Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

[MissThundercat]

Aunt Jemima is gone, welcome Pearl Milling Company!

Of course, certain people are losing their sh-t over this.

[St. Clown]

Aunt Jemima is gone, welcome Pearl Milling Company!

Of course, certain people are losing their sh-t over this.

They still yearn for the days they could set their slaves free...to wash their dishes during the day, in front of an open window.

[Kepler]

Aunt Jemima is gone, welcome Pearl Milling Company!

Weekend Update nailed this.

[Kepler]

Robinhood CEO Vladimir Tenev testifies to Congress.

[Kepler]

wsb did a commercial for Robinhood.

[MissThundercat]

Kroger is closing more stores instead of paying their workers.

[dxmnkd316]

That’s the normal conservative tantrum.

“Muh marginal rate goes up means I don’t have duh incentive tuh work more. I make more by earnun less. Simple math.”

[aparch]

Stop me if you've heard this before... Boeing stock futures plummet when their 777 planes are grounded by United following an engine failure over Colorado.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Stop me if you've heard this before... Boeing stock futures plummet when their 777 planes are grounded by United following an engine failure over Colorado.

On one hand, I don't feel bad for Boeing investors and execs in the slightest. On the other hand, the media sensationalizing this story is already tiresome. I saw one headline asserting this United 777 was "ancient" because it was manufactured in 1995. Clearly written by someone who has no idea how many operational hours an airframe is engineered and built to withstand. The question in my mind is was the failure mechanical or due to something like a bird strike? If it was mechanical then how/why did this engine pass its last major inspection? Who performed it? Did someone at United signoff on a known issue that they didn't think would be a big deal and could wait until the next trip to the shop?

[LynahFan]

Not to mention, who cares how old the airframe was? It sure sounds like this failure initiated in a fan blade (i.e. part of the engine) and engines are changed out all the time - so how old was the engine? And even within engines, individual fan blades are replaced all the time - so how old was this particular fan blade?

It certainly wasn't from 1995!

[Jimjamesak]

Yeah, this is definitely a case of an airline bowing to sensationalist media pressure.

Engines can be significantly younger than an airframe and even older airframes are still flying cargo around every day. My company has 747s flying that are older than that 777.

[Kepler]

Not to mention, who cares how old the airframe was? It sure sounds like this failure initiated in a fan blade (i.e. part of the engine) and engines are changed out all the time - so how old was the engine? And even within engines, individual fan blades are replaced all the time - so how old was this particular fan blade?

It certainly wasn't from 1995!

I have a dumb question. Do they (well, you) keep redesigning engines for old airframes, or do they (you) keep building new engines of the same old design for them because they were designed as a package deal?

Are engines R&D or O&M?

[Jimjamesak]

I have a dumb question. Do they (well, you) keep redesigning engines for old airframes, or do they (you) keep building new engines of the same type for them because they were designed as a package deal?

Are engines R&D or O&M?

It’s a combination of all three AFAIK. New engines of the same type built by the same manufacturer, engines that have been rebuilt and refurbished, and new designs put on older airframes to comply with new regulations for things such as noise.

Engines definitely wear out faster than airframes and they’re more susceptible to damage from things like bird strikes and FOD.

[LynahFan]

It’s a combination of all three AFAIK. New engines of the same type built by the same manufacturer, engines that have been rebuilt and refurbished, and new designs put on older airframes to comply with new regulations for things such as noise.

Engines definitely wear out faster than airframes and they’re more susceptible to damage from things like bird strikes and FOD.

Yeah, it can get very complicated. Most of the time, engines for large commercial transports are "CFE" (customer-furnished equipment, as in Boeing's customer - the airlines). That is, the airline buys an airplane from Boeing, but then buys the engines directly from GE, Pratt & Whitney, CFM, Snecma, whoever. Like buying a fishing boat from one dealer and your outboard from another dealer. The airlines have tended to prefer that arrangement over the years, because then they can compete the engine suppliers against each other for every unique purchase (spares, parts, replacements, etc), rather than having a one-size-fits-all deal with Boeing as the middleman.

However, the FAA issues a "type certificate" (the license needed to fly an aircraft in US airspace) to an entire aircraft, including engines. So when the aircraft is initially designed, Boeing would certify the initial design with as many engine options as are "demanded" by the airlines, so that would be Kepler's R&D side - the airplane + engine is a package deal. Maintaining the engines and replacing them as they wear out (with new copies of those same designs) is then up to the airlines (the O&M side).

Airplanes do get "re-engined" all the time to extend life, meet new environmental/noise restrictions, better fuel economy, etc. (re-engining is industry jargon that definitely refers a new engine design, not just a 1-for-1 replacement with a new engine of the same type). Theoretically, a single airline could commission a new engine design and apply to the FAA for an "STC" (supplemental type certificate) to certify that new airframe+engine combination, but that's generally too expensive for a single airline to take on, and they don't have the same expertise (no laughing!) that Boeing does in working with the FAA. So in practice, what happens is that a group of airlines would go to Boeing and say, "we'd really like a better engine," and if there is enough market demand (i.e. we promise to buy XX more airplanes if you get this STC for us), Boeing would take on the task of obtaining the STC, which would then allow the airlines to buy new airplanes with that new engine installed (still CFE) and also install that new engine on their older airplanes.

Having said all that, the engine suppliers are incredibly incestuous, too, and there are lots of joint ventures, partnerships, etc, out there, not to mention licensing agreements to manufacture each others' designs. You may very well buy a GE design that has been re-badged as P&W or vice versa, but underneath it all, it has to be an engine of a "type" that has been certified by the FAA for use with that airframe.

Edit: military side is a little different, since in that case the "customer" (the military) owns the airplane design, the engine design, and everything else. On most programs, the military engines are "GFE" (government furnished equipment), same as CFE is for commercial, but since the military themselves is ultimately responsible for the safety of the design, they can go commission a new engine any time they like. The military is currently going through one of the most hotly contested re-engining programs in a long while, for B-52s. There are only 76 of them, but they have 8 engines each, so it's a big prize for the engine companies:

US Air Force launches contest to replace the B-52 bomber’s engine (defensenews.com)

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

There's also a big difference in responsibility and media exposure between flying pax and flying pallets of cargo. If a 30+ year-old 747 nosedives into the middle of the Pacific and it's full of cargo, you might feel bad for the families of the pilots, but it's barely a news story. When any passenger flight has an emergency, even if the pilots handle the situation perfectly and no one is harmed, our beloved 24/7 Disasterathon TV networks MUST cover it from every angle, interview the biggest Karen they can find on the pax manifest about her experience, etc.