Ziyulu wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Just so sad to see what Boeing's become.

They only deliver two pax plane products (737MAX and 787), both have been grounded multiple times, and IINM they both hold the narrowbody and widebody records for grounding, as well as the former with the all-time grounding record for a plane returned to service.

This company needs to be gutted and and cleaned out on EVERY executive and supervisory level.

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

The military versions of the 738 and 739 fall under the 737 program. The 748 has wound down and the 779 isn't delivering yet. The 773ER is either done delivering or just about. The statement is functionally accurate that Boeing is down to two aircraft lines and both have had multiple issues and groundings related to shoody quality control, design issues etc.

For those of us old enough to remember Boeing as it used to be, it was an engineering/aeronautical company. They set the bar in the aviation world and are a big reason air travel is where it is today. Unfortunately, they replaced engineers with MBAs who were looking to cut corners any way they could and maximize shareholder returns (and exec pay) at the cost of quality. The results were predictable.

mjoelnir wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

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..

With the limited number of details publicly available, it’s difficult to prove exactly what the problems are, how they occurred, and what the FAA is looking for.

Production deficiencies are common, even with robust quality control. My understanding is that the FAA is reviewing Boeing’s analysis, not questioning the deficiencies or why they occurred.

sxf24 wrote:

mjoelnir 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.

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..

With the limited number of details publicly available, it’s difficult to prove exactly what the problems are, how they occurred, and what the FAA is looking for.

Production deficiencies are common, even with robust quality control. My understanding is that the FAA is reviewing Boeing’s analysis, not questioning the deficiencies or why they occurred.

That production defencies are common argument is you trying to push a false equivalense.

Boeing had oficially declared that they would cut down on quality control to cut cost and they have done that.
Their have been documented quality control problems at Boeing.
So quality control at Boeing has been hardly robust.

There is no indication of similar problems at other producers. Just declaring, that it must be, is not enough.

mjoelnir wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

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..

With the limited number of details publicly available, it’s difficult to prove exactly what the problems are, how they occurred, and what the FAA is looking for.

Production deficiencies are common, even with robust quality control. My understanding is that the FAA is reviewing Boeing’s analysis, not questioning the deficiencies or why they occurred.

That production defencies are common argument is you trying to push a false equivalense.

Boeing had oficially declared that they would cut down on quality control to cut cost and they have done that.
Their have been documented quality control problems at Boeing.
So quality control at Boeing has been hardly robust.

There is no indication of similar problems at other producers. Just declaring, that it must be, is not enough.

Production deficiencies, particularly related to suppliers, are a daily occurrence. While I understand it is a simple and convenient argument to connect Boeing’s past activities to the current situation without understanding what the FAA is looking at.

sxf24 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

With the limited number of details publicly available, it’s difficult to prove exactly what the problems are, how they occurred, and what the FAA is looking for.

Production deficiencies are common, even with robust quality control. My understanding is that the FAA is reviewing Boeing’s analysis, not questioning the deficiencies or why they occurred.

That production defencies are common argument is you trying to push a false equivalense.

Boeing had oficially declared that they would cut down on quality control to cut cost and they have done that.
Their have been documented quality control problems at Boeing.
So quality control at Boeing has been hardly robust.

There is no indication of similar problems at other producers. Just declaring, that it must be, is not enough.

Production deficiencies, particularly related to suppliers, are a daily occurrence. While I understand it is a simple and convenient argument to connect Boeing’s past activities to the current situation without understanding what the FAA is looking at.

Quality control is there to catch production deficiencies, if you do away with them, the trouble starts.

Of course I connect Boeing's past activities to the situation they are in now. Every sane person would. Past offender have to clear their name to be trusted again. Boeing will be under increased scrutinity for quite a while and rightly so. IMO the upper management still has not got it.

Why are people calling for the splitting off of the defence business? Boeing Defence & Boeing Commercial Aircraft are divisions of the Boeing Corporation. I think people think for some reason that Boeing Corporation & Boeing Commerical Aircraft are the same thing, they aren't

Been saying it for years now. Airplanes and cheap do not mix well. Boeing has lost control of it's product, and the outsourcing really has come back to bite them something terrible. This is a management issue 110%. Even outsourcing their engineering was a terrible mistake.

This can be argued, but McNerney and his iron fist have come back to haunt this company to this day. Boeing just wants an airplane built by others, and have a Boeing sticker slapped on the plane as it leaves the building. He pushed lean manufacturing something crazy, trying to emulate a Toyota factory.

I really think it's time for Boeing to step back and evaluate how lost it has become, and focus on getting back to making airplanes again. I know if I bought a car that got recalled for almost 2 years, and still has issues, I would definitely look at a new car manufacturer. I'm surprised Boeing hasn't lost a ton of orders. I don't wish bad on Boeing, but man do they need to clean some serious house at the top. I hate to say it, but we may see Boeing gone in our lifetime unless they get someone at the helm that cares more about it's customers and delivering a quality product. Leaders who are more focused on getting good product out the door, and less focused on what Wall Street is doing. One more disaster is all it's gonna take to put this company to sleep. And God knows we have seen the disasters first hand. Never thought I would see Boeing in such a mess.

