|
Jumpingmanjim posted:http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2015/11/dgca-report-finds-air-india-operated-787-with-only-4-of-47-screws-installed.html It's India. The contract negotiations for buying replacement for the 43 missing screws has been ongoing for ten years, though during six of them negotiations were frozen due to allegation of corruption from a rival screw company. Currently the deadlock is that Air India wants the screws to be built according to Modi's "Make in India" program, but the company argues that building a new manufacture just for 43 screws isn't financially sound. Currently, the idea is to expedite negotiations for three additional screws, and then complete with 40 locally-produced nails.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Don't try writing in French. ï wïll nöt dö whät ÿöü tëll më.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's India. The contract negotiations for buying replacement for the 43 missing screws has been ongoing for ten years, though during six of them negotiations were frozen due to allegation of corruption from a rival screw company. Currently the deadlock is that Air India wants the screws to be built according to Modi's "Make in India" program, but the company argues that building a new manufacture just for 43 screws isn't financially sound. Currently, the idea is to expedite negotiations for three additional screws, and then complete with 40 locally-produced nails. In addition, the screws flown in from Seattle to fix the panel have been held up in customs became it's the weekend and there's no customs broker there that wants to handle the paperwork, because the requisite 18 year old single malt and manilla envelope full of rupees was not immediately forthcoming. We just had a 787 aog in Delhi for a few days. The logistics for getting replacement parts there...  (of course that wasn't all India's fault, a lot of 787 stuff has to be manufactured or robbed from production for situations like that, because the subcontractors are running at max production to feed the factory). I read the article, and thought yeah, that sounds about right. As for the pilots not noticing on walkaround, likely the captain doesn't ever see the outside of the airplane except from the departure lounge. Sully his loafers by going outside with the help? I think not. The junior cruise pilot might get sent down to have a look but probably doesn't know what to look for outside of "yup, still looks like an airplane". More likely it's left to the baggage smashers or the "much vaunted engineering department" to spot it on their walk. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Nov 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
We're building 70k more sqft of shop space to keep up with 787 and 737-max production so any aog poo poo has huge ripple effects on our other programs
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
So you're saying there is no spare parts supply at all? Also aog = aircraft on ground? Edit Or rather aog refers to the systems and personnel that support an aircraft stuck on ground?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Bangalore Aviation posted:I shudder to think of the consequences has this panel detached mid-flight over the ocean. What would have been the likely result of that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:So you're saying there is no spare parts supply at all? There's spare parts, but not always where you need them. Line replaceable stuff can usually be procured from someone, and there's all sorts of parts sharing agreements etc., so that sort of thing isn't likely to cause much more than a couple of hours delay. But anything structural or infrastructural, likely won't be available, especially for a 787. In that case it's either bodge it back together under the auspices of Boeing and your engineering department, and get a one flight ferry permit to fly it somewhere useful if you can, or wait for the parts to arrive from the other side of the planet and fix in situ. Yes, AOG = aircraft on ground, aka dead aircraft. Can't fly until fixed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What would have been the likely result of that? Apparently it was a small access panel on the bottom of the WTB fairing, so are you sitting down? Are you ready for this? *audibly inhales* The result of separation would be a negligable amount of extra drag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Man I totally forgot Cathay Pacific flew to Boston. It's a new route actually. I had no idea it was 1:40 AM though. Isn't that in violation of the noise abatement rules?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Okay, I'll bite. B-b-b-but that's an extra 1.5 cents per passenger mile in fuel costs!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
AOGs are pretty serious, chaotic business; not only is a busted jet not making money, it causes ripples all throughout an airline's schedule when said airplane and its crew aren't where they're supposed to be. And that's before you get to all the logistics of getting what you need where you need it. It's also one of the very few situations where rival airlines help each other out too; after all, their aircraft can and will break at some point. Unless you're Westjet of course...then you don't help anyone because you're assholes. Forums Terrorist posted:B-b-b-but that's an extra 1.5 cents per passenger mile in fuel costs! That's actually a gigantic increase...
