 thing you might, when you could instead spend them in real work with real peers learning exactly and only what you need, and getting paid for it.
If you have the money and the years to waste, go to college. Nobody reading this has both.
Among Us Gaming
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2024
Back on topic, one thing people seem to not understand is how expensive this industry is, and how Boeing often exacerbates the issue.
Long technical context spoilered for your convenience. Not necessary, but provides context to the problem.
This past summer as mentioned previously, I worked on some Boeing 737-800s. One of the tasks I (unfortunately), had to do was remove and install thrust reverse insulation blankets.
The image above here (spoilered for your convenience as its also not absolutely neccesary) what im talking about. Theres 2 blankets, and upper and a lower, sealed off with an approved sealant. They're both pretty large, roughly 5' by 4', and made out of a padded stainless steel foil, with I suspect an insulating material inside. The upper blanket notably has some sort of sheet metal angle brackets (for want of a better word) riveted to it to distribute load for when the thrust reversers are closed.
See the red circle here. When I was installing this blanket, one of the brackets (about 6" long with each leg being about 1") like this had been bent, and had as a result, cracked. This obviously rendered the bracket fubar, but the rest of the blanket was fine, so we continued with the install, ans let the structures guy take the bracket and either find a repair in the SRM, or find the materials data so he could go make one. After we returned from lunch, the structures guy told us that not only could we not order that bracket, Boeing gave no materials specs for it either, and did not even name it in the SRM or IPC. This meant, because this little bracket could not be purchased separately or fabricated by us, we had to just call the entire blanket we just installed fubar, and remove it so we could purchase and install another one. Incidentally, another blanket costs $18,360.56. We had to spend that much money, because Boeing would not sell, nor tell us how to make a bracket. This is just a microcosm, as this same scenario plays out time and time again on all Boeing products.
Additionally, if you ever wondered why your airline ticket costed north of $500, this is an example of why.
Long technical context spoilered for your convenience. Not necessary, but provides context to the problem.
In aviation maintence you have a swath of manuals. You have the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM), the fault isolation manual (FIM), the structural repair manual (SRM) and the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC). These names can vary, but typically every manufacturer uses the same concept. The AMM is your bread and butter "how to remove, intsall, test, and fix" manual. Your FIM is your troubleshooting manual "here is why the thing is not doing what its supposed to". Your SRM is for everything sheet metal, composites, and otherwise structural related. Everything from installing bushings, to replacing stringers, and random sheet metal parts. When i say everything, I mean everything, down to the random sheet metal tabs in a cargo bay. Your IPC is your manual for finding a given part, finding a given acceptable replacement, or finding materials data to make your own part.
Another thing to understand is the airframe and powerplant liscense, or A&P. This is an FAA issued liscense to work on all (from airliners to cessnas to helicopters) aircraft. It has only 2 limitations: you cannot open instruments, and you cannot open propellers (i can go into detail on that for those interested).
The last important bit of context is that many Maintenance Repair Organizations, or MROs have very large and well outfitted maintenance facilities, and a lot of money to boot. What this means is that where a smaller mechanic shop would need to send a part out to an overhaul shop to be repaired, the MRO can do the repair in house. They have the certification, and facilitates to do it, ajd have the money and customers to justify purchasing more exotic materials and alloys to perform a repair.
Another thing to understand is the airframe and powerplant liscense, or A&P. This is an FAA issued liscense to work on all (from airliners to cessnas to helicopters) aircraft. It has only 2 limitations: you cannot open instruments, and you cannot open propellers (i can go into detail on that for those interested).
The last important bit of context is that many Maintenance Repair Organizations, or MROs have very large and well outfitted maintenance facilities, and a lot of money to boot. What this means is that where a smaller mechanic shop would need to send a part out to an overhaul shop to be repaired, the MRO can do the repair in house. They have the certification, and facilitates to do it, ajd have the money and customers to justify purchasing more exotic materials and alloys to perform a repair.