Ziyulu wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Just so sad to see what Boeing's become.

They only deliver two pax plane products (737MAX and 787), both have been grounded multiple times, and IINM they both hold the narrowbody and widebody records for grounding, as well as the former with the all-time grounding record for a plane returned to service.

This company needs to be gutted and and cleaned out on EVERY executive and supervisory level.

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

779 stuck in Certification
748 low selling and you see the tail of the production run. ( and troubled to boot to.)
738,739 out of production.

767 freighter production active. ( Still the product from back when there was no A330 around )

787 quality issues ( as in both "low quality" and "we don't know because we haven't looked )
737MAX design FUBARed, quality issues ( as in both "low quality" and "we don't know because we haven't looked )

redemption is far away.

dennypayne wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

I still cannot comprehend why anyone would want to set foot on a 737MAX at this point, relative to any other option.

I don't give a damn WHAT plane-vs-car statistic they reflexively babble in response-- would *N*O*T* feel safe aboard one of those currently, and for a very long time if ever.

Some of us are aviation enthusiasts around here, and enjoy logging new types. I mean, the Tu-154 has a pretty appalling safety record overall but I didn't hesitate to get on one when I had the chance.

Seriously though, I get that people's trust in Boeing is damaged through all these groundings, and the corporate malfeasance that led to it, but it seems a tad irrational to think that you should avoid an entire type *after* every pilot that flies it is now aware of/been trained on the issues and modifications made because of those issues.

I agree, but also disagree at the same time if that makes sense? In the year 2021, you would think Boeing who has been one of the top plane makers for 100 years would have gotten it right the first time. The dreaded 787 rollout of a shell of a plane, promising customers that it would be in their hands in less than a year (the CEO and all the big wigs knew darned well that plane didn't even have a seat inside of it, let alone fasteners from Home Depot holding it together.) They also knew there was no way in heck that plane was going to be out the door on time. There should have never been a MAX splashing down either, as every single bug or issue known possible should have been sorted out before a single plane arrived to a customer. The only saving grace Boeing has to be thankful for honestly, is that some darned good pilots and crews have prevented further disasters from happening. It really shouldn't be that way in today's aviation world. You would think by now, Boeing could have perfected what they send out from those plants. One major problem, they have lost control of quality, depending on the cheapest vendors to make parts they were once doing themselves.

The Wall Street Journal reports that deliveries are now delayed until at least October after the FAA rejected Boeing's latest inspection proposal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-de ... 1630783728

Not a great look, and more opportunities for customers to seek compensation or walk away from orders...

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclo ... urcing.pdf

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA... For all the costs Boeing has cut, wouldn't it have been cheaper overall to maintain the cost structure, if it meant a better product?

dispatchguy wrote:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/69746/hart-smith-on-outsourcing.pdf

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA... For all the costs Boeing has cut, wouldn't it have been cheaper overall to maintain the cost structure, if it meant a better product?

Would it mean a better product, though?

dispatchguy wrote:

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA... For all the costs Boeing has cut, wouldn't it have been cheaper overall to maintain the cost structure, if it meant a better product?

It's not like Airbus and Boeing have the ability, technically or financially, to own the entire supply chain themselves.

And even if they did, they would not be allowed under US and EU anti-trust laws.

dispatchguy wrote:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/69746/hart-smith-on-outsourcing.pdf

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA... For all the costs Boeing has cut, wouldn't it have been cheaper overall to maintain the cost structure, if it meant a better product?

Outsourcing is also a great means of economic incentives and diplomacy, which also enables sales of their planes.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Just so sad to see what Boeing's become.

They only deliver two pax plane products (737MAX and 787), both have been grounded multiple times, and IINM they both hold the narrowbody and widebody records for grounding, as well as the former with the all-time grounding record for a plane returned to service.

This company needs to be gutted and and cleaned out on EVERY executive and supervisory level.

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

The military versions of the 738 and 739 fall under the 737 program. The 748 has wound down and the 779 isn't delivering yet. The 773ER is either done delivering or just about. The statement is functionally accurate that Boeing is down to two aircraft lines and both have had multiple issues and groundings related to shoody quality control, design issues etc.

For those of us old enough to remember Boeing as it used to be, it was an engineering/aeronautical company. They set the bar in the aviation world and are a big reason air travel is where it is today. Unfortunately, they replaced engineers with MBAs who were looking to cut corners any way they could and maximize shareholder returns (and exec pay) at the cost of quality. The results were predictable.

Predictable and predicted! Certain people were wrong and certain people were right…. Recent Boeing mgmt were beneath the caliber of the men and women who made Boeing great pre 1995. It’s not overall mediocrity, it was very specific toxic wrong ideas from specific people.

What's worse here is that despite everything that's happened to Boeing in recent years, they keep coming up with unacceptable solutions.

The corporate culture that gave us the multiple 787 debacles, the MAX debacle and the Starliner debacle is still alive and well and trying to nickel and dime their way into profits at the expense of doing things right, and the FAA doesn't seem too impressed.
Fool me twice...

The blame never made it as high as it rightfully should have and the underlying issue was never fixed.
These things will keep happening because nothing has been learned.

