Avijacija bez granica...

[Roger Sanchez]

 

[zorglub]

 

[Ayatollah]

[Peter Fan]

Nije novicok, nije ni otvoren prozor, ali je zabrinjavajuce:

 

Second Boeing whistleblower dies suddenly after claiming safety flaws ignored (msn.com)

[3opge]

jebemti Hrvatska ima vise aviona nego Srbija, e moj Tesla ala te teslace a Turci jebu mamice

[Shan Jan]

 

[Engineer]

Čovek kaže da će u Boeingu sve biti u redu. Crva nije ni bilo. Mediji preteruju (ne izveštavaju objektivno)

https://www.engineering.com/story/no-boeing-is-not-in-crisis?fromID=0

[Roger Sanchez]

Edited May 25 by Roger Sanchez

[Lucia]

Nije avijacija ali je Boeing:

 

https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/astronauts-stranded-in-space-due-to-multiple-issues-with-boeings-starliner-and-the-window-for-a-return-flight-is-closing 

[Shan Jan]

48 minutes ago, Lucia said:

Nije avijacija ali je Boeing:

 

https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/astronauts-stranded-in-space-due-to-multiple-issues-with-boeings-starliner-and-the-window-for-a-return-flight-is-closing 

 

Quote

But Starliner's first uncrewed test flight in 2019 was scuppered by a software fault that placed it in the wrong orbit, and a second attempt was held back by issues with a fuel valve. After more reviews last year, the company had to fix issues with the capsule's parachutes and remove around a mile (1.6 kilometers) of tape that was found to be flammable.

The current mission is Boeing's third attempt to take the crew to the ISS. The previous two were scrubbed by a vibrating oxygen valve on the United Launch Alliance's Atlas V rocket on which Starliner was mounted (and which was developed by Lockheed Martin) and a computer glitch in a ground launch sequencer, respectively.

Mislim da jedan share bayback treba da se pokrene ne bili se resili ovi tehnicki problemi, u medjuvremenu mogu da zamole Ruse da ih vrate dole 

[Shan Jan]

Kad smo vec tu, clanak koji lepo sumira razliku izmedju Boeinga i Airbusa u 21. veku:

 

Quote

Boeing Stock Is Paying for Decisions Made a Decade Ago

Boeing’s latest problems with the 737 MAX have reignited a debate among analysts and investors about who should run a global commercial aerospace company—an ace engineer or a professional manager.

 

“To me, the [Boeing] problem is not the engineers, the problem is management,” says Vertical Research Partners analyst Rob Stallard.

Of course, Boeing, and its chief rival Airbus need both. But the numbers appear to support Stallard’s point of view, that strong management is critical. Boeing had no immediate comment. Airbus didn’t respond to a request for comment.

 

The issue is partly the nature of the aerospace business, which is characterized by heavy investment, high regulation, and product cycles measured in decades, making strategic choices as critical as engineering decisions. “This is the sort of business that, from a product perspective, you build on, or not, over a long period of time,” explains General Electric CEO Larry Culp.

 

He wasn’t talking about Boeing. Culp was answering a question about GE’s leadership in jet engines. The company is pleased to point out that GE engines power three out of four commercial airline flights. Culp attributes that impressive statistic to decades of investment made by several management regimes.

 

His comment hints at how Boeing finds itself in the current MAX mess. The company has simply spent less on research and development and new plants and equipment than its most important rival.

 

Between 2010 and 2023, Boeing spent about $70 billion on research and development plus new plants and equipment, according to FactSet. That spending amounted to about 6.2% of sales generated over that span, going back as far as FactSet had data readily available. Airbus spent about $93 billion, or 9.5% of sales, over the same span.

 

The numbers are only a rough guide. Both companies have commercial aerospace and defense businesses. Total spending cuts across all segments.

 

At the same time, Boeing leads Airbus in spending related to shareholders. Over the past 10 years, according to Bloomberg, Boeing has spent some $59 billion returning cash to shareholders, including about $20 billion in dividends and $39 billion on share repurchase.

 

Boeing was a big buyer of its stock between 2014 and 2018. Shares outstanding fell from about 751 million at the start of 2014 to 568 million at the end of 2018. Boeing has about 610 million shares outstanding currently.

