4 ms·
Well, yes, when you are unable or unwilling to build the product to modern safety standards, you should be forced to cancel it.
by ralph84 4y ago
Well, yes, when you are unable or unwilling to build the product to modern safety standards, you should be forced to cancel it.
- caycep 4y agois the consensus that Boeing's engineering prowess is unrecoverable now, post-McDD merger?
- sklargh 4y agoI don’t know if that is the consensus but I struggle to find a major program there that isn’t completely rotten.
- ethbr0 4y agoMQ-25 F/A-18E/F 777
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sklargh 4y agoTactical fighter aircraft are a bright spot but they aren’t long for this world.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe MQ-25 is a repurposing of a failed armed drone program. The F/A-18 is from the 70s, and the Super Hornet's from the mid 1990s. The 777 first flew in the mid 1990s. There's not much recent to brag about.
- aunty_helen 4y agoX-37/B
- ceejayoz 4y agoStarted in 1999, and it's a little hard to gauge efficacy of a program we know very little about.
- aunty_helen 4y agoExactly so has existing almost entirely in the window we're talking about. But I think we can guage it by a, still going after 22 years and b, having exceeded design orbit duration by 3x. Obviously the air / space force / nasa etc have been sufficiently happy with the program to keep it going for so long.
- ethbr0 4y agoIMHO, converting the carrier based armed drone program (UCLASS) into a carrier based refueling drone program (CBARS) is one of the most sane and prudent things military acquisition has done in recent times. Why push a cutting edge technology for which there is no immediate need into operational status? Why not instead harvest the low-hanging fruit, while simultaneously using it to refine carrier operations, and then restart UCAV development later when technologies have had more time to mature?
- rmk 4y agoThe 777 entered service in '95.
- MilStdJunkie 4y agoYeah, I challenge anyone to show me a unconditionally successful Boeing program post 2000 AD. Please. Please show one to me. I am begging you here. Aboulafia had like fifty graphs on exactly how Boeing is doomed, at least as a unified company; they might survive in pieces after a GE-style split. Big B is spending all their money on precisely the wrong products, and leaving the right products to die on the vine. This . . this must be what it was like with the late stage evolution of the Soviet design bureaus, but far, far, far worse. With somehow less accountability. No one inside knows what anyone else is doing, and they're this close to just shipping boxes of parts and marking off a successful delivery of a finished good. How Boeing has avoided the Mother Lode of all Fines is a mystery to me. Except it's not really a mystery, we all know why, but . . please let me keep my illusions.
- jmalicki 4y agoSo I'm probably ignorant, but the 787? I've seen it as a great aircraft that has moved the bar significantly... there have been some issues, but I'm surprised that you wouldn't even consider it a successful program?
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoI can’t say too much, but check the deliveries on the 787 that past few months ;)
- slater 4y agoLooks like the answer is... none...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders_and_deliveries#Orders_and_deliveries_by_type_and_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders_and_...
- my123 4y agoBoeing halted deliveries of the 787 in May 2021 with the FAA notably citing manufacturing defects. Currently isn't resumed yet.
- CoastalCoder 4y agoWhat's the track record for huge companies successfully fixing major problems with their internal quality / engineering cultures? My impression is that usually or always the company just ends slowly dying instead. I'm thinking of IBM, and maybe Intel, GE, Boeing.
- throwaway81523 4y agoI have the impression that Microsoft has couthed up a lot since the 1990s. Idk though.
- caycep 4y agoThat's the impressive part - 2 major pivots to save the company from certain death even though they almost missed the Web, and then mobile. But maybe it's easier w/ software, less capital and physical equipment than a company building something
- WWLink 4y agoAt this point, they should be offering the highest salaries of any company in the aerospace industry to recruit the best talent, same way google does. But they're not. That's... the whole problem really.