|
WSJ: Can Boeing repair its reputation?
|
Boeing is sort of like a pilot that has blown about four checkrides. The Starliner, KC-46, MCAS, and basic mechanical skills on securing a door plug.
it's going to require a decade or two of quality work to live down the current problems. Or as we used to say, in the military, it takes about ten attaboys to cancel out one aw$hit... |
Too big to fail.
Reputation is given too much credit. |
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 3758785)
Too big to fail.
Reputation is given too much credit. https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...won-on-orders/ And you now have the CEOs of two major US airlines publicly criticizing Boeing, one of which is contemplating walking away from the Max10 altogether. And when the pax are using apps that filter flights with yiur aircraft models from their ticket buying, that's not good. But the once cozy relationship Boeing had with the FAA Certification people is now gone for decades, which costs Boeing money and time for getting new aircraft on the market. And they have just been limited from any increase in their current MAX production: FAA halts Boeing MAX production expansion, ripples across aerospace industryCompany15:49, 26-Jan-2024CGTNhttps://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-01-2...e469cde4e.jpeg An Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft with a door plug awaits inspection outside the airline's hangar at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, January 10, 2024. /CFP The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Wednesday informed Boeing that it will not grant any production expansion of the MAX, including the 737 MAX 9. This action comes on top of the FAA's investigation and ramped-up oversight of Boeing and its suppliers. The FAA also approved a thorough inspection and maintenance process that must be performed on each of the grounded 171 Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft. Upon successful completion, the aircraft will be eligible to return to service. "The January 5 Boeing 737 MAX 9 incident must never happen again. Accordingly, the FAA is announcing additional actions to ensure every aircraft is safe," the agency said. The FAA's order means Boeing can continue producing MAX jets at its current monthly rate, but it cannot increase that rate. It offered no estimate of how long the limitation would last and did not specify the number of planes Boeing can produce each month. Boeing said it would continue to cooperate "fully and transparently" with the FAA and follow the agency's direction as it took action to strengthen safety and quality. More problematic, neither the MAX 7 or MAX 10 meet current FAA standards established by Congress and their "grandfathering" to the older standards expired Jan 1. Both aircraft will require further grandfathering which some members of Congress and personnel in the FAA are already starting to oppose. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3758760)
Boeing is sort of like a pilot that has blown about four checkrides. The Starliner, KC-46, MCAS, and basic mechanical skills on securing a door plug.
it's going to require a decade or two of quality work to live down the current problems. Or as we used to say, in the military, it takes about ten attaboys to cancel out one aw$hit... Inflation really is hitting everything. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3758928)
Reputation matters in international sales and to an extent even in domestic sales. This is the fifth year in a row that Airbus sales exceeded Boeing sales.
Boeing has delivered less commercial airline airplanes to the market than Airbus. About half as many aircraft, as Airbus. Boeing has nearly double the revenue of airbus. 67 billion vs. 36 billion. https://www.statista.com/topics/3697/airbus-and-boeing/#dossier-chapter1 China Southern just took delivery of a -900 Max. The Chinese have been particularly cautious with the Max, but are taking new ones, now. Go figure. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/china-takes-delivery-of-boeing-737-max-in-show-of-support-for-troubled-plane-maker/ar-BB1hdMaP Boeing has their fingers in a lot of pies. PR hits will hurt the bottom line, but Boeing is far too big to fail over a lost door plug. |
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 3758785)
Too big to fail.
Reputation is given too much credit. |
Originally Posted by tallpilot
(Post 3759309)
I agree Boeing is too big to fail, that doesn't make the situation less disgusting. This type of incompetence seems endemic in society. We get crocodile tears and promises to do better followed by the exact same mistakes. At some point they aren't mistakes but deliberate flaunting of safety standards for the sake of profit. It's mind-bogglingly unethical.
|
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 3759312)
Yup. Boeing should clean slate design a proper new jet and it better be amazing. Come out with a new horse to reset the "brand" and put the 73 to pasture over the next decade.
|
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 3759168)
Boeing has their fingers in a lot of pies. PR hits will hurt the bottom line, but Boeing is far too big to fail over a lost door plug.
