Significant: Boeing Delays Delivery Of Ultra-Long-Range Version Of 777X

[rainman + 263]

Boeing Co (BA.N) has pushed back the entry into service of an ultra-long-range version of its forthcoming 777X widebody, the U.S. planemaker said on Wednesday, as it grapples with fallout from the 737 MAX crisis and engine issues with the 777X. The fresh delay comes as the grounding of Boeing’s money-spinning 737 MAX single-aisle entered a sixth month in August, and as the world’s largest planemaker faces engine-related delays on the 777X widebody that have pushed the first flight of the 777-9 into 2020. The delay in the slower-selling, longer-range 777-8 will hamper Boeing’s ability to provide a plane in line with the schedule for Qantas Airways Ltd’s (QAN.AX) plan for 21-hour non-stop Sydney-London flights. The Australian airline had hoped for first deliveries of the planes in 2022 and the launch of the world’s longest commercial flight in 2023.

[pinto + 293]

Greed and inadequate innovation destroying them. Now it's coming the consequence..

[Pavel + 384]

Safety before other things...

[francoba + 93]

2 minutes ago, pinto said:

Greed and inadequate innovation destroying them. Now it's coming the consequence..

It must be hard balancing safety with being too cheap. The public prefers safety.

[joze44 + 39]

Bad message...

[damirUSBiH + 327]

When are we going to hear some good news from them?

[BALBOA + 37]

1 minute ago, damirUSBiH said:

When are we going to hear some good news from them?

yep. 

Let's recap whats happened this year:

- a 2nd MAX crash due to the same issue
- sleazy @BoeingCEO calling Trump to try to keep the MAX flying 
- plane getting grounded with pathetic FAA being last to do so
- indefinite grounding due to addl issues
- $5b charge
- cancellations

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

As respects the MAX 737 mess, I would gently point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with the actual airframe, the problems are all in the "software" that was installed under dubious circumstances to satisfy bureaucrats inside the FAA.  Indeed, there are these two toggle switches on the center console down underneath the flap lever that if the pilot flicks them OFF then the airplane will fly just fine manually. It should not have been grounded; a Bulletin telling pilots to fly that plane with the automation switches in the OFF position would have done just fine.  The difference is that then the pilots actually have to manually fly the aircraft on take-off.  Why is that so terrifying? 

Now at the other extreme, you have these guys setting up these 21-hour flights and what are they going to supply the customer: a 29-inch seat pitch?  Who is going to go sit in a seat with a 29-inch pitch for 21 hours straight?   Are they nuts? 

This is what you re-purpose the A-380 for.  You make one entire deck into a flight equivalent of a Pullman rail car, with upper and lower bunks, and the passengers go crawl into the bunks after the take-off and go to sleep for the trip.  Spending 21 hours in the sack could actually become a sought-after ticket!  I can think of a few oilmen who would have the stamina for that.....

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 8/16/2019 at 1:13 AM, Jan van Eck said:

As respects the MAX 737 mess, I would gently point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with the actual airframe, the problems are all in the "software" that was installed under dubious circumstances to satisfy bureaucrats inside the FAA.  Indeed, there are these two toggle switches on the center console down underneath the flap lever that if the pilot flicks them OFF then the airplane will fly just fine manually. It should not have been grounded; a Bulletin telling pilots to fly that plane with the automation switches in the OFF position would have done just fine.  The difference is that then the pilots actually have to manually fly the aircraft on take-off.  Why is that so terrifying? 

Now at the other extreme, you have these guys setting up these 21-hour flights and what are they going to supply the customer: a 29-inch seat pitch?  Who is going to go sit in a seat with a 29-inch pitch for 21 hours straight?   Are they nuts? 

This is what you re-purpose the A-380 for.  You make one entire deck into a flight equivalent of a Pullman rail car, with upper and lower bunks, and the passengers go crawl into the bunks after the take-off and go to sleep for the trip.  Spending 21 hours in the sack could actually become a sought-after ticket!  I can think of a few oilmen who would have the stamina for that.....

Point of clarification: the software was designed to mask an air frame problem.  The most expensive - and bulletproof - solution was to redesign the air frame.  The fallback solution was using software to avoid the problem.  That would have been acceptable had Boeing not declared airliner design "mature" and outsourced software development to incompetent, underpaid foreigners. 

Therein lies the problem: US executives keep trying to cut competent professionals out of the process because those professionals are expensive.  Competent professionals also demand that things be done well, tend to blow whistles when shady behavior occurs, and generally keep greedy executives in check.  On the other hand, desperate "professionals" from poor countries do as they're told with predictably disastrous consequences. 

There's something of a war occurring between competent professionals and the executives trying to bring them to heel.  Personally, I've washed my hands of it.  If executives want to play stupid games, I'll happily let them burn the organization to the ground - and then find another job.  I don't get paid enough to be emotionally invested.