Boeing Being Boeing

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

Watch for Updates Twice a Week

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

gubbyduffer

Can't Leave
May 25, 2021
495
1,610
Peebles, Scottish Borders
The first powered human flight at Kitty Hawk (three hundred feet on a fabric-covered wooden kite w/12 horsepower gasoline motor) to men going 25,000 miles per hour to the Moon and back---and walking around on it while they were there---took 66 years.

From that day until now has been almost as long: 55 years

The laws of physics didn't change in those 55 years, mathematics didn't change, the properties of metals and chemical elements didn't change, the principles of education didn't change, and human DNA didn't change.

The only variable that COULD have changed was what's considered acceptable educational (pre-job) performance, and on-the-job performance after the fact.

Put another way, getting work done RIGHT became secondary to other considerations.

Whether or not those responsible truly understood that the Natural World is inviolately rigid, has no feelings, and is not subjective is a good question.

That historically significant, world-class companies once capable of engineering magic can be destroyed by employees who either didn't understand that, or didn't care, was never in doubt.

Which makes the essential question: How did they get in?
I know the point you are making here, by attempting to carefully skirt around it.

You are of the opinion that in the halcyon days of the first half of the 20th century, the pioneers of aviation and space flight were men's men with balls of steel, who clutched a bald Eagle in one hand, a copy of the King James Bible in the other, and chomped on a cigar, whilst launching into the air on either a bicycle with wings, or a phallic shaped rocket carrying tonnes of explosive material.

What, you would like to believe has gone wrong with companies like Boeing, is that their workforce is made up of 'nancy boys' like Joe, who wants to be called Josephine. Joe fits window seals, but doesn't do it properly because he fears breaking a nail. Or lesbian metal worker Hilary, who loves animals and eating tofu. She once had a bad day machining door pillars, because she was angry at the lack of vegan options on the staff canteen menu.

In truth, it's nonsense. You seem to think the aviation has been stagnant or gone backwards in the last 55 years. In fact, modern employees, who have 'feelings' have made the aviation industry the safest form of mass travel. Safety records have improved every decade since the 1950's. In 1969 air travel was for the privileged few. Now, in the developed world its available to almost everyone.

Customers today have high standards, and rightfully so. I do think in part a media frenzy is gunning for Boeing, but they don't help themselves, and have serious issues.

Comparing to Airbus, Boeing are being outperformed by a company that is largely government owned, where employees have far greater rights around their working contract, more rights around discipline and firing, decent paid annual leave, statutory sick pay, paid paternity leave, longer maternity leave. Also, stronger unions and work councils enshrined in law, where employees can raise concerns with senior management.

This is what thinking about people's feelings looks like in a work environment, and it appears to be successful.

Boeing, has spent vast sums of money lobbying government to reduce safety regulations and red tape for a competitive advantage, and its worryingly cosy relationship with the regulators is the result. Bean counters sought these changes to line the pockets of shareholders.

If you think a return to the spirit of those tough grizzled aviation pioneers, for whom education was the experience of the school of hard knocks, or a back handed slap to the chops, is going to improve Boeings fortunes then think again!
 

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
6,087
16,684
You're putting words in my mouth. Lots of them. rotf

Let me try again using the fewest words possible:

All that matters is results.

And the results aren't there---by definition---or Boeing wouldn't be in its present situation.
 

pappymac

Lifer
Feb 26, 2015
3,566
5,059
Slidell, LA
The first powered human flight at Kitty Hawk (three hundred feet on a fabric-covered wooden kite w/12 horsepower gasoline motor) to men going 25,000 miles per hour to the Moon and back---and walking around on it while they were there---took 66 years.

From that day until now has been almost as long: 55 years

The laws of physics didn't change in those 55 years, mathematics didn't change, the properties of metals and chemical elements didn't change, the principles of education didn't change, and human DNA didn't change.

The only variable that COULD have changed was what's considered acceptable educational (pre-job) performance, and on-the-job performance after the fact.