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/us...kc-46-tankers/ And then there is the Starliner fiasco. https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/0...ound-problems/ and even after taking a $7Billion loss on the KC-46 problem previously their Defense division continues to bleed money: Boeing struggles to steer defense unit in another year of lossesBy Valerie InsinnaOctober 26, 202310:04 PM PDTUpdated 3 months ago https://cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/B6XMLMWKVNPPBOP7P255A2NAKE.jpgThe Boeing KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling tanker is seen before a delivery celebration to the U.S. Air Force in Everett, Washington, U.S., January 24, 2019. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson/File Photo Acquire Licensing Rights, opens new tab WASHINGTON, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Boeing's (BA.N), opens new tab defense business is proving harder to turn around than executives initially predicted, with supplier errors and high manufacturing costs contributing to $1.7 billion in losses this year on programs like the next Air Force One and NASA's Starliner capsule. Despite absorbing $4.4 billion in losses in 2022 – which executives said would lower the risk of future cost overruns – the unit has seen little improvement this year. Excluding last year, losses on Boeing's defense programs in 2023 exceed those from all years since 2014, according to a Reuters review of Boeing’s regulatory filings. Boeing is unique among its defense contractor peers, as companies like Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab, General Dynamics (GD.N), opens new tab and RTX (RTX.N), opens new tab are seeing higher revenues due to demand from the war in Ukraine. Unlike those companies, however, Boeing is locked into handful of contracts that force the planemaker to take a loss when technology development goes over budget. The defense unit's losses this year include $933 million in charges in the third quarter, mostly comprising a $482-million loss building two Air Force One planes and a $315-million charge on an unidentified satellite program that had not previously lost money. Boeing has been adamant it won't enter into new fixed-price contracts for the development stage of weapons because the unpredictability associated with designing and testing a new product often brings unforeseen costs. However, the company's current fixed-price development efforts, which include the U.S. Air Force's KC-46 refueling tanker and T-7 training jet, new Air Force One planes, the Navy's MQ-25 tanker drone, and NASA's Starliner have all continued to run over budget this year. The latest charge for Air Force One brought total losses to $2.4 billion on a $3.9 billion contract to develop two planes. The program’s current schedule calls for the first jet to be delivered by September 2027. West also noted $136 million in additional losses taken during the quarter, including a $71-million charge for the MQ-25 program. And how many loose (or missing) bolts are acceptable in a aircraft certified to fly to 40,000 feet? When they secure ( or in this case don't) a door sized opening? They have two legacy CEOs screaming at them and stockholders like me are screaming as well. Boeing was actually one of the first stocks I ever bought. If I'd actually kept track of the basis 🤷♂️ I'd dump those shares. |
They had been working on a 797 concept small two aisle fo fill the 757ish size void around a decade ago, but eventually discontinued it.
Too bad. Used to be a big believer in Boeing having flown a few different models. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3759333)
And how many loose (or missing) bolts are acceptable in a aircraft certified to fly to 40,000 feet?
None is the answer, regardless of the manufacturer, or the aircraft model. It is, however, the wrong question. The question is whether Boeing will fall as a result of this error. The answer is no, they won't. Or over cost overruns on the modified 767 cum KC46. Or parachute softlinks and wiring shielding in the Starliner capsule.
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3759333)
When they secure ( or in this case don't) a door sized opening?
Still doesn't mean Boeing will be going out of business soon. Too big to fail. Too diverse. The Max grounding following Lion and Ethopian didn't do it. A door plug won't either. A soft link won't either. KC46 delays won't, either (and they're moving forward again). Boeing is too diverse and has fingers in too many pies, and making a comparison with aircraft sales vs. Airbus in an attempt to show airbus ahead...is wrong, using the wrong metrics, when Boeing has double the sales. Stop the 737 line and go clean sheet? When sales are well in excess of their competitors and are wildly successful? No. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3759328)
No airline wants to pay the cost to get a clean sheet design certified. As always, blame the government.
Boeing needs to roll out new and wow the airlines. It won't happen though. |
Originally Posted by Rama
(Post 3759350)
They had been working on a 797 concept small two aisle fo fill the 757ish size void around a decade ago, but eventually discontinued it.
