What’s Going On With The Boeing 777X?!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- Visit our sponsor betterhelp.com/mentournow today to receive 10% off your first month of therapy
---------------------------------------------------
The original Boeing 777 flew for the first time about FOUR years after its launch, and started flying paying passengers ONE year after that. Its replacement was planned to enter service SEVEN years after launch, despite not being a clean sheet design. And as it turns out, it will actually take at least TWELVE years from launch to fly passengers! Why??
Today we are going to take a look at how a mix of optimism, complacency and some bad luck meant that Boeing ended up getting things desperately wrong in the development of its flagship, the 777X.
Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻 www.mentourpilot.com/apps/
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
• “Family flight” - Five...
• Jet mega-orders put In...
• IndiGo Places Record O...
• Air India places recor...
• 2021 Miramar Air Show ... v
• Farnborough Internatio...
• Interview with Boeing-...
• The Royal Jordanian 78...
• Le nouveau Dreamliner ...
• SunExpress Airlines | ...
• Together we soar | UAE...
• Boeing 777X Vertical T...
• 777-9 Vertical Takeoff...
• #DubaiAirshow 2023: Co...
• #A350 - Turkish Airlines
• A350-900 Maiden Flight
• #DubaiAirshow 2023: An...
• Introducing Our New Li...
• Emirates A380 and Jetm...
• Last delivery of the E...
• The A350-1000 begins i...
• First A350-1000: Engin...
• Rolls-Royce | Trent 70...
• Rolls-Royce | Richard ...
• Rolls-Royce | Andrew D...
• Rolls-Royce | Trent 10...
• Rolls-Royce | The laun...
• Qatar Airways' Airbus ...
• Rolls-Royce | Trent XW...
• The Pratt & Whitney GT...
• Soaring high above the...
• Rolls Royce cuts 9,000...
• Emirates Flyover at Du...
• Emirates SkyCargo sets...
• The A320neo Family: Un...
• A320neo takes to the s...
• Trent 7000 | Making th...
• For the Boeing Flight ...
• See inside the GE9X, G...
• The #A350F, the only t...
• Rolls-Royce | UltraFan
• Airbus history made: t...
• DHL Boeing 777F - Firs...
• Video
• Emirates announces lar... - บันเทิง
Visit our sponsor betterhelp.com/mentournow today to receive 10% off your first month of therapy
betterhelp rlly works guys
Say @MentourNow would you ever consider doing a segment on the very recent issue with WestJet and its woes with its union mechanics & safety concerns ?
Your delivery of adverts is very tolerable - which is about 1000 times better than most ads
In the wild, a predator's target demographic is the sick and weak.
Not sure why still Betterhelp if lots of people have commented about it. They might tell you they’re all good but that doesn’t change their past, they literally run a company with a PR team of course they’ll telling that it’s all good, there’s a reason everyone dropped them and criticized them heavily
I've worked for Boeing the last 15 years on the 787 program. I've witness the shift away from quality for profit and am now witnessing the swing back to quality. I think a valuable lesson was learned with the max and 787 quality issues and I really hope the new attitude holds well into the future as I really can say I love working there.
I have that same feeling and I hope you are right.
The 777X looks like an awesome aircraft and the original 777 always was.
I second that....and I am an Avionics Engineer working on the B787. The B777X Avionics is nothing like the B777 family, but instead similar to the B787
If, both of you were in any way employed by Boeing. Such self opinionated criticism made towards the company cannot be made.
It is not that Boeing does care about quality. It is more so, that more experienced employees are retiring and accepted earlier retirement. Especially when they made excessive layoffs during the year 2020. The Cares Act helped laid off employees get an education to transition to other careers. As for myself I was pursuing something in Cybersecurity but, I eventually went the Healthcare industry as a Biomedical Equipment Technician. My title is currently Field Service Engineer II.
Quality decreases as experienced employees retire or leave the company.
I heard exotic car technicians need education and apprenticeship program for about a year. As for Boeing manufacturing is within a span of 1-3 months of training prior to heading to the manufacturing floor.
Back to basics:
Prior
Planning
Prevents
Piss
Poor
Performance
I certainly hope so (back to quality)... we all recall that Boeing CEO (yes he's no longer there... last I read, now heading a tractor mfg co...God help the farmers!!) stand at that podium and basically blame those pilots...SHAME on them..shame, shame, shame
Happened that Boeing is no more an engineering company.
I hope they will/have found their way back to that.
We need the economy to work but it’s the engineering that is crucial
Assemblers.
It's also important for a healthy competition between Airbus and Boeing
@@speeter6345 I'm a big fan of Airbus and have been for a long time, but I absolutely agree with you regarding this. Things have been messy for Boeing ever since the merger with McDonnell Douglas and theirs and Lockheed Martin's price gouging in the military market has been concerning for a long time, but competition with Airbus on the civil aviation front has kept things stable for all these years. Either one of them monopolising the market would have devastating effects and is always a worry when they are the only real key players now with Embraer taking a bit part role and the impact of Comac entering the market still to be determined. Here's hoping for many years of healthy competition without any further declines in safety, as was the case with the MCAS built into the 737-Max range of aircraft whilst claiming no retraining was necessary. Positive competition will keep prices stable and will push innovation further too. I hope things work out well in the coming years.
@@TheGreyAreaBetween Absolutely! I am also team Airbus, but we need Boeing (and Ideally Embraer, Bombardier etc.) to keep innovating and improving
Airbus got robots doing rivets early on with A320 assembly line in late 1980s. I am quite surprised Boeing couldn't get this working in the 2010s when work on 777X was starting. The whole point of robots is to ensure consistency and if humans had to go and fix probems left by the robot, then there was something wrong Boeing was doing.
Boeing is run by inept c-suit penny pinchers and diversity hires not engineers. Also the a320 is far smaller then the 777 which also didn't help.
Have to design for the means to manufacture from the beginning.
Boeing has robots doing the rivets on the wings for the 737 & 777, at least. Robots also paint those wings. The 777 fuselage rivet work by robots wasn't their first rodeo with automated manufacturing, but the more complex requirements of fuselage work has been a challenge.
"I am quite surprised Boeing couldn't get this working in the 2010s when work on 777X was starting" - I'm not surprised. Boeing, as a company, stopped thinking like engineers and started thinking like managers. When you aren't too concerned about quality or safety, that will translate into everything you do, including procuring and setting up the robots for automation.
@@nomore6167Indeed. Boeing is indicative of most US Companies now who focus on share price and dividends more than actually running a good business.
As an Aerosoace engineer i understsnd the frustration of MBAs running engineering companies rather than the other way around when Boeing was a trail blazer. Now its all about stock buybacks, share prices, short cuts, and milking the most out of old designs rather than being innovtative!! Thats why i retreated back to academia
As an engineer myself, this is why one of the biggest things I was looking for when I first started looking for a job after college was an employer that was run primarily by people who understood engineering. It makes the job a lot more enjoyable when management actually understands their products and can understand when their engineers are explaining the costs, risks, and benefits of different possible paths. Of course, the business side is obviously important, too. Management of an engineering company really needs to understand both.
