Surprised? No Real Reason To Be
July 7th, 2009
Boeing’s announcement of its purchase of Vought Aircraft’s 787 operations brings more of the outsourced work back within the company’s immediate oversight - however, to suggest that this move is a surprise or one that was not expected is quite anaemic.
Let’s not forget that this seeds to this move were sown perhaps as far back (if not farther back) as last spring when Boeing stepped in to acquire the 50% stake Vought held in Global Aeronautica with Alenia. What has compounded the move to buy up the oft-regarded weakest link in the 787 supply chain is based on various factors.
Critically, the 787 has a backlog stretching out to 2021 and beyond and without deliveries, the program is costing money in compensation as a result of yet more recent delays. Being able to work through the new set woes and establish a fix for the wing/side-of-body join as well as devise a new certification and delivery regime, the fundamental issue for Boeing remains unchanged - to start a production ramp up that gets the whole supply chain churning out 787’s.
Whether a second 787 line is based in Everett, South Carolina or anywhere else is not critical at this stage until the first line passes 50% saturation.
Boeing 787-8 Being Towed
Image Courtesy Of Boeing
In contrast to previous Boeing airplanes, the 787 does not need workers possessing the same level of technical expertise to simply assemble/”snap together” an airplane whose key components have been fabricated elsewhere.
You can appreciate Boeing’s logic for going with a new, cheaper labour force that wasn’t prone to striking every half decade and instead train them up for dealing with assembly and not manufacture. That travelled work on the first few shipsets rocked the entire supply chain in the early days of the program shows that the new work force was not adept to dealing with technical issues that perhaps staff in Everett/Renton may have been quick to identify.
Bringing that workforce in house and relieving Vought of its numerous obligations and difficulties means that there will be less reason for such production problems to crop up when the 787-9 enters production.
Boeing hasn’t been shy about farming out work - almost 30% of the last all new jetliner, the 777, is built by other partners - the difference with the 787 is that much more of it is built and distributed on a global scale.
With a fourth 747-400 undergoing conversion in Taiwan, Boeing will have a far more flexible approach at work dissemination when a second line is set up. Depending on where that line is will be dictated by tier one suppliers on the existing 787 line getting close to maximum capacity and also by the pace at which they can increase beyond that to accommodate work for a second line. What’s the logic in having two lines that are only churning out work that barely keeps just one line busy?
Furthermore, Boeing’s remarks post-IAM strike fall that it would consider working elsewhere points to Washington State having to re-assess the manner in which strikes have hindered the ability of staff to perhaps raise their appeal for keeping work in-state rather than lose it to another rival.
Timing too is critical - a second 787 line in Everett can be in place far quicker than say, South Carolina. Equally - the speed at which a second line is developed depends on any revised rate Boeing has in place to go beyond 10-per-month.
787 customers will probably have a double-edged sword view of this deal. Firstly, it doesn’t solve the near term issues of stabilising the program and getting the airplane flying and secondly, those waiting toward the tail end of the delivery queue can take heart that a second line is all but inevitable and they may get their 787’s faster than with just one operable line.
With Airbus’ own A350XWB blocked out until 2018 and almost zero chances of getting new build A330’s before 2012, there’s very little incentive for 787 customers to “jump ship” and go elsewhere - because they won’t get very far. Alas, Boeing’s decision to lop 777 rates from year could be a short lived affair. There is every incentive now to keep rates unchanged if 787 customers wish to take on 777’s as interim lift.
Boeing’s decision to wait for over 12 months to tie up this deal poses the classic question of “why do it now“.
There probably isn’t a singular answer to that, suffice to say that it’s positioning itself for a major overhaul in the way it gets a hold of the 787 program - from suppliers to vendors, to design and fabrication to assembly and delivery - this purchase means that the company intends to start showing dividends from its acquisition pretty quick, most likely starting from the likes of Spirit AeroSystems and the Japanese Heavies who may commit to increased rates of production when and if a second line announcement is made.
