5 ms·

The amount of Boeing failures is so problematic, it points to the kind of cultural failure within the company where in almost every other circumstance it should

The amount of Boeing failures is so problematic, it points to the kind of cultural failure within the company where in almost every other circumstance it should just be shut down and sold for parts. The problem is that that is such an unacceptable situation that it can't ever be allowed to happen. Boeing is a huge employer in the US, not even counting all the direct subsidiaries who would shut down if it was shut down. Boeing is developing critical space hardware for NASA. As great as SpaceX is, the US should not rely on a single company for this. I don't think even SpaceX wants this. If Boeing did fail, that leaves Airbus as the only commercial jet manufacturer? I don't think anyone, including Airbus and definitely not any airline which has used the airbus-boeing dance during price negotiations wants this to happen. Not to even mention the supply chain issues with keeping our massive fleets of Boeing airplanes flying if Boeing goes defunct. We also have to consider the defense implications of loosing what is now our only serious domestic manufacturer of many military aircraft and other ordinance. Boeing literally can not be allowed to fail, the implications would be too great. I also literally see no other path for Boeing but failure. I also think out of the ashes of that failure something much more focused and better would emerge and that, without that failure, it probably never will but still the failure cannot be allowed to happen.

fsckboy 2y ago
your comment is bascally copypasta for a different topic, it's normal during flight tests to find and fix problems.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  I agree, on the one had this is normal, there are issues discovered and corrected during testing of all new aircraft types. But I also wonder if we aren't pushing the limits of what's reasonable for a 2-engine passenger airliner. I get that the more people you can put on a flight the more money the airlines make from that flight, but there's a practical limit somewhere.
  - upon_drumhead 2y ago
    we're still making huge leaps forward in the quality of the base materials, until we stop making progress there, I don't think we're able to say that we're at the practical limit.
- kcb 2y ago
  It's on the backdrop of the 777X being delayed like 4 times so far.
- fransje26 2y ago
  Uh, no. It's not "normal" to find structural failures on your engine mounts on 3 different aircrafts during testing stages. That points to major structural issues. Or better said, yet an other structural issue on an aircraft type that is already 5 years late.
alanfranz 2y ago
Disclosure: definitely not an airplane expert. This is a problem discovered during testing. It could mean testing is being done properly; probably it’s a bit late in the dev cycle, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing; now it’s making news because of what happened with Boeing in the past. But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Halting testing is a lot more drastic than "found a failure", though.
- smaudet 2y ago
  > But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough. Also not an airplane expert... Agreed that finding issues is (often) good (it means you are human and you also found your errors). But of course such testing, certification, is costly and uneconomical, and if you aren't allowed to fail, then you can't do the correct testing either... I suspect the issue is two-fold: Firstly, Boeing can't afford to fail, and hence can't test. Secondly, it is driven primarily by profit, not safety, which is part of why it can't afford to fail. Profit drives/motivates new features, efficiencies, and ultimately complex systems, which require exponentially more time to thoroughly test than simple, inefficient, easily verifiable systems. Falling apart because they are no longer profitable may not be a good thing either - sure, something could "rise from the ashes", but that thing will be in all likelihood, immature, poorly tested, and mostly incompatible with existing systems. The best bet would be to simplify, as much as possible, all systems, suppliers, etc, and to double, quadruple, perhaps even expand by an order of magnitude the testing effort(s). Perhaps even some sort of new New Deal could come about...
- angry_moose 2y ago
  I've done a couple rounds through aerospace or aerospace-adjacent over the years. This seems to be a certification test (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-discovers-engine-part-defect-and-grounds-its-777x-test-airplanes/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...), aka the "make-or-break, 0-failures allowed test before we get final approval to sell this aircraft, and we are 99.999% sure this test is going to go flawlessly". Failing is a pretty big deal. This should have been found far sooner in the process.
sho 2y ago
> I also literally see no other path for Boeing but failure. This is, to put it mildly, premature. No-one expects Boeing to actually go under. This discovery is a setback, and Emirates won't be happy (also to put it mildly), but it's hardly a company-killing event.
- fransje26 2y ago
  > Emirates won't be happy Well, they had the opportunity to sign for an other aircraft, and "unexpectedly" jumped ship at the last moment, so that's on them.
justinclift 2y ago
> Boeing is developing critical space hardware for NASA. For how much longer though? They're clearly not up to the task of being the second supplier, so NASA is going to need to find a new second supplier.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  They're also heavily involved in SLS (though it's questionable how much of a loss that would be, agreed). And of course all the apaches, globemasters, ospreys, super hornets.. They are definitely too big to fail.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Probably not too big to nationalise though. ;)
halestock 2y ago
It’s funny that in this country it’s almost unthinkable, but I would imagine that in other countries the solution would be to nationalize the company.
- Covzire 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - foobarbecue 2y ago
    This is utter nonsense. I happen to be a white guy working in aerospace. I love that we're finally starting to address some of the bias that has led to preferential hiring of people like me. The non-white, non-male, non-christian, and non-hetero colleagues I have are absolutely brilliant and earned their positions though hard work.
    - Covzire 2y ago
      There's nothing wrong with diversity but your career is stillborn if your management buys into the entire DEI cult. It's a dog whistle / trojan horse and not what you think it is.
      - razakel 2y ago
        How so?
      - foobarbecue 2y ago
        My carrer is doing just fine, thank you. You're seeing monsters under the bed. There is no "DEI cult." There's simply a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  It just needs external regulation. The self regulation was a disaster.
pdpi 2y ago
> If Boeing did fail, that leaves Airbus as the only commercial jet manufacturer? There's several smaller players in the regional market, like Embraer, Comac, Tupolev, but none of them have long range or widebody craft.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  I have to say the Embraer E195-E2 is a lot more comfortable than a 737 or A320 as a passenger, and that's for a plane that's significantly smaller. It really shows that it was designed in this century. The focus on type certificates/training is really holding the industry back (as well as causing the terrible MCAS crashes).
steve1977 2y ago
Boeing could certainly be broken up, think AT&T. Also I don’t think Airbus would have a problem with Boeing going out of business.
- antiterra 2y ago
  AT&T was broken up based on location, hence the term Regional Bell Operating Companies. I’m not sure how the relative straightforwardness of that approach maps to a company that basically has two main supply chains (737 in Renton and everything else in Everett with North Charleston as a satellite.)
  - alphabettsy 2y ago
    Maybe they’re talking about Space, Aircraft, Weapons?
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    There are ways... Space and weapons. Commercial narrow body (+ military derived from commercial) Commercial wide body. Then break up supply chain (where it hasn't been already).
- fransje26 2y ago
  > Also I don’t think Airbus would have a problem with Boeing going out of business. I'm not quite certain. Airbus is possibly quite happy to have a stumbling giant occupying that space and tripping over its own feet. It's a lot more comfortable than having to compete against a heavily subsided Chinese company, like what is happening in the EV market. (Not that they are a threat at the moment)
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Are any of the Chinese airframes certified for use in EU or USA? If not, is that 100% political, or is the engineeing/QC not up to standards (which is a bit of a LOL given the context of the question)?
shiroiushi 2y ago
>If Boeing did fail, that leaves Airbus as the only commercial jet manufacturer? I don't think anyone, including Airbus and definitely not any airline which has used the airbus-boeing dance during price negotiations wants this to happen. >Boeing literally can not be allowed to fail They're too broken for America to repair. They should be shut down, and the pieces sold off to Airbus for pennies on the dollar. Then Airbus can take over the designs and start building better-designed aircraft at the ex-Boeing facilities. There should simply be a stipulation that none of the management is allowed to be American, because obviously they can't do it any more.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bankcust08385 2y ago
Boeing has experienced hundreds of major technical incidents but scant few were covered before the MAX crashes. Dozens and dozens more happened after the crashes.

fsckboy 2y ago

your comment is bascally copypasta for a different topic, it's normal during flight tests to find and fix problems.

SoftTalker 2y ago
I agree, on the one had this is normal, there are issues discovered and corrected during testing of all new aircraft types. But I also wonder if we aren't pushing the limits of what's reasonable for a 2-engine passenger airliner. I get that the more people you can put on a flight the more money the airlines make from that flight, but there's a practical limit somewhere.
- upon_drumhead 2y ago
  we're still making huge leaps forward in the quality of the base materials, until we stop making progress there, I don't think we're able to say that we're at the practical limit.
kcb 2y ago
It's on the backdrop of the 777X being delayed like 4 times so far.
fransje26 2y ago
Uh, no. It's not "normal" to find structural failures on your engine mounts on 3 different aircrafts during testing stages. That points to major structural issues. Or better said, yet an other structural issue on an aircraft type that is already 5 years late.

alanfranz 2y ago

Disclosure: definitely not an airplane expert. This is a problem discovered during testing. It could mean testing is being done properly; probably it’s a bit late in the dev cycle, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing; now it’s making news because of what happened with Boeing in the past. But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough.

Dylan16807 2y ago
Halting testing is a lot more drastic than "found a failure", though.
smaudet 2y ago
> But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough. Also not an airplane expert... Agreed that finding issues is (often) good (it means you are human and you also found your errors). But of course such testing, certification, is costly and uneconomical, and if you aren't allowed to fail, then you can't do the correct testing either... I suspect the issue is two-fold: Firstly, Boeing can't afford to fail, and hence can't test. Secondly, it is driven primarily by profit, not safety, which is part of why it can't afford to fail. Profit drives/motivates new features, efficiencies, and ultimately complex systems, which require exponentially more time to thoroughly test than simple, inefficient, easily verifiable systems. Falling apart because they are no longer profitable may not be a good thing either - sure, something could "rise from the ashes", but that thing will be in all likelihood, immature, poorly tested, and mostly incompatible with existing systems. The best bet would be to simplify, as much as possible, all systems, suppliers, etc, and to double, quadruple, perhaps even expand by an order of magnitude the testing effort(s). Perhaps even some sort of new New Deal could come about...
angry_moose 2y ago
I've done a couple rounds through aerospace or aerospace-adjacent over the years. This seems to be a certification test (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-discovers-engine-part-defect-and-grounds-its-777x-test-airplanes/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...), aka the "make-or-break, 0-failures allowed test before we get final approval to sell this aircraft, and we are 99.999% sure this test is going to go flawlessly". Failing is a pretty big deal. This should have been found far sooner in the process.

sho 2y ago

> I also literally see no other path for Boeing but failure. This is, to put it mildly, premature. No-one expects Boeing to actually go under. This discovery is a setback, and Emirates won't be happy (also to put it mildly), but it's hardly a company-killing event.

fransje26 2y ago
> Emirates won't be happy Well, they had the opportunity to sign for an other aircraft, and "unexpectedly" jumped ship at the last moment, so that's on them.

justinclift 2y ago

> Boeing is developing critical space hardware for NASA. For how much longer though? They're clearly not up to the task of being the second supplier, so NASA is going to need to find a new second supplier.

wkat4242 2y ago
They're also heavily involved in SLS (though it's questionable how much of a loss that would be, agreed). And of course all the apaches, globemasters, ospreys, super hornets.. They are definitely too big to fail.
- justinclift 2y ago
  Probably not too big to nationalise though. ;)

halestock 2y ago

It’s funny that in this country it’s almost unthinkable, but I would imagine that in other countries the solution would be to nationalize the company.

Covzire 2y ago
[flagged]
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  This is utter nonsense. I happen to be a white guy working in aerospace. I love that we're finally starting to address some of the bias that has led to preferential hiring of people like me. The non-white, non-male, non-christian, and non-hetero colleagues I have are absolutely brilliant and earned their positions though hard work.
  - Covzire 2y ago
    There's nothing wrong with diversity but your career is stillborn if your management buys into the entire DEI cult. It's a dog whistle / trojan horse and not what you think it is.
    - razakel 2y ago
      How so?
    - foobarbecue 2y ago
      My carrer is doing just fine, thank you. You're seeing monsters under the bed. There is no "DEI cult." There's simply a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
bamboozled 2y ago
It just needs external regulation. The self regulation was a disaster.

pdpi 2y ago

> If Boeing did fail, that leaves Airbus as the only commercial jet manufacturer? There's several smaller players in the regional market, like Embraer, Comac, Tupolev, but none of them have long range or widebody craft.

wkat4242 2y ago
I have to say the Embraer E195-E2 is a lot more comfortable than a 737 or A320 as a passenger, and that's for a plane that's significantly smaller. It really shows that it was designed in this century. The focus on type certificates/training is really holding the industry back (as well as causing the terrible MCAS crashes).

steve1977 2y ago

Boeing could certainly be broken up, think AT&T. Also I don’t think Airbus would have a problem with Boeing going out of business.

antiterra 2y ago
AT&T was broken up based on location, hence the term Regional Bell Operating Companies. I’m not sure how the relative straightforwardness of that approach maps to a company that basically has two main supply chains (737 in Renton and everything else in Everett with North Charleston as a satellite.)
- alphabettsy 2y ago
  Maybe they’re talking about Space, Aircraft, Weapons?
- alistairSH 2y ago
  There are ways... Space and weapons. Commercial narrow body (+ military derived from commercial) Commercial wide body. Then break up supply chain (where it hasn't been already).
fransje26 2y ago
> Also I don’t think Airbus would have a problem with Boeing going out of business. I'm not quite certain. Airbus is possibly quite happy to have a stumbling giant occupying that space and tripping over its own feet. It's a lot more comfortable than having to compete against a heavily subsided Chinese company, like what is happening in the EV market. (Not that they are a threat at the moment)
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Are any of the Chinese airframes certified for use in EU or USA? If not, is that 100% political, or is the engineeing/QC not up to standards (which is a bit of a LOL given the context of the question)?

shiroiushi 2y ago

>If Boeing did fail, that leaves Airbus as the only commercial jet manufacturer? I don't think anyone, including Airbus and definitely not any airline which has used the airbus-boeing dance during price negotiations wants this to happen. >Boeing literally can not be allowed to fail They're too broken for America to repair. They should be shut down, and the pieces sold off to Airbus for pennies on the dollar. Then Airbus can take over the designs and start building better-designed aircraft at the ex-Boeing facilities. There should simply be a stipulation that none of the management is allowed to be American, because obviously they can't do it any more.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bankcust08385 2y ago

Boeing has experienced hundreds of major technical incidents but scant few were covered before the MAX crashes. Dozens and dozens more happened after the crashes.