Is Boeing doing quick fixes for smallish orders and rebated Max'es

On Max 9 an extra emergency exit door is replaced with a blank if you don't want it instead of not cutting the hole for it in the first place. And it was mechanically fastened instead of welded in place. And since the inner panel is just a normal panel making it impossible to do frequent checks on the blank, of course it eventually fell out taking the inner panel with it. And in this case after only 147 flights. That is less than 1 year in use. 

On the other hand larger (in the hundreds) and original Max orders like the one from Ryanair get its own no mentioning of Max version number (737-8200) and  just uses a easily inspected normal door as it was originally designed for.

This hole covered by a blank must be a financial quick fix to avoid producing 2 different versions of the airframe (with or without a door hole) and not something engineers recommended. And with it came a number of uncertainties, lets call them risks, that for the economists was a case of numbercrunching the financials where lives and reputations clearly get a low value among todays Boeing top management. A mgmt that may not only have physically seen the solution and only cursorary have read about it in a note since they are east coast based and prefere trips to washington (possible location of new HQ), while production is on the west coast of a very large country.

Or the doorplug could be a leftover if one order went from am airline with a need of high density seating to one that wanted to offer more space for each passengers and therefore less max total passengers. So a result of Covid strains for airlines combined with Max crashes and a 2 year halt on Boeing delveries that led to some reorganisation of delivery of already produced planes. Result still a quick fix rather than a properly engineered solution.

This is just one new in a litany of problems for the ever increasingly sized Boeing 737. And no new plane type is coming forward in the 150-200 seat range from that manufacturer. Maybe they are hoping to buy a partially failed manufacturer since it obviouly is to expensive for them to plan and develope a new one from scratch. It can't be the timeframe since it only took 2 1/2 years to bring the 747 from plan to flying.

Possibly Boeing don't want to put billions into another plane before they see how the climate agenda moves forward and wether the future demands electric planes. Or planes based on a different fuel type altogether, yet not invented.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is this the endgame for Norse, not necessarily

Norse have again announced that they need another capital injection. This time it might be different because last time they needed money the ceo and large owner Larsen said that it was the last time he injected more from own funds. Thi reminds me of the endgame ein Flyr where major investor Braathen said something similar in the autumn. When they agin needed money the following Januar nobody came forward and that was the end for an airline that could have been saved after the October refill with some major mangement changes that could have implemented even stricter cost savings, found income immediately and not paid out cash  immediately for possible charter incomes in the future. If Norse turns to more subleasing out of planes or charters they need to ensure that there will be upfront payments because it will mean upfront costs. Difficuolt concept for underfinanced charterers but rquired for an airline on the brink. Norse management also need to be based closer to where the action...
Read more

When will Boeing's new chief get around to solving problems instead of letting new ones happen

So far the new Boeing CEO is not standing out as a problem solver. His first couple of months has more been a deepening of the Boeing rut. Maybe his immediate and well announced (partial) relocation to Seattle was not such a smart move after all. It certainly have given the machinists the guts to demand back stuff they gave up 10 years ago because Boeing then threatened to move more production away from the area. He needs to be careful with letting his division leutenants run the show by playing hardball with the unions at a time when Boeing needs to ramp up production, not let it grind to a halt altogether. They may have more experience from within Boeing and been seen by the previous CEO as leading lights but it is time for a new regime. The previous one created and proeeded with more trouble than it was worth for both customers and the company itself. Boeing might be too critical to the for all practical purposes duopoly in passenger plane making in the western world, but that deepl...
Read more

Questionmarks over how Boeing saved costs when using plug instead of door

 What on the overwing exits stop them physically from being opened by a passenger with poor survival instincts during flight and did Boeing design engineers remove this safety mechanism from instructions for when installing a plug instead of a door. What other safety features did they omit on the grounds of cost saving in the design for using a door plug instead of a real emergency exit.  Normal cabin doors can't be opened during flight by design since they swing forward into the wind. There are few comments around on how this door (when installed) pivots. Is it up like the overwing exits or is it down since with such a small door there are probably no self inflating slide like the normal cabin doors. Or is it left or right. On the 737-200 the emergency exit overwing door came out loose and into the cabin. On the 737-NG-800 they swing up and out of the way. I doubt it just is pushed out and fall down because that could damage it during testing / maintenance. Would the overwing...
Read more