Fitting outside toilets?
I read on the Beeb that Ryanair were sending extra engineers to Boeing to increase inspection of the planes they've ordered. I wondered if having the plane inspected would be an extra charge flying Ryanair
Boeing could use any win it can get lately, and it's found an admittedly small one in a $102.7 million deal to modernize some of the US Navy's submarine-hunting P-8A Poseidon aircraft. The order, approved yesterday, has Boeing supplying ten upgrade kits for the maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. Details regarding the …
I wonder if Mr O'Leary can explain to them the benefits of capitalism ?
I mean it's all very nice in theory having the state support incompetent workers at failing state companies making failing goods - but at some point you have to accept that communist central planned industries don't work and look to modern hyper-competitive advanced economies such as Eire
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Ryanair engineers had to pay for their tickets to get across the pond. O'Leary is a bit tight when it comes to things like that.
That's going by what a pilot I knew who used to work for Ryanair told me many moons ago... He was asked if he would do a delivery flight of a new 737... Only thing, he'd have to go across at his cost
Ryanair and Easyjet are by far the busiest airlines in europe and neither have had a crash.
Ryan wrote off one aircraft after an over weight emergency landing after a bird strike collapsed the undercarriage - 737s can't dump fuel and they took the decision to get down safe rather worry about the plane.
From TFA: "The FAA is exploring the use of an independent third party to oversee Boeing's inspections and its quality system."
Ah, a perhaps-intially-independent third party which quickly will be subverted to Boeing's will ("regulatory capture").
The biggest problem with America's Federal Aeronautics Adminstration is that it has two conflicting primary tasks: to protect the flying public, and to promote commercial aviation.
One slave, two masters, and all that.
There is a report on Aviation Week that Boeing are trying to get the FAA to sign off on a known non-compliance with the 737-7 - basically, the 'planes should be allowed to fly with a known safety issue for a few years until it's fixed. Something to do with operating the engine's anti-icing, in non-icing conditions, which has the potential for breaking bits of the engine. No decision yet, as far as I can tell, but it seems slightly concerning (as someone that is completely unqualified to comment on the technical aspects) that the answer was not an immediate and resounding 'No'.
The build in engine de-icer on the 737 Max series does not run on a timer or temperature sensor, it is just a switch that you turn on and turn off. But if you leave it on too long it gets too hot and damages the composite engine cowlings.
This issues is present on all versions of the 737 Max including ones currently flying, it's not considered a critical defect so the Max 8, 9 and 10 can continue flying, but since the Max 7 is not yet approved it is blocking that.
Although an important person with assistants and hangers on … why does the US SoS need an 85-201 seat (depending on variant) capacity jetliner ?
The hangers on can fly commercial - Dulles to Zurich is <$1K return, and get a coach to Davos.
Gross waste of tax-payers money and huge carbon footprint.
Yes, it is a gross waste of tax-payers' money and, depending how many seats were filled, possibly a huge carbon footprint. But remember, that plane won't have 85-201 seats. It will have a custom interior with many-fewer seats than that. Further, if you think Blinken was the only attendee arriving in a large, customized jet, you are wrong.
For you to learn why things are that way, you need to take a class called, "Politics 101."
This post has been deleted by its author
Should have bought the Kawasaki P-1 or perhaps just asked Airbus to modify some new build A330MRTT for the ASW role, you know aircraft we already operate in both the tanker and transport roles, speaking of tankers...while they are quoting, ask them to price in retrofitting booms to the voyagers the RAF have that can't refuel the RC-135s, Poseidon's, wedgetails and likely whatever else the current govt has its eye on to try and curry favour with the us in the hope of a trade deal
This post has been deleted by its author
This topic has been discussed since the turn of the century by people with clue. It re-emerges every few years whenever Boeing's latest shotstorm emerges into public view. It's actually not specific to Boeing or even to aerospace, but Boeing seems to have a particularly bad case history.
See e.g.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/21/what-went-wrong-at-boeing/
which includes these words:
Even with proven technology, there are major risks in outsourcing that components won’t fit together when the plane is being assembled. “In order to minimize these potential problems,” 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.”
====
For some reason, Dr Hart Smith's 2001 paper isn't available where it was a decade ago (Seattle Times, referenced from e.g. https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20030309&slug=boeingcritique09) , but you can find it if you know where to look.
Here's another item which references it:
https://aerospaceengineeringblog.com/the-dangers-of-outsourcing/
[...]
"Outsourcing” is a loaded term. In today’s globalised world it has become to mean many things – from using technology to outsource rote work over the internet to sharing capacity with external partners that are more specialised to complete a certain task. However, inherent in the idea of outsourcing is the promise of reduced costs, either through reductions in labour costs, or via savings in overheads and tied-up capital.
I recently stumbled across a 2001 paper [1] by Dr Hart-Smith of the Boeing Company, discussing some of the dangers and fallacies in our thinking regarding the potential advantages of outsourcing. The points raised by Hart-Smith are particularly noteworthy as they deal with the fundamental goals of running a business rather than trying to argue by analogy, or blind faith on proxy measurements. What follows is my take on the issue of outsourcing as it pertains to the aerospace industry only, loosely based on the insights provided by Dr Hart-Smith, and with some of my own understanding of the topic from disparate sources that I believe are pertinent to the discussion.
[...]
[1] L.J. Hart-Smith. Out-sourced profits – the cornerstone of successful subcontracting. Boeing paper MDC 00K0096. Presented at Boeing Third Annual Technical Excellence (TATE) Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri, 2001.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain some highlights associated with the contemporary business practice of out-sourcing more and more of a companies’ activities in the belief that doing so will increase profitability. A strong case is made that it will not always be possible to make more and more profit out of less and less product and that, worse, there is a strong risk of going out of business directly as a result of this policy. The point is made that notonly is the work out-sourced; all of the profits associated with the work are out-sourced, too.
The history of the former Douglas Aircraft Company is cited as a clear indication of what these policies have done – and as a warning of what more may be done. The subcontractors on the DC-10 made all of the profits; the prime manufacturer absorbed all of the over-runs.