deadstick
Well-Known Member
Soooo....can one still be a “yoke pumper” in an aircraft with a side-stick. If so, are they called “stick-pumpers?”
I think Boeing is going to poop itself (Airbus buys 51% of C Series Production)
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
Soooo....can one still be a “yoke pumper” in an aircraft with a side-stick. If so, are they called “stick-pumpers?”
BigZ
Well-Known Member
As long as the stick is not dead..
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Some of which were self-induced when they tried to scour the globe for the cheapest location to make each individual piece of the airplane.
And, some of which was teething problems that are simply unavoidable when you're breaking ground on as many new things as they did on the 787.
Bear
Well-Known Member
not exactly third world suppliers ..
that said,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/21/what-went-wrong-at-boeing/#21f9d9e7b1b7
“In order to minimize these potential problems of the 'major risks in outsourcing that components,' wrote Dr. L. J. Hart-Smith, a Boeing aerospace engineer, in a brilliant paper presented at a 2001 conference, “it is necessary for the prime contractor to provide on-site quality, supplier-management, and sometimes technical support. If this is not done, the performance of the prime manufacturer can never exceed the capabilities of the least proficient of the suppliers. These costs do not vanish merely because the work itself is out-of-sight.”
Boeing did not plan to provide for such on-site support for its suppliers. In fact, it explicitly delegated this responsibility to sub-contractors. When the subcontractors didn’t perform the necessary coordination, Boeing had to provide the support anyway. “Boeing sent hundreds of its engineers to the sites of various Tier-1, Tier-2, or Tier-3 suppliers worldwide to solve various technical problems that appeared to be the root cause of the delay in the 787's development. Ultimately, Boeing had to redesign the entire aircraft sub-assembly process.” The result? Huge additional expense, that should have been planned for and included in the project's costs from the outset."
Last edited:
Soku39
Well-Known Member
Had no idea Vought was still an independent firm.
Ecl!pse
Well-Known Member
Given the recent history and strained relationship, this may well be what plays out. However, knowing some of the very smart folks in Atlanta that do this for a living, they will make their assessment objectively based on what is best for Delta, period. If Boeing came to the table and presented an offer that was too good to refuse, I don't think Delta would have a problem accepting it and moving forward in as matter-of-fact way as possible.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
Yeah jet travel in general was such a niche idea, I'm glad we've all gone back to getting around on sailboats and horses.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
I call BS. This deal was most likely penned in a back room, with Bastian watching over it. Delta is pissed about this, and right fully so. But this has corruption written all over it.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
What laws would have been broken?
Corruption and illegal aren't always synonymous.
Ecl!pse
Well-Known Member
Fair to call BS, truth is I'm not in the room so I can't say definitively one way or another, only what I think. I suspect you're right that Delta had a hand in facilitating this, but I believe the main driver to be this deal benefiting Delta, rather than Delta simply having a vendetta against Boeing.
Delta is in the middle of a MAX/NEO RFP right now, which I expect the NEO to win. However, I also suspect that Delta gives Boeing a fair shot in the RFP - and if Boeing uses this as their "come to Jesus" moment to create a knockout offer, I think Delta would take it. I don't think Boeing will do this, but I don't think it's fair to say DL will never order Boeing aircraft again. They look out for what's in their best interest, and if Boeing can provide compelling future solutions for Delta, they'll take it.
ClarkGriswold
Non Nutritive Cereal Varnish Engineer
They should bring back the Beretta though.
The "Wisconsin Ferrari"
You haven't lived until you see one jump your driveway in the middle of the night with sparks shooting out the back.... in Wisconsin.
Last edited:
jynxyjoe
Queso King
No my point is Boeing did what airbus wouldn't or couldn't and designed and manufactured the first part 25 composite aircraft while hiding in the shadows waiting to buy the Boeing engineers after completion rather than entering the race. The 787 innovaton went on to sell great.
Boeing gets crapped on in this thread because they didn't innovate. The proof? Not shutting down an existing line of jets which still sell today, the 737. Nor did they go after a market whichhad no buyers for the amount it would cost (and that should make intrinsic sense).
Bombardier jumps up to a larger narrow body to challenge an Embraer product that was never made because the sales people for the brazilian manufacturer said even if you made it you can't get enough people to buy one to support themselves, never mind embraer AND bombarier. Simply put, "the sales arent there" (a lesson aircraft manufacturers learned in the 70s and 80s). You can't build something and hope "they will come".
Bombardier bet that Republic launch customer would be enough to tide over the manufacturer until everyone realized the C series was some sort of game changer. Bombardier "innovated" in the blind and without orders should have been tits up and sold off in pieces until the canadian taxpayer bailed them out. Boeing has been gearing up for this fight the moment bombarier was bailed out, in case the lowered price would attract serious customers finally (i suppose you can debate bankrupt republic as serious, but i seriously think anyone making that argument isn't concerned with facts).
Anyway, the taxpayers bailed out the candian manufacturer with billions which Bombarier turned into a giant discount for the jet. Thats an illegal subsidy. American taxpayers could have given billions of dollars to Boeing so that delta could "afford" a small 737. We shouldnt and neither should the candians, but that's canadas choice to make, and theyre a sovereign state. Subsides are illegal for international trade in this nation and we fought this battle on the a380 more than a decade ago and won. It was fought in the states and appealed in the wto. Boeing has always litigated this stuff, and had contingency plans if the lawsuit failed (787 in japan).
Airbus saves the day and buys the C series a couple days ago.
So now Delta can purchase a jet designed by canadians, subsidized by candians, which wouldnt sell otherise, so a bunch of Americans can build them.
There was no market for this jet unless it was billions less expensive. The candians artifically lowered the cost of their jet so it was priced to move, but they did it illegally it allegedly (no duh).
Soooooooooo, the majority of the comments bounce around Boeing not innovating?
It seems like the real point here is rah-rah Delta. Delta got a great deal and it'll help investors and employees alike. I think delta guys on here and everyone that wants to go there should be excited by the deal and angry at anything interrupting it. The Canadian taxpayers did Delta a solid, and even air Canada will benefit.
To mascreade this as a Boeing failure is absurd. Lets have American taxpayers dump a couple billion on the project, that's a little more apples to apples than this farce.
SeanD
Well-Known Member
I don't think its necessarily about Boeing not innovating. I think its more about them underestimating the short-range narrow body demand and assuming the RJ would pretty much be the end result. Its as if they thumbed their noses at it and felt wide body greatness was the way to go. Once they saw that the demand for narrow body jets was growing it was too late so they threw together that MAX project. I also dont think they have fully recovered from the 787 nightmare just yet either. At the very least, now they have no choice but to go and build something awesome.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
You say nightmare, i say "epic win of someone finally put the work in as a team to be as smart Bill Lear 40 years later."
deadstick
Well-Known Member
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
If anything I think Bombardier mis-timed the market by about 5 years too early. When the last 717s and Mad Dogs are retired from the fleet, the economics of an A319 or the smallest available 737 won't look very good, even with the newer engines.
SeanD
Well-Known Member
I meant in the early stages with the delays then the battery issues. I think the 787 is awesome. That was until the A350.
