Boeing following Mac Doug

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
1,048
Location
Martensville SK
Boeing is the canary in the coal mine. It is typical of ALL large business in not only North America, but increasingly the rest of the Western world.

The solution is stunningly simple: tax the living crap out of speculative gain and stop taxing dividends at all. The economies of the free world were built by entrepreneurs and destroyed by financiers. Doing so means you make money by creating wealth instead of re-distributing it. Fix this and Boeing will fix itself. Oh: and corporate governance needs laws and strict enforcement to avoid mere employees from enrighing themselves at the cost of the actual paying shareholders.
 

Pale Bear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
71
Location
Minnesota
I have to hope that there are those within the machine trying to turn it from the iceberg…

I don’t disagree with any of the doom and gloom, but let’s remember what the Big B represents about American industry. If we don’t fix this..well.. it doesn’t bode well. -for the entire world.

You pull a linchpin from a structure and it won’t stay standing for long.

..and yet I wrote this on a phone likely made by slaves.. man what a depressing way to start the day. :(
ooo, .. if these mentions of Boeing, are true .. yes, .. it is gloomy, so agree. But the term "gloom & doom" has this subtle opportunty for using the reasoning of "oh, it can't be as bad as all that." .. and, time will tell. To find that Boeing, (just using them as an example, for who knows how many operations & businesses are also in this position) can steer clear of the iceberg, .. that would be awesome. Thanks for your post.
 

cblink.007

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
925
Location
K2W6, Maryland, USA
Also, I'm convinced that new hires are screened for compliant personalities; the upshot of that is that they require hand holding at every step, are mostly poorly educated, and they simply can't think, analyze, solve problems, or invent design solutions.
This cannot be any more of a true statement. When I graduated Cal Poly back in 2001, we may not have been total "turn-key" subject matter experts in the discipline of aerospace engineering (for obvious reasons, as we had yet to work in the industry), but we had a solid hands-on grasp on design principles, drafting, fabrication (to include machining, welding & quality control), and to a degree, test & evaluation.

Given where I work, we have not only a huge number of contractor engineers, mechanics and pilots, but we have a significant number of government employees who are engineers and pilots (to include military). In my local EAA chapter, we have a number of these GS-level engineers in the membership. I was recently approached my a fellow member who is a younger structures test engineer for the Naval Air Systems Command, or NavAir for short. He was seeking my guidance on his build. In particular, he wanted me to teach him how to read the assembly drawings of his kit. These drawings were about as common sense as you can get. This was not a bespoke aircraft; thousands of examples had been successfully built by those without engineering backgrounds. He honestly did not understand any of these instructions or drawings. He openly admitted that his father had done a marked majority of the work so far, and that he merely assisted in a very minor capacity (a whole other issue in its own right). I also asked if he deals with similar drawings in his workplace. He replied "That's not my job; I have people who do that for me".

I was actually pretty offended. On the drive home, I was asking myself:

"How in the f*** did he get into his profession if he cannot perform one of the most basic of technical tasks?"

Granted, I am more or less "home grown", having started my journey in the aero world as a mechanic and worked my way up to what I do now as a test pilot. Nevertheless, I was completely perplexed, and sought counsel with a mentor who is a retired test pilot, airing my grievances. His response, that I will never forget, was simple:

"Most engineering curriculums nowadays only indoctrinate students, with the expectation that the industry will teach them; that these schools expect people like you to pick up the slack while they learn. And yet, the industry, academia and the government cannot figure out why programs like the Space Launch System among others, are decades behind schedule and billions over budget."

It actually stuns me up here in flight test. Every contractor, be it Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney et al, only send their most experienced and qualified personnel to developmental and or operational flight test assignments. Why? Billions of dollars are on the line, and the manufacturers only want their A-Team on the task of developmental testing. NavAir, on the other hand, has absolutely no problem recruiting some unqualified & inexperienced kid off a college campus (namely a select state university in Pennsylvania) for this work.

Although it is not necessarily their fault; they do not know any better due to their educations that have been found extremely wanting, it is appalling that many of these kids are incapable of performing the most rudimentary of technical & engineering tasks, and yet NavAir expects me to entrust them with my life during a Category C (high-risk) flight test? That is a no-go in my book...and both NavAir AND my employer have been made aware of my opinion on the matter; at least my employer is taking it seriously.

As much as I want to see alot of these kids have rewarding and productive engineering careers, I am sorry, but the world of developmental flight test is absolutely not the place to start such a career. To think or accept otherwise is an pure admission of incompetence, a mockery of the profession, and a total setup for failure.

Hand holding? That's not even the start, but none of us 'senior' folk have the time for it here, and everybody knows it.
 
Last edited:

blane.c

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
6,150
Location
capital district NY
I wonder if real-estate prices will drop significantly if Boeing fails completely?

Of course the government will prop them up, like Chrysler. So no worries.

Of course it'll be just the one airframe then with multiple paint schemes to look like there are many.
 

AeroER

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
301
This cannot be any more of a true statement. When I graduated Cal Poly back in 2001, we may not have been total "turn-key" subject matter experts in the discipline of aerospace engineering (for obvious reasons, as we had yet to work in the industry), but we had a solid hands-on grasp on design principles, drafting, fabrication (to include machining, welding & quality control), and to a degree, test & evaluation.

Given where I work, we have not only a huge number of contractor engineers, mechanics and pilots, but we have a significant number of government employees who are engineers and pilots (to include military). In my local EAA chapter, we have a number of these GS-level engineers in the membership. I was recently approached my a fellow member who is a younger structures test engineer for the Naval Air Systems Command, or NavAir for short. He was seeking my guidance on his build. In particular, he wanted me to teach him how to read the assembly drawings of his kit. These drawings were about as common sense as you can get. This was not a bespoke aircraft; thousands of examples had been successfully built by those without engineering backgrounds. He honestly did not understand any of these instructions or drawings. He openly admitted that his father had done a marked majority of the work so far, and that he merely assisted in a very minor capacity (a whole other issue in its own right). I also asked if he deals with similar drawings in his workplace. He replied "That's not my job; I have people who do that for me".

I was actually pretty offended. On the drive home, I was asking myself:

"How in the f*** did he get into his profession if he cannot perform one of the most basic of technical tasks?"

Granted, I am more or less "home grown", having started my journey in the aero world as a mechanic and worked my way up to what I do now as a test pilot. Nevertheless, I was completely perplexed, and sought counsel with a mentor who is a retired test pilot, airing my grievances. His response, that I will never forget, was simple:

"Most engineering curriculums nowadays only indoctrinate students, with the expectation that the industry will teach them; that these schools expect people like you to pick up the slack while they learn. And yet, the industry, academia and the government cannot figure out why programs like the Space Launch System among others, are decades behind schedule and billions over budget."

It actually stuns me up here in flight test. Every contractor engineer, be it Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney et al only send their most experienced and qualified personnel to developmental and or operational flight test assignments. NavAir has absolutely no problem recruiting some unqualified & inexperienced kid off a college campus for this work.

It is even more mind-blowing that many of these kids are incapable of performing the most rudimentary of technical tasks, and yet NavAir expects me to entrust them with my life during a Category C (high-risk) flight test? That is a no-go in my book...and both NavAir AND my employer have been made aware of my opinion on the matter; at least my employer is taking it seriously.

Hand holding? That's not even the start, but none of us have the time for it, and everybody knows it.

I despise Navy programs. Aircraft and weapons.

A simple salvage of a hole that cleans up with a first oversize fastener on the manufacturing line requires a doctoral thesis to document.

The reason for that is their attempt to use analysis to train their own engineers. It's not effective.

I could go on and on.
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,357
Location
Savannah, Georgia
The typical scenario at the end of the major engineering phase of a program was a layoff, while the program at another site could not fill seats. The layoff and subsequent departure if engineering staff at the end of the 777-300 program caused hiring problems for years.
The whole industry doesn't seem to get this. When you lay people off in droves at the end of a program, or when this one quarter's numbers look bad, and then come back in less than two years begging for people... well, is it any wonder nobody wants to work for you? *coughcough*

When I graduated Cal Poly back in 2001, we may not have been total "turn-key" subject matter experts in the discipline of aerospace engineering (for obvious reasons, as we had yet to work in the industry), but we had a solid hands-on grasp on design principles, drafting, fabrication (to include machining, welding & quality control), and to a degree, test & evaluation....
Most engineering curriculums nowadays only indoctrinate students, with the expectation that the industry will teach them
Y'all were lucky. At least at Georgia Tech, when I came out in 2007 things like fabrication (theoretical or practical), detail design, QC, etc. were never covered at all. Everything was extremely high-level and theoretical and most of the professors seemed like they didn't want to get their hands dirty with anything so pedestrian as that. It was all about really fancy math and putting together fancy napkin sketch design studies and preparing you for grad school. If you wanted practical, they just waved you in the general direction of the co-op office. It's a real shame given the origins and early years of the school. Though at least when I got out, the other engineering programs (e.g. mechanical, electrical, etc) were a lot more hands-on and practical in their associated fields. I don't know if that's changed.

I was lucky growing up in a house where Dad fixed the car and worked on stuff around the house, and then later built an airplane. I spent a lot of my off-time in high school with a drill, rivet squeezer, or bucking bar in hand, and taking flying lessons when I wasn't doing that or working. It was a huge leg up when it came to getting a co-op position, and later full-time employment.
 

DaveK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
405
Location
Northern California
The problems with American business won’t be fixed until we return to having stock options treated as normal income and taxed as such. Pretty much all of the shortsighted behavior started after that changed. Now these top brass can cash out for short term pumping of the stock and not for actually improving anything.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
10,868
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
The solution to fix this lack of talent and capacity in aerospace??? Fear not, I have it right here:

Young children should be started off in building model airplanes at five and six years old, their imagination sparked because some handsome guy just flew across the ocean, and trust me they'll be awestruck that they can build a flying model of that same airplane for a dime.

Then we need to make sure these children keep building bigger and bigger model airplanes, eventually they might grow up to be pilots and junior engineers during a world war, and help win that war.

Then, as they become more experienced older engineers, we should be sure that they can use slide rules and drafting tables to design and build the highest and fastest flying airplanes in history... we should help them work in a big building with a skunk painted on the wall.

Other groups of these former model airplane builders should be encouraged use the same slide rules and drafting tables, to build rockets that might fly to the moon.

I'm telling you, the solution to the problem at hand, and the future of aerospace, is sitting right there in front of us...

95747.jpg
 
Last edited:

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
10,984
Location
USA.
I started building model airplanes at 8 years old when my mother bought me a Cleveland kit of a Clipped Wing MonoCoupe for my birthday. Box of little sticks and plans, 32" wing span. I saved my pennies and would buy one of the model airplane magazines and scale up the plans and build. Couldn't afford to send after the full size plans. How I learned drafting. Started flying CL at about 11 or 12 years old. About the time I started designing all of my models. I read anything I could find about airplanes starting about 5 years old. Also always interested in electronics and scratch built my first RC at 18 years old. 5 watt CW transmitter , 9' ant, ground base box powered with a 6 volt car radio power supply and a car battery. Scratch built the tube receiver. ( before transistors). Rudder only escapement. Hit the push button once for right rudder, the next time you got left.
I hear someone calls those the "Good old days".
 
Last edited:

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
4,706
Location
Thunder Bay
Pops, I was a lot like you except I didn’t pick up RC until my early thirties. Cash was too scarce when I was 18, the local club’s 172 made sure of that...
 

PiperCruisin

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
449
Location
Idaho
I'm not convinced that issues at Boeing and other companies is a lack of talent. If I say today's engineers aren't as good as those of previous generations then it smacks of old person talk. I think today's engineers are better at some things and worse at others.

The real problem, IMHO, is that few people are actively in technical roles. Most engineers are scrambling to get out of technical roles and into other roles because it is not valued by upper management. Now the c suite is made up of bean counters and their financialization schemes versus investing in R&D and product development.

The US used to excel at building stuff. Now a "service" society. If you no longer build it, how would one know how to engineer it? The next logical progression is to outsource the engineering. Why would engineers spend much time on technical subjects when most of their time is project management and drowning in the latest layer of "processes" devised by corporate kingdom builders to justify their existence or a lack of trust that ultimately wastes the time of technical engineers that are in shorter supply.
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
745
Location
Shweaty Texas
I wonder if real-estate prices will drop significantly if Boeing fails completely?

Of course the government will prop them up, like Chrysler. So no worries.

Of course it'll be just the one airframe then with multiple paint schemes to look like there are many.

Boeing is moving. They have to as the state has these insane taxes that (like all other taxes) the little guys pay, but Boeing gets a pass on. Airbus didn't like that and so the EU considered these tax breaks to be subsidies, so either the state lowers taxes on everyone, or they have to move.

As that state is run by the sort of morons who let other morons occupy and burn whole city blocks that is not going to happen.

So Boeing is moving out. If the real-estate prices drop, it will be because people are fleeing, or because the federal reserve decides to the their job of maintaining the money supply (raising interest rates) rather then printing as much of it as the other morons who have been running our country for the last couple of decades want.
 

Pale Bear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
71
Location
Minnesota
The solution to fix this lack of talent and capacity in aerospace??? Fear not, I have it right here:

Young children should be started off in building model airplanes at five and six years old, their imagination sparked because some handsome guy just flew across the ocean, and trust me they'll be awestruck that they can build a flying model of that same airplane for a dime.

Then we need to make sure these children keep building bigger and bigger model airplanes, eventually they might grow up to be pilots and junior engineers during a world war, and help win that war.

Then, as they become more experienced older engineers, we should be sure that they can use slide rules and drafting tables to design and build the highest and fastest flying airplanes in history... we should help them work in a big building with a skunk painted on the wall.

Other groups of these former model airplane builders should be encouraged use the same slide rules and drafting tables, to build rockets that might fly to the moon.

I'm telling you, the solution to the problem at hand, and the future of aerospace, is sitting right there in front of us...

95747.jpg
Man, .. that's a gorgeous magazine cover. Yes, .. the yearning going down the rows of Guillow's model planes, in the mom & pop hobby store, as a kid. And then finally having the cash to get one. Happy days.
 

Bill-Higdon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
2,288
Location
Salem, Oregon, USA
I started building model airplanes at 8 years old when my mother bought me a Cleveland kit of a Clipped Wing MonoCoupe. Box of little sticks and plans, 32" wing span. I saved my pennies and would buy one of the model airplane magazines and scale up the plans and build. Couldn't afford to send after the full size plans. How I learned drafting. Started flying CL at about 11 or 12 years old. About the time I started designing all of my models. I read anything I could find about airplanes starting about 5 years old. Also always interested in electronics and scratch built my first RC at 18 years old. 5 watt CW transmitter , 9' ant, ground base box powered with a 6 volt car radio power supply and a car battery. Scratch built the tube receiver. ( before transistors). Rudder only escapement. Hit the push button once for right rudder, the next time you got left.
I here someone calls those the "Good old days".
My first airplane was a OH-13 medivac @ 6 years, my father helped a lot. This may have been a reason why I wanted to be a Medivac pilot. Balsa models from scaled up drawings froma ge 7 on. Then my own design u-control @ 10 & R/C with DIY electronics from 12 on.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
10,984
Location
USA.
My first airplane was a OH-13 medivac @ 6 years, my father helped a lot. This may have been a reason why I wanted to be a Medivac pilot. Balsa models from scaled up drawings froma ge 7 on. Then my own design u-control @ 10 & R/C with DIY electronics from 12 on.
Right after WW-2 when GA started up again a friend of my father bought a 41 Culver Cadet. My father and the two friends rode their motorcycles to the airport to get a ride in the Cadet. The friend that bought the Cadet took the other friend for a ride first. My father watched as it stalled and spun in and crashed when turning base to final.
So, both of his friends got killed and he was against me having anything to do with airplanes all of my life. I took him for his first airplane ride in my Cherokee at I believe 83 years old. After we landed, he said, "I have been missing this all of my life" and had tears in his eyes.
 

Mad MAC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
871
Location
Hamilton New Zealand
There is still plenty of talented engineers, but it requires training & practice to make them skilled talented engineers & skilled insightfull management to enable a timely result. The problem being that complicitness is often the key attribute required for advancement, that doesn't tend to result in capable management that gets the results in the expected time frame.

I am not sure Airbus is any better by the reports of military operators of some of its products (NH90 & A400 come to mind).
 
Top