Too bad. Used to be a big believer in Boeing having flown a few different models. |
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 3759574)
Not any airline's burden. It needs to be all Boeing to make and market to the airlines. GM/Ford/Audi, etc. builds to the market; they don't call you and ask what you want for your order.
Boeing needs to roll out new and wow the airlines. It won't happen though. If the customer doesn't want to pay, there's nthing to develop and sell. |
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 3759574)
Not any airline's burden. It needs to be all Boeing to make and market to the airlines. GM/Ford/Audi, etc. builds to the market; they don't call you and ask what you want for your order.
Secondly yeah, the manufacturers do actually ask the airlines what they need. They are not building hundreds of thousands or millions of planes like auto manufactuerers build cars. They are, at best, building a few thousand aircraft. The manufacturers build what the airlines want, and airlines don't want expensive jets that come with a lot higher costs. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3759821)
Secondly yeah, the manufacturers do actually ask the airlines what they need. They are not building hundreds of thousands or millions of planes like auto manufactuerers build cars. They are, at best, building a few thousand aircraft. The manufacturers build what the airlines want, and airlines don't want expensive jets that come with a lot higher costs.
The very existence of the Max is testament to this... SWA said they'd buy many, many hundreds of them if it was common type with the NG. If Boeing did a clean-slate NB, it's widely understood that SWA would have considered airbus as an option since they would be forced into two fleets anyway. There have been a very few cases where the manufacturers led from the front, driven by some vision of future opportunity and a desire to be first to market. Notably the A380, which was also a bit of a Euro d!ck measuring evolution vs. the 747. We know how that turned out, Billions $ down the drain. |
Boeing AGAIN steps on their crank…
|
The article has a truth problem, and little credibility as a result, but while Duckworth's comments are pure drama sky-is-falling bull ****, Boeings effort to address a nacelle overheat is likewise problematic: Boeing's intended exemption was to simply put a limitation in the flight manual requiring pilots to shut off nacelle heat after five minutes (in icing conditions). After it becamse a public issue, Boeing elected to fall back to engineer a solution.
The article's comment regarding the Ethiopan max loss is wrong, as it the assertion that the recent plug loss was a "door" that "fell off." Further, the Alaska plug loss was not a case of "the fuselage broke." It's hard to take reporting seriously when it's that flawed. |
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 3761865)
The article has a truth problem, and little credibility as a result, but while Duckworth's comments are pure drama sky-is-falling bull ****, Boeings effort to address a nacelle overheat is likewise problematic: Boeing's intended exemption was to simply put a limitation in the flight manual requiring pilots to shut off nacelle heat after five minutes (in icing conditions). After it becamse a public issue, Boeing elected to fall back to engineer a solution.
The article's comment regarding the Ethiopan max loss is wrong, as it the assertion that the recent plug loss was a "door" that "fell off." Further, the Alaska plug loss was not a case of "the fuselage broke." It's hard to take reporting seriously when it's that flawed. 1. The perceptions of the flying public who are often just as ill-informed as the politicians. 2. The FACT that Boeing, now having recanted their request for exemption, is now STILL going to be missing their already long-delayed promised certification of the MAX 7 for another nine months and likely closer to a year and a half. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3758760)
Boeing is sort of like a pilot that has blown about four checkrides. The Starliner, KC-46, MCAS, and basic mechanical skills on securing a door plug.
it's going to require a decade or two of quality work to live down the current problems. Or as we used to say, in the military, it takes about ten attaboys to cancel out one aw$hit... |
Ah, that's the game, then. List everything that ever happened in a Boeing product and use it to paint a damning picture, regardless of how relevant it might be. Very well, then. Carry on.
|
The 321 and neos “forced” Boeing into the inferior MAX design.
WHEN Airbus comes up with a successful single pilot jet airliner, I can’t wait to see Boeing’s rush job. |
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 3762006)
Ah, that's the game, then. List everything that ever happened in a Boeing product and use it to paint a damning picture, regardless of how relevant it might be. Very well, then. Carry on.
|
I believe there's a bushing issue on the 787 as well. Boing is going to have to do a hard reset on how they approach aircraft design and engineering to regain the confidence they once had.
|
Originally Posted by PineappleXpres
(Post 3764179)
The 321 and neos “forced” Boeing into the inferior MAX design.