MBA = Master Bullshit Artist
And then academia went completely off the rails? 😄
FAA delegating their work to "approved" boeing personel sounds about right too. There needs to be a balance where the regulator isn't pearl clutching at everything, but also not being complacent.
Aren't most MBAs in manufacturing industries have engineering degrees as well?
If you react to competition as soon as you see a threat... it is already too late.
I like Boeing aircraft, but the company management in the last 30 years doesn't impress me.
They went half ESG, DEI, lucky to still exist. 😉
I had biggest stock position in BA, right until they crashed 2nd Max. One bro was veteran Engineer for them. I lost all confidence, cashed out, after a lifetime of admiration for Boeing.
that is when you should have bought more. because there was a rebate on the shares. maybe. Btw. which company will take their place as a subsidy queen and an airliner behemoth?@@Mrbfgray
@@snorttroll4379 HA! Sold that dog for roughly $380, now 5 yrs on it's around $260, some $220 inflation adjusted.
Took decent gains on BA and bought TSLA May/June 2019, those shares have 20Xed (ish) and just getting started.
When the story changes, change your mind, moral of the story.
I thought Boeing management was basically MD beancounter after the merger?
Anyone who says “I
like…” followed by “but,” is full of it.
Here's a funny thing. 30-odd years ago, I was a manufacturing engineer at Vought Aircraft. That company pioneered an "automatic riveter" machine that could drill, countersink if necessary, and deburr a hole, then squeeze a rivet into it, with or without sealant as needed. It could also push in interference-fit Hi-Lok fasteners but those still required manual installation of their nuts afterwards. However, all this automation was only semi-automatic. It still required an operator to help position the rather large chunk of airplane in the the right spot (which was were a red laser dot from the machine corresponded with a spray-painted dot on the part indicating where the hole should be drilled. Large parts were suspended in slings from overhead cranes that the machine operator could control to get the spray dot more or less in the right spot, then lean on the part a little to finalize the aim. This system worked quite well and Vought licensed the patents out to other manufacturers, but it only worked on relatively flat pieces, such as skin panels for wings and tails, or for curved sections no more than about 1/8 the circumference of a circle, for say fuselage skins or parts of engine nacelles. And all this work was way up the line from final assembly of the whole airframe. It was mostly for attaching stringers to skin panels and similar tasks. And it still required all these parts previously to have been loaded manually into their jigs and a few holes manually drilled and clecoed together to hold the parts in their proper places so the nascent assembly could be hung from slings and all the rest done by the auto-riveter.
Still, this system saved a LOT of manual work because you have to buck manual rivets out in the middle of large skin panels with 2 people, and a varying amount of time depending on the type of fastener. But it had its limits and we at Vought put a great deal of thought into how to improve such machines so could do even more. But eventually we decided that robots could only do so much for aircraft assembly and left it where it was. So I'm surprised Boeing tried to go raise the bar as high as it did. I mean, you can reduce assembly hours by machining entire parts out of 1 block of metal rather than build them up from plates and angles riveted together, but what you save in riveting labor you lose in increased machining time and cutter wear, and make a LOT of scrap.
I’m an Engineer in an unrelated field. It breaks my heart when brilliant minds solve a problem but it gets recycled to the next generation to solve again!
@@TickleFight94 It shouldn't break your heart. You should instead be glad. That means job security for any children who follow in your footsteps ) "Re-inventing the wheel" is a human occupation about 1 day less old than inventing the wheel the 1st time ;)
@TickleFight94 It actually amazes me that so many people have been able to reinvent the wheel over time. After all, the vast bulk of humans who have ever lived haven't had the ability to invent anything. Grandpa _Homo erectus_ made his Acheulean handaxes the same way for over 1 million years. Uncle Neanderthal made his same Levallois tools for over 250K years. And apart from the rare artists amongst us modern humans, most of us (myself included) are as unimaginative as our ancestors. Us modern _Homo sapiens_ just have a slightly higher number artists amongst us.
Actually the folding wingtip ISN’T a new thing to the 777X. It was originally offered as an option for the 777, to enable it to use 52m pads. Ultimately no airline ordered the option.
The test structure for that is outside of the Museum of Flight restoration building in Everett, WA.
Yup. Far more complex and larger on the original 777 too. They each included outboard ailerons and two sections of leading edge slats, where the 777x folding wing tips have no flight control surfaces. I read they were flight tested and certified on the both domestic market A and the stretch (aka -300) market A and ran off the center hydraulics with alternate connections to the right and left systems as a safety backup. Can’t see these new, less complex ones having any issues getting certified, but to the public I guess they’re still going to be considered new and have a lot of scrutiny.
As far as I’m aware the folding wings on the 777 was just a concept and not an actual variant offered to customers
Quoting from 777 Enthusiasts Colour Series, Norris and Wagner P39, “…the hinge line is set at about 80 percent of the span, allowing the outer 22’ to fold upwards… By 1995 no operator specified the folding wing system, but Boeing is keeping it available as major fleets of DC-10 begin to change hands. The company also expects to offer the technology for the the future ‘New Large Airplane’…” In part this limitation is seen by the extent of the wing tank, which doesn’t reach the entire span. FYI
Wrong
From 2008 to 2017 the number of experienced enginners that was made redundant and started working at Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, Mitsubishi and Comac is telling
Embraer wont hire nom Brazilian engineer. They all came from the very same university in Brazil. ITA, the university that made Embraer possible.
@@AthosRac Im Korean working as Fluid Engineer so your comment is wrong
I was a member of the engineering team that created the 777 as a young engineer just out of university and it was a formative experience in my engineering career. I'm happy to hear @MentourNow call the 777 "iconic". 🙂
The 777 was probably the first and last "greatest" jet that I'll ever work on (not to say the 747 wasn't a good aircraft). Before the FAUB came along, the saying was, "B-1 and DONE!" Only one production test flight and then off to the customer events. After the FAUB started, there were airplanes coming out to the flightline with over 2000 incomplete jobs.
It's hardly iconic, just a boring 767 on peds. The 747 was iconic.
what team were you part of? i curious to know your experience during the development
Both the 777 and 747 where massive hits, most 747s ended up being replaced by the 777
@@sasukecruz2000 I was hired right after the go-ahead decision for the aircraft program in 1990 and I worked in the 777 aerodynamic loads group. I was involved with structural loads analysis, wind tunnel testing, flight testing and FAA certification documentation. It was an excellent introduction to how aircraft are designed, built and certified for a newly graduated engineer.
I'm not sure how it works in aerospace, but in car manufacturing the design process never stops. As soon as a new model is finalised, they immediately start on the design of the replacement model. There is no stop-start for the design teams and this gives excellent continuity of experience/knowledge. This 777-X just seems to full of stop-starts, and that creates havoc.
There are less customers to buy airliners and people replace cars more often than they do planes. Given how much they cost, you want to milk an aircraft for all it is worth before replacing it.
Life cycle is very different.
