Boeing at X-Roads?
United pulls plans for Boeing’s biggest 737 Max jet, after Max 9 groundings prove to be ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’
United Airlines Holdings Inc. on Tuesday said it was rethinking its longer-term plans for Boeing’s biggest 737 Max jet, the Max 10, after the government’s grounding of dozens of Max 9s this month raised questions over whether the aircraft maker could still deliver planes on time.
United Chief Executive Scott Kirby said during the airline’s earnings call on Tuesday that it wasn’t canceling its orders for the Max 10. But he said the airline was taking the jet “out of our internal plans.”
“We’ll be working on what that means exactly with Boeing,” he said. “But Boeing is not going to be able to meet their contractual deliveries on at least many of those airplanes.”
More
United Airlines Holdings Inc. on Tuesday said it was rethinking its longer-term plans for Boeing’s biggest 737 Max jet, the Max 10, after the government’s grounding of dozens of Max 9s this month raised questions over whether the aircraft maker could still deliver planes on time.
United Chief Executive Scott Kirby said during the airline’s earnings call on Tuesday that it wasn’t canceling its orders for the Max 10. But he said the airline was taking the jet “out of our internal plans.”
“We’ll be working on what that means exactly with Boeing,” he said. “But Boeing is not going to be able to meet their contractual deliveries on at least many of those airplanes.”
More
One wonders if Northrop is thinking that "Northrop + Boom in civil aviation" might be extended to "plain old Northrop in civil aviation." After all, if Boeing starts today to sort out its Gordian knot of quality, safety, planning, contractual, and financial problems, it will be at least ten years down the road when a happy path emerges. That's long enough for a domestic competitor who isn't LockMart to go from a design to metal in the air. Or maybe Bombardier or Embraer takes a go at the midsize market. If Boeing can make a plane longer and add engines with bigger fans, why can't Canada or Brazil do that too?
One wonders if the Boeing board talks about these strategic things, or just about what remaining dollars they can squeeze out before the share price runs into a brick wall.
How does it happen that America's premier (and, formerly, the world's premier) commercial airframe manufacturer sets itself on a path into the wilderness, and 27 years later, no one is looking for the way back? Is it really as simple as a room full of financial elite are sucking out all the money they can from the former US #1 export industry, and aside from that they don't care?
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Scotland
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Korean Air managed a complete turnaround in its cockpit crew resource management. I don't know how long it took, starting in about 1999, but KA went from one of the worst to one of the best airlines. So Boeing has to do something similar in short time if it is to survive.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know a certain path for Boeing. Obviously in this case they need to deal with their internal reporting on the factory floor and be even less trusting of Spirit, but that leads to other problems.
Had the ET-302 reporting accurately represented how the situation developed following the preliminary report on Lion Air, they would not now be buried under an avalanche of blame.
Clearly this manufacturing issue is all on Boeing and they deserve a beating for it; blaming them for the actions of an airline that knew of a design defect but took no measures to cope?
The CEO needs to put his desk on the factory floor of Renton for the next 6 months. As unpleasant as it might be, probably a weekly factory walkaround invite to Dominic and buy 30 minute info-mercials in the Seattle market talking with the floor workers and inspectors about how work is going. These need to be unscripted without a single marketing person within a mile of the building, not even a slick intro. If they think the plant isn't a good backdrop? I'd say that is a sign it needs to be dealt with.
Had the ET-302 reporting accurately represented how the situation developed following the preliminary report on Lion Air, they would not now be buried under an avalanche of blame.
Clearly this manufacturing issue is all on Boeing and they deserve a beating for it; blaming them for the actions of an airline that knew of a design defect but took no measures to cope?
The CEO needs to put his desk on the factory floor of Renton for the next 6 months. As unpleasant as it might be, probably a weekly factory walkaround invite to Dominic and buy 30 minute info-mercials in the Seattle market talking with the floor workers and inspectors about how work is going. These need to be unscripted without a single marketing person within a mile of the building, not even a slick intro. If they think the plant isn't a good backdrop? I'd say that is a sign it needs to be dealt with.
