Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 223 posts

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#101

Post by hugi »

mrtksn wrote: post #91
rimliu wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was not the problem with MAX in part due to Boeing trying to milk the old design?

Yes, the Airbus did the same but in their case the a320 did not have a problem fitting larger engines under the wings. The problem is, if Boeing decides to make a brand new design that is more efficient than a320, Airbus will have to match it instead of milking the a320 despite not having its planes falling of the skies.

I don’t quite follow your train of thought. Isn’t it normal for companies to compete and evolve their designs? I am sure Airbus is capable of doing that.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#102

Post by crististm »

FabHK wrote: post #96
coredog64 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife surely wouldn’t. The upper deck lav leaked on our heads for half the flight from Sydney to LA. What’s worse than a 16 hour flight? A 16 hour flight where you have to stand in the aisles.

I've frequently seen condensed water from the air conditioner leak in an A380 (sometimes quite voluminously during take-off), are you positive it was the lavatory? (FWIW, I think the A380 has superb pax comfort.)

So it's ok to have water dripping on your head as long as it's vapour condensation?

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#103

Post by selectodude »

rimliu wrote: post #83
mrtksn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there as an argument that it is not good for Airbus at all because it will risk the stability of duopoly between Boing and Airbus. The idea is that now Boing will be forced to actually invest tens of billions in new aircraft design, forcing Airbus to do the same instead of milking the current designs for as long as possible. Also, apparently the aircraft manufacturing is not a very flexible business and Air…

Was not the problem with MAX in part due to Boeing trying to milk the old design?

More due to airlines demanding a new 737 instead of a new plane. Boeing already made a new 737, it’s called the 757 and nobody bought it.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#104

Post by InTheArena »

rorykoehler wrote: post #65
sandworm101 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the demise of the a380 project i doubt airbus will ever think again that the aircraft can sell themselves.

A380 is an amazing business case. Ask anyone who has flown on one what their favourite commercial plane is and I would bet the majority will say it's the A380. Despite that it was still a commercial failure.

I think you’re confusing value proposition for business case. The value proposition for widebody is over Singhal I’ll is simple. The business case is nonexistent whenever they’re in competitive situations. The lower cost of unsold seats makes al the difference.

As for favorite plane, the lower pressurization and higher humidity of a 787 makes all the difference.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#105

Post by mrtksn »

hugi wrote: post #101
mrtksn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the Airbus did the same but in their case the a320 did not have a problem fitting larger engines under the wings. The problem is, if Boeing decides to make a brand new design that is more efficient than a320, Airbus will have to match it instead of milking the a320 despite not having its planes falling of the skies.

I don’t quite follow your train of thought. Isn’t it normal for companies to compete and evolve their designs? I am sure Airbus is capable of doing that.

Why would Airbus spend 10 Billion on RD for a new plane if they can only spend 1.5 Billion on RD to modify an existing design? In their current form, Airbus and Boing don't really compete, which is bad for the customers but good for the shareholders of these companies. They already produce almost all of the passenger aircrafts and they would love this to continue.

The 737 MAX fiasco threatens this arrangement.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#106

Post by jermaustin1 »

These people need to stop finding faults with the airplanes I fly on regularly! /s

Its getting to the point that I'm actually nervous about flying Boeing now. I took 6-8 flights on the 737-Max each year 2016-2019 and now I've taken 4 flights on the 787-Dreamliner since March.

I know that it is still statistically improbable that one of these flights to have an issue, but it still raises my blood pressure since I fly predominantly on Boeing aircraft.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#107

Post by jakub_g »

When the 2nd Boeing crashed and the whole Boeing saga started, I came across this (boldly named and maybe a bit exaggerated in the form) website:

https://www.thelastboeinginspector.com/the-last-inspectors-c...

(the navigation is on top of the page, you need JS enabled to see it)

It seems there's a lot of people inside Boeing who can say "interesting" things. The guy who created the above website was terminated in 2006.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#108

Post by magashna »

crististm wrote: post #102
FabHK wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've frequently seen condensed water from the air conditioner leak in an A380 (sometimes quite voluminously during take-off), are you positive it was the lavatory? (FWIW, I think the A380 has superb pax comfort.)

So it's ok to have water dripping on your head as long as it's vapour condensation?

Certainly better than hot piss.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#109

Post by gsnedders »

mrtksn wrote: post #91
rimliu wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was not the problem with MAX in part due to Boeing trying to milk the old design?

Yes, the Airbus did the same but in their case the a320 did not have a problem fitting larger engines under the wings. The problem is, if Boeing decides to make a brand new design that is more efficient than a320, Airbus will have to match it instead of milking the a320 despite not having its planes falling of the skies.

Provisionally the A320neo's replacement is expected to be a clean-sheet redesign, despite the basic design being two decades newer. Of course, we'll see whether even a common type rating (not type certificate) is sufficient for airlines to not baulk at the idea.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#110

Post by MSeven »

torgian wrote: post #28

"""On the matter of parts being lost, in early 2017 a review by the Federal Aviation Administration upheld Mr Barnett's concerns, establishing that the location of at least 53 "non-conforming" parts was unknown, and that they were considered lost. Boeing was ordered to take remedial action""" That's not just bad; this is really, _really_ bad. In my eight years of the Navy, working on aircraft, parts and tool accounta…

Just last week i heard a story from an older friend about a fighter jet crash investigation he was involved in, where the cause basically was that an engineer wired down some bolts (as required) but trimmed the ends of the wires without recovering the trimmed part. That little piece eventually found its way into the main stick mechanics, causing enough resistance at the wrong moment, preventing the pilot from recovering from a tight dive and killing him.
Post reply on HN