WHAT ON EARTH is Going on with the Boeing 777X?!

[@MentourNow]

Go to ground.news/mentour to get worldwide coverage on Boeing, aviation safety and more. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month.

[@stuporman]

"If it's Boeing - I'm not going"

[@jasontipton8430]

Three words diversity equity and incompetence

[@nipperdawg1865]

The daily caller is a crap news source very right wing

[@ant2312]

@@nipperdawg1865 CNN is a crap news source very left wing

[@John-nc4bl]

UNSUBSCRIBED. Whew, that took a long time to cut to the chase about cracking in thrust links which will be solved bt the vendor who makes the thrust links. Your diatrabe about Boeing is tiresome listening. You are making a mountain out of a molehill in order to make a video. You said that the thrust links were connected to the pylon which is incorrect. The twin angled thrust links are connected to the aft and forward engine mounts which are bolted to the engine. They serve two purposes and not one which you inferred, taking the thrust of the engine. Now only do the thrust links take the thrust of the engine but they also help to prevent engine case bowing, (bending).

[@leftgrrl]

It feels less like "Boeing can't catch a break nowadays" more "Boeing have cut too many corners too many times".

[@tuunaes]

Going to take years to uncut all those corners those bean counters and marketing scammers of Boeing management wrecked. Especially when manslaughtering ~350 passengers didn't send them to jail in the first place.

[@tjenadonn6158]

Boeing has cut so many corners it's just running in perfect circles, right down the drain.

[@jeromethiel4323]

The chickens have come home to roost? Too bad the people responsible for this collapse got paid out a long time ago, and will suffer no backlash for destroying a once great company.

[@Trebuchet48]

Yeah. "Boeing can't catch a break" sounds like the problems are the result of bad luck. They aren't. It's three decades of bad management.

[@TheChipMcDonald]

Compromised.

[@sirius4k]

At this point, the new plane uses 100% less fuel. Can't get better than that.

[@Gregorius421]

should stay like that

[@franziskani]

Well .... the freight and passengers will still be flown, just with another type of aircraft.

[@soulawaken24]

Perfect safety track record too, no lives will be lost on this plane hopefully forever :')

[@pucmahone3893]

Also ease of maintenance!

[@marx-i7o]

Why don't you fly it with your family, when you think it's safe we will check it out and let you know, either you work for Boeing or just no brain boy trying to say something

[@srinitaaigaura]

I remember an old documentary on the story of the Boeing 777. When the original 777 was being developed, Boeing engineers were sitting right next to the shop floor and would go and see everything up close and personal and work out any issues, go back and redesign the parts and come back and check the fix. They in fact spent more time on the shop floor than in their offices, getting things done hands on and in real time. The. The MD mismangaers took over and began by taking all the engineers's large offices away, firing or retiring all the senior engineers then outsourcing everything to 3rd parties and hiring rookies to keep the costs down (Penny wise, pound foolish). Damn, I have always hated senior management with a passion, because my first company was one sinking ship too.

[@bobcougar77]

I like this story for what happened to Boeing. I have no idea if it's true. I've read some articles claiming it, but they were pretty short on evidence.

[@srinitaaigaura]

@@bobcougar77 I remember an old documentary on the 777 which talked about this. That was before the MD merger.

[@bobcougar77]

@@srinitaaigaura I meant more about the MD guys poisoning the corporate culture of Boeing.... It could easily be a nice scapegoat for their own failings. I totally believe the part about the engineers working right next to the assemblers I've heard old timers say things similar.

[@edwardscott3262]

​@@bobcougar77 Boeing did a weird thing after buying MD. They brought on the executives who ran MD into the ground. Like they were being rewarded for lowering the stock price and making it possible for Boeing to buy the company cheaper.

[@longshot7601]

If it's 21st Century Jet it was amazing and to me the real star of the entire program was Alan Mulally. When he was passed over for the CEO position I figured that it was downhill for Boeing from there. Boeing used to be know for it's superior engineering. Now it's lost that and many never get that back being that kind of mindset has either retired or just moved on.

[@IKARUSBLOODYWINGS]

I prefer them to find these issues now rather than do it when it is approved to fly passengers.

[@MentourNow]

Very true

[@Sir_Godz]

thats not the boeing way

[@IKARUSBLOODYWINGS]

@@Sir_Godz it looks like it is now 😎

[@ytzpilot]

@@Sir_Godzpessimism looks in the past, optimism looks at the future, changes as painful as they are have been happening, your catchphrases are getting old

[@manygoodmen]

​@Sir_Godz We can critique Boeing as much a we want but a good Boeing is good for everyone. I used to live in 1800 century when it took us 18 hours by Df3 16 wheeler Vagn from New York to Dallas. Now it is less than 55 mins

[@nearlynormal2293]

Cheating, bullshitting, and therefore loosing the trust of the FAA is the gift that keeps on giving for Boeing.

[@seriouscat2231]

Losing.

[@rh906]

Well the Boeing engineers that had to endure the MD buy-out was getting their revenge.

[@hadesflames]

Imagine fucking up so bad that even the governmental body you bought decades ago starts to actually give a shit about what you're doing.

[@killman369547]

@@rh906 I don't think it's that. I think it's just the executives brought over from MD ended up shooting themselves in the chest so bad with their shortsightedness that the engineers basically just had to stand back and watch the fireworks.

[@aegaeon117]

Boeing doesn't deserve a break, people died and they tried covering it up blaming the victims.

[@nercksrule]

Boeing lied. People died.

[@AbdullahNajib-b9z]

airbus doesnt need one as well,thewy killed people by blowing the tail off

[@klaytonalexandermatthews2047]

oh dear, I have not been fully up to date with Boeing, how were they blaming the customers? (genuinely curious)

[@jteamaz]

That was a 737 MAX issue, not a 777X. Those problems were resolved.

[@Somerandom1922]

​@@jteamaz yes, but it proved that Boeing don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Act like a company that doesn't care about safety, get treated like a company that doesn't care about safety. It'll take a long time for them to earn back the respect they've wiped out, and they (and ideally every other company) will never be given that same level of autonomy to validate their own safety again.

[@Pr3stag3]

Also fair play to the FAA for being so stringent and tough with Boeing and not allowing Boeing to rush this plane through

[@Skummeh2]

Now the world is watching so they have no choice.

[@hiteshadhikari]

Its not fair play, it shows they were not doing things well for years and they were part of Boeing disaster

[@brianwelch1579]

@@hiteshadhikari exactly. Boeing were allowed to vet their own work for too long, even when it was CLEAR that problems were being covered up.

[@Dj.MODÆO]

@@Pr3stag3 the FAA looked aside for over a decade but now they are forced into paying attention because all the attention from the public. The FAA and the US govt have been letting Boeing do whatever it wants for years.

[@ReluctantPost]

@@hiteshadhikari Accountability and improvements resulting from it should always be applauded. There is no such thing as a perfect system that does not vary in quality or ability or results. The alternatives to public accountability and correction are far worse.

[@5tr41ghtGuy]

As a mechanical engineer, I imagine it is straightforward to design a thrust link which will hold up. The fact that cracks appeared suggests a few possibilities: * Problems with the metallurgy of the component (manufacture) * Incorrect dimensions of the load bearing section (manufacture) * Unforeseen forces applied to the member (design). Hard to believe you could surprise Boeing here ... Thankfully this time the probelm was caught before any passengers boarded.

[@watcherzero5256]

They have found cracked thrust links on all four of the test aircraft including the one with limited flying hours, I think a standard fatigue susceptibility due to higher than expected loads wouldn't have presented so early, more likely a fabrication problem such as a poor heat treat.

[@MaVaLa-um2lu]

As far as I understand the supplier of the part in question is *drummroll* ... Spirit. So there is that.🙄

[@emmakai2243]

You're describing the basics for a professional mechanical engineer. If only it was that simple. Unfortunately greed and politics is a thing.

