6 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

And the 737NG debacle is just starting to unfold...

Debacle? Because 13 jets have been grounded for repairs?

The latest estimate is that at least 5% of the worldwide NG fleet is affected.

Boeing are having a boardroom re-shuffle and are in DC soon for tough questioning.

Cracks in the NG and the first generation are nothing new. When you have a short haul with that many cycles in one day this causes cracks over time. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was because of this and they have known that ever since. 13 out of the 4500 in service with some cracks is normal to be honest considering the amount of use this aircraft gets. They are far more vigilant about this issue then they were back in the 80s and this issue has been known for decades now. These new cracks are in the wing area that join to the aircraft which was supposed to be good for 90,000 cycles, a very small number of aircraft are showing premature cracking out of the large majority.

Edited October 13, 20196 yr by Matthew Kane

On 10/12/2019 at 11:44 AM, rjfry said:

Boeing are having a boardroom re-shuffle and are in DC soon for tough questioning.

nothing will happen to boeing, i can promise you.

15 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Cracks in the NG and the first generation are nothing new. When you have a short haul with that many cycles in one day this causes cracks over time. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was because of this and they have known that ever since. 13 out of the 4500 in service with some cracks is normal to be honest considering the amount of use this aircraft gets. They are far more vigilant about this issue then they were back in the 80s and this issue has been known for decades now. These new cracks are in the wing area that join to the aircraft which was supposed to be good for 90,000 cycles, a very small number of aircraft are showing premature cracking out of the large majority.

This guy gets it, 

ive lost count of how many times Ive seen an aircraft on the "AOG Board" at work with "crack, needs inspection/crass, awaiting boeing"   and thats on the jumbo

Edited October 13, 20196 yr by fluffyflops

Europe will not clear the MAX until it`s pilot`s have tested the plane say the EASA .

16 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Cracks in the NG and the first generation are nothing new. When you have a short haul with that many cycles in one day this causes cracks over time. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was because of this and they have known that ever since. 13 out of the 4500 in service with some cracks is normal to be honest considering the amount of use this aircraft gets. They are far more vigilant about this issue then they were back in the 80s and this issue has been known for decades now. These new cracks are in the wing area that join to the aircraft which was supposed to be good for 90,000 cycles, a very small number of aircraft are showing premature cracking out of the large majority.

That's wrong according to engineers and industry insiders on other aviation sites.

The part, 'pickle fork', is supposed to be a part that lasts the lifetime of the airframe as it is a critical piece, connecting the wing to the fuselage.

The issue was only discovered by accident during pax 2 freighter conversions and seems to be caused by retrofitting winglets. The cause for concern is that cracks are apperaing after only 1/3 of the lifetime cycles.

It's now above 5% of the total worldwide 737NG fleet and is a big issue as it's not an easy area of the aircraft to inspect.

Edited October 13, 20196 yr by F737NG
Typos

54 minutes ago, F737NG said:

That's wrong according to engineers and industry insiders on other aviation sites.

The pickle forks are rated for 90,000 cycles and they are failing on some at or around 30,000 cycles. Nothing is really 'Lifetime' as that can always change with the age of the product. Reasons this recall could be

1. Fault in the assembly process, ie wrong torque on assembly causing extra stress etc

2. The alloy used in a batch wasn't up to standard, which wouldn't cover the entire fleet but that batch of parts that may have failed.

None of this can be confirmed for some time. It doesn't look fleet wide at this point as a more isolated event. They are taking the precautions which is good.

Lots of people saying lots of things online and that is fine. I would rather narrow it down rather than the broad speculation that these forums can bring. I'm just going to focus in the things that makes most sense until Boeing can determine this for themselves. Until then their is no right or wrong, just looking at the facts available. 

 

Edited October 13, 20196 yr by Matthew Kane

13 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

The pickle forks are rated for 90,000 cycles and they are failing on some at or around 30,000 cycles. Nothing is really 'Lifetime' as that can always change with the age of the product. Reasons this recall could be

1. Fault in the assembly process, ie wrong torque on assembly causing extra stress etc

2. The alloy used in a batch wasn't up to standard, which wouldn't cover the entire fleet but that batch of parts that may have failed.

None of this can be confirmed for some time. It doesn't look fleet wide at this point as a more isolated event. They are taking the precautions which is good.

How can it be an isolated event when multiple airlines across different continents are affected? Over 5% of tested 737NG are showing a problem. A lot of airframes remain untested at this stage.

