Air Force warns new Boeing CEO it's not happy

a reply to: 727Sky

It is a real shame and the worse part is that once a company goes down this path, theres almost never a recovery. Thousands of jobs will be lost and millions in stockholder value will be lost if BA goes belly up and files for bankruptcy. Hope would be that Airbus or some Chinese company buys BA. At least the bondholders would get somethng.

originally posted by: 727Sky
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.

My sources say that Boeing needs to relocate its manufacturing from Seattle to a metro that is less hostile to normal work ethics. As well as away from someplace where the corporate middle kingdom is more obsessed with diversity that it is competent work.

originally posted by: 727Sky
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.

Two things, Retiring and New Boss.

originally posted by: JoseGarcia
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.

This is exactly what happened.

The Long-Forgotten Flight That Sent Boeing Off Course
A company once driven by engineers became driven by finance.

I personally doubt the new CEO will change much. Boeing needs engineers to run the business, not the bean counters.

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: JoseGarcia
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.

This is exactly what happened.

The Long-Forgotten Flight That Sent Boeing Off Course
A company once driven by engineers became driven by finance.

I personally doubt the new CEO will change much. Boeing needs engineers to run the business, not the bean counters.

That sounds about right, to me.

I'd place the odds at less than 25% that Boeing will right itself.

Boeing's issues with management are well known and not without precedent. Its a modern corporate disease based essentially around the selfish greed of a few at the top, but its tentacles spread down the tree to the next crop of up and comers who see the personal gains of their seniors and want the same. Thus you need to actively weed out those with a mindset like that and replace them with relevant experience and competency. The university/business school models are not helping this either as they are actively teaching this poisonous "instant corporate gratification" model in many western countries.

On the subject of putting pressure on Boeing to change, no they aren't the only player so they cant just tell the Generals to screw it. Airbus would leap at the opportunity to build MRTT's for the USAF IF they got a clear contract to do so. And given that they have weeded out the bugs in their own tanker and boom setup, could probably fast track a US specific model fairly quickly. Boeing knows this and so the imperative to step up is even greater. Frankly I think there is a case for them to operate a fleet of both as the MRTT/KC-45 has greater offload than the KC-46 so would be complementary rather than directly competitive. And fuel loads are not going down in new generation aircraft like the F-35 so if you can haul more gas where and when its needed in a sortie it ends up being cheaper per lb/kg offloaded.

Finally, I dont see what all the fuss is about with remote boom operators. The MRTT's ARBS uses an Enhanced Vision System (EVS) as well and despite initial problems has settled down nicely. I think Boeing's KC-46 issues has more to do with its management issues than the technical capability of its design engineers who probably aren't being given enough of a say due to management cost obsessions overriding all else. I do note that both the KC-46 and MRTT BOTH had problems with refueling F-15's. Seems tricky airflow and a slight asymmetry to its receptacle led to problems. One great advantage of remote refueling stations is that the operator is much less fatigued for not having to be on their stomach for hours. I'm sure there will be a lot less back injury issues as a result.

a reply to: thebozeian

The KC-10 uses a seat that sits upright. No reason they couldn't have done the same here. Instead they went with an updated version of the KC-767 RVS, and screwed it to hell and back.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: thebozeian

The KC-10 uses a seat that sits upright. No reason they couldn't have done the same here. Instead they went with an updated version of the KC-767 RVS, and screwed it to hell and back.

It seems to this psychologist that it is at least questionable that boom operators should be on duty for hours on end. Seems more sensible to me for quality SAFE performance to change them out every 30-60 minutes. Are there research studies on that issue from actuarial experience?

a reply to: JoseGarcia

Boom operators aren't working the boom the entire flight. Even on a fighter drag there are stretches where they aren't working the boom and can walk around the aircraft, eat, and relax.

Gone are the days when turret gunners used to sit on bicycle seats for hours on end without rest...