Why Boeing screwed up and lessons for CX Managment
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: HKG
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Boeing screwed up and lessons for CX Managment
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The “Boeing lesson” for CX really isn’t highlighted in this article. To me, Boeing has struggled in the last decade for two reasons that CX can learn from.
1) Boeing has outsourced too much of their core competencies. In an effort to save money and market globally to the PC crowd, Boeing sent far too much work outside the country. As a result, they lost their quality controls and supply chain management.
2) Boeing is constantly battling their employees and pitting the very people who design and make their airplanes against the Company. They aren’t as bad as CX, but the results are very similar.
As for the Daily Beast’s analysis of the narrowbody market, I could poke holes all day in their article. The C Series (A220) is very far from a commercial success (look at delivery numbers). Similarly, the 737MAX is very far from a commercial failure. It has certainly bloodied Boeing’s nose (again, like 787 did), but there are thousands of orders out there and most of those and many more will deliver over the next decade. The MCAS tragedy is nearly sorted.
The narrowbody market isn’t about long thin routes which the C Series excels at. The average sector length is about 600nm (less than 2 hours). That’s why A321XLR and CS aren’t very big deals. Narrowbodies need to excel at moving 100-200 people 1.5-4 hours, reliably, several times per day. This notion that the market requires a 7 hour mission is a fallacy. That’s why we see many times more jungle jets (Embraer) out there than CS. It’s also why 737 is still a very popular airplane with the airlines, notwithstanding the current MAX disaster.
1) Boeing has outsourced too much of their core competencies. In an effort to save money and market globally to the PC crowd, Boeing sent far too much work outside the country. As a result, they lost their quality controls and supply chain management.
2) Boeing is constantly battling their employees and pitting the very people who design and make their airplanes against the Company. They aren’t as bad as CX, but the results are very similar.
As for the Daily Beast’s analysis of the narrowbody market, I could poke holes all day in their article. The C Series (A220) is very far from a commercial success (look at delivery numbers). Similarly, the 737MAX is very far from a commercial failure. It has certainly bloodied Boeing’s nose (again, like 787 did), but there are thousands of orders out there and most of those and many more will deliver over the next decade. The MCAS tragedy is nearly sorted.
The narrowbody market isn’t about long thin routes which the C Series excels at. The average sector length is about 600nm (less than 2 hours). That’s why A321XLR and CS aren’t very big deals. Narrowbodies need to excel at moving 100-200 people 1.5-4 hours, reliably, several times per day. This notion that the market requires a 7 hour mission is a fallacy. That’s why we see many times more jungle jets (Embraer) out there than CS. It’s also why 737 is still a very popular airplane with the airlines, notwithstanding the current MAX disaster.
"The 737 Max is very far from a commercial failure" ????
Really?
If nothing else, the Max is a Corporate disgrace. What I don't understand is how executives within Boeing could keep the very suspect flight characteristics secret and wonder why they would do that. Were they not worried if they ever had to fly on a 737Max? Or maybe one of their children flew on one when it crashed?
When Boeing gets the compensation bills directly relating to this aircraft, I would think it qualifies to be one of the biggest " commercial failures" ever.
Somebody should go to jail for this but, of course, they won't.
Really?
If nothing else, the Max is a Corporate disgrace. What I don't understand is how executives within Boeing could keep the very suspect flight characteristics secret and wonder why they would do that. Were they not worried if they ever had to fly on a 737Max? Or maybe one of their children flew on one when it crashed?
When Boeing gets the compensation bills directly relating to this aircraft, I would think it qualifies to be one of the biggest " commercial failures" ever.
Somebody should go to jail for this but, of course, they won't.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Maningrida
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There can be no doubt that Boeing’s reputation has taken a beating.
It will be interesting to see what will become of the MAX. It’s most likely going to be returned to the skies at some point. Even if it never suffers as much as a bird strike for the rest if it’s days, it will always be associated with the story of Boeing’s corporate shortcomings.
The question in my mind is whether any new 73MAX orders will be placed by airlines (ie are they willing to take a gamble on the reputation of the aircraft, in this flyer-savvy, over-connected world we live in). Also whether unpaid orders will be filled.
In light of economic outlook, I’m not sure why would any airline invite that gamble into their system.
Be interesting to know Boeing’s strategy and if are working on the design of a new NB aircraft - one which will have a faultless introduction.