Clearly all Mullally's hard work was undone by the next leadership. Shame.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 845
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CEO reportedly is visiting the U.S. Senate offices today of some of the heavyweights on the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. Certainly these anticipated conversations within the power structure can be expected to solve things - or provoke strong improvement at least - without delay.
(Sarcasm at no extra charge.)
(Sarcasm at no extra charge.)
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 24th Jan 2024 at 10:53.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The broader view
It may be a good idea to look into this in a broader, more long term view.
Boeing has a serious backlog on their delivery of the MAX. It has, due to quality issues gone from bad to worse. The bank is unhappy and the customers are unhappy. There is an enormous pressure on the production line to ramp up. Delivery is the king. There will, independently of the number of 'tick boxes' and QA procedures always been and gray area between reporting or not. The total focus of 'getting the stuff out the door' has just moved this gray area window. This is the real problem they are phasing now. Filling in more 'tick boxes' on more forms and more procedures will not solve the problem. You will have to focus on quality and reward it, not delivery. That is a change of culture.
Boeing has a serious backlog on their delivery of the MAX. It has, due to quality issues gone from bad to worse. The bank is unhappy and the customers are unhappy. There is an enormous pressure on the production line to ramp up. Delivery is the king. There will, independently of the number of 'tick boxes' and QA procedures always been and gray area between reporting or not. The total focus of 'getting the stuff out the door' has just moved this gray area window. This is the real problem they are phasing now. Filling in more 'tick boxes' on more forms and more procedures will not solve the problem. You will have to focus on quality and reward it, not delivery. That is a change of culture.
It's not the Senate he should be visiting but the shop floor. 'Management by walking about' has a lot to recommend it! The people who do the job usually know far more about what is really happening than the managers in the executive offices.
Boeing need to bring production back in house instead of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder and they need to employ people who take pride in their work instead of those who don’t give a damn because their hourly rate is so low. Focus on making it better, rather than making it cheaper. Profits and bonuses for the executives may be lower but at least the company will still be around.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing has trashed its reputation, previously they were an engineering company which built aircraft that set the standard other manufacturers measured themselves against. The last good aircraft they built was the B777, you rarely heard of any problems with the design and its safety record is exceptional.
Then cost cutting, do it cheaper rather than better, outsource and nice big bonuses for the executives became the new focus. We've seen the results with the B737 MAX and all the B787 issues since its introduction. If Boeing don't get it right with the B777X they will be in a lot of difficulty, there were already problems back in 2019 when a door failed during a stress test and ruptured the fuselage. This type is already facing design issues before quality control comes into question.
The B737 is a corpse warmed up and urgently needs replacing with a clean sheet design to compete with and ideally surpass the A320 and C919. However this will require a lead time of many years and billions of dollars in investment. Get this wrong and the new duopoly will be Airbus and Comac. No one trusts Boeing anymore and if the big operators book out Airbus production and the lead time is too long, it may well persuade other airlines to give the C919 a chance. Whilst the Chinese aircraft isn't yet as capable as the A320, if you don't need extremes of range and payload it could well be suitable. Government back financing with an attractive price and a few discreet "donations" could see it entering the mass market.
Then cost cutting, do it cheaper rather than better, outsource and nice big bonuses for the executives became the new focus. We've seen the results with the B737 MAX and all the B787 issues since its introduction. If Boeing don't get it right with the B777X they will be in a lot of difficulty, there were already problems back in 2019 when a door failed during a stress test and ruptured the fuselage. This type is already facing design issues before quality control comes into question.
The B737 is a corpse warmed up and urgently needs replacing with a clean sheet design to compete with and ideally surpass the A320 and C919. However this will require a lead time of many years and billions of dollars in investment. Get this wrong and the new duopoly will be Airbus and Comac. No one trusts Boeing anymore and if the big operators book out Airbus production and the lead time is too long, it may well persuade other airlines to give the C919 a chance. Whilst the Chinese aircraft isn't yet as capable as the A320, if you don't need extremes of range and payload it could well be suitable. Government back financing with an attractive price and a few discreet "donations" could see it entering the mass market.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 737 MAX met industry demand for a 737 compatible design because airlines don't want to set up a new maintenance system, all new parts, all new mechanic training, all new pilot training, all new supply chains.
