How Boeing lost their way
I'm not a Boeing pilot, I fly the Embraer.
When the new GTF engines came along, Embraer were faced with the same problem as Boeing were- how to glue the new engines onto their existing design to get the efficiency benefits of the new engines?
So what did Embraer change when they made the E2?
Answer: Everything. New wing, new gear, moved the wing forward on the fuselage, new tail, new flight control system, new EFIS,I could go on but they basically rebuilt the aircraft from the ground up.
What did Boeing do?
New pylons, which didn't work very well. MCAS.
It's an interesting comparison, don't you think?
When the new GTF engines came along, Embraer were faced with the same problem as Boeing were- how to glue the new engines onto their existing design to get the efficiency benefits of the new engines?
So what did Embraer change when they made the E2?
Answer: Everything. New wing, new gear, moved the wing forward on the fuselage, new tail, new flight control system, new EFIS,I could go on but they basically rebuilt the aircraft from the ground up.
What did Boeing do?
New pylons, which didn't work very well. MCAS.
It's an interesting comparison, don't you think?
Paxing All Over The World
Living in the UK, it was in the early 1980s that I noticed both print and TV move the Stock Market from the financial pages to the front page. I saw this happening as the UK went through a recession and the numbers of unemployed, and the FTSE100 were taken as benchmarks of progress.
By the mid 1980s, I was working in The City of London (in Telecommunications) with an up close view of the developing boom, hastened by deregulation. This was also the start of Outsourcing, I was working for an American Company and saw this at first hand.
It was during the 1980s that the company 'horizon' was moved ever closer. I saw the Stock Market become a gambling table - just as it had done leading up to the 1929 crash.
Then came the next (entirely predictable) recession in 1989/1991. THEN the bean counters were unleashed and they have never stopped. Also in this decade, we saw old regulations come tumbling down. Notablely (as already mentioned) the US govt thought that companies could regulate themselves. Well, in the 1940s, 50s and 60s - they probably could have done - but following the 1980s? Not a chance. We saw regulations being swept aside in the UK, as Thatcher and her successors followed Reagan and the neo-cons.
By 2000, the new rules had already been incorporated into popular culture as shared by senior mgmt in their clubs and bars, also in MBAs. The Stock Markets continued to get drunk on IPOs and the managers saw how to get rich. Since then, we have also seen the emergence of a whole new style of company - ones built on debt and the absence of regulation on the Internet companies. This particular train crash is still building up speed, so stand back.
Perhaps most critically, in the late 1980s (in the UK) Thatcher loved the idea that we would progress as a country by providing services - rather than making things. To date, the jury is out on this.
In this century, we have seen a succession of companies make hideous mistakes as they place short term profits for the shareholders in front of everything. One of the most notable being VW and Dieselgate (2008). In government circles, the pressure to please the shareholder (the White House to secure more funding) was provided by the Shuttle Challenger Disaster in 1986.
I grew up in the era of 'Look after the company and the company will look after you' and that share holding was a long term prospect. All of that has gone because humans do not read history. Sons do not listen to their father (leave alone their grandfather) tell them of mistakes made in the past. Each generation thinks it can reinvent the wheel.
(thread drift: it is for these same reasons that the 1929 Crash is going to be repeated. The difference will be that, as the financial world is now larger and the world more interconnected - it is going to be very considerably worse than 1929, so stand well back as the current strength of the USD will not last.)
So, I would suggest that the writing was on the wall for Boeing from the moment they abandoned their heritage and left Seattle. At the time, many in these forums warned of the loss of heritage and combined knowledge. Boeing will survive because the Pentagon and White House need it to.
However, unless there are wholesale resignations (ALL of the main Board) and a return of bonus payments and REAL apologies and understanding? Then the world will not forgive them.
We can but hope that other engineering companies whose products carry humans have spent this year examining their process in microscopic detail.
By the mid 1980s, I was working in The City of London (in Telecommunications) with an up close view of the developing boom, hastened by deregulation. This was also the start of Outsourcing, I was working for an American Company and saw this at first hand.
It was during the 1980s that the company 'horizon' was moved ever closer. I saw the Stock Market become a gambling table - just as it had done leading up to the 1929 crash.
Then came the next (entirely predictable) recession in 1989/1991. THEN the bean counters were unleashed and they have never stopped. Also in this decade, we saw old regulations come tumbling down. Notablely (as already mentioned) the US govt thought that companies could regulate themselves. Well, in the 1940s, 50s and 60s - they probably could have done - but following the 1980s? Not a chance. We saw regulations being swept aside in the UK, as Thatcher and her successors followed Reagan and the neo-cons.
By 2000, the new rules had already been incorporated into popular culture as shared by senior mgmt in their clubs and bars, also in MBAs. The Stock Markets continued to get drunk on IPOs and the managers saw how to get rich. Since then, we have also seen the emergence of a whole new style of company - ones built on debt and the absence of regulation on the Internet companies. This particular train crash is still building up speed, so stand back.
