4 ms·

I'm trying to decide how pleased I should be if Airbus is winning customers from Boeing. I have an overall impression that Boeing had excessively chooses profi

I'm trying to decide how pleased I should be if Airbus is winning customers from Boeing. I have an overall impression that Boeing had excessively chooses profit over safety. E.g., the various 737 MAX problems, maybe other ways as well? If they have, then I'd hope that losing orders gets them to mend their ways. But maybe my view is overly simplistic.

andy_ppp 3y ago
There’s undoubtedly great engineers at Boeing but the management sound like most software organisations I’ve worked making random decisions to obtain bonuses or favours with bosses. In software this can just get 900 postmasters jailed, in planes this manages to be considerably worse!
- snerbles 3y ago
  > In software this can just get 900 postmasters jailed Today I learned. For context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
- irrational 3y ago
  Postmasters jailed? LOL. What does that mean?
  - fmajid 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
    - irrational 3y ago
      Wow! That is shocking!
simion314 3y ago
Someone with integrity needs to inspect all Boeing and their contractors stuff, they clearly started to cut corners.
- zelon88 3y ago
  Boeing supply chain is 500 miles long. Multiple suppliers for every part, and practically none of them are made by Boeing. I started my career in aerospace manufacturing. The whole supply chain is designed to track and shift liability down into the smaller suppliers, who can be easily replaced. That panel blew off your plane? Well who made it?!?! Where are the certs?!?! That vendor must've done something wrong! It surely wasn't us not tightening the bolts all the way.
  - salex89 3y ago
    Airbus isn't in an advantage there. They also employ a bunch of suppliers, outside the original companies that formed Airbus. However, they might be in an advantage because that's the way they grown from the start. Different countries, different continents, different languages, final assembly plants, all sorts of aircraft... I met a guy from EADS once, while it was still called EADS, and I was far too young to understand the complexity of what he was talking about. But from what I understood they really do put a lot into managing their supply chain management (very meta), a team he was in. It was a behemoth of an organisation back then and this is just one guy, but I had a feeling they were very open minded.
mhb 3y ago
> I'm trying to decide how pleased I should be if Airbus is winning customers from Boeing. Well, you have time to decide because that's not what TFA is about.
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  TFA?
  - ChoGGi 3y ago
    The fucking/fine article
bmmayer1 3y ago
Airbus can outsource to US firms as well as Boeing can. Boeing and its shareholders deserve to lose business and market share.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tw04 3y ago
It's just sad how much of this idiocy is driven by the idea that "we don't want to have to get re-certified". It's 100% short-term thinking because if they'd just bite the bullet and get re-certified they'd likely be setup for another 30+ years on the new airframe. Of course, that would also mean airlines would have a reason to look at the alternatives, so I guess they're also admitting they don't think they can produce a new airframe that's attractive enough to win on merit.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  > It's just sad how much of this idiocy is driven by the idea that "we don't want to have to get re-certified". It's be nice to know how much of this is Boeing and how much is Boeing's customers. 95/5? 80/20? 50/50? It's hard to believe that Boeing doesn't want to build a brand-new 737-sized aircraft.
  - haliskerbas 3y ago
    Why is that hard to believe? At my work they choose quick cheap and easy over long expensive and hard any day. It would make sense they’d try to optimize the bottom line for the short term. That’s what most companies do.
PaulHoule 3y ago
It's not just safety, it's that the 737 is the symbol of an industry which is not keeping up with the times. The 737 is a 1967 aircraft that is still flying. You don't see a 1967 car being sold in car dealerships. You can't buy a 1967 computer. You see the headline "Airliners can't take off in Arizona because it's too hot" but the truth is "737s can't take off in Arizona because it's too hot" (737 struggles to take off under good conditions, it takes more runway to take off than planes with 2x the PAX) People say "flying sucks", but it's more like "flying sucks in a 737" (the reason why your neck locks up just thinking about sitting in a window seat on a 737 is because the 737 has a circular cross section that doesn't fit the human body; a plane smaller than a 737 with a more appropriate cross section feels like riding in a 747) The Embraer E2-Jet is a smaller aircraft that has a bigger engine with better fuel economy because it's not an obsolete design that can't fit a bigger engine. Then there's the A220, bought by Airbus, that Boeing has no answer to and has chosen to have no answer to. For some reason they got possessed to develop several widebody airliners in a row but when it comes to overhauling the narrowbody planes that are most of the units, most of the flights and most of the social and economic impact of aviation, management has been on strike for decades. The industry has been trying hard to keep you from riding in a modern narrowbody or regional jet because if they did, you'd be demanding it. Once you try the A220 there is no way you'd ride the same route on a 737 if you had a choice. And the thing is the A220 has lower operating costs... But remember, capitalists pay capital costs but they can make you pay operating costs. So long as everybody is flying inferior aircraft they can refuse to invest and pass higher operating costs on to you.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  It seems like the federal government could help everyone get out of this mess by subsidizing the certification and training costs associated with switching out the 737 for a new Boeing airframe. But the federal government doesn't generally think like that. In fact they still fly a ton of 737s themselves.
  - ssivark 3y ago
    Why should the federal government subsidise airlines if they want to be cheapskates risking safety & long term viability for a few bucks? I’d rather the government enforce the switch by regulation (if appropriate) and have the airlines + Boeing eat the cost, as punishment for bad decision making.
maxerickson 3y ago
The design problems that led to the first grounding of the 737 Max weren't particularly cost saving. The overall approach, where they wanted pilot certification to carry over is certainly a business decision, but I'd bet that pilots and airlines and so on liked it. Similar thing with this door issue. It's likely enough to be sloppy process, and is going to cost them a mint, not save them money. Sure, you can say that compromising quality is motivated by profit, but that cedes an awful lot of the discussion of the consequences of the poor quality to the people that are pushing to save a bit up front.
- dboreham 3y ago
  > weren't particularly cost saving Not "cost saving" per se, but definitely about money. MBAs are taught that airlines should use one kind of plane. FAA makes it expensive to certify a new kind of plane. So you get this "737 of Theseus" concept where they virtualized the 737 as a "guest", implemented on a different plane "host", leading to the crashes.
  - closewith 3y ago
    There was and is immense pressure to retain type ratings. For example, both Ryanair and Southwest fly exclusively 737s and have enormous fleets. If type rating compatibility is lost, it's very plausible they could jump to Airbus.
  - maxerickson 3y ago
    I don't understand why you would quote that sentence and ignore my next paragraph. They are currently flying them with the adjusted system and a few hours of additional training, pointing to the implementation rather than the approach.

