|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:They've always outsourced production of individual parts. They're now outsourcing entire assemblies. I know, I work for a company that makes 787 frame assemblies
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The cargo market blows right now and fuel is cheap so demand for new-build freighters is extremely low. I think there are extant orders for 767-300Fs but why bother with new build when you can get retrofits off cheap airframes? In 2015 FedEx ordered 50 763-Fs and have options for 50 more. I'm sure they got a sweetheart of a deal to keep the line going while the tanker program got online.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Is there any more movement on Boeing cranking out two 747-800s for the USAF to replace the VC-25s? I know there was some conversation about it, since it very well might be the last four engined aircraft Boeing ever builds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:They've always outsourced production of individual parts. They're now outsourcing entire assemblies. So is the end game here to become like Oracle, IE a office which owns IP and sales that outsources all the RnD, manufacturing, etc?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So is the end game here to become like Oracle, IE a office which owns IP and sales that outsources all the RnD, manufacturing, etc? Which is hilarious because Oracle is currently struggling against up and coming and more flexible options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Is there any more movement on Boeing cranking out two 747-800s for the USAF to replace the VC-25s? I know there was some conversation about it, since it very well might be the last four engined aircraft Boeing ever builds. The next AF1 could be an Airbus! Imagine it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The cargo market blows right now and fuel is cheap so demand for new-build freighters is extremely low. I think there are extant orders for 767-300Fs but why bother with new build when you can get retrofits off cheap airframes? No poo poo, one of my dad's companies re-purposes old passenger planes into cargo carriers, and they are gangbusters with orders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So is the end game here to become like Oracle, IE a office which owns IP and sales that outsources all the RnD, manufacturing, etc? I have no actual knowledge of the specific situation, but I think they actually realized that Airbus' distributed subassembly process was beneficial from a cost perspective but didn't quite totally understand how to implement it without it being a huge clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Got to LGA in time to catch an earlier flight.... ....that has now been delayed due to an engine issue. They're doing a run up on the engine to make sure "everything looks ok". How well do CRJ700s do on one engine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
 If a UH-60 and a Osprey had a child...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I have no actual knowledge of the specific situation, but I think they actually realized that Airbus' distributed subassembly process was beneficial from a cost perspective but didn't quite totally understand how to implement it without it being a huge clusterfuck. Which is hilarious because Airbus only did it to spread the pork around between Britain, France and Germany (with France relentlessly bitching about it all the way as is par for the course.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Got to LGA in time to catch an earlier flight.... Fine so long as you aren't lying about it.  ok that was a 200, still rscott posted:Boeing cutting 4-8k jobs over the next year, right when they're supposed to be ramping up 777X and 737 max production, what gives with that? After the last few F-15s and super hornets roll off the line in Missouri, they don't have anything to build for the Douglas fighter facility there so maybe that could account for most of it? hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Is there any more movement on Boeing cranking out two 747-800s for the USAF to replace the VC-25s? I know there was some conversation about it, since it very well might be the last four engined aircraft Boeing ever builds. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-receives-first-contract-of-air-force-one-reca-421423/ Seems to be moving pretty slow, but there is no way the line will close w/o at least 2 747-8's being made to replace the vc-25s. Article mentions the possibility of a 3rd as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I have no actual knowledge of the specific situation, but I think they actually realized that Airbus' distributed subassembly process was beneficial from a cost perspective but didn't quite totally understand how to implement it without it being a huge clusterfuck. A bigger part of the issue was that they didn't just outsource fabrication and assembly, they outsourced design. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/21/what-went-wrong-at-boeing/#125171595aad quote:Since the battery and its monitoring system were made in Japan, and all the connected pieces were integrated by French company Thales, blaming outsourcing for that and other electrical system faults is a reflexive response among Puget Sound-area employees and observers. (Also: it is astounding how bad Thales is. Everything I've interacted with with their name on it is poo poo. The UK Chinook guys still have to do mission planning with paper maps because the Thales nav systems are so lovely they're considered 'for reference only' and are not allowed to be relied upon. But I digress.) https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-787s-problems-run-deeper-t quote:Conversely, if you’re trying to modularize something — particularly if you’re trying to do it across organizational boundaries — you want to be absolutely sure that you know how all the pieces optimally work together, so everyone can just focus on their piece of the puzzle. If you’ve done it too soon and tried to modularize parts of an unsolved puzzle across suppliers, then each time one of those unanticipated problems or interdependencies arises, you have to cross corporate boundaries to make the necessary changes — changes which could dramatically impact the P&L of a supplier. Lawyers will probably need to get involved. So too might the other suppliers, who could quite possibly be required to change the design of their component, also (chances are, you’ve already contracted with them, too). The whole thing snowballs. Outsourcing fabrication is one thing, no airplane manufacturer builds all the parts to the airplane itself. It's the outsourcing of the design aspects that killed, because then when poo poo doesn't work it turns out you've outsourced your institutional awareness of what the problem is and how to get it fixed. And: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/69746/hart-smith-on-outsourcing.pdf quote:A strong case is made that will will not always be possible to make more and more profit out of less and less product and that, worse, there is a strong risk of going out of business directly as a result of this policy. The point is made that not only is the work out-sourced; all of the profits associated with the work are out-sourced, too. The history of the former Douglas Aircrafft Company is cited as a clear indication of what these policies have done - and as a warning of what more may be done. The subcontractors on the DC-10 made all of the profits; the prime manufacturer absorbed all of the over-runs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
It's a good rule of thumb that when a company starts outsourcing its core competencies, it's in its final phase of existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Fine so long as you aren't lying about it. What's the story with this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:What's the story with this? Pinnacle Flight 3701 They lost both engines by being dumbasses, but only declared losing one initially in an attempt to hide the degree and nature of their gently caress‐up. e: It’s worse than I remembered. They didn’t declare losing even a single engine till they were at 13 k feet and breathing from masks. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:The next AF1 could be an Airbus! Imagine it. Nah, they said they weren't interested as it didn't make financial sense, but probably also the realization that a U.S. supplier is about a million times more likely for AF1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Kinda want a front aspect shot of this thing with 'Mater' eyes overlaid on the cockpit. CharlesM posted:Nah, they said they weren't interested as it didn't make financial sense, but probably also the realization that a U.S. supplier is about a million times more likely for AF1. I thought I remembered hearing once that the VC-25s and E-4s were based on the 747-200 because it was the most structurally sound model available to them, and the -300 and -400 made compromises for the enlarged upper deck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Pinnacle Flight 3701 Oh ok I thought of Pinnacle 3701 but didn't make the 'only admitted to one engine' part since it was so much worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I thought I remembered hearing once that the VC-25s and E-4s were based on the 747-200 because it was the most structurally sound model available to them, and the -300 and -400 made compromises for the enlarged upper deck. Next Air Force One will be a 747-8F, then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
I thought it was because the 742 had a 3 man cockpit crew, which was a USAF requirement for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Next Air Force One will be a 747-8F, then? Next E-4, maybe. gently caress windows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:I thought it was because the 742 had a 3 man cockpit crew, which was a USAF requirement for some reason. The VC-25s are extremely special snowflakes. From what I understand, they're 747-200s, with some minor structural changes, with CF6-80s like on a -400, and electrical/electronic/communications modifications all over the godamned place. It's my understanding that they're also EM hardened like an E-4. They really are different enough to be considered exclusively as VC-25s, instead of as some variant of 747. Not as different as a C-135 is to a 707, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:I thought it was because the 742 had a 3 man cockpit crew, which was a USAF requirement for some reason. Probably for the chemtrails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
Thales is essentially French GE, so while you aren't necessarily wrong, I wouldn't let that bias colour the entire company. GE dishwashers are awful, Thales IFE systems are awful, but GE engines are good, and the Thales avionics I've worked with are forgetably reliable. Midjack posted:It's a good rule of thumb that when a company starts outsourcing its core competencies, it's in its final phase of existence. By that metric, the entire auto industry has been in it's final phase of existence for half a century. Which may be accurate, but that final phase can last a very, very long time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:A bigger part of the issue was that they didn't just outsource fabrication and assembly, they outsourced design. So basically Boeing saw LM's experience with concurrency on the JSF and said "you know what guys? That looks like a really good idea but let's throw in the added wrinkle of not allowing anyone whose designing anything to know what anyone else is designing"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:So basically Boeing saw LM's experience with concurrency on the JSF and said "you know what guys? That looks like a really good idea but let's throw in the added wrinkle of not allowing anyone whose designing anything to know what anyone else is designing" Boeing is an integrator first, they just took it to the Nth degree as did Lockmart (kinda) with the F35, and it's hurting both of them now. e: Integration and test is always the most up-in-the-air and unpredictable part of any project, it will also blow the schedule and cost if you don't have one company managing your 1st tiers building the major sub-assemblies. Plinkey fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
So Airbus' software can also interfere with/advise against landings: http://www.cnet.com/news/watch-an-airbus-a380-go-round-and-round-and-still-not-land/
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So Airbus' software can also interfere with/advise against landings: http://www.cnet.com/news/watch-an-airbus-a380-go-round-and-round-and-still-not-land/ While it does say that the actual events are yet unclear, it wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps the combination of weight, wind and runway length triggered the runway length warning? Some bad data input again? Very strange that the software would abort on such generic conditions as runway length, that should trigger a warning when you punch in the flight details before takeoff. Come to think of it, since many airline ticket purchases show the plane type, you could in theory prevent this with a browser plugin. PURCHASE TO MANCHESTER ON AIRBUS 380 ABORTED, INSUFFICIENT RUNWAY LENGTH. THANK GOD THAT WAS CLOSE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Thales is essentially French GE, so while you aren't necessarily wrong, I wouldn't let that bias colour the entire company. GE dishwashers are awful, Thales IFE systems are awful, but GE engines are good, and the Thales avionics I've worked with are forgetably reliable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Midjack posted:It's a good rule of thumb that when a company starts outsourcing its core competencies, it's in its final phase of existence. What is a core competency, though? The definition changes significantly over time. At one point, Ford would have considered rubber production and tire manufacture a core competency. At this point, that's ridiculous. There's a huge non-survivor bias to this type of analysis, as well. Nobody concurrently looks at companies that gave up some once-considered core competencies and were successful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So Airbus' software can also interfere with/advise against landings: http://www.cnet.com/news/watch-an-airbus-a380-go-round-and-round-and-still-not-land/ All commercial aircraft are required to be able to advise against landings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So Airbus' software can also interfere with/advise against landings: http://www.cnet.com/news/watch-an-airbus-a380-go-round-and-round-and-still-not-land/ Jesus what a bullshit article. "Aircraft held in pattern then diverted! Who knows why??? PROBABLY BECAUSE AIRBUS!!!"  Sidenote: Passengers were HUNGRY!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So Airbus' software can also interfere with/advise against landings: http://www.cnet.com/news/watch-an-airbus-a380-go-round-and-round-and-still-not-land/ Okay? Seems like a pretty normal thing to me. I guess the more important question is if the computer knows the pilots name/any personal information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Okay? Seems like a pretty normal thing to me. I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:What is a core competency, though? The definition changes significantly over time. At one point, Ford would have considered rubber production and tire manufacture a core competency. At this point, that's ridiculous. There's a huge non-survivor bias to this type of analysis, as well. Nobody concurrently looks at companies that gave up some once-considered core competencies and were successful. I think it boils down to using the better product. If some day a company comes to Boeing showing their carbon nanotube wing they are churning out of their factory for competitive prices, it's the day Boeing should stop manufacturing wings. Just because manufacturing wings is annoying and requires a lot of effort, money and employees; it's no reason to try to push it to someone else and hope everything works out okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
In an oligopoly with extremely high costs of entry, how does a new entrant develop a superior product?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:In an oligopoly with extremely high costs of entry, how does a new entrant develop a superior product? With difficulty. Start small with RC plane wings, move up to drones and small planes. Or wind turbines, I've got the understanding from somewhere that one of the sail plane manufacturers was actually a wind turbine blade manufacturer as their main industry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Saukkis posted:With difficulty. Start small with RC plane wings, move up to drones and small planes. Or wind turbines, I've got the understanding from somewhere that one of the sail plane manufacturers was actually a wind turbine blade manufacturer as their main industry. I can be pretty safe in my assertion that this will literally never happen. Comparing wind turbine blades or RC airplanes to an airliner wing is like comparing apples to stopwatches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:02
|
|
