[Thad E Ginathom]

The trick with the spoon and the sink tap. Blows the mind, at least of one never learnt much physics, which all you guys did...

What do you expect to happen if you hang a spoon, bowl down, from your fingers, and move the back (bottom) of the spoon into the stream from the tap? Especially having first tried this with London mains water pressure, it seemed "obvious" to me that the spoon would be pushed away.

It isn't. It is strongly pulled into the water. The spoon is aerofoil shaped.

If Mr Bernoulli was here on the forum, what would he make of the fact that the water flows on one side of the spoon only? There is no meeting of particles: they are all on one side. I find it hard to believe that any relevant pressure change takes place in the air on the bowl side of the spoon, or even that any flow is induced in it. In fact, the thing still works of you use the other hand to block any air flow.

[Jeroen]

Another problem with the Max:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51499777

This “debris” issue is not new. On the Max it appears in the fuel tanks only.

But on the Boeing Tankers for the US Airforce, it was more wide spread:

https://www.defenseone.com/business/...r-away/157786/

"Debris left" is just a euphemism for “sloppy work and poor Quality Control”

Of course, also the wiring issue has not been solved. Or rather agreed with the FAA what the solution needs to be:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1Z40U9

From what I have seen/read so far Boeing is telling the FAA the changes of anything happening due to this particular problem are less than remote. Apparently this particular wiring is done in an identical way as the NG, so according to Boeing:

Boeing has noted in talks with the FAA that the same wiring bundles are in the 737 NG, which has been in service since 1997 and logged 205 million flight hours without any wiring issues

Jeroen

[rajivtelang]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Third world users get goodwill warranty if they are lucky!

Yeah sure, but at their own money if things happen during the extended warranty period

[Sutripta]

Apparently two more software flaws found.

Regards
Sutripta

[wbd8779]

There seems to be a general consensus that RTS will take another 6 months minimum , the financial cost to Boeing and the airlines are monstrous to say the least , PW via Airbus had to pay millions just for grounding the NEO"s on engine concerns , so we could guess what it must be costing Boeing to have planes standing in the sun .
In our line of Buisness , we work with aviation schools in the USA , and some of them also have Boeing subcontractors and ex FAA officials on rolls - a common refrain heard is that the infamous MCAS was ill thought out and the 737's short landing gear ( grandfathered from the original ) hinders a solution when you have the large diameter LEAP engines fitted .

[pganapathy]

I am just wondering whether Boeing is happy with the Corona virus and its side effect of grounding multiple flights. It means that airlines can't claim compensation for their 737 Max being grounded and it gives them more time to work on a solution. If this issue persists for a couple of months, they may well have enough time to fix the plane and get it re-certified

[Jeroen]

I am not sure how penalties are dealt with in the aviation industry. But in other high capital industries, e.g. telecom penalties are related to for instance late deliveries. There can be different kind of penalties, also covering for loss of revenue on the customer side.

What all these kind of contracts have in common is that the total amount is usually capped to an absolute amount and or percentage of the total contract value. Companies, big or small can not sing up for unlimited liability. It needs to be proportional to the contract as a rule.

In Boeings case, I am sure there are those who will claim that does not apply due to Boeing willfully and knowingly messing up. In such a case under many legal system the contractually agreed cap might not apply.

I am no lawyer, but as these aircraft were fully certified by the FAA it might be difficult to claim that. Even so, unless a carrier wants to get rid of Boeing all together, they have no use for Boeing going bankrupt either. It would be very counter productive. So I imagine, many would just to negotiate a settlement without going to court. There is some risk in that too. Because if somebody else takes them to court and get a favorable ruling that might brings Boeing into financial trouble leaving the ones that choose the negotiations over suing in a sore spot.

To sue or not to sue, that is the question.

Jeroen

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I am not sure how penalties are dealt with in the aviation industry. Jeroen

As you kinda alluded towards the end there, Boeing is too big to allow to go bust. But through factors of its own making and Murphy's Law almost the company is staring at the barrel on many many fronts. It'll undoubtedly need significant bailing out from the US Govt - I'm hoping in light of the rather public tearing down it's had, there is incentive on the Hill to get rid of the disastrous lingering effects of the management thinking of those goons at MD and Jack Walsh's acolytes for example. Get the company back in the hands of the engineers. Wistful thinking.

On the topic of the penalties, I can use a Boeing example from their defence division. The KC-46 aerial refuelling tanker has become the latest poster child of a Pentagon project gone catastrophically wrong (now that the F-35 has found it's feet after a decade of missed deadlines and such) [REF:https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...l-excessively]. Anyway, the KC-46 is absolutely critical to the USAF (and it's thirsty fighters) and it has the ignominious distinction of being so bad at the one thing it needs to do the USAF won't use any of the new airframes yet for actual aerial refuelling. Now coming back to the original point - in a rare instance the USAF signed a Fixed Price Contract with Boeing! So technically all these missed deadlines, costs for fixing the issues and contract penalties are all on Boeing's dime. In a rare instance it's not taxpayer dollars going towards fixing a military development project gone awry. But wait a minute. Remember the inevitable Boeing bailout? Once again poor Joe Public indirectly will end up paying for the missteps of corporate management at Boeing because I can bet Boeing management will eventually give up trying to patch the holes letting water in and opt for that bailout to start afresh.