[@richardhswan8069]

Airplanes the size of the 777X are incredibly complex and unforseen loads are common in complex aircraft. It would be surprising if they didn't find something unexpected.

[@hammondclarkson9201]

​@@richardhswan8069😂🎉

[@PavelKostromitinov]

For me personally, the most interesting part was starting around 19:00, when it came around to the aircraft construction. Please, we want more technical videos!

[@javierolivaresserrano5948]

What's really interesting is that the thrust links were damaged during normal operation. Not after a bird strike or other extreme stress situations.

[@adrianmiholic865]

I think it could be vibration induced cracks

[@cyberleaderandy1]

@@adrianmiholic865 fatigue cracks possibly

[@Infiltator2]

@@cyberleaderandy1 fatique cracks after 2000? hours is looking like a major design flaw that should habe been found in lab testing

[@falconwaver]

It might not be normal operation. Just because there weren’t bird strikes, doesn’t mean they weren’t doing engine out testings and RTOs.

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@falconwaver but they aren't doing those test with all the test aircraft. some aircraft do the extreme stuff, some (the prototypes scheduled for later delivery) the "normal" tests. But the issues were found on all test aircraft

[@olliversdad8447]

Mentor, your videos are awesome. But I am a retired Boeing 777 and 747-8F captain. I hold type ratings on 727, 757,767,777,747-400/8F. To correct you, the Boeing 747SP was developed by reducing its length in order to increase range to fly the few customers that wanted a specific range without a refuel stop using the 747 classic. The 747SP was not originally designed for thin low capacity routes

[@matsv201]

Specially since the plane is fat and short

[@thomasm1964]

As I recall, South Africa wanted the SP variant because, for political reasons, SAA was not allowed to land at many airports in order to refuel.

[@GlenMcCabe]

Qantas also used it to fly over water out of short runways like WLG. Apparently even Boeing were amazed by that move!

[@vix4x41]

Pan Am used to fly an SP JFK to Dhahran as a codeshare with Saudia.

[@kevinrayner5812]

@@vix4x41 On the return flight of my only trip to the US the plane was an SP on San Fransico to London

[@theloungemanmusic3712]

A ‘slight crack’ in a fan blade eventually ripped an engine to shreds in one of your videos. A thrust link failure could tear an engine clean off and take part of the wing with it. Kudos to the inspectors that spotted it 👍

[@calinculianu]

Cracks in the thrust links? Jesus christ. These are brand-new planes. Cracks already is a sign of just terrible workmanship of the metal.. Incredible.

[@EdOeuna]

How many times have the A380 wings been repaired / patched because of continued cracking problems?

[@jeffkellyb7712]

Or they were insufficient designed for the loads those huge engines put on them. Which might be worse, neither is good.

[@u-know-this]

Or poor metallurgy or Math

[@PunjabiGhazal]

@@u-know-this Or DEI hires for the jobs...perhaps.

[@nercksrule]

@@PunjabiGhazal The sheer gall of someone with your username blaming DEI...

[@ColeDedhand]

MD destroyed Boeing.

[@MentourNow]

Well, there are encouraging signs now

[@thomasfholland]

And here I thought it was DEI that did it 🤷‍♂️

[@BongoBaggins]

​@@MentourNowEncouraging for Airbus.

[@timsippel1845]

​@@BongoBaggins😂

[@edwardranno7119]

💯 percent

[@walterpleyer261]

Making a feel good story about Boeing these days is an ambitious endeavor

[@kentslocum]

I feel good about not flying on Boeing! 😂

[@jeromehugh9624]

Knowing that the second thrust link held up after the failure of the first one suggests that it is not a static design failure and also it proved the point that its a failsafe design. However having failed this early in its life cycle makes it hard raises a lot of questions over its fatigue sizing.It's possible that flaws were not detected during the manufacturing.

[@MBSteinNL]

Issue is this insinuates the stress in practice is way beyond what it was theoretically assumed to be. Which begs the question what went wrong. Don't the Boeing engineers know anymore how to design the links? Are the design tools faulty that Boeing has and do they give the wrong pressure per square meter calculation? Or does Boeing use subpar materials? If there's this much stress on the primary link, it's reasonable to assume that the backup link will suffer the same fate, probably even worse considering some of the forces active on the links will seek the way of least resistance when both links are present and will offset via the alternative link. While if there's just the backup link, it will need to carry all the force on its own together with the othermore fixed attachments.

[@brandyballoon]

I agree that it's unlikely to be a static load problem. Failures in that type of component is usually due to an unexpected mode of vibration. It may have been humming like a guitar string when a small vibration from the engine hit just the right frequency.

[@KarpatianSteps]

More like manufacturing problem, because when added new engine, they must test it at another test aircraft

[@QuicknStraight]

I would say it indicates the opposite. That these failures occurred so early in the engine's service time make it likely that the second thrust link would also be likely to suffer failure fairly quickly.

[@QuicknStraight]

@@brandyballoon Similar failures on the other test aircraft mean that such a vibration obviously isn't just an "unexpected" random occurrence.

[@ChristopherBurtraw]

"The 737 that I *used to* fly" ;) Welcome to full time content production!

[@zwan1886]

cringe af

[@ChristopherBurtraw]

@@zwan1886 no u

[@JacobEjgaard]

@@zwan1886 I agree

[@Thumper68]

Most pilots are pretty well off he probably doesn’t have to do anything anymore unless he wants too.

[@ChristopherBurtraw]

@@Thumper68 the channel is doing well enough that he does it full time now, he did a video on the other channel explaining it. I was making a reference to that in my quip

[@jerrypolverino6025]

The failures of Boeing can be directly attributed to its transformation from a world class engineering firm to an employee hating Wall Street bean counter disaster.

[@amadeusendymion1272]

Remember that when you go to the polls in November

[@jerrypolverino6025]

@@amadeusendymion1272 There’s nobody that cares about us.

[@phillipphil1615]

Bean counters are valuable , Boeing was taken over by bean hoarders.

[@jerrypolverino6025]

@@phillipphil1615 I understand. However, the Boeing BOD was quite out of touch with production, having left for Chicago, while focusing on their own personal greed and ignoring the many problems labor was screaming about. Abject and induced incompetence. Lies and failure went hand in hand.

[@thomasfholland]

Petter I hope your channels will allow you to get to spend more time with your family. I made that choice here (in Stockholm) because I knew I would never get back the time lost while my children were growing up. For me that’s been the best part of my life so far.

[@triplekillerable]

Lol. My father was a ship captain. I'm 29 now. He would go off and there would be no comms etc. in ship like it's year 1045. Today you get to see your family in a second and video call without a problem. What the fuck are you crying about softies

[@miscbits6399]

As a FWIW, the original 777 was offered with folding wingtips - a grand total of zero customers took the option

[@davidkavanagh189]

It proved to be unnecessary in that case partly because many 777 customers were replacing older 747 variants so the wingspan issue wasn't as much of a big deal. It's different now with the even longer wing span making the 777x a code F aircraft without the wing fold. There are relatively few code F gates and code F aircraft often require special taxi routes too. Most, if not all 777xs will have folding wing tips. I'm not sure if it's even an option or not in this case. I don't think they have even designed a non-folding wing tip at all.

[@thecrazyswede2495]

I would actually prefer a swing wing construction in such a case. I am aware that swingwing traditionally has been considered too complicated, but as long as it's not Boeing developing it... Perhaps something for military SAAB to consider? cheers! / CS

[@ryleymclean313]

To be fair at the time winglets weren’t really popular at the time. The big operation of winglets in fleets like with the 737 in Ryanair and Southwest. They were the first to adopt it and it was so good at saving money it made other airlines take it up.

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@thecrazyswede2495 Swing wing is incredibly complex and heavy in comparison to folding and it's used to achieve differing sweep angles to allow for a high speed range, something the 777, or any commercial airliner does not need.