Perhaps most critically, in the late 1980s (in the UK) Thatcher loved the idea that we would progress as a country by providing services - rather than making things. To date, the jury is out on this.
In this century, we have seen a succession of companies make hideous mistakes as they place short term profits for the shareholders in front of everything. One of the most notable being VW and Dieselgate (2008). In government circles, the pressure to please the shareholder (the White House to secure more funding) was provided by the Shuttle Challenger Disaster in 1986.
I grew up in the era of 'Look after the company and the company will look after you' and that share holding was a long term prospect. All of that has gone because humans do not read history. Sons do not listen to their father (leave alone their grandfather) tell them of mistakes made in the past. Each generation thinks it can reinvent the wheel.
(thread drift: it is for these same reasons that the 1929 Crash is going to be repeated. The difference will be that, as the financial world is now larger and the world more interconnected - it is going to be very considerably worse than 1929, so stand well back as the current strength of the USD will not last.)
So, I would suggest that the writing was on the wall for Boeing from the moment they abandoned their heritage and left Seattle. At the time, many in these forums warned of the loss of heritage and combined knowledge. Boeing will survive because the Pentagon and White House need it to.
However, unless there are wholesale resignations (ALL of the main Board) and a return of bonus payments and REAL apologies and understanding? Then the world will not forgive them.
We can but hope that other engineering companies whose products carry humans have spent this year examining their process in microscopic detail.
Pittsspecialguy,
I am a pilot and I’ve flown Boeing’s for the last 25 years to 8nclude the 727, 757, and 767...they are great aircraft. As far as your defense for Denis Muilenburg, all I have to say is he was the program manager for this project, The X-32
This aircraft represented Boeing’s proposal to compete for the biggest fighter contract for the next few decades, and this is what Muilenberg came up with! It was so screwed up that they had to re-design the entire wing platform to included a separate stabilizer/ tail, but this prototype didn’t incorporate the new design, so a flawed design, not remotely like the revised design competed against Lockheed’s F-35 and lost. Essentially, Under Muilenberg’s leadership Boeing dropped the ball big time and lost the contract. I always wondered why he eventually rose to the CEO position after this debacle. Maybe you can explain?
I am a pilot and I’ve flown Boeing’s for the last 25 years to 8nclude the 727, 757, and 767...they are great aircraft. As far as your defense for Denis Muilenburg, all I have to say is he was the program manager for this project, The X-32
This aircraft represented Boeing’s proposal to compete for the biggest fighter contract for the next few decades, and this is what Muilenberg came up with! It was so screwed up that they had to re-design the entire wing platform to included a separate stabilizer/ tail, but this prototype didn’t incorporate the new design, so a flawed design, not remotely like the revised design competed against Lockheed’s F-35 and lost. Essentially, Under Muilenberg’s leadership Boeing dropped the ball big time and lost the contract. I always wondered why he eventually rose to the CEO position after this debacle. Maybe you can explain?
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsspecialguy,
I am a pilot and I’ve flown Boeing’s for the last 25 years to 8nclude the 727, 757, and 767...they are great aircraft. As far as your defense for Denis Muilenburg, all I have to say is he was the program manager for this project, The X-32
...
I always wondered why he eventually rose to the CEO position after this debacle. Maybe you can explain?
I am a pilot and I’ve flown Boeing’s for the last 25 years to 8nclude the 727, 757, and 767...they are great aircraft. As far as your defense for Denis Muilenburg, all I have to say is he was the program manager for this project, The X-32
...
I always wondered why he eventually rose to the CEO position after this debacle. Maybe you can explain?
Maybe he owes his ascension to his mediocrity, which allows his board to pull strings behind the scene...
BTW, I'm not expecting news from Pittsspecialguy any time soon, he's busy gathering the proofs of his working at high level with Boeing CEOs, which he imprudently promised to send me by PM...
Last edited by Fly Aiprt; 27th Nov 2019 at 23:28.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essentially, Under Muilenberg’s leadership Boeing dropped the ball big time and lost the contract. I always wondered why he eventually rose to the CEO position after this debacle. Maybe you can explain?
, any pilot or engineer would know: “if it looks good, it flies good”.Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One must mention previous US government FAA budget funding shortcomings going back decades which prevented regulatory oversight as a contributory and causal factor in this whole debacle. The whole process of self certification by the manufacturers themselves, of aircraft construction and design must never be allowed again. In short , the FAA , and the US government are themselves accountable.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Europe Demands Approval of 777X
FAA Takes Back Control of Key Safety Step from Boeing
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shareholder value, greed and smart communications easily beat safety and long term strategy at Boeing.