Francoflier wrote:

The corporate culture that gave us the multiple 787 debacles, the MAX debacle and the Starliner debacle is still alive and well and trying to nickel and dime their way into profits at the expense of doing things right, and the FAA doesn't seem too impressed.
Fool me twice...

You are right that the FAA has been very badly embarrassed by Boeing and it leaves a poor impression on the authority, both in DC and internationally. Boeing clearly needs to benchmark their processes against the C-Series and Airbus A350, if Boeing are going beyond what Airbus and Bombardier's QC plans were/are, the question is if the spurned FAA are behaving unfairly, if their plans fall short they need to do a better job of copying there classmates work.

BrianDromey wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

The corporate culture that gave us the multiple 787 debacles, the MAX debacle and the Starliner debacle is still alive and well and trying to nickel and dime their way into profits at the expense of doing things right, and the FAA doesn't seem too impressed.
Fool me twice...

You are right that the FAA has been very badly embarrassed by Boeing and it leaves a poor impression on the authority, both in DC and internationally. Boeing clearly needs to benchmark their processes against the C-Series and Airbus A350, if Boeing are going beyond what Airbus and Bombardier's QC plans were/are, the question is if the spurned FAA are behaving unfairly, if their plans fall short they need to do a better job of copying there classmates work.

Boeing used Congress to weaken the FAA, increase their influence on certification and speed up the process to fight Airbus gaining market share.

The FAA has been acting at the direction of Congress, amid pressure from industry players like Boeing to help them compete with foreign rivals by speeding up approvals of new aircraft. The agency maintains that it has used its cooperation with industry to make air travel safer. But government watchdogs have raised red flags about the FAA’s oversight of the program, which puts companies in charge of duties such as doing inspections and vetting engineering designs, with the agency’s supervision.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... ht-1287902

2012-2018 things went out of control, with everybody cheering Boeing stock value. Greed/Capitalism knocked-out Quality/Safety.

Francoflier wrote:

What's worse here is that despite everything that's happened to Boeing in recent years, they keep coming up with unacceptable solutions.

The corporate culture that gave us the multiple 787 debacles, the MAX debacle and the Starliner debacle is still alive and well and trying to nickel and dime their way into profits at the expense of doing things right, and the FAA doesn't seem too impressed.
Fool me twice...

The blame never made it as high as it rightfully should have and the underlying issue was never fixed.
These things will keep happening because nothing has been learned.

This does not bode well for the 777X certification process either

Someone (either the most influential shareholders, or top level Boeing management) has to say enough is enough. At one point even Boeing's money will run out.

It doesn't help my confidence in Boeing products either

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/bo ... NewsSearch

Targeting late October. FAA rejected Boeing proposal of 3 aircraft represntative of all 787s parked.

Boeing can’t get out of its own way right now….. 777X delayed … 787 deliveries stopped … MAX7 and MAX10 Delayed… yikes

What I don't get is how Boeing is still racking up new orders. If I were an airline CEO and I were looking at new airplanes, I'd be extremely hesitant to order anything from Boeing. They don't seem to be able to develop new models and, amazingly, they seem to have lost the ability to deliver the models they have already developed. Not even Lockheed got this bad. The closest example I can think of is RR when they developed the RB-211.

I also don't see how this ends well for Boeing. The C-suite and Board aren't going to suddenly have a moment of clarity and decide that maybe it's time to end the cost-cutting/quality dodging, invest properly in their workforce, and stop the union busting at the expense of a few percent of profits to their shareholders. And if they do go into Chapter 11 or get nationalized, I don't have confidence in the US Government to do the job it needs to do to force Boeing back into shape.

The demand for air travel and new airliners is going to come back. I just don't know how Boeing is going to meet it.

Boeing is going through a culture change right now. Those take time.

Boeing happens to have the Covid-19 Pandemic to thank that there is a very suppressed desire for new aircraft at this time.

I believe that they will come out OK; although I personally feel that they should have kept the NMA program alive even if they were not sure which exact model would be best for another year or so.

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

Boeing is going through a culture change right now. Those take time.

Boeing happens to have the Covid-19 Pandemic to thank that there is a very suppressed desire for new aircraft at this time.

I believe that they will come out OK; although I personally feel that they should have kept the NMA program alive even if they were not sure which exact model would be best for another year or so.

Have a great day,

Covid-19 is a blessing and a curse at the same time, a blessing in that it minimizes some of the damage they have with the existing product line, a curse in that the existing problems are allowed to fester, imagine if they still had to deliver 60+ frames a month, a full shutdown as happened before on the 737 line would have been ordered a long time ago.
As for the NMA, as long as one person wields so much power, the culture change will continue to take a back seat.

dispatchguy wrote:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/69746/hart-smith-on-outsourcing.pdf

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA...

Since this is the second time someone has made a comment to this effect, I'm chiming in. First off, the claim that Boeing's entire supply chain *could* be vertically integrated is ridiculous. It may be less integrated today than it was in, say, the 1980s, but even then Boeing had external suppliers. Airbus has external suppliers. External suppliers may be able to produce a product more efficiently than in-house; bashing anonymous "MBAs" doesn't change that fact. Short of the space program, commercial airplanes are one of the most complex engineering challenges out there. All the relevant engineering expertise will never fall under one roof.

