Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
James1978 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 12:11 am
Because of course it's Boeing . . .
I know and accept that certain things on military aircraft cost more than their commercial equivalent. But a soap dispenser on a C-17 should not cost 80 times more than the soap dispenser that goes in a 737.
Of course that soap dispenser doesn’t cost 80x more. It’s that the DoD’s incompetence allowed Boeing to charge 80x more for it.
...Reminds me of the classic Wizard of Id where a defense contractor is brought before the Fink for having charged a million crowns for a coffee maker. The Fink says, "Let him go - I wanna talk to the guy who signed the check...."
Mike
This is it exactly.
Of course if the standard soap dispenser needed a NATO Standard cross-hatching (sorry… Hatching, Cross, Anti Slip, No.3 Mk.1) AND the contract allows for unlimited cost overruns… then, as you say, it’s the Cost Controller’s task to justify.
What this really exposes is how wide open the whole complex system is to implicit corruption- by which I mean, the sort that everyone feels they benefit from.
jemhouston wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 5:48 pm
I suppose an airstrike on Boeing HQ is out of the question? How about heads on pikes outside the Pentagon as lesson to all?
Or just send Musk and DOGE after Boeing. Much more troublesome to the executives.
kdahm wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 5:54 pmOr just send Musk and DOGE after Boeing. Much more troublesome to the executives.
Well, they seem to be working on getting rid of the bureaucrats who dealt with it previously, so...
Context needed on the soap dispenser by the way - it wouldn't surprise me if none were in stock since the last aircraft was built a decade ago. Boeing then pricing up that part number including making the required tooling again could be VERY expensive if you have to qualify new suppliers, and nobody questioned whether there was a COTS/MOTS equivalent available. At which point it's not the fault of a person but of the system.
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
...Boeing is exactly one bad day away from a complete wipeout. The KC-46 debacle, the mess with the new AF1s, and the slow-motion spacewreck that is StarLiner have shown that if any of those are cut back/cancelled - and StarLiner is thisclose to it - then they're done.
MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:08 pm
...Boeing is exactly one bad day away from a complete wipeout. The KC-46 debacle, the mess with the new AF1s, and the slow-motion spacewreck that is StarLiner have shown that if any of those are cut back/cancelled - and StarLiner is thisclose to it - then they're done.
Mike
Well, the X-37B is an unqualified success, so there's that.
In addition to your list, Boeing is also the prime for the SLS, which is headed for the chopping block.
MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:08 pm
...Boeing is exactly one bad day away from a complete wipeout. The KC-46 debacle, the mess with the new AF1s, and the slow-motion spacewreck that is StarLiner have shown that if any of those are cut back/cancelled - and StarLiner is thisclose to it - then they're done.
Mike
If they do (and are not rescued) that’s the end of airliner manufacture in the US. In normal times I’d say that wasn’t credible, but we aren’t living in normal times. Letting them fail would be an utter catastrophe for the US aerospace industry.
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:08 pm
...Boeing is exactly one bad day away from a complete wipeout. The KC-46 debacle, the mess with the new AF1s, and the slow-motion spacewreck that is StarLiner have shown that if any of those are cut back/cancelled - and StarLiner is thisclose to it - then they're done.
Mike
You could have had the KC-45 a long time ago. But, no, Boeing’s Congressional representatives saw that knocked on the head.
“Frankly, I had enjoyed the war… and why do people want peace if the war is so much fun?” - Lieutenant General Sir Adrian Carton de Wiart
MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:08 pm
...Boeing is exactly one bad day away from a complete wipeout. The KC-46 debacle, the mess with the new AF1s, and the slow-motion spacewreck that is StarLiner have shown that if any of those are cut back/cancelled - and StarLiner is thisclose to it - then they're done.
Mike
You could have had the KC-45 a long time ago. But, no, Boeing’s Congressional representatives saw that knocked on the head.
MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:08 pm
...Boeing is exactly one bad day away from a complete wipeout. The KC-46 debacle, the mess with the new AF1s, and the slow-motion spacewreck that is StarLiner have shown that if any of those are cut back/cancelled - and StarLiner is thisclose to it - then they're done.
Mike
You could have had the KC-45 a long time ago. But, no, Boeing’s Congressional representatives saw that knocked on the head.
MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:08 pm
...Boeing is exactly one bad day away from a complete wipeout. The KC-46 debacle, the mess with the new AF1s, and the slow-motion spacewreck that is StarLiner have shown that if any of those are cut back/cancelled - and StarLiner is thisclose to it - then they're done.
Mike
You could have had the KC-45 a long time ago. But, no, Boeing’s Congressional representatives saw that knocked on the head.
A very stupid decision. Should have bought both. Tanker fleet requirement was big enough for both.
MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Mar 01, 2025 7:08 pm
...Boeing is exactly one bad day away from a complete wipeout. The KC-46 debacle, the mess with the new AF1s, and the slow-motion spacewreck that is StarLiner have shown that if any of those are cut back/cancelled - and StarLiner is thisclose to it - then they're done.
Mike
If they do (and are not rescued) that’s the end of airliner manufacture in the US. In normal times I’d say that wasn’t credible, but we aren’t living in normal times. Letting them fail would be an utter catastrophe for the US aerospace industry.
Could you spin the airliner and defense units off to become their own companies?
Rocket J Squrriel wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:18 amCould you spin the airliner and defense units off to become their own companies?
Not much left if you do, and a lot of assets held in common between the two branches. Possible, but would need a vast amount of government investment to pull off.
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
Rocket J Squrriel wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:18 amCould you spin the airliner and defense units off to become their own companies?
Not much left if you do, and a lot of assets held in common between the two branches. Possible, but would need a vast amount of government investment to pull off.
And both would become highly vulnerable to immediate takeover by Airbus, LockMart etc…. Which would be likely to happen anyway, short of an enormous government bailout.
Rocket J Squrriel wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:18 amCould you spin the airliner and defense units off to become their own companies?
Not much left if you do, and a lot of assets held in common between the two branches. Possible, but would need a vast amount of government investment to pull off.
And both would become highly vulnerable to immediate takeover by Airbus, LockMart etc…. Which would be likely to happen anyway, short of an enormous government bailout.
Ordinarily I would think the government would block such takeovers on monopoly grounds, but all bets are off.
They might OK Lockheed taking the commercial airplane division but I don't think Lockheed wants it.
I think the one to watch will be Embraer, and the chances of them entering the non-regional airplane market just went up.
The US needs two airplane manufacturers (I think). A merger with Lockheed-Martin isn't likely. Merger with Northrup-Grumman might work if get rid of Boeing management and do a proctology exam on the engineers and manufacturing sectors.
You're looking at two decades of work to get Boeing right.
Two days if you get all of the Boeing management people in one place and tell them "Either quit, or get audited. If you fail the audit, you get shot."
Not that I am advocating such a course of action. However, Boeing has been in a very bad place from a managerial standpoint for a very long time. The entire company needs to be revamped and rebuilt, with engineering concerns completely overriding management concerns.
Ok, serious hat on for a second. DO NOT DO THIS EVER.
Engineers naturally have a very bad case of “ooh shiny” and so often make terrible managers. Just firing the existing management will turn the current death-spiral into something very much worse.
War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd
You'll note that I didn't say the engineers need to be put in charge.
I said that engineering concerns need to override management concerns.
Continue employing the good managers, not that there seem to be many, by all means. But Boeing needs a group of managers who are able to take a look at a pile of engineering requirements next to a pile of management requirements, and discard or blend appropriately.
Doing things to make life easier for managers is NOT how to run an engineering company.
Pdf27 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:36 pm
Ok, serious hat on for a second. DO NOT DO THIS EVER.
Engineers naturally have a very bad case of “ooh shiny” and so often make terrible managers. Just firing the existing management will turn the current death-spiral into something very much worse.
I'm against it since I don't trust the current crop of engineers since they were hired by current management.