[@4loops43]

Delta: 😮😳 doh! Baby Delta: cheaper than folding the tail!

[@777jones]

A dominant airplane company shouldn’t need to “catch a break.” Instead, it should professionally engineer and manufacture its products.

[@250Skyer250]

@mentour 7:20 "Popular between Airlines, Passengers and Pilots" You can add Maintenance crews to that too. Sadly I have not worked on one yet (infact I have only touched 737-8 and Max-8) myself but from all my colleagues who have worked on multiple types all had praised the 777 for being very maintenance friendly.

[@MentourNow]

Thank you, good to know!

[@mercurybard9794]

You just made about a dozen people very, very happy with that knowledge

[@OmiP42]

Yeah it really is easy to work on. So many times I've been pleasantly surprised at the forethought applied to procedures. Plus, there's just so much more room compared to the 737s lol

[@dmitripogosian5084]

I'd say 777 stopped being that popular among passengers when airlines cramped 10 seats into them.

[@mercurybard9794]

@@dmitripogosian5084 That's an airline choice.

[@jolness1]

Last September 27th Boeing was testing the 777X-9 (N779XX) in and out of my local airport (KBIL) that normally sees no passenger aircraft larger than a 737 or A320 (not even the 321 lol) and has freight that occasionally runs 767s but often 757 and a300s. Seeing that absolutely massive bird navigate those little taxiways so close to the observation area was so cool. I’m glad I was there by chance. The Ge9X engines are absolutely, incomprehensibly big. I’ve seen a380s, 747s, c5s and an an124 elsewhere but something about seeing it at my little “international” airport was special. Sad to see Boeing’s state of affairs. My dad had a friend who worked there in the late 80s through the late 90s and unfortunately he was right when he said Boeing was in trouble all the way back then. The 777X issue isn’t catastrophic but it’s just another in a long line of issues. Hoping the new CEO can make big changes but it’s a huge organization with very deep seated cultural problems - it won’t be easy

[@Redskool1]

Kelly doesn't have a real good track record supporting engineers. I expect a band-aid.

[@maladaptedmalarkey]

It is amazing these insane turbofans even work at all. I had the amazing opportunity to tour the GE fan blade assembly plant near San Antonio and it was incredible to see how much engineering goes into just the blades.

[@k9killer221]

Both the FAA and NASA have commented that they have major issues with the competency of Boeing production and engineering personnel. Inexperience being the standout issue. A large percentage of Boeing's most experienced people have left, either through retirement, because of the pandemic or just pissed off and found better jobs elsewhere.

[@jeromethiel4323]

I wonder how much DEI influenced that. I know, i know, people can't stop yapping about DEI. But i think it's a real problem. "We need more diversity, all these experience white cis male engineers need to go so we can hire anyone else." If i were an engineer with a crap ton of experience, i would not be putting up with much of that, i'd just retire and be done with the toxic work environment.

[@k9killer221]

@@jeromethiel4323 Whatever the reason, Boeing is a shit company to work for. This message comes out loud and clear from all the hearings and whistleblower testimonies. And their retention and union problems, of course.

[@teslatrooper]

The problem is we're only now seeing the result of cuts to engineering from years ago. And the people resonsible back then took credit for a few good quarters and are long gone. You don't see the real cost of firing experienced engineers until years down the line when you have a massively delayed and unreliable product design.

[@wesleyhurd3574]

⁠@@jeromethiel4323Perhaps DEI played a small role. But why did those job openings exist in the first place? Seems like rather than focus on retaining experienced senior engineers and making a commitment to quality and safety, Boeing prioritized improving shareholder value, which is the trend among most American corporations lately. When you replace experienced engineers with recent college graduates, you lose a lot of institutional knowledge, but you can pay significantly lower salaries, resulting in dividends for shareholders. I believe the departing senior engineers may have had personal reasons for doing so, which may include some office politics. But I suspect that Boeing’s attitude was “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out” rather than, “Would you reconsider staying”. Greed is destroying America, not diversity.

[@jeromethiel4323]

@@wesleyhurd3574 America was built on excellence (AKA merit). Diversity is just a buzzword used today to basically discriminate. I've witnessed this more than a few times, and it's getting worse. Just look around, it is happening a lot. You are correct, however, that hiring recent grads is cheaper than paying the people who have experience. I have said it before, and i believe it. Business people are destroying our economy. Economy is based on creating value, and that takes long term commitment, not the raider mentality that most MBA's have today. America still makes a lot more stuff than people realize, but we used to make more. And i think it's a big mistake to outsource all manufacturing to foreign states. We need critical infrastructure to be done here. Not in China, Taiwan, Mexico, or wherever. Sure, prices would have to rise, but so would the employment rate.

[@mazdaman0075]

Props for getting Ed Force One in the video. 😂

[@kernelpanic5198]

One day, Peter has to interview Bruce Dickinson

[@HeadbangerTomcat]

​@@kernelpanic51981000%🤘😁

[@AntonBorisov-q3e]

​​@@kernelpanic5198one day, Peter has to sing with Iron Maiden 😅

[@Drosophilax]

Absolutely!

[@gdawwg1125]

​@kernelpanic5198 that would be epic

[@06colkurtz]

The reason you do testing is to find issues before they become a problem. This is a good result.

[@DukeontheThames]

Thank you, your team and patreons for keeping the aviation enthusiasts community always updated on recent news

[@MentourNow]

We will do what we can as long as you guys are here to watch it!!

[@gary-ju5ox]

​@@MentourNowWe will always be here to watch your content. You explain everything so well in every video. Thanks to you and your team.

[@chimrichalds1422]

Better Boeing find it than the ntsb in the bottom of a dirt hole.

[@scomo532]

Great video i hope Boeing 23:28 finds a quick, good solution to this thrust link problem.

[@TheKeyote]

The 777 was the first CAD only designed aircraft at Boeing which made a huge difference in the manufacturing stage

[@ranjitkonkar9067]

Yes, that's one of its claims to fame - all CAD, all parametric design. Wonder why noone mentions it.

[@Arturhsmrogna]

I want to say Ground News is one of those sponsors I dont mind, because they genuinely serve a purpose. I have used it for around 1-2 years or so and I have never felt forced to buy a plan, which is important these days lol. The free version has everything a normal person needs. Even just having notifications on is fruitful since they give those news you actually are interested in

[@jeebusk]

their colors are backwards 😅

[@AeroMaquette]

As a 777 captain I really appreciate this video. Thank you for doing it. The 777 was Boeing finest airplane and by far the best airliner I have ever flown. I am scheduled to start training on the 787 in the coming months of which I am unfortunately not looking forward to fly. It is a plane built by "bean counters" instead of engineers. Many pilots who have flown both types still prefer the old 777. I am afraid that the 777-9 will be just a glorified 787. It is sad to have witnessed such a vibrant and innovative company, a model of the American spirit who has helped the world develop, turned into an unremarkable corporation driven by Wall Street instead of producing the finest aircraft. Good job Mentour. (I wish I could be allowed to have a beard while flying ) 🧔

[@likeasambud9817]

Why cant u have a beard?

[@AeroMaquette]

@@likeasambud9817 It is not allowed in all the part 121 US airlines. Mustache yes but no beard. Might interfere with a proper seal when putting on the oxygen mask.

[@ARandom777]

While true, the 787 had/has issues, I came across plenty pilots who enjoyed the 787 more than the 777 also and felt confident and safe in the 787. I came across 4 pilots from United/American airlines who flown both the 777 and 787 and liked the 787 more, despite being aware of the 787 problems over the years. One even said you couldn't pay him to get off the 787. For those who prefer the 777, I usually see the reasons they say is not so much the quality but the 777 being more fun to hand fly, bigger crew rest, pull down shades, a bit more stable while hand flying as it's a bigger aircraft and the fact there's a physical CDU instead of a virtual CDU in the 787 that requires the use of the Cursor Control Device or rotary knob, even though they admit the 787 cockpit is a much better environment and can go to higher altitudes sooner and cruise faster. I am disappointed in Boeing with the issues that plagued the 787 that they could have avoided (minus the battery and engines problems) but it has a very good safety record thus far. I wouldn't be so negative on the 787 just yet. Plenty passengers and pilots love them greatly, including myself (not all of course).

[@AeroMaquette]

@@ARandom777 I would not necessarily disagree with your comment. The 777 marks the end of an era and reflects the culmination of Boeing's expertise. In my mind, the 787 is a derivative of the 777 to satisfy the cost side of things rather than the bold, creative spirit that Boeing used to have. I never questioned the safety of the airplane (I would not be going to training on it otherwise). In my opinion, it was built for the wrong reasons and has held Boeing's capabilities. Again, it is just my opinion from the narrow view of my cockpit. Cheers!

[@ARandom777]

@@AeroMaquette Thanks for the reply. You're certainly right. The 777 was the last aircraft Boeing made that didn't have significant teething/production problems before Boeing merged with MD. After the merger, every aircraft project they did (except the 747-8 to knowledge), experienced problems from the 787's build quality with outsourcing, 737 MAX's MCAS and the 777X's initial flight control issue and now the thrust link. Hope you have a great and safe career.

[@TheBloodhound58]

The 777x WH003 arrived back in Seattle on Sunday, September 8th, from Kailua-Kona Hawaii. It will be interesting to follow the continued development and testing.

[@MentourNow]

Yes, it will be particularly interesting to see when FAA flight testing will start again.

[@FalconX88]

the 777 was developed for long and thin routes? 300+ passengers for the -200 doesn't seem thin and it's still one of the biggest planes around.

[@robertradmacher3823]

777-200 had United as the launch customer. United was replacing DC-10 with 777-200. 777-200ER had also better economics than the MD-11.

[@mercurybard9794]

Yeah, that fact surprised me because the only competition for the 747 in the freighter market is the 777 (do NOT speak to me about the A350)

[@327Erich]

Love this video. It's the most informative piece I've seen regarding the thrust link issue. The photos really help visual learners like myself understand a lot more about what they are and their design purpose. Most news reports are absolutely clueless about the topic and can't even begin to describe the part. Petter is part of the triumvirate of aviation channels, in my opinion. Mentour, 74Gear, and blancolirio all serve a slightly different purpose and are presented in different ways, but I learn about a dozen things with pretty much each video.....and I've been an avgeek for almost 40 years.

[@alicelund147]

When the engine works Airbus can use an variant of it on a A350-1100. The B777X really have to be fuel efficient to compete with that.......

[@abarratt8869]

That is most unlikely. An A350-1100 would most likely have a RR UltraFan engine on it, if it weren't to be a stretch of the existing RR XWB engines. RR and Airbus clearly like working together. Also, I'm not sure GE have the money to pay for the development work, especially as they'd have to top RR's UltraFan to make it worth Airbus's while even answering the phone call. RR has demonstrated UltraFan at a very large scale, and GE are far behind. Remember that the GE9X for 777x is now 15+ year old tech. UltraFan is brand new. GE's debts on the GE9x are also 15+ years old, and they've yet to see a single cent of revenue to pay off that development cost. The costs of these delays accrue... The really big killer question is, can Boeing afford for 777X to not get RR's UltraFan? If UltraFan does hit the skies on only Airbus aircraft, that may well be the end of the 777x and possibly the end of Boeing.

[@alicelund147]

@@abarratt8869 But I don't think an A350-1100 needs that much stronger engines. It will be a lot lighter that 777X. RR Ultrafan will be for an even larger aircraft.

[@siffchopf22]

@@abarratt8869 it's also a political issue, it is not in the interest of Airbus nor european states to focus on one mafucturarer too much. We are already there with companies able to make big passenger planes, neither Boieng nor Airbus can be allowed to go bankrupt.

[@cnknguyen]

Boeing went off the rails when they took the builders and engineers out of the same building.

[@franziskani]

it shows also a certain engineering culture (or lack thereof). Or trying to cut costs, by spreading out development to many contractors. It would have cost less (never mind delays, and loss of reputation avoided) if they had done development the old fashioned way. But then the people would have been employed WITH Boeing. And ... gasp ... unionized.

[@SatanicBunny666]

@@franziskani I don't disagree with your core point at all, but looking at it from the outside as as guy with experience in critical software design (and I mean critical in the sense of 'people's lives depend on the software working as intended") and based on what I've read and seen so far it's not even purely an engineering issue, it's a company-wide _process issue._ Like, there's different varieties of it acting in different parts of the supply and manufacturing chain and through management, but they're all fundamentally aspect of the same issue: the company has lost siight of how its own design, procurement, manufacturing and testing processes work and interconnect, and they're so lost because of this that they can't even really fix it fast, as is evident from the fact that there are numerous quality issues going on: The max 8, this, the starliner etc. Outsourcing and using subcontractors as such for example are not inherently bad, but for the quality to not suffer Boeing would have needed to have processes in place which ensure that the quality of the work being done by the subcontractors is on par with what is required for a passanger airplane etc. You have to have several points in the chain where things are double and triple checked before ending up in the final product, and so on and so forth. I've been part of projects where a few dozen lines of code go through 3-4 different test cycles by different poeple people just to be extra extra sure there's no potential way it can introduce problems later on. Obviously this is not the most cost-efficient way of writing or testing code, but sometimes when you're dealing with applications with high risks for health and safety, it must be done. But Boeing can't even really effectively make changes towards that now, since so many of the steps in the chain are now not owned and overseen by Boeing, they're essentially (pardon the pun) flying blind, and they don't have a complete picture of just what the hell is going on, so new problems keep showing up. Boeing is by far not the only company that suffers from this sickness, it's pretty common across many fields, but in Boeing's case it's just a bigger problem because they happen to make stuff which, if it fails, will often kill many people at once. This will take years to fix, if they can fix this at all, and the costs will be massive.

[@kenp5186]

They had to make space for all the bean counters they brought onboard with the McDonnell Douglas purchase.

[@qam2024]

@@kenp5186 And all the space needed to meet their the Dee-E-Eye and E-ES-Gee requirements

[@coffeeisgood102]

“Feel good” and “Boeing” cannot be used in the same sentence

[@banks8921]

I “feel good” every time I go to work to fly the “Boeing” 757 or 767.

[@Fey418]

Although I agree that it's better to find problems now than later, this is not the kind of thing engineers expect to fail at this stage of the program certification. Having this link failed in all test aircrafts means the entry into service delay may be much longer than many expect. It can call for retest and revalidation of models that presumed the link was built under specification if this is manufacturing problem (months of delay), or worse having to redo years worth of load analysis, structural dimensioning, retest, and revalidation if it is a design problem.

[@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823]

It's never good when I trust Ford more, and they're awful about product responsibilities

[@thedude8110]

It would appear that Petter is an Iron Maiden fan 🤘🤘

[@SakuraAsranArt]

While the delays are frustrating, it's great to see that Boeing caught the issue with the thrust links and are being transparent about it with the public. It will take a lot more than this to reestablish the public's trust in Boeing but it's a good start.

[@ghaznavid]

Sitting in Dubai airport waiting to board a 777. Good timing to watch this one...

[@ghaznavid]

@@onestopdoc indeed, I hadn't watched the video yet when I commented, but I've watched it now.

[@alcoyne3333333333333]

If its a Boeing I am not going 😮

[@captainkirk8999]

Good time to purchase life insurance

[@razvanleontescu581]

The current 777s are great!!

[@l3v1ckUK]

The 777 was awesome for the first 15-20 years, when almost all airlines used 9 abreast in economy. Nowadays it's a cramped hell hole with 10 abreast on pretty much every airline. The same is true with airlines squeezing 9 abreast on the 787. I flew with JAL a few years ago, with 8 abreast in economy. It was fantastic!