This past summer as mentioned previously, I worked on some Boeing 737-800s. One of the tasks I (unfortunately), had to do was remove and install thrust reverse insulation blankets.
See the red circle here. When I was installing this blanket, one of the brackets (about 6" long with each leg being about 1") like this had been bent, and had as a result, cracked. This obviously rendered the bracket fubar, but the rest of the blanket was fine, so we continued with the install, ans let the structures guy take the bracket and either find a repair in the SRM, or find the materials data so he could go make one. After we returned from lunch, the structures guy told us that not only could we not order that bracket, Boeing gave no materials specs for it either, and did not even name it in the SRM or IPC. This meant, because this little bracket could not be purchased separately or fabricated by us, we had to just call the entire blanket we just installed fubar, and remove it so we could purchase and install another one. Incidentally, another blanket costs $18,360.56. We had to spend that much money, because Boeing would not sell, nor tell us how to make a bracket. This is just a microcosm, as this same scenario plays out time and time again on all Boeing products.
Additionally, if you ever wondered why your airline ticket costed north of $500, this is an example of why.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
Among Us Gaming
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2024
From what I understand, Airbus is worse. Boeing will give you some tolerances to work with. Airbus gives a spec, and if it doesn't match the spec, it has to be replaced.
Airbus is poorer quality and does not last as long, but also much cheaper (an A320 NEO is 101 million, compared to a 737 MAX at 310 million). Airbus also has a lot of autopilot systems to the point that the plane really does just fly itself, which is great for poorer countries with poorer quality pilots, which is what the 737 MAX was supposed to compete with (which is a seperate discussion entirely)
Like I said before, most of the public does not understand how horrifically expensive aviation is. Related to this, if you ever see any "aviation experts" in the media, feel free to completely discount thier opinions, as 9/10 times, what they say ranges from woefully wrong to outright retarded
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
Tbh: Sounds like once they get the engines figured out, there’s a lot of room in the market for Russian and Chinese jets.
Shit, even without hyper efficient engines they should be alright. I reckon the savings on maintenance and planes might be worth a plane that’s 5% less efficient.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
If the accuracy level of "experts" I see in the fake news is anything to judge by, this is true of all media "experts." Except a few rare occasions, any time I've heard an "expert opinion" in the media about something I actually know about, it's at best mid and more often just absolute stupidity.
Among Us Gaming
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2024
Meant as a reply to @fabcop but I'm retarded and forgot to hit the reply button
Maintenance is actually the cheapest part of airline operations. A few parts plus labor might run $50,000, but on catering for 1 long haul flight costs $35,000. Fuel however, is the biggest expense for literally all aviation operations, and the price of fuel per pound has only risen since the 60s. Efficiency will be the primary driver until one of those factors changes.
Context:
Russia did compete with the Tupolev series of Jets, but never produced newer versions and those jets are currently only used by freight operations
context:
If Russia could produce modern Tupolev jets that were able to offer something, or at least compete on the same field as Airbus or Boeing then maybe, but it seems unlikely, especially as of late, for them to have the industry and trust to do such a thing.
As for China, that requires more context.
Due to the factors of government support and defense, particularly the defense, China and Russia, the main opponents of the nations that rule the aviation market, and the world really, getting into the aviation market is a very tall order to say the least.
Maintenance is actually the cheapest part of airline operations. A few parts plus labor might run $50,000, but on catering for 1 long haul flight costs $35,000. Fuel however, is the biggest expense for literally all aviation operations, and the price of fuel per pound has only risen since the 60s. Efficiency will be the primary driver until one of those factors changes.
Context:
The main reason Mcdonnell Douglas went out of business, was when their MD11 failed for 2 reasons, those being 1, it did to not meet the performance specifications they said it would, and 2, it was a tri-jet, in the age of twinjets, in a post gas crisis era
context:
Freight operations are different from airlines, and one of those differences is that they can afford to use older, less efficient and less advanced airframes because their profit per flight is higher and thier turnaround isn't as critical
As for China, that requires more context.
The important thing to understand about Airbus and Boeing, is that they're essentially government ventures as much as they are free market enterprises.