That's true, but the length of the design process is also much longer too, so you'd better start straight away. @@F-14_Jockey
Two very different things! Risks can be taken in cars not in aircrafts, especially huge passengers planes.
@@superaijaz Cars can and do just fail anytime and they don't even need engineering or manufacturing faults to do that. That's just part of the experience.
I actually work on the 777x program in everett. We have like 20 aircraft just waiting for engines and finishing. We also build the legacy and X 777’s on the same line
Nice. I build 777x tail fins in Fredrickson.
I loved building the 767's from 1997-99 in Everett. Whilst robots don't come in hungover to work there's things only humans can do.
The 767 is one of the GOATS
My favorite wide body aircraft ever. My last flight on it was unfortunately like 13 years ago. Continental airlines flight to Guam. At that time I was flying to Tokyo every three months on 777s (all varieties) and some old 747s. So my vacation to Guam I expected a 777 and it was a 767! So comfortable.
it sounds like Boeing had it all figured out in the 90s, but then the hotshot bean counters came in and ruined everything.
@@acasualviewer5861 as always lol I still remember the drill size of 0.194 for rivets and hukbolts were cool too. Kleckos for holding the parts in place
For now.
The problem with the A330 wasnt per se that it was old, it was down to the fuselage diameter not being scalable enough. The A346 was the ultimate stretch of that A300 fuselage diameter and it was just never competitive in capacity to other models available, especially given how much it caused the weight to rise to almost 400t. The A330 manages to keep the weight down to under 250t, so it can efficiently transport that lower number of passengers (the A343 somewhat did too, which is why it has remained in service for a bit longer than the -600).
The A350 fuselage allowed Airbus to go to 9 abreast with a reasonable seat width, which let them get within reach of the capacity of the 777 without having to make an absurdly long fuselage and it keeps their weight down to under 280t, 100t less than the 346. Overall it's basically the "peak" evolution of tuning an aircraft that fits in the 65m wing box, the 777x has needed the folding wings to be able to be heavier and have the extra capacity without sacrificing efficiency as it would have if the wing span was 65m.
I do project management among other things like being a chief engineer. There's a saying - only one miracle at a time. The reason Boeing and Airbus are taking longer to get airplanes out the door is risk stacking. They're trying to do too many new things at once. When things go wrong, it has a snowball effect. On complex systems, it's better to do incremental improvements to better limit the number of potentially bad interactions. For example, maybe only focus on the new wing and let the engine and robot stuff prove themselves outside the critical path.
A number of clarifications:
1) The static test airplane is always a write-off and was never planned for being used in-service. I had the opportunity to be in the test room for this test, but passed on the opportunity to a junior engineer to gain experience.
2) The pace for the program is really based upon the ability of the engine manufacturer to develop and test a new engine. However, the program also benefited by having more time to conduct pre-production trials on the composite wings and work-out the bugs on the wing layup automation, which was an expensive lesson learned from the 787. It is understated how much the GE9X engines is a technological leap with 3D printed (additive manufacturing) components, a overall pressure ratio of 60, and a bypass ratio of 10:1. In comparison, the Rolls Royce Trent XWB on the A350 has a pressure ratio of 50:1 and bypass ratio of 9.8:1.
3) The delays at this point are a direct fall-out from the knowledge gained from the 737Max accidents where there is new understanding of pilot human factors and the need to scrutinize system safety analysis at an airplane level rather than on a changed subsystem basis. The 737Max accidents essentially caused a reset to the entire certification timeline for flight deck and systems, with the added difficulty of the industry having to decide what the new rules should be and how to verify them as well.
4) The robotic fuselage program FAUB was introduced initially on the 777-300ER/777F production line; the 777X program was not dependent upon it.
nice triggered American response making excuses and throwing in some deflection about Airbus too
The static plane that had its fuselage blown apart could have been used for other ground tests though
@@tomstravels520 There is no other use after the test is completed. The test article is broken up and stored until certification.
@@ant2312 737 MAX-7 has yet to be certificated but has the exactly the same flight deck as 737 MAX-8, which has been approved for in-service operations. The delay is entirely due to stepped-up documentation requirements by the FAA for new certifications. The 777X is subject to the same standards.
@@jeffberner8206 Jeff!!! Greetings from the SRM group! I hope you're enjoying your retirement. I was going to comment on the stricter environment we operate in due to the MAX history, but you beat me to it.
I'm involved in the Part 25 certification (which is the engine/airframe combo) for the engine supplier as my day job. The GE9X is a beast of an engine!
The lengthening design and manufacturing process in aircraft mimics what has happened in the industrial process industries over the last 20 years or so. Projects that used to take 4 years now take 5-7 years from initiation to startup, and the costs have escalated similarly. Engineering effort has often doubled on a per unit basis, and often the industry is baffled by "why". Having been involved, there are reasons that make sense, like increasing complexity and novel parts. But I fear one of the big reasons is that the modern digital tools being used make it too easy to make changes and make it too easy to proceed with design details without making the necessary decisions earlier that will avoid rework. I would argue that these digital tools have also reduced the fundamental understanding that engineers once had, and that increase risk of all kinds.
Agreed about the changes. MS TEAMS is also a big contributor to delay, as it's too easy to have a distributed team, rather than concentrated, and too easy to have a meeting - leading to sloppiness, poor preparation and an attitude that "Oh, we'll just have another meeting on the subject".
Regards from Oil & Gas engineering.
An interesting insight.
In my opinion the o so often praised "concurrent engineering" is to blame at least partially. Basically, you are supposed to design things that depend on other things that aren't designed yet and all they give you is the promise that it will work in a certain way when its design is finished. So if one element in the chain doesn't turn out as originally promised, everything that depends on that has to change too, regardless if its design was already finalised or not. So you end up with the situation, that you have to redesign already finished elements sometimes multiple times.
My experience in the last 40 years developing embedded systems, mostly for the military, is that the whole design and development process has decayed. It's all agile now. Which basically means hacking it together, discovering what you want as you go along. Exactly the behavior which maximizes the development time and cost.
increased complexity is NOT the problem. In fact, actual manufacturing has become less complex. The problem is the culture of meetings for meetings for meetings with literally, hundred guys in a room doing.... NOTHING in Aerospace related work due to unions as companies have farmed all the actual design out to sub contractors who are NOT union employees in the name of "saving cost"... which means now you have contractors who had parts designed literally a DECADE ago, as well they have to make a product and profit, who now delay the process or require meetings themselves, as Boeing now has extra middlemen delaying everything. NO ONE is making any decisions... it is all being contracted out who have ZERO responsibility to actually... make decisions. You have whole teams of Boeing employees who do nothing other than make contractor specs meeting with contractor spec people who both know NOTHING about the actual parts being designed with delay's involved, instead of a Boeing employee walking over to another who actually designed the parts in question and getting it straight to begin with without 2 additional middle men delaying everything who are not also trying to go through LAWYERS looking at contracts and playing hide the mouse while wagging the tail dog and pony show. Not just a Boeing problem. Guys from Airbus working for Boeing have told me same thing and why I refuse to work for EITHER Boeing or Airbus. Zero engineering is being done or allowed to be done. It is all managerial Bull Shit.
