Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 1:49 pm

Douglas aircraft once was a force to be reckoned with in commercial aviation. They took a short-cut on the DC10 to get it on the market. McDonnell enters the picture and they royally screw the MD11 by not putting the necessary work into getting it right the first time. MDC fades as airlines go elsewhere for planes they can rely upon. MDC has to merge or die. Boeing lets the same people who ran MDC into the ground into their corporate suite and the same habits are now doing damage to Boeing's reputation.
The board needs to grow a pair and oust MDC alum from their ranks before it is too late.
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
Opus99
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 2:15 pm

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Everybody talks about the McD merger being the root cause of all this. Imagine how BAD mcD must have been to be the root cause of the rot of a company the size of Boeing.

Also can someone explain why Boeing felt the merger was necessary? Especially if McD was heading towards being defunct anyway?

The history would need to go many decades back in 1997. The merger was initiated by Frank Shrontz, Boeing CEO at that point of time. Boeing got greedy and wanted a bigger piece of the defense business pie. The fastest way to scale up was to buy an existing company. McD was limping in its final months, their commercial business was almost dead but it was the defense business Boeing was eyeing for. Then came the merger. McD executive had made so much strategic mistakes/ blunder as they squeezed the company for short term profit and refused to invest in growth yet for some unknown reason Boeing promoted ex-McD managers and executive to leadership position, instead of their own. Hence at popular phrase at that time was "McDonnell took over Boeing using Boeing's money."

Boeing was run by engineers, they had the qualification, held many patents, pioneer in many ground breaking engineering but these were all drowned by McD bean counter working ethics which relentless pursue cost cutting, warm over current models at the expense of complete innovation. Basically it was clash of corporate culture. The merger brought so much headache to Boeing especially those dated commercial aircraft design from McD, especially the MD-80s. Three years after merger as the dust was just about to settle, flight AS261 crash happened.

The Boeing CEO after Frank Shrontz, Phil Condit, was a brilliant engineer, but not much of a leader. He feared that Boeing shouldn't be relying on the cyclical commercial aviation market, and should dabbled in other business too military, support services, and space. In search of stability, McD merger was necessary for Boeing. Much of the business decision for commercial division was delegated to former McD CEO Harry Stonecipher, who woefully underperformed. Airbus, in no time, successfully managed to crack into US both narrow and wide body market (Pan Am narrowbody deal was a failure tbh) with US Airways deal for 400 A320 family aircraft in 1997 and in 1998 for 30 A330-300 aircraft. If this wasn't enough, JetBlue order for 75 A320 in 1998 added more salt to the wound. Since then Airbus has been an equal dominant player in US narrowbody was much as Boeing.

Stonecipher wasted billions of Boeing money on non-core business: financial services, aircraft leasing business, in-flight internet business (anyone still remember Connexion by Boeing?) — everything else but making real quality airplanes.

The saving grace was Alan Mulally who was an all rounder engineer (from airplane development activities, flight test operations, certification, and government technical liaison); he managed to get Stonecipher’s reluctant approval for a plan to develop an all-composite plane, the 787, a plane which eventually reasserted Boeing’s technological leadership in commercial aviation industry. Condit and Stonecipher were trying hard to push for Sonic Cruiser then! Both of them were the brainchild behind 787 program outsourcing, which turned out to be disaster as many outside contractors were unable to deliver the components they had promised, quality and quantity-wise. The 787 was delivered few years late, suffered billions of cost overruns, only got better when Boeing took over control some of its outsourcing partners' work. Even till today, the 787 is not as profitable as it could be for Boeing because the outsourcing arrangements meant Boeing’s outsourcing partners get paid a large share of the profits. Condit was forced to resign in 2003 and Stonecipher in 2005, everyone would have thought Mulally would take over however he was passed over, soon he left Boeing for Ford in 2006. The McD legacy continues till today. It took B787 debacle and B737 MAX grounding to wake up Boeing. Hopefully they did wake up.

Thanks for this. Very well detailed on what happened between MCD and Boeing.

I am hopeful Boeing can return. But it won’t be quick there’s A LOT to comb though to turn it around
 
UA748i
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 11:53 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 2:57 pm

In the last 10 years:

Boeing launches MAX over NSA to challenge the NEO because of cost. Hindsight is 20/20.

Embraer deal slashed as a result of MAX woes.

747-8i 10 years too late. Dead.

777-300ER orders now dried up. Dead.

777X delayed indefinitely (Lets be honest.) 777-8 simply existing not promising.

Boeing sued Bombardier over CSeries, when they themselves should have purchased the aircraft. Airbus has the best single aisle lineup as a result. A225 a knockout blow if/when launched.

Is about to be preemptively countered by Airbus with potential new wing/A322, weakening NMA potential.

KC-46A troubled.

More MAX trouble.

787 deliveries now halted.

...Is ANYTHING going in Boeing's favor? It's bad decision after poorly run program after stupid move.

F-15EX? Yeah, not survivable after 2025. Super Hornet Block III? Real nice. F/A-XX on the horizon, and it might not be built by you.

Boeing, please dont attempt ANYTHING until you clean house. Youve done quite enough damage to yourself. No FSA, no NMA, no Gen-6. Just...stop.
 
wingman
Posts: 4122
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 3:20 pm

Agree with many others. When I first joined this forum in 1999 I was one of the biggest Boeing cheerleaders around. Now I literally breathe a sigh of relief every time I see an Airbus machine on my flight plan. Boeing is like our infrastructure, no one cares about anything except money so you just end up with pure crap. The thing is, it costs so much more money in the long run.
Last edited by wingman on Sat May 29, 2021 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 4:37 pm

I fear investors know Boeing is too big to fail in DCs eyes. They’re proposing keeping pandemic level government spending until 2027... Boeing will get paid, investors will get paid.

No incentive to turn the company back over to the engineer class that built it.

This has helped for years to make Boeing a fat nasty slob, there is nothing lean about them like Airbus or Spacex.

And Wall Street and the government don’t care, they want returns.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1019
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 5:24 pm

If you analyze Boeing's stock performance over the last 5 years, it reveals that they have gone from being a "darling" of Wall Street, to an under-performing, erratic performer. Boeing executives who received stock options between 2017 and 2020 (a key portion of their compensation packages) now find those options deeply "underwater", where the exercise price is more than the current stock price. In addition, institutional investors, who hold large swaths of Boeing stock, are probably questioning continuing their investments in the company.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/char ... FydCJ9fX19

Having retired from the major aerospace business after holding an executive position, I have come to realize these facts:

1) Defense contracting and commercial contracting are totally different beasts. Management techniques and strategies that work for defense, don't work so well for commercial, and vice-versa.