The MAX was rushed out because AA in particular was looking very closely at the NEO which would require them to have changed all of the things you state...it was more like the industry demand was "we want a new aircraft and the only game in town is the NEO so what have you got?"
Boeing faced an unthinkable defection in the spring of 2011. American Airlines, an exclusive Boeing customer for more than a decade, was ready to place an order for hundreds of new, fuel-efficient jets from the world’s other major aircraft manufacturer, Airbus.
The chief executive of American called Boeing’s leader, W. James McNerney Jr., to say a deal was close. If Boeing wanted the business, it would need to move aggressively, the airline executive, Gerard Arpey, told Mr. McNerney.
To win over American, Boeing ditched the idea of developing a new passenger plane, which would take a decade. Instead, it decided to update its workhorse 737, promising the plane would be done in six years.
The 737 Max was born roughly three months later.
The chief executive of American called Boeing’s leader, W. James McNerney Jr., to say a deal was close. If Boeing wanted the business, it would need to move aggressively, the airline executive, Gerard Arpey, told Mr. McNerney.
To win over American, Boeing ditched the idea of developing a new passenger plane, which would take a decade. Instead, it decided to update its workhorse 737, promising the plane would be done in six years.
The 737 Max was born roughly three months later.
Paxing All Over The World
There is no better a remedy than walking the floor. I have read recently of a UK boss (Marks & Spencer I think) encouraging others to walk the floor. If you ask the people at the 'coal face' they will tell you - especially if there is no HR around! Yes, some workers will try to pull the wool over your eyes - but only a few. If you ask enough people, you will find out what is happening.
As we all know, Boeing moved their production facility to another state to gain cash from the state and city. BUT it removed the 'big boys' from the men who do the real work. I have seen how, when a man is promoted to have the word 'director' or even a larger word, on the door of his private office - that he forgets how he used to pull the wool over the eyes of those above him.
As we all know, Boeing moved their production facility to another state to gain cash from the state and city. BUT it removed the 'big boys' from the men who do the real work. I have seen how, when a man is promoted to have the word 'director' or even a larger word, on the door of his private office - that he forgets how he used to pull the wool over the eyes of those above him.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bada Bing
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing, not Spirit, mis-installed piece that blew off Alaska MAX 9 jet
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ska-max-9-jet/
“The reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeing’s own records,” the whistleblower wrote. “It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions of the business.”
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 845
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing need to bring production back in house instead of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder and they need to employ people who take pride in their work instead of those who don’t give a damn because their hourly rate is so low. Focus on making it better, rather than making it cheaper. Profits and bonuses for the executives may be lower but at least the company will still be around.
I am not anti-union in this viewpoint. To the contrary, among my closest friends is a journeyman Ironworker - and if you don't already understand the strength of that labor organization, I don't know what to say. I'll try, though, with this anecdote. An applicant for Ironworkin' shows up at the yard where skills have to be demonstrated. "Show me how you weld", my friend would say. Within about 10 seconds, if it wasn't good enough, "Get out of here." There is no nonsense, none.
It's correct that I do elevate, or tend to elevate, the late Wm. "Wimpy" Winpisinger to up on a pedestal. But that's who Boeing, to restore to its bygone, sadly bygone days of engineering excellence and engineering preeminence, needs to be walking the floor. I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but not really. Because we all know or should know that even well-intentioned execs - and this probably excludes most of 'em since the merger - still aren't enough to motivate and set the example for the people "on the floor". The career tracks are just too different, too very different. Give me a Wimpy 2.0, and I'll voluntarily suspend my Law License, and go sign up to say "Boeing Builds Airplanes"...... and now, so do I.
You would think that after a couple decades of conspicuous quality and safety failures.............
One wonders if the Boeing board talks about these strategic things, or just about what remaining dollars they can squeeze out before the share price runs into a brick wall............Is it really as simple as a room full of financial elite are sucking out all the money they can from the former US #1 export industry, and aside from that they don't care?
One wonders if the Boeing board talks about these strategic things, or just about what remaining dollars they can squeeze out before the share price runs into a brick wall............Is it really as simple as a room full of financial elite are sucking out all the money they can from the former US #1 export industry, and aside from that they don't care?
I think your last sentence is what is happening, and all I can think is that the rich super elite are draining society of money for their own ends, and sod the rest of us. In one manager's generation, they can have a very comfortable life, and the disasters they leave behind won't materially affect them in their own lifetimes.
As did Kelly Johnson of Lockheed years before that. Any engineer could walk into the office to ask about a component, any manager could walk onto the production line or the drawing office to observe and talk about the practicalities.
And that is the way to do it. once you separate managers and workers, it becomes us and them, the proles and the elite, which never works as well as everyone all working together towards a common aim.
You finish up like the British Motor Industry in the 70's - a friend was being shown round a British Leyland Factory in the Midlands as part of a job interview - "whats down there?" "Oh we don't want to go down there - they'e animals" said in a loud voice by the management - she didn't take the job
I think your last sentence is what is happening, and all I can think is that the rich super elite are draining society of money for their own ends, and sod the rest of us. In one manager's generation, they can have a very comfortable life, and the disasters they leave behind won't materially affect them in their own lifetimes.
As did Kelly Johnson of Lockheed years before that. Any engineer could walk into the office to ask about a component, any manager could walk onto the production line or the drawing office to observe and talk about the practicalities.
And that is the way to do it. once you separate managers and workers, it becomes us and them, the proles and the elite, which never works as well as everyone all working together towards a common aim.
As did Kelly Johnson of Lockheed years before that. Any engineer could walk into the office to ask about a component, any manager could walk onto the production line or the drawing office to observe and talk about the practicalities.
And that is the way to do it. once you separate managers and workers, it becomes us and them, the proles and the elite, which never works as well as everyone all working together towards a common aim.
my son did a one year industrial placement in a company with two production sites in the same town. Roughly the same size and similar products. At one there was a shared canteen for all the work force, and people mixed. The other had one for the plebs and one for the peasants. One had good industrial relations and ran like clockwork. The other struggled. One guess which did better.
whistleblower posts are very interesting.
one of the aspects IMHO (only?} does apply for any enterprises recently.
a chaos of tools, information flows, parallel digitization and alternative "fact based" infostream for management aside from (KPI's and dashboards).
so even if there's an initially robust and clear process, that can take an negative impact.
Dangerous. In this case literally.
one of the aspects IMHO (only?} does apply for any enterprises recently.
a chaos of tools, information flows, parallel digitization and alternative "fact based" infostream for management aside from (KPI's and dashboards).
so even if there's an initially robust and clear process, that can take an negative impact.
Dangerous. In this case literally.
West Coast - can you clear some space in your inbox and PM me?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: on root
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing kept normalizing deviations to stay in the game whilst cutting costs (not paying the price for staying in the game). Like a man tiptoeing further out on the high diving board above an empty pool. Now they are paying the price and it's a lot more costly than it would have been had they played properly.
But it's not just Boeing. Aviation as an industry, led by the low cost carriers, is doing the exact same thing in almost all areas. How many levels of deviation has your company normalised?
But it's not just Boeing. Aviation as an industry, led by the low cost carriers, is doing the exact same thing in almost all areas. How many levels of deviation has your company normalised?
Boeing is another case study in what happens when senior managers know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
One more fatal crash of a MAX or indeed any other in production model with any nexus to a Boeing design, engineering, or production failure and the company is done. It is sad that the Boeing C Suite doesn’t seem to realize that they are at a go big or go home moment when it comes to a top to bottom company reorganization.
One more fatal crash of a MAX or indeed any other in production model with any nexus to a Boeing design, engineering, or production failure and the company is done. It is sad that the Boeing C Suite doesn’t seem to realize that they are at a go big or go home moment when it comes to a top to bottom company reorganization.