It was great to see the 747SP mentioned. They flew between Australia and New Zealand in the 1980s before the ETOPs rated 767s replaced them flying across the Tasman.
They were great to fly in except if you got a seat in the row behind the smoking section that was only separated by a curtain.
Only recall seeing one at an airport, China airline, def the ugliest version.
@@Mrbfgray It looks a bit like one of those cartoon airplanes - you know, with the pilot's head sticking out of the cockpit window grinning at the viewer.
Good times, I remember the Aussie pilots were a bit "shy" of Wellington winds 😊 I was out working on the 34GP at NZWN one windy day and the SP had three goes at landing - in the meantime a Piper Tomahawk must have fitted in a dozen or so touch and goes.
Not surprised Wally,
I remember once being buffeted around very significantly. The aircraft was still at Wellington airport connected to the air bridge.
I've flown on one several times from South Africa to Europe & had no complaints. Very comfortable & smooth flying
Fun fact: Iraqi Airways had a 747 SP since the 1970s as part of its Boeing fleet, often used by its government and its head of state at that time for official and semi official flights.
The original 777 also had a folding wingtip option which was never ordered by any airlines so it was dropped.
I worked with Pratt & Whitney who were in competition with GE to get their PW4000 high-bipass turbofan on the 777 test flight. Late in the process, Boeing pulled six weeks out of their development schedule, and I helped them get back on track. P&W beat GE on the test flight, but failed to get into serious production (competition with Rolls Royce was also a problem)...
The original 777 offered folding wing tips (known internally as FWT and FWTEC) as options. Ran off the center hydraulics with connections to alternate and emergency supplies if needed. The option was flight tested on a market A -200 with PW4073A engines and a stretch (aka -300) market A with PW4084s and was certified, but no customers took the option. Interestingly, these original folding wing tips were longer/larger than on the 777x, and included flight control surfaces - the outboard ailerons and two sections of leading edge slats and were a combination of aluminium, graphite (the ailerons) and fiberglass. With all that and the 777x wingtips not including flight control surfaces that were certified on the now 30 year old 777, I doubt they’d be too much of an issue getting approved this time around.
777 enthusiasts colour
I think that this video was a little easy going on Boeing and their approach to certification. Boeing thought that they'd pretty much done with the 777X design work, and then the two MAX crashes occurred. That has resulted in the FAA taking a much deeper look into everything they're doing; MAX, 787 and 777X. And, there was (and possibly still is) much to be concerned with.
Back then pre-MAX it was surprisingly common to come across news reports of Boeing being mixed up in court cases with former employees who'd resigned citing safety concerns. I can remember one of these cases was an electrical engineer working on the 777X electrical system, having been moved over from the space division of Boeing. He'd taken one look at the design and condemned it. the Management begged to differ. It resulted in him leaving the company, and there was a court case over the issue. One does wonder if, post MAX, the 777X electrical system has been heavily revised...
There's also the issue that decades of hire and fire has taken its toll. Plus there's been problems with the company coming to agreements with engineers. Recently, they lost a load of experienced engineers who had to either retire or lose a lot of retirement benefits. There's no reason why this couldn't have been avoided; a deal is a deal but it can always be changed, but they didn't. Bye bye, lots of hard to replace engineers.
All of these issues together are sure to have made a difficult environment in which to complete a development program. The company has barely been able to deliver MAXs and 787s in recent years. They're hoping to get the 777X finally in service in 2025, but there's plenty of reasons for that to slip further right.
There's also the problem that Airbus, if they really want to, could do an A350 1100. RR's Ultrafan demo engine is about the right size...
Though I had retired from piloting for a decade now, I can still recall the sometimes stressful effort needed to maintain good airmanship which invariably would require a good restful/sleep period to be in top form for the next fight. I am say this because I am amazed, in fact very amazed, that you still have all these energy to put these video together with such a depth of information. I SALUTE YOU, for giving us old dogs the opportunity to continue keeping in touch with flying and sniff out those juicy insider info that spices your brilliant videos. Congratulations to a job well done both in the air and on TH-cam!
The problem is Boeing doesn't exist anymore. McDonnell Douglas has been running the show since '97 & their culture is money first, safety....well somewhere down the line. Remember, if it's a Boeing, I ain't a going!
I was sitting in my office yesterday and noticed a huge aircraft coming into the airport from the south. I jumped onto FlightRadar and sure enough it was the 777-9. I can tell you it's going to look so pretty once it's ready to go.
I've flown on the 747SP several times from South Africa to Europe & back (when they were still new) Beautiful aircraft & very comfortable for back then! In fact i flew on the first one that ever flew from Johannesburg to Schiphol, Amsterdam in the 70's
18:30 - "Boeing launched new design center in Moscow in 2013" - the Boeing Research Tech Center (BRTC Moscow) was established precisely 20 years earlier, in 1993. I worked on outfitting their offices in 1997-1998. It was a small operation then (" computational fluid-dynamics laboratory with 10 workstations. About 15 to 20 researchers..." - see Boeing's press release dated 1998-06-09). Later, the press reported that Boeing employed as many as 1500 - but this sounds doubtful; at the time of withdrawal in 2022 there were 640.
That A350 is surely a beautiful looking plane
Nah we getting GTA 6 before the 777X 💀
There is a possibility…
Petter - it is hard to praise the consistent excellence of the work that you and your team do in every facet of makiing these videos. Superb!
Another great video!!👏🏼👏🏼
Boeing doesn’t learn from its past mistakes. The same issues happened when they launched the 737 NG back in the 80s. As I have mentioned before, I worked at Boeing during that time and witnessed that debacle first hand. Like that airplane, the 777x is not a simple stretch of the existing 777, as explained in the video. The changes in the fuselage and wing mean that the 777-9 doesn’t share hardly any structural components with the legacy 777. It’s almost a completely new airplane structurally and, I suspect, in many other ways. It’s never as easy as it seems at the beginning.
boeing has learned from its passed mistakes. what's the fuss about the 737ng back in the 80s
*past@@nickolliver3021
I honestly would have gone with 4 small and reliable engines - like you see on the 737 or Embraer versus two giant and hugely complex ones. I'd have chosen the most reliable and least expensive to fix engine I could, drop 4 smaller ones on it, and call it a day. Save probably a full year in designing and testing it all as well. Even a 737 Max built with composite materials would have likely been efficient enough.
@@plektosgaming That was exactly what Airbus was doing with their A340s, though not by intent. We all love to laugh its 5 APUs while its twinjet sibling A330 easily burns 10%+ less with the same technologies.
@@steinwaldmadchen And that's the answer. As a passenger I love the A340, and I feel more comfortable with four engines on long over-ocean flights. And it literally has four A320 engines. Unfortunately airlines and their economists don't love it, and as soon as the A330 got ETOPS certified, nobody wanted to buy new A340's any more.