2) Program life cycles between defense contracts and commercial operations rarely have synergy. The specious belief that when one is down, the other will be up is just fantasy.

3) Boeing (or any other major aerospace company) separating out their headquarters into basically a holding company and locating that headquarters away from where the work is done, is a recipe for trouble. This leads to a "Tower of Babel" situation, fast.

4) (Related to 3) When engineering & program managers have to spend most of their time preparing PowerPoint charts so they can communicate with headquarters monthly program performance (& dumbed-down) "metrics", this is never good. Also, this takes engineering managers away from actually leading their design teams, understanding what they are doing and gets them further away from being the engineers they were trained to be.

5) The deeper the corporate orch chart goes, the more likely that engineers down in the trenches aren't willing to risk putting themselves in the game of "kill the messenger" when they see things that need to be addressed.

The old saying, "The fish rots from the head" applies to Boeing at this time. They need a near-total cleansing of the "ivory tower" in Chicago. They need a better board of directors. They need to drive greater management autonomy down to the operations where the designs and builds are being done.

They also (perhaps) need to consider spinning off/selling the defense/space operations (exceptions being the KC-46 and AF1 programs) from the commercial aviation business. Sell the space business to Musk or Bezos. Sell the St. Louis aircraft plant to either NorGrum or LockMart. This could give the commercial Boeing some much-needed cash to work with and start rekindling their focus into designing/producing better airliners.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 5:29 pm

Boeing’s tax break to move to Chicago is up this year apparently. Let’s see where they move their HQ to. Some say Washington DC, some say Seattle, some say Charleston

https://twitter.com/jetcitystar/status/ ... 53506?s=21
 
UA748i
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 11:53 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 6:15 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
They also (perhaps) need to consider spinning off/selling the defense/space operations (exceptions being the KC-46 and AF1 programs) from the commercial aviation business. Sell the space business to Musk or Bezos. Sell the St. Louis aircraft plant to either NorGrum or LockMart. This could give the commercial Boeing some much-needed cash to work with and start rekindling their focus into designing/producing better airliners.


In terms of defense, as I don't expect Boeing to be involved in any NGAD or Gen-6 fighter program or other weapon system, this may come naturally.

The F-15EX is likely the last iteration of the type, and the F/A-18E/F/G procurement will end in the not so distant future.

T-6A production is starting in STL, but its just a trainer. KC-46A is very late in the 767 life.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 6:41 pm

Jalap wrote:
Announce big, underdeliver and get away with it. I see that everywhere.
I saw the other day the CEO of Microsoft made an anouncement, that there was going to be an anouncement, of an initiative to undertake something big. (i swear the article read almost this poorly). You can't make this stuff up.

I wanted to see Boeing go big with a multi member mid range / short range single aisle family... But now I'm afraid they'll just mess it up... I've been getting more excited about a rewing and potential revision of the Airbus single aisle family (A320.5, A321, A322), then I am about a 797.
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1019
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 7:09 pm

UA748i wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
They also (perhaps) need to consider spinning off/selling the defense/space operations (exceptions being the KC-46 and AF1 programs) from the commercial aviation business. Sell the space business to Musk or Bezos. Sell the St. Louis aircraft plant to either NorGrum or LockMart. This could give the commercial Boeing some much-needed cash to work with and start rekindling their focus into designing/producing better airliners.


In terms of defense, as I don't expect Boeing to be involved in any NGAD or Gen-6 fighter program or other weapon system, this may come naturally.

The F-15EX is likely the last iteration of the type, and the F/A-18E/F/G procurement will end in the not so distant future.

T-6A production is starting in STL, but its just a trainer. KC-46A is very late in the 767 life.


I've heard through my old "grapevine" that the Navy is getting cold feet about the F-35C. It is a maintenance-heavy machine with lots of software bugs that keeps the mission capable rate as low as the single-digits. When it does work as designed the F-35C's payload/range and combat radius is not as good as the F-18E/F, so a carrier battle group has to cruise closer to shore and in range of an enemy's anti-ship missiles to keep them in the hunt. The Navy is also not comfortable with the fact that the F-35C is a single-engine, carrier-based aircraft, because an engine flame-out means the F-35C pilot is going for a swim. True, the USMC has the F-35B that flies off the "gator navy" assault ships, but those lunatics also still fly the problematic & dangerous AV-8B. All this said, the only fallback for the USN is to buy more F/A-18E/F/G's, perhaps equipped with better avionics and weapon systems. Thus, I think the F/A-18 program still has a decent chance of carrying on past 2030.

As for a Gen-6 fighter, I really think the F-35 program needs to get sorted out first before dumping another trillion+ $ on a new fighter program that probably will be obsolete by the time it completes IOC.

Drifting back on topic...The KC-46A will continue production for the rest of this decade, at such time there should be enough of these flying gas stations to last for 30+ years. Coming on the horizon, however, should be some RFI's and then RFP's for new airlifters. The C-17 fleet has been flown hard supporting the Middle Eastern and Central Asian wars and should be due for replacement. Also, the C-5M should be on its last legs by the end of the decade. I expect Boeing will try to pursue these replacement programs.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13976
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sat May 29, 2021 7:12 pm

Jalap wrote:
In order to agree or disagee, one should try to estimate if this company is creating less value for the shareholders than what could have been possible. For that is the only thing that matters in today's world.

While no one has a crystal ball, it's hard to conceive of any accounting wizardry that would show greater returns for a company with constant clouds-of-questioning above its latest products, versus that same company without. Especially over time.



Jalap wrote:
Would the shareholders have been happier if quality and costs were higher?

You're missing a rather key factor, in revenue.

That, and I'm going to go out on a fairly sturdy limb, and suggest that having one's keystone product not go through the financial ramifications from 2yrs of grounding + governmental and media scrutiny + breached contractual agreements + production stop-starts... would definitely have left shareholders happier.

Similar for their primary longhaul product, a half decade earlier.



Jalap wrote:
But it's the way of the world.

