• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Boeing used to be good, but these days they deliver trash

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Leftover tools and trash in work spaces is really common in the contracting industry (any of it). I install low voltage cabling and components for a living (networking, access control, cameras, etc) and I constantly find junk left behind from previous contractors. I was just in the plenum space of a building yesterday and found coke bottles, a beer can, and old paint brushes from a job that apparently was done back in 1994. The only reason I know that is because one of the workers bought a newspaper and left it there, too! The workers don't care. They know the owners are never going to go inside those spaces, and it's just extra work for them to clean it up afterwards. Thankfully, if you're intentional about cleaning up after yourself and being presentable, you can really make a name for yourself in any contracting industry.

I guarantee y'all have a coke bottle or something somewhere inside your house walls! Sad, but true.
 
Zorba said:
Considering the Max still has a historic backlog and has better performance than the 320 family in the -7 and -8 sizes. I think they have a viable and competitive single aisle aircraft.

Sooner or later this issue will be fixed and they will start delivering record numbers of them again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this pretty much. It's not like Airbus could actually fill all the orders for the Max if buyers suddenly switched anytime before the end of the next decade.

Boeing will get it fixed (eventually) and everybody will forget in a year.
 
UNCjigga said:
Yikes, critical 737 MAX software was outsourced to $9/hour programmers while Senior Engineers were being laid off.

https://www.industryweek.com/supply-chain/boeings-737-max-software-outsourced-9-hour-engineers
Click to expand...

First thing I thought of was the incredible debacle when they farmed out so much of the 787 work to suppliers and yup it's in the article.

The big money brains at corporate (at all large companies) love these savings but the bill always comes due when too many corners are cut.
 
hal2kilo said:
Tried to milk the 737 airframe too long. Reminds me of Intel with the Pentium 4.
Click to expand...
They were preparing to move away from the 737 airframe when Airbus sold 100 A320 NEO's (new engine options) to United. Boeing didn't want to see that many sales lost so they modified the 737 with a much more efficient engines. Problem is the 737 is too low to the ground for these much bigger engines so they were forced to mount them much further forward which resulted in a tendency for the nose to pitch up so they created the MCAS system to counter for it. Them they only fed this system with one sensor, ( huge mistake in such a critical system) because using 2 or more meant the plane would be reclassified and pilots would need expensive training for the new "type". By using only one sensor the training will only be a 45 minute Ipad session so the airlines were all in on it, don't think they knew about MCAS at all and it's almost criminal IMO to not have pilots know about it, or how it operates. Boeing's excuse was "we didn't want to overburden the pilots" is complete hogwash too.
 
BUTCH1 said:
They were preparing to move away from the 737 airframe when Airbus sold 100 A320 NEO's (new engine options) to United. Boeing didn't want to see that many sales lost so they modified the 737 with a much more efficient engines. Problem is the 737 is too low to the ground for these much bigger engines so they were forced to mount them much further forward which resulted in a tendency for the nose to pitch up so they created the MCAS system to counter for it. Them they only fed this system with one sensor, ( huge mistake in such a critical system) because using 2 or more meant the plane would be reclassified and pilots would need expensive training for the new "type". By using only one sensor the training will only be a 45 minute Ipad session so the airlines were all in on it, don't think they knew about MCAS at all and it's almost criminal IMO to not have pilots know about it, or how it operates. Boeing's excuse was "we didn't want to overburden the pilots" is complete hogwash too.
Click to expand...
It was American that bought the NEO, orders and options for 260 of them. At the time AA was an all Boeing fleet and was blindsided by the order. Boeing rushed out the 737Max, and AA ended up putting 200 orders and options on the Max as well.

MCAS using two sensors would not have reclassified the flight deck type cert. It was designed as a limited authority system that didn't require redundancy. The 737 does have two AoA vanes so I don't know why they didn't use both anyways.
 
Boeing is a real mess. I wouldn't set foot in a new model until it's been flying for 5 years. Let more adventurous folks be the beta testers, because it's pretty clear that the FAA has been gutted and captured to the point that it's damn near meaningless. You can only trust real life safety data, not their certificate.
 
Zorba said:
It was American that bought the NEO, orders and options for 260 of them. At the time AA was an all Boeing fleet and was blindsided by the order. Boeing rushed out the 737Max, and AA ended up putting 200 orders and options on the Max as well.

MCAS using two sensors would not have reclassified the flight deck type cert. It was designed as a limited authority system that didn't require redundancy. The 737 does have two AoA vanes so I don't know why they didn't use both anyways.
Click to expand...
Ok, OK, I should have checked, I did know the Max's creation revolved around a large domestic purchase. I'll have to re-check because I did see a vid somewhere explain the plan form Boeing (one sensor) as avoiding airline type cert. rating. If it was a "limited" system the malfunction was certainly severe.
 
BUTCH1 said:
Ok, OK, I should have checked, I did know the Max's creation revolved around a large domestic purchase. I'll have to re-check because I did see a vid somewhere explain the plan form Boeing (one sensor) as avoiding airline type cert. rating. If it was a "limited" system the malfunction was certainly severe.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it was designed as a limited authority system, but obviously that wasn't the reality. An article I read said they increased the gains during flight test and never reviewed the safety analysis.
 
Boeing definitely has their share of problems, but there isn't any other company ready to take up their mantle. A world without Boeing is a world with a monopoly in aviation manufacturing, something that even Airbus doesn't want.
 
It's not 100% clear to me if they thought the problem was with MCAS, or the simulator's implementation of it. For sure they weren't talking about flying an actual plane. But circumstantially it looks pretty bad.
 
So Boeing wants 100% tariffs on Airbus planes (it got 25%) yet, apparently, can't deliver a competitive narrow body product that a regulator will ok now and we don't know when that could happen.

Merica fuck yea.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
It's what naturally happens when companies become bloated with no real drive to innovate (lack of competition).
Click to expand...

Except Boeing is not a monopoly and has a competitor that's just as big, just as powerful and that fights them for every contract.

And THAT appears to be more to blame here than claim of bloat or laziness caused by lack of competition. Boeing is a big company with a hugely expensive workforce and is under constant pressure to get contracts by being the low bidder. Their troubles smell a hell of a lot more like cutting corners to reduce costs and meet bid prices than it does of them being apathetic because they don't have a strong competitor.
 
Last edited:
How is this going to work when they restart flights? What if you book a flight that is supposed to be another plane, but due to some problem they try to fly you on a 737 Max?
What are your rights as a customer going to be if you don't want to die?
 
OccamsToothbrush said:
Except Boeing is not a monopoly and has a competitor that's just as big, just as powerful and that fights them for every contract.

And THAT appears to be more to blame here than claim of bloat or laziness caused by lack of competition. Boeing is a big company with a hugely expensive workforce and is under constant pressure to get contracts by being the low bidder. Their troubles smell a hell of a lot more like cutting corners to reduce costs and meet bid prices than it does of them being apathetic because they don't have a strong competitor.
Click to expand...

... Ask Bombardier about their jet.
 
OccamsToothbrush said:
Except Boeing is not a monopoly and has a competitor that's just as big, just as powerful and that fights them for every contract.

And THAT appears to be more to blame here than claim of bloat or laziness caused by lack of competition. Boeing is a big company with a hugely expensive workforce and is under constant pressure to get contracts by being the low bidder. Their troubles smell a hell of a lot more like cutting corners to reduce costs and meet bid prices than it does of them being apathetic because they don't have a strong competitor.
Click to expand...

It sounds that way to me as well.

What I would add is that their choices to reduce costs by outsourcing to cheap, low quality suppliers is a false economy and an indicator of poor leadership and business systems.

Quality and efficiency starts at the shop floor. What it doesn't sound like is that Boeing has built the culture and business practices to be a highly efficient production company while maintaining a high quality workforce.
 
Re Unions:
Toyota is the world leader in manufacturing production systems, highly profitable, and also treats their workers with respect and empowerment. It is a core Toyota value to place the worker at the center, and the highest leadership makes very strong commitments to avoid ever laying off workers.
UAW has tried to organize unions in some of their factories, but they are rejected.

Why? Because the company treats them better than they would get from the unionization. Leadership has built a strong culture of trust backed by results.
Unions can absolutely be a hindrance to companies agility, innovation, culture and overall sustainability.
Unions are created when workers are mistreated and exploited by wrong-headed and ineffective mgmt.

Imo, unionization can be a symptom of internal rot and company illness, they are not a cure.

Better leadership and mgmt to create an effective culture and workforce is the key to longterm company sustainability and shared prosperity.

I wish the Democrats would better recognize this in their campaigns, rather than just advocate for more unions.
 
Bitek said:
Re Unions:
Toyota is the world leader in manufacturing production systems, highly profitable, and also treats their workers with respect and empowerment. It is a core Toyota value to place the worker at the center, and the highest leadership makes very strong commitments to avoid ever laying off workers.
UAW has tried to organize unions in some of their factories, but they are rejected.

Why? Because the company treats them better than they would get from the unionization. Leadership has built a strong culture of trust backed by results.
Unions can absolutely be a hindrance to companies agility, innovation, culture and overall sustainability.
Unions are created when workers are mistreated and exploited by wrong-headed and ineffective mgmt.

Imo, unionization can be a symptom of internal rot and company illness, they are not a cure.

Better leadership and mgmt to create an effective culture and workforce is the key to longterm company sustainability and shared prosperity.

I wish the Democrats would better recognize this in their campaigns, rather than just advocate for more unions.
Click to expand...

Would not, theoretically, workers sitting on the corporate boards as some Dem candidates suggest improve the situation somewhat? Most US corporate boards are full of cronies from adjacent industries who provide little actual guidance or oversight in the running of said corporation and just all vote each other's executives absurd comp packages even if they fail. Some European nations (notably Germany, France, and the Nordic countries) require this.
 
It's all about regulation. 40 years of gutting it and corrupting it, this is what you get. And this week, our corrupt SCOTUS took a case to gut CFPB as well. Look at the opiod mess and Rudy Giuliani successfully lobbying to keep them on the market and reimbursed by Medicare, even after they started killing tens of thousands. Don't trust any US regulator, wait for years of in field data before trusting any product or financial service. I would fly 737 Max only after 5 years of service with no serious incidents traced back to MCAS. That is the only data you can trust. All the other promises are just empty words by people already eyeing their next job at the companies they are regulating.
 
I would fly the Max on day 1 of its return to service. The 737 is a time-tested airframe, and now that all the alterations are being put under the microscope, my prediction is that from this point forward, it's going to be the safest plane in the sky.
 
crashtech said:
I would fly the Max on day 1 of its return to service. The 737 is a time-tested airframe, and now that all the alterations are being put under the microscope, my prediction is that from this point forward, it's going to be the safest plane in the sky.
Click to expand...
Thank you for paying to field test it for people like me. I hope it works well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top