• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

General aviation thread

StephenZA

Well-known member
So this new problem for Boeing, of the 737 NG having 'cracks' appear a big one or more precautionary? As far as I know this sort of thing sort of deigned into air-planes and expected? Depending I suppose what you would call a crack. 737 MAX still being down must be hurting Boeing a little by now.
 

smalishah84

The Tiger King
with 737 max being in the news all the time recently i will be very very nervous getting into one when they do make a comeback
 

Burgey

Well-known member
Of relevant ones: pretty much any Indonesian airline (though I've heard they've improved), any of the AirAsia group, Ryanair, Easyjet.
Flew Garuda to Jakarta ex Sydney a few years back and they were very good tbh.

How are the South American airlines these days? There were some genuinely dodgy ones when I went there back in the late 90s.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...al-of-some-787-lightning-protection-measures/

WTF has been going on at Boeing?

Thorson, propulsion technical project manager at the FAA, wrote that agency’s technical experts had discovered errors in the way Boeing had summed up the various risks of the lightning protection features and that with the removal of the foil “the fuel tank ignition threat … cannot be shown extremely improbable.”

Thorson estimated that if the math were corrected, the ignition risk “would be classified as potentially unsafe.”

He recommended that the FAA reject Boeing’s assertion that it complied with regulations “due to the amount of risk that the FAA would be accepting for fuel tank ignition due to lightning.”

Thorson also objected to the FAA delegating to Boeing itself a System Safety Assessment of the design change that was specific to the largest Dreamliner model, the 787-10, because of different details inside the wing.

He wrote that the rationale provided for this delegation of oversight was the FAA’s inability “to support the airplane delivery schedule.” The FAA’s approval of the design change for that specific model on June 28 allowed Boeing to go ahead next day and deliver a 787-10 in South Carolina to Dutch airline KLM.
I honestly think that something going seriously wrong with the 787 program especially could represent an existential risk to the commerical aviation arm of the company; especially since the program has been an enormous money black hole for the company that is only just now starting to pay itself off.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
Muilenberg has been fired, and not even in the "we thank ____ for his dedicated service" sort of way either.

Not a banner year for Boeing.
 

AndyZaltzHair

Well-known member
Boeing cancelled the deal with M Douglas

For 777X still a lot of work to be done? I mean they don’t want another 737 max down the line there waiting to be man killing machine. I always thought 787s are just fillers in the production line. They are fuel efficient but passenger capacity is very limited. 787-8 has around only 280 capacity.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Boeing cancelled the deal with M Douglas

For 777X still a lot of work to be done? I mean they don’t want another 737 max down the line there waiting to be man killing machine. I always thought 787s are just fillers in the production line. They are fuel efficient but passenger capacity is very limited. 787-8 has around only 280 capacity.
The exact opposite is true. The 787 is the workhorse of any widebody fleet now; 777Xs will be luxuries and frankly I'm still not sure the program is a guaranteed success. Big planes have a nasty tendency to lose money.
 

AndyZaltzHair

Well-known member
The exact opposite is true. The 787 is the workhorse of any widebody fleet now; 777Xs will be luxuries and frankly I'm still not sure the program is a guaranteed success. Big planes have a nasty tendency to lose money.
With the departure of A380s, the standard option for long haul flights eg china/hong kong to north america remains 777 as 787s are good for mid range flights eg south east asia to middle east. Some airliners use A330s for long hauls but I’ve seen these barely instead of 777s for those long haul flights. I’m not sure about A350s and their usage. I think boeing is trying to cater the market with equipment that will be efficient for long haul as well as mid range flights so basically they had to make a better version of 777 in the next production line. 777 fits both the criteria perfectly now and 777X will just be a better version of 777? Bigger yes but extremely fuel efficient and reduced maintenance cost but as you said it can turn out to be a luxury.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
787s are good for mid range flights eg south east asia to middle east
The 787s/a350s have an increasing lock on the truly long haul routes in the world now with the exception of extremely high-capacity routes like SYD-LHR. The only real competition the 787 has for these ultra long haul routes these days is the a350... another similarly mid-sized plane. The fuel efficiency advantage these mid-sized planes have over the 77W and a330 is just too good to ignore. Why do you think Qantas has bought 20 or so 787s and has never flown a 777? And note that none of the US big three are touching the 777X, they're going all-in on the 787 and to a lesser extent the a350.

The 777X being a bigger 777 means that it is a less competitive 777X IMO. It's really just Emirates and friends keeping the program going right now.
 
Last edited:

AndyZaltzHair

Well-known member
PIA A320 crashed today just short of runway. They made two go arounds/aborted landings with landing gear problems and lost both engines on the third approach. Last time I heard losing both engines was when capt sully successfully landed it in the hudson river. It was A320 as well?
 

AndyZaltzHair

Well-known member
PIA A320 crashed today just short of runway. They made two go arounds/aborted landings with landing gear problems and lost both engines on the third approach. Last time I heard losing both engines was when capt sully successfully landed it in the hudson river. It was A320 as well?
Turns out the first approach was unstabilized one when they attempted a quite impossible landing. The landing gear did not extend due to over speed and the engines hit the ground twice or thrice and they took off again. The oil leaked and both the engines got severely damaged from the impact and failed. They could not make the runway again.
 
Top