Of course they're taking precautions. Another 737-shaped hole in the ground would almost certainly bring Boeing to its knees.

The concern is that this safety critical part was found to be showing damage at 1/3 of its life expectancy and even then it was discovered by accident.

On 10/3/2019 at 4:46 AM, JustanotherPilot said:

I hope Boeing don't miss the boat with the release of the 797, the MAX debacle has really put them behind and it would appear Airbus A320/A321 NEO and LR/XLR are taking a lot of orders to fill the void. Anyway, the 797 looks promising.

link to AirlineRatings 797 story

With the 797, it looks uncomfortably placed between popular short-haul airframes and long-haul ones. Rather than see this as a gap in the market, it could be described as the 'jack of all trades, master of none' segment. Look at the cluster groupings in the diagram below. There is a gap, but can it be exploited?

What makes current types very useful is their ability to be flexible and cover a different mission profile relatively efficiently in otherwise downtime.
Airlines can 'abuse' a 777W to do HKG - PEK - HKG carrying pax volume, before a trip to LHR. A 737 can do DUB - BHX - DUB - LRH - DUB - SXF - DUB - MAN - DUB and still have 7 hours downtime for maintenance.

Could a 797 as currently envisaged really turn-around fast enough for more legs or carry enough passengers on fewer legs to justify the extra capital cost of a new type purchase for airlines over and above 'abusing' what they already own / lease cheaply?

Edited October 14, 20196 yr by F737NG
Added diagram

1 hour ago, F737NG said:

With the 797, it looks uncomfortably placed between popular short-haul airframes and long-haul ones. Rather than see this as a gap in the market, it could be described as the 'jack of all trades, master of none' segment. Look at the cluster groupings in the diagram below. There is a gap, but can it be exploited?

What makes current types very useful is their ability to be flexible and cover a different mission profile relatively efficiently in otherwise downtime.
Airlines can 'abuse' a 777W to do HKG - PEK - HKG carrying pax volume, before a trip to LHR. A 737 can do DUB - BHX - DUB - LRH - DUB - SXF - DUB - MAN - DUB and still have 7 hours downtime for maintenance.
Could a 797 as currently envisaged really turn-around fast enough for more legs or carry enough passengers on fewer legs to justify the extra capital cost of a new type purchase for airlines over and above 'abusing' what they already own / lease cheaply?

My thoughts exactly.  Up until recently, I was an enthusiastic advocate of Boeing developing the 797, but now I'm wondering if it's worth the cost and effort.  Boeing has enough problems with the 737Max, 737NG issues, 767 refueler issues, etc.  The gap in that chart is very narrow, so the 797 would be filling a small niche in the market.  Plus the 787-10 is about to come on line and that will make the gap even smaller.

I read an article recently that stated Boeing is looking into producing a 767-X which would be a "simple" upgrade of the 767-400ER to use new fuel efficient engines.  However, the article also mentioned the requirement for taller landing gear, which brings back frightening memories of the 737Max tragedy and debacle.  There would be no airframe stretch, however, so perhaps no major aerodynamic changes would result.

The 767-X in my opinion is the way to go for several reasons: 1)the 767 is a proven design and so good that the 767-300F is still being produced for Fedex and UPS, 2)the cost to upgrade would be minimal and existing production lines would only need to be modified a bit to produce the plane, 3)it fills the gap nicely between the low capacity short haul and high capacity long haul aircraft, and finally 4)it would free up resources for Boeing to focus on a 737 replacement, i.e. a brand new, clean sheet design which would blow the Airbus A319/20/21 out of the water.

I have little faith in Boeing executives as of late, however, so I'm not confident they'll make the right decision(which may not be my suggestion - after all, these guys are supposed to be the experts, right?).

 

Dave

4 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The 767-X in my opinion is the way to go for several reasons:

I agree. The article by the way for anyone interested: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-examines-genx-powered-767-x-for-cargo-and-pa-461386/

If they go for 767X, then the 797(NSA) would likely to cover 738 to 752 or even 753 size I guess, because 763/4 is quite big for MOM. and 762X doesn't seems promising to me like B783\B37M and A19N.

Wile I'm big fan of 757Max(see my profile and cover photo😛), 767X seem more reasonable as there are still been produced. also 764 wings and avionics seems more suitable for modern upgrade.

It's worth mention I was surprised 767 engines are actually smaller than PW1000 and LEAP on 320NEO and 737MAX, when I first noticed that on my model collections.

Edited October 15, 20196 yr by C2615