It seems behind the curtains, a plan B is starting to be rolled out.. : https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/co...rs-to-the-fsa/
A big part of the problem: Boeing has no answer to the nimble A321NEO's, selling by the thousands, to their customers, unchallenged.
It seems behind the curtains, a plan B is starting to be rolled out.. : https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/co...rs-to-the-fsa/
A big part of the problem: Boeing has no answer to the nimble A321NEO's, selling by the thousands, to their customers, unchallenged.
Last edited by keesje; 28th Nov 2019 at 11:09.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...for the remainder of us knuckle dragging blue collar pirate types ... Could you explain in English please ? You lost us at Section 212....
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.faa.gov/about/reauthorization/
The full text is here:
https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/p...115publ254.pdf
Section 212 begins on page 63.
Last edited by OldnGrounded; 28th Nov 2019 at 17:02. Reason: Clarification
I think the rot (regulatory capture) started in the FAA when they fast tracked ETOPS approval for the 777 to take out competition from the A340.
So its not since the 777: the 777 started it.
So its not since the 777: the 777 started it.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEEEP BEEEEP -Try again- first commercial flight was in June 1995- and was " ETOPS out of the Box "
The old DER system was not changed to ODA until about 10 years later .
First flight of 777 was in 1994 .
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slf3 said That's kind of my point,. It was ETOPS out of the box.....
The FAA changed the rules to suit Boeing.
The FAA changed the rules to suit Boeing.
Suggest you check your history re 777 ETOPS
September 2, 1996
Sept 2 1996
FARNBOROUGH - The GE90-powered Boeing 777 completed all 180-minute ETOPS (Extended Twin OPerationS) Type Design requirements in August after flying a demanding Early ETOPS 1,000-cycle flight test program.
During the flight test program, the GE90 performed flawlessly. One of the engines, #900109, which flew the entire 1,000-cycle test program in an unbalanced state to prove its strength and endurance, was on display at GE's Farnborough Exhibit.
In September, the highest-thrust engine ever certified by the FAA, the 92,000 pound (409 kN) thrust GE90-92B, will begin flight testing on a Boeing 777. This will be followed by flight testing in October on the Boeing 777-200 IGW (Increased Gross Weight) aircraft. The -92B will also be the first engine to enter service on the 777-200 IGW when the aircraft is delivered to launch customer British Airways early next year. The engine will enter service derated to 90,000 pounds (400 kN) thrust.
Since its initial delivery in late 1995, the 85,000 pound (378 kN) thrust GE90-85B has achieved an outstanding in-service record. The engine, in service on four British Airways and two China Southern 777 aircraft, has logged more than 21,000 flight hours while maintaining a 99.95 percent dispatch reliability rate. The engine is also demonstrating excellent performance retention, resulting in longer on-wing life and lower maintenance costs to airline customers.
The GE90 is produced by GE Aircraft Engines and its revenue-sharing participants Snecma of France, IHI of Japan, and FiatAvio of Italy.
Sept 2 1996
FARNBOROUGH - The GE90-powered Boeing 777 completed all 180-minute ETOPS (Extended Twin OPerationS) Type Design requirements in August after flying a demanding Early ETOPS 1,000-cycle flight test program.
During the flight test program, the GE90 performed flawlessly. One of the engines, #900109, which flew the entire 1,000-cycle test program in an unbalanced state to prove its strength and endurance, was on display at GE's Farnborough Exhibit.
In September, the highest-thrust engine ever certified by the FAA, the 92,000 pound (409 kN) thrust GE90-92B, will begin flight testing on a Boeing 777. This will be followed by flight testing in October on the Boeing 777-200 IGW (Increased Gross Weight) aircraft. The -92B will also be the first engine to enter service on the 777-200 IGW when the aircraft is delivered to launch customer British Airways early next year. The engine will enter service derated to 90,000 pounds (400 kN) thrust.
Since its initial delivery in late 1995, the 85,000 pound (378 kN) thrust GE90-85B has achieved an outstanding in-service record. The engine, in service on four British Airways and two China Southern 777 aircraft, has logged more than 21,000 flight hours while maintaining a 99.95 percent dispatch reliability rate. The engine is also demonstrating excellent performance retention, resulting in longer on-wing life and lower maintenance costs to airline customers.
The GE90 is produced by GE Aircraft Engines and its revenue-sharing participants Snecma of France, IHI of Japan, and FiatAvio of Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets just end this off topic issue - youve listed the link as to History of ETOPS 180 etc - and infer that some " FAA Rules " were " bent "
What rules were " bent " - you refuse to state !
END END END
What rules were " bent " - you refuse to state !
END END END
And it’s not of topic: Boeing would not be in the mess they are in if the FAA had done their job. I don’t think it is fanciful to suggest that this was the first sign of rot in the FAA visible to an outside observer.
