Donating Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mrlupin last won the day on September 6 2016

mrlupin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

130 Excellent

1 Follower

About mrlupin

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,482 profile views
  1. Boeing posts surprise loss, 737 MAX costs climb to $19 billion (Reuters) - Boeing Co expects nearly $19 billion in costs related to the grounding of its 737 MAX jets, the U.S. planemaker said on Wednesday while posting a surprise loss and indicating it would cut production of its bigger 787 Dreamliner aircraft. The grounding, which followed two fatal crashes, forced the planemaker to freeze production of the 737 for the first time in more than 20 years and led to the ouster of Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg. “We recognize we have a lot of work to do,” Boeing President and CEO David Calhoun said in a statement. Adding to Boeing’s pain, demand for its bigger and more profitable jet - the 787 Dreamliner - has waned in the face of the U.S.-China trade war, prompting the company to cut production, hurting cash flow at a time when its debt is mounting. Boeing, which is producing the 787 Dreamliner at 14 aircraft per month, said in October it expects to lower the production in late 2020 to 12 per month, amid a drought of orders from China. The company now expects to further lower 787 Dreamliner production to 10 per month in early 2021. The company reported negative free cash flow of $2.67 billion for the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31, compared with a positive free cash flow of $2.45 billion a year earlier. Core operating loss was $2.53 billion, or $2.33 per share, compared with a profit of $3.87 billion, or $5.48 per share, a year earlier. Analysts on average expected Boeing to post earnings per share of $1.47 in the quarter.
  2. The various regulators from around the world have different issues with the aircraft. The FAA is probably walking a tight line trying to keep all the foreign regulators happy and trying to find a safe solution. It's not a simple guess... It might be a gradual return to service (ie US only) but I'm sure the FAA would prefer to have a full review done. If one more b737 Max goes down it would be catastrophic for both the FAA and Boeing.
  3. The A319 NEO hasn't been selling as much as anticipated... Wikipedia is showing 37 orders for the short Airbus. It might make sense to give the green light to the A220-500. It will be a more efficient aircraft and wont cannibalize non existent 319 sales.
  4. After Swissport took over from Cafas, the salaries of all the employees who opted to transfer were cut to somewhere around 15$/hour. The employees who did not transfer lost their jobs... This strike is all on Swissport... Pay your employees a decent wage and maybe the turnover will drop.
  5. Also on this site:
  6. 739, a 777-300ER has a similar tribute registration C-FRAM.
  7. From the Article: Why not let EASA do the testing and approving? The FAA has proven to be weak, biased and non authoritative on this certification. Allowing them to "approve" without proof and demonstration that their internal certification processes are in order minimizes their implication in the original certification of the B737. Boeing has to get this airplane flying again... It's financial future depends on it. The US government will not let its aerospace giant collapse... The competing interests are the traveling public's safety versus the Oligopoly's financial survival... Asking the FAA to "approve" is akin to asking a team coach for a referee level decision...
  8. Actually, this Liberal government did a fabulous job regarding this corporate welfare collecting company. During the last round of neediness from Bombardier, the Fed loaned them a fully repayable loan instead of giving them subsidies. (The Fed wanted a change in the management structure before any money was given). I only wish the Quebec provincial government could have taken the same route...
  9. With the market for mid sized airplanes split between two manufacturers, the concept of too big to fail is no doubt in play. Think of what is at stake here... The US manufacturing giant is on its knees and commercially needs this airplane to fly again. It doesn't matter that the entire certification process was given to Boeing and Rubber Stamped by the FAA. It doesn't matter whether this airplane meets or doesn't meet various safety criteria, what matters is that it flies again and as soon as possible. One has to wonder what would have happened if there were 4 or 5 airplanes types competing in this market sector... What would have happened if Douglas, Lockheed and company XYZ were producing airplanes? Would this B737 Max have been allowed to fail as other airplanes have when these sort of safety issues have come up? The consolidation of the various Airplane manufacturers into Oligopolies controlling the entire market isn't serving the market... it is serving the two dominant players. It also isn't serving flight safety, in a way it's forcing this airplane onto the market... What a sad state of affairs.
  10. Maybe they are high time airframes?
  11. With the advent of new materials, new manufacturing processes and of course new engineers, new issues are appearing. Efficiency in engines comprises of lighter materials (ie the fan), 3D modeling and optimization of compressors, and higher compression rations which of course gives higher internal temps. The A220 has the low pressure turbine spinning at 3 times the speed of the fan on top of all the other advances... It will take Pratt & Whitney some time to iron out the issues. Turbine issues abound... The Leap engine has them and closer to home: An AC B777 whose HPT section let go in 2012
  12. Newer engine types are always riddled with issues. The GE90-115B on the B777 had all sorts of compressor and turbine related issues. The GEnx on the 787 had the AD for flight above highly convective air masses where the engines would flame out, they now have more discrete issues with engine internals that most wouldn't ever read about... The early Trent 1000 on the B787 are degraded to 140 ETOPS, many airlines have multiple aircraft grounded due to the shortage of spare engines. (Air China has 4 out of 14 grounded) The Leap engines on the B737 have transfer gear box issues as well as turbine issues. The PW1500 (A220 engine), last I heard, had trouble making it past 800 hrs on the pylon prior to removal (to put things in context, you can expect a PW R985 Wasp Junior (the radial piston engine built from 1930-1950) in the mythical Dehaviland Beaver to live up to a 1100 TBO on the aircraft.) Growing pains... The engines now transmit so much data that keeping them safe while on aircraft is much easier than it used to be. The manufacturers will iron out the issues eventually... This rush to put out new product seems to force the industry to put out a Beta product (just like in the software world) in order for the bugs to be worked out... It's not an issue exclusive to Pratt & Whitney engines... The other manufacturers have the similar issues.