3 ms·

Actually, it's likely given the publicly-traded pressure toward the short-term cheapest option. Any substatial fix would be subject to passing QA/QC and validat

Actually, it's likely given the publicly-traded pressure toward the short-term cheapest option. Any substatial fix would be subject to passing QA/QC and validation processes given that safety-critical systems tend to use the waterfall development model. But, unfortunately, the explosion of subsystem features and over-engineered solutions leads to a factorial multiverse of subtle gotchas and inability for humans to prove nonfunctional requirement properties. Formal verification, feature hesitance ftw.

WalterBright 10y ago
> publicly-traded pressure toward the short-term cheapest option Boeing plays very much the long term game. It took something like several years in development and 10 years in production for the 747 to make a profit, for example. It is simply impossible to design and manufacture airliners on quarterly results. > cheapest Boeing is very well aware that the most expensive option for them would be to acquire a reputation for cheap, unsafe, crummy airliners. Source: am former 757 flight controls design engineer, and happy Boeing shareholder for 35 years.
- dingaling 10y ago
  Boeing changed in 1997 when the MDC bean-counters took over. Look at their line-up for 2020: fourth iteration on the 737 with MoM shaping up to be a fifth, third iteration on the 747 if it's still alive, third iteration on the 777, 787 range split across the -9/-10 and the -8 which is basically a completely different aircraft due to the chaotic and rushed development. "No more Moonshots" is their current self-professed philosophy: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/mcnerney-no-more-lsquomoonshotsrsquo-as-boeing-develops-new-jets/ http://www.seattletimes.com/business/mcnerney-no-more-lsquom... And that's not even addressing their creative methods of program accounting, or the fact that their suppliers now have to wait 120 days for payment. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-suppliers-idUSKCN0ZN1GG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-suppliers-idUSKCN0Z... None of those sound like the Boeing of old that "bet the farm" on the 747. Which, anyway, was only meant to be a short-term airframe until supersonic airliners took over...

WalterBright 10y ago

> publicly-traded pressure toward the short-term cheapest option Boeing plays very much the long term game. It took something like several years in development and 10 years in production for the 747 to make a profit, for example. It is simply impossible to design and manufacture airliners on quarterly results. > cheapest Boeing is very well aware that the most expensive option for them would be to acquire a reputation for cheap, unsafe, crummy airliners. Source: am former 757 flight controls design engineer, and happy Boeing shareholder for 35 years.

dingaling 10y ago
Boeing changed in 1997 when the MDC bean-counters took over. Look at their line-up for 2020: fourth iteration on the 737 with MoM shaping up to be a fifth, third iteration on the 747 if it's still alive, third iteration on the 777, 787 range split across the -9/-10 and the -8 which is basically a completely different aircraft due to the chaotic and rushed development. "No more Moonshots" is their current self-professed philosophy: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/mcnerney-no-more-lsquomoonshotsrsquo-as-boeing-develops-new-jets/ http://www.seattletimes.com/business/mcnerney-no-more-lsquom... And that's not even addressing their creative methods of program accounting, or the fact that their suppliers now have to wait 120 days for payment. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-suppliers-idUSKCN0ZN1GG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-suppliers-idUSKCN0Z... None of those sound like the Boeing of old that "bet the farm" on the 747. Which, anyway, was only meant to be a short-term airframe until supersonic airliners took over...