The prospect of Spirit being an eventual buyer is tantalising too - having worked formidably since the takeover of Boeing’s Wichita operations and being the most frugal tier one supplier in the 787 supply chain so far, there’s a compelling case for a deal here.
In terms of Boeing’s importance - getting the 787 airborne will be of far more importance than a second line.
Entry Filed under: Boeing, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787-3, Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Vought Aircraft
45 Comments Add your own
1. boeing investor | July 7th, 2009 at 20:28
“In terms of Boeing’s importance - getting the 787 airborne will be of far more importance than a second line.”
Here here! Bravo!
No one else has mentioned this anywhere in the media and I commend you for doing so.
2. Graphite Epoxy | July 7th, 2009 at 20:53
“In contrast to previous Boeing airplanes, the 787 does not need workers possessing the same level of technical expertise to simply assemble/”snap together” an airplane whose key components have been fabricated elsewhere.”
Boeing thinks that too.
That sort of thinking is what brought them to this level of crisis.
3. Boeing Employee | July 7th, 2009 at 22:22
Graphite - you somehow strike me as one of the strikers at last fall’s strike.
Its because of workers like you that workers like me could lose their jobs.
Thanks for nothing “co-worker”.
4. Dougloid | July 7th, 2009 at 22:23
I guess that there’s life in the old vertical integration model after all. Nothing like having your hands on the controls and being able to enforce responsibility and deadlines.
Outsourcing cedes control of the production process and it introduces uncertainty into the model, which is exactly what you don’t want in a development project that is cutting edge in the field.
Outsourcing’s better left until the production model is defined and the variables are worked out of the system. THEN you can farm it out.
Outsourcing major subassemblies is nothing new in the trade. At DAC the DC10 and MD11 fuselage sections came from Convair in San Diego, up the coast on barges, then onto special wheelsets and they’d get towed over city streets in the wee hours. The wings came from the old DeHavilland plant in Canada on railcars and the pylons came from Rohr in Chula Vista. MD80 landing gear doors came from SAIC in China.
I understand that the 747 hull sections come from Northrop-or at least some of them.
Now, all they gotta do is the same thing with McDonnell Douglas and get me my job back.
5. Chris Wallace | July 7th, 2009 at 23:16
I’m not sure it is so much an issue of workers at Boeing’s partners being “inferior” to IAM workers at Boeing Everett as it is Boeing’s constant changes to the 787 design which required those partners to continually change how they were putting the plane together.
We know Boeing has been making many and myriad changes to the design to reduce weight and those changes had impacts well beyond just the direct parts being changed. Partners have had to work with changes coming in on, at times, a daily basis from Boeing which undoubtedly has both slowed the speed of the work and possibly affected some of the quality.
I mean Boeing’s own workers at 40-26 needed almost two years to turn ZA001 from an empty shell held together with some Home Depot fasteners towed a couple hundred meters into a working plane that today traveled a few thousand meters under her own power.
Boeing needs to provide the partners a stable design that they can build to so they can become familiar with how to do it and start to engineer in efficiencies and quality control improvements.
6. BAmanagement idiots | July 8th, 2009 at 00:35
BA management arrogance is the sole reason why this program is suffering and hemmoraging money.
Eventually the program will get off the ground, but at what cost? They have already spent BILLIONS of dollars on tools that do not work, partners that ship parts over unfinished, incorrect and full of design errors. After the IAM employees strenghten, repair and reassemble work that should have been done, they not only have to fix the ones in the pipeline, too which they are not staffed, not tooled and not engineered to do. The employees at BA will then give up that knowledge back to the partners to correct and bring their product up to specifications, so they can turn around and lose thier jobs, while BA management collect merits and bonuses and a “See I told you so” Mentality?
BA use to own the engineering on its previous program and got it right, nearly the first time. The -8I will be off the ground way before the 787 does…why? because BA owns the engineering design! NOTE: BA employs 160K around the world, yet only about 21K actually work on the product. That is only 8%. What is the other 92% doing that is value added?
Absolutely nothing!
