Official Aviation Thread...

[LateFan]

Cool. Love to see all those. My younger son built a nice matt black Mosquito model years ago. That's quite a plane - plywood, light, with two big engines. I'd love to see how the engines are mounted to wood bulkheads.

[george graves]

As far as getting crews into their domicile in order to start a trip, we are responsible for that on our own.

Weird. I dated a attendant for a long while, and she lived in Ventura, CA - but would hop on the plane that she would be working on, with the rest of the crew in Santa Barbara to go to Denver, and then her job would start there. She did mostly a turboprop brazilia, and some 737's - I think. Anyways....

I was just speaking of logistics - when you have to move people around, and part of your fleet is gone, that's got to be a big crunch.

[LateFan]

Then you have to lease planes to fill out your schedule. While you're paying the interest on new planes that are just parked.

[varg]

Cool. Love to see all those. My younger son built a nice matt black Mosquito model years ago. That's quite a plane - plywood, light, with two big engines. I'd love to see how the engines are mounted to wood bulkheads.

http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Mosquito/Mosquito_draft.pdf

Page 23, but the whole thing is worth reading.

[flyboyx]

Then you have to lease planes to fill out your schedule. While you're paying the interest on new planes that are just parked.

I’m pretty sure Boeing is footing the bill for this colossal fuckup. That’s usually how it works in situations like this.

I sat in the cockpit on a United bus coming home just now. The max conversation came up as it commonly does. Apparently, they said United has cancelled max flying through jan 1st.

I believe Boeing is still pumping out airplanes that are piling up on the ramp there in Everett or wherever the line is located.

[george graves]

Apparently, they said United has cancelled max flying through jan 1st.

January? As in 5 months? Wow. That's one long recomple for just a software fix! :) I kid, I kid.

But really, some CFO type is about to jump off a building somewhere.

[LateFan]

It sounds like they've found some other issues with computer processor capacity.

They build them in Renton, at the south tip of Lake Washington where they have their own runway on the water. The fuselages come on trains from Wichita, across Montana and Washington, then down the coast from Everett through Seattle to Renton. When I bike commuted in Seattle, I would catch and pass a bunch of 737s and felt pretty good about that.

They're pilling up, and they're storing them in employee parking now.





Funny to see how they looked back in the day - fat little cigars with tiny engines.

[flyboyx]

remember how a couple weeks ago, i mentioned that the newark and la guardia airports are 10lbs of shit jammed into a 2lb bag? well the 737 is pretty much akin to this along the same line of thought.

this is an airplane that was designed in the fucking 50's originally and is still flying today with all of its modern derivitives. the pic you posted above is what the airplane was designed to be. the 900 series is pretty much the same airframe but 2x the size. it really is a very antiquated design. boeing has stuck with it all these years because of fleet comonality. there are so many compromises integrated into this modern versino of the old platform. have you ever heard of the term: "a pig with lipstick"?

they are literally fighting the good fight with one hand tied behind their backs. could you imagine the possibility of a completely new narrow body design akin to a 787? that would be an amazing specimin indeed. boeing is too spineless to go down that road. they are too scared to alienate their client base. in my opinion, it is stupid really. in the long run, airlines, boeing, and the world would be so much better off. they have the capability of building something that could kick the pants off a 320. right now, it is really the other way around.

[flyboyx]

after a night's sleep, i thought i would expand on this a little more.

in my opinion(you can take it for whatever it is worth), i think they should have just continued to build the next generation series of 737 and designed an all new efficient airplane in liu of the Max. they could have sold both models concurrently for a number of years, with plans of phasing out the 737 in say, 10 or 15 yrs down the road. southwest airlines can suck it!


my statement above is complete Boeing blasphemy and that is where i think the problem lies

[varg]

It's also business blasphemy. The expense of developing a completely new airframe is monumental compared to what they've been doing with the 737, and it's a gamble because the airlines have to not only buy into the new plane and its maintenance and repair structure but train pilots for their new airplane. A development based on the same plane which pilots can fly with minimal additional training is a sure thing. The smart play was developing the max, it's just that something really stupid happened along the way. No matter where it came from (I doubt outsiders like me will ever know) some mindfuck levels of stupid went into what happened with the max and its MCAS, basic longstanding rules of commercial aircraft design were violated, I don't think that's just par for the course with continuing to develop an old airplane.

[flyboyx]

I hear you varg, short term costs and convenience. but I think you are missing my point.

Operators that fly the bus know it is a better platform in many ways. But.... it is still 1980’s technology. Bowing could have chosen to start with a fresh slate. Just like anything new, there is pushback in the beginning. Airlines are driven by cost and efficiency. If a new airplane can be demonstrated to save money in operating costs, they will buy the heck out of it.

[varg]

I definitely understand what you're saying, and I am ignorant to whether Boeing is currently developing a replacement to the 737 and competitor/replacement for the more modern Airbus. The two projects wouldn't have to be mutually exclusive, and from a business point of view continuing to make money on sales with smaller investment during the long and very expensive development of a new plane doesn't seem like a bad idea. If they're obviously outcompeted on efficiency and other aspects by current Airbus offerings and are in the region of diminishing returns with the 737 airframe, it would certainly make sense to be developing its replacement as older models are continuously reaching end-of-life. It's a common problem with massive companies, they become unwilling to take any risk at all and slow the advance of the market overall. Aviation has been an industry plagued with constant mergers and acquisitions, ever condensing towards fewer and fewer companies and less and less competition.

Is the overall Boeing 737 fleet currently growing, at replacement levels or shrinking?

[flyboyx]

It is definitely growing. I’m sure that partially spurned the decision to put more lipstick on the pig.

There are simply a lot of companies out there like southwest, Alaska, and United that will suck boeing’s Dick no matter the cost. In many ways, these companies keep the 73 line chugging along and probably will until the company screws up the courage to build a mini 787. Whenever they do, it will indeed replace the current offering.

[hoveringuy]

I support the military derivative of the 737, the P-8.

The beauty of the 737 isn't that it's the latest and greatest design that squeezes the most revenue out of the crew and fuel, but that it's so mature that it's become incredibly reliable and has a very robust supply and overhaul back-end.

I'm certain that the Comac C919 is a better, more modern design than the 737, but what it also offers in Spades is RISK.

[LateFan]

... from a business point of view continuing to make money on sales with smaller investment during the long and very expensive development of a new plane doesn't seem like a bad idea. If they're obviously outcompeted on efficiency and other aspects by current Airbus offerings and are in the region of diminishing returns with the 737 airframe, it would certainly make sense to be developing its replacement as older models are continuously reaching end-of-life. It's a common problem with massive companies, they become unwilling to take any risk at all and slow the advance of the market overall.

And I wonder if these decisions were affected by absorbing the massive costs of the 787 development, which included disasters of various suppliers major assemblies not lining up, huge delays (years), and then the battery fire fiasco.

I wonder if Boeing has spent more on modifying and tweaking the 737 airframe than they would have just doing a new design. They've redone nearly everything on it - the length, the balance, all new wings, the dorsal fin extension, generations of engine mount redesigns....

Remember years ago when several 737s rolled and crashed before they discovered it was a yaw control valve jamming in the rudder? Imagine that liability and massive cost in there as well (although that had nothing to do with the overall airplane design).