Doesn't mean it's the way it always has TO BE, though.

This vulture capitalism (i.e. short-term gains uber alles) that the US has evolved into over the last few decades, WILL meet its gruesome demise eventually-- whether it's by systemic collapse or through social overturn. Possibly both. Hopefully soon.

It's just not sustainable.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 1:59 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Jalap wrote:
In order to agree or disagee, one should try to estimate if this company is creating less value for the shareholders than what could have been possible. For that is the only thing that matters in today's world.

While no one has a crystal ball, it's hard to conceive of any accounting wizardry that would show greater returns for a company with constant clouds-of-questioning above its latest products, versus that same company without. Especially over time.



Jalap wrote:
Would the shareholders have been happier if quality and costs were higher?

You're missing a rather key factor, in revenue.

That, and I'm going to go out on a fairly sturdy limb, and suggest that having one's keystone product not go through the financial ramifications from 2yrs of grounding + governmental and media scrutiny + breached contractual agreements + production stop-starts... would definitely have left shareholders happier.

Similar for their primary longhaul product, a half decade earlier.



Jalap wrote:
But it's the way of the world.

Doesn't mean it's the way it always has TO BE, though.

This vulture capitalism (i.e. short-term gains uber alles) that the US has evolved into over the last few decades, WILL meet its gruesome demise eventually-- whether it's by systemic collapse or through social overturn. Possibly both. Hopefully soon.

It's just not sustainable.

It looks like it is catching up. The FAA knows that its reputation cannot take more hits similar to what happened in the MAX scenario and they are somewhat laying down the law. Boeing has somewhat not yet caught up to the changes happening in regulatory environment and maybe do not understand that in the long term they are what is best for the company.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2284
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 5:44 am

Ziyulu wrote:
excalibur wrote:
SunsetLimited wrote:
Is it safe to say that the last overall trouble free Boeing launch was the original 777 in the mid 90s? Whatever the culture was at that time - get back to that.


I totally agree with this. The 777 is such a great and beautiful piece of engineering. Maybe the last true Boeing aircraft if I may say. This is the Boeing we love and we miss.


What about the 747? Wasn't that successful as well?

777: mid-90s;
747: late 60's.
So, as great as the 747 was, the 777 came after and is the last overall trouble free Boeing launch (the 747 launch didn't go too well), and is maybe the last true Boeing aircraft.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 10:09 am

Opus99 wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
piedmontf284000 wrote:
Boeing has chosen to temporarily stop deliveries, only because the FAA has not approved Boeing’s proposal for planned inspections to meet federal guidelines. There is huge difference between voluntarily stopping deliveries as opposed to having the FAA order it.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-05-28/


Indeed so, but the big questions remain. What exactly are the FAA concerned about ? And what are Boeing going to do about that ?

The quality inspection is what they’re worried about. The WSJ article I posted in the 787 production thread explains everything.

Boeing has one way of inspecting

FAA recommends another way till Boeing can prove their way works (with more documentation) they have to use the FAAs requirements but that is much longer and much more labour hours.

So here we are

An American that was supposed to go out today I think has been pushed to next week


You mean Boeing's non existing or at least crippled quality inspecting. Quality inspecting is a cost factor and Boeing did cut cost, cutting down on quality inspection as unnecessary and fired the workers. Management declared that proudly to shareholders.
So I think it hardly strange that the FAA is worried, not how Boeing does the quality control, but if Boeing does a quality control.
 
UA748i
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 11:53 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 11:13 am

FLALEFTY wrote:
UA748i wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
They also (perhaps) need to consider spinning off/selling the defense/space operations (exceptions being the KC-46 and AF1 programs) from the commercial aviation business. Sell the space business to Musk or Bezos. Sell the St. Louis aircraft plant to either NorGrum or LockMart. This could give the commercial Boeing some much-needed cash to work with and start rekindling their focus into designing/producing better airliners.


In terms of defense, as I don't expect Boeing to be involved in any NGAD or Gen-6 fighter program or other weapon system, this may come naturally.

The F-15EX is likely the last iteration of the type, and the F/A-18E/F/G procurement will end in the not so distant future.

T-6A production is starting in STL, but its just a trainer. KC-46A is very late in the 767 life.


I've heard through my old "grapevine" that the Navy is getting cold feet about the F-35C. It is a maintenance-heavy machine with lots of software bugs that keeps the mission capable rate as low as the single-digits. When it does work as designed the F-35C's payload/range and combat radius is not as good as the F-18E/F, so a carrier battle group has to cruise closer to shore and in range of an enemy's anti-ship missiles to keep them in the hunt. The Navy is also not comfortable with the fact that the F-35C is a single-engine, carrier-based aircraft, because an engine flame-out means the F-35C pilot is going for a swim. True, the USMC has the F-35B that flies off the "gator navy" assault ships, but those lunatics also still fly the problematic & dangerous AV-8B. All this said, the only fallback for the USN is to buy more F/A-18E/F/G's, perhaps equipped with better avionics and weapon systems. Thus, I think the F/A-18 program still has a decent chance of carrying on past 2030.

As for a Gen-6 fighter, I really think the F-35 program needs to get sorted out first before dumping another trillion+ $ on a new fighter program that probably will be obsolete by the time it completes IOC.

Drifting back on topic...The KC-46A will continue production for the rest of this decade, at such time there should be enough of these flying gas stations to last for 30+ years. Coming on the horizon, however, should be some RFI's and then RFP's for new airlifters. The C-17 fleet has been flown hard supporting the Middle Eastern and Central Asian wars and should be due for replacement. Also, the C-5M should be on its last legs by the end of the decade. I expect Boeing will try to pursue these replacement programs.


As someone who is fond of the F-35, the F-35C is, perhaps, one of the variants that didnt need to happen. I definitely sympathize with the USN in regards to the single engine, which Im sure the F/A-XX will remedy.

It will be interesting to see what heavy lift needs the US Military will be in the years ahead, any whether or not Boeing will play a role in that.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 2:01 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Jalap wrote:
In order to agree or disagee, one should try to estimate if this company is creating less value for the shareholders than what could have been possible. For that is the only thing that matters in today's world.

While no one has a crystal ball, it's hard to conceive of any accounting wizardry that would show greater returns for a company with constant clouds-of-questioning above its latest products, versus that same company without. Especially over time.



