The sad thing is the 787 really is a ground breaking generational leap of an airplane. Their C suite however couldn’t see beyond the share price and just kept cutting R&D budgets. Thus, it was over budget, late, and problematic. The airplane will never turn a profit despite its success.

Boeing was a company that bet the house building game changing airplanes on time and on budget. McD comes along, the MBAs take control, and the only two new airplanes to come out since the merger have both been grounded… multiple times. They aren’t even allowed to build 737’s to capacity they’re so screwed up. The FAA just announced they failed 33 of 89 process and QC inspections YEARS after the Max dumpster fire was lit.

Clearly their management hasn’t learned (or is incapable of even understanding the engineering problems) and will continue pursuing stock buy backs and share price goals, ultimately it will be at the cost of the entire brand.

 

Your understanding of the KC46 is pretty heavily flawed. You might read up on its development.

 

Typical Grumble, making up alternative facts to try and support a narrative.

The 787 program is profitable for Boeing. That is a fact.

 

They're more right than they are wrong though. It's been a financial disaster for boeing, costing them around $7 billion in losses and counting. It's been an operational disaster, years late due to unforced errors like FOD in the fuel tanks, an engineering debacle from boeiong be unable to assemble already existing boeing wings, fuselages and cockpits, and also just terrible design like the 3D camera trying to replace a good old fashioned, simple window and did I mention it's years overdue. Heck I remember reading about it in school and hoping there would be one in my UPT drop and I was off by several years. I'm not even sure if it's certified to refuel all DOD aircraft yet. Yes the DOD cares more about number of booms in the sky than individual tanker capacity so it's not meant to compete with the KC-10, but you'd think the 46 should be able to replace a 4 engine tanker that's 70 years old. Some of that is the AF being the AF with bad acquisition picks, but it's another ****ty boeing product with their signature quality control. Meanwhile most times I've gone through the desert over the past decade we've seen an A330 tanker out there doing work while the KC-46 just got cleared to deploy what, 6 months ago?

 

Sure it is,

if you forget about deferred production costs.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18Z123
/

4th quarter 2023 still had over $12 billion in deferred 787 production costs.

 

“Final assembly of the 777X begins next year, with testing in 2019 and first delivery in 2020. Lindblad said it might be delivered a quarter early, if customers want, but not in 2019.”




Boeing is a complete scrap heap

 

Not to mention the delay caused by Boeing originally offering an executive job to the Assistant Sec Def for acquisition for her assistance in winning a sweetheart contract to lease tankers from Boeing:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA437374.pdf

 

I admit, I was not well versed on the KC-46. I just did some more light reading on it to educate myself. But either way, it has problems.

I can’t put a word or something on this other than “fake” but the current status of aerospace/tech feels like it’s rooted in a lot of smoke. Artemis/boom supersonic/ Boeing. It feels like there is some sort of core issues going on deep below the surface. Compared to the technological achievements of the 60s/70s. Apollo, 747, etc.

 

Not sure what you posted has to do with calling the KC46 a 767-200. Most of what you posted is true however you omit that many of the issues were driven by DOD program requirements. The Brits turned L1011's into tankers in weeks. Had they needed to meet DOD standards they might still be working on them.
The boom issues are the biggest problem. The boom stiffness issue was a DOD error. Boeing provided what they requested. Turns out it doesn't work well with lightweight aircraft. The DOD is paying for the fix. The vision issue is on Boeing since they agreed to the DOD requirements in the contract. What you don't mention is there is no tanker anywhere in the world with boom capabilities remotely like the DOD contract specified. A boom operating looking out a window is not going to be able to refuel a tanker in complete darkness.

 

What? I didn’t fly tankers so maybe I’m off base here, but haven’t we been doing this for decades?