Put another way, getting work done RIGHT became secondary to other considerations.

Whether or not those responsible truly understood that the Natural World is inviolately rigid, has no feelings, and is not subjective is a good question.

That historically significant, world-class companies once capable of engineering magic can be destroyed by employees who either didn't understand that, or didn't care, was never in doubt.

Which makes the essential question: How did they get in?
I would only disagree with "the principles of education didn't change" because I feel the principles started to change in the late 1960s when colleges and universities started becoming hotbeds for political activitists. While I tend to agree with some of the political protests that have occurred since the Vietnam war protests, I disagree with many more.

I also think the "quality" of a college education has suffered over the years as the number of fields of study has increased. Just look at the rising student loan debt because of people who go to school for four years and graduate with degrees that doesn't have a viable career path.

Rant over.
 

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
6,087
16,684
I would only disagree with "the principles of education didn't change" because I feel the principles started to change in the late 1960s when colleges and universities started becoming hotbeds for political activitists. While I tend to agree with some of the political protests that have occurred since the Vietnam war protests, I disagree with many more.

I also think the "quality" of a college education has suffered over the years as the number of fields of study has increased. Just look at the rising student loan debt because of people who go to school for four years and graduate with degrees that doesn't have a viable career path.

Rant over.

100% agree ^^^^

Clarification --- By "principles of education not changing" I was referring to the way a human brain acquires and retains information in biological terms, not the administrative methods implemented to (try to) cause those things to happen. The latter has changed massively over the past sixty(ish) years.
 

renfield

Lifer
Oct 16, 2011
5,183
42,496
Kansas
The one common cause I've seen in the ruination of companies is when outsiders replace founders. The "outsiders" are supposedly blessed with better business sense, even when they neither know nor care anything about the busines they're in.

This leads to pushing the easy, quick or short term thing, instead of the right thing.

They get away with it for a while but inevitably physical laws and human nature catch up.
 

sardonicus87

Lifer
Jun 28, 2022
1,394
14,194
37
Lower Alabama
The one common cause I've seen in the ruination of companies is when outsiders replace founders. The "outsiders" are supposedly blessed with better business sense, even when they neither know nor care anything about the busines they're in.

This leads to pushing the easy, quick or short term thing, instead of the right thing.

They get away with it for a while but inevitably physical laws and human nature catch up.
Most quality drop is from this.

Money these days is in buying a company and then flipping it. Huge corporations with greedy board of directors buy a company, cut the workforce in half, force the use of cheaper materials, do anything to make it look better on paper and chase short-term profit gains at the expense of long-term health, then sell before it tanks in value, then move on to another company to buy up.

Research gets sacked, employee hours go up, employee pay goes down. The people actually doing the work are demanded to increase productivity despite a slashed workforce and end up producing at a lower quality as a result thanks largely in part to burn-out or rushed production deadlines.

And nobody outside the C-suite that actually does the work has any say in the matter.

The people causing the problems didn't get hired into the company, they bought the company and changed the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lraisch

gubbyduffer

Can't Leave
May 25, 2021
495
1,610
Peebles, Scottish Borders
100% agree ^^^^

Clarification --- By "principles of education not changing" I was referring to the way a human brain acquires and retains information in biological terms, not the administrative methods implemented to (try to) cause those things to happen. The latter has changed massively over the past sixty(ish) years.
Political activism at universities isn't the cause of Boeings problems. Here is a picture from the famous left wing student riots in Paris in 1968, two years before the foundation of Airbus. Perhaps some of the people in the picture went on to become Airbus employees.
1000018585.jpg
Increased fields of study, dead end degrees, activism and student debts, and the commercialisation of education are not the sole domain of America, yet Airbus seems to be doing okay.
The problem as I see it is one of culture. I don't think safety is often a top concern when American companies bring products to market. Consideration of safety is perceived to add cost and hassle which hampers innovation and reduces the dividends to share holders. I may be wrong, however I imagine European legal safety standards in most areas relating to engineering are more stringent than in America.
Engineering issues such as parts dropping from planes, bridges collapsing like a pack of cards, treadmills maiming toddlers, and hideous cybertruck trunks with the ability to crush fingers, are not caused by brick throwing idealist university students.
 

gubbyduffer

Can't Leave
May 25, 2021
495
1,610
Peebles, Scottish Borders
Whether or not those responsible truly understood that the Natural World is inviolately rigid, has no feelings, and is not subjective is a good question.
This made me laugh. I cant believe that anyone can think Boeings systemic engineering failings are caused by individuals unawareness of the indifferent apathy of the natural world. Perhaps aviation safety could be improved following team bonding activities, where employees are forced to watch David Attenborough documentaries showing clever orcas knocking grey seals from ice floes before devouring them.

Sorry, I am only jesting. I know the serious point you are actually making here is that the reason Boeing have safety issues is that they are the only aeronautical manufacturer hiring employees that think its okay for men to call themselves she or them!
 

sablebrush52

The Bard Of Barlings
Jun 15, 2013
20,984
50,241
Southern Oregon
jrs457.wixsite.com
In one of the earlier posts the suggestion was made that Boeing’s issues were related to the pursuit of diversity in hiring, one of the favorite propaganda themes. Propaganda takes outliers and declares them to be core practices. An uncritical audience accepts the propaganda as truth.
In this instance the “truth” is that diversity is the only thing that matters and that nothing else, including competence, is considered. This is illogical nonsense.
But it serves to feed grievances, which is the popular purpose of the day. Do people get advanced because they aren’t vanilla and for no other reason? Sure. Is that the vast majority? No.
People got advanced because they were related to the boss, or were members of the right fraternity, were good in the sack, or a whole host of other reasons having nothing to do with competency without becoming the focus of a propagandistic campaign. Why is that?
I have no issue with diversity as long as it doesn’t supersede competence. Talent is where you find it.
The problem has been doors closed to qualified people who weren’t vanilla.
I experienced that myself when I worked at Disney at the beginning of my “illustrious” career, being referred to, out of earshot as “that damned Jew boy” by some of the upper management. I ignored it and focused on doing a damned good job with the final result that my adversaries became supporters and my chief antagonist apologized to me for the shit he put me through.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn about anyone who joins my team except that they are good at what they do, and know how to play well with others in the sandbox. And if anyone has a problem with that it’s their problem.
 

gubbyduffer

Can't Leave
May 25, 2021
495
1,610
Peebles, Scottish Borders
In one of the earlier posts the suggestion was made that Boeing’s issues were related to the pursuit of diversity in hiring, one of the favorite propaganda themes. Propaganda takes outliers and declares them to be core practices. An uncritical audience accepts the propaganda as truth.
In this instance the “truth” is that diversity is the only thing that matters and that nothing else, including competence, is considered. This is illogical nonsense.
But it serves to feed grievances, which is the popular purpose of the day. Do people get advanced because they aren’t vanilla and for no other reason? Sure. Is that the vast majority? No.
People got advanced because they were related to the boss, or were members of the right fraternity, were good in the sack, or a whole host of other reasons having nothing to do with competency without becoming the focus of a propagandistic campaign. Why is that?
I have no issue with diversity as long as it doesn’t supersede competence. Talent is where you find it.
The problem has been doors closed to qualified people who weren’t vanilla.
I experienced that myself when I worked at Disney at the beginning of my “illustrious” career, being referred to, out of earshot as “that damned Jew boy” by some of the upper management. I ignored it and focused on doing a damned good job with the final result that my adversaries became supporters and my chief antagonist apologized to me for the shit he put me through.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn about anyone who joins my team except that they are good at what they do, and know how to play well with others in the sandbox. And if anyone has a problem with that it’s their problem.
Well said sablebrush. I just read through my post again. The second paragraph is I tended to be as tongue in cheek as the first though mat not appear that way when read. With hindsight I would have put 'serious' in inverted commas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sablebrush52

lraisch

Part of the Furniture Now
Jul 4, 2011
734
1,529
Granite Falls, Washington state
I don't work for Boeing and I have no reason to defend them, especially as they have unquestionably screwed up.

I do think having a CEO who is an admirer of Jack Welch, who moves management across the country and people who think it's better to relocate much of their manufacturing to companies in "right to work" states are a big part of the problem.

As for the 737 Max 8 issue. That seems to be a sales and management problem. Design a plane low enough that you can use airstairs to board it and then try and fit larger engines? Sure, just add a little software fix. Then sell it to the airlines and tell them "See, no expensive training required". So what if a single sensor can cause it to fail?
 

pappymac

Lifer
Feb 26, 2015
3,566
5,059
Slidell, LA
100% agree ^^^^

Clarification --- By "principles of education not changing" I was referring to the way a human brain acquires and retains information in biological terms, not the administrative methods implemented to (try to) cause those things to happen. The latter has changed massively over the past sixty(ish) years.
I understand what you mean now.
 

pappymac

Lifer
Feb 26, 2015
3,566
5,059
Slidell, LA
In one of the earlier posts the suggestion was made that Boeing’s issues were related to the pursuit of diversity in hiring, one of the favorite propaganda themes. Propaganda takes outliers and declares them to be core practices. An uncritical audience accepts the propaganda as truth.
In this instance the “truth” is that diversity is the only thing that matters and that nothing else, including competence, is considered. This is illogical nonsense.
But it serves to feed grievances, which is the popular purpose of the day. Do people get advanced because they aren’t vanilla and for no other reason? Sure. Is that the vast majority? No.
People got advanced because they were related to the boss, or were members of the right fraternity, were good in the sack, or a whole host of other reasons having nothing to do with competency without becoming the focus of a propagandistic campaign. Why is that?
I have no issue with diversity as long as it doesn’t supersede competence. Talent is where you find it.
The problem has been doors closed to qualified people who weren’t vanilla.
I experienced that myself when I worked at Disney at the beginning of my “illustrious” career, being referred to, out of earshot as “that damned Jew boy” by some of the upper management. I ignored it and focused on doing a damned good job with the final result that my adversaries became supporters and my chief antagonist apologized to me for the shit he put me through.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn about anyone who joins my team except that they are good at what they do, and know how to play well with others in the sandbox. And if anyone has a problem with that it’s their problem.
I've been watching "How Disney Built America" on the not-so-much History channel.

In the last 12 years of my Coast Guard career, as I grew into leadership positions, I operated on the premise of "I don't care what you do in your private life as long as you do your job" - with the exceptions of doing something illegal.
 

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
6,087
16,684
I have no issue with diversity as long as it doesn’t supersede competence. Talent is where you find it.
The problem has been doors closed to qualified people who weren’t vanilla.

Exactly so.

The problem happens 1) when the bar is lowered to reach percentage-of-the-workforce goals; and 2) the product being manufactured is a commercial airliner, military fighter jet, or space ship.

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and all that, but the most high tech stuff in the the national pantry makes for some mighty big eggs.
 

AJL67

Lifer
May 26, 2022
5,491
28,121
Florida - Space Coast
Once again Boeing fails to launch, 4+ years behind schedule and counting. No big deal just the launch computer shutting it all down, no reason given at this time. For the record Boeing got 4.2 BILLION dollars from the federal gov for this program failure.

This is what happens when you have your software done "offshore" by the cheapest company you can find, same with the Max software that ended up killing hundreds of people. But hey at least before the scrub today they got a chance to talk about their DEI initiatives and how 50% of the ground support were females and people of color, then 30 minutes later it was scrubbed yet again LOL

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jpberg

daveinlax

Charter Member
May 5, 2009
2,109
3,085
WISCONSIN
Just watched the Starliner launch and saw very little diversity in the shots from the ULA, Boeing and NASA control rooms.