Jalap wrote:
Would the shareholders have been happier if quality and costs were higher?

You're missing a rather key factor, in revenue.

That, and I'm going to go out on a fairly sturdy limb, and suggest that having one's keystone product not go through the financial ramifications from 2yrs of grounding + governmental and media scrutiny + breached contractual agreements + production stop-starts... would definitely have left shareholders happier.

Similar for their primary longhaul product, a half decade earlier.



Jalap wrote:
But it's the way of the world.

Doesn't mean it's the way it always has TO BE, though.

This vulture capitalism (i.e. short-term gains uber alles) that the US has evolved into over the last few decades, WILL meet its gruesome demise eventually-- whether it's by systemic collapse or through social overturn. Possibly both. Hopefully soon.

It's just not sustainable.

It looks like it is catching up. The FAA knows that its reputation cannot take more hits similar to what happened in the MAX scenario and they are somewhat laying down the law. Boeing has somewhat not yet caught up to the changes happening in regulatory environment and maybe do not understand that in the long term they are what is best for the company.


I think Boeing is responding to a much more aggressive stance from the FAA. This type of oversight on what are now minor quality issues deep within the supply chain will be coming to a head since many of these suppliers also sell to Airbus.

There’s also a bilateral agreement that governs how regulate OEMs and it doesn’t allow the FAA to treat Boeing differently than Airbus is overseen.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26290
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 3:24 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
747-8F has a 2 or 3 white tails to be finished up. Other than MAX7 (derivative shrink, already flown), MAX10 (derivative stretch), and 779 (nexgen derivative, already flown) that are in development and some 39 763F freighters, 41 738A P8s to build.. there's not allot occupying them.

Not white tails, Atlas bought the last 4 748F to be produced. MAX-10 will fly shortly, some time in the month of June.

Opus99 wrote:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-halts-787-deliveries-again-as-it-awaits-faa-approval-on-verifying-fixes/

Dominic gates highlights it better. he says it may just be a show us your homework situation. FAA already approved Boeing to restart when it did and they say there have been no further concerns. So it may be a matter of documentation.

Seems the tussles between Boeing and the regulators are going to be a thing going forward.

PANAMsterdam wrote:
It's time to de-McDonnell Douglas this company. Let someone from Boeing take control of Boeing.

The recent lineage has had more GE "shareholder value" push, with Stonecipher, McNearney and Calhoun all being ex-GE.

As pointed out by Opus99 the one exception was all-Boeing, Muilenburg, and he clearly did not change the corporate direction away from "shareholder value".

We can whine all we want to, but it is what it is, and it isn't likely to change much.

The BoD is made up of the titans of industry, all born and bred with Wall Street culture, all accustomed to feeling that it is their privilege in life to dine on the geese that once laid golden eggs.

We can see the reflex after the MCAS accidents was denial, opaqueness and the careful selection of scapegoats, and we've seen little indication that they've decided they need major course correction.

If MCAS didn't cause a major course correction, I'm not sure what will.

Right now they still are in transition, one can only hope something better emerges.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1203
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 4:14 pm

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Everybody talks about the McD merger being the root cause of all this. Imagine how BAD mcD must have been to be the root cause of the rot of a company the size of Boeing.

Also can someone explain why Boeing felt the merger was necessary? Especially if McD was heading towards being defunct anyway?

The history would need to go many decades back in 1997. The merger was initiated by Frank Shrontz, Boeing CEO at that point of time. Boeing got greedy and wanted a bigger piece of the defense business pie. The fastest way to scale up was to buy an existing company. McD was limping in its final months, their commercial business was almost dead but it was the defense business Boeing was eyeing for. Then came the merger. McD executive had made so much strategic mistakes/ blunder as they squeezed the company for short term profit and refused to invest in growth yet for some unknown reason Boeing promoted ex-McD managers and executive to leadership position, instead of their own. Hence at popular phrase at that time was "McDonnell took over Boeing using Boeing's money."

Boeing was run by engineers, they had the qualification, held many patents, pioneer in many ground breaking engineering but these were all drowned by McD bean counter working ethics which relentless pursue cost cutting, warm over current models at the expense of complete innovation. Basically it was clash of corporate culture. The merger brought so much headache to Boeing especially those dated commercial aircraft design from McD, especially the MD-80s. Three years after merger as the dust was just about to settle, flight AS261 crash happened.

The Boeing CEO after Frank Shrontz, Phil Condit, was a brilliant engineer, but not much of a leader. He feared that Boeing shouldn't be relying on the cyclical commercial aviation market, and should dabbled in other business too military, support services, and space. In search of stability, McD merger was necessary for Boeing. Much of the business decision for commercial division was delegated to former McD CEO Harry Stonecipher, who woefully underperformed. Airbus, in no time, successfully managed to crack into US both narrow and wide body market (Pan Am narrowbody deal was a failure tbh) with US Airways deal for 400 A320 family aircraft in 1997 and in 1998 for 30 A330-300 aircraft. If this wasn't enough, JetBlue order for 75 A320 in 1998 added more salt to the wound. Since then Airbus has been an equal dominant player in US narrowbody was much as Boeing.

Stonecipher wasted billions of Boeing money on non-core business: financial services, aircraft leasing business, in-flight internet business (anyone still remember Connexion by Boeing?) — everything else but making real quality airplanes.

The saving grace was Alan Mulally who was an all rounder engineer (from airplane development activities, flight test operations, certification, and government technical liaison); he managed to get Stonecipher’s reluctant approval for a plan to develop an all-composite plane, the 787, a plane which eventually reasserted Boeing’s technological leadership in commercial aviation industry. Condit and Stonecipher were trying hard to push for Sonic Cruiser then! Both of them were the brainchild behind 787 program outsourcing, which turned out to be disaster as many outside contractors were unable to deliver the components they had promised, quality and quantity-wise. The 787 was delivered few years late, suffered billions of cost overruns, only got better when Boeing took over control some of its outsourcing partners' work. Even till today, the 787 is not as profitable as it could be for Boeing because the outsourcing arrangements meant Boeing’s outsourcing partners get paid a large share of the profits. Condit was forced to resign in 2003 and Stonecipher in 2005, everyone would have thought Mulally would take over however he was passed over, soon he left Boeing for Ford in 2006. The McD legacy continues till today. It took B787 debacle and B737 MAX grounding to wake up Boeing. Hopefully they did wake up.


