Thread: Airline News

Originally Posted by Takeovers

The order book implies differently. The customer airlines seem to like it.

The airlines were lied to.

How many orders for the 737 MAX, in the last year? The 737 orders I posted, include the NG variant and possibly other variants.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The airlines were lied to.

Yes and it will hurt their business. Even more so if they try to get away with superficial fixes.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

The plane can be made safe.

Yes, by:

- Scrapping the Max
- Designing a new aircraft fit for purpose rather than trying to bolt massive engines onto an old one too far from the fuselage to make it airworthy.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The airlines were lied to.

How many orders for the 737 MAX, in the last year? The 737 orders I posted, include the NG variant and possibly other variants.

Boeing's net orders for the Max in 2019 amount to MINUS 93.

Airbus have received 674 orders for A320NEO variants this year.

'Nuff said.

Sounds like she was pissed before she even got on the plane.

Lucky she was going from Scabby Dhabi to Manchester and not the other way around.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-hour-21228996

One hopes that a ski jacket not a tee shirt.

OMG. Luigi has a pair of those shoes!

Yeah you'd pump it you scallywag.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Yeah you'd pump it you scallywag.

With those shoes, Looper will be in a tiz...

Have they not watched Star Trek and heard of the Star Fleet Academy Kobayashi Maru test

https://www.ft.com/content/4d24440c-3239-11ea-a329-0bcf87a328f2

well the 737 max's fate has been sealed by internal messages of boeings employees

who the fcuk would fly on the thing now - maybe it will become a freight hauler

“This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys,”

Internal Boeing messages raise serious questions about 737 Max | Business | The Guardian

^ i wonder if anyone has landed one yet on the Simulator, if not maybe they have a high score thing going on.

I will avoid flying in one if Merica ever forces them back into service.

^ You appear to be forgetting that there were more than 41,000 flights of the 737-max in the first year, before the two fatal accidents grounded them.

Not really Troy, i am aware of their service but tell that to those on the flights affected by the Boeing fukwittery and compounded by US regulatory authorities - the crooks would still be allowing them to fly if they could get away with it. They only give a shit if it affects their profits.

Originally Posted by Troy

^ You appear to be forgetting that there were more than 41,000 flights of the 737-max in the first year, before the two fatal accidents grounded them.

And several near misses.

It's like the DC-10 was a fucking deathtrap until they were forced to make design changes.

This bean counting is fucking unacceptable.

it's a flying coffin and should be scrapped.

Boeing Mocked Lion Air Calls for More 737 Max Training Before Crash
14 January 2020

House panel confirms Indonesia carrier asked about simulators

Unclear if added training would have averted 737 Max crashes

Indonesia’s Lion Air considered putting its pilots through simulator training before flying the Boeing Co. 737 Max but abandoned the idea after the planemaker convinced them in 2017 it was unnecessary, according to people familiar with the matter and internal company communications.

The next year, 189 people died when a Lion Air 737 Max plunged into the Java Sea, a disaster blamed in part on inadequate training and the crew’s unfamiliarity with a new flight-control feature on the Max that malfunctioned.

Boeing employees had expressed alarm among themselves over the possibility that one of the company’s largest customers might require its pilots to undergo costly simulator training before flying the new 737 model, according to internal messages that have been released to the media. Those messages, included in the more than 100 pages of internal Boeing communications that the company provided to lawmakers and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and released widely on Thursday, had Lion Air’s name redacted.

But the the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee provided excerpts of those messages to Bloomberg News that un-redacted the Indonesian carrier’s name.

“Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I’m scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots,” one Boeing employee wrote in June 2017 text messages obtained by the company and released by the House committee.

In response, a Boeing colleague replied: “WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!” That was an apparent reference to Malindo Air, the Malaysian-based carrier that was the first to fly the Max commercially.

Doing simulator training would have undercut a critical selling point of the jet: that airlines would be able to allow crews trained on an older 737 version to fly the Max after just a brief computer course.

In a report on the Oct. 29, 2018 accident, Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee cited a failure by Boeing to tell pilots about the new flight-control feature on the jet, called MCAS, and the need to provide training on it so that pilots would be able to better respond to malfunctions.

The report also cited shortfalls in the crew’s ability to perform emergency check lists, fly the plane manually and communicate about the emergency. The copilot, who took nearly four minutes to look up an emergency procedure he was supposed to have memorized, was singled out for repeated failures during training.

The 737 Max was grounded worldwide last March after an Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed following a similar MCAS malfunction.

To be sure, simulator training that didn’t address a malfunction of the system like the one crews in both disasters encountered might not have saved the jets. Separate decisions had been made not to inform pilots about MCAS, something that has drawn sharp criticism from pilots’ unions in the U.S.

But the prospect of simulator training for Max pilots -- and opposition to it within Boeing -- were major themes in the latest batch of embarrassing internal company messages released last week.

U.S. Representative Pete DeFazio, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that is investigating the 737 Max, said the probe has found “more and more evidence of how far Boeing was willing to go in order to essentially cloak MCAS in secrecy from MAX pilots while also downplaying the information it shared about MCAS with federal regulators. That’s incredibly damning, and is opposite of Boeing’s repeated insistence that safety drives its decisions.”

Lion Air has declined to comment whether it was the carrier discussed in the messages released last week by Boeing but people familiar with the exchanges, who asked not to be identified discussing a private matter, said Lion Air had initially raised concerns about the need for simulator training on the Max but ultimately accepted Boeing’s recommendation that it was unnecessary.

Some of the messages revealed the pressure on employees -- and customers -- to avoid the additional training. Boeing’s resistance to simulator training for Lion Air pilots was reported earlier by Forbes.

Boeing didn’t respond to a request for comment but said last week that “any potential safety deficiencies identified in the documents have been addressed.”

“These documents do not represent the best of Boeing,” Greg Smith, the company’s interim CEO, said in a message to employees Friday. “The tone and language of the messages are inappropriate, particularly when used in discussion of such important matters, and they do not reflect who we are as a company or the culture we’ve created.”

Technical Pilot
The communications include a 2017 email from Boeing’s chief technical pilot on the 737 in which he crowed to colleagues: “Looks like my jedi mind trick worked again!” The email was sent two days after the earlier messages expressing alarm about Lion Air potentially demanding simulator training.

Attached was a forwarded email exchange in which the person warned an unnamed recipient against offering simulator training for Max pilots, pushing instead for the computer-based course that regulators had already approved for flight crews transitioning to the Max from earlier 737 models.

“I am concerned that if [redacted] chooses to require a Max simulator for its pilots beyond what all other regulators are requiring that it will be creating a difficult and unnecessary training burden for your airline, as well as potentially establish a precedent in your region for other Max customers,” the Boeing pilot wrote in the forwarded message.

While Lion Air was not identified in the redacted emails, the discussions are consistent with those Boeing held with Lion Air at the time, according to people familiar with the matter.

“The story always comes back to the same thing: that Boeing was advancing the sale of this plane to capture market share, to capture the profits and cash flow that goes with it, and safety was treated as something that would occur without a great deal of focus,” said Robert Clifford, a Chicago lawyer who has sued Boeing on behalf of victims of the Ethiopian Airlines crash. “That’s just never the case in engineering.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ng-thwarted-it

Greed over safety.

Surprised that this has come out.

Seems that the United Corporate Fascist States hasn't perfected its sceme yet.

I'm pleased with every little spark of light.

Perhaps it was already here?
It really discloses awful things...

Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

A Boeing whistleblower has claimed that passengers on its 787 Dreamliner could be left without oxygen if the cabin were to suffer a sudden decompression.

John Barnett says tests suggest up to a quarter of the oxygen systems could be faulty and might not work when needed.

He also claimed faulty parts were deliberately fitted to planes on the production line at one Boeing factory.

Boeing denies his accusations and says all its aircraft are built to the highest levels of safety and quality.

The firm has come under intense scrutiny in the wake of two catastrophic accidents involving another one of its planes, the 737 Max - the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March and Lion Air disaster in Indonesia last year.

Mr Barnett, a former quality control engineer, worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement on health grounds in March 2017.

From 2010 he was employed as a quality manager at Boeing's factory in North Charleston, South Carolina.

This plant is one of two that are involved in building the 787 Dreamliner, a state-of-the-art modern airliner used widely on long-haul routes around the world. Despite early teething problems following its entry into service the aircraft has proved a hit with airlines, and a useful source of profits for the company.

But according to Mr Barnett, 57, the rush to get new aircraft off the production line meant that the assembly process was rushed and safety was compromised. The company denies this and insists that "safety, quality and integrity are at the core of Boeing's values".

In 2016, he tells the BBC, he uncovered problems with emergency oxygen systems. These are supposed to keep passengers and crew alive if the cabin pressurisation fails for any reason at altitude. Breathing masks are meant to drop down from the ceiling, which then supply oxygen from a gas cylinder.

Without such systems, the occupants of a plane would rapidly be incapacitated. At 35,000ft, (10,600m) they would be unconscious in less than a minute. At 40,000ft, it could happen within 20 seconds. Brain damage and even death could follow.

Although sudden decompression events are rare, they do happen. In April 2018, for example, a window blew out of a Southwest Airlines aircraft, after being hit by debris from a damaged engine. One passenger sitting beside the window suffered serious injuries and later died as a result - but others were able to draw on the emergency oxygen supplies and survived unharmed.

Mr Barnett says that when he was decommissioning systems which had suffered minor cosmetic damage, he found that some of the oxygen bottles were not discharging when they were meant to. He subsequently arranged for a controlled test to be carried out by Boeing's own research and development unit.

This test, which used oxygen systems that were "straight out of stock" and undamaged, was designed to mimic the way in which they would be deployed aboard an aircraft, using exactly the same electric current as a trigger. He says 300 systems were tested - and 75 of them did not deploy properly, a failure rate of 25%.

Mr Barnett says his attempts to have the matter looked at further were stonewalled by Boeing managers. In 2017, he complained to the US regulator, the FAA, that no action had been taken to address the problem. The FAA, however, said it could not substantiate that claim, because Boeing had indicated it was working on the issue at the time.

Boeing itself rejects Mr Barnett's assertions.

It does concede that in 2017 it "identified some oxygen bottles received from the supplier that were not deploying properly. We removed those bottles from production so that no defective bottles were placed on airplanes, and we addressed the matter with our supplier".

But it also states that "every passenger oxygen system installed on our airplanes is tested multiple times before delivery to ensure it is functioning properly, and must pass those tests to remain on the airplane."

"The system is also tested at regular intervals once the airplane enters service," it says.

This is not the only allegation levelled at Boeing regarding the South Carolina plant, however. Mr Barnett also says that Boeing failed to follow its own procedures, intended to track parts through the assembly process, allowing a number of defective items to be "lost".

He claims that under-pressure workers even fitted sub-standard parts from scrap bins to aircraft on the production line, in at least one case with the knowledge of a senior manager. He says this was done to save time, because "Boeing South Carolina is strictly driven by schedule and cost".

On the matter of parts being lost, in early 2017 a review by the Federal Aviation Administration upheld Mr Barnett's concerns, establishing that the location of at least 53 "non-conforming" parts was unknown, and that they were considered lost. Boeing was ordered to take remedial action.

Since then, the company says, it has "fully resolved the FAA's findings with regard to part traceability, and implemented corrective actions to prevent recurrence". It has made no further comment about the possibility of non-conforming parts making it on to completed aircraft - although insiders at the North Charleston plant insist it could not happen.