[@roo1314]

Airlines do not care about you. It's profit, profit, profit. Passengers still buy enough tickets to fill that 10th seat. So don't be too surprised to find 12 seats abreast in the near future. I flew internationally for the first time in 1962. It was fun. Everybody dressed up. Full meals were served. Today? Well, flying is just miserable from the moment you leave the front door of your house to the time you can finally unfold yourself in a real bed. It just sucks. No, the airlines don't care at all about you.

[@l3v1ckUK]

@@roo1314 I know. It's just a shame that these aircraft used to be really good from a passenger's point of view. Now they aren't.

[@u-know-this]

The last plane built for passengers was the Airbus A380 all the rest will be for airline profit. That's why they keep salivating at so called efficiency. Eventually there will be no more efficiency to be gained that's why flight quality is getting worse from thin cushion seats crap food fewer stops all to squeeze as much profit per mile. No one but Asian airlines are trying to attract customers

[@mytech6779]

Every airline has its seat pitch and width listed online, you are free to pick one with more space if you want it, or pay less for less. Clearly most people are fine with reduced space and prefer a lower price. Even one a single plane many airlines now offer a zone with more space for an extra $30 ("premium economy" or some such name).

[@l3v1ckUK]

@@mytech6779 Not much choice if every airline has switched. And premium economy just isn't with the price difference. I can't say I've noticed any price drop since airlines switched either.

[@bronaghkennedy-contemporar6718]

I remember back in around 1995 watching a channel 4 documentary ( U.K. tv) about the whole development of the Boeing 777, when Alan mulally was in charge. The attitude and attention to engineering quality and safety was amazing. Then flew on one of the first 777 on emirates in 1996. What has happened to Boeing as a company is sad.

[@zemlidrakona2915]

Maybe Boeing should just concentrate on spacecraft ....... Oh wait!

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

maybe they should concentrate on military contracts

[@Rob2]

But they have a very nice spacecraft that can bring astronauts to the ISS!

[@calvinnickel9995]

_ZING!!_

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

@@Rob2 it even has a heartbeat

[@no_name4796]

Damn, the heart beat ahahahah Can Boeing just take inspiration from airbus and care just a slight less about money, and more about getting positive PR, by building planes that actually don't break if you breath wrong?

[@UncleKennysPlace]

I worked on the GE9X engine certification program, as one of my last tasks prior to retirement. Good solid engine, with the GE90 as the basis.

[@johnmacward]

Yeah, because it wasn’t made by Boeing.

[@entropiceffect]

Awesome! The new engines look incredible!

[@bluelithium9808]

So old tech.

[@termitreter6545]

@@bluelithium9808 Afaik the GE9x is one of the largest jet engines ever made, so even if its based on a 90s engine, I dont think its fair to call it old tech. Its certainly ambitious.

[@burton48]

Petter: Your videos are incredibly educational. You are performing a service to the aviation industry which I am certain has saved lives and increased safety. I understand you are taking a sabbatical from piloting, but your knowledge, experience, and commitment to the educational videos you spearhead are most valuable to the entire aviation community. I hope you do not missing captaining commercial flights too hard to bear.

[@axelBr1]

"The 777 could be used on any route" - I've flown on an SQ 777 from KL to Singapore, about an hour's flight.

[@MentourNow]

Yep, exactly

[@frutdafruit]

Emirates regularly operates 777-300ERs from VRMM (my home airport) to VCBI, a 45-minute-long flight.

[@pistonburner6448]

@@frutdafruit It's such a shame that Concorde no longer exists, or you could've done that trip in 40 minutes.

[@karebu2]

KL to SG is probably much shorter than that

[@user-yt198]

TK has an ultra high density 777-300ER with *531 seats.* They use it mostly in domestic routes.

[@philipf2705]

I think that safety is the most important thing, given Boeing's recent history. I'm happy the FAA and other agencies from Europe are taking a detailed approach. I absolutely love the 777-200ER British Airways flies from Vancouver to Gatwick even thought they are all around 25 years old now, but i want to get on a 777-9 when it has received an A for its air worthiness. Nothing less is acceptable. Great informational video as usual! Cheers from Vancouver!

[@Mo9255x]

American engineering is going down with the American Empire. History repeats itself so often.

[@AMomentInTimeProductions]

From what i heard is they are doing a re-design of them thrust links, actually added 2 more per engine, 2 on the top and 2 on the bottom, which is more than enough to stabilize everything, also they are making them much more thicker for more strength.

[@darthkarl99]

Interesting if true, sounds like somthing about the engine design is causing excessive flexing of the engine assembly producing rapid oscillating forces on the thrust links. There would be no reason to add them below the engine unless the issue was in the engine assembly.

[@abarratt8869]

I'm a bit confused as to where 2 would go on the bottom. There's no engine mount / pylon structure under the engine for the thrust links to tie back to. Making them "thicker" may not do the trick. Making them more flexible may be the better answer. For the purpose they're intended to serve, lengths of steel-wire rope (+ attachments) would do the job and those won't ever crack.

[@darthkarl99]

@@abarratt8869 From what i can tell the thrust links also act as stiffeners on the engine as theirs's a front and rear engine bracket they're attached to. The additional underside ones would presumably stiffen the overall structure rather than transferring loads per se. Also making them more flexible probably isn't an option as the engine itself and the pylon it's mounted to and the overall aerodynamics probably set an upper limit on allowed flex.

[@atlehassum1492]

To the whole team behind this video. I just want to say that you knocked the sponsored segment out of the park this time! Be proud, it was really well written. You actually made me watch all of it, which I know is a statistic you monitor closely. Good work!

[@mandowarrior123]

Ground news also picks who it sponsors well. It's a very good fit for the channel and I really appreciate what they're trying to do. I used to put much effort in cross referencing stories. Though now with retroactive editing of articles without timestamp or marker and very clear deceptive practices i've dropped most all of them as unreliable sources, either I find primary sources now and avoid journalism as even the topics presented are designed to socially engineer the reader. If you have the news bug it is a must.

[@madman671000]

Couple of things, the GE90-115B (original 777 engine) set a world record for most thrust produced by a single engine exceeding 127K/lbs of thrust. The 9X has been developed as an equal to the -115 but with the GENX-1B and 2B basis of modular components. Those thrust links are some heavy bastiges, I seen some posts with heat treat concerns and others with vibration concerns, so we will have to see what falls out, I expect they have gone back to Evandale engineers and metallurgists then up to Peebles to put more on the test stands, I see a lot of strain gauges in the test beds future.

[@anethers7545]

Is Evandale near Evendale 😄? I saw both the 9x and NX testing at Massa (maybe the accessory gearbox testing) Does Durham, where the NX core assembly is, not have a test bed for them?

[@madman671000]

@@anethers7545 Peebles has normally done the large engine testing and development, they have the test cells to support, but I really think the main issue is with the thrust links is the vibes but you really dont know unless you see how the fractures are oriented on the links.

[@anethers7545]

@@madman671000 I’ll have to ask ‘a friend’ at Evendale 😊

[@Timmayytoo]

Couple things... First, there is no active development currently on the 777-8. The 777-8F is the next version to fly. The -8 is mostly defined but it is years away, if it ever gets finished. Second... there is very little overlap in engineering resources between 737 and any widebody programs. The primary engineering work on the 737 takes place in Renton and for the 767 & 777 it's done in Everett. I'm not saying there are no engineers who have moved between 737 and 777, only that it's not commonplace, and it is not responsible for the drawn-out development/certification process of the -9. Certification work on the 777-9 was suspended during COVID and many engineering staff were laid off... and this was after more than a dozen -9s had been built. Supply chain issues are a MUCH bigger problem and have been wreaking havoc on all airplanes in production - if you want to point fingers at any one reason for the latest 777 delays, look there.

[@Manuel_B.]

all of engineering was moved to long beach when Boeing acquired MD. the ones that didn't want to move were asked to find employment elsewhere. Assembly, however, is done in Everett and Renton.