This is a top post that puts everything into context. Thanks for sharing.
Vahroone
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 4:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
747-8F has a 2 or 3 white tails to be finished up. Other than MAX7 (derivative shrink, already flown), MAX10 (derivative stretch), and 779 (nexgen derivative, already flown) that are in development and some 39 763F freighters, 41 738A P8s to build.. there's not allot occupying them.

Not white tails, Atlas bought the last 4 748F to be produced. MAX-10 will fly shortly, some time in the month of June.

Opus99 wrote:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-halts-787-deliveries-again-as-it-awaits-faa-approval-on-verifying-fixes/

Dominic gates highlights it better. he says it may just be a show us your homework situation. FAA already approved Boeing to restart when it did and they say there have been no further concerns. So it may be a matter of documentation.

Seems the tussles between Boeing and the regulators are going to be a thing going forward.

PANAMsterdam wrote:
It's time to de-McDonnell Douglas this company. Let someone from Boeing take control of Boeing.

The recent lineage has had more GE "shareholder value" push, with Stonecipher, McNearney and Calhoun all being ex-GE.

As pointed out by Opus99 the one exception was all-Boeing, Muilenburg, and he clearly did not change the corporate direction away from "shareholder value".

We can whine all we want to, but it is what it is, and it isn't likely to change much.

The BoD is made up of the titans of industry, all born and bred with Wall Street culture, all accustomed to feeling that it is their privilege in life to dine on the geese that once laid golden eggs.

We can see the reflex after the MCAS accidents was denial, opaqueness and the careful selection of scapegoats, and we've seen little indication that they've decided they need major course correction.

If MCAS didn't cause a major course correction, I'm not sure what will.

Right now they still are in transition, one can only hope something better emerges.


I agree Rev... I hope they can begin to get things in order...
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 4:29 pm

sxf24 wrote:
I think Boeing is responding to a much more aggressive stance from the FAA. This type of oversight on what are now minor quality issues deep within the supply chain will be coming to a head since many of these suppliers also sell to Airbus.

There’s also a bilateral agreement that governs how regulate OEMs and it doesn’t allow the FAA to treat Boeing differently than Airbus is overseen.


There is no suggestion, or evidence, that the FAA is treating Boeing differently.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 4:54 pm

sxf24 wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
While no one has a crystal ball, it's hard to conceive of any accounting wizardry that would show greater returns for a company with constant clouds-of-questioning above its latest products, versus that same company without. Especially over time.




You're missing a rather key factor, in revenue.

That, and I'm going to go out on a fairly sturdy limb, and suggest that having one's keystone product not go through the financial ramifications from 2yrs of grounding + governmental and media scrutiny + breached contractual agreements + production stop-starts... would definitely have left shareholders happier.

Similar for their primary longhaul product, a half decade earlier.




Doesn't mean it's the way it always has TO BE, though.

This vulture capitalism (i.e. short-term gains uber alles) that the US has evolved into over the last few decades, WILL meet its gruesome demise eventually-- whether it's by systemic collapse or through social overturn. Possibly both. Hopefully soon.

It's just not sustainable.

It looks like it is catching up. The FAA knows that its reputation cannot take more hits similar to what happened in the MAX scenario and they are somewhat laying down the law. Boeing has somewhat not yet caught up to the changes happening in regulatory environment and maybe do not understand that in the long term they are what is best for the company.


I think Boeing is responding to a much more aggressive stance from the FAA. This type of oversight on what are now minor quality issues deep within the supply chain will be coming to a head since many of these suppliers also sell to Airbus.

There’s also a bilateral agreement that governs how regulate OEMs and it doesn’t allow the FAA to treat Boeing differently than Airbus is overseen.


I do not think that quality control at Airbus was a victim to cost cutting like at Boeing. The FAA is aggressive at Boeing for a reason. I imagine that Boeing was used to a lot of slack from the FAA and times have changed.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 5:39 pm

Vicenza wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
I think Boeing is responding to a much more aggressive stance from the FAA. This type of oversight on what are now minor quality issues deep within the supply chain will be coming to a head since many of these suppliers also sell to Airbus.

There’s also a bilateral agreement that governs how regulate OEMs and it doesn’t allow the FAA to treat Boeing differently than Airbus is overseen.


There is no suggestion, or evidence, that the FAA is treating Boeing differently.


Based on what’s been shared with airlines, I think there’s overlap in the supply chain of Boeing and Airbus that the FAA is requesting information on.
Last edited by sxf24 on Sun May 30, 2021 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1019
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 5:40 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Boeing’s tax break to move to Chicago is up this year apparently. Let’s see where they move their HQ to. Some say Washington DC, some say Seattle, some say Charleston

https://twitter.com/jetcitystar/status/ ... 53506?s=21


Time sure flies! But you are right, Boeing's 20-year lease in Chicago is coming up to its termination date. So I expect Boeing to open up bidding to other cities willing to pay generously to host Boeing's HQ. Here's my thoughts:

1) The DC Beltway - If Boeing was a pure play in military aerospace, relocation in the Beltway would be a no-brainer. However, I'm not sure how it will help them in the commercial business. And another factor: Considering that HQ-suitable office buildings in the Beltway are pretty full and at high rents, I don't expect any of the local governments will be willing to pony up much in the way of relocation bribes.

2) Seattle - I think the Seattle metro governments have had enough of Boeing's manipulations and may not even be on the bidder's list for a HQ relocation. Besides, if they pay Boeing to relocate, what's to prevent other large companies based in Seattle (Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, etc.) from deciding to play the "HQ shakedown game"?

3) Charleston - While it does have the 787 plant at CHS in North Charleston, the South Carolina government is still making payouts and giving large tax breaks to Boeing for that plant. Also, Charleston and North Charleston are fairly small Southern cities (if you want a nearby comp, Jacksonville, FL is bigger than both combined) with high crime and poverty rates. I guess SC could offer to build an ocean-front office tower for Boeing on Kiawha Island near the golf resort, but that is unlikely to happen.