Mr Barnett is currently taking legal action against Boeing, which he accuses of denigrating his character and hampering his career because of the issues he pointed out, ultimately leading to his retirement. The company's response is that he had long-standing plans to retire, and did so voluntarily. It says "Boeing has in no way negatively impacted Mr Barnett's ability to continue in whatever chosen profession he so wishes".

The company says it offers its employees a number of channels for raising concerns and complaints, and has rigorous processes in place to protect them and make sure the issues they draw attention to are considered. It says: "We encourage and expect our employees to raise concerns and when they do, we thoroughly investigate and fully resolve them."

But Mr Barnett is not the only Boeing employee to have raised concerns about Boeing's manufacturing processes. Earlier this year, for example, it emerged that following the Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crash, four current or former employees contacted an FAA hotline to report potential issues.

Mr Barnett believes that the concerns he has highlighted reflect a corporate culture that is "all about speed, cost-cutting and bean count (jobs sold)". He claims managers are "not concerned about safety, just meeting schedule".

That's a view which has support from another former engineer, Adam Dickson, who was involved with the development of the 737 Max at Boeing's Renton factory in Washington state.

He tells the BBC there was "a drive to keep the aeroplanes moving through the factory. There were often pressures to keep production levels up.

"My team constantly fought the factory on processes and quality. And our senior managers were no help."

In congressional hearings in October, Democratic congressman Albio Sires quoted from an email sent by a senior manager on the 737 Max production line.

In it, the manager complained about workers being "exhausted" from having to work at a very high pace for an extended period.

He said that schedule pressure was "creating a culture where employees are either deliberately or unconsciously circumventing established processes", adversely affecting quality.

For the first time in his life, the email's author said, he was hesitant about allowing his family aboard a Boeing aircraft.

Boeing says that together with the FAA, it implements a "rigorous inspection process" to ensure its aircraft are safe, and that all of them go through "multiple safety and test flights" as well as extensive inspections before they are allowed to leave the factory.

Boeing recently commissioned an independent review of its safety processes, which it says "found rigorous enforcement of, and compliance with, both the FAA's aircraft certification standards and Boeing's aircraft design and engineering requirements." It said that the review had "established that the design and development of the [737] Max was done in line with the procedures and processes that have consistently produced safe airplanes."

Nevertheless, as a result of that review, in late September the company announced a number of changes to its safety structures. They include the creation of a new "product and services safety organization".

It will be charged with reviewing all aspects of product safety "including investigating cases of undue pressure and anonymous product and safety concerns raised by employees".

Mr Barnett, meanwhile, remains deeply concerned about the safety of the aircraft he helped to build.

"Based on my years of experience and past history of plane accidents, I believe it's just a matter of time before something big happens with a 787," he says.

"I pray that I am wrong."

Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system - BBC News

^ Old news that was fixed months ago...

Originally Posted by Troy

Old news that was fixed months ago...

Maybe. But it shows again callous disregard of safety by Boeing. Even if they fixed it later.

Four Boeing related articles:

Certification process for 777X is another hurdle for Boeing.

Certification process for 777X is another hurdle for Boeing - Leeham News and Analysis
Boeing hasn’t hit bottom yet. Neither have suppliers.

Boeing hasn't hit bottom yet. Neither have suppliers. - Leeham News and AnalysisSouthwest extends 737 MAX cancellations through June 6

Southwest extends 737 MAX cancellations through June 6 - Reuters

China's Xiamen Airlines, a Boeing operator, looks to bring Airbus jets in its fleet.
China's Xiamen Airlines, a Boeing operator, looks to bring Airbus jets in its fleet - Reuters

It appears Airbus made a good deal, Bombardier designs good planes, airlines can make new routes profitable and passangers get business class seats in economy.A win/win/win/win, although the Chinese bid was refused due to political pressure.

Air Canada inaugurates A220-300 service today



"Air Canada inaugurates Airbus A220-300 service today, becoming the second North American carrier to operate the A220. Delta Air Lines was the first, with the A220-100 last year.