I was at PAE not long ago and saw 9-10 of these bad boys lined up and waiting for their engines. They looked pretty cool in person. 👍🏼
I remember in the mid 2010s being excited about flying in a 777x before the end of the decade, now in the mid 2020s I’m excited about flying in a 777x by the end of the decade.
I am a software engineer with interest in aviation. My (1-2 days/week) office is behind Boeing Everett. I noticed the hinged end of the wing for the first time this week.
your lucky to have that view. savour it
I not only love your channel, but as an aside, I appreciate that you wait until the viewer is well into it before mentioning 'likes' and 'subscriptions'. The majority of channels ask for those in the beginning before anyone has even had a chance to watch. Keep up your wonderfully informative videos! Sorry for going on too long, but I think that a great deal of Boeing's problems began with the merger with McDonald Douglas and 'Union Busting'...Moving a great deal of their work to the South, and non-union workers. There are many whistle blower videos on TH-cam which point out the alarming lack of scrutiny and professionalism, with workers who help build the planes saying that they would refuse to fly on them.
Great content. I love the detail, the pace, and the sensible analysis.
Glad you liked it! 💕
Petter does this well
Congrats on almost 300k subs! What an amazing accomplishment. ✈
I think Boeing are having to rebuild their engineering team, because they lost a lot of experienced and talented engineers when they restructured the company. If they focus on the engineering right first time, and putting safety first, profit will come. Wall St will just have to patient, as airlines need cost effective, efficient, and safe aircraft.
Jag följer dina videos med stort intresse. Så informativa! Jag har flugit runt i världen i 50 år på nästan alla flygplans typer du gjort videos på och överlevt. Många otrevliga uppleverser men det har gått bra. Med dig i cockpit skulle jag se det som ”a walk in the park”. Stort tack för det professionella sätt du förmedlar din kunskap.
The 1990s 777 was replacing DC-10/MD-11/L1-11 jets from late 60s/early 70s. It was easy to fill that gap in Boeing's portfolio with current technologies and show significant improvement (just going from 3 person to 2 person cockpit was advantage enough going from 3 to 2 engines was another huge financial advantage). There was no need to push the envelope right to the edge to get performance imrpovemet that would compell airlie to buy your new plane.
In the olympics, as one approaches limits of the human body, performances no longer improve by the seconds but rather by hundreths of seconds and each hundredth of second improvement requires a LOT of training by athlete. But for aircraft, even though the developers are in that zone where incremental improvements are smaler and smaller, the accountants still demand that the new variant provide significant performance improvement. And that is where it becomes much harder to push the envelope and deliver that large enough improvent.
While the 777 was originally designed as 9 across to replace mid size DC10s, Boeing has since encouraged airlines to densify cabin with inhumane 10 across seating and that puts the 777 as a 747 replacement, and the originally 8 across 787 now with 9 across seating replacing those DC-10s. But now that it is replacing the 747, this put greater need for extra capacity beyond the inhumane 10 across seating. Hence new wings, longer fuselage. but marketing also wanted to reduce the image of the 777 as inhumane aircraft in coach so ordered the engineers find a way to make walls thinner to pitch the plane has having wider cabin. (which won't make a different to seat width, but marketing doesn't care about reality). The more changes you ask be made to a plane, the more work is needed by engineering to design the change, and then once FAA decides a derivative is now to be certified as a new plane, the more work is needed to get plane certified which means fixing bugs before certification instead or fixing them once plane is already in commercial use.
The 777-ER is the worst wide body aircraft to fly on from an economy class passenger's perspective. The seats are narrow, leg room is limited, it feels cramped and the noise levels are terrible. i hope the airlines don't do the same seating arrangements on the newer aircraft.
The 777 when conceived and until the 2010s had wide coach seats with 9 across seating and generally, airlnes still had good seat pitch of 32". Greed and the need to make coach as miserable as possible to push peeople to pay for premium economy resulted in narrow seats at 10 across seating and reduced seat pitch which makes 15 hour flights absolutely miserable. Some airlines still have 777s as 9 across (Turskish as of a year or two ago). The 777 was a fine/bording aircraft until airlines made the conscious decision to ake it as miserable as they could. the X will be the same. Unless travellers start avoiding 10 across seating and airlines see reduced occupancy, they will keep 10 across on a plane designed for 9 across. And with loss of 747, they don't have chgocie but to have miserable 777 to replace the comfortable 747 (which is why airlines that still have the 380 see it as advantage as people prefer it and they are seeing high load factor). @@nrml76
I could watch 100 Mentour videos on this very subject. I have seen several already. Keep them coming. I always like them very much.
I think that Boeing is going through a bit of a crisis because many of their projects are delayed and they are paying the price for this, but hopefully they can sort these problems out in the coming years and remain competitive.
Yep, I hope so to.
Boeing has a huge job to do in convincing the engineering community that they are worth working for. They pay well for my role, but most people wouldn't consider working for them because of their reputation. I have been approached by their recruiters three times, as a systems engineer. I just don't want to be part of their train wreck. The last company I knew with such a bad attitude to their engineers was GEC Marconi in the UK. The now defunct former massive UK defense contractor.
Yeah, Starliner on the space systems side has been a nightmare. Half a decade late..
Let's be honest, in my opinion, the vast majority of the problem is due to OUTSOURCING. Instead of having engineers design the products, they prefer to "INTEGRATE" from other vendors assuming the vendors can do a better job at a lower cost. The reality is now the engineers are doing "paper" and "spec" designs. If you have an engineer who is new and has never even seen hardware, good luck having them create a spec that will result in a usable product. What ends up happening is now the project becomes an integration nightmare for system engineers who are suppose to be able to bring all these parts together to make a product.
They had teams of these people who's only job is to cut products off and to outsource everything. They had no clue on the importance of the products and actually cut teams entirely in the middle of production. When people asked why is my product delayed, it turns out the team that made them have been shut down entirely. It was an absolute zoo run by monkeys. You also had managers where their only job is to cut heads. I still remember the names infamous names, McFucky and Weltman. Moving from designing and building a product to a "systems integrator" is what doomed Boeing to most of the problems today.
I don't think there is an American government that would ever let Boeing fail considering the bruise it would create in the national ego.
i would still say A350 still has a upper hand in this competition eventually, consider how great it is performed since the first flight.
90 additional orders from Emirates is just used to threat Airbus to make change/improve on A350-1000 to suit their needs. Once Airbus can find the way out and speed up the production while 777X still remain to be uncertain in 2024, maybe we can witness one of the greatest order cancellation wave in modern times.
It’s possible. But both aircraft are actually very good so Emirates might well keep them both running.
Spending 50 billion dollars is not just “a threat to Airbus”, it’s a further commitment to the 777x.
A350 is a great plane. 787 is also a nice plane
@@TacticaLLRWhat he said is entirely possible the airlines play the manufacturers off against each other all the time
But both aren't really fighting over the same orders, are they? The 777X was designed as a replacement for the old 747s and 380s, aimed particularly at airlines like BA and EK who are struggling with slot shortage at their hubs and therefore need as much capacity per plane as they can get. Airbus doesn't deem a further stretch of the A350-1000 feasible, for what it's worth, so there'll remain a certain gap between passenger capacities between the two.