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:B-b-b-but that's an extra 1.5 cents per passenger mile in fuel costs! 256 passengers on a 3,000 mile stage is about twelve thousand dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Then shift the decimal over to the left a few times until it's funny, idk
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:B-b-b-but that's an extra 1.5 cents per passenger mile in fuel costs!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
That made me curious, so I looked it up and found this: https://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/corporateInformation/facts/measurements.jspquote:Cost per Available Seat Mile (C/ASM): The Basic Measure Of Cost So if 11.3 cents per passenger mile is a reasonable average value, then a 1.5 cent increase represents a 13.27% increase from the baseline. It is kinda big and it does imply a risk the aircraft would have to divest due to not having enough fuel to reach its intended destination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Getting a pretty good chuckle out of this image. http://www.navy.mil/view_imagex.asp?id=206400&t=1 Navy is bragging on launching missions against ISIS from the USS Kearsarge. Harriers with huge drop tanks and two wee little bitty bombs each. Guess it is just as well that there aren't any targets of any value. Could deliver more hate and discontent with a UAV. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Getting a pretty good chuckle out of this image. They look so goofy with the radar upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Getting a pretty good chuckle out of this image. Well, to the average news viewer, that harrier equipped with two droptanks, two bombs, and a TGP has FIVE BIG BOMBS
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Honestly that Harrier is probably about as much as getting some Marine training hours as killing the enemy. But hey, every blown up ISIS technical counts!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
That Harrier picture is the military aviation equivalent of Ralph Wiggum saying, "I'm helping!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
/\ lol /\Slo-Tek posted:Getting a pretty good chuckle out of this image. And we are. Regularly. With way more on-station time. loving USMC Aviation HAY GUYS LET US PLAY TOO HUUURRRRRRRR iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That Harrier picture is the military aviation equivalent of Ralph Wiggum saying, "I'm helping!" Marine aviation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Marine aviation. Someone photoshop an EGA and/or USMC flag onto this tia
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:The result of separation would be a negligable amount of extra drag. That’s what I thought. It’s weird that the author was so dramatic about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Marine aviation. The Navy's Army's Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
China have it best, though The People's Liberation Army's Navy's Army's Air Force Or at least it would be if they had a marine corps that did flying The People's Liberation Army's Navy's Army's Air Force's Army would be Marine Paratroopers I suppose
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
We need to start air dropping marines to somewhere they can't reach their local congressman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That’s what I thought. It’s weird that the author was so dramatic about it. Probably more about the sequence of gently caress-ups that led to the failure rather than what actually failed; it might not be something so minor next time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Express_Flight_2574#Investigation
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Probably more about the sequence of gently caress-ups that led to the failure rather than what actually failed; it might not be something so minor next time. Also, parts falling off of airplanes can sometimes lead to problems for other airplanes, so people tend to take it seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:From the Wall Street Journal, a picture released by ISIS supposedly of the bomb used to destroy that Russian A321: I'll give you a hint: What do you stick the blasting cap into?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
simplefish posted:China have it best, though But if the marines were to airdrop a boat (à la apocalypse now) with soldiers equipped with an RQ-11, it would be the Navy's Army's Airforce's Navy's Army's Air Force Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:But if the marines were to airdrop a boat (à la apocalypse now) with carrying soldiers equipped with an RQ-11, it would be the Navy's Army's Airforce's Navy's Army's Air Force And the logistics subcontractor bills for providing services to six separate divisions, everyone wins! (nobody wins)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Linedance posted:(nobody wins) The subcontractor's shareholders win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The subcontractor's shareholders win. Not if the CEO/CFO/Chairman are any good at paying themselves bonuses, share packages, stock options, performance dividends, fringe benefits, corporate expenses and just plain big old fat salaries. And I find it difficult to believe that anyone rises to a CXO or Board level in a big defense contractor without knowing how to game the system like a pro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Depends on if its privately or publicly held.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Yeah if the shareholders aren't getting good returns, the CEO ain't gonna be CEO much longer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
 get a load of this noob!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Right the board needs to be making money, which may or may not correlate with other shareholders making money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Generally if the CEO is well paid the shareholders are also making money, ipso facto, since CEO compensation usually has a large proportion of stock options. This is done specifically to encourage the CEO to generate good stock performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Some sideways plane action at a local airport. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUSqnZRxEAM
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 14:39
|
|