Boeing is obvious, as it is kept afloat by government contracts, and we all know the government would just bail it out if anything happened. Airbus is much the same way, except that even at their formation, they were a government supported consortium, primarily with the motive to promote European avaition defense, and stop the USAs dominance in the airliner market.
Boeing is obvious, as it is kept afloat by government contracts, and we all know the government would just bail it out if anything happened. Airbus is much the same way, except that even at their formation, they were a government supported consortium, primarily with the motive to promote European avaition defense, and stop the USAs dominance in the airliner market.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
The defence is pretty aggressive, to the point that Boeing successfully lobbied to ban the Bombardier C-series which would've been an amazing plane.
I wonder what the next few years will hold. With so many companies reaching the breaking point due to mismanagement, along with the Department Of Government Efficiency cutting off the support that allows them to get sloppy, things may actually start to improve in the next bit - or at least shitty companies will fail and make room for better companies.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2021
They still have a ways to go since some of their modern jets like China's C919 uses Rockwell Collins and Honeywell for the avionics and CFM engines. Russia appears to making headway with their new VK engines for helis and PD-14 engine family for commercial jets. Rockwell Collins still seems to be the avionics source for the Russian Yak/Rostec MC-21 as well.
However, I'd say China seems to be the emerging leader second to SpaceX in space exploration since Artemis and Nasa keep dropping the ball.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2019
This is just kicking them when they're down since it's not that unusual for ISS astronauts to stay for months or over a year. But still funny:
Bloomberg: Boeing CIO Susan Doniz to Leave Company, CEO Tells Employees (archive)
Bloomberg: Boeing Wins $36 Billion Deal From Turkey, Trumping Airbus (archive)
The Air Current: Boeing charts ‘aggressive’ 737 Max production ramp-up in 2025 (archive)
The Motley Fool: Billionaire Paul Tudor Jones' Fund Just Sold Boeing and Bought This Popular Cryptocurrency Instead (archive)
Bloomberg: Boeing CIO Susan Doniz to Leave Company, CEO Tells Employees (archive)
Bloomberg: Boeing Wins $36 Billion Deal From Turkey, Trumping Airbus (archive)
The Air Current: Boeing charts ‘aggressive’ 737 Max production ramp-up in 2025 (archive)
The Motley Fool: Billionaire Paul Tudor Jones' Fund Just Sold Boeing and Bought This Popular Cryptocurrency Instead (archive)
We're hanging around the airplane thread months after the last real happening, we're plane autists. Of course we want you to go into more detail.
Like with this for example. How can that possibly be the case? I fly long haul (9-14h) flights regularly, and if catering cost that much, all the seats on the plane would only pay for that 3-5 times over. I am also very able at any point to walk up to the crew quarters and ask for more food/drink, and receive it (with a smile). If I was chowing down more than my tickets' worth per flight, I'd assume they'd have stern words with me.
Among Us Gaming
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2024
This is what has been told to me by others more knowledgeable than I so while i can't confirm independently, i can explain the concepts. Catering is a per-flight basis, basis, and is based on contracts, that the airlines will buy x amount of stuff per flight and will buy for a minimum of y amount of flights. The food on the flight has already been purchased for that flight. Additionally everything (and i do meam everything) on a flight must have the FAAs magical bless of "airworthy" to go up in the air, especially in the commercial airline world. To use a small world GA example, the average cessna 172 has an alternator on it. A used one costs about $500, and a new one costs nearlt double that. However, if you want to take a look on its backside, it says in a funny little tag "ford motorcraft company". These alternators are identical to the one off your f150. Now why do they cost anywhere from 5 to 10 times the price? Because of another funny little tag that says "FAA PMA" (federal aviation administration parts manufacturing approval). Because of that we get these absurd prices, and the same concept applies here.
> go into more detail
So as previously mentioned, pay is very crap. I'll expound on that a little bit here.