7. BAmanagement idiots | July 8th, 2009 at 00:45
Dougloid..
And because of that business model, MCDAC is no longer building airplanes..Yeah, they got bought out, if you hadn’t forgotten. Their plans sucked and so did their management. Remember the MD 80 going to China? how long did THAT last?
Oh, guess what, that same management is on the BA board, when they should be scrubbing toilets and bucking rivets.
When are you people going to get it through your short term skulls that if one of the 4 partners fail to bring in their portion of the work (Like they are doing now), it shackles the program entirely. If one of the four partners decides to renew thier contract with BA, it shackles the program.
Thats the business model I would want. Instead, why not pay on performance. You get more employees motivated..yeah money and incentives are great motivators, need less employees and therefore do not need a union. Face it, there are POS that get the same amount as those who crank out work…
8. ikkeman | July 8th, 2009 at 07:20
2. Graphite Epoxy | July 7th, 2009 at 20:53
read on: “shows that the new work force was not adept to dealing with technical issues that perhaps staff in Everett/Renton may have been quick to identify”
author already made your point!
BTW, should I connect any significance to the fact that it’s one of the (few) US partners getting bought out vs one of the (many) non superior US breed partners?
9. Aurora | July 8th, 2009 at 10:34
The central issue of whether to stay or go is labor peace. However, as this article notes, it can’t be one sided. The union cannot be expected to give up its right to strike unless it has something similar in return–like guaranteed employment.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009430799_787secondline08.html
10. G Stevens | July 8th, 2009 at 12:43
You now see the real reason Boeing moved HQ to Chicago. To escape the State and local pressure which has enabled a workforce to regularly hold them hostage. Airbus has long known the benefit of doing work in areas in the US where labor is less militant. Thats why they were able to propose building A330 tankers in Alabama (major EADS shareholder, Daimler, already builds cars there), the cancellation of which was a travesty (US Forces continue to rely on outmoded tankers). There’s a reason BMW and Michlelin are in South Carolina.
11. keesje | July 8th, 2009 at 13:19
I cannot blame Boeing for spreading risks, lowering cost and building in flexibility. Seattle workers can (& will) move to the Vought location if they want / need to.
What I would be concerned about working at Boeing now is the rumours it is the 787-9 that will be build at the second line. I think it will not take very long before the -9 takes over from the -8 in terms of being most popular..
The 787 supply chain can deliver to South Carolina as easy as to Washington.
12. Dougloid | July 8th, 2009 at 14:17
Oh, guess what, that same management is on the BA board, when they should be scrubbing toilets and bucking rivets.
The only director on Boeing’s board that had anything to do with Douglas is John McDonnell.
http://www.boeing.com/corp_gov/board_directors.html
13. Erik Bloodaxe | July 8th, 2009 at 14:25
Ikkeman, it’s not a case of being a US or Foreign supplier. It’s a case of picking Vought. Vought was a stupid choice from the get go. They are a near about worthless supplier. They are horribly difficult to work with, they refuse to change anything unless they are paid exhorbitant fees for it. They were one of the DUMBEST supplier picks. They bring nothing to the table. Not even money. Vought should never have been on the program in the first place.
14. Mike M | July 8th, 2009 at 14:36
Seriously Keesje, you make me laugh.
Has Boeing NEVER EVER spread “risk” before?
LMAO
15. Chris Wallace | July 8th, 2009 at 16:05
BAmanagement idiots offered as opinion: The -8I will be off the ground way before the 787 does…why? because BA owns the engineering design!
Actually, Boeing’s Moscow Design Center (using contract Russian engineers) did a good bit of work on the 747-8 program and they really messed it up, which is why the 747-8 is now itself months/years behind schedule because that work had to all be re-done by Boeing’s own engineering team.
So yes, SPEEA did make a pretty good case for their value because they have been the ones who have made the 787 and 747-8 workable.
16. Mike M | July 8th, 2009 at 16:13
>>>Airbus has long known the benefit of doing work in areas in the US where labor is less militant. Thats why they were able to propose building A330 tankers in Alabama
Puhleze!