Moreover, the use of external suppliers can stave of protectionism and sell airplanes. Airbus famously made the rounds in DC showing what parts of A320s were made in the USA to bolster the claim that slapping tariffs on Airbii would cost American jobs. The argument was persuasive.

Finally, "engineering-centric" firms have their problems, too, as anyone who has had to endure reading a user manual written in engineer-speak can attest. Steve Jobs famously said that Apple was a humanities company; today, "design-thinking" pervades Silicon Valley. Engineers can produce an overly feature-heavy product that does not necessarily correspond to marketing requirements. (Look at the famous Tu-154, where engineers basically had free reign to do whatever they wanted, since there were no market forces in the USSR.) Moreover, yes, like it or not, unless those engineers are planning to finance new plane design out-of-pocket, you have to tap the capital markets, and that means you have another stakeholder involved.

A little more nuance and a little less appeal to the peanut gallery would be in order.

DocLightning wrote:

What I don't get is how Boeing is still racking up new orders. If I were an airline CEO and I were looking at new airplanes, I'd be extremely hesitant to order anything from Boeing. They don't seem to be able to develop new models and, amazingly, they seem to have lost the ability to deliver the models they have already developed. Not even Lockheed got this bad. The closest example I can think of is RR when they developed the RB-211.

I also don't see how this ends well for Boeing. The C-suite and Board aren't going to suddenly have a moment of clarity and decide that maybe it's time to end the cost-cutting/quality dodging, invest properly in their workforce, and stop the union busting at the expense of a few percent of profits to their shareholders. And if they do go into Chapter 11 or get nationalized, I don't have confidence in the US Government to do the job it needs to do to force Boeing back into shape.

The demand for air travel and new airliners is going to come back. I just don't know how Boeing is going to meet it.

There’s a significantly higher amount of transparency with customers. Boeing holds calls a minimum of once per week to give updates on the 787, and did something similar with MAX (maybe once per month now?). I think the reality of the situation is more nuanced than what the general public or media knows, which is why customers aren’t freaking out.

dispatchguy wrote:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/69746/hart-smith-on-outsourcing.pdf

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA... For all the costs Boeing has cut, wouldn't it have been cheaper overall to maintain the cost structure, if it meant a better product?

How on earth did you get your hands on this 'Boeing proprietary' document?

A great read highlighting many of the shortsighted shortcomings of current business practices, in many cases through excellent deployment of the sarcasm of a seasoned professional. An example: 'A corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "perfect efficiency can be achieved only when no work is being done".' No joke, a middle management colleague of mine once uttered the phrase 'he who does nothing makes no mistakes' at work...

As a whole, it appears to be quite a prophetic text in light of its time of publication (2001) preceding the 787 program with its cost overruns and the multiple issues it has encountered since its introduction (battery problems, cracking windshields and now various manufacturing problems). So, as to your question, my Captain Hindsight armchair expert opinion is that Boeing would have saved an immense amount of costs by doing more of the work themselves and wouldn't have to issue forward loss predictions on the program.

SurlyBonds wrote:

dispatchguy wrote:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/69746/hart-smith-on-outsourcing.pdf

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA...

Since this is the second time someone has made a comment to this effect, I'm chiming in. First off, the claim that Boeing's entire supply chain *could* be vertically integrated is ridiculous.

At no point did dispatchguy or the linked document make this claim.

SurlyBonds wrote:

It may be less integrated today than it was in, say, the 1980s, but even then Boeing had external suppliers. Airbus has external suppliers. External suppliers may be able to produce a product more efficiently than in-house; bashing anonymous "MBAs" doesn't change that fact. Short of the space program, commercial airplanes are one of the most complex engineering challenges out there. All the relevant engineering expertise will never fall under one roof.

Moreover, the use of external suppliers can stave of protectionism and sell airplanes. Airbus famously made the rounds in DC showing what parts of A320s were made in the USA to bolster the claim that slapping tariffs on Airbii would cost American jobs. The argument was persuasive.

The linked document acknowledges that outsourcing has its uses and is vital for successful companies, but also puts forward some good necessary conditions for that to be the case. However, I very much agree with the document author's gist that excessive outsourcing ultimately causes higher overall costs and effectively out-sources profits, too. The 787 program may end up being an excellent case study since out-sourcing was one of the key strategies in attempting to cut development costs.

SurlyBonds wrote:

Finally, "engineering-centric" firms have their problems, too, as anyone who has had to endure reading a user manual written in engineer-speak can attest. Steve Jobs famously said that Apple was a humanities company; today, "design-thinking" pervades Silicon Valley. Engineers can produce an overly feature-heavy product that does not necessarily correspond to marketing requirements. (Look at the famous Tu-154, where engineers basically had free reign to do whatever they wanted, since there were no market forces in the USSR.) Moreover, yes, like it or not, unless those engineers are planning to finance new plane design out-of-pocket, you have to tap the capital markets, and that means you have another stakeholder involved.

Agreed, engineering for the sake of engineering and without a proper goal doesn't lead to success either. But be careful not to use that as an argument to remove (out-source) engineering expertise altogether.

SurlyBonds wrote:

A little more nuance and a little less appeal to the peanut gallery would be in order.

The linked article is quite nuanced.

SurlyBonds wrote:

bashing anonymous "MBAs" doesn't change that fact

Do you happen to have an MBA by any chance?

DocLightning wrote:

What I don't get is how Boeing is still racking up new orders. If I were an airline CEO and I were looking at new airplanes, I'd be extremely hesitant to order anything from Boeing. They don't seem to be able to develop new models and, amazingly, they seem to have lost the ability to deliver the models they have already developed. Not even Lockheed got this bad. The closest example I can think of is RR when they developed the RB-211.

I also don't see how this ends well for Boeing. The C-suite and Board aren't going to suddenly have a moment of clarity and decide that maybe it's time to end the cost-cutting/quality dodging, invest properly in their workforce, and stop the union busting at the expense of a few percent of profits to their shareholders. And if they do go into Chapter 11 or get nationalized, I don't have confidence in the US Government to do the job it needs to do to force Boeing back into shape.

The demand for air travel and new airliners is going to come back. I just don't know how Boeing is going to meet it.

Not much of a risk. You have real operational data for the 787/737 from other operators. So if you have an existing fleet that could go a few years longer and get hefty compensations from Boeing in case they miss the delivery timeline or performance targets, it is as much a risk as a chance for a nice extra discount. If Boeing offers you a low price as well, it is a even easier choice.

DocLightning wrote:

What I don't get is how Boeing is still racking up new orders. If I were an airline CEO and I were looking at new airplanes, I'd be extremely hesitant to order anything from Boeing.

In addition to what sxf24 noted, it's not like they have another option: Airbus is booked-up and Comac and United Aircraft Corporation are not realistic options. Unless you want to shed marketshare and traffic to your competitors, you buy what you can.

DocLightning wrote:

I also don't see how this ends well for Boeing. The C-suite and Board aren't going to suddenly have a moment of clarity and decide that maybe it's time to end the cost-cutting/quality dodging, invest properly in their workforce, and stop the union busting at the expense of a few percent of profits to their shareholders.

What's the alternative? Fire every person in the company on the org chart from the middle levels to the top? You think Boeing is dysfunctional and ineffective now, you ain't seen nothing compared to that.

DocLightning wrote:

And if they do go into Chapter 11 or get nationalized, I don't have confidence in the US Government to do the job it needs to do to force Boeing back into shape.

They did a decent enough job with General Motors, I hear.

Stitch wrote:

They did a decent enough job with General Motors, I hear.

That was 12 years ago.

Stitch wrote:

What's the alternative? Fire every person in the company on the org chart from the middle levels to the top? You think Boeing is dysfunctional and ineffective now, you ain't seen nothing compared to that.

Exactly. Rock, meet hard place.

The problem at Boeing starts at the top, the last thing they need is a purge of middle levels of the hierarchy, because that would probably hurt the ones doing actual projects. The basic problem is that the leadership does not see that Boeing has a problem and believes that others are causing problems for Boeing. I strongly believe that changing a very limited number of executive positions could achieve a turn around within 5 years, if the new leaders bring the right mindset to Boeing.

Stitch wrote:

dispatchguy wrote:

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA... For all the costs Boeing has cut, wouldn't it have been cheaper overall to maintain the cost structure, if it meant a better product?

It's not like Airbus and Boeing have the ability, technically or financially, to own the entire supply chain themselves.

And even if they did, they would not be allowed under US and EU anti-trust laws.

If a company wanted to they could make every single part required to build an aircraft they could. Loads of companies make every part of things they sell. It has nothing to do with anti-trust laws.

jomur wrote:

If a company wanted to they could make every single part required to build an aircraft they could. Loads of companies make every part of things they sell. It has nothing to do with anti-trust laws.

Well back when Boeing also owned United Airlines and Pratt & Whitney, they were required to divest of both, not just United Airlines.

So it is unlikely Boeing would be allowed to buy, say, GE Aviation, so they could provide their own engines, which are a rather important part of a commercial airliner.

Stitch wrote:

jomur wrote:

If a company wanted to they could make every single part required to build an aircraft they could. Loads of companies make every part of things they sell. It has nothing to do with anti-trust laws.

Well back when Boeing also owned United Airlines and Pratt & Whitney, they were required to divest of both, not just United Airlines.

So it is unlikely Boeing would be allowed to buy, say, GE Aviation, so they could provide their own engines, which are a rather important part of a commercial airliner.

As of right now, from what I can find, aircraft manufacturers are only banned from owning an airline, not an engine manufacturer. So, legally, Boeing could buy GE.

WayexTDI wrote:

Stitch wrote:

jomur wrote:

If a company wanted to they could make every single part required to build an aircraft they could. Loads of companies make every part of things they sell. It has nothing to do with anti-trust laws.

Well back when Boeing also owned United Airlines and Pratt & Whitney, they were required to divest of both, not just United Airlines.

So it is unlikely Boeing would be allowed to buy, say, GE Aviation, so they could provide their own engines, which are a rather important part of a commercial airliner.