[@Timmayytoo]

@@Manuel_B. This is mostly wrong.

[@nafnaf0]

@@Manuel_B. that is incorrect

[@nafnaf0]

What about -10?

[@sanandaallsgood673]

The fact that the 777X is supposed to replace the 747 is a moot point since there are but two airlines still using the 747. Lufthansa and Korean Air. All other airlines have shut them down.

[@richardkeller4892]

CEOs have changed from company first to CEO first.

[@entropiceffect]

The new CEO shows promise :)

[@fensterlips]

It was the Jack Welsh culture. Finally gone.

[@nomore6167]

@@entropiceffect "The new CEO shows promise" - Let's hope he can accomplish a miracle and turn the company around. We need as many companies as we can get building all types of products, including aircraft. One company only is a monopoly, but two isn't much better. And yes, I know there are smaller companies building aircraft, but for all practical purposes, for the majority of air travel, it's just Airbus and Boeing.

[@mandowarrior123]

Chief investors and board first, often.

[@weltraumbummler2780]

I recently flew on the Lufthansa 747-400. They need to replace these planes as fast as they can.

[@apveening]

With what? The B747-400 is one of the safest Boeing planes. Admittedly a lot noisier (on the inside) than Airbus planes, but there is a huge backlog for those.

[@weltraumbummler2780]

They want to replace the 747-400 with new 777. Why? The cabin is so old. It’s not much fun to fly.

[@advorak8529]

⁠@@weltraumbummler2780 First world problems … … are you willing to pay ticket prices that reflect the cost of the upgrade? Not just buying the planes but the TCO … Now, if they were flying planes from the 1950s or 60s, you may have a point.

[@dragonfalcon8474]

The Boeing executives likely needed to replace metal thrust links with balsa wood to save money for their new yachts! How can anyone judge or blame them, they need to feed their families some how.

[@sara.othman]

Replacing the 747 makes me sad 😢

[@HellStr82]

Try the A380... you will forget about the 747 fast enough

[@AnotherPointOfView944]

@@HellStr82 Yep. I have flown many many times on the A380 and its a wonderful experience. The 747 is cramped and claustrophobic compared with the 380.

[@apveening]

@@AnotherPointOfView944 And a lot noisier (on the inside) as well.

[@NicolaW72]

Boeing is busy to keep them flying.

[@mercurybard9794]

Same

[@DerletztenormaleMensch]

The development of the 747 took a little bit over 3,5 years - form the first drawing till entering commercial service. A plane twice the size of any jet built before, using the by far largest jet engines ever built by then. The first prototype was partially built under the open sky, because the factory including the lagerst building in the world wasn't finished yet. Sidefact: The didn't even have calculators back then. Today they can't get a modernized version of an already existing aircraft certified within 10 years. With all those computers, cad-programms, simulation-software, real-time communication and by far superiour materials, tooling and knowledge. Some things must have gone very very wrong.

[@Knirin]

They didn’t have electronic calculators. Mechanical calculators have been around since the late 1800s or early 1900s.

[@alicelund147]

I think the regulations and paperwork was different as well. Airbus has also complained that everything gets more and more complicated with EASA as well. Just to make the A321XLR they had tons of paperwork and it took years.

[@calvinnickel9995]

Maybe you forget a whole pile of 747s sitting on the ramp in the early 1970s without engines because of huge problems with the JT9Ds?

[@danharold3087]

Are you really saying we should go back to building planes like we did in the 60s?

[@peterdrury5627]

@@Knirin They had slide rules. Accurate to 3 significant digits, and that was it.

[@khaled4402]

The expectation of Boeing thinking the triple Seven X would be flying by now is when they had the authority to certify their own planes.

[@WolfhandsYouTube]

7:02 - not quite correct, the A330/340 fuselage is from the Airbus A310 (there are differences).

[@MentourNow]

The rear of the fuselage of the A310 was different from the A300, I believe, and the A330 followed that design, too. But the rest of the fuselage of the A300/310/330/340, including the cabin, are essentially the same, if I'm not mistaken.

[@WolfhandsYouTube]

@@MentourNow the front and rear sections are taken straight from the A310, which is itself a separate derivation from the A300 fuselage. There are structural changes and other differences.

[@hammondclarkson9201]

​@@MentourNowStick to Boeing 😂 Wait, was there also fly by Wire in the 300, too?😂

[@todortodorov6056]

@@hammondclarkson9201 The A300 and A310 are not fly by wire.

[@jaredgriffiths1361]

Two things stand out to me: Boeing are clearly making safety more of a priority again - good, but Boeing seem to have yet more issues with their own designs - not good Whether it’s software or mechanics, they seem to have lost their way.

[@Robbedem]

They still have many years of putting profit over safety to work away. Just like problems build up slowly, they will also go away slowly. I suspect they will feel the legacy of their greed for at least another 10 years.

[@Dj.MODÆO]

The whole board has to go before Boeings reputation gets any better. They need a few engineers in those top exec positions and the board and shareholders need to start choosing safety and reliability over making additional profits by cutting corners.

[@fabr5747]

How do you come to this conclusion? They are doing the basic checks during testing. The problems on the previous problematic Boeing aircraft didn't occur during testing at all... And for the B777X, let's not forget the effort test that showed a sudden failure of structure. This tests shows one aspect for me, that Boeing didn't take any additional margin than the one required by the EASA and the FAA... And that's not good enough. So no, Boeing is not paying more attention, they are still paying the price of 1.5 decade of crappy mentality.

[@marckyle5895]

@@Robbedem A famous crash of a Fokker tri-motor is how Boeing got INTO the airliner business with their 247. They're on double unsecret probation now. One or two more major assembly fuckups or a crash caused by a badly engineered component and they're going down. Ramps from coast to coast will look like AMARC . Embraer will carpe diem, their E170 could replace the 737 with some stretching.

[@drtk722]

Qualiy control problem during the design phase?

[@MrFreeagent505]

Boeing can't catch a break? That's not what's happening, they could still make quality air and space craft if the CEO board of directors wanted to. The same thing is happening in the video games industry the push for quarterly profit reports to make the board more money no matter the long term cost or impact to people's lives

[@Snaproll47518]

The Rolls Royce Trent XWB used on the A350-1000 appears to have a similar thrust link made from stainless steel. The question that comes to my mind is the material used by Boeing for the B777 thrust links that have failed. Is it something exotic? Does anyone outside of Boeing know?

[@MentourNow]

The reports I've seen say they're made of titanium.

[@RZ-ey9jk]

Hard to guess without having detailed insight, obviously classified. Either steel or titanium is subject to fatigue, but we do not even know the failure mode here. Fatigue, brute force, crack initiation, etc. But a thrust link which is literally just a beam shouldn't be that complicated to be sized for known load scenarios on a known mounting configuration. Strange.

[@ricky1231]

@@MentourNow There were reports about substandard titanium from China that has entered into both Boeing & Airbus aircraft parts & will be of concern for some time ( yrs) to come

[@todortodorov6056]

Could be any "small" issue. What if the links exactly match some resonance frequency on the 777X, and the A350 designed then to be "out of tune". It's not necessary the material.

[@gmilo3721]

Thank you for one more very informative video! I am curios: what is that small black kind of a parachute that can be seen attached to the stabilizer of test airplanes?

[@marianneoelund2940]

It's a trailing cone. During flight, the attaching cable is reeled out to a longer distance and supports a static port for accurate measurement of atmospheric pressure.

[@hendricstattmann3638]

I was surprised to hear you stating that the 777-9 is intended to replace the 747 fleets. As a matter of fact, there are currently only 44 747-400 (pax) and 46 747-8i in service - that's way too few aircraft to make a business case for a new airplane. The only 777 that will replace 747s is the 777-8F for cargo operations.

[@jeromethiel4323]

I think Boeing is going through the same thing the US automakers went through in the late 70's, early 80's. It was all profit over quality, and the Japanese and Germans stepped in and kicked the crap out of the US automakers with high quality at a decent price. The good thing, is that the US automakers eventually got the idea, and quality went up across the board. I remember 1978 cars being rated for less than 60K miles before needing major engine work. Nowadays, that might be the interval to replace a timing belt. Not a total engine rebuild. US automakers expected you to just buy a new car. I am hoping that Boeing figures this mess out, gets some major cultural changes, and can regain at least some of the credibility they lost recently. I personally have no issue with flying on either an Airbus or a Boeing aircraft. Both are proven designs, and the accident rate is still very low. But Boeing has a LOT of repair work to do on their reputation. And i hope they pull it off, it would be a shame to lose such a prestigious marque.

[@slimdarcy9503]

Sorry off topic but did they ever fix the issue with 747 sewage leak at cruising altitude? For those unfamiliar the sewage would leak and from the cold air it would freeze to the outside of the aircraft and be blue from the chemicals then as the plane came into land it would fall off and has very sadly killed at least a dozen people if it's true. I'm not trying to poke fun at anyone's misfortune there but can you just imagine going out that way, getting to the Pearly gates and you just see St Peter rolling on the clouds laughing then says I'm sorry my guy but you literally got killed by a falling poopsicle? I mean what a real 💩 way to go out.

[@MentourNow]

🧐😞😞😞

[@mangos2888]

Check with Ground News

[@calvinnickel9995]

This isn't really anything you can fix. The valve seals wear out and leak.. so they need to be inspected by the airlines to ensure they function properly.. and operators can forget to close one or both of the valves or close them improperly.

[@rainersta7073]

Actually i lost one double glas roof window by this. It was a very big hit. Nobody was injured.

[@fluffigverbimmelt]

​@@calvinnickel9995you can't be serious. This isn't some backyard grill where Steve just doesn't clean the drip pan and sometimes when he does, he forgets to put it back. If there's a risk of loss if life, then the seals are replaced more often and before failure. And if they are left open one too many, they will be put on an additional check list or it's mandatory to have a second engineer review the job.

[@andrewglasspool4303]

Its a long time since the engine mounting problems were reported but no news of the root cause let alone a solution. With flight testing grounded until a new part is tested and installed, yet no updates - when do you think the 777x will fly again and what does this really mean for deliveries? Could the problem not be with the part but the way the part is being stressed by the wings/engine - unexpected vibration or resonance from the wing?

[@PhilippDebus]

What surprises me most is that some airlines have ordered both the Airbus A350-1000 and the Boeing 777X.

[@danielrose1392]

369 vs 426 seats, that's a significant difference.

[@VolkerGoller]

They don’t want to wake up in a monopoly

[@NotAnotherArtVideo]

Part of that is probably redundancy. They are both unlikely to need the same maintenance and same modifications at the same time. If an airline had only one type, a single mandatory service bulletin would ground the whole airline until it's done. The same with parts availability, etc.

[@bertbergers9171]

Maybe they are thinking about there boeing typerated pilots that might switch easier within boeing family cockpit? And maybe Airbus delivery times are out of normal and they just want planes. (i know from other mentour videos that a320 family has insane delivery schedule, i don't know how much that affects a350 production though)

[@drjojo4624]

⁠​⁠@@danielrose1392 if you look at the numbers closely, you have 327/480 for the A350-1000 in low/high density configurations vs 387/475 for the 777-9 in low/high density configurations - so the advantage isn’t numbers

[@mmcowan]

But, big props to Boeing for detecting this issue, grounding the fleet, and letting everyone know exactly what's going on. This is a fixable problem and they'll have it sorted out relatively soon. That's what these test flights are for.

[@Sssthpok]

Nah. Too late for you to wallpaper over this sad, unethical Company. They did some truly bad things - things their own engineers WARNED them about. Don't you dare try to put lipstick on this pig.

[@roo1314]

Maybe...

[@ianwatson5370]

You don't need the background music. It's a little distracting to listen to. Great channel. Love it.

[@r0dani3lb]

To be honest, while this issue is unfortunate, this is exactly the time and place when it should be discovered. Issues during development of new airplanes (or anything else on that matter) will always occur but this is why everything should be thoroughly tested.

[@kentslocum]

Boeing is entirely to blame for its own problems.

[@ReneSchickbauer]

The Dash 9 is a very beautiful aircraft. But like with every product currently made by Boeing, i'd rather watch from a safe distance than actually use it.

[@wmkm7144]

1:05 - "Seven Seven Seven X" - it just doesn't sound right pronounced like that.

[@aeraxe]

yeah its disgusting

[@bertram-raven]

Boeing sponsorship of a particular UK university has been cancelled by the university itself. I do not want to cause the uni trouble as this is meant to be kept quiet, but as I understand it most educational establishments are ending Boeing sponsorship because the new contracts require the university to not only say nothing bad about Boeing but also to spend a significant period of time shilling for them.

[@didier7868]

Education is a public good and should not be financed by private big firms.

[@mandowarrior123]

​@@didier7868you don't have much experience with them, then. 'Public good' huh.

[@didier7868]

@@mandowarrior123I have more experience than you think and I taught industrial organization in Universities in the past. Universities, education lije governments should be independant from any large private firms with huge market power.. and also lead by managers who made scandalous decisions in recent past that compromised public safety.

[@mandowarrior123]

@@didier7868 you're fundamentally misunderstanding the role of a university, they're research institutes chiefly for the private sector. It doesn't directly benefit the public at all. Libraries and the internet are 'public good.'

[@didier7868]

@@mandowarrior123 I worked in a top 3 university of my country : 23 000 students. I've done research during 20 years there and taught economics (industrial organization, ...) Education should be financed primarily by the government. My department (economics) was doing research almost exclusively for the government (policy evaluation, ...), ministers or some consultancies for public agency. So tou are wrong by saying "chiefly for the private". Researching for the private as you think is not the chief motivation of hundreds of colleagues I met in the world. I travelled in the US and Europe at conferences, or working as a post doc researcher. Education and researchers are by nature CHIEFLY a public good and should be CHIEFLY financed by the public... as it is the case I observed. Private contracts can be complementary but not of large scale to preserve independancy and biases/manipulation in the research results ... as it has been proven in dozens of privately-financed researches.. (Gatorade, Monsanto,...) Your full private university is not a model for the world and is a bad institutional design to my eyes.

[@Tuberuser187]

Mentour: "I was hoping to make a feel good Boeing story" Boeing: "The capacity for this omnishambles is beyond your puny hopes!"

[@lawsonfrazier]

Meh once Boeing decided to merge with McDonnell Douglas and let the Engineers in management be replaced by the finance professionals it was doomed to failure. As the culture changed the problems started and accelerated. There is now a focus on cost and money rather than safety and quality. It's a used to be great company.

[@legacy2.5gx55]

I hope they will get thier stuff togehter. The 777-300er is one if not my Favorite aircraft i ever flown with. Not as comfy as the A380, but some how "way cooler" than the A380. Mostly because of the engines. Its kind of the "muscle car" vibe they have going on the 777

[@YouTubRCE]

Great video, Petter, even greater when using Iron Maiden's Ed Force One for a 747 comparison background in the closing

[@beauthestdane]

Good news that these problems are actually being detected now rather than after the aircraft are flying passengers.

[@FrewstonBooks]

But as others have said, these problems should have been detected BEFORE certification flying began.

[@beauthestdane]

@@FrewstonBooks Absolutely

[@gupler]

Well, turns out, paying dude named Manuel in Mexico 4 tacos to design a new plane was not a great idea after all.

[@PunjabiGhazal]

Wait a little, Subramanium 4 Dosa from India has also joined Manuel. You may see all engineering jobs going to India.

[@karlhyland1267]

Hej. Fantastiska videos du gör. Mycket intressant att följa. Mycket bra. Karl.

[@Mark-oj8wj]

When you consider that the 747 was developed in 28 months, it's easy to see that all that remains of that company is the name!

[@calvinnickel9995]

Maybe you forget how many sat on the tarmac without engines in the early 1970s because of chronic problems with the JT9D?

[@connclissmann6514]

Maybe you forget how more thorough the regulatory testing has become since?

[@rainersta7073]

The ambitious fuel saving thrive may lead to compromises in safety. Started with just two engines instead of four.

[@connclissmann6514]

@@rainersta7073 Safest is no engines and don't leave the ground. 😊

[@rainersta7073]

@@connclissmann6514 Safest is: Never marry👆😄

[@vincentstartuplarbin2786]

23:03 Ed Force One spotted !

[@mznxbcv12345]

Real issue is that the Factor of Safety ( FoS ) must have been no more than 1 to cut costs. FoS In engineering expresses how much stronger a system is than it needs to be for an intended load. A redundancy score. FOS of exactly 1 will support only the design load and no more. Any additional load will cause the structure to fail. A structure with an FOS of 2 will fail at twice the design load. A safety factor of 3-6 is the norm when lives re concerned.

[@ReflectedMiles]

To be clear, these are McDonnell-Douglas based outcomes from their culture, philosophy, and approach to engineering and manufacturing that sank them the first time, before they bought Boeing with Boeing's money. It's sad that the company was allowed to keep the name of the engineering company that retired, many of them now passed away. It is also at the feet of their unions involved in manufacturing, who have long assured the public in their PR campaigns that they build the best, safest aircraft, justifying their demands for more and more money and benefits.

[@calvinnickel9995]

Not true. MD had cleaned up its act after learning the expensive and deadly lessons of putting profits over people in the 1970s. The MD-80, MD-90, MD-11, and MD-95 were all safe and reliable aircraft. Meanwhile Boeing has had no such encouragement. It made a parts-bin disaster of an airplane in 1967 with a fuselage borrowed off the 707 that was not suitable for high cycle regional flying. They also used glue instead of rivets to hold the pressurization loads (hoop loads that are local shear loads at the lap joints). It had several pressure vessel failures and one infamously lost its entire roof. It also had a poor design for a rudder PCU and it took several incidents, crashes, and the deaths of hundreds before Boeing fixed it. But unlike the DC-10.. the 737 was too valuable to low cost carriers like Southwest. So they told CFM to make a cropped fan version of the CFM56, mount the accessories on the side, and they shoehorned it into a lengthened aircraft by mounting it forward off the wing and tilting it up and had the FAA pencil whip the certification saying it was basically the same aircraft. And they did that for the NG, and the MAX. It's nothing new. Heck even the engine... the FAA pencil whipped that as well not requiring full flight testing.. until one shed a blade at the Kegsworth Air Disaster due to in-flight resonance they didn't know about. Boeing is garbage.. period. Always has been.. back to the B-29 days.

[@ReflectedMiles]

@@calvinnickel9995 The Internet, and especially social media, is a cesspool of misinformation and ignorance. Thanks for the illustration I'm retired from the FAA and am well aware of the actual McD technical story, including design problems that continued to cost customers long after the company was defunct, such as the landing-stability issues with the MD-11. I am also directly aware of their immediate, outsized influence at Boeing in ill-conceived directions, both in accounting and engineering, which should never have been permitted by the company. One of the best, most highly experienced metallurgists I know in the field, across multiple manufacturers back to the early 1970's, including Airbus, and interfacing with the EASA, would find your assertions very entertaining, and sad.

[@ReluctantPost]

@@calvinnickel9995 Ha! Not even close to reality. Very silly. The first thing the McDonnell staff did was try to shift Boeing's focus to bean-counting and away from engineering. Nearly every team meeting, they wanted to move away from Boeing's standards to newer, "better," less costly methods that would mean a more competitive price or bottom line, not better airplanes. They especially wanted long-term testing programs reduced or eliminated since those mostly affected customer reliability and experience instead of Boeing's bottom line. It is a different company today as a result, and everyone who was involved back then knows it.

[@bendafyddgillard]

They might be redundant (because they're so critical) but if one can fail completely and there are cracks in the part on other aircraft, that suggests a materials, manufacturing, or design issue. In that case it seems quite possible that both could have failed on one engine.

[@brandyballoon]

I agree. It simply should not happen on a basic structural component like that. It's more than a component failure - it's a process failure. It begs the question as to how many other parts are sub par for whatever reason and just haven't failed yet.

[@terrypitt-brooke8367]

When the 747 came out, it looked like a flying ocean liner (and never stopped looking like that). The 777X's lines give no clue to their size. What lovely creatures!

[@Gregorius421]

21:42 "the thrust link structure is designed by boeing" - That's what's going on. Boing is no longer an engineering company, it's a backyard shed.

[@lenger1234]

Let me get this straight, the wingtips will automatically fold when the speed drops below 50 knots. Let me think.... wasnt there previous issues with boeing aircraft related to incorrect speed indicators?... maybe several instances resulting in 2 crashes? Na... what could possibly go wrong... this time. And an indicator light to prevent the pilots from taking off with the wingtip folded. Sigh. Let's hope the indicator doesn't burn out or the extension / lock sensor doesn't fail.

[@entropiceffect]

They will certainly have a weight-on-wheels check, too.

[@kenoliver8913]

I can bet some of the testing will be how the thing flies with the wingtips folded up for exactly the sort of circumstances you are talking about. The wingtips are about increasing aspect ratio and therefore fuel efficiency at altitude - the plane will take off, fly and land perfectly happily without them or even with one down and one up. Compared with, say, something like an engine failure it should be no big deal for a properly trained flight crew.

[@johngunderson5463]

@@kenoliver8913 You would lose that bet.

[@wyskass861]

The point of testing is to find problems which will be fixed ahead of certification. I don't understand why people are concerned when problems are found at the time they are expected to be found.

[@MrSchwabentier]

they are concerned because of the severity of the problem. Something like this should never happen this early in an aircraft life. Of course it is good that they found it, but still unacceptable.

[@mikebarushok5361]

I have several friends that have recently retired from Boeing or Spirit. Some of them have very interesting anecdotes about the communications and priorities being inconsistent and unpredictable both within engineering and with manufacturing and with vendors. One of my friends is still in engineering at Spirit and absolutely refuses to talk about work. That started on the day that there was a criminal investigation announced about the door plug incident and a memo went out informing employees that there was the potential for individual criminal liability and that employees are strictly forbidden to discuss anything.

[@delta_cosmic]

who here after the boeing 777x got delayed to beyond 2026?

[@JamesAnderson-mr2sg]

the 747 was certified in one year back in 1969. 5 planes in parralel to do all the the tests I was there , flight test program, four of the planes went into service one year later, amazing plane and superb engineering at that time

[@cageordie]

This is what happens when you kill your engineering company by getting rid of the 'expensive' experienced engineers. Engineering is just like digging holes, isn't it? Well it is to corporate management. One hole digger is just as good as another, so long as they spend the same amount of time digging holes. So we can replace them with cheap hole diggers. Boeing's decline started with stiffing their engineers, over a small amount compared to what they have lost since. You reap what you sow.

[@MentourNow]

Well, there are some positive signs about improvements now..

[@Roytulin]

An engineer would tell you, hole diggers are not made alike. A shovel is not remotely similar to a tunnel boring machine. 😛

[@fowlerdp06]

Not just the hole diggers either - all the non-engineers that assemble the aircraft. There are some positive signs - the new labor contract, the new CEO, etc. I'm hopeful, but we'll see if the short-term dollars are more important than a quality product.

[@danharold3087]

Boeing was treating engineers like bolts and nuts that could be picked out of bin years ahead of the MD merger or whatever you care to call it.

[@cbody70]

And don't forget making sure your hole diggers include historically underrepresented groups to meet your diversity metrics.