-
#1120
by
ugordan
on 21 Jan, 2024 19:46
-
January 2024:
Spacex:46
Boeing: 0
Enough said.
-
#1121
by
Zed_Noir
on 21 Jan, 2024 21:57
-
January 2024:
Spacex:46
Boeing: 0
Enough said.
If Crew-8 flies to ISS during February.
February 2024:
SpaceX: 50
Boeing: 0
It is just so sad.
-
#1122
by
SoftwareDude
on 22 Jan, 2024 02:59
-
I'm not sure that I understand what business Boeing is in. I know that Boeing is the only US Manufacturer of commercial airliners and they have other divisions as well. However, Boeing executives seem to be saying that accepting a fixed-price contract for a private commercial space vehicle was a mistake. Therefore, Boeing, as a company does not see expanding its markets beyond what they are now. To Boeing, space will always be a cost-plus contract.
-
#1123
by
Zed_Noir
on 22 Jan, 2024 12:10
-
I'm not sure that I understand what business Boeing is in. I know that Boeing is the only US Manufacturer of commercial airliners and they have other divisions as well. However, Boeing executives seem to be saying that accepting a fixed-price contract for a private commercial space vehicle was a mistake. Therefore, Boeing, as a company does not see expanding its markets beyond what they are now. To Boeing, space will always be a cost-plus contract.
Hope I am wrong, but not likely.
AIUI, Boeing is in the business of adding value for shareholders. Which meant cutting costs and extracting as much money from the customers as possible to pump up the stock price for dividend payouts.
Will also pointed out that Boeing executives gets bonuses according to the value of Boeing's stock price, AIUI. Not with actual company performance.
-
#1124
by
laszlo
on 22 Jan, 2024 23:15
-
Hope I am wrong, but not likely.
AIUI, Boeing is in the business of adding value for shareholders. Which meant cutting costs and extracting as much money from the customers as possible to pump up the stock price for dividend payouts.
Will also pointed out that Boeing executives gets bonuses according to the value of Boeing's stock price, AIUI. Not with actual company performance.
As is every publicly-traded company in the world. It's called capitalism.
-
#1125
by
meekGee
on 23 Jan, 2024 14:15
-
Hope I am wrong, but not likely.
AIUI, Boeing is in the business of adding value for shareholders. Which meant cutting costs and extracting as much money from the customers as possible to pump up the stock price for dividend payouts.
Will also pointed out that Boeing executives gets bonuses according to the value of Boeing's stock price, AIUI. Not with actual company performance.
As is every publicly-traded company in the world. It's called capitalism.
Capitalism does not mean near-sightedness.
-
#1126
by
mn
on 23 Jan, 2024 15:22
-
Hope I am wrong, but not likely.
AIUI, Boeing is in the business of adding value for shareholders. Which meant cutting costs and extracting as much money from the customers as possible to pump up the stock price for dividend payouts.
Will also pointed out that Boeing executives gets bonuses according to the value of Boeing's stock price, AIUI. Not with actual company performance.
As is every publicly-traded company in the world. It's called capitalism.
Capitalism does not mean near-sightedness.
It shouldn't, but all too often does.
-
#1127
by
meekGee
on 23 Jan, 2024 15:24
-
Hope I am wrong, but not likely.
AIUI, Boeing is in the business of adding value for shareholders. Which meant cutting costs and extracting as much money from the customers as possible to pump up the stock price for dividend payouts.
Will also pointed out that Boeing executives gets bonuses according to the value of Boeing's stock price, AIUI. Not with actual company performance.
As is every publicly-traded company in the world. It's called capitalism.
Capitalism does not mean near-sightedness.
It shouldn't, but all too often does.
Indeed. And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.
-
#1128
by
mn
on 30 Jan, 2024 22:58
-
Article on CNN discussing the overall Boeing situation. (No mention of starliner, but it seems that much of what is discussed there is equally applicable here)
Boeing was once known for safety and engineering. But critics say an emphasis on profits changed thathttps://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/business/boeing-history-of-problems/index.htmlExperts and critics say that Boeing’s woes have been years in the making, some pointing to the result of a shift in corporate culture that started at the top and put profits ahead of the safety and engineering prowess for which it was once praised, placing not only its future, but the passengers on its planes, at grave risk.
While Boeing denies there has been such a shift away from safety and excellence, what is indisputable is that its engineering and manufacturing problems have contributed to a series of shocking incidents
-
#1129
by
meekGee
on 31 Jan, 2024 02:08
-
Pretty clear that issues have commonality across the entire organization, even in what are considered by some to be completely independent divisions.
Forgotten bolts vs forgotten pins. Can you tell the difference?
-
#1130
by
SoftwareDude
on 31 Jan, 2024 04:46
-
Pretty clear that issues have commonality across the entire organization, even in what are considered by some to be completely independent divisions.
Forgotten bolts vs forgotten pins. Can you tell the difference?
One of the things that came out about the 737 Max is that although the code fix was fairly simple, the new code wouldn't fit in the one megabyte of memory supported by an 80286 processor making the upgrade much more difficult, taking more time, and thus costing Boeing huge amounts of money. A brand-new airplane with a 16-bit processor from the 1980s. What about the brand-new Starliner? Is there an ISA bus lurking in the computers?
-
#1131
by
Eric Hedman
on 31 Jan, 2024 05:24
-
Pretty clear that issues have commonality across the entire organization, even in what are considered by some to be completely independent divisions.
Forgotten bolts vs forgotten pins. Can you tell the difference?
One of the things that came out about the 737 Max is that although the code fix was fairly simple, the new code wouldn't fit in the one megabyte of memory supported by an 80286 processor making the upgrade much more difficult, taking more time, and thus costing Boeing huge amounts of money. A brand-new airplane with a 16-bit processor from the 1980s. What about the brand-new Starliner? Is there an ISA bus lurking in the computers?
Any bets on if there is a socket for an 80287 math co-processor?
-
#1132
by
Vettedrmr
on 31 Jan, 2024 10:02
-
One of the things that came out about the 737 Max is that although the code fix was fairly simple, the new code wouldn't fit in the one megabyte of memory supported by an 80286 processor making the upgrade much more difficult, taking more time, and thus costing Boeing huge amounts of money. A brand-new airplane with a 16-bit processor from the 1980s. What about the brand-new Starliner? Is there an ISA bus lurking in the computers?
Seems utterly laughable, and also almost understandable (the considerable cost and time). Funny side-note: your comment brought back an old memory of when we upgraded the flight control computers on the R&D F-16 I was working on (AFTI F-16 if you want to Google it) from an 8 bit to a 16-bit processor (this was back in 1987). The TONS of memory space we had to work with. No more assembly coding! No more kludge hardware to get us more processor registers to work with. We could use a high order compiler to write code that was actually similar to the English language (JOVIAL). But that upgrade was a HUGE undertaking; probably 18 months of work to get to 1st flight.
Anyway, enough rambling. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
Have a good one,
Mike
-
#1133
by
Jim
on 31 Jan, 2024 13:51
-
. What about the brand-new Starliner? Is there an ISA bus lurking in the computers?
New modern avionics. This is not an upgrade of an existing vehicle.
-
#1134
by
Jim
on 31 Jan, 2024 13:54
-
Pretty clear that issues have commonality across the entire organization, even in what are considered by some to be completely independent divisions.
Forgotten bolts vs forgotten pins. Can you tell the difference?
There is a difference. Spirit Aerospace builds the 737 fuselage, not Boeing
-
#1135
by
Vettedrmr
on 31 Jan, 2024 14:22
-
Pretty clear that issues have commonality across the entire organization, even in what are considered by some to be completely independent divisions.
Forgotten bolts vs forgotten pins. Can you tell the difference?
There is a difference. Spirit Aerospace builds the 737 fuselage, not Boeing
True, but two things: 1. Boeing is still responsible for quality inspections of delivered subassemblies, and 2. Info is coming out that Boeing/Spirit has actually had to remove door plugs during final assembly for whatever reason and neither company inspected the re-work. And while this doesn't have any direct bearing on Starliner, there is a trend across several Boeing divisions (military aviation, commercial aviation, and Starliner) of quality escapes that are costing Boeing its customer confidence, not to mention the $Bs incurred in rework.
-
#1136
by
Coastal Ron
on 31 Jan, 2024 14:55
-
Pretty clear that issues have commonality across the entire organization, even in what are considered by some to be completely independent divisions.
Forgotten bolts vs forgotten pins. Can you tell the difference?
There is a difference. Spirit Aerospace builds the 737 fuselage, not Boeing
I thought there was reporting that this door plug had been removed and reinstalled at the Boeing plant? Anyone else hear that?
-
#1137
by
mn
on 31 Jan, 2024 15:04
-
Pretty clear that issues have commonality across the entire organization, even in what are considered by some to be completely independent divisions.
Forgotten bolts vs forgotten pins. Can you tell the difference?
There is a difference. Spirit Aerospace builds the 737 fuselage, not Boeing
I thought there was reporting that this door plug had been removed and reinstalled at the Boeing plant? Anyone else hear that?
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-not-spirit-mis-installed-piece-that-blew-off-alaska-max-9-jet/Boeing, not Spirit, mis-installed piece that blew off Alaska MAX 9 jet, industry source says
The fuselage panel that blew off an Alaska Airlines jet earlier this month was removed for repair then reinstalled improperly by Boeing mechanics on the Renton final assembly line, a person familiar with the details of the work told The Seattle Times
-
#1138
by
Vettedrmr
on 31 Jan, 2024 15:19
-
I don't want to corrupt the Starliner thread more, but if you want to follow the 737-MAX9 saga in more detail, blancolirio's YT channel does a deeper dive than the headlines:
Have a good one,
Mike
-
#1139
by
meekGee
on 31 Jan, 2024 16:08
-
Pretty clear that issues have commonality across the entire organization, even in what are considered by some to be completely independent divisions.
Forgotten bolts vs forgotten pins. Can you tell the difference?
There is a difference. Spirit Aerospace builds the 737 fuselage, not Boeing
It was Boeing that did (well, didn't do) the final installation of the castellated nut-bolt assemblies, not Spirit.
I am not sure who did the under-torqued bolts that held the door stops to the fuselage.
But it doesn't matter, and that's why this is connected to the Starliner thread. It's the same pattern.
Originally outsourcing was a way to gain efficiency, but it turned into a way to create legal firewalls. Your post is the perfect example: "it wasn't Boeing".
When this is done extensively, what you get is loss of competence, since there's the illusion that someone else is handling it. The door experts, the parachute experts, the valve experts, etc.