As of right now, from what I can find, aircraft manufacturers are only banned from owning an airline, not an engine manufacturer. So, legally, Boeing could buy GE.

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

Stitch wrote:

dispatchguy wrote:

Outsourcing isn't great, except to an MBA... For all the costs Boeing has cut, wouldn't it have been cheaper overall to maintain the cost structure, if it meant a better product?

It's not like Airbus and Boeing have the ability, technically or financially, to own the entire supply chain themselves.

And even if they did, they would not be allowed under US and EU anti-trust laws.

This is rather outside the topic, but vertical integration isn't illegal under antitrust laws except under specific circumstances. Boeing could certainly buy a lot of its supply chain, as could Airbus. Where there would be challenges would be where an entity is critical to the supply chain of both (as a supplier or major competitor of a supplier) and there are few or no alternatives.

And other than money and time, there is never anything stopping you from creating your own in-house supplies from scratch.

WayexTDI wrote:

Stitch wrote:

jomur wrote:

If a company wanted to they could make every single part required to build an aircraft they could. Loads of companies make every part of things they sell. It has nothing to do with anti-trust laws.

Well back when Boeing also owned United Airlines and Pratt & Whitney, they were required to divest of both, not just United Airlines.

So it is unlikely Boeing would be allowed to buy, say, GE Aviation, so they could provide their own engines, which are a rather important part of a commercial airliner.

As of right now, from what I can find, aircraft manufacturers are only banned from owning an airline, not an engine manufacturer. So, legally, Boeing could buy GE.

Well, there isn't a specific US statute that bars them from owning an engine manufacturer like there is for an airline, but I'd bet a lot of money that that deal would be challenged in both the US and EU under a vertical foreclosure theory. It's pretty much the exact situation I mention above.

afgeneral wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Well back when Boeing also owned United Airlines and Pratt & Whitney, they were required to divest of both, not just United Airlines.

So it is unlikely Boeing would be allowed to buy, say, GE Aviation, so they could provide their own engines, which are a rather important part of a commercial airliner.

As of right now, from what I can find, aircraft manufacturers are only banned from owning an airline, not an engine manufacturer. So, legally, Boeing could buy GE.

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

Antitrust isn't different from legal. It's just that there are multiple antitrust laws. There is a specific US statute that bars aircraft manufacturers from owning airlines. But the Sherman Act, the main US antitrust law, and its supporting statutes (primarily the Clayton and HSR Acts) still regulate transactions not covered by specific other statutes. And that's setting aside the laws and regulations in numerous other countries and jurisdictions (EU, China, Brazil, plus others) that could conceivably come into play.

afgeneral wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Well back when Boeing also owned United Airlines and Pratt & Whitney, they were required to divest of both, not just United Airlines.

So it is unlikely Boeing would be allowed to buy, say, GE Aviation, so they could provide their own engines, which are a rather important part of a commercial airliner.

As of right now, from what I can find, aircraft manufacturers are only banned from owning an airline, not an engine manufacturer. So, legally, Boeing could buy GE.

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

Given that Boeing is unable even to order proper parts (remember 787 fasteners saga?) that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

kalvado wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

As of right now, from what I can find, aircraft manufacturers are only banned from owning an airline, not an engine manufacturer. So, legally, Boeing could buy GE.

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

Given that Boeing is unable even to order proper parts (remember 787 fasteners saga?) that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

I'm just saying that they could, not that they should.

There's a lot of hate aimed at "MBA types" here but let me tell you that they do teach you that you should outsource non-core activities and retain core ones. Big issue seems that they outsourced too many manufacturing jobs which are supposed to be core if you want to be an actual manufacturer. They seem to have come to the conclusion that they are better off being a final assembly and marketing company at their core rather than a manufacturer.

It's fine to outsource some manufacturing where cost would be jut too high to be competitive for things like avionics, IFE, seats etc. But outsourcing whole sections of the fuselage seems crazy to me. Outsourcing decision needs to be more of a strategic decision on core business before costing. In some industries which are more heavily regulated they outright prohibit outsourcing of some basic functions. Banks for example cannot just outsource credit decision because it is their core function.

afgeneral wrote:

kalvado wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

Given that Boeing is unable even to order proper parts (remember 787 fasteners saga?) that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

I'm just saying that they could, not that they should.

There's a lot of hate aimed at "MBA types" here but let me tell you that they do teach you that you should outsource non-core activities and retain core ones. Big issue seems that they outsourced too many manufacturing jobs which are supposed to be core if you want to be an actual manufacturer. They seem to have come to the conclusion that they are better off being a final assembly and marketing company at their core rather than a manufacturer.

It's fine to outsource some manufacturing where cost would be jut too high to be competitive for things like avionics, IFE, seats etc. But outsourcing whole sections of the fuselage seems crazy to me. Outsourcing decision needs to be more of a strategic decision on core business before costing. In some industries which are more heavily regulated they outright prohibit outsourcing of some basic functions. Banks for example cannot just outsource credit decision because it is their core function.