It will be interesting to see what will become of the MAX. It’s most likely going to be returned to the skies at some point. Even if it never suffers as much as a bird strike for the rest if it’s days, it will always be associated with the story of Boeing’s corporate shortcomings.
The question in my mind is whether any new 73MAX orders will be placed by airlines (ie are they willing to take a gamble on the reputation of the aircraft, in this flyer-savvy, over-connected world we live in). Also whether unpaid orders will be filled.
In light of economic outlook, I’m not sure why would any airline invite that gamble into their system.
Be interesting to know Boeing’s strategy and if are working on the design of a new NB aircraft - one which will have a faultless introduction.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 737 Max is very far from a commercial failure" ????
Really?
If nothing else, the Max is a Corporate disgrace. What I don't understand is how executives within Boeing could keep the very suspect flight characteristics secret and wonder why they would do that. Were they not worried if they ever had to fly on a 737Max? Or maybe one of their children flew on one when it crashed?
When Boeing gets the compensation bills directly relating to this aircraft, I would think it qualifies to be one of the biggest " commercial failures" ever.
Somebody should go to jail for this but, of course, they won't.
Really?
If nothing else, the Max is a Corporate disgrace. What I don't understand is how executives within Boeing could keep the very suspect flight characteristics secret and wonder why they would do that. Were they not worried if they ever had to fly on a 737Max? Or maybe one of their children flew on one when it crashed?
When Boeing gets the compensation bills directly relating to this aircraft, I would think it qualifies to be one of the biggest " commercial failures" ever.
Somebody should go to jail for this but, of course, they won't.
Yep! The final chapter is far from written.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the twilight zone
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There can be no doubt that Boeing’s reputation has taken a beating.
It will be interesting to see what will become of the MAX. It’s most likely going to be returned to the skies at some point. Even if it never suffers as much as a bird strike for the rest if it’s days, it will always be associated with the story of Boeing’s corporate shortcomings.
The question in my mind is whether any new 73MAX orders will be placed by airlines (ie are they willing to take a gamble on the reputation of the aircraft, in this flyer-savvy, over-connected world we live in). Also whether unpaid orders will be filled.
In light of economic outlook, I’m not sure why would any airline invite that gamble into their system.
Be interesting to know Boeing’s strategy and if are working on the design of a new NB aircraft - one which will have a faultless introduction.
It will be interesting to see what will become of the MAX. It’s most likely going to be returned to the skies at some point. Even if it never suffers as much as a bird strike for the rest if it’s days, it will always be associated with the story of Boeing’s corporate shortcomings.
The question in my mind is whether any new 73MAX orders will be placed by airlines (ie are they willing to take a gamble on the reputation of the aircraft, in this flyer-savvy, over-connected world we live in). Also whether unpaid orders will be filled.
In light of economic outlook, I’m not sure why would any airline invite that gamble into their system.
Be interesting to know Boeing’s strategy and if are working on the design of a new NB aircraft - one which will have a faultless introduction.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A "lesson" for CX management? That is the problem; they don't listen, don't learn, don't care, don't understand it's not all about them ("them" being the managers and their bonuses). The reason CX is such an epic disaster is that for the past 25 years they have been blindly focused on achieving their "goal", that being the crushing of pilot pay and benefits. Well, they succeeded, but at the same time they destroyed the airline and it's value. Well done boys 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay’s management issues are in a league of their own.
Rather than headhunting the best executive talent that is available, the board continually pick a team from the relatively small pool of personal who are employed by a minority shareholder of the airline. (Just look at the world wide head hunt that Air New Zealand conduced prior to selecting their latest CEO. Meanwhile cx looked no further than the HAECO hangar while conducting their search). Those executives then continue to be employed by the shareholder while being placed on a temporary secondment to the airline. It’s certainly open to debate whether this structure is in the best interests of the airline, or simply in the best interests of one of the shareholders.
Rather than headhunting the best executive talent that is available, the board continually pick a team from the relatively small pool of personal who are employed by a minority shareholder of the airline. (Just look at the world wide head hunt that Air New Zealand conduced prior to selecting their latest CEO. Meanwhile cx looked no further than the HAECO hangar while conducting their search). Those executives then continue to be employed by the shareholder while being placed on a temporary secondment to the airline. It’s certainly open to debate whether this structure is in the best interests of the airline, or simply in the best interests of one of the shareholders.
Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 4th Nov 2019 at 06:26.
