January 17, 2008
Boeing's Mixed Bag

The 787 program is not doing well. It hasn't entered A380 territory yet, but the delays thus far are now starting to have notable financial impacts on the company. Further delays are likely to become painful. Either way, it probably means the Machinists' Union may well have Boeing by the proverbial short hairs in contract negotiations this fall.

On the positive side of the ledger, Boeing's order book and the value of its planes delivered for 2007 were both top notch. Now if they can just get production issues for their top seller straightened out.

Posted by Eric Earling at January 17, 2008 07:01 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Out sourcing has its good points and bad points too. It takes time to work this out. Right now, the outsourcing proponents have the popular floor, especially with the MBA types. It takes more than computer printouts to run a business. It takes judgment and common sense as well as overview too! It will take time to work this out. Hopefully for all of us, Boeing will have that time. Given a choice, I still would rather be on a Boeing aircraft than any other! After all, you don't want your plane to be a "Beta" release. Enough said.

Posted by: Fed Up on January 17, 2008 07:53 PM
2. The 787 is the "beta" version.


No airplane has EVER been made from the inside out. This is the first one. Every commercial airplane up to this point has been made as OML control. Not to mention that the Chinese, Italians, even the Japanese have never been a part of something so inventive ("advanced"?) as far as *this* type of aircraft manufacture.

"Outsourcing" (bribing) only works when there is quid-pro-quo. BA management has been too stupid (even as crooks) to demand each vendor country order $100 billion worth of airplanes. (And God only only knows what kind of electronic gadgets will be hidden inside the Chi-Comms supplied components: Scary!)

Posted by: joebiggun on January 17, 2008 08:44 PM
3. The "Chi" are expert at dotting the "I's" and crossing the "T's". They believe it is only a matter of time before we capitulate. We must demonstrate the same resolve. Our problem is that we are used to working on a much shorter time scale. When we do business abroad, we must position ourselves to wait"them" out without risk to our enterprise.

Posted by: Fed Up on January 17, 2008 09:45 PM
4. My neighbor who works in the elect eng has said for years that Boeing was sending most of their wires over seas and quality stinks.

May explain some of the problems they are having.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 18, 2008 07:07 AM
5. Boeing is not going to stop it's outsourcing business model even with it's current bad experiences because the local union is part of the problem. Boeing will never let is local unionized labor force to get to large to have lethel bargaining power.

Posted by: GaryB on January 18, 2008 07:41 AM
6. Yeah, the 787 is having some real problems. The big "unveiling" on 7/8/7 was nothing more than a pretty airplane shell. It had no wiring, seats, or pretty much anything inside. They didn't even have the seats on hand. They've been having issues with multiple suppliers delivering the wrong parts, or simply not delivering at all. To the people actually involved in the project, the alleged delivery dates that were stated in the past were merely a joke, as they knew there was no way they would be met.

I know all of this through one of those "friend of a friend" type of things, where the original source (2 degrees from me) is actually on the 787 development team. I haven't heard a recent update on how they're feeling about the project lately (in the last few months). From my personal experience in the manufacturing world, I can confirm that the way these things (new product releases) tend to work is that management / marketing sets the completion dates with little to no input from engineering (you know, the people actually designing the dang thing). As the unrealistic deadline approaches, the project can go one of two directions:

Timeline A
1) Product is released (Revision A) at the marketing-selected date, even though it's half-baked.
2) Anywhere from a few dozen to a few hundred are sold.
3) Customers experience problems, issues get escalated.
4) Eventually it falls back on engineering, who is maybe finally given adequate time to actually complete the project.
5) Revision B is released months to years after the Rev. A release. Rev. B has the features and reliability that Rev. A should have had.

Timeline B
1) Delay
2) Delay
3) Delay
...
#) Finally release when the project is actually done and vetted.

Due to the safety-critical nature of what Boeing does, it looks like things over there follow Timeline B. The problem of course, is that they've cooked all of their books based on the pie-in-the-sky timelines that Marketing and Management dreamed up, without bothering to consult the people that actually do the work to get things done.

Posted by: Some Guy on January 18, 2008 07:54 AM
7. Boeing never would have been able to create the in-house manufacturing capability for the new technology in time, and certainly not with the union undermining it ever step of the way if they actually had hands-on access to it.

Unfortunately for Boeing, the logistical issues for outsourcing it were much greater than their original estimates.

Posted by: John Galt on January 18, 2008 08:45 AM
8. Hate to come across sounding like a conspiracy nut but it does seem that a delay by the Chisese on their parts for the 787 drags down Boeing stock, which further drags down Wall Street and consumer confidence...which leaves more bargains to be had by foreign investors who are cash rich. Sadly, most Americans who would recognize a military threat and demand a response can't see beyond their trip to the mall and don't want to recognize a different kind of battle for their country. Am I way off base to see this as a very deliberate attempt to sabatoge a major US industry?

Posted by: suzihomemaker on January 18, 2008 09:26 AM
9. Suzi Yeah it's a nut idea.

Do you know the China has been building 737 parts for years now.

From what I'v learned, the problems on the 787 is not coming from China.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 18, 2008 11:54 AM
10. Sorry Suzi, are you recommending a premptive attack on China? Economically, that would be ruinous.

When I was over there I recall reading an editorial from the South China Something-or-Another where the writer was basically stating we were weakening ourselves considerably in Iraq. To a point, he was correct. However, what I am sure he failed to take into acount is that the US military has been real-world testing technology, not to mention being battle-hardened, since 1989. The rest of the world, with some small exception, has been marching in place. I'd have to think that counts for quite a bit and the world's generals know this.

As for Boeing and for our sake, I hope their delays are only as bad as they make them out to be, because the world is not going to give them (us)a break.

Posted by: CandrewB on January 18, 2008 05:27 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?