I might be rather prejudicial but outsourcing basic functions is a BIG NOGO for basic functions (like eng. oversight).... If banks are more heavly constraied than you.... you might have some rather explicit lessons to learn...

afgeneral wrote:

kalvado wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

Given that Boeing is unable even to order proper parts (remember 787 fasteners saga?) that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

I'm just saying that they could, not that they should.

There's a lot of hate aimed at "MBA types" here but let me tell you that they do teach you that you should outsource non-core activities and retain core ones. Big issue seems that they outsourced too many manufacturing jobs which are supposed to be core if you want to be an actual manufacturer. They seem to have come to the conclusion that they are better off being a final assembly and marketing company at their core rather than a manufacturer.

It's fine to outsource some manufacturing where cost would be jut too high to be competitive for things like avionics, IFE, seats etc. But outsourcing whole sections of the fuselage seems crazy to me. Outsourcing decision needs to be more of a strategic decision on core business before costing. In some industries which are more heavily regulated they outright prohibit outsourcing of some basic functions. Banks for example cannot just outsource credit decision because it is their core function.

I would say that outsourcing is OK if subcontractor and those directly using/istalling/relying on their product can communicate. If hole pattern doesn't match, there should be a way to discuss and mitigate without CEO involvement.
My impression is that Boeing subcontracted things to broadly for that communication to flow - while having problems even with communication within the company (infamous test pilots vs technical pilots in Forkner messages). MBA, CEO or WTF - this is not exactly an outsource problem, Boeing could have same issues having "Boeing" logo on every facility.

kalvado wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Given that Boeing is unable even to order proper parts (remember 787 fasteners saga?) that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

I'm just saying that they could, not that they should.

There's a lot of hate aimed at "MBA types" here but let me tell you that they do teach you that you should outsource non-core activities and retain core ones. Big issue seems that they outsourced too many manufacturing jobs which are supposed to be core if you want to be an actual manufacturer. They seem to have come to the conclusion that they are better off being a final assembly and marketing company at their core rather than a manufacturer.

It's fine to outsource some manufacturing where cost would be jut too high to be competitive for things like avionics, IFE, seats etc. But outsourcing whole sections of the fuselage seems crazy to me. Outsourcing decision needs to be more of a strategic decision on core business before costing. In some industries which are more heavily regulated they outright prohibit outsourcing of some basic functions. Banks for example cannot just outsource credit decision because it is their core function.

I would say that outsourcing is OK if subcontractor and those directly using/istalling/relying on their product can communicate. If hole pattern doesn't match, there should be a way to discuss and mitigate without CEO involvement.
My impression is that Boeing subcontracted things to broadly for that communication to flow - while having problems even with communication within the company (infamous test pilots vs technical pilots in Forkner messages). MBA, CEO or WTF - this is not exactly an outsource problem, Boeing could have same issues having "Boeing" logo on every facility.

When you outsource to a third party the incentive structure for the management and employees of that company will be focused on the profitability of that third party entity. The margins and targets in the contracts are quite ambitious due to the negotiating power of Boeing. Often suppliers will bid below cost just because they want to work with a big customer like Boeing, being overly optimistic in their forecasts. This leaves small margin for unexpected situations like COVID. There is some oversight but it often fails. They hide major issues until the last minute when they are finally forced to admit they cannot deliver as per contract. Wrong incentives trickle down to middle management and workers.

As a manufacturer you want to keep all of this inhouse, not just oversight but workers as well. Incentives of everyone down to workers aligned with objectives of the overall organization. You get to manage everyone's performance and build corporate culture. Employees get more ownership of their work and a sense of belonging to the brand and its commercial success.

Boeing logo would make a big difference.

afgeneral wrote:

kalvado wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

I'm just saying that they could, not that they should.

There's a lot of hate aimed at "MBA types" here but let me tell you that they do teach you that you should outsource non-core activities and retain core ones. Big issue seems that they outsourced too many manufacturing jobs which are supposed to be core if you want to be an actual manufacturer. They seem to have come to the conclusion that they are better off being a final assembly and marketing company at their core rather than a manufacturer.

It's fine to outsource some manufacturing where cost would be jut too high to be competitive for things like avionics, IFE, seats etc. But outsourcing whole sections of the fuselage seems crazy to me. Outsourcing decision needs to be more of a strategic decision on core business before costing. In some industries which are more heavily regulated they outright prohibit outsourcing of some basic functions. Banks for example cannot just outsource credit decision because it is their core function.

I would say that outsourcing is OK if subcontractor and those directly using/istalling/relying on their product can communicate. If hole pattern doesn't match, there should be a way to discuss and mitigate without CEO involvement.
My impression is that Boeing subcontracted things to broadly for that communication to flow - while having problems even with communication within the company (infamous test pilots vs technical pilots in Forkner messages). MBA, CEO or WTF - this is not exactly an outsource problem, Boeing could have same issues having "Boeing" logo on every facility.

When you outsource to a third party the incentive structure for the management and employees of that company will be focused on the profitability of that third party entity. The margins and targets in the contracts are quite ambitious due to the negotiating power of Boeing. Often suppliers will bid below cost just because they want to work with a big customer like Boeing, being overly optimistic in their forecasts. This leaves small margin for unexpected situations like COVID. There is some oversight but it often fails. They hide major issues until the last minute when they are finally forced to admit they cannot deliver as per contract. Wrong incentives trickle down to middle management and workers.

