Boeing at X-Roads?
Thread Starter
Boeing at X-Roads?
The Boeing Problem won’t be resolved until real consequences are visited personally on the top executives and the directors. A return to the culture of engineering excellence and reduction of subcontracting may be too much to ask from a company so invested in this business model. But it needs to happen, or more deadly incidents will occur.
OR
https://archive.is/CFJGq
There is one number that really tells it all. Boeing spent 40 BILLION DOLLARS on stock buy backs since 2010. If that money that had been spent on production QA and new product R & D we would not be having this discussion, however that money was spent solely to juice the stock price and resulted in outside bonuses to the C suite executives. It is almost unbelievable the damage Jack Welch did to American business.
I don't see any way ever Boeing comes back. Even if all the bean counter short term thinkers are purged it is probably too late. Boeing does not have the financial resources to invest in future airframes. The 737 is a dead end, selling only because the Airbus booked up to 2027. The 21 Billion dollar fall out of the MAX debacle means the even if they build 5000 of them they still won't be profitable especially because they can only be moved at a substantial discount. The disastrous and continuing production problems with the 787 also ensure it will never be profitable and the 777X is floundering with so many own goals on certification issues the FAA is at the stage that they won't take Boeings word on the design of the cockpit pen holders. let alone the major aircraft systems.
I think sooner rather than later you will see Boeing split into Boeing Commercial and Boeing Military and Space. Boeing Commercial will immediately go into Chapter 11 and be restructured into much smaller company with probably only the 737 and KC 46 production lines remaining with in service support to existing airframes.
In any case If there is another crash that can be directly attributable to a Boeing design or manufacturing flaw then I think the company is immediately done.
I don't see any way ever Boeing comes back. Even if all the bean counter short term thinkers are purged it is probably too late. Boeing does not have the financial resources to invest in future airframes. The 737 is a dead end, selling only because the Airbus booked up to 2027. The 21 Billion dollar fall out of the MAX debacle means the even if they build 5000 of them they still won't be profitable especially because they can only be moved at a substantial discount. The disastrous and continuing production problems with the 787 also ensure it will never be profitable and the 777X is floundering with so many own goals on certification issues the FAA is at the stage that they won't take Boeings word on the design of the cockpit pen holders. let alone the major aircraft systems.
I think sooner rather than later you will see Boeing split into Boeing Commercial and Boeing Military and Space. Boeing Commercial will immediately go into Chapter 11 and be restructured into much smaller company with probably only the 737 and KC 46 production lines remaining with in service support to existing airframes.
In any case If there is another crash that can be directly attributable to a Boeing design or manufacturing flaw then I think the company is immediately done.
I would figure also that they won't let it happen and it's extremely important to maintain a duopoly...Airbus can't be a sole manufacturer
...or...can they?
...or...can they?
If there is another crash that can be directly attributable to a Boeing design or manufacturing flaw then I think the company is immediately done.
The Chinese will be quite willing to step in to replace Boeing as a competing civil aircraft supplier to Airbus.
Every make gets cracked windshields, but only Boeing has a Google Alert search by every news agency looking to pile on.
Remember this: "Co-Pilot Sucked Out Plane Window After Airbus Windshield Shatters at 32,000 Feet" from Time, MAY 15, 2018 https://time.com/5277625/sichuan-air...ield-shatters/ Good news - they held onto the co-pilot.
Follow-up: "EASA to order Airbus windshield checks after Sichuan A319 blow-out in 2018" 3 March 2021 https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/...142714.article which certainly seems that every Airbus A319 might lose a windshield at any moment.
So unexpected that a plane would be exposed to water.
"Cracked windshield after takeoff. Iberia Airbus A330-300 returned to Miami." Apr 27, 2023
"Curious Cracks: When 14 Planes Suffered Windshield Damage In One Afternoon At Denver Airport" including one A319-100. Blamed on a combination of abrasive dirt and extreme cold allowed damage to the windshield to be an initiator for thermal expansion failure due to windshield heaters. JAN 31, 2023 https://simpleflying.com/denver-airp...rnoon-history/
---
Notice that zero coverage was ever given to the first MCAS actuation? Not the crash, the flight the day before the crash that had the same plane, same defect, different crew, and made a 90 minute safe flight. Nor was there any comparative analysis of the progress of the 3 flights. Why? Sovereign immunity meant that the only money target was Boeing so Boeing became the sole pinata to beat cash out of.
It isn't clear what new plane Boeing would have developed. 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.
Boeing systems engineers simply failed to ask, what if pilots ignore the increasing trim loads and attempt to muscle the plane instead of using the trim switches?
Would $40B have ensured that a similar situation would not exist at all? AF447 showed that pilots won't act correctly, but that was answered by the demand by Airbus for better pilot handling training.
Proposing a so called "clean sheet" design (the one most likely to create a really bad problem) might have been seen as risky enough for the board to replace the CEO and start the buyback anyway. Better money you can have right now than money you might have, if you don't get undercut by a competitor. I am in favor of returning to the days when companies were prohibited from buying back their stock. Thanks Reagan for letting them manipulate the market.
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.
Remember this: "Co-Pilot Sucked Out Plane Window After Airbus Windshield Shatters at 32,000 Feet" from Time, MAY 15, 2018 https://time.com/5277625/sichuan-air...ield-shatters/ Good news - they held onto the co-pilot.
Follow-up: "EASA to order Airbus windshield checks after Sichuan A319 blow-out in 2018" 3 March 2021 https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/...142714.article which certainly seems that every Airbus A319 might lose a windshield at any moment.
external water vapour probably infiltrated the windshield’s seal, as a result of damage, and over time affected the insulation of electrical wiring located at the bottom edge.
"Cracked windshield after takeoff. Iberia Airbus A330-300 returned to Miami." Apr 27, 2023
"Curious Cracks: When 14 Planes Suffered Windshield Damage In One Afternoon At Denver Airport" including one A319-100. Blamed on a combination of abrasive dirt and extreme cold allowed damage to the windshield to be an initiator for thermal expansion failure due to windshield heaters. JAN 31, 2023 https://simpleflying.com/denver-airp...rnoon-history/
---
Notice that zero coverage was ever given to the first MCAS actuation? Not the crash, the flight the day before the crash that had the same plane, same defect, different crew, and made a 90 minute safe flight. Nor was there any comparative analysis of the progress of the 3 flights. Why? Sovereign immunity meant that the only money target was Boeing so Boeing became the sole pinata to beat cash out of.
It isn't clear what new plane Boeing would have developed. 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.
Boeing systems engineers simply failed to ask, what if pilots ignore the increasing trim loads and attempt to muscle the plane instead of using the trim switches?
Would $40B have ensured that a similar situation would not exist at all? AF447 showed that pilots won't act correctly, but that was answered by the demand by Airbus for better pilot handling training.
Proposing a so called "clean sheet" design (the one most likely to create a really bad problem) might have been seen as risky enough for the board to replace the CEO and start the buyback anyway. Better money you can have right now than money you might have, if you don't get undercut by a competitor. I am in favor of returning to the days when companies were prohibited from buying back their stock. Thanks Reagan for letting them manipulate the market.
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.
I have to say I saw red with that statement. Your statement may be true for the original MCAS but it is manifestly untrue for the production software that literally gave seconds for the crew to recognize and respond to the failure before the BS designed for the 707 in 1957 manual trim system became immovable. Then after it was obvious the airplane had a problem with MCAS 7 days after the Lion Air crash the bean counters and lawyers tried to finesse the issue for months until the next crash. The Airbus is a good design but it is now almost 40 years old. Boeing had a chance to design a truly next generation narrow body that would have established it as the segment leader. Instead they did the cheap, nasty fast route to update a design this 63 year first flew on when he was 9. That plus the 757 replacement would have crushed Airbus for the nest 25 years. That is what 40 Billion dollars would have bought, a future for Boeing. The stock buybacks instead enriched a few and terminally impoverished the company
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.
"Your statement may be true for the original MCAS but it is manifestly untrue for the production software that literally gave seconds for the crew to recognize and respond to the failure before the BS designed for the 707 in 1957 manual trim system became immovable. "
Red the view may be, but the trim switch under the left thumb of the guy in the left seat always functioned. I suppose the switch in the right seat is also under the left thumb. The first crew and second captain managed with zero difficulty; some roller-coaster, but not deadly.
On top of that every flight had far more than seconds (1-5) to deal with the trim loads. I saw red when "The pilots followed the emergency AD exactly" was not in the FDR, at all.
No airline wanted a competitor to the 737 from Boeing. Here's what happens when a company tries that.
The customers say "Is this going to be all new?"
"Yes"
"Then cancel my current orders and I'll wait for the new plane to come out, or maybe I'll just go to Airbus and see what they have if I have to start over."
or they say
"Since I have one common platform for my airline, I will have to toss all of them in the garbage or have incompatible planes and incompatible pilots? Can't you just make the 737 better?"
Red the view may be, but the trim switch under the left thumb of the guy in the left seat always functioned. I suppose the switch in the right seat is also under the left thumb. The first crew and second captain managed with zero difficulty; some roller-coaster, but not deadly.
On top of that every flight had far more than seconds (1-5) to deal with the trim loads. I saw red when "The pilots followed the emergency AD exactly" was not in the FDR, at all.
No airline wanted a competitor to the 737 from Boeing. Here's what happens when a company tries that.
The customers say "Is this going to be all new?"
"Yes"
"Then cancel my current orders and I'll wait for the new plane to come out, or maybe I'll just go to Airbus and see what they have if I have to start over."
or they say
"Since I have one common platform for my airline, I will have to toss all of them in the garbage or have incompatible planes and incompatible pilots? Can't you just make the 737 better?"
Fear not! Boeing ain’t going anywhere as it clearly falls into the category of too big to fail. The USG has a long history of corporate bail-outs. The only question is what form it would take.
The more relevant question is whether the USG is too big to fail. $1.8T in deficit spending in 2023; $34T in national debt and climbing rapidly; entitlement program insolvency looming. Us Yanks are up to our earlobes in financial shizzle.
A lesser question is how long can the Dave Calhoun/Stan Deal clown show endure? They’ve been at it for over 4 years. Is there a case to be made that they’re turning things around?
The more relevant question is whether the USG is too big to fail. $1.8T in deficit spending in 2023; $34T in national debt and climbing rapidly; entitlement program insolvency looming. Us Yanks are up to our earlobes in financial shizzle.
A lesser question is how long can the Dave Calhoun/Stan Deal clown show endure? They’ve been at it for over 4 years. Is there a case to be made that they’re turning things around?
Since I have one common platform for my airline, I will have to toss all of them in the garbage or have incompatible planes and incompatible pilots? Can't you just make the 737 better
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.