It is the first North American airline to operate the -300 model. The new service begins on the Montreal-Calgary route.

Airline and Airbus officials paid homage to Bombardier at a celebration yesterday in an Air Canada hanger down the block from Bombardier’s world headquarters on the edges of Montreal Dorval Airport.

Bombardier designed the aircraft, originally called C Series, in a bet-the-company challenge to Airbus and Boeing.


Betting the company

Smaller by several factors of magnitude and over-committed by launching two corporate jet programs at the same time, Bombardier lost the bet. It nearly went bankrupt, requiring a government bailout. This wasn’t enough: it sold 50.01% of the program to Airbus for $1. Bombardier retains about a third and a pension fund the rest.

Bombardier placed a second bet that this share will reap financial rewards because of the greater marketing power Airbus has.
So far, this bet seems to be working. Airbus now has more than 600 orders, vs 300 won by Bombardier.

Christian Scherer, chief commercial officer for Airbus, said the A220 “sells itself.” This may be a bit of sales hype, but for the moment, Scherer doesn’t have delivery slots for the A320 family until well into this decade.

The A220 is his prime offering. Airbus, which took over Bombardier’s Montreal Mirabel production factory, already is expanding facilities. Airbus is pressing to bring production up to 10/mo by 2023-24. Airbus is also building an A220 final assembly lines, paid for by Bombardier, in Mobile (AL). This will have an initial capacity of 4/mo. This new factory opens in June, albeit at an initial low rate production.

A220 economics better than A320neo, 737-8

Scherer said the A220-300 economics are better than the slightly larger A320neo and Boeing 737-8. The A220-300 is directly competitive with the Airbus A319neo and the Boeing 737-7.

Air Canada configures the -300 with 137 passengers in business and coach classes. The typical two-class configuration for the A320neo is about 156 seats. The 737-8’s typical configuration is about 172 seats.

Still, Scherer said the seat mile costs of the -300 are up to 5% better than these two airplanes. The trip costs are 7%-10% better, he said on the sidelines of the event.

An Air Canada said the coach seats, in 2×3 layout, are all 19 inches wide. When Bombardier designed the airplane, the seat widths were 18.5-19-18.5 inches. Air Canada retained the original aisle width but narrowed the armrests slightly to gain the window/aisle seat width.

The 19-inch seats make this the widest passenger seating in a narrow body aircraft and wider than most coach seats in twin-aisle aircraft.

New, thin routes


Air Canada will use the A220 to open new, thin non-stop routes that can’t support the larger A320 or 737. One of the first, which opens in May, will be between Seattle and Montreal. This has been outside the range of the Embraer E190 it replaces. The A220 has a 3,200nm range. The smaller capacity will, in theory, turn a loss-making route on the A320 or 737 into a profitable one on the more economical aircraft.

Air Canada’s Toronto and Montreal hubs are highly seasonal (as it the Seattle market). The smaller, more economical A220 should help turn more consistent profits on seasonal routes as well."

Air Canada inaugurates A220-300 service today - Leeham News and Analysis

It seems Bombardier are regretting selling half of the A2xx. Bit late now.

Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

Boeing’s new flagship, the 777X, is threatened with similar safety failings to the US aerospace giant’s ill-fated 737 Max, according to internal emails.

Damning messages released as part of a US Senate probe into two 737 Max fatal crashes highlight Boeing staff fears that the 777X – a modified version of an existing plane – may be vulnerable to technical problems.

In an email from June 2018, before the first Max crash, one Boeing worker wrote: “Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule.”

Another member of staff warns about a relentless cost focus, saying: “We put ourselves in this position by picking the lowest-cost supplier and signing up to impossible schedules. Why did the lowest ranking and most unproven supplier receive the contract? Solely based on the bottom dollar. Not just the Max but also the 777X! Supplier management drives all these decisions.”...

Read more
Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’