As a manufacturer you want to keep all of this inhouse, not just oversight but workers as well. Incentives of everyone down to workers aligned with objectives of the overall organization. You get to manage everyone's performance and build corporate culture. Employees get more ownership of their work and a sense of belonging to the brand and its commercial success.

Boeing logo would make a big difference.

Oh, there are certainly ways around it. Properly set KPIs help to ensure that every department and every manager are watching their goals even at a cost of other departments' or entire company interests.

afgeneral wrote:

kalvado wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

Given that Boeing is unable even to order proper parts (remember 787 fasteners saga?) that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

I'm just saying that they could, not that they should.

There's a lot of hate aimed at "MBA types" here but let me tell you that they do teach you that you should outsource non-core activities and retain core ones. Big issue seems that they outsourced too many manufacturing jobs which are supposed to be core if you want to be an actual manufacturer. They seem to have come to the conclusion that they are better off being a final assembly and marketing company at their core rather than a manufacturer.

It's fine to outsource some manufacturing where cost would be jut too high to be competitive for things like avionics, IFE, seats etc. But outsourcing whole sections of the fuselage seems crazy to me. Outsourcing decision needs to be more of a strategic decision on core business before costing. In some industries which are more heavily regulated they outright prohibit outsourcing of some basic functions. Banks for example cannot just outsource credit decision because it is their core function.

Guess who was the architect behind the 787’s supply chain strategy? Allan Mullaly!

I'd note that the current troubles with the 787 do not stem from outsourcing or subcontracting this time, but from assembly... The one thing that Boeing actually does itself.

To me, the root of all this mess is the SC plant and its ostensible goal to cut costs, corners and bypass unions. It has been a source of trouble from the very beginning, as illustrated by multiple quality complaints from customers since the early days.

Francoflier wrote:

I'd note that the current troubles with the 787 do not stem from outsourcing or subcontracting this time, but from assembly... The one thing that Boeing actually does itself.

To me, the root of all this mess is the SC plant and its ostensible goal to cut costs, corners and bypass unions. It has been a source of trouble from the very beginning, as illustrated by multiple quality complaints from customers since the early days.

I think you are laying the blame in the wrong spot. Many of the 787's assembled in Everett have the same quality issues in joints assembled in Everett that are the current concern (how major assembly segments are shimmed when during assembly of the air-frame). Since that happened at both South Carolina and Everett... Its obviously not just caused by the SC plant.

It sounds to me like a generic issue with instructions on assembly, and someone not understanding how critical things were. The same procedures and QC checks were used at both plants.

afgeneral wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Well back when Boeing also owned United Airlines and Pratt & Whitney, they were required to divest of both, not just United Airlines.

So it is unlikely Boeing would be allowed to buy, say, GE Aviation, so they could provide their own engines, which are a rather important part of a commercial airliner.

As of right now, from what I can find, aircraft manufacturers are only banned from owning an airline, not an engine manufacturer. So, legally, Boeing could buy GE.

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

There are 4 main engine manufacturers (GE, PW, RR & CFM); should Airbus snatch one and Boeing another, there would still be 2 left to supply both. Meaning, each airframer could have access to 3 engine manufacturers at least; not sure where the antitrust issue is.

WayexTDI wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

As of right now, from what I can find, aircraft manufacturers are only banned from owning an airline, not an engine manufacturer. So, legally, Boeing could buy GE.

antitrust is different from "legal"

antitrust authorities don't want airframe manufacturers owning engine makers; they don't want a situation where Boeing owns GE and GE does not want to supply engines to Airbus or gets priority of some kind

apart from that Boing could be manufacturing everything

There are 4 main engine manufacturers (GE, PW, RR & CFM); should Airbus snatch one and Boeing another, there would still be 2 left to supply both. Meaning, each airframer could have access to 3 engine manufacturers at least; not sure where the antitrust issue is.

GE is one partner of CFM, so there's really only 3.

Scotron12 wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/boeings-delivery-of-new-787-dreamliners-may-not-be-delivered-till-late-oct-wsj/ar-AAO7Xra?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Targeting late October. FAA rejected Boeing proposal of 3 aircraft represntative of all 787s parked.

Interesting, but I'm not seeing where your linked article details Boeing's proposals in the way you are suggesting.

What it does say is troubling, though:

In August, Boeing met with the FAA and requested the agency approve an inspection method that would speed deliveries with targeted checks rather than nose-to-tail teardowns.

However, the regulators flagged internal company disagreements over the aircraft sample size and repeated that Boeing's employee group, which acts as an in-house regulator, needs to concur with the company's proposals.

So it seems Boeing's designated representatives (i.e. "Boeing employee group") do not concur with the company's proposals (presumably management driven).

It seems brazen for the management side to go ahead and submit a proposal without concurrence of the in-house group.

I have to admit Boeing is not covering itself in glory these days.

Revelation wrote:

It seems brazen for the management side to go ahead and submit a proposal without concurrence of the in-house group.

"Brazen" is an adjective that seems to have accurately described Boeing Management in general for the past quarter-century.