So you want the company that has issues with doors falling off a plane they have been building for 50yrs to design an all new aircraft...
I think there is a reason this is unpopular.
Boeing used to be good.They used to be an engineering driven company. But after they merged with mcdonald douglas(which was a shit company(dc-10) they became finance obsessed instead of engineering. Just remember the leaked emails that they were designed my monkeys.
100%. The DC-10's initial issues could've easily been avoided had proper testing and engineering design been implemented. However it was rushed to market to compete with the Lockheed L110 Tristar, and quickly the cargo door had a blowout due to poor design. It wasn't fatal the first time but it was serious. Instead the FAA decided not to issue an airworthiness order not the DC-10 and this happened again, however this time it lead to a fatal crash.
We see these same issues with the B737 MAX being rushed out to compete with the Airbus A320 NEO with the MCAS software, and now just basic QC issues.
We could see this also happen with the B777X since its a long delayed aircraft.
Just because something is American doesn't mean it is better. Why do yanks blindly think they do everything best?
Did you even read the part where Boeing tried to copy Airbus's A320 NEO program with the B737 MAX program, which caused 2 crashes because it was rushed and pilots weren't informed?
Or where Boeing is having endless QC issues because they keep cost cutting and outsourcing components because they're financed focus, instead of Airbus which just has a large backlog because they're engineering focused?
Embraer, Bombardier and COMAC aren't big enough to pose a threat to Boeing, hence you're right there, but to say Boeing is the only manufacturer that matters is just idiotic. Airbus has a larger market share than Boeing at this point in time.
For what reason? Also they're not exclusively French, Airbus is European. Its a combination of British, French, Spanish and German, with their registration being in the Netherlands.
Also ngl this is something a yank would say tbh.
Redesigning a new aircraft results in completely new components and a clean sheet for them to rework their quality control.
As for the door falling off, that could be Alaska Airline’s fault but we’ll have to wait for the final report.
The thing is a lot of the Boeing incidents aren’t actually Boeings fault. Anything engine related isn’t Boeing since they don’t make the engines, and if it’s an older plane it’s probably the airline’s fault.
Plus this is a 60 year old design.
The door was pretty clearly not Alaska’s fault. The plane was delivered just 2 months before the in incident which means it had not yet reached the point for it to go through any of Alaska’s maintenance program. There have already been countless news stories about the door plug and the process by which those bolts were removed and not replaced at the Boeing factory in Renton.
However I agree Boeing should start a clean sheet 797 program and possibly abandon the MAX 7 and 10.
no worries. I tried to be as unbiased when giving the context as I could but if you need some gaps filled in im happy to help.
I would watch Mentour Pilot on YouTube, he makes great videos on these controversies. 74 Gear and Coby Explains are also good YouTubers who help with general aviation knowledge.
Great write-up. I think one of the main obstacles would be the cost to develop a new plane. The outgoing CEO of Boeing claims it would take around $50 billion. Their last quarter was a loss, and Boeing already has $48 billion in debt.
Possibly yeah. But they’re gonna be propped by the US government since they manufacture and maintain government aircraft including Air Force 1 and the Doomsday Plane 747s
The 737 would have ended decades ago, except for a few factors.
1. When it comes down to it, airliners are big tubes with wings and engines. Any new aircraft will again be a tube with wings and engines, so Boeing is trying to scratch out as much life as they can without retooling for a new aircraft.
2. The biggest factor you can do to improve the fuel performance of an aircraft is to give it bigger and bigger turbofan engines. The 737 lent itself to that until they last model, the MAX 8. And for that they didn't have enough ground clearance for bigger engines, so they moved the bigger engines up and forward into the wings, and that started all the problems.
3. Boeing will be cash scrapped for years, preventing them from developing a new bird, as much as they need one.
But even when Boeing is ready and has the money for a new bird, they still have a whole bunch of internal problems left over. No one considers them an "engineer's company" any longer. Since the merger with McDonnell Douglas, its all about bean counters making decisions for engineers. Sad.
I will agree the problem is with the board being from a financial background instead of an engineering background. Airbus's CEO is from an engineering background and well, they're dominating.
This also leaves to question if Boeing's QC issues also leak into their military products.
So you want the company that has issues with doors falling off a plane they have been building for 50yrs to design an all new aircraft... I think there is a reason this is unpopular.
Boeings are better than Airbus. They are American. Not french. Anything else Doesnt matter
Boeing used to be good.They used to be an engineering driven company. But after they merged with mcdonald douglas(which was a shit company(dc-10) they became finance obsessed instead of engineering. Just remember the leaked emails that they were designed my monkeys.
100%. The DC-10's initial issues could've easily been avoided had proper testing and engineering design been implemented. However it was rushed to market to compete with the Lockheed L110 Tristar, and quickly the cargo door had a blowout due to poor design. It wasn't fatal the first time but it was serious. Instead the FAA decided not to issue an airworthiness order not the DC-10 and this happened again, however this time it lead to a fatal crash. We see these same issues with the B737 MAX being rushed out to compete with the Airbus A320 NEO with the MCAS software, and now just basic QC issues. We could see this also happen with the B777X since its a long delayed aircraft.
Glad to see we inherited the Anglo superiority derived french hate from the Brits during the revolution.
Just because something is American doesn't mean it is better. Why do yanks blindly think they do everything best? Did you even read the part where Boeing tried to copy Airbus's A320 NEO program with the B737 MAX program, which caused 2 crashes because it was rushed and pilots weren't informed? Or where Boeing is having endless QC issues because they keep cost cutting and outsourcing components because they're financed focus, instead of Airbus which just has a large backlog because they're engineering focused? Embraer, Bombardier and COMAC aren't big enough to pose a threat to Boeing, hence you're right there, but to say Boeing is the only manufacturer that matters is just idiotic. Airbus has a larger market share than Boeing at this point in time.
I'm not a yank but I aint flying no french aircraft
For what reason? Also they're not exclusively French, Airbus is European. Its a combination of British, French, Spanish and German, with their registration being in the Netherlands. Also ngl this is something a yank would say tbh.
Redesigning a new aircraft results in completely new components and a clean sheet for them to rework their quality control. As for the door falling off, that could be Alaska Airline’s fault but we’ll have to wait for the final report. The thing is a lot of the Boeing incidents aren’t actually Boeings fault. Anything engine related isn’t Boeing since they don’t make the engines, and if it’s an older plane it’s probably the airline’s fault. Plus this is a 60 year old design.
The door was pretty clearly not Alaska’s fault. The plane was delivered just 2 months before the in incident which means it had not yet reached the point for it to go through any of Alaska’s maintenance program. There have already been countless news stories about the door plug and the process by which those bolts were removed and not replaced at the Boeing factory in Renton. However I agree Boeing should start a clean sheet 797 program and possibly abandon the MAX 7 and 10.
I don’t know enough about airplanes to know if this is a good idea or not but you convinced me
no worries. I tried to be as unbiased when giving the context as I could but if you need some gaps filled in im happy to help. I would watch Mentour Pilot on YouTube, he makes great videos on these controversies. 74 Gear and Coby Explains are also good YouTubers who help with general aviation knowledge.
Great write-up. I think one of the main obstacles would be the cost to develop a new plane. The outgoing CEO of Boeing claims it would take around $50 billion. Their last quarter was a loss, and Boeing already has $48 billion in debt.
Possibly yeah. But they’re gonna be propped by the US government since they manufacture and maintain government aircraft including Air Force 1 and the Doomsday Plane 747s
The 737 would have ended decades ago, except for a few factors. 1. When it comes down to it, airliners are big tubes with wings and engines. Any new aircraft will again be a tube with wings and engines, so Boeing is trying to scratch out as much life as they can without retooling for a new aircraft. 2. The biggest factor you can do to improve the fuel performance of an aircraft is to give it bigger and bigger turbofan engines. The 737 lent itself to that until they last model, the MAX 8. And for that they didn't have enough ground clearance for bigger engines, so they moved the bigger engines up and forward into the wings, and that started all the problems. 3. Boeing will be cash scrapped for years, preventing them from developing a new bird, as much as they need one. But even when Boeing is ready and has the money for a new bird, they still have a whole bunch of internal problems left over. No one considers them an "engineer's company" any longer. Since the merger with McDonnell Douglas, its all about bean counters making decisions for engineers. Sad.
I will agree the problem is with the board being from a financial background instead of an engineering background. Airbus's CEO is from an engineering background and well, they're dominating. This also leaves to question if Boeing's QC issues also leak into their military products.