An interesting paragraph I found in this article, summarises the problems facing Boeing's commercial airline division rather nicely

So the very shortcuts that Boeing used to rush the Max into production are now keeping it on the ground

Essentially it's Boeing's pig headed refusal to make any hardware changes to the 737 Max, including the 2 onboard computers that are about as powerful as the N64 console I played on when I was younger.

TL:DR - Normally it would be fine having such simple computers independent of each other to manage a flight electronically. But Boeing, in rushing the MAX was so against making any hardware changes, decided to go all in on software fixes to alleviate the handling issues that came about with the giant new engines. No wonder then that those geriatric computers were put well beyond their capability and issues starting appearing left right and centre (like the software issues Sutripta mentions for example)

REF: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/9/21...uter-fcc-crash

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by ads11

Now coming back to the original point - in a rare instance the USAF signed a Fixed Price Contract with Boeing! So technically all these missed deadlines, costs for fixing the issues and contract penalties are all on Boeing's dime. ]

In our many industry I have worked we work on fixed price contracts all the time. But that does not mean there are no liabilities and penalties, including compensation for loss of revenue for customer, or compensation for cost incurred due to your late delivery etc.

Personally, In practice fixed contracts rarely work well in these complex industries with long development and lead times. And they are not fixed perse. Procurement likes to call them fixed, but typically there are all sorts of provisions around within what parameters/band with it is fixed. E.g. if the customer changes their requirements (and that often happens) Boeing is likely to be able to adjust price and time line.

Jeroen

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

In our many industry I have worked we work on fixed price contracts all the time. But that does not mean there are no liabilities and penalties, including compensation for loss of revenue for customer, or compensation for cost incurred due to your late delivery etc.

Personally, In practice fixed contracts rarely work well in these complex industries with long development and lead times. And they are not fixed perse. Procurement likes to call them fixed, but typically there are all sorts of provisions around within what parameters/band with it is fixed. E.g. if the customer changes their requirements (and that often happens) Boeing is likely to be able to adjust price and time line.

Jeroen

I only went with the KC-46 example as that was one where, based on everything I've read and seen it looks pretty simple in terms of Boeing having to pay.

"Boeing is contractually obligated to remedy this deficiency at no additional cost to the government," the Air Force statement adds with regards to the fuel system leaking issue. The service signed a firm, fixed-price contract with Boeing for the KC-46, which has left the company on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fixes already.

That being said, I'd defer to your experience in the regard that I'm sure in reality it must be quite different for a lot of these contracts. The USAF is royally irked enough with Boeing that I can imagine in the case of the KC-46 Boeing Will be made to pay.

Speaking of royally irked, notable airline industry jerk, sorry CEO Michael O'Leary strikes me as the kinda guy who would have the clout and temperament to try and enact some sort of fiscally punitive measure on Boeing for the delays in the MAX fix. I mean he sounded out Boeing last year itself on an earnings call rather publicly so I imagine his patience has worn further thin in the time since

[Sutripta]

Boeing unable to digest Embraer.
Now where does Airbus - Bombardier stand?

[pganapathy]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Boeing unable to digest Embraer.
Now where does Airbus - Bombardier stand?

I am guessing Boeing has decided building a new plane is only good in the long-run. In the short run, with flights grounded and the 737 Max taking up bandwidth, they figured out a way to get out of the contract. I reckon they will go back to Embraer in a few years once things stabilise. After all, unless Airbus does that deal, there are no other buyers to replace them.

WRT to Airbus-Bombardier, I reckon Airbus has relatively less problems and may well decide that the deal can be slowed down and they will then see the new plane come into production a couple of years later than planned, which would also suit the market, because of a potential global recession for the next few quarters or possibly years.

[Sutripta]

^^^
Boeing and Embraer had synergies. Not so for Airbus - Bombardier. The Airbus - Bombardier was born out of hedging ones bets in the face of regulatory uncertainties. So how set in stone is that marriage going to be?

[Sutripta]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...max-grounding/

10% workforce = 14000 workers!

Regards
Sutripta

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

^^^
Boeing and Embraer had synergies. Not so for Airbus - Bombardier. The Airbus - Bombardier was born out of hedging ones bets in the face of regulatory uncertainties. So how set in stone is that marriage going to be?

Well I thought the C series deal that morphed into the A220 line was more a result of using that Airbus US assembly facility to get around the sanctions the US were putting on Bombardier. And last I checked, Bombardier had already offloaded their entire civilian air division prior to the virus outbreak.

So my money that deals going to survive. Embraer is in for a tough time but frankly, considering Boeing are most certainly planning for a govt bailout, there's no way they could've put a costly acquisition past Congress.

Airbus too is feeling the hurt, they've furloughed employees here in Europe already. It's going to be a rough patch for all the big aviation OEMs.