3 ms·

Boeing has to redesign how they design planes (for example without outsourcing not just the manufacturing but also the design of various pieces as they are curr

Boeing has to redesign how they design planes (for example without outsourcing not just the manufacturing but also the design of various pieces as they are currently doing), then design a new plane that's safer and cheaper. They don't have the money to do that. A government bailout may be the only solution, because otherwise we'll be looking at an Airbus monopoly.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> don't have the money to do that. A government bailout may be the only solution On the condition of bankruptcy, sure. (This is how we did the auto bailouts.) In reality, we probably need a break-up (and recombination of spun-out factories). Keep the military contractor a monolith. But reïnject competition into our civil aviation sector.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  There is competition— they’re just not American companies. It’s an interesting conundrum. Will breaking up the civil part of Boeing help or hurt their ability to compete internationally? My sense is that a proper rebuild would lose them significant market share for a long time. I’m not sure the government will permit that. They’re a significant part of the economy and nobody likes being in office when it contracts.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Will breaking up the civil part of Boeing help or hurt their ability to compete internationally? Almost certainly help. American capital markets give mid-sized companies scale. And they’re already decentralised their operations; they’re already paying the cost of competition. There are just no benefits yet. Look back at the halcyon days of civil jet aviation; America dominated in large part due to its internal competition.
- _cenw 3y ago
  > But reinject competition into our civil aviation sector. This is the same US government that gave Boeing the 300% foreign aircraft tariff in an attempt to kill the Bombardier CS100. Which they then sold to Airbus (who have a manufacturing presence in the US, so no tariff) so the jet could live.
_cenw 3y ago
These are explicitly not a design issue, but a manufacturing process issue. And I'm not sure if you want current Boeing to do a clean-sheet 737 replacement with their current engineering culture. The reason it isn't more unsafe is that a lot of it was designed so long ago (some parts even as far back as the 707). Then again, the Dreamliner seems to be doing okay-ish now.
- breadwinner 3y ago
  > These are explicitly not a design issue, but a manufacturing process issue. Not true. The reason MCAS was needed is because of a design issue. Also, if you watch the video, Boeing didn't just outsource manufacturing - they also outsourced the design.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    The current issue with the plug door is. MCAS is the second sentence. And I'd still consider that a process failure, when engineers only ever tested the upgrade variant AOA indicator and didn't notice the non-upgraded glass cockpit advisory didn't work and nobody is specifically responsible for making sure the code is reviewed. And oursourcing wasn't new. The here praised 737 NG had parts delivered by subcontractor Ducommun in the early 2000s that were allegedly so defective, they had to be rejected entirely. Except the Boeing of the early 2000s caught it, and late 2010s Boeing didn't.
    - p_l 3y ago
      The Boeing of 2000s was also hell-bent on switching to outsourcing, down to cutting off its own pieces like Boeing Wichita (which became Spirit Aerosystems)

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> don't have the money to do that. A government bailout may be the only solution On the condition of bankruptcy, sure. (This is how we did the auto bailouts.) In reality, we probably need a break-up (and recombination of spun-out factories). Keep the military contractor a monolith. But reïnject competition into our civil aviation sector.

Waterluvian 3y ago
There is competition— they’re just not American companies. It’s an interesting conundrum. Will breaking up the civil part of Boeing help or hurt their ability to compete internationally? My sense is that a proper rebuild would lose them significant market share for a long time. I’m not sure the government will permit that. They’re a significant part of the economy and nobody likes being in office when it contracts.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Will breaking up the civil part of Boeing help or hurt their ability to compete internationally? Almost certainly help. American capital markets give mid-sized companies scale. And they’re already decentralised their operations; they’re already paying the cost of competition. There are just no benefits yet. Look back at the halcyon days of civil jet aviation; America dominated in large part due to its internal competition.
_cenw 3y ago
> But reinject competition into our civil aviation sector. This is the same US government that gave Boeing the 300% foreign aircraft tariff in an attempt to kill the Bombardier CS100. Which they then sold to Airbus (who have a manufacturing presence in the US, so no tariff) so the jet could live.

_cenw 3y ago

These are explicitly not a design issue, but a manufacturing process issue. And I'm not sure if you want current Boeing to do a clean-sheet 737 replacement with their current engineering culture. The reason it isn't more unsafe is that a lot of it was designed so long ago (some parts even as far back as the 707). Then again, the Dreamliner seems to be doing okay-ish now.

breadwinner 3y ago
> These are explicitly not a design issue, but a manufacturing process issue. Not true. The reason MCAS was needed is because of a design issue. Also, if you watch the video, Boeing didn't just outsource manufacturing - they also outsourced the design.
- _cenw 3y ago
  The current issue with the plug door is. MCAS is the second sentence. And I'd still consider that a process failure, when engineers only ever tested the upgrade variant AOA indicator and didn't notice the non-upgraded glass cockpit advisory didn't work and nobody is specifically responsible for making sure the code is reviewed. And oursourcing wasn't new. The here praised 737 NG had parts delivered by subcontractor Ducommun in the early 2000s that were allegedly so defective, they had to be rejected entirely. Except the Boeing of the early 2000s caught it, and late 2010s Boeing didn't.
  - p_l 3y ago
    The Boeing of 2000s was also hell-bent on switching to outsourcing, down to cutting off its own pieces like Boeing Wichita (which became Spirit Aerosystems)