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 Neosporin (Post 3747411)

China's C919

Non-certifiable in the west. Maybe the next generation.

Just published technical review of how the plug-type exit option works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maLBGFYl9_o

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3747331)

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.

Bingo! There are no plans for Boeing to do a clean sheet design, because airlines don't wan't to spend the money training their people on a new type rating. Also they don't want to take a chance with innovation because it's risky. They want proven technology. And Boeing doesn't want to incur that level of risk either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3747331)

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.

Excellent point I hadn't considered. Although it does factor into the risk of a new design. But yeah... government...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3747350)

You originally implied that AIRLINES didn't want to pay for a new narrow body. They do. The C series/A-220 for one.

That's a different animal. As the problems with the bs governmental protectionism were already pointed out, they had to practically give them away to get proven. Baltic Air flew them first for almost a year before anyone else did. And as pointed out it nearly bankrupted Bombardier. Not to mention, let's be honest, the C-Series is basically a souped up regional jet. Boeing doesn't want to build aircraft that small apparently. At least that's how it appears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3747350)

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.

And yes that is part of it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3747391)

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.

And that their cost per unit is probably not worth it to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3747331)

A350?

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.

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.

This is by far the 2 most absurd statements I've ever read on this site. In what world do you think there is going to be not only a consensus on climate change, but to make it so strict that commerical aircraft that are already designed and built are banned? And you think a drug tested maintainer is more to blame than Boeing cutting costs and deciding to pay new A&P's $20 a hour to work in Seattle?

If you truly believe that I think you're the one smoking the ol wacky tobaccy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueScholar (Post 3747508)

Lighten up frank. The part about weed was hyperbole. The point is that it should be a quick fix, regardless of the root cause. I don't think BCA suddenly forgot how to design a door frame after 100 years.

The carbon thing is very real though, your lack of awareness on that is fairly absurd. There is actually a bunch of new technology being developed via government/industry partnerships on both sides of the Atlantic specifically to reduce carbon. A lot of that is expected to reach an appropriate TRL within ten years. You might not want to shoot your R&D wad now only to have the other guys wait for the new tech and then market something which blows your new-ish plane out of the water WRT to carbon efficiency.

I tend to agree that regulators cannot go full Greta and mandate impossible standards which would shut down the global airline industry. Usually the regulators try to keep up with industry... if somebody builds a significantly improved airliner, then regulators will use THAT as the new standard. The euros are more likely than the US to take draconian climate positions, they're already cutting back slots for that reason as we speak.

Anyone who pays attention to the technology and mfg side of the industry knows all that. Maybe get a subscription to AW&ST... excellent cliffs notes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3747391)

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.

Delta has always loved adopting orphans! Convair 880, L1011, 737G, MD90, MD11, 717, A330-900. I am seeing C919's in Delta's future!

Any Max9s back flying again?

It's really time for Alaskan to be shutdown. Flight 261 2.0 is right around the corner. Them and southwest, worst safety culture I've ever witnessed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lileskimo (Post 3747650)

It's really time for Alaskan to be shutdown. Flight 261 2.0 is right around the corner. Them and southwest, worst safety culture I've ever witnessed.

This wasn't Alaska's fault. But thanks for your aviation expertise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lileskimo (Post 3747650)

It's really time for Alaskan to be shutdown. Flight 261 2.0 is right around the corner. Them and southwest, worst safety culture I've ever witnessed.

"261 2.0"... "Alaska shutdown".... quite the strong statements there buddy. Look forward to seeing all the specific examples on Alaska's safety culture you're going to provide to back that up. I'll wait...