Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Safety (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/)

- - Lost Window (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/145808-lost-window.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAR121 (Post 3747150)

Boeing doesn’t make engines. Blame (insert 777 engine manufacturer here).

Thanks genius. Boeing doesn’t make most of the parts that go on their aircraft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3746872)

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Then tell us, when was Boeing's last clean-sheet design? When will their next one be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 3747279)

Then tell us, when was Boeing's last clean-sheet design? When will their next one be?

when did Airbus last do a clean sheet design and when will the next one be?

who did the most recent clean sheet design and how did that work out for them?

love how you all think this is as easy as it sounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWFlyer (Post 3747299)

when did Airbus last do a clean sheet design and when will the next one be?

A350?

But regarding narrowbodies, if both mfgs just keep re-hashing their current designs airbus still has a 20-year advantage in technology out of the gate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWFlyer (Post 3747299)

who did the most recent clean sheet design and how did that work out for them?

Airbus? A350?

Seems to be going OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWFlyer (Post 3747299)

love how you all think this is as easy as it sounds.

BCA top management recently said that they have no timelne for a new NB design, the technology doesn't exist, and they'll look at it for the next decade.

Some mitigation in their favor... they may be afraid to commit to a clean-sheet design ($$$) at this moment while there's a real looming possibility that carbon hysteria will drive a need for drastic changes to current operations, which could include radical technology and designs. It would suck to make the multi- $B R&D investment now only to have the new design outlawed and have to repeat the whole process in ten or fewer years. Personally I think that's just a bean-counter excuse, not any sort of great vision, but it could turn out to be a good play.

I think their WB product line is adequate for a while.

But with all that said, I think this door incident is just going to come down to a very localized QA issue and will be easy to fix. Door frames are not hard technology, I'm sure the design is just fine, and has been for a long time. The install work was probably done on a Fri afternoon in a weed-legal state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 3747279)

Then tell us, when was Boeing's last clean-sheet design? When will their next one be?

You originally implied that AIRLINES didn't want to pay for a new narrow body. They do. The C series/A-220 for one. Boeing is the one who doesn't want to spend the money on designing and certifying a new airplane. Boeing outsourced so much of its operation that it can no longer efficiently develop a new airplane. New airplanes always take a long time to reach an ROI and the board for Boeing doesn't have the stomach to wait a decade before they can see a profit. Much better to kick the can down the road and let future investors deal with the problem.

People love to blame Southwest for the current 737. That may be true for the classics and even the NG to an extent, but Southwest just told Boeing what they wanted to hear. By the time the Max was announced, the common type rating meant nothing. That saved airlines money back when FOs didn't get full type ratings and some airlines had pilots pay for their own training at privately run training centers. Now a new hire at an airline is going to receive dozens of hours of training so the additional difference in training is insignificant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWFlyer (Post 3747299)

C-series, now A220

So far, airlines are loving them. Ironic Boeing tried via the court system to prevent Delta from buying them as they had no competitive product. They offered up used Embraers? What a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3747331)

A350?

But regarding narrowbodies, if both mfgs just keep re-hashing their current designs airbus still has a 20-year advantage in technology out of the gate.

Airbus? A350?

Seems to be going OK.

BCA top management recently said that they have no timelne for a new NB design, the technology doesn't exist, and they'll look at it for the next decade.

Some mitigation in their favor... they may be afraid to commit to a clean-sheet design ($$$) at this moment while there's a real looming possibility that carbon hysteria will drive a need for drastic changes to current operations, which could include radical technology and designs. It would suck to make the multi- $B R&D investment now only to have the new design outlawed and have to repeat the whole process in ten or fewer years. Personally I think that's just a bean-counter excuse, not any sort of great vision, but it could turn out to be a good play.

I think their WB product line is adequate for a while.

But with all that said, I think this door incident is just going to come down to a very localized QA issue and will be easy to fix. Door frames are not hard technology, I'm sure the design is just fine, and has been for a long time. The install work was probably done on a Fri afternoon in a weed-legal state.

yeah the A350… 20 years ago. Neither has had anything clean sheet in a long time and does not have plans for anything.

the C series almost bankrupted Bombardier and they had to sell it off. For cheap.

so, not one want to take that kind of a risk without assurances it will be certified, and sell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWFlyer (Post 3747377)

the C series almost bankrupted Bombardier and they had to sell it off. For cheap.

That's because it was Bombardier. They have an... interesting approach to aviation. Their commercial aviation department was very small. They did the hard part and certified a new plane, but they didn't have the cash to sustain production to their break-even point. No airline wants to buy an orphan plane so they had to sell the first few hundred cheaply. I don't think Bombardier was planning on that. Then the Boeing lawsuit made them think it was going to take even longer to sell enough to justify the cost. In the end, they realized their time was spent building business jets and trains. The fact that such a small company can do the hard part of designing an all-new aircraft proves it can be done. Boeing doesn't have an excuse. They know that you take a bath on the first hundred or so planes to fill the order book up and then you can start charging airliners more. It's the designing and certification that Boeing struggles with.