# Boeing - Design Issues...

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Toobuilder

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
So what's next in this thread? Gun control and abortion?

#### PMD

##### Well-Known Member
So what's next in this thread? Gun control and abortion?

That's the whole thing about ANY conversation including Boeing, Airbus, Embrauer, etc. These are no longer companies in the business sense, they are political animals from the world of finance. You can't separate those components and understand the problem(s).

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Ironically, the present COVID-19 pandemic might have a silver lining for Boeing. Because the airlines are parking virtually all of their fleets, Boeing's 737Max liabilities will be much lower than they'd otherwise be. More here:https://seekingalpha.com/article/4334517-viral-win-for-boeing-737-max
Bottom line: even if the planes were fixed and recertified, the airlines wouldn't be flying them, so there's no daily lost revenue. Heck, maybe Boeing should be charging for storage

In addition, Boeing has been offered COVID-19 assistance (as has nearly every other US company and most taxpayers). The offer to Boeing comes with some strings and, so far, they are saying "no, thanks." Good, and I can't see any reason for anyone else to gripe about that, either.

#### trimtab

##### Well-Known Member
The attached strings will disappear. Boeing is a Rasputin unto itself when it comes to government aid.

I just want a real solution to the domestic airframe problem. Boeing in its present form seems like an unlikely candidate to provide that solution. They creak and grown and generally fail at most attempts to live off of their future rather than their past. The Starliner was central to their focus as a defense project and central to the company updating its inreasingly obsolete legacy backlog, and they blew it. The tanker was more straightforward leveraging of their creaky obsolescence, and they've completely lost their footing.

I don't think a new airframe program can be successful with this track record. If it is, it will involve either fairy dust or a top to bottom destruction and rebuilding of the company or, more likely, of its severed assets.

Last edited:

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
A competent, successful US builder of big airplanes is important to the US, and a competitor for Airbus is important for the world (and, ultimately, Airbus).
Maybe Boeing will need to burn down and be rebuilt. Scrapping all existing labor agreements (which would surely happen) and a significant write-down or complete removal of existing liabilities (via establshment of a new company) would give a new entity a lot of competitive advantages. Many of the folks presently rooting against Boeing might not be very happy with the way things ultimately turn out.

BJC

#### TerryM76

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Along with "just in time" inventory. It is effecient, and profitable, when everything works. Shuts everything down when it doesn't.
Exactly. When I worked for TRW back in the late 90s our module facility switched over to just-in-time inventory after several million dollars of inventory was lost due to a fire suppression system malfunction in the main warehouse. The "new" system worked quite well unless there were issues with transportation systems or delays due to production break downs. Our recent issues with food products and supplies at our neighborhood stores shows just how ineffective "just-in-time" is when consumer demand effectively outstrips the ability to deliver. Fortunately, our nation does quite well with the ability to transport product via highway and air.

#### trimtab

##### Well-Known Member
A competent, successful US builder
This is the rub.

Boeing isn't that company in its present form. Pointing fingers at labor as the problem is a reasonable definition of bizarre. The problems originated in the C-suites.

Cut it apart. Let the defense side live or die with its tired, increasingly obsolete catalog that breeds complacence like a petri dish. Let the commercial side find a market it can be a leader in, if it has the technical and business talent to do so in coming years.

Anything else is asking for something like a weirder, American version of Tupolev, making aircraft that need robust state support and a thriving media damage control department to seem like more than a finance scheme with an aviation theme.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Anything else is asking for something like a weirder, American version of Tupolev, making aircraft that need robust state support ...
Or Airbus, a Euro version, spawned from similar causative factors. The unhealthy Airbus/Boeing duopoly has resulted in two complacent entities with marginal competence at the top.
A380.
When China starts making big airplanes, Boeing and Airbus will have a choice:
1) Improve
2) Perish
3) Seek greater protectionism and subsidies.

Choice 3 is the path of least resistance.

Last edited:

#### dog

##### Well-Known Member
/https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/boeing-chips-in-so-can-individuals/

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
More bad news. The KC-46 is having fuel leaks in addition to being rejected for quality control issues.

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
And all Boeing had to do was listen to their employees. These problems aren’t because of labor contracts or cost overruns, they were caused by arrogant management.

The company was making record profits before the management ruined it with reckless behavior.

That completely disproves that labor was making them unprofitable. They were more profitable than ever before management chose to get a couple hundred people killed.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
...management chose to get a couple hundred people killed.
This is way over the line.

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Yes, killing hundreds of people definitely is over the line.

If you think bringing it up is the “real” problem, then you need to reevaluate your personal standards.

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
And I know you empathize with the irresponsible behavior of the Boeing management, as you have made this very very clear you do not hold them responsible for their decisions.

I’m not interested in your excuses for this kind of reckless behavior. Tell it to someone else.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
That completely disproves that labor was making them unprofitable.
Who is making the point that Boeing's labor costs made them unprofitable? It appears to be a red herring.

management chose to get a couple hundred people killed.
Implies intent, which is nowhere in evidence..

It is an important distinction to anyone who cares about making a truthful point.

Last edited:

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
They were more profitable than ever before management chose to get a couple hundred people killed.
There is a huge difference between making a decision that ultimately led to deaths, and making a decision to kill people.

Are you suggesting that they made a decision to kill people?

What motivation would they have had for making such a decision?

BJC

#### dog

##### Well-Known Member
There is a huge difference between making a decision that ultimately led to deaths, and making a decision to kill people.

Are you suggesting that they made a decision to kill people?

What motivation would they have had for making such a decision?

BJC
We all know as an absolute reality that part of any
large project be it a bridge or a building or a plane that calcultions are done on various senarios that include deaths.
Because this moraly,ethicaly and legaly
reprehensible behavior has been normalized as
"the cost of doing buisiness" and is a work of
averages and is smeared around departments and insurace and governement to the point that "proving" anything is so impossible as to be proof
in itself.
And hey Boing bought nasa and have given themselves the go ahead to fly the failed spacecraft with real people.
Theres the pudding.
And lo virus to the rescue, maybey they get the time to fix it, but be honest, boing is going to be a giant brick factory the day they fly it,if they fly it.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
We all know as an absolute reality that part of any
large project be it a bridge or a building or a plane that calcultions are done on various senarios that include deaths.
I don't know your definition of a "large project", but I have been involved in $1B+ projects that did not have "calcultions [sic] ... done on various senarios [sic] that include deaths." Much to the contrary, a death or serious injury would have cost me quite bit of potential compensation, not to mention future opportunities. Ditto for many smaller,$1 M+ projects.

BJC

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
They were told this would kill people and did it anyways. That is intentionally choosing to kill people.

They were specifically told it would cause crashes. If they don’t understand the connection between crashes and fatalities then they are not qualified to be in a position of leadership.

PMD

#### dog

##### Well-Known Member
I don't know your definition of a "large project", but I have been involved in $1B+ projects that did not have "calcultions [sic] ... done on various senarios [sic] that include deaths." Much to the contrary, a death or serious injury would have cost me quite bit of potential compensation, not to mention future opportunities. Ditto for many smaller,$1 M+ projects.

BJC
So you claim to be privy to the libality
management of billion dollar projects.
Why then dont you detail the procedures used for a simple observer such as myself,please.
Perhaps regulatory capture was complete before
hand and liability became moot?