Boeing at X-Roads?
Making Condit the CEO instead of Mullally back in about 1995 was perhaps the biggest mistake - every misstep traces back to that (particularly the focus on 'shareholder value' and the merger with MacDac).
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.
One of the prominent signs in the entry area was next to an elevator door. It read:
"EXECUTIVE DINING ROOM"
Wonder if there is any chance that Boeing could lure Mullally out of retirement for a few years to get the ship righted and back on-course...
Making Condit the CEO instead of Mullally back in about 1995 was perhaps the biggest mistake - every misstep traces back to that (particularly the focus on 'shareholder value' and the merger with MacDac).
Making Condit the CEO instead of Mullally back in about 1995 was perhaps the biggest mistake - every misstep traces back to that (particularly the focus on 'shareholder value' and the merger with MacDac).
"McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's own money."
But seriously, there must be people at Northrop, Embraer, GD, Textron, and/or Bombardier looking at Boeing, knowing it will be broken for at least another 10 years, and thinking that this is a once in an industry opportunity to get into the business.
https://archive.ph/Tb1dP
https://www.wsj.com/business/airline...ness_lead_pos1
Last edited by JPJP; 24th Jan 2024 at 22:23. Reason: Added non paywall link
I would be surprised if any engines would be available for a startup, which would have to take airplane contracts from Airbus as well as Boeing. China started their program in 2008 and were certified by China in 2022; it uses CFM International LEAP engines, like Boeing and Airbus.
The better chance (and good luck with that) would be to develop a new engine and build a plane for it.
The better chance (and good luck with that) would be to develop a new engine and build a plane for it.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll have to see the details of the approved instructions to know how clear the path to getting the MAX 9's off the ground will be.
FAA halts Boeing 737 Max production expansion, but clears path to return Max 9 to service
- The Federal Aviation Administration said it would halt any Boeing 737 Max production expansion.
- The FAA also cleared 737 Max 9 inspection instructions, paving the way for the planes to be ungrounded.
"C-suite" generally refers to "C-level" people, that is, the ones with three letter titles starting in "C" and ending in "O," like "CPO," Chief Partying Officer.
I would be surprised if any engines would be available for a startup, which would have to take airplane contracts from Airbus as well as Boeing. China started their program in 2008 and were certified by China in 2022; it uses CFM International LEAP engines, like Boeing and Airbus.
The better chance (and good luck with that) would be to develop a new engine and build a plane for it.
The better chance (and good luck with that) would be to develop a new engine and build a plane for it.
Maybe GE would like to have a new customer for a subsonic adaptive cycle engine that could be in production in 5-10 years.
Or maybe Northrop wants to go big and add an existing engine manufacturer and subsonic airframe to its tentative plans with Boom.
If you ask me, this is a unique opportunity for biz and regional jet manufacturers to get into the short haul market with a fuselage designed less than 45 years ago.
Recent reporting has highlighted the fact that the QA system at Spirit is different than the one Boeing uses. One potential implication of this difference is that different documentation with respect to “opening” a door plug vs “removing” a door plug meant that a QC inspection was missed.
Furthermore, there is reporting that post delivery repairs were done on the door frame after the fuselage was delivered to correct issues with frame rivets and a loose rubber door seal. Apparently there is now a permanent Spirit work force in Seattle to correct problems with Spirit produced airframe components.
The story just keeps getting worse and worse for Boeing.
But not to worry I was just reading the latest report on Boeing’s response to the recent “quality escape”
They are going to have a ONE DAY safety stand down !
WOW bold action that will undoubtedly sort the problem once and for all 🙄
Furthermore, there is reporting that post delivery repairs were done on the door frame after the fuselage was delivered to correct issues with frame rivets and a loose rubber door seal. Apparently there is now a permanent Spirit work force in Seattle to correct problems with Spirit produced airframe components.
The story just keeps getting worse and worse for Boeing.
But not to worry I was just reading the latest report on Boeing’s response to the recent “quality escape”
They are going to have a ONE DAY safety stand down !
WOW bold action that will undoubtedly sort the problem once and for all 🙄
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 25th Jan 2024 at 01:42.
Airbus spent a huge amount of money on the A380, clean sheet for a new market. Will be lucky to break even on production cost, will never recoup development cost. Oh, look: "In total, the A380 program cost an estimated €30 billion ($33.9 billion) — and most of that money came from European taxpayers." https://www.dw.com/en/airbus-a380-th...-dollar-dream/ Must be nice not to have to shoulder development costs.
The A380 development costs were apparently €9.5 billion, and following your link - or this link: https://www.dw.com/en/airbus-a380-th...eam/a-60124995 we come to the section "Money down the Drain?". In there is a link: https://www.dw.com/en/german-taxpaye...oan/a-47769831 entitled "German taxpayers may lose on A380 loan". I've also highlighted two key words, ‘may’ and ‘loan’. The article was written nearly 5 years ago.
So just to be clear, I'd dispute DW's statement that "most of the A380 program costs of €30 billion came from European taxpayers", without mentioning the money was loans. Part of the program estimated costs, back in 2000, were obtained from loans (i.e. repayable) from France, Germany and UK of €3.5 billion, as well as refundable advances of €5.9 billion. The large majority of these loans had been repaid by 2019, with a relatively small amount (€600 million) in dispute at that time.
Airbus DID shoulder the majority of the A380 development and program costs
Wishful thinking, but if that happened, is it conceivable that Lockheed, perhaps with some kind of subsidy, would see a viable opportunity to have another shot at the airliner market?
Textron: Cessna, Bell
GD: Gulfstream
Northrop: partnership with Boom
GE, RTX: engines
But I may be missing something.
Textron and GD should imo seriously consider entering the narrow body market. Maybe team with Embraer or Bombardier. And I would think watching Boeing slowly drown has got to have folks at Boom and Northrop thinking bigger.
Commercial jet aircraft was an unmitigated financial disaster for Lockheed - they literally lost money on every one they sold. The L1011 was a fine aircraft, but it bankrupted the company requiring a large (at the time) bailout from the US Government.
The day after Lockheed announced they were pulling the plug on the L1011, their stock price soared.
For a more recent example of how hard it is to enter the commercial jetliner market and actually make money doing it, look no further than Bombardier and the C-Series - not only did they have to give the program away to remain solvent, it basically killed their regional jetliner program.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 848
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so fast
Regarding Bombardier and its asset sales including the C-Series (per tdracer), this SLF/atty called Montreal home during those events. The sense of loss among the aerospace commentators and cognescenti in the city and QC generally was nearly tangible. I can only guess wildly at how traumatic reaction to a similar sort of failure would be if a company in the U.S. tried to enter this market, but failed.
Before betting on any of the other aerospace manufacturers succeeding if they tried this market on the premise that BCA will fail (or as some here contend "has already failed"), would it not be the case that sufficiently wise Strategy decisions would be needed for substantial capital investment to materialize? Perhaps the insistent push toward net-zero would open avenues for successful new strategies, but isn't there still much skepticism in the engineering communities of relevance about the feasibility of the long-term aspirational goal set by the ICAO Assembly - especially regarding SAF at realistic quantities and the other new propulsion systems bandied about as if their technology will be available in just a few years? Boeing's difficulties have increasingly become traumatic but they've been starkly visible for all to see for . . . pick your example of decline of engineering excellence and fill in the blank. If a new Strategy was readily available, there has been plenty of time for it to have been recognized and shopped for investment.
Second, People. There are workforce components in various locales with the necessary skills, recency or currency with assembly techniques and all the other disciplines of relevance, just waiting to be hired by some new entrant? Maybe there are but the generalized slide of the American workforce - accelerated by the beancounters' devotion to ROI and share price - makes this poster skeptical.
Third, issues of Process (getting corporate leadership and Boards to understand the strategy and then commiting to the initiative) would be, if not herculean, still very heavy lifting. Fourth, what about Resources? - do any of the supposed willing potential new entrants have capital and debt structures sufficient to fund this sort of massive new aircraft (and/or powerplant) initiative? I mean, and not to pick on that bird, but don't Messrs. Pratt and Whitney have some other place where they're devoting lots of attention (the engine inspections etc.)?
Finally in my set of five objections to seeing a new entrant as of course, obviously realistic and feasible, is Integrity. What got BCA into its sorry state? Do you recall the unspeakably shallow, hollow look worn by the then-CEO as he testified on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of the MAX accidents? Well, is it clear beyond doubt or question that any of the other companies are not in the throes of the beancounters too?
I'm not advocating against any enterprise and I'd be happy to see information showing my doubts and negative assertions proved incorrect.
(Credit for the rubric, Strategy, People, Process, Resources, and Integrity to a true gentleman who shall remain nameless here, except to say his career featured being PASC at least three times. (Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed)
Before betting on any of the other aerospace manufacturers succeeding if they tried this market on the premise that BCA will fail (or as some here contend "has already failed"), would it not be the case that sufficiently wise Strategy decisions would be needed for substantial capital investment to materialize? Perhaps the insistent push toward net-zero would open avenues for successful new strategies, but isn't there still much skepticism in the engineering communities of relevance about the feasibility of the long-term aspirational goal set by the ICAO Assembly - especially regarding SAF at realistic quantities and the other new propulsion systems bandied about as if their technology will be available in just a few years? Boeing's difficulties have increasingly become traumatic but they've been starkly visible for all to see for . . . pick your example of decline of engineering excellence and fill in the blank. If a new Strategy was readily available, there has been plenty of time for it to have been recognized and shopped for investment.
Second, People. There are workforce components in various locales with the necessary skills, recency or currency with assembly techniques and all the other disciplines of relevance, just waiting to be hired by some new entrant? Maybe there are but the generalized slide of the American workforce - accelerated by the beancounters' devotion to ROI and share price - makes this poster skeptical.
Third, issues of Process (getting corporate leadership and Boards to understand the strategy and then commiting to the initiative) would be, if not herculean, still very heavy lifting. Fourth, what about Resources? - do any of the supposed willing potential new entrants have capital and debt structures sufficient to fund this sort of massive new aircraft (and/or powerplant) initiative? I mean, and not to pick on that bird, but don't Messrs. Pratt and Whitney have some other place where they're devoting lots of attention (the engine inspections etc.)?
Finally in my set of five objections to seeing a new entrant as of course, obviously realistic and feasible, is Integrity. What got BCA into its sorry state? Do you recall the unspeakably shallow, hollow look worn by the then-CEO as he testified on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of the MAX accidents? Well, is it clear beyond doubt or question that any of the other companies are not in the throes of the beancounters too?
I'm not advocating against any enterprise and I'd be happy to see information showing my doubts and negative assertions proved incorrect.
(Credit for the rubric, Strategy, People, Process, Resources, and Integrity to a true gentleman who shall remain nameless here, except to say his career featured being PASC at least three times. (Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed)
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 25th Jan 2024 at 22:19.
If Boeing does no start soon a single aisle carbon plane with modern cockpit and a gear which allows for modern high bypass engines, they will be toast. Look what the legacy problems of airbus are and make it better. Hire a new Joe Sutter and keep the accountants out until the plane is certified.
Dreaming is still allowed and it was the dreams of people in the mid last century which made Boeing successful.
Dreaming is still allowed and it was the dreams of people in the mid last century which made Boeing successful.
If Boeing does no start soon a single aisle carbon plane with modern cockpit and a gear which allows for modern high bypass engines, they will be toast. Look what the legacy problems of airbus are and make it better. Hire a new Joe Sutter and keep the accountants out until the plane is certified.
Dreaming is still allowed and it was the dreams of people in the mid last century which made Boeing successful.
Dreaming is still allowed and it was the dreams of people in the mid last century which made Boeing successful.
I think the magnitude of the door "Quality Escape" is a lot larger than has been reported. It seems to me it was a product of a profound failure of the QA processes in the entire Boeing production supple and assembly chain. It sounds like there is going to be a full audit of Boeing and the results could have far reaching consequences for the future of the company. This like going to the doctor with a mole on your skin and finding out you have Stage 4 skin cancer,
Before they start dreaming too much, I think they need to wake up. I wonder whether the honchos will get out of the PR mode and truly into safety and engineering. Their main problem is not about having the right product to sell, it's actually building it properly. Now I'm dreaming, but there are still some in the company that know how to spell those things. Long ago they downsized QA/QC, engineering and the like, now it's time to downsize the executive offices.
Boeing will keep making its 1967 model refrigerators with refrigerator manufacturing processes until they don't make money any longer. At some point they will sell their defense business (or give it away, as it makes a huge negative profit, so now might be good) and will give away their share of the space business (a huge mismatch at this point). Then Boeing the cash cow will have no more milk to give and will be given a captive bolt stun and skinned for cheap leather and ground up for utility meat. I give it 10-15 years but their orders may dry up faster than that.
This is what they are doing. They are stripping Boeing for parts as surely as any Gordon Gekko in the 1980s, slowly and much more competently, but still as inevitably as someone on warfarin with a stomach ulcer. Believe them when you see them doing it and telling you they are doing it.
You folks with Boeing pensions, don't plan to have them in 10 years, or less. Call your lawyers now.