The A330 has no hope in hell of winning the tanker contract after the cover up on the AF447 crash.
A belly flop landing, find the ass end and yet not even a single positive ID on the rest of the fuselage or bodies?
Give me a fucking break.
The A330 as a US tanker is dead.
Even the frenchies know it. If you expect Air Frenchy to order A350’s after this cover up, think again.
Pitots froze, speed flunked, engine stalled, nosedived, tail sheered off akin to its AA587 cousin and the rest if history.
Landed intact on on the belly my ass.
17. Mike M | July 8th, 2009 at 16:14
Also, exactly WHAT workforce does Airbus have in the USA that is NOT subsidized by the EU?
18. Erik Bloodaxe | July 8th, 2009 at 17:03
What is this “long used” work force in the USA? Airbus’ very first forray into the USA for any meaningful, real work was the Wichita facility that isn’t even a decade old yet (and only works on stuff the Brits want them to). The Mobile facility is one building with less than 100 guys working there, and its only been in existance for 2 years, working on “high value” items like interiors, yea… real technical genius required there. Gimme a break. You Airbus fanbois are laughable.
19. Falcon | July 8th, 2009 at 17:12
Mike M,
What workforce do they have in US that is subsidized by EU?
20. DaveBC | July 8th, 2009 at 17:18
Mike M, you know squat about the AF447 tail.
It didn’t “shear” off a la AA587.
It came off on impact, and in a forwards direction.
21. Ed | July 8th, 2009 at 17:49
Once again, a post on Boeing’s woes with the 787 is turn into sheer anti Airbus hysteria. Man, those guys (i.e: Mike M, Erik Bloodaxe and a few others) must really be desperate… By the way, anybody here to moderate this blog, both in style and substance?
22. Mike M | July 8th, 2009 at 19:13
>>>Falcon
That was a rhetorical, not literal q my friend.
>>>DaveBC
Of course, you were the star witness of the event.
Any theory about the AF447 crash is more credible than the tripe put out by the crackheads at the BEA.
>>>Ed
I am sorry for taking this non-Airbus thread off track.
23. Chris Wallace | July 8th, 2009 at 19:55
Well Boeing has laid down an ultimatum - either the IAM agrees to a long-term no strike clause or Boeing will build a second 787 FAL outside Washington.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009430799_787secondline08.html
24. keesje | July 8th, 2009 at 20:37
16. Mike M | July 8th, 2009 at 16:13
I think Mike won the price for the most brainless, impulsive and prejudged post this week.
Airbus has A320 assembly lines in Hamburg, Toulouse and Tjanjin. Are they stupid ?
25. Erik Bloodaxe | July 8th, 2009 at 20:47
Ed, Kindly point out where I’m wrong.
I’ve said plenty about Boeing Failure on 787, I still think McNerney and Carson should be fired.
26. Erik Bloodaxe | July 8th, 2009 at 20:48
Ed, Kindly point out where I’m wrong.
I’ve said plenty about Boeing Failure on 787, I still think McNerney and Carson should be fired.
That doesn’t absolve Airbus of being just as full of fail. So go peddle your bananas somewhere else.
27. mikej | July 8th, 2009 at 20:57
Blogger 6 and 7 is a perfect name… and exact reason for all the 787 failures/problems. BA Management ARE a bunch of idiots, plain and simple. They call themselves “Leaders” but that is really a total joke. Hardly any of them ever worked on the factory floor, nor as real Engineers either.
I like what blogger 15 says…
And 23 has me worried a bit, ie a “no strike clause” is fine as long as BA doesn’t keep going cheaper and cheaper on their end of things.
The last truly Boeing planes was the 777 and 737NG, after those it is really MD running (ruining) the show. And almost all MD airliners were merely adequate or lame on quality, scary to fly on sometimes.
787 is really an MD design, it has hardly zero commonality with other Boeing planes (composites aside). I hope it isn’t a dud like MD airliners.
All prior Boeing models flew within three months or less after the Roll Out Ceremony… 787 is already two full years out, and I heard this recent “fix” could take six-months minimum and upwards of eighteen-months longer on deliveries.
And it wasn’t only the IAM against the outsourcing, it was SPEEA too, and and any other person who had a brain with even a tiny bit of sense.
We all “told them so” years ago, but BA Management were idiots and refused to listen. Most the idiots are now sort of kicked out, and couple sort-of semi-sane ones are now trying to fix the huge mess.
Are there any truly sane BA Managers?
NO there isn’t.
28. Mike M | July 8th, 2009 at 21:09
>>>I think Mike won the price for the most brainless, impulsive and prejudged post this week.
I see that it takes one to know one.
Well spoken Keesje, well spoken!
29. Jacobin777 | July 8th, 2009 at 21:46
I think there is blame to go around everywhere.
That being said, when customers such as Virgin Atlantic state they will take their business other places due to the inability of a manufacture to deliver (such as a strike)…well…
30. ikkeman | July 8th, 2009 at 22:29
21. Ed | July 8th, 2009 at 17:49
nope, one of this blog’s redeeming qualities is that it doesn’t (in my experience) restrict anyone’s freedom to idiocy (not even mine)
24. keesje | July 8th, 2009 at 20:37
I heartily second that motion - admins: could we donate to get a pretty golden piece of excrement on a pedestal as an rotating trophy?
28. Mike M | July 8th, 2009 at 21:09
no mike, your post 16 is an insult to everyone that wasn’t back of the line when brains were divided.
my apologies for going back on topic, but the following article argues the excact opposite of the final paragraph:
http:// leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/why-boeing-needs-a-second-787-line-sooner-than-later/
31. Paula K | July 8th, 2009 at 22:34
MikeJ #27 - did you hear that Aviation Week, Space & Techology were also pointing to an 18-month delay?
32. Dougloid | July 9th, 2009 at 05:02
787 is really an MD design, it has hardly zero commonality with other Boeing planes (composites aside). I hope it isn’t a dud like MD airliners.
Set the Koolaid down, feller, if you’re looking to place blame on someone maybe you ought to send everyone at Boeing a nice mirror. And then bone up on what you don’t know. The DC9 and its variants were hardly “duds”, particularly if you’d like to rehash the whole aging aircraft thing and expound to me the virtues of lap skin splices with potting conpound between the sheets.
I worked on the big ones and they were pretty solidly built. Parenthetically after they lost a few cargo doors nearly everything was over engineered because no design engineer was going to have something like that on his or her desk, thank you very much. Of course that added weight, come to think of it.
The last Douglas machine in production is the C17. Is that a dud too?
33. edo | July 9th, 2009 at 08:35
1. They are buying facilities that may house another production line
2. The 787 looked pretty good on the runway tests.
Maybe, just maybe, things are under control with the reinforcement issues and they may fly it and start pumping them out.
Maybe it was another “move” to get people to think in a certain way. Only time will tell.
Oh just fly already….
34. Ed | July 9th, 2009 at 09:07
30. Ikkeman: You have a point… but it’s no excuse for the kind of trash laid down in post 16.
35. Mike M | July 9th, 2009 at 15:36
ikkeman, I apologized for what I wrote, but the fact remains my scenario for the crash is a valid as the drivel by the BEA.
Until either concept is contested or a third way emerges, I stand by what I wrote even if it “offends” some thin skinned people.
Getting back on topic, I dont think Boeing will be setting up a second line within 8 years or more. They rest of the 787 supply chain just isnt geared up for increased production.
36. mikej | July 9th, 2009 at 20:52
For 31, the info comes from factory workers on the line itself, not a magazine.
For 32, initial C-17 was too a dud… wing joints were cracking under zero load and the plane was way under-powered and couldn’t stay airborne without the flaps extended. That was in the early 90’s… the USAF had Boeing (then still a real Boeing) send teams of engineers to redesign the wings and double the thrust on the engines… and after that and only after that the C-17 was THEN a total hot-rod.
More on 787, the wing-join cracking problem was known by some BA Management idiots by May/June of 2008. But at that time they didn’t want to listen.
Before the Merger, BA Management were still idiots, but they did seem to be smart enough when it came to the major issues like schedules and doing important things right. Oh, and most or all of the Senior Management came up the lines from the factory-floor ranks or up through the engineering ranks. So they had a sense of reality of what it was really like below them, and what it took to make an airliner.
Now and since the Merger we have managers who come straight from college, or from some office job, or car-salesman, or anywhere but aiplanes. I think that mentality came from Harry Stonecipher era, which I’m not sure why the sentiment still lingers. Yet every one of these current MD type managers do NOT and will NOT listen to reason. They all have this “we know best” attitude, and they don’t care to hear anyting else. Probably why Alan Mulally left.
Pat Shanahan came up the ranks, but he’s got one hell of a task now to fix all the 787 snafus. And he is a good guy. I just hope Boeing doesn’t make him the fall-guy.
In the pre-merger days the SOB-Join area would’ve been the strongest area of the plane. And if there were any doubts of it being strong enough, they would’ve designed it to be twice as strong or tripple.
ZA001 probably will take three months minimum to get the repairs and fly.
The taxi-test looked impressive, went about 100 knots, almost could’ve flown if they wanted to try it.
37. Dougloid | July 9th, 2009 at 22:10
Mike sez For 32, initial C-17 was too a dud… wing joints were cracking under zero load and the plane was way under-powered and couldn’t stay airborne without the flaps extended. That was in the early 90’s… the USAF had Boeing (then still a real Boeing) send teams of engineers to redesign the wings and double the thrust on the engines… and after that and only after that the C-17 was THEN a total hot-rod.
Mike, that’s bullshit with a capital B. I was there, and there weren’t any Boeing engineers around the place then, and the other stuff is pure unadulterated crap. What would you do if Lockheed sent a bunch of engineers to redesign your product? Call plant security, that’s what you’d do. You’re completely and utterly wrong about this.
In addition you ran that load of MD management garbage before and I pointed out that the only person on Boeing’s board who had anything to do with MDC was John McDonnell. You haven’t answered that.
And what, pray tell is “MD style management”?
If you know something that I don’t it is high time for you to put some facts down or sit down and shut up. I do not know why you have such a sense of grievance but you’re getting off task here.
38. BAmanagement idiots | July 10th, 2009 at 05:06
BA gave the union an ultimatium? Looks to me it is more saber rattling. Just another reason to milk money out of the state and scare the unions into rolling over.
How many BILLIONS of dollars will it take BA to erect a facility? Not including training. If you think that building airplanes is like putting a car together, you have not been in the airline business. You cannot pull over at 30,000 feet! BA tried to shovel new hires through their “training” and look what happened. The POS over in S. Carolina can’t get it right and you are telling me that they can train anybody? If you work at BA, come over and see me. I will happy to run you through what I go through each and everyday. Having thrived in theory X mamangement of the 80’s and 90’s, rest assured…you will cringe and cry home to your mommies after I get done with you. 21 years I have worked there and have yet to see any of the planes I have helped created, reworked and reassembled go down. That alone is a testament to the engineering and the skill and craftmenship of the men and a few women.
IF BA gives out an ultimatum, I would expect the union to counter offer with:
NO bonuses to any executives and management. ALL bonuses go to the SPEEA and the IAM FIRST.
A 6 to 10 year contract with a minimum 10% bonus in each year based on year end pay.
Medical and dental fluctuate with the times. Meaning no additional out of pocket expenses.
You heard it here first….!
39. Erik Bloodaxe | July 10th, 2009 at 18:38
mikej. Shanahan is an idiot. He’s a screamer who only wants good news. He’s a total “theory x”manager, who is incapable of understanding anything other than his view point. Francher is his “BFF”, and doesn’t have a single clue about commercial airplanes. Maybe a good missile guy, but his only experience with commercial airplanes before being put in place ws as a passenger.
Dougloid, I know you are very fond of MD, but the turth of the matter is that MD destroyed itself, and is now doing the same to Boeing. The MD management style is “my way or the highway”, do it the way I said or don’t come to work tomorrow. Fire everyone, then make them reapply for thier jobs. It’s corrosive to a real team. It encourages the exact kind of situation that Boeing is in right now; one where people are afraid to tell managers bad news. Additionally, the managers that are in place are more concerned with their own portfolios than getting the job done right. They don’t have a clue about the job they are doing right now, and just looking to get their ticket punched before moving on to the next “bigger and fatter paycheck”. THAT is the MD Managment style that infects Boeing right now, and God help us all. It’s a 10buck stock at this point.
40. mikej | July 10th, 2009 at 20:19
For 37, the C-17 woes were in all the papers of the time, and both the Boeing News and SPEEA News had articles regarding what I stated above.
AND the “MD Managament style” is similar to the way you bully and badger on your blogs, very corrosive style of management– thanks Eric (blog 39 for adding). THAT is what I and others have to tolerate everyday at Big-B. If I didn’t need a paycheck I would be long gone.
I’ve never met Shanahan yet, only emails. Maybe he’s less idiot than the other idiots, or he’s merely the one Boeing lured into walking into the tar pit.
41. Dougloid | July 10th, 2009 at 21:11
“AND the “MD Managament style” is similar to the way you bully and badger on your blogs, very corrosive style of management– thanks Eric (blog 39 for adding). THAT is what I and others have to tolerate everyday at Big-B. If I didn’t need a paycheck I would be long gone.”
That’s bullshit too. I don’t bully or badger anyone on my blogs. If you don’t care to read it you have but to turn the page.
What newspapers are you talking about from the late 1980s supports your contentions that Boeing had to send an emergency team of their engineers to straighten out poor old Douglas? I can tell you, I was there, and they weren’t. It never happened.
How’s that “MD management style”?
corrosive style of management?
Maybe you’re like that idiot “The Last Inspector”?
If you had the courage of your convictions at all you’d get off your fat keister and head on down the road, because I don’t see where Boeing’s getting much value from you.
How do you live with yourself, whoring for a paycheck?
42. Chris Wallace | July 13th, 2009 at 14:48
Well Richard Aboulafia this morning blamed McD for the 787’s problems, saying their management style of “profits over product” led to Boeing deciding to have bean-counters design and build the plane instead of engineers.
Shades of Al-Baker, anyone?
But when I look at Boeing’s and BCA’s management teams, I fail to see where all the “McD Rot” is.
CFO James Bell apparently came with the buyout of Rockwell.
BCA CEO Scott Carson appears to have been a Boeing man his entire career.
VP of Business Development and Strategy Michael Cave is a McD man, however he was the General Manager of the 737, 747, 767 and 777 programs prior to 2007 so you might be able to pin the decision to launch the 747-8 on him, but not the execution of the program since he’d left by the time it started development. And you have to admit he did pretty well with the 737NG and LR777 programs.
So where is it? Or did Harry Stonecipher single-handed ruin the 787 for the 9-12 months during that program’s development he was CEO and Chairman?
43. Erik Bloodaxe | July 13th, 2009 at 18:07
I think this websites commentary summs it up pretty well
http://crosscut.com/2009/07/13/boeing/19103/
44. Chris Wallace | July 14th, 2009 at 22:25
The good professor does make some very salient points, IMO. Maybe QR’s Akbar Al Baker wasn’t just blowing smoke when he said Boeing is now run by “bean counters” and no longer by “engineers”.
45. ajswtlk | July 15th, 2009 at 00:55
It’s simple. Boeing confounded without bound, ought to have known better, would not wake up from their dream despite clamors of warnings, and is just, seemingly, awakening from a nightmare.
Is all hope lost? Nope. It’ll be fun watching the real knowledgeable people excel.
Does Scott C need to be moved out of the way?
New Poll, multiple choice.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed