More problems for the "B Team" from ST. Louis

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Matt G.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,265
Location
Kansas, USA
I have never seen a B 737 with a tail stand.
-900/-900ER, -9, and -10 have them. Not sure about the shorter variants. Keep in mind the -10 is nearly twice the length of the original 737-100, and there are quite a few other transport-size planes that will do this if loaded or unloaded improperly.

The company certainly has its issues at the moment, but to bash them over this and imply that it is a design problem is beyond silly.

Tailwheel didn't deploy,
Likely a computer glitch.
Surely you can't be serious.
 

PiperCruisin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
239
Location
Idaho
Been following this thread. I've worked in a lot of industries, including aerospace. I have not worked at Boeing, but have worked with former employees of Boeing and have experience with GE.

As an engineer I'd say the root cause at Boeing probably stems from both engineering and management. Engineers, while not perfect can do good work. Management (MBAs, bean counters, marketing/sales, process/kingdom builders) tends to get in the way and make bad decisions. Where engineers fall down is when they get into job self-preservation mode when it is time to speak up and/or a badge-on-the-table moment. Engineers may also fail to properly consult with manufacturing/ops, probably because they have been buried by kingdom builders and their processes as well as metric generation to satisfy management since no one trusts the engineers.
 

Mad MAC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
794
Location
Hamilton New Zealand
it all depends on the standards of your maintenance,when it comes to deep overhauls. Our airlines used several different firms for C checks, citing cost savings and the results were rags found in the fuel tanks, items not wirelocked or sealed, lifed items not changed out and a litany of other snags. You get what you pay for.
Yip, had a 737 under go a freighter convertion and C Checked in the USA, ended up with a half a dozen bags of FOD removed from under floor panels (in the areas they actually lifted the panels to inspect rather than just signed off), much the same as an aircraft C checked in Romania (gear checks all signed off, but there were no jacks aviable to actaully do the checks).
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,618
Location
World traveler
It all comes down to competition. In the United States we have allowed mergers and acquisitions to reduce the major aerospace companies to just a few: Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics of which only the first three are still major aircraft manufacturers and only Boeing does airliners. The bloated size of these companies breeds complacency, arrogance, and inefficiency if not outright fraud, waste, and abuse.

Compare any recent call for proposals for a military or commercial aircraft to those of the past. For example, the 1963 Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (LARA) competition inspired by the Convair Charger but eventually won by the North American/Rockwell OV-10 Bronco had *eleven* entries in the initial design phase, all from American aerospace companies, of which seven or eight made it to the advanced design/mockup phase. Any modern design competition that I know of might have a handful of actual American entries and then a majority of non-American entries partnered with foreign firms. Nothing wrong with that if the foreign designs are better, but how far the mighty U.S. aerospace industry has fallen.
1632382622628.png
LARA entrants above, not shown are the Hiller (ex-Kaman) K16, Grumman G-340 (tandem-seat Mohawk), and a Vought design. And this was for a relatively minor aircraft competition, not the next fighter or bomber.

Surely you can't be serious.
Don't call him Shirley.
 
Last edited:

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
2,648
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
-900/-900ER, -9, and -10 have them. Not sure about the shorter variants. Keep in mind the -10 is nearly twice the length of the original 737-100, and there are quite a few other transport-size planes that will do this if loaded or unloaded improperly.

The company certainly has its issues at the moment, but to bash them over this and imply that it is a design problem is beyond silly.

Surely you can't be serious.
"I am not Surely and I am serious!" now for VB to come in with his great movie history :popcorn: :)

Sorry for the diversion from the direction of this thread.

With my nearly noteworthy tail sitting history as pointed out in post # 60 I could not resist making a comment. It is only now that I realize there is a more important lesson here.

I live 4 miles from the Renton B-373 production plant. I first started work in Renton about 1975 in the facility then called the "Triple Seven Division". It was responsable the narrow body 07, 27 and 37 Boeing products.

United was proud to be a kickoff customer for the 737-200 (stretch). Back then the 737 carried 103 passengers up from the shorter 737-100 and the max range for United was about Pittsburgh to Atlanta. As I drove past the factory last Tuesday I could not help but comment that when the 737 production is shut down that plant will close and those jobs will be lost.

United's newly purchase B 737-200s were the reason I was hired by United. I recall on my first day of training the obvious question was voiced. Why does the 737 have wing mounted engines rather than the then popular tail mounted engines? Then and over the years I have never have heard what I consider a "good official answer".

I now believe that a good part of that answer was to avoid the tail heavy empty weight issues of the 727. I expect that United was pushing that issue.

From the photo of post #60 it appears that the 737 design has outgrown that initial advantage. I could continue to point out several other "configuration issues" that have driven Boeing design decisions and the problems they have created down the road that led to relatively early closing down of their production run but that is not the reason for this post.

The main take away from my work with major corporations and Boeing in particular is that large corporations have good and bad employees, good and bad products, and good and bad departments led by good and bad managers. The problem of good and bad employees are relatively easy to sort out and fix (except for government agencies and departments). The problem of good and bad products is somewhat self correcting; the Edsel is a good example. The problem of good and bad departments and managers takes much longer to identify and correct and if not corrected will pull the entire corporation down. There are to many examples to list.

It should be apparent that the Boeing narrow body branch has been left with the leftovers from wide body expansion created by the 747 and follow on wide body products. The 737 production run has been pushed beyond the limits of good design practice for other than engineering reasons. It appears that Boeing does not have the skill set to create a new narrow body aircraft and any progress in that area will likely come from the purchase of other narrow body design and manufacturing facilities, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Frcole

New Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
2
I worked at Boeing as a design engineer in the 1970 (last person leaving Seattle turn off the lights period) and later when they acquired McDonnel aircraft.
management was concentrated on saving money, not on using workers skills or experience. Typical new project did not use known experienced experts but under the guise of an engineer is a engineer they would rely on brand new graduates dooming themselves to a new cycle of failures until experience was gained. A family member had to accept delivery of the tankers they built for the British government and left the country and aircraft several times because of faults and arrogance.
 

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,552
Location
SC


BJC

I'm gonna respectfully ask that you never do that again without fair warning i.e. send me to a link that goes to CNBC. Almost burnt my eyes before I could get that "news source" off of my screen. ;)

Yes, I seen that on a different "news site" (can you tell I don't like any news sites?) here:


My thought was that someone was going under the bus. Maybe he deserved it and maybe not. A lot that we don't know ..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

AeroER

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
15
There's a mistake in the first paragraph of that article.

"Boeing (BA) on Tuesday disclosed a new issue with the 787 Dreamliner widebody jet, which has been dogged with problems since August."

It should read:

"Boeing (BA) on Tuesday disclosed a new issue with the 787 Dreamliner widebody jet, which has been dogged by excessive media reporting of problems since August."

Seriously, there has never been an aircraft development program without numerous problems. And with the increasing complexity of commercial aircraft, it's perfectly logical for such problems to increase. I'm not saying Boeing is not without problems, but much of the concern over their development efforts the past couple of years is as much attributable to increased media attention, sometimes to the point of near hysteria, as it is to their own mistakes.
After approximately 1000 airplanes, the "new airplane growing pains" argument doesn't hold up.

The problems at Boeing shoot through the management and engineering structure from top to bottom. Embracing social justice warfare and kowtowing to the various groups organized to shake down corporations has destroyed morale.

There's no way to know without working on the inside (that applies to all programs), we'll never read the details and nuances in the press.

Boeing is a weird combination of Alice in Wonderland, 1984, and the East German Surveillance Society.
 

AeroER

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
15
I'm gonna respectfully ask that you never do that again without fair warning i.e. send me to a link that goes to CNBC. Almost burnt my eyes before I could get that "news source" off of my screen. ;)

Yes, I seen that on a different "news site" (can you tell I don't like any news sites?) here:


My thought was that someone was going under the bus. Maybe he deserved it and maybe not. A lot that we don't know ..
Read the 117 page transcript of the email and IM traffic, it's available on the internet. Forkner is the scapegoat.

The comments amount to flip chatter between pilots. Anyone with sense and knowledge of aviation understands that; the comment about dogs watching TV goes back to the first glass cockpits in an Airbus.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,818
Location
Seattle, WA
The problems at Boeing shoot through the management and engineering structure from top to bottom. Embracing social justice warfare and kowtowing to the various groups organized to shake down corporations has destroyed morale.
Thirty-five years at Boeing, and I neither saw or heard about any "social justice warfare" aspects affecting day-to-day operations.

I agree there might have been some resistance to assuming that pilots for any third-world airlines were less competent than first-world pilots, but that's not something affecting engineering ops.

The question was money, pure and simple. You can see it in any Boeing facility: Thousands of posters relating to "enhancing shareholder value" and a few dozen relative to safety.

Agree with your comments relative to "flip chatter between pilots." Immaterial, most of it with little direct implication, but folks don't realize how an outsider might view it. It amazes me, in this day and age, how people don't realize how casual communications can come back and bite one on the [biblical beast of burden].

Ron Wanttaja
 

AeroER

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
15
When did you leave?

What I wrote is fact. Here's publicly disclosed evidence -


But it's not only race, that is a tiny part of the culture shift.

Fortunately, my tenure with Boeing was limited to the period from buyout of MDA in 1997 to 2021. ~ Forty years total. Time served on two commercial projects plus an insignificant bit on 787.

There has been a sea change in safety. It's not perfect, but they are paying attention to every report and acting with more than lip service.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,818
Location
Seattle, WA
When did you leave?
March 2017

What I wrote is fact. Here's publicly disclosed evidence -


But it's not only race, that is a tiny part of the culture shift.
How, exactly, does this count as "social justice warrior"...and how did if affect the development of the 737 Max? The accusation is that managers and engineers hid flaws in the aircraft. Where does race enter into this?

As for the program discussed, I'm all for it. In my 35-year career at Boeing, I never worked with a single Black Boeing engineer. Yet the government engineers brought in to supervise us showed a multiracial mix.

I'm all for "blind" standards for hiring and promotion...the best candidates should be selected for the job, regardless of race. But it just seemed very weird that we never saw any Black engineers at Boeing, other than the government ones.

Ron Wanttaja
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,068
Location
KBJC
(It also means that Mexico gets highlighted as foreign origin despite NAFTA, which seems somewhat...racist.)
Edit: As soon as HBA.com becomes a place for discussing aviation in terms of race, this forum is a powder keg ready to destroy itself. Can we please talk about airplanes instead of skin color? We all know where to find and discuss inflammatory issues, should we choose to.
 
Last edited:

AeroER

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
15
The point is that Boeing has a major initiative that detracts from designing, building, and selling aircraft. It's not about race, it's about setting quotas of "diverse" hiring that sets technical merit aside.

This goes to the root causes of the internal issues that have resulted in the 747-8, 787, KC-47A, and less obvious or expensive problems in fighter production and support. But it's not the only cause, and it is inseparable from a discussion about the company.

Reading the corporate (propaganda) releases might be best if you can't tolerate the grit.
 
Top