 

Airbus has spent, essentially, nothing on share repurchases and about $10 billion on dividends over the same 10-year span.

 

Choices about returns of capital and investment spending are management decisions. Those decisions manifest themselves in other numbers. Airbus has about 62% of the total backlog for 737-size jets and has delivered about 57% of those planes over the past 15 years. Things are slowly getting better for Airbus.

 

Shareholders, however, deserve some of the blame for management decisions. Boeing was rewarded with gains in its stock for its capital- return policies. From the end of 2013 to the end of 2018, Boeing stock returned about 20% a year on average, according to Bloomberg. Airbus stock returned about 10%.

 

Since the end of 2018, however, Boeing stock lost about 7% a year on average. Airbus shares have returned about 13%. Management decisions made years ago generally come home to roost in current stock prices. Over the past 10 years, Boeing has returned 7.1% annually including reinvested dividends, while Airbus’ ADRs have returned 9.5%.

 

The numbers also imply that Boeing has a way out of its current problems: Spend at least in line with Airbus to maintain its market share. That spending could be partly targeted at new aircraft designed to replace part of Boeing’s 737 lineup.

 

That’s a management call.

 

[namenski]

Sto bi losi novinari rekli: u susret ovogodisnjem Farnborough-u...

Podsecanje na 1 davni Farnborough, 1968. godine:

 

 

Izvor: jedan od mozda dva, tri..., ako i toliko, svetski renomirana izvora....  

 

Edited June 28 by namenski

[Shan Jan]

Boeing kupio spirit airways u zelji da pokaze da preuzima kontrolu nad proizvodnim procesom. Airbus je preuzeo deo firme koji se bavi pravljenjem delova za njegove avione: https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airbus-paid-to-take-irish-factory-as-part-of-boeing-spirit-deal/

 

[namenski]

 

Izgleda neverovatno, ali je po svoj prilici istinito da Concorde nikada nije uslikan dok leti nadzvucno, pogotovo najvecom putnom brzinom.

Navodno je jedinu - ovu gore - fotografiju napravila posada 1 RAF Tornado-a negde iznad takozvanog Celtic Sea, na poprilicno zakovrtnoj putanji propisivanoj zarad izbegavanja pucanja prilikom probijanja zvucnog zida...

 

1.6 M

 

Doduse, verovatno bi se, da se stvarno htelo i trebalo, uspelo nekim od tadasnjih lovaca, mada bi to - kako su stvari tada stajale - bio zamasan presretacki^tm poduhvat... 

 

Edit: a da je visoko - visoko je, eno se dobro vidi zakrivljenost ravne planete Zemlje...

Edited July 31 by namenski

[Roger Sanchez]

Kanader, i ostali

 

Quote

 

Kada su se vratili kući, Slovenci su objavili da je njihov AW169  u gašenju požara naleteo 18 sati i ispustio više od 50.000 litara vode, suočavajući se sa izazovima kao što su „udaljenost izvora vode i težak pristup gorivu“. Autor ovog teksta ne razume šta znači „otežan pristup gorivu“ znajući da su makedonska policija i vojska mogle da odgovore zahtevima Slovenaca ukoliko bi oni zatražili da se dostave kamioni za gorivo, ako i gde bi to bilo potrebno. S druge strane, helikopter slovenačke vojske AS.532AL Cougar ispustio je oko 86.800 litara vode u 13 sati i 20 minuta stvarnog vremena provedenog u letu.

MUP Srbije je saopštio da su za pet radnih dana njegovi pripadnici uspešno ugasili požar kod sela Rosoman, stavili pod kontrolu požar kod grada Radoviš, a zajedno sa drugim domaćim i međunarodnim ekipama delovali su i u Novom Selu, na planini Ogražden, i u selu Piperovo. Helikopter Ka-32 izbacio je ukupno 182.000 litara vode.

Hrvatsko ratno vazduhoplovstvo saopštilo je da je svojim CL-415 naletelo ukupno 27 sati i ispustilo 615.000 litara vode. Njihove rumunske kolege izvele su avionom C-27J 21 misiju, ispustivši oko 92.000 litara vode. Veoma aktivni bili su i Crnogorci sa 84.000 litara vode bačenih na požare.