4) DFW Metroplex - This was on Boeing's short list 20 years ago. Texas has a state government that has been aggressively pursuing relocations of major corporate HQ's away from those nasty "Blue States" to move to Texas. DFW has the proper "big city" sophistication that matches up with what the C-Suiters are used to in Chicago. Low corporate taxes and the lack of a state income tax are additional attractions. Not to mention that two of their largest airline customers are based in the Metroplex. If Boeing doesn't renew their Chicago lease, the DFW Metroplex might be Boeing's prime target for relocation of their HQ.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 5:41 pm

SunsetLimited wrote:
Is it safe to say that the last overall trouble free Boeing launch was the original 777 in the mid 90s?


Not really. They had to spend double what they planned to get it out the door on time and once they did, the production meltdown destroyed the margins on the initial planes. Some believe Boeing had to "cook the books" to keep the 777 program from going into a Forward Loss in it's first few years.
 
airgpo
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:35 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 5:53 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I sometimes wonder how much Boeing would save just doing it properly the first time. ...

Well, 346 lives is an objective answer unfortunately.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13976
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 7:52 pm

Stitch wrote:
SunsetLimited wrote:
Is it safe to say that the last overall trouble free Boeing launch was the original 777 in the mid 90s?


Not really. They had to spend double what they planned to get it out the door on time and once they did, the production meltdown destroyed the margins on the initial planes. Some believe Boeing had to "cook the books" to keep the 777 program from going into a Forward Loss in it's first few years.

That, and like Airbus with the similarly-timed A330; Boeing decided that launching a widebody with three engine options, was only slightly more preferable than seppuku-- after their experience with the 777*.

Doubt we'll ever see either do it again. It's already been a quarter century since either one of them has.



*(yes, I'm aware that the 767 technically offered that too).
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Vicenza
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:00 pm

sxf24 wrote:
Vicenza wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
I think Boeing is responding to a much more aggressive stance from the FAA. This type of oversight on what are now minor quality issues deep within the supply chain will be coming to a head since many of these suppliers also sell to Airbus.

There’s also a bilateral agreement that governs how regulate OEMs and it doesn’t allow the FAA to treat Boeing differently than Airbus is overseen.


There is no suggestion, or evidence, that the FAA is treating Boeing differently.


Based on what’s been shared with airlines, I think there’s overlap in the supply chain of Boeing and Airbus that the FAA is requesting information on.


What do you mean by overlap, or with regard to what in reference to be being treated differently?
 
Vicenza
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:05 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Boeing’s tax break to move to Chicago is up this year apparently. Let’s see where they move their HQ to. Some say Washington DC, some say Seattle, some say Charleston

https://twitter.com/jetcitystar/status/ ... 53506?s=21


Out of personal curiosity, what advantage to a city is there to have Boeing's HQ that there is a need/wish to pay them handsomely to relocate? I mean, HQ as in office complex, and not referring to any production facilities or aspect.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:07 pm

Vicenza wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
Vicenza wrote:

There is no suggestion, or evidence, that the FAA is treating Boeing differently.


Based on what’s been shared with airlines, I think there’s overlap in the supply chain of Boeing and Airbus that the FAA is requesting information on.


What do you mean by overlap, or with regard to what in reference to be being treated differently?


Overlap in the parts Boeing must demonstrate to the FAA. Generally, the OEMs are delegated ability to disposition minor quality problems.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18706
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:12 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
What about 779, 748, 738, 739? There are also military planes. There are a lot more products than 737MAX and 787.

At least pay attention, if you're going to comment in rebuttal: I said they only deliver two pax planes.

The 779 has not yet started being delivered to customers, and won't for years.
The remaining 748s are freighters.
The 738 and 739 are no longer produced.
And military planes are.... military planes.

The military warmed-over 767 has also been a mess

mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Everybody talks about the McD merger being the root cause of all this. Imagine how BAD mcD must have been to be the root cause of the rot of a company the size of Boeing.

Also can someone explain why Boeing felt the merger was necessary? Especially if McD was heading towards being defunct anyway?


I think that it is a bit of a myth, that the merger is directly responsible for a decline at Boeing. I could imagine a turning point was the moving of the Headquarters to Chicago. And that effect was not immediate. But after a while a that big geographical separation of Headquarters and design and production centers will get them out of step.

Airbus is here on a.net often accused of being to far distributed and looking at Mobil and Tianjin that may be true. But those two operations are tightly controlled assembly and outfitting stations only. The main production, design and decision making centers are in the same time zone, with the UK being on hour of, but not even an hour of flight time.

I assume the problem started with the amateurish outsourcing around the 787, the following relentless cost cutting and the reduction of quality control, a part of the cost cutting operation.

The merger was done to combine the military side of both companies, I assume to reduce competition.

I'm sure someone somewhere has done a rough calculation of the money saved by outsourcing and union busting in SC, versus the cost overruns and disastrous launches of the 787 and 737 MAX--I just can't imagine Boeing is ahead financially on this calculation in any way.
Last edited by MaverickM11 on Sun May 30, 2021 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't take responsibility at all
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13976
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:19 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
The military warmed-over 767 has also been a mess

...and also has MCAS. :yuck: :vomit: :oops: :thumbsdown:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
ChrisNH38
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:53 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:35 pm

The KC-46 would have been an A330 if Boeing didn’t somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Their misery since then is well-documented and self-inflicted.
https://my.flightradar24.com/ChrisNH
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13976
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:37 pm

Babyshark wrote:
I fear investors know Boeing is too big to fail in DCs eyes. They’re proposing keeping pandemic level government spending until 2027... Boeing will get paid, investors will get paid.

No incentive to turn the company back over to the engineer class that built it.

This has helped for years to make Boeing a fat nasty slob, there is nothing lean about them like Airbus

This comment makes no sense. While Airbus isn't experiencing anywhere near the self-inflicted woes that Boeing is undergoing... are we going to pretend for even a microsecond that Airbus isn't equally too-big-to-fail in the eyes of the EU+UK?

If so, perhaps one should hearken to the A3XX days and review.
But at least Airbus seemingly learned its lesson therewith.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18706
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
The recent lineage has had more GE "shareholder value" push, with Stonecipher, McNearney and Calhoun all being ex-GE.

Didn't the GE shareholder value dogma turn out to be a bit of a....fib in any case? :rotfl:
I don't take responsibility at all
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1203
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 9:47 pm

Stitch wrote:
SunsetLimited wrote:
Is it safe to say that the last overall trouble free Boeing launch was the original 777 in the mid 90s?