WHEN Airbus comes up with a successful single pilot jet airliner, I can’t wait to see Boeing’s rush job. |
With Boeing at double the revenue of Airbus, airbus didn't "force" Boeing into anything.
|
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 3767219)
With Boeing at double the revenue of Airbus, airbus didn't "force" Boeing into anything.
|
Originally Posted by plzdontfireme
(Post 3767165)
Airbus is trying to do that with the 321 freighter, allegedly.
Money making workhorse with some ill fated mods. Sign a jaw dropping order or two. Wait for a bus hiccup. |
According to the Seattle Times Boeing is in talks with banks to repurchase Spirit and make it an in-house facility again, owned by Boeing
|
Originally Posted by Lady Speedbird
(Post 3776399)
According to the Seattle Times Boeing is in talks with banks to repurchase Spirit and make it an in-house facility again, owned by Boeing
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3776418)
The most recent incident was caused by Renton, not Spirit.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3776418)
The most recent incident was caused by Renton, not Spirit.
It sounds like there's a lot of finger pointing between Spirit and Boeing any time anything goes wrong. Bringing Spirit in house will at least stop the turf wars. |
Mesfin Tasew, CEO of Ethiopian Group, speaks with CNN's Richard Quest about Ethiopian's order of 20 Boeing 777-9's.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/busin...i-business.cnn Tasew notes that Ethiopian has been operating Boeing aircraft since 1945, and intends to continue doing so (at its inception in 1945, Ethiopian flew DC-3's, bringing in Convairs and DC-6's later, and operated Boeing products starting in 1959--technically, as McDonnel Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997, and the DC-3 is Boeing's stepchild by marriage). Ethiopian intends to continue buying Boeing products, despite the 737 Max saga, and in fact ordered 20 737 Max and 11 787-9's last November. The current order of 8 777-9's, with an option for 12 more, shows that even an airline with experienced a hull loss on the Max isn't deterred from pressing forward with Boeing. |
This is a C suite and above problem. Compromise driven by focus on short term profit for shareholders. Capitalism is not so perfect. This is the source of Boeing's and most publically traded companies' woes.
|
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed
(Post 3781768)
This is a C suite and above problem. Compromise driven by focus on short term profit for shareholders. Capitalism is not so perfect. This is the source of Boeing's and most publically traded companies' woes.
I'm not sure. I used to drive by the Machinist Union building in Everett and I was always taken aback a little by the life sized statues. https://i.ibb.co/k1R2bgj/IMG-7165.jpg I'm not by any stretch of the imagination anti-union, but I always thought it might have been better sort of rejoicing and taking pride in the thought that you were building the finest aircraft in the world rather than that you wanted to stick it to the company. https://i.ibb.co/k1R2bgj/IMG-7165.jpg Call me old-fashioned perhaps, but leaving stray tools and other FOD in the aircraft isn't something you ought to have to even be a machinist to understand it's something you shouldn't do.certainly more important than starting fires in burn barrels. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3781788)
I'm not by any stretch of the imagination anti-union
I just don't understand how you can be wrong on every issue. All of the employees were under tremendous pressure to ramp up production rates. It was THE objective for 2024 and the MAX line. You couldn't possibly try to pin this on the workers. This was a cultural problem from the start. |
Originally Posted by ReluctantEskimo
(Post 3781799)
If not for work stoppages, how do you see a union gaining leverage?
I just don't understand how you can be wrong on every issue. All of the employees were under tremendous pressure to ramp up production rates. It was THE objective for 2024 and the MAX line. You couldn't possibly try to pin this on the workers. This was a cultural problem from the start. |
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed
(Post 3781768)
This is a C suite and above problem. Compromise driven by focus on short term profit for shareholders. Capitalism is not so perfect. This is the source of Boeing's and most publically traded companies' woes.
|
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed
(Post 3781768)
This is a C suite and above problem. Compromise driven by focus on short term profit for shareholders. Capitalism is not so perfect. This is the source of Boeing's and most publically traded companies' woes.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:14 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands