It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Force warns new Boeing CEO it's not happy

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:33 PM
link   
The Air Force sent a letter to new Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun that Boeing needs to do better with the KC-46. It's been nine years since they were awarded the contract for the KC-46, and the aircraft still has significant problems. To date they have accepted 30 partially mission capable aircraft.

The biggest issue is the remote vision system used by the boom operator. Boeing is redesigning the camera system, but is looking at 4 years to get the system fully working. As part of the letter, Gen Goldfein said that none of the agreed upon timelines have been met, and the latest proposal slips the fix two years. In addition combat testing has begun, and they've already found 500 deficiencies of varying degrees, none of the most serious category.

www.bloomberg.com...




posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am old enough to remember Boeing as a great company... How far they have fallen with their ineptness is a shame.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Is it too late to ditch the camera and put the boom operator back where he belongs? Lol Nah, that would cost half as much money (for the customer) and more money for Boeing to change the tooling. We'll keep plodding ahead...
edit on 17-1-2020 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

It was stupid not to put them back there. It's worked just fine for 60 years.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I have a long time Navy friend who worked for Boeing after he left the Navy & retired a few years ago from Boeing.

He insists the corp is entirely different than it used to be in a list of not very good ways.

Sounds to me like the rot descended on Boeing from the top.

Maybe the bean counters gained too much power.

Somehow cutting corners & being crass to competitive--even cut-throat with one another took priority over a collegial supporting one another & helping one another do a top flight job in the highest quality ways.

Seems to me that a current CEO would HAVE to tackle such problems head on, relentlessly, thoroughly to turn Boeing & its products around.

Zaph--do you have any confirmation or disconfirmation of my understanding outlined above?

What do you think needs to happen to really turn Boeing & its products around toward the historic relatively high quality?

In a war of survival, this is no small issue, to me.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RadioRobert

It was stupid not to put them back there. It's worked just fine for 60 years.


I agree. One of my housemates was a boom operator in the National Guard.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: JoseGarcia

Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Boeing was supposed to take over, but after the dust settled, the MD culture ended up taking over. Boeing went from ground breaking engineering, to cutting every dime they could, and trying to do everything as cheaply as possible.

Turning things around isn't going to be easy, or cheap. They are going to have to accept that they're going to have to spend some money.
edit on 1/18/2020 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I would like to hear Boeing's side of it. I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. One issue I know is a problem on everything the Government does is piss poor requirements. Not only poor, but also changing requirements after the project is well under way.

When that happens a massive array of new issues emerge. The new requirements don't work with what was already developed or they have to go through some tortured approach to make it work.

Not saying Boeing is innocent just that I know there is a lot more going on this General is not divulging. Boeing though has a lot of leverage. Not much competition. They can basically tell the General to stick it where the sun don't shine.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JoseGarcia

Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Boeing was supposed to take over, but after the dust settled, the MD culture ended up taking over. Boeing went from ground breaking engineering, to cutting every dime they could, and trying to do everything as cheaply as possible.

Turning things around isn't going to be easy, or cheap. They are going to have to accept that they're going to have to spend some money.


Thanks. Sounds quite accurate, to me.

Reminds me of the Scripture about "a little leaven polluting the whole lump."

Evil, cutting corners, passing the buck, denial, rationalizations etc. are soooo human nature. Without serious discipline and different foundational values, the rot does tend to rule the roost in most groups. All the more so if leadership is leading, modeling the rot.

I wonder how many stockholders would be serious about turning the company around vs short term $$$ goals. Sigh.

I'd hate to see government get involved in a heavy handed way but Boeing is no small part of our defense capabilities. Is there any rational way that patriotic folks COULD make sure the CEO took the necessary steps regardless of cost or length of time required?



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

The Air Force took the hit for the boom stiffness issue and is paying for that. There's plenty of blame on Boeing for this. They decided to "improve" the remote vision system for the boom, and ended up with a system that doesn't work under certain lighting conditions, scrapes the receiver, and is more trouble than its worth. They still have restrictions on cargo and passengers because of bad floor locks, and many other issues that shouldn't have happened. Boeing has paid over $3B in overrun charges because of their issues.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
I would like to hear Boeing's side of it. I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. One issue I know is a problem on everything the Government does is piss poor requirements. Not only poor, but also changing requirements after the project is well under way.

When that happens a massive array of new issues emerge. The new requirements don't work with what was already developed or they have to go through some tortured approach to make it work.

Not saying Boeing is innocent just that I know there is a lot more going on this General is not divulging. Boeing though has a lot of leverage. Not much competition. They can basically tell the General to stick it where the sun don't shine.



Certainly government bureaucrats are not innocent in such matters. All the worse with Clintons & then 8 years of O'B working hard to destroy our military capabilities. Though I think during Clinton's reign, Boeing was still OK.

Therefore what in terms of solution still seems like a complicated issue.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 01:55 AM
link   
i would not be happy being CEO of Boeing either. 140 000+ employees, a top heavy executive board, numerous projects drenched in complexity. Where do you draw the line between the right stuff and bureaucratic bloat?

Getting the right design for a safe and capable plane has a long history of aircrash investigations. So many little things can get easily missed. All the arguments over what widget goes where. All the politics between the good engineers and those claiming credit for it. All the competition from competing companies and todays global landscape of war.

I would be pissed too, walking with a big hatchet.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
i would not be happy being CEO of Boeing either. 140 000+ employees, a top heavy executive board, numerous projects drenched in complexity. Where do you draw the line between the right stuff and bureaucratic bloat?

Getting the right design for a safe and capable plane has a long history of aircrash investigations. So many little things can get easily missed. All the arguments over what widget goes where. All the politics between the good engineers and those claiming credit for it. All the competition from competing companies and todays global landscape of war.

I would be pissed too, walking with a big hatchet.


Sounds like a very perceptive analysis, to me.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 03:43 AM
link   
And I thought the F35 program was a mess? You dont have to look any further than the 737 MAX to see that Boeing is relying on its name, and paying off, err lobbying, politicians to snuff out any competition.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Didn’t Airbus originally win this contract back in 2010/11 but Boeing objected and the result was overturned...makes you wonder what if it hadn’t...would the ramps be filled with USAF A330 MRTT’s....just a thought..😎



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Silentvulcan

There is absolutely no reason to think that EADS/NG would have had zero issues with their aircraft. They may not have had as many, but you can't say they'd be flying with no problems now either.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 09:58 AM
link   
While the USAF should shoulder a part of the blame for demanding more than was needed on the aircraft, (like they usually do) boeing could have said no, could have put up more feasible ideas etc...

Boeing just chased the dollars, and obviously never saw the problems with the MAX and if they are not careful they are heading into an zone that could wreck the company.

Also if I remember right someone (never did hear who) "accidently" sent the boeing info to airbus, and vice versa which invalidated the initial award giving boeing enough time (my opinion here) to grease the wheels in DC ensuring air bus never got the award.

While Airbus may not have had a perfect plane at this point we cant say the odds are high their plane would be doing worse.



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 10:18 AM
link   
well by boeing"s stockholders.. MONEY first !!!! and savety? mwaaa some collateral damage… few millions againt billions..peopple should stop moaning about that … lets make america great !!!!!! lolll



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

best defence agains an F35 is fire-extingtion foam lollllllllll



posted on Jan, 18 2020 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I know...i’m in the aircraft build/modification world myself so I know what goes on and what can go wrong...as well as “the client” moving the goal posts at the last minute meaning years work of design work goes out the window!!! a reply to: Zaphod58





top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join