Not really. They had to spend double what they planned to get it out the door on time and once they did, the production meltdown destroyed the margins on the initial planes. Some believe Boeing had to "cook the books" to keep the 777 program from going into a Forward Loss in it's first few years.


So then this fact propagated about McD 'adulterating' Boeing culture is just an urban legend then?
Vahroone
 
Jalap
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:25 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Sun May 30, 2021 11:04 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Jalap wrote:
Would the shareholders have been happier if quality and costs were higher?

You're missing a rather key factor, in revenue.

That, and I'm going to go out on a fairly sturdy limb, and suggest that having one's keystone product not go through the financial ramifications from 2yrs of grounding + governmental and media scrutiny + breached contractual agreements + production stop-starts... would definitely have left shareholders happier.

Similar for their primary longhaul product, a half decade earlier.


The shareholders of course want everything. Top quality for minimum costs. Cutting costs is their deus ex machina, quality only needs to be what you can get away with. And looking at the stock rate, they pretty much did get away with it all. The pandemic hurt them. The 737max, well, it brought the stock rate to a plateau but that's it. Sure, that won't have caused a lot of champagne to flow. But has it really hurt the shareholders?

Mind you, I totally agree with you and a fiasco like the max should have completely torpedoed those responsible, the executives and the shareholders. But has it? Or have they learned that even major design flaws, hundreds of lives lost, years of grounding are something you can get away with?

LAX772LR wrote:
Jalap wrote:
But it's the way of the world.

Doesn't mean it's the way it always has TO BE, though.

This vulture capitalism (i.e. short-term gains uber alles) that the US has evolved into over the last few decades, WILL meet its gruesome demise eventually-- whether it's by systemic collapse or through social overturn. Possibly both. Hopefully soon.

It's just not sustainable.

This is really not a US specific problem. It's the same in Europe (see Berlin airport) and China (ARJ21). And while it's bad in the private sector, it's even worse in government. Promises and announcements bring in the votes from the shareholders (voters).

I'm at a loss on how to turn this round. Regulations? Those are the devil's tool in most eyes. And regulations are extremely stringent in aviation. It seems that Boeing has tried to cut the corners there and has partially gotten away with it. It really it up to the FAA now to decide what value those regulations have. If you leave it to the shareholders and the customers, they only care about dollars and pressure for change won't come from them.
 
N766UA
Posts: 8389
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon May 31, 2021 1:01 am

ZERO respect for Boeing anymore. I feel like that Jimmy Dean sausage guy… “loved your products, but I won’t buy them anymore or ever again.” They don’t make a single thing that works/isn’t just straight up dangerous.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon May 31, 2021 2:34 am

FLALEFTY wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Boeing’s tax break to move to Chicago is up this year apparently. Let’s see where they move their HQ to. Some say Washington DC, some say Seattle, some say Charleston

https://twitter.com/jetcitystar/status/ ... 53506?s=21


Time sure flies! But you are right, Boeing's 20-year lease in Chicago is coming up to its termination date. So I expect Boeing to open up bidding to other cities willing to pay generously to host Boeing's HQ. Here's my thoughts:

- Snip -

4) DFW Metroplex - This was on Boeing's short list 20 years ago. Texas has a state government that has been aggressively pursuing relocations of major corporate HQ's away from those nasty "Blue States" to move to Texas. DFW has the proper "big city" sophistication that matches up with what the C-Suiters are used to in Chicago. Low corporate taxes and the lack of a state income tax are additional attractions. Not to mention that two of their largest airline customers are based in the Metroplex. If Boeing doesn't renew their Chicago lease, the DFW Metroplex might be Boeing's prime target for relocation of their HQ.


I think a move to Texas would be good, and very beneficial for Boeing. Texas is the promised land these days. A lot of space and tech companies are moving there as well.
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 4557
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon May 31, 2021 3:55 am

UA748i wrote:
...Is ANYTHING going in Boeing's favor?


The 767-300ERF is still being built, and with no issues as far as I know. Fed Ex still has quite a few of them waiting to be delivered. It is true that Boeing hasn't received an order for 300ERFs lately but they haven't said anything about wrapping up the production line for the 767 in the civilian world, unlike they did for the 747-8i/F once the Atlas Air order for 4 units is complete.
Ben Soriano
 
TokyoImperialPa
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 23, 2021 1:50 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon May 31, 2021 1:03 pm

On the bright side, it might be a good thing that everything unravels during a low demand period.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon May 31, 2021 6:52 pm

To quite the former president: this makes me sad. Every time I think we are done with the bad news something else pops up. Boeing QA is the gift that keeps on giving…
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Mon May 31, 2021 8:55 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Boeing’s tax break to move to Chicago is up this year apparently. Let’s see where they move their HQ to. Some say Washington DC, some say Seattle, some say Charleston

https://twitter.com/jetcitystar/status/ ... 53506?s=21


Time sure flies! But you are right, Boeing's 20-year lease in Chicago is coming up to its termination date. So I expect Boeing to open up bidding to other cities willing to pay generously to host Boeing's HQ. Here's my thoughts:

- Snip -

4) DFW Metroplex - This was on Boeing's short list 20 years ago. Texas has a state government that has been aggressively pursuing relocations of major corporate HQ's away from those nasty "Blue States" to move to Texas. DFW has the proper "big city" sophistication that matches up with what the C-Suiters are used to in Chicago. Low corporate taxes and the lack of a state income tax are additional attractions. Not to mention that two of their largest airline customers are based in the Metroplex. If Boeing doesn't renew their Chicago lease, the DFW Metroplex might be Boeing's prime target for relocation of their HQ.


I think a move to Texas would be good, and very beneficial for Boeing. Texas is the promised land these days. A lot of space and tech companies are moving there as well.


Chicago's image has changed a lot in 20 years, like many large US cities the downtown's are resembling Beirut of late. Target had their headquarters in the Minneapolis City Center building right on the mall with the sky bridges. I worked on the original TI for the 18 floors that Target moved into the the just finished building in 1983. It had expanded to 32 floors, Target announced a few months ago they are leaving the building (cutting the lease) to somewhere else (not mentioned yet) with the 3,200 employees. I would expect Boeing to do the same as Chicago have really kicked up the taxes along with Illinois. Talking about 10% + of income being taxed in Chicago vs 0% in DFW.

It really could happen, but done quietly. Not a big competition like Amazon's HQ2 circus.
 