andy_ppp 3y ago

There’s undoubtedly great engineers at Boeing but the management sound like most software organisations I’ve worked making random decisions to obtain bonuses or favours with bosses. In software this can just get 900 postmasters jailed, in planes this manages to be considerably worse!

snerbles 3y ago
> In software this can just get 900 postmasters jailed Today I learned. For context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
irrational 3y ago
Postmasters jailed? LOL. What does that mean?
- fmajid 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
  - irrational 3y ago
    Wow! That is shocking!

simion314 3y ago

Someone with integrity needs to inspect all Boeing and their contractors stuff, they clearly started to cut corners.

zelon88 3y ago
Boeing supply chain is 500 miles long. Multiple suppliers for every part, and practically none of them are made by Boeing. I started my career in aerospace manufacturing. The whole supply chain is designed to track and shift liability down into the smaller suppliers, who can be easily replaced. That panel blew off your plane? Well who made it?!?! Where are the certs?!?! That vendor must've done something wrong! It surely wasn't us not tightening the bolts all the way.
- salex89 3y ago
  Airbus isn't in an advantage there. They also employ a bunch of suppliers, outside the original companies that formed Airbus. However, they might be in an advantage because that's the way they grown from the start. Different countries, different continents, different languages, final assembly plants, all sorts of aircraft... I met a guy from EADS once, while it was still called EADS, and I was far too young to understand the complexity of what he was talking about. But from what I understood they really do put a lot into managing their supply chain management (very meta), a team he was in. It was a behemoth of an organisation back then and this is just one guy, but I had a feeling they were very open minded.

mhb 3y ago

> I'm trying to decide how pleased I should be if Airbus is winning customers from Boeing. Well, you have time to decide because that's not what TFA is about.

j33zusjuice 3y ago
TFA?
- ChoGGi 3y ago
  The fucking/fine article

bmmayer1 3y ago

Airbus can outsource to US firms as well as Boeing can. Boeing and its shareholders deserve to lose business and market share.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tw04 3y ago

It's just sad how much of this idiocy is driven by the idea that "we don't want to have to get re-certified". It's 100% short-term thinking because if they'd just bite the bullet and get re-certified they'd likely be setup for another 30+ years on the new airframe. Of course, that would also mean airlines would have a reason to look at the alternatives, so I guess they're also admitting they don't think they can produce a new airframe that's attractive enough to win on merit.

Kon-Peki 3y ago
> It's just sad how much of this idiocy is driven by the idea that "we don't want to have to get re-certified". It's be nice to know how much of this is Boeing and how much is Boeing's customers. 95/5? 80/20? 50/50? It's hard to believe that Boeing doesn't want to build a brand-new 737-sized aircraft.
- haliskerbas 3y ago
  Why is that hard to believe? At my work they choose quick cheap and easy over long expensive and hard any day. It would make sense they’d try to optimize the bottom line for the short term. That’s what most companies do.

PaulHoule 3y ago

It's not just safety, it's that the 737 is the symbol of an industry which is not keeping up with the times. The 737 is a 1967 aircraft that is still flying. You don't see a 1967 car being sold in car dealerships. You can't buy a 1967 computer. You see the headline "Airliners can't take off in Arizona because it's too hot" but the truth is "737s can't take off in Arizona because it's too hot" (737 struggles to take off under good conditions, it takes more runway to take off than planes with 2x the PAX) People say "flying sucks", but it's more like "flying sucks in a 737" (the reason why your neck locks up just thinking about sitting in a window seat on a 737 is because the 737 has a circular cross section that doesn't fit the human body; a plane smaller than a 737 with a more appropriate cross section feels like riding in a 747) The Embraer E2-Jet is a smaller aircraft that has a bigger engine with better fuel economy because it's not an obsolete design that can't fit a bigger engine. Then there's the A220, bought by Airbus, that Boeing has no answer to and has chosen to have no answer to. For some reason they got possessed to develop several widebody airliners in a row but when it comes to overhauling the narrowbody planes that are most of the units, most of the flights and most of the social and economic impact of aviation, management has been on strike for decades. The industry has been trying hard to keep you from riding in a modern narrowbody or regional jet because if they did, you'd be demanding it. Once you try the A220 there is no way you'd ride the same route on a 737 if you had a choice. And the thing is the A220 has lower operating costs... But remember, capitalists pay capital costs but they can make you pay operating costs. So long as everybody is flying inferior aircraft they can refuse to invest and pass higher operating costs on to you.

snowwrestler 3y ago
It seems like the federal government could help everyone get out of this mess by subsidizing the certification and training costs associated with switching out the 737 for a new Boeing airframe. But the federal government doesn't generally think like that. In fact they still fly a ton of 737s themselves.
- ssivark 3y ago
  Why should the federal government subsidise airlines if they want to be cheapskates risking safety & long term viability for a few bucks? I’d rather the government enforce the switch by regulation (if appropriate) and have the airlines + Boeing eat the cost, as punishment for bad decision making.

maxerickson 3y ago

The design problems that led to the first grounding of the 737 Max weren't particularly cost saving. The overall approach, where they wanted pilot certification to carry over is certainly a business decision, but I'd bet that pilots and airlines and so on liked it. Similar thing with this door issue. It's likely enough to be sloppy process, and is going to cost them a mint, not save them money. Sure, you can say that compromising quality is motivated by profit, but that cedes an awful lot of the discussion of the consequences of the poor quality to the people that are pushing to save a bit up front.

dboreham 3y ago
> weren't particularly cost saving Not "cost saving" per se, but definitely about money. MBAs are taught that airlines should use one kind of plane. FAA makes it expensive to certify a new kind of plane. So you get this "737 of Theseus" concept where they virtualized the 737 as a "guest", implemented on a different plane "host", leading to the crashes.
- closewith 3y ago
  There was and is immense pressure to retain type ratings. For example, both Ryanair and Southwest fly exclusively 737s and have enormous fleets. If type rating compatibility is lost, it's very plausible they could jump to Airbus.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  I don't understand why you would quote that sentence and ignore my next paragraph. They are currently flying them with the adjusted system and a few hours of additional training, pointing to the implementation rather than the approach.