Thorough and impressive, having been a member of the 787 Dreamliner program and launch there was a LOT to learn about the 777X program I was totally unfamiliar with. Thank You.
Almost 300K subs! Great to see you grow so much! Could you also do American 593 for the main channel?
Right... that's the shit that matters.
@@Look_What_You_Did you got your right to comment feedback, i dont see why you came here to shit on people for asking for a video on a certain topic.
Boeing management has become totally dysfunctional.
So has airbus' management. The industry has become totally disfunctional
airbus are doing just fine@@nickolliver3021
@@ant2312he always does it, anything someone says about Boeing, he copies it and replaces “Boeing” with “Airbus”
corporate management is dysfunctional. I suspect management consultancies are responsible.
With such a long delay for the 777X, wouldn’t it be financially prudent for Boeing to provide Emirates with a small discount for the original aircraft order?
Boeing would take the upfront hit- but in doing so would show good faith and potentially keep that airline as a long term customer.
Great video and congratulations on 300K 🎉
Good explanations. I've been following the 777X developments for quite a while and I like your economics benefits graphic at the end.
I admire how safe modern aircrafts have become. Yeah, it takes some time to develop and tune perfectly, but the outcome is awesome. Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, they´re all amazing.
Oh, absolutely! These longer certification times are mirroring the complexity and safety of the business.
The longer the time it takes to get an aircraft certified, you know that Boeing is working their tails off to make it a safe aircraft
@@Ayden2008 Tell that to the 346 people who died in the two 737 Max crashs
@@conglomerate8245 this has nothing to do with the 737-8
Plus the 777X isn’t even certified
EVA AIR also really wants to replace their older 777, and 777X is definitely a better choice.
But because of the long delay, and no guaranteed delivery date from Boeing, EVA AIR eventually ordered 18 A350-1000.
It's pretty sad news for me since I really want to fly the 777X myself, but it's an understandable decision.
Well, while delay definitely contributes to that, at this point 350 actually carries more payload than the 777X for the Transpacific routes EVA intend to operate.
But I can confirm they favoured 777X sometime ago, as the then-CEO Chang Kuo Wei literally said so.
@@steinwaldmadchenyes if Boeing doesn't use a the 14t higher MTOW of the 777-8f.
Thanks for the update Petter. I just have to wait for the family to finish up the back episode of Julkalenden before I can watch this on the big screen.
Ahh, cool! Is it any good this year?
@@MentourNow Den är väldigt bra, bättra en föreårets. Men ”Farmor” karaktär verkar som hon är berusad.🥴
I'm interested in how basically almost all development of new aircraft or aircraft types/variants these days have a lot of delays due to issues - back from the MD-11, A380, 787, and even the C-series/A220 and of course the 777X mentioned here. Which makes the original 777's spot on development time even more impressive! How would a new aircraft development in the future goes, I wonder?
I like the way you explain everything on your program you take your time for us to understand
That’s what I’m trying to do! I’m glad it’s being noticed.
Japan Air Lines used to run a 747-SP on the relatively short Haneda to Osaka route.
The 767, 777, 747 etc were designed by engineers and then built, then the accountants tried to make it profitable. the 787, max, 777x were handed to the accountants to build and then given to engineers to make it work
I don't think any accountant would have decided to go with the types of risks Boeing faced with the 787 project. In many ways, it was the anti-MAX. I don't think it is any exaggeration at all to say that it was the most ambitious airliner project that has actually made it off the drawing board from any company in the last 3 decades (yes, even more than the A380.) And it has been enormously successful, despite the early issues. The research Boeing had to do to build the composite airframe for the 787 was the kind of thing that gives accountants nightmares, but Boeing pulled it off and the Airbus also used much of that research to build their own quite successful A350.
The one part that probably was more accountant-driven was the supply chain they used for the 787, involving a lot more suppliers from all over the world, which ultimately led to a lot of headaches and delays. I think they learned their lesson with that outsourcing, hence bringing the new wings in-house for the 777X.
That makes the most sense though because remember the 747 program nearly bankrupted the company. Boeing does not want to return to that sort of day to day struggle. It is not a legitimate long-term strategy to let engineers design whatever they want with whatever they want and then force accountants to make it profitable. That is a total waste of resources including money and time. I don't think I've ever heard of a more terrible proposition in my life lmao. They should be working together simultaneously to make sure the program is even financially viable but at the same time engineers using the available resources to maximize the project.
@@FlyByWire1 Didn't the near-bankruptcy have more to do with the 2707 SST program than the 747? That was more a cautionary tale on what happens when Congress tries to do engineering than when engineers do engineering. The general infeasibility of SST (both in cost and in the sonic booms being unacceptable over land, as well as several different environmental problems) was well-known to engineers and scientists by that point, but the Europeans were proceeding with Concorde as a pride project and Congress wanted an American one for the same reason.
@@FlyByWire1, actually the “747” was produced because the “2707 SST” was cancelled. In fact, the “747”-project was viewed as a freighter originally. The problem was that the engines for the “747” were not ready before the airframes were being manufactured. The engines were being developed for the “Lockheed C-5 Galaxy”. It seems as if ‘Boeing’ has not learned from that experience it had during the mid-1960’s.
@@vbscript2 This is wrong. The 787 was not complex. It was a mess because Boeing tried to do financial engineering and not a plane, and most of the responsibility of developing the plane fell on the suppliers and not Boeing itself. They lied to all suppliers, they made them work for peanuts, and the result was obvious: the 787 was a mess becasue each supplioer worked mostly alone and then Boeing had to spend a ton of money to make it work. Genius decisions, like everything from Boeing in the last 25 years.
Much of the research and actual work to build and create the composites is not Boeing's work, but their suppliers.
On the MAX they could not do it for 2 reasons: because they had lost a ton of money on the 787 and did not want to repeat the stunt and money is what matters to them, but worse, because NO company accepted to work with them pro-bono again (I wonder why...).
That many of the companies that worked with Boeing on the 787 are working with Airbus, is mainly because they're trying to recover the money they lost. Also it's their work they're selling.
Now claiming the the 787 is a more ambitious project than the A380... Well...😂😂🤣🤣
Fantastic video! Nicely narrated. Thanks!
As I live close to Manchester Airport I don't want 777x in my city as of yet! I love A380 keep on flying three times a day and will fly it six times next year. But they are fine with replacing 777!:)
I'd like Petter to get certified on the 777X then book a ticket on his flight.
It'd be cool on takeoff to have Capt Mentour Now take us into the sky at a 60-degree angle!
I would love to fly this plane.
Awesome!
It would definitely be cool to have Petter as a Captain. However, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're definitely not going to get a 60-degree pitch attitude on any commercial flight (unless it is a commercial space flight. :) )
The 777X air-show had it take off at a 60 degree angle. Granted, it wasn't full of fuel and had zero passengers, however, it is possible.
@@PauperJ "Mike November Tango Romeo November Whiskey, Runway 04, Cleared for takeoff and steep accent has been approved"
Edit:
... and then your eyebrows touch on the back side of your head as your stomach tries to exit your body via your kneecap...
It seems under current circumstances where 777-x is still facing serious challenges, 787 is the best current option for the airlines, especially Emirates.
What an informative and entertaining video. Thanks as always Petter
One correction I need to inform you on, the 747SP wasn't developed in the 1980s, it's first flight was in 1976, and it entered service that same year with Pan Am, the 747-200 on the other hand was developed closer to the 80s as that model first flew in 1978. I just wanted to make that slight correction on the dates. I was a flight attendant for Pan Am for 33 years, and I remember the 747SP very well.
This will be the ultimate "trust me, bro. I read it on the internet" story, but in April 2023, I sat next to a Boeing Flutter and Dynamics Engineer on a flight to SEATAC. He works on the 777X, and aside from all of the other problems as detailed in this video, he said that Boeing is also in internal crisis mode related to the human factors related to the effects of flutter due to the extremely long fuselage. His words: "not human-flyable on approach if there are any bumps." The pilots are on the wrong end of an extremely long moment arm from the center of mass, so they get thrown around the cockpit while things are generally comfortable for the passengers. I'd think that he was exaggerating about "not human-flyable," but it is (well, "is" at least as of April '23 ) another factor delaying the project. He said the brain drain at Boeing with retirements lost a bunch of flutter expertise which has made this especially challenging. Flutter mitigation is solved with software and pretty crazy math, so maybe they've had some breakthroughs in additional flight testing since April.
Hopefully the guy didn’t get the sack after you identified him
retirement is a polite euphemism for firing all the union employees
MD-80 had some "taxi bounce" issues early on in the program, causing unpleasantness for the pilots when going over pavement with certain characteristics. The solution turned out to be a revision to the main landing gear strut inflation curve... which is good, because you can't do much (or anything) directly about fuselage modal frequencies.
The 777X fuselage has less fineness ratio than say a DC-8-63, so I assume the issue is with a forcing function (e.g. wing flutter) rather than its inate modal response. But at least in terms of what I think of when I hear "flutter", that's not something which should be happening during normal operation -- not even during turbulence. It sounds like this is may be an interaction between the fuselage modes and the everyday modal response of the wing under turbulent conditions? That's going to be a pain to tame if they don't already have a gust alleviation system (I don't know the 777 series) that they can retune, like DAC did with their landing gear.
Sounds like the pilots just need to git gud.
The B787 in all variants and the A350 in all variants are the future of medium to ultra long haul nonstop 'point to point' and/or spoke and hub' operations due to their clean sheet airframe design, operational history and prices. Yes there will be a limited market for the passenger version of the B777-9 and Emirates B777-8 but it wont be a big market share compared to the B787 and A350.
Technically, 777 is a direct competitor to A350… not 787
787 is a smaller plane with only its biggest variant 787-10 that kinda compete with the smallest A350
@@tonamg53 - Which B777 variant are you referring to?
@@chrismckellar9350 Any variant Boeing still selling
I have been part of the Mentour Community since 2018, time has flown.
Thanks so much, Petter, for your detailed analysis.
I *love* how much effort is put into these videos of yours, Petter!!
The historical context, the business ideas/angles, the instructive minor details, the interesting & informative comparative details, and even little humourous anecdotes thrown in...and all delivered in a style that does not seem lofty or arcane or abstruse, but instead is friendly & informative...
Kudos!
Mitsubishi Nagoya plant has been producing 787 composite wings for years. c.2013 Mitsubishi offered to expand the Nagoya plant for 777x wings. That seems like the ideal partner to jumpstart production; why didn't Boeing choose Mitsubishi?
It’s been awhile since I read the history of 787 but I remember one of the conclusions Boeing made about 787’s challenges was having too many suppliers spread too far. If they can get their Everett facility working well, it’s almost definitely better than manufacturing across the Pacific Ocean.
Even with relatively close (continental) suppliers or sites, Boeing was still burned when all of those 737 fuselages tumbled off a derailed train. They may also be thinking about how it's gone for Airbus at times with partners spread here and there (and not all using exactly the same drawing sotware version IIRC). So perhaps (I don't know) the idea of the site being just down the road, and best of all staffed by people you can directly yell at and threaten to fire...
I'm excited for this aircraft to slowly roll out, I was in Washington last year and saw a 777-9 on the ramp at boeing field, such a beautiful aircraft
I used to work the cabin on a 747SP and it was great because it had a crew bunk room for contractual rest on long hauls.
Mentour pilot either speaks of things already interesting to me or makes me interested as (and because of how) he tells these stories. Actually, he could speak about plankton and still attract my attention - what a gift. And over that he is also a passenger airline pilot. Respect!
That’s the reason why Lufthansa, 777 X customer decided to reintroduce the A380 and revamp it. No way they could do without the capacity.
KLM will be flying the A350 in 2025…….Air France has no order for the 777 X.
I remember when the initial 777 was announced, artist renderings showed a folding wing tip…which of course was never included on any prototypes or production planes.
Because no one ordered it. That was for it to fit in ADG IV stands and would have required huge foldable sections (21' on each wing.) The 777X plan is for it to fit in ADG V stands (same size stands the current 777, as well as 787, A330, A350, and 747-400 use.)
Basically all airports that the 777 would serve have plenty of ADG V stands already and ADG IV doesn't open up that many more (it's pretty much only used by the 757 and 767.) All of those airports also already have ADG V taxiways to/from all of the places that a widebody might need to go. So, there's not that much to be gained by making a 777 that can fit in an ADG IV stand.
On the other hand, ADG VI stands and taxiways are much less common. It's only needed by the A380, 747-8, and big Antonov cargo planes, so only airports that needed to support those types created stands and taxiways for them and, even of those that did, their ADG VI stands (and even taxiways) tend to be far more limited than their ADG V stands. So, there's quite a lot to be gained by keeping the 777X within ADG V limits. Indeed, the whole program might not be viable at all if it didn't fit in ADG V wingspan limits.
Very good and informative video. It makes so much sense now. Thank you
The 777X was launched as a derivative, but the cert has essentially made it a clean sheet. Already written off $6.5 billion on the program, which makes it a loss for the company (see: Program Accounting). Shop talk on the BA floor is that there was also a high alpha issue (tail too small) that they wanted to fix with software.
I hope to God that they don’t try to fix the high alpha issue with software. That’s the kind of tomfoolery that brought us MCAS on the Max 8. Is it too hard to design an aircraft that is aerodynamically stable?
@@mikoto7693 A friend of mine is a retired BA engineer. Worked on the 767. He says it's a product of the tail being too small, but if it's done properly, software can take care of it in the flight control system. Thing is, after the Max debacle, everything is getting looked at with a fine tooth comb. It's costing BA a bunch of time and money, which is why we're into late 2025 now.
im 10 years old and i am going to a 737 simulator i was inspired by u to learn about aircraft thank you☺
Awesome!! I hope you will have a great time!
Your presentations are very inspiring and educational. I always like to know something about the aircraft in which I am flying. Back in the 1990s I sometimes had the priviledge of flying on the 747-400. It was a beautiful machine and a great travel experience. My company made all my arrangments, so I took what I got. Northwest and above all KLM had beautiful machines. I am now mostly retired, but fly whenever I can. Keep up the good work.
I went on a Qantas B747-SP back in '91 from Perth to Singapore. It was like a rocket at take off - it was pretty empty.... But nice!
This sounds like typical project management when there are too few engineers at the company. To compensate, project planning gets risky and resources get pulled on and off projects.
Yep. Seems to be them sort of boardrooms, sterile.
Possibly..
Not in aviation, but this sounds familliar.
and now 737 max 9 are also grounded
I've only gotten to fly on a 777 once from sfo to ORD. Loved it though and want to fly on it again. Definitely wanna fly the 777x
@3:30 I wouldn't say that airlines hated the original A350 for not being "Modern Enough". The problem back then was that Airbus was going to offer the A350 alongside the A330ceo so you have somewhat of a duplicate product. Granted the A350 features composite body and wings and newer engines/avionics compared to the A330ceo, it didn't make sense for airlines to order it over the other. After further consultation, Airbus modified the A350 and gave it a wider body (XWB = Xtra Wide Body) and sized it to compete with the 777s.
A330 using the same fuselage design as the A300 is similar to Boeing using the same fuselage design on the early 737s from 1960s which in turn came from Boeing's first commercial jet, the 707. 707, 727, 737, and 757 all share the same fuselage design. The 747 was when Boeing went with a different fuselage design being their first widebody.
When I walked into Boeing I made the mistake of saying “I’m here to build aircraft!” It was my dream job but found the focus was on nearly everything else DEI, feelings the environment and all things besides aviation. Things must’ve been better when my aunts and uncles worked there in the 40s.
😅😊
Unless they weren't White, in which case they probably wouldn't have been allowed to work there in the 40s... or 50s. In Southern California around then, once labor was in short supply the hire order became lighter-skinned Hispanics followed by darker-skinned Hispanics, and later the same ordering for Blacks.
Smart of you to turn around and walk away though, after you realized that that Boeing has stopped building airplanes. Most people wrongly think that BA produces hundreds of airliners each year.
Boeing is in bigger trouble with the eventual 737 replacement that is needed. The Max is a stopgap but a newer design is desperately needed. Then a real MoM aircraft is really needed and this is really up for grabs by both Boeing and Airbus. Too bad Boeing destroyed the 757 tooling or an updated version of that aircraft could have been produced.
With a ten-year MAX backlog (last I checked), "desperate" may be a bit strong.
Would an "updated" 757 sell any better than the "updated" 747 has? Half-measures like a metal fuselage updated with a new carbon or carbon/metal wing haven't been very popular with airlines looking for a competitive edge.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 All the 757 tooling has to be rebuilt. There is no way to update it that isn't as expensive as a clean sheet design.
The 747SP came out in the Seventies. I flew over the Pacific three times on Pan Am 747SPs in 1978 and ‘79.
Thank you for the information very interesting. I learned a lot
I was on the 777X line from the start, we would have down line inspectors who wouldn’t physically inspect rework and just ask for pictures after the work was completed.
Interesting. Can't opine on that bit but sad they lost their way.
Was my biggest stock position, right until they scrapped the 2nd Max, lost all confidence, took decent gains, never looked back.
Boeing 747SP first flew with PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS in 1976
Thank you
I flew on one back in 76 it was amazing and so big
Peter, really great video well researched and Lil presented I learned so much
My best wishes always from Las Vegas Craig
Bravo
Bean counters and yes men on the job in positions equals corners cut and procedures being modified to meet production deadlines on the shop floor adds up to building a wing that's 14 percent to small for weight and range for a plane in this market.
The bigger challenge to Boeing & Airbus is the quantity and experience of the engineering resources within their respective companies as well as their suppliers. WIth Boeing effectively freezing their pensions in 2018, the "old guard" decided to "exit stage right" into retirement during Covid). What replaced the "old guard"? Much less experienced people and college grads. The add-on problem was the transition of knowledge to less experience/new personnel has been handled poorly industry-wide, so Boeing (as well as Airbus) and their suppliers are left with dwindling 25+ year experience staffs, and even the staffs with 10+ years are put under tremendous strain to not only meet scheduling milestones, but also train incoming personnel that eventually supposed to carry the load. The challenge with training the replacements is the competition from other aerospace companies (i.e., SpaceX, Blue Origin), as well as within the commercial aerospace sector itself. It's fairly common to spend 2 years getting a new employee competent-enough in their experience with a particular skillset, and then they end up walking out the door for better money or simply get fed-up with the day-to-day project churn. To state the obvious, the days of staying at the same job (i.e., baby-boomer experience) are rare in today's market, however, commercial aerospace needs knowledge continuity to minimize "making the same mistake twice". The consequence of the state of the labor market and shortage of long-tenured, experienced resources is definitely impacting the timing of these development cycles.
all of the above is thanks to publicly traded companies becoming more focused on profits (boeing) instead of key people within. Short term gain, for long term pain!
@@ghostrider-be9ek
Monocausal explanations are almost never right...
@@hafor2846 why is chasing profits, instead of long term corporate stability, a likely incorrect explanation of the situation?
@@ghostrider-be9ek
Because someone else already wrote an entire list of other reasons?
SpaceX and new space in general gobbling up aerospace engineers like crazy has nothing to do with Boeing's own corporate culture and neither is a pandemic that let's an entire age bracket go into retirement.If you break down complicated subjects and make a single thing the cause, you are dumbing it down to the point of wrongness.
Reality is complex.
@@hafor2846 The reality is that employees will seek better treatment and remuneration (or retire) if the working conditions are abysmal.
Boeing chose, by proxy of increasing its EPS, to pay its engineers less than many other locations, and also they added accountants to meddle with engineers, to keep the costs down, instead of good engineering practices.
I would have left as well.
Corp culture is what dictates the performance of the company like Boeing, not accountants (short term thinking).
Well done. Great overview. The 777x is a pretty heavy airframe. Too bag boeing didn't design and build a new one.
A new one would have been delayed even farther out and the marginal gains in efficiency would not be been worth the delay and loss of type commonality with the original 777. The next clean-sheet design for Boeing really needs to be in the NMA or NSA size category.
I was really young when the 787 was having its development problems, along with the V-22, F-22, and F-35. Now it seems that they’re happening with all of the most exciting programs. Part of me wonders when operators will start quietly adding 3 years or more to what the manufacturers say when making their plans.
Love your videos and insightful information.
Love having you here!
Uh, sounds like Boeing has a management problem?😅
777x will be amazing.
I think so to!
So many details on Boing issues; I’d love to see a summary of Airbus issues and a comparison of business choices/market demands (like “abandoning” the 757).
Excellent Explanation good service to aviation lovers in detail s and comparison