I do get the impression that the current Boeing CEO is attempting to turn the culture around, to a more "admit the problem and fix it" kind of attitude. The problem is that, if you are doing this after many years of "deny the problem and ship it", the number of apparent problems is actually going to go up for a while. I wonder if Boeing's customers and shareholders will have enough patience for him to complete the tr…
What can those customers do?
The airlines that have lots of 787 max have a vested interest in being able to use them.
The whole max mcas debacle happened because of the high cost of pilot re-certification. So what are they going to do, re-certify all their boeing pilots to fly airbus?
Airbus won't even have the capacity to take over all of boeing's market share. And the US can't let that happen anyway from a strategic point of view.
It's not like customers picking a brand of detergent on a shelf.
50 hours? To fly an airliner you need way more than 50 hours. This isn't bouncing around the circuit in a Cessna. Boeing sells aircraft for use by airlines. Short of a handful people who own their own, to fly an airliner you need to be employed by an airline. You generally need something more like 1500 to 3000 hours before an airline is going to trust you with their equipment. https://atpflightschool.com/become-a-pil…
Read again. I said you don't need ATPL to be the CEO of Boeing. If you don't agree, state that, don't pick on the 50 hours because you are wrong there. And don't be pedantic about ATPL requirements, I am a pilot and I know how this works. I do support my original comment.
No, read the post to which I actually responded. It didn't say "pilot, any pilot, anyone with a ticket".
>> also be a pilot with the suitable type ratings to fly the stuff they build.
Boeing builds airliners. The "pilot" in the context of this threat a pilot rated to fly the "stuff they build".
Whatever your opinion of Elon is, it’s extremely generous to say he comes from an engineering background and just flat-out wrong to say he comes from the type of traditional engineering background relevant to companies like Boeing (the PE type of engineering). If you approve of Elon as a leader, he is basically the embodiment of “you do not need to be an engineer to run a highly technical company”
I think describing Elon as a small-e engineer (not designing powertrains, but at least understanding them) is accurate, and saying that an an engineering-first mindset is important for companies like Boeing and SpaceX would ring true. Engineering background is different than engineering mindset.
People contain multitudes. While I would agree that Elon has more of an engineer mindset than other CEOs I’m still not convinced that would amount to much.
A look at Tesla build quality, or that ridiculous demo where the Cybertruck window smashed are just two things that immediately come to mind to cast doubt on Musk’s commitment to engineering. I think he’s a big picture guy, I absolutely think issues like those we're seeing with Boeing could happen under his watch.
I've read that he was the token engineer in the see of accountants, MBAs and consultants. Cultural change goes much deeper than changing the CEO. Boeing might not be salvageable on the cheap side. Decapitating the company at levels 1-4 may not even be enough. It may require acknowledging that changing the flight envelope and software-patching it was a mistake. This is a major can of worms on itself. This means a plan…
> I've read that he was the token engineer in the see of accountants, MBAs and consultants The myth that engineers make better leaders may have originated with Andy Grove. In truth, there is no evidence for the claim. Jack Welch was as much an engineer as an asshole.
Interesting that Grove’s company would go on to provide some of the best evidence that putting an engineer at the wheel is no magic bullet.
I haven't fully thought through this, but - Why can't regulators try splitting Boeing up, anti-trust style? Part of the issue is that there's no competition. (Yes, Airbus, but tariffs seem to factor into purchasing decisions a lot.) If you create more competition, everybody should benefit.
> If you create more competition, everybody should benefit. Except shareholders
This question comes up every time articles like these come up and the answer is no, there is no reliable way unless you check what airplane you're boarding right as you walk on it. Airlines regularly swap out planes to cover up for delayed flights, weather, mismatched demand etc and the plane model you're shown as you're buying the ticket is not necessarily the plane you're gonna fly.
I’m not convinced that actually happens very often. I can’t remember a case where it has happened to me, and consider that changing to a type with a different number of seats would require issue in new tickets. And you need to balance demand not on a single route, but on the entire circuit the plane needs to fly.
Happens quite often in airlines that operate a range of types. E.g. Airlines that operate both the 320 and 321, 777-200 and 777-300, etc often swap aircraft between pair of similar types but slightly different number of seats to match demand but still draw from the same pilots/crew due to common type ratings. But I've also had 320 to 777 swaps, 757 to 321, etc do it does happen especially on routes where they operate a range of different aircrafts. Yes some tickets may need to be reissued but that's better than cancelling the fight where all the tickets have to be rebooked onto other flights. Some changes are due to low demand so in those cases no ticket reissue are needed. It also depends on the airline, you'll see swaps more often on airlines that operate many different kinds of aircraft and also depends on the route as some routes can only be served by a particular aircraft (e.g. ultra long haul routes, airports with short runways, etc) while other can be served by a wider variety of aircrafts lending itself to operational flexibility. YMMV.
I do get the impression that the current Boeing CEO is attempting to turn the culture around, to a more "admit the problem and fix it" kind of attitude. The problem is that, if you are doing this after many years of "deny the problem and ship it", the number of apparent problems is actually going to go up for a while. I wonder if Boeing's customers and shareholders will have enough patience for him to complete the tr…
What can those customers do? The airlines that have lots of 787 max have a vested interest in being able to use them. The whole max mcas debacle happened because of the high cost of pilot re-certification. So what are they going to do, re-certify all their boeing pilots to fly airbus? Airbus won't even have the capacity to take over all of boeing's market share. And the US can't let that happen anyway from a strategi…
They cannot drop the aircraft. They simply have to keep using them. The only option is lawyers. The airlines could demand compensation from Boeing for any time/effort put into rectifying unreasonable issues with recently-delivered Boeing aircraft.
I've read in a different place that the many problems could be a result of uncareful and miscoordinated outsourcing, particularly in the software domain. Is there any good information / insight on this?
Both this issue and issue with the door bolts were caused by Spirit, who Boeing outsourced the production of fuselages to. There's lots of info on the quality troubles with them going back years. For example here is an article from May of last year [1] about a quality issue with Spirit that had been going on for 4 years. Here [2] is one from last October which says "The goal of the agreement is to stabilize Spirit’s…
> Both this issue and issue with the door bolts were caused by Spirit
From what I've read, this is not what happened for the door bolts.
The New York Times report was that Spirit required access to some part of the fuselage masked by the door but did not work on the door. The Spirit request was granted, so Boeing workers removed the door, Spirit workers did what they intended to, then Boeing workers put the door back. There is a entry in the maintenance log of the plane about this. There should have been a routine check after this operation, but there was no mention of it in the maintenance log.