Rekoff
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 7:15 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:09 am

WayexTDI wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
excalibur wrote:

I totally agree with this. The 777 is such a great and beautiful piece of engineering. Maybe the last true Boeing aircraft if I may say. This is the Boeing we love and we miss.


What about the 747? Wasn't that successful as well?

777: mid-90s;
747: late 60's.
So, as great as the 747 was, the 777 came after and is the last overall trouble free Boeing launch (the 747 launch didn't go too well), and is maybe the last true Boeing aircraft.


Maybe the 777 was the last trouble free Boeing aircraft, and in that respect the last 'true' Boeing aircraft, but it isnt the last great Boeing aircraft. Because, in spite of immense budget overruns, delays, a grounding, continued quality control and now also documentation issues nobody can deny the 787 is a fantastic plane in itself.

That is however a rather concerning long list of issues on many levels.

The fact that there is continued disagreement between Boeing and FAA is a major red flag for hopes that Boeing is sincere about a cultural change away from cost-cutting and profits first. I think it's penetrated too deep into every vein of their corporate organisation. It will be a long and painful road ahead.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 4313
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:58 am

UA748i wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
They also (perhaps) need to consider spinning off/selling the defense/space operations (exceptions being the KC-46 and AF1 programs) from the commercial aviation business. Sell the space business to Musk or Bezos. Sell the St. Louis aircraft plant to either NorGrum or LockMart. This could give the commercial Boeing some much-needed cash to work with and start rekindling their focus into designing/producing better airliners.


In terms of defense, as I don't expect Boeing to be involved in any NGAD or Gen-6 fighter program or other weapon system, this may come naturally.

The F-15EX is likely the last iteration of the type, and the F/A-18E/F/G procurement will end in the not so distant future.

T-6A production is starting in STL, but its just a trainer. KC-46A is very late in the 767 life.


They also have the MQ-25 in STL. That still is pretty early on also. Still haven’t started production yet but the original is doing some flying, so that has a ways to go. I think I saw they could end up ordering 70 something
 
User avatar
tjcab
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:14 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:58 am

I'm not shedding a tear for them. They have a history of negligence and cover up. 737 NG issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR5QIPxfHoE

Also the 747 cargo door fiasco, FAA, and to a lesser degree NTSB, failing to act appropriately. Cannot gamble with life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A2wvaRDzbQ

I respect a company that acknowledges their issues an addresses them appropriately. Cover-up and shortcuts in this industry can be fatal.

Toyota handled it ok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZeiD2-Rbg4
 
Babyshark
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:11 pm

It’s funny, just read news on Boeing and it mentions right now fines on 737 and shutdown of 787 deliveries and articles basically saying the STOCK PRICE IS GOING TO GO UP UP UP.

I can guarantee you the only thing they care about at Boeing is the stock price and nobody will hold them accountable for their failures.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26290
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Jun 01, 2021 2:48 pm

Babyshark wrote:
It’s funny, just read news on Boeing and it mentions right now fines on 737 and shutdown of 787 deliveries and articles basically saying the STOCK PRICE IS GOING TO GO UP UP UP.

I can guarantee you the only thing they care about at Boeing is the stock price and nobody will hold them accountable for their failures.

Reminds me of the old writer's joke: "never use absolutes!".

If the failures were as bad as projected here all sales would have been canceled and the company bankrupt.

Mean time in the real world we have AS, WN and FR making big MAX orders in the post-MCAS era.

Suggests things aren't as bad as some are projecting.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
bols59
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:00 am

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Jun 01, 2021 2:52 pm

RoyalBrunei757, thank you for an erudite explanation of this complicated issue.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2284
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Jun 01, 2021 2:54 pm

tjcab wrote:

... after denying for month that there was an issue, despites all the evidence... Gimme a break.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: FAA Confirms Boeing Halts 787 Deliveries

Tue Jun 01, 2021 6:59 pm

sxf24 wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
While no one has a crystal ball, it's hard to conceive of any accounting wizardry that would show greater returns for a company with constant clouds-of-questioning above its latest products, versus that same company without. Especially over time.




You're missing a rather key factor, in revenue.

That, and I'm going to go out on a fairly sturdy limb, and suggest that having one's keystone product not go through the financial ramifications from 2yrs of grounding + governmental and media scrutiny + breached contractual agreements + production stop-starts... would definitely have left shareholders happier.

Similar for their primary longhaul product, a half decade earlier.




Doesn't mean it's the way it always has TO BE, though.

This vulture capitalism (i.e. short-term gains uber alles) that the US has evolved into over the last few decades, WILL meet its gruesome demise eventually-- whether it's by systemic collapse or through social overturn. Possibly both. Hopefully soon.

It's just not sustainable.

It looks like it is catching up. The FAA knows that its reputation cannot take more hits similar to what happened in the MAX scenario and they are somewhat laying down the law. Boeing has somewhat not yet caught up to the changes happening in regulatory environment and maybe do not understand that in the long term they are what is best for the company.


I think Boeing is responding to a much more aggressive stance from the FAA. This type of oversight on what are now minor quality issues deep within the supply chain will be coming to a head since many of these suppliers also sell to Airbus.

There’s also a bilateral agreement that governs how regulate OEMs and it doesn’t allow the FAA to treat Boeing differently than Airbus is overseen.


IMO you are trying to produce a false equivalence. If Boeing does something Airbus must be doing something too.

Boeing has in the last years cut down on quality control as a cost saving measure and released 900 employees doing quality control.
Boeing was find the maximum fine the FAA can use by law, because Boeing build knowingly defective slat tracks into hundreds 737NG and 737MAX.
Boeing had to stop delivering 787 because of quality problems.
Now the FAA is not satisfied with the documentation that the quality control is working properly.
That after years of bad press about quality and quality control problems. Those articles seem to have been right.

Nothing similar has happened at Airbus. Of course has Airbus it's problems, the scandal about bribes and so on. But quality problems to the scale what happened at Boeing, did not occur.

There is a reason for the aggressive stand of the FAA towards Boeing and that has nothing to do with EASA, bilateral agreements and Airbus, but the behavior of Boeing and the FAA. Boeing walking rough shoed over the regulation and rules and the FAA being quietly complicit. The FAA has now to show the world, that they will take their responsibilities serious..

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos