Boeing again pt2. 14

[Alistair_Heaton]

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=515237

first thread

 

[waross]

Is this the Peter Principle at work, or is the Peter Principle failing?
Are people now being promoted Past their first level of incompetence?


--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

 

[1503-44]

Always been that way. Even before AA.
That happened when they switched from THE company owner's money to OPM and the incompetence range expanded to equal IPO valuation.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[3DDave]

"The 737 size should have been clean sheeted then"

That is a popular claim. Which airline went to Boeing and said - we need a clean sheet design so all our current pilots won't be type rated to fly it, none of our mechanics will be trained to repair it, none of the tools will fit to fix it, and we really look forward to a number of new things that can fail in new ways.


The now-A220 was clean sheet. It nearly bankrupted Bombardier to do it.

Wasn't the A380 clean sheet also? Didn't that lose money for Airbus?

Meanwhile Boeing has been making money selling 737s to airlines which want to buy them and still has a backlog in the thousands.

 

[debodine]

3DDave, your point is well taken. To insure a clean sheet would have to be a regulatory process, at a point in the design program that makes sense for safety. Otherwise the financial departments of the airlines would certainly follow the logic trail you stated. Star for you.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

The now-A220 was clean sheet. It nearly bankrupted Bombardier to do it.

Come on it was in the full frontal assault of Boeing trying to kill it off.

Boeing got out played.

Over 1/3 of the development costs were spent on the avionics and flight control system, and network.

The airframe was 2 basic sizes but it already been stressed for 4-5 sizes. And apparently they have a wide body already on paper but there is no way that Airbus is going to let that mess with the A330.

 

[Eufalconimorph]

Yet another Boeing 702MP satellite has broken up in geostationary orbit. After the one in 2019 that's 2/7 launched that have broken up in orbit.

 

[IRstuff]

"broken up" really doesn't describe the condition to me, given the widespread debris field. It was either an impact or explosion; the former would not be Boeing's fault, while the latter might be, but an explosion after 8 years in orbit seems unlikely.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Brian Malone]

Definitely too early to lump the satellite in as a Boeing failure. As just noted, this could have been an impact event.

 

[TugboatEng]

Was the cause of the 2019 failure ever released? There was a gas release which could indicate an explosion or an impact involving certain parts of the satellite. It appears now that two have "exploded". Do odds favor a debris impact in a portion of the satellite that could cause an explosion or is there a condition within the satellite causing the explosions?

Are geosynchronous satellites more susceptible to impact damage?

 

[1503-44]

At 22,000 mile altitude, are they not well above the bulk of the debrie field?

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-ceo-turnaround-plan-employee-memo-earnings-2024-10

Maybe its door fell off it?

 

[1503-44]

At 22,000 miles out, I think you have to say "separated".

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I reckon someone looked at a yogurt pot in the office with 4 bolts in it when the news broke...

 

[waross]

At 22,000 miles out, I think you have to say "separated".

Ah, but this is Boeing.
If management said that the door fell off, then the door fell off. (If you want to keep your job.)

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

 

[dik]

...a really good article on Boeing.

 

[waross]

Thanks Dik.
I enjoyed that.

 

[dik]

I thought it was really well done and explained Boeing's situation.

 

[3DDave]

Gautam Mukunda is not making a good comparison.

Welch divested of production to get out of making products. Boeing needed a more flexible supplier to support production without having the boom-bust cycle affecting it's own employees. GE lost orders, Boeing has a backlog.

Gautam Mukunda's fix for Boeing's problems is to fix them. Then he goes on to note that much of the problems are rooted in government and the intentional lack of oversight. That's because of the Senate and the House, which are a product of the American voters.

One failure in the arguments is that Boeing is not just an aircraft manufacturer, which is why there was a move to Chicago, to give more equal support to all the areas of Boeing and not just those in Washington state.

He suggests they need a new airplane, clean sheet (so all new problems that aren't obvious) and that this will enervate the engineers. OK. The last development engineering effort was the 787. Has Boeing been paying them to sit in cubicles since then? What do the development engineers do now? I think he's far removed from what engineering is. He wants it to be new and great and better than Airbus. But the history of aviation isn't the history of Boeing. The history of aviation is the history of propulsion. Every great leap forward in aviation is because there was a great leap forward in propulsion.

The USAF still depends on the B-52; it is approaching 100 years for that design. It has a design point - long range delivery of a large amount of bombs. As long as the design point doesn't change there's no definite reason for the "airframe" to change. Commercial passenger aircraft are for long range delivery of passengers. Passengers like seats and windows.

The confusion over the rate of serious incidents, when those incidents are not due to unrecoverable hardware failure, is astonishing. The change in the pilot culture by the expansion into airlines that don't have a culture of safety is a problem.

He's well meaning, but he is ignoring that the MAX exists because airlines worldwide wanted a 737 variant with more efficient engines. They don't want a clean sheet airplane. They want one with a known track record that they can add to their fleet with minimal conversion costs.

His summation - fix the world economy in order to fix Boeing.

OK, I'll get right on that.

 

[LionelHutz]

He's well meaning, but he is ignoring that the MAX exists because airlines worldwide wanted a 737 variant with more efficient engines.

No, they wanted a more efficient plane which could be delivered quicker than the more efficient Airbus planes.

 

[dik]

"...which are a product of the American voters."

I'm not so sure they have anything to say when it comes to the government.