In the aviation industry there are 4 spheres for mechanics
General aviation (Joe and is 172 he flys, or the local FBO's {an fbo is like the one stop shop/gas station for all activites outside the airlines} king air 90 they charter with)
Corporate aviation (Mr. CEO keeps a plane to fly him from LA to Portland for bussiness stuff)
Manufacturing (you build planes at the plant)
Transport Category (you work for american airlines or FedEx)
The basic dichotomy for these worlds is this.
GA jobs are the most ubiquitous, pay really poorly (see my previous post), have good to ok offtime (you may not have to work holidays). This means that while they do not pay well, and may not have the best offtime, you can get one nearly anywhere
Corporate jobs a generally regarded as the best in the field. They have a corporate structure rather than maintence structure, so they're often salaried, and you get a pay bump based on your level of education (BS, MS, etc.). You work on the same few airplanes, and and thus can better track problems. Pay is decent(you might start at around 80k or so). You may be on call, but offtime is better and working 3rd shift isnt terribly common. Theyre all over the country since theres CEOs all over the country. The downside is that these jobs are very exclusive, and you not only need good experience to get in, you also have to know people that know people that know people to get in.
Manufacturing i wont go into detail because its basically airlines lite
Airlines are a different beast. Theyre very location specific since big maintenance bases for the airlines are only in select locations. They do pay excellently (in comparison anyway) with great benefits. The down sides are that you have to live near a maintenance base to get an airline job, and they're union. If youre the new guy, youre working holidays for the next 3 years at least (which to be fair you are well compensated for but it still sucks), and youll be on 3rd shift for the next 8.
Theres other smaller niche jobs, but those are too numerous in variety to cover in detail.
As you can see, if you aren't corporate, you dont really have a lot of good options available to you.
Still easily doable right?
Wrong.
You need an A&P liscense to do this work. There are 2 paths to get said liscense.
1. Work as an apprentice under an A&P for roughly 2 ish years, and then he will sign you off to go test
Or
2. Go to an A&P school for a 1 year (8 hours a day) or 2 year (5 hours a day) program, and they will sign you off to go test.
Its not that hard, but it is a substantial barrier to entry into the field. Due to the length, the people that finish it have to be really committed to following it all the way. Now when you tell folks that their committment is going to require them to get paid at a level they could get without all that work, or that they have to immediately move somewhere else to get paid decently (and also have to work crap hours and on holidays), things become far less appealing and thus, we get the mass labor shortage that we see in the field right now. If the largest MRO in the country, which will never not have work to do, cannot be bothered to pay its mechanics well, you know theres an issue.
Cam, of TekamoHD (heavy equipment maintenance channel) was an aircraft mechanic himself, and hes said openly that he left the industry because they didn't pay enough.
When you draw a historical perspective, where the average wage of an auto factory mechanic in the 60s was the modern equivalent of $40 an hour, things only begin to look worse and worse. People begrudge the whole "them darn zoomers aint doing the blue collar jobs, they dont like to work", when the fact of the matter is that those jobs dont pay well for the same work my grandfather did for twice my pay. Why wouldn't i go find a tech job where i do easier work for more money?
Feel free to ask any other aviation industry questions (especially plane ones) and i can try to answer them
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2018
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?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
It's turkey, they probably just bribed someone or blackmailed someone else.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2021
I don’t know about that price, but everything brought on board is a sunk cost. I don’t think they reuse any of it. So there’s no reason for the pursers to get mad at you. And there is plenty of food. They try to keep enough on hand in case of emergencies and other issues.
First class pays for the cost of the flight. Coach brings the profit in. At least that’s my understanding of the economics. Different airlines have different strategies, too.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2018
With this newest nail in the coffin, Boeing has accrued over $6b in penalties on the KC-46 project due to various contract failures. I wonder if anyone there is smart enough left at Boeing to regret contesting the Airbus A330 MRTT contract? I'm halfway convinced the only reason the Air Force has operationally certified these pieces of junk is they'd be almost a 100 tankers short of their required number of airframes if they weren't.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2024
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.
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.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
To think in another world we would have the Avro Aerocar.