Wouldn’t it be easier to fly them?

It would be "shipped" if they used a cargo lifter, a rigid airship...

Naah, they could crash and the client won't be happy.

They ship *and* fly them

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-ships-aircraft-parts/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga

Andy Mac,

It's cute that you still believe in the myth that heavier than air things can fly.

Why do you think that airports have jetways to take you to the "plane" - from which you can't actually see the plane? Clearly it's because we're still using airships! All the pictures of planes and pictures of plaen crashes are there to fool the sheeple. We're still flying in hydrogen dirigibles. There was a brief period where we used safe helium, but with improvements in safety standards it was decided to go back to hydrogen for extra payload capacity and to save money. Hence all the helium suddenly becoming available for balloons.

You may think your flight only takes a few hours, but that's because they drug your food and change the times and dates on your watches and devices while you're asleep. You might think you've got jetlag, but actually it's a drug induced hangover.

I mean, of course they can't fly. The wings don't even flap or anything!

Funny, but you forgot the troll icon.

God no, they know how those things are made, there's no way they're getting in one when it leaves the ground.

i remember watching old films where B-17s came back from bombing runs looking like swiss cheese and landing with everyone safely aboard. Hopefully this iconic brand can get back their engineering culture and find excellence again.

Sadly once the rot sets in it doesn't matter how strong your brand is.

Bush radio was a good example of that - I understand it was very well regarded before someone else (Argos?) ended up with the name and slapped it on all kinds of budget electronics.

The Bush branded products from Argos were far ahead of their time.

They new the day they had been purchased and were able to fail exactly one day out of warranty.

...US couriers are still buying freighter variants, apparently, as there's no 787 freighter variant yet.

I did wonder. Assume some are for KC46 tanker conversion as well? Boing's future seems to be on the 777X freighter, but that doesn't exist either. Airbus has the only true next-gen freighter with the A350F, which will exist very soon, I believe. The first carbon fibre freighter!

(quote): "having acquired its originator – Canadian firm Bombardier – in 2020"

Can this be confirmed?

Here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2020/02/13/airbus-buys-bombardier-out-of-commercial-aviation-for-591-million/

Two second google search.

From Wikipedia: "On 12 February 2020, Bombardier sold its share in Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, the holding company for the A220 programme, for $591 million; Airbus now has a 75% share, with the remaining 25% owned by Investissement Québec This sale marked Bombardier's "strategic exit" from the commercial aviation sector..." https://tinyurl.com/4d2rkjd4

Hope this helps... -eb

> Bombardier's "strategic exit" from the commercial aviation sector

Ah, thanks, that makes more sense than TFA's simple wording, which implied that Bombardier had been bought in its entirety by Airbus in 2020. 'Cos it seemed a bit odd that Airbus would want to get into the other stuff, like train building, as well (that bit went to Alstom IIRC).

Hitch-hiking or summoning an Uber are not options in space

They must have lost their Electronic SubEther Signalling Device or “Electronic Thumb”?

Mine’s the one with the ‘guide in the pocket…

Are they making Harriers now?

Don't jump jet to conclusions...

That would certainly take it's VTOL on you...

I Sea Harrier what you did there...

If you don't all stop with the terrible puns, I'm going to be viffing angry!

SHARly that's enough now - Ed.

I'm feeling HMS Invincible about it

.... to sack all the beancounting manglers and replace them with engineers .... and then take decades getting a new set of products designed and built .... to get back the reputation that they had before.

But I can't see that happening, certainly not in my lifetime.

Making planes is difficult, complex and involves a lot of components. We know this and so do Boeing. In order to reach a successful outcome it needs good management who know what they are doing and do their job of managing and supervising. This involves skills and expense.

Unfortunately, as long as the financial board get their money, their conscience allows them to shut out the noise. If they were booted out tomorrow, they'd still be better off, for life, than almost everyone else; workers and shareholders. What's the incentive for them to do anything different?

Perhaps, but there's massive risks in developing new airframe and engines (even upgrading old ones, which of course is relevant here). Airlines still trust Boeing, and all that's required to rebalance opinion is a mis-step by Airbus.

Airbus went through a very sticky patch with the A380 primarily due to wiring issues that cost the company about €5bn, but now the A380 is seen as a reliable workhorse that's very popular with passengers. Engine makers face similar sorts of risks - Rolls Royce were bankrupted many decades ago by developing the RB211 and latterly there's been both supply chain issues for RR spares and problems on the cutting edge XWB; Pratt & Whitney have recently sucked up costs of $6-7bn relating to faults on the PW1100G and their subcontractors a further $1bn or so, General Electric and CFM have their own problems with Leap engine durability and supply chain issues.

If (and a big if) the 737 Max problem had been spotted in service with time to fix it, then the subsequent Boeing issues around the door blowout, the development problems with the 777X, and extra checks on 787s would be seen as "normal for an aircraft maker", and Boeing wouldn't be in the huge hole they are. Worth thinking that a couple of years before Boeing's MCAS disasters, Airbus lost an A400M due to shonky software, but as it was a test flight that "only" lost 4 lives and no dirt stuck. And last November extra airframe checks were ordered on A350s.

Agreed.

I'm sorry for Mr Ortberg, but his presence is too little, too late to restore the company’s culture and regain a leadership position .

He's got decades of rot to cut off first, starting with everyone on the Board and going down, like a surgeon cuts off gangrenous tissue.

A delicate exercise at best.

I wish him luck.

Amazed they're still delivering so many ancient 767s. Mostly freighters or for KC46 military conversion, I assume?

Meanwhile, it's 5 whole years since the first flight of the 777X, and it's still nowhere near certification. A disaster for Boing and so many airline customers, including BA, who are getting very angry. The original 777 programme in the 90s was so much swifter and more successful, despite it being a radically all-new design at the time. Boing was run by engineers in those days, I suppose. Oh, and there's the 737MAX, where 2 of the 4 variants also remain un-certified.

As for the 797, I suppose we'll be waiting until 2040...

Airbus is also having issues, thousands of A320-neo's will have to be grounded for longer time due to issues with the PW-1100G engines.

Plane manufacturers experience the same issues as car manufacturers, the lemmings race for less fuel consumption and more features pressures everyone to start using new and often unproved technology that may rear its ugly head after some time, often biting its owner hard in the wallet.

If Boeing would still be producing technically perfected 727's, 737-200's and 707's using JT3D's, everything would be fine.

Adjusted for inflation, a 1973 model year 727-200 would cost USD 34 million in todays dollars, a 737 Max 7 cost nowadays USD 99 million, so planes got three times more expensive.

Not taking into account that a 727-200 is faster and has a higher seat capacity than a 737 Max 7.

I wanted to say something about the 727s fuel consumption, but then I realised a 727 is so loud, it would not be allowed to fly anywhere and therefore does not consume any fuel at all.

errr... Problem solved?

"many airline customers, including BA, who are getting very angry"

Airlines are very used to problems from airframe and engine makers. These are inevitable when the airlines press for faster delivery, lowest cost, and highest efficiency products. They'll certainly look to commercially exploit any delays or faults, but angry? I'd hope their management were more realistic. Worth noting that Singapore Airlines ordered A350 XWB in 2006, and full certification was only completed in 2014.

We used to refer to the cutting edge of science as "rocket science". I think the engineering of modern aircraft and their engines are considerably more challenging than slinging a rocket into orbit.