Boeing 787 flights suspended after fire onboard in flight - see BBC news.
Link here
Just when Boeing could have done without this
buns
buns wrote:Link here
Just when Boeing could have done without this
buns
At least they have said it wasn't the RR engines that caused it (but no doubt some will be adding 2+2 and geting 54)
Huzzah for International Jet-setting !
A damning assessment from the Chief Executive of Qatar Airways: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11842597
Boeing were initially overambitious IMO with the original schedule considering there was changes to both the way the plane is manufactured (lots of outsourcing) compared to previous Boeing jets and the use of new technology and materials such as the extensive use of composites for the fuselage. I accept that delays were inevitable (ask Airbus with the A380), but three years is a long time.
Boeing were initially overambitious IMO with the original schedule considering there was changes to both the way the plane is manufactured (lots of outsourcing) compared to previous Boeing jets and the use of new technology and materials such as the extensive use of composites for the fuselage. I accept that delays were inevitable (ask Airbus with the A380), but three years is a long time.
Ahh Mr Baker, the biggest gob with the smallest impact in aviation. He moans about everything he buys and perhaps he should question his decisions before turning scorn elsewhere.
Globalization of the supply chain, multi sourcing, complex programmes, new technology are here to stay. Moaning because they don't fit the past isn't really a solution. We're moving beyond historical half lives in development of new aircraft and almost everything else, and things are different now than they were 20 years ago.
That said, Boeing is in a tough spot, a very costly tough spot, and VS as usual in recent history has bought a plane that won't enter service when it thinks it wants it.
Globalization of the supply chain, multi sourcing, complex programmes, new technology are here to stay. Moaning because they don't fit the past isn't really a solution. We're moving beyond historical half lives in development of new aircraft and almost everything else, and things are different now than they were 20 years ago.
That said, Boeing is in a tough spot, a very costly tough spot, and VS as usual in recent history has bought a plane that won't enter service when it thinks it wants it.
There's a plane at JFK, to fly you back from far away
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
The article doesn't say he has cancelled the order because of the delay, so he can't be that worried.
Thanks
Darren
Darren
Society has become too risk-averse for any really innovative aviation technology.
Think of all the major developments in aviation; the real ground breaking aircraft. They were all that quite literally.
They crashed. Now we cannot accept a crash - or even an incident. So we don't get the new innovations without enormous cost and enormous testing delays.
We accept risk every day on the roads, on our streets, in our homes. But there only one or two die or are seriously injured. So no big drama. No big media story.
But an aircraft incident - even one where no-one is hurt - that can be headline news that runs and runs. Like the A380; the B787. Anything new - the media will do their best to kill it.
The end result is that we do not innovate - we stick with what we have.
No more Comet, Concorde, Jumbo-jet. Now only "safe" old designs that run years behind schedule. Incremental change with no major leap forward.
Take the B747 as an example - conceived in 1966, first flew in 1968, into service in Jan. '70.
How far have we come in over 40 years since?
Compare that with how far we had come in the prior 40 years!
From the aircraft we had in 1930.
But in those years we accepted risk....
Think of all the major developments in aviation; the real ground breaking aircraft. They were all that quite literally.
They crashed. Now we cannot accept a crash - or even an incident. So we don't get the new innovations without enormous cost and enormous testing delays.
We accept risk every day on the roads, on our streets, in our homes. But there only one or two die or are seriously injured. So no big drama. No big media story.
But an aircraft incident - even one where no-one is hurt - that can be headline news that runs and runs. Like the A380; the B787. Anything new - the media will do their best to kill it.
The end result is that we do not innovate - we stick with what we have.
No more Comet, Concorde, Jumbo-jet. Now only "safe" old designs that run years behind schedule. Incremental change with no major leap forward.
Take the B747 as an example - conceived in 1966, first flew in 1968, into service in Jan. '70.
How far have we come in over 40 years since?
Compare that with how far we had come in the prior 40 years!
From the aircraft we had in 1930.
But in those years we accepted risk....
Bill S wrote:Society has become too risk-averse for any really innovative aviation technology.
Without going into a business school/media studies sermon, AMEN to that. With one small caveat. 90% of human beings were always risk averse - they just weren't filled hour, after hour, after hour, with blabbering idiocy from monstrously ill meaning people about how they're about to die. Which, as you point out, is mostly false anyway.
Bill - as long as you restrict your comment to commercial airliners you may have a point, although Airbus did something very clever with the A380 wing to make the plane fly flatter. But if you start to talk about military aircraft, where we're now in what people call 'fifth generation' design, things are completely different.
There's a plane at JFK, to fly you back from far away
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
Interesting - I suspect rant by MR qatar airways is also a way of him getting bettrer compensation from Boeing.
The comments re inovatiion and risk averseness are well made. But there are two more factors - cost efficiency and environmentally friendly.
The whole business, economic and social landscpes have changed since the days of Concorde and B747 etc, making designs and goals completely different.
Whilst fuel efficiencies, for example, were of interest in the 60s, it was't until the oil crisis of the 70s that it became REALLY important. Later on, people started to worry about noise, emissions etc. Then, the airline industry changed over the same period - different demogrphic of travller profile, regulation, costs, airline management style, dumbing down of the industry - a lot has changed.
That's before we even think about designing planes for airports, wake turbulance considerations (effect on traffic movement and spacing) etc. With the exception of the A380, just about any plane flying since 1980 has manadated a change to airport infrastructure.
Whereas, the 747 made people build airports around it...
The comments re inovatiion and risk averseness are well made. But there are two more factors - cost efficiency and environmentally friendly.
The whole business, economic and social landscpes have changed since the days of Concorde and B747 etc, making designs and goals completely different.
Whilst fuel efficiencies, for example, were of interest in the 60s, it was't until the oil crisis of the 70s that it became REALLY important. Later on, people started to worry about noise, emissions etc. Then, the airline industry changed over the same period - different demogrphic of travller profile, regulation, costs, airline management style, dumbing down of the industry - a lot has changed.
That's before we even think about designing planes for airports, wake turbulance considerations (effect on traffic movement and spacing) etc. With the exception of the A380, just about any plane flying since 1980 has manadated a change to airport infrastructure.
Whereas, the 747 made people build airports around it...
Concorde RIP - the most amazing machine to grace our skies
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests