Try free for 7 days, and get a 60% discount if you join the annual subscription speakly.app.link/mentournow
-----------------------------------------------------
What is happening with the production of Boeing’s 737 MAX? So far this year Boeing has had to deal with at least two separate problems affecting the aircraft, slowing down its production. Why is that, and more importantly, are there any safety concerns here?
In this video, we will answer these questions and explain what these issues have to do with Boeing’s recent history, and with some worries about their future.
Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
• Cowen's Cai von Rumohr...
• Boeing halts some 737 ...
• 737-10 and 777-9 Paris...
• Join Boeing and the In...
• Boeing bringing 737 Ma...
• Airbus inaugurates new...
• Boeing bringing 737 pr...
• Building Boeing’s Next...
• From Wichita to Renton...
• How Boeing Builds a 73...
• Unused Boeing 737 MAX ...
• "The B-47: Pilot's Fam...
• B-52 Factory B-roll, 1...
• Apprenticeships at Spirit
• FAA Administrator Stev...
• Boeing 737 MAX 9 Compl...
• Boeing reiterates 737 ...
• Larger Annular Cutter ...
• AZIMUT: Automated manu...
• Spirit AeroSystems hir...
• Boeing Q&A: Machine le...
• Spirit AeroSystems: 73...
• Boeing 737 Max groundi...
• Boeing faces new defec...
• Boeing to Close Wichit...
• Boeing supplier halts ...
• PAE - Boeing-McDonnell...
• Boeing expected to mov...
• Boeing's 787 Dreamline...
• Boeing leaves Wichita,...
• The A350 XWB Final Ass...
• A220 Wing Factory Tour
• Jobs and industry of t...
• Paradigm Shift: The Ne...
• Air Force's newest ste...
• Spirit AeroSystems Air...
theaircurrent.com/industry-st...
www.reuters.com/business/aero...
theaircurrent.com/industry-st...
Try Speakly free for 7 days, and get a 60% discount if you join the annual subscription speakly.app.link/mentournow
If you have not heard of this, do a google search for the phrase below. “Airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys”. 🤣 This is what some people at The Boeing Company say in relation to 737 MAX! I wonder if the aircraft qualify to be called serial crasher because of MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) or not.🤣 I think this is not the first. Many years ago I came across these videos. This is how Boeing cut corners during the manufacturing of the 737 NG aircrafts. Title: People & Power - On a wing and a prayer Duration: 52:27 Channel: Al Jazeera English @aljazeeraenglish In this video some Boeing employees sell crack and other kind of drugs at the plant. Title: The Boeing 787: Broken Dreams l Al Jazeera Investigations Duration: 48:22 Channel: Al Jazeera English @aljazeeraenglish
Is the MAX unsafe?
@@juliemanarin4127 It depends on what you mean by safe. If you are talking about crashing I will say it is safe based on the fact that I haven't heard about crash in the news or MCAS seizing the controls close to the ground and putting the aircraft in dangerous attitude. Which looks like diving towards the ground based on previous accidents. If you are talking about bugs in the software that manages MCAS then only the people that have access to the source code will be able to tell you. Here is a video related to the 737 MAX. I think you will be able to find more videos on MAX if you look for them including ones made by Boeing employees. Title: Boeing's Fatal Flaw (full documentary) | FRONTLINE Duration: 53:18 Channel: FRONTLINE PBS | Official @frontline
Don't ask me where this thought came from, totally random. Have the airline industry ever considered strategically placed air bags, similar to car air bags, in the passenger/cockpit compartments. Would it be technically viable? (weight, cost, etc). Has it been studied or tried? As random as it is, I find it an interesting thought experiment 🤔
It would be interesting to learn about how well airbags would stand up to being pressure cycled several times per day over several decades of service. More than 10,000 cycles sounds like a lot, but they could be undergone on short haul flights within less than 5 years@@Rachel_M_
"Boeing has an accountant as their CEO while Airbus has a test flight engineer as their CEO. I think that speaks volumes about each company."
Carl Sagan said: “We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster.” and then someone placed an accountant to run Boeing as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. 🤣
Dennis mulinberg was an engineer. Everyone hated him after max disasters. He resigned. Calhoun is next to go...
@@gergister Right. Of Biblical proportions.
An aircraft manufacturer that decides that building their aircraft is a 'non-core operation'. You've got to laugh.
Right? I’d say the fuselage is kind of the core of the aircraft. Bean counters are necessary, but they shouldn’t be completely in charge.
I think they see themselves as a design/development and sales company. But other than the 787 they haven't really done much worthwhile development/design in the last 3 decades.
@@TheDuckofDoom.not even that. The B787 was codesigned. It’s a textbook example globally of obscene amounts of outsourcing.
Maintenance and parts company xD
@@XvonPocalypse Short of straight criminal graft, products are the source of profits. It sounds like someone only listened to half of the lesson.
I was a software engineer at Boeing in Seattle during the '80s. The company was engineering-driven and a national treasure back then. Best, smartest, most well-rounded people I ever worked with. It's sickening to see how it's changed. After HQ moved to Chicago, company executives surrounded themselves with accountants, marketers and lawyers rather than the engineering and production people that were in Seattle.
Some boeing recruiters came to my school, aviation institute, and they made it pretty clear the people they were looking for, were women and non-White hires. Needless to say, if that's their priority with hiring, they're going to fail. This was about 4 years ago
There is a number of US-led corporations who share the same problem - overambitious finance and- sales people prioritizing cost saving internally. These companies lie as large wrecks beside the road in US economical history. I also was working for such a company, - in Germany - I was sad but had to look for another, more sensible company for my own wellbeing.
This is the modern world, unfortunately. People are ignorant to the impact but we're losing so much.
Apologies for that my corrector betrayed me. Stealing is the correct word. Boeing has an office in Brazil just to hire Brazilians engineers from Embraer. This is already a diplomatic situation among USA an Brazil. Happy now??
@@pauloziliani260Are you saying engineers from Brazil are responsible for this or is it your insinuatation that Brazilian engineers are inferior to American engineers? Because if you are, you are wrong and I hope they are better spellers than you.
3 months after this video was released, another structural issue happened on a brand new 737 Max, with part of the fuselage blowing out. 737 Max grounded, again.
I am very curious what will Peter say about it.
It's almost as if Boeing are new to this whole plane building thing.
That’s what happens when you get your expertise from a company who was never good at building planes.
U mean McDonnell Douglas?
McDonnell took over management. Boeing used to be engineer-centric and lead. Now it is wall street led.
@@Aspir3xxindeed. They’ve made some iconic planes like the MD-80 but their management has always been terrible and that has led to disasters like the DC-10. And when they infiltrated Boeing, we all saw how that went down.
That was 25 years ago. How relevant can it still be? Practically everyone there at the time is retired by now.
The biggest mistake of Boeing was not to sell off Spirit, it was to fill itself with financiers, not with engineers. In fact, more than financiers, it seems they ended up full of old horse salesmen. Your excellent presentation shows how they sold off Spirit to make a buck while losing their control over critical engineering issues. And before this, they took the decisions that led to the catastrophe of the 737 Max to save a buck while dismantling a culture of safe engineering that had started at least half a century earlier. The only good thing here is that Spirit is safe from Boeing's corporate raiding executives.
" The only good thing here is that Spirit is safe from Boeing's corporate raiding executives" Well apperently they are not.... otherwise this discussion wouldn't exist. Mixing up bolts can happen, but drilling two holes instead of one is not an opsy shit happens human/system error, that was a consious decision from someone inside of spirit, going against better engineering judgement.
It happens to every successful company eventually. The carrion eaters encircle money and sooner or later - they outnumber the people that care. The Space Launch System is what Boeing have become.
Often this bean counting culture comes from outside. Outfits like pension plans and hedge funds, and mutual funds buy big blocks of stock of a seemingly profitable corporation. This gets them major voting power as share holders and they get their own people on the board of directors. These clowns are looking for big short term profits, not long range engineering stability. They vote financial manipulators and managers into high places and down grade the engineering. It is like the company is hijacked by looters.
Yeah that's true what they care about is money
Greed destroys everything
Now we have a Max 9 with a hole ripped in the fuselage at 16000 feet. Child had to be grabbed by his mother to avoid being sucked out according to reports.
More information just came out about the child, and that is partly correct… however what actually happened is the child’s shirt got sucked out of the plane. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the mother was holding onto the child
Not partly fool completely true
Yep, and the same plane had 3 previous decompression alarms reported, with maintenance scheduled but never done. Then the FAA ordered inspections, and United found other planes with loose screws or connections on the same part.
Don't forget JAL flight 123 ! Boeing 747, pressure bulkhead failure, over 500 fatalities.
There are also rudder system malfunctions reported recently. Yikes.
I would love to see a sequel to this, going over all the new door plug problems :)
This video aged remarkably well, didn't it? "MAX" describes the downtime you should schedule for repairs, one presumes...
@@petergamache5368 The Max has the soul of the DC-10.
@@dkkavanagh17Boeing isn't Boeing anymore. It has become McDonnell Douglas. As for the MAX, it is turning out to be a LEMON. Maybe that's what we should be calling it from now on. The 737 LEMON.
The inspectors may have missed the snowman holes but, the machinist who ran the CNC machine drilling them HAD to know about them. They made a decision to not report them. That is criminal.
I know, right! I wonder how exactly that happens though. Misalignment in relation to the curved shape of the part? Or did the "robot" drilling the holes have a slightly loose bit, or some play in the armature at high torque? Really weird.
Noo clearly not Boeing seem to be able to put proper life’s at risk!! And literally kill us and get away with it shocking
These were my thoughts exactly. If a hole has been drilled twice, someone must know about it.
Sounds like they are just working according Boeing Business Guidelines... They transformed from one of the best businesses in the world to a criminal Mafia organization. Profit is all that matters.
American craftsmanship: make a mistake and try your best to mask it. Never admit a mistake, because American products are the best; besides, you can get fired.
Never let your company be run by bean counters, especially if you are building a technology product.
It's the American way.
Congress, Senate, SCOTUS, etc. are all filled with lawyers and financial consultants. They aren't statesman, they are check signers. And that's it. The fact that lobbying is legal is insane in this country. It's just straight up bribery that's been legalized in the highest adminstration of the country. Pathetic.
@@Nickbaldeagle02it’s human nature.
Good bean counters recognize long term factors and risks. This Boeing problem was part of the general executive culture that started in the 1980s and became popular by the late '90s where those climbing the system realized that the system had a flaw they could exploit. If they moved fast enough they could fake huge short term numbers by consuming company capital assets and reputation then based on that "performance" get a promotion to a different company. Then all of the long term consequences at the first company would fall on someone else. Another form of this is to purchase companies with good reputation, maintain the old product long enough for news of the buyout to be forgotten and sign a bunch of binding wholesale contracts, then switch to cheaply made imports under the premium brand label while maintaining the old premium price. Once the old brand's reputation has been destroyed to the point that the margin has normalized to the actual product they just find another brand to buyout and do it all again.
Just like Rockwell Collins/Collins Aerospace.
The 737 Max. The gift that keeps on giving.
More like the oil leak that keeps on leaking 😂
It should be called the 737 MIN instead. Other alternative names include LEMON, TRASH, CRAP, BIN, DUMP, CRASH, CRASH-PLANE, SHIT-TUBE, etc.
@@tomsmith6513u got that from cars 2 lol
the worst is that it knew all the while that its 737 Max had problems, but it tried to deny it even after a series of terrible accidents. No company, especially of this importance, should be allowed to continue selling defective products around the world.
Boeing builds the safest aircraft in the world... the news media always gets the story wrong. The FAA is responsible for the problems with MCAS.
Well said. Boeing had a chance, when the 8 fell out of the sky, to make necessary changes. They didn't. This is on them and only them. They've proven themselves to worthless at this point and they need to go away. Let a new manufacturer step in and fill the gap.
Since I am in manufacturing, I know that every manufacturer experiments and does research at the expense of customer. Boeing is just doing that.
@@xpsmango4146 That is a very naive and ignorant theory.
@@WilhelmKarsten From a customers point of view, you are right.
As a structural engineer for many years in heavy aircraft maintenance, if I was a major customer like Ryan Air, I would have someone overlooking the production of my aircraft. This is not good enough and quite frankly dangerous!!
This video explains exactly why that is totally impracticable
That's an interesting remark. Long ago someone told me that if an employee working for one of the major automakers bought a car from their company, they were allowed to walk it along the assembly line not only making sure it was being built right but to ask for extra care, such as a second dip in the galvanizing. With cars, that is easily done. As complex as building a commercial jet is, an airline would have to pay a huge salary to attract anyone with the skill to spot assembly errors. That's probably not practical.
Boeing would let me build their planes with a hammer if I could do it cheaper. Nothing but sociopaths at the top that resent spending money on "safety"
@@Inkling777Arthur Hailey, "Wheels".
Many customers have reps that work on site in Boeing factories but it's completely implausible to think that those reps would be involved in every aspect of manufacturing their airplanes given the sheer complexity of building them.
Boeing has irreparably destroyed its decades old reputation with the Boeing 737 Max.
By a supplier issue
@@nickolliver3021Boeing needs to make sure their suppliers give them the correct parts
@@jan-lukas exactly and spirit did not go by that
@@_-Karl-_ nothing to do with 346 people
@@nickolliver3021By having too many cases when one part can down the plane. No redundacy.
The wonders of having MBAs instead of engineers running a company.
very true. The good, successful companies used to be run by an experienced engineer at the helm! German MBB`s CEO (Messerschmitt BölkowBlom) wasn't an engineer but a Blacksmith!! Certainly not having an MBA degree.
My respect to those Boeing and Spirit engineers that are holding on to their work ethics, honestly reported these issues and didn't let these seemingly small issues (but could be potentially catastrophic) pass by.
sh sh sh say what we tell you ex boeing worker
I'm having a disagreement with someone. What is the correct word to describe passengers disembarking a plane? Deboarding or deplaning?
@@ghsuberoI've heard both terms used interchangeably.
Well the route seems to be towards an ex Boeing engineer
Speaking of snowmen holes, when the holes are like 90% overlapping, the situation can be fixed by drilling a slightly larger hole and going with a non-standard very slightly oversized rivet. Which has to be inspected and signed off by an inspector. The scuttlebutt is that at Boeing the inspector's notation is "Lockheed rivet". At Lockheed it's "Boeing rivet". Amusing.
Hahaha! I didn’t know that
True enough, but on something like the bulkhead you have to re-do the engineering and approvals to make sure it's still safe. Aircraft are engineered very close to the line and every change has to be checked.
@@MrSunrise- - as long as the larger hole is factored into the design tolerances of the part from the beginning? then it only needs to be checked for quality.
@@JohnnyWednesdayThis is rework, it can't be factored in from the beginning .
@@johndododoe1411 Rework is expected in manufacturing. A margin for some amount of rework or assembly error is always factored in. This sort of practical consideration is what separates experienced engineers from college kids.
I can't believe they are drilling holes in wrong places. That seems like something that shouldn't happen on a new bike let alone a new plane.
Feels like some of their engineers are working against the company.
@DaleSteel the hole misalignment isn't new. Al Jazeera put out an excellent documentary at least 7 years ago, long before the Max. The Boeing quality inspectors who found the issues at Spirit were sacked by Boeing.
Or something that happens inside the wings of an A380.
I never worked there, so I'm innocent.
300 out of 4000 holes sounds like there is some underlying issue with their machinery or their software, and no adequate quality control.
You really should keep your videos about Boeing and especially the MAX open ended, because every few months, there is a new chapter to add...
I was in sheetmetal for 20 years and we never called them "snowman". We called a misdrilled hole "figure eighted." When working on a big sheetmetal project it is incredibly easy to damage it and have to start over again. Locating holes....piloting them.....step up the hole size. Chip chase every step of the way. Then final ream the holes keeping everything tied down as much as possible to avoid figure eight holes. You can lose edge distance of your holes. You can induce tool damage. Tool marks. All of that unacceptable. I can tell you something worse than a figure eight hole......one that is misdrilled only slightly....by a few thousands of an inch. It WILL elongate over time and it WILL eventually crack or shear the fastener. I worked for a Boeing subcontractor (not Spirit) and all of our training was to Boeing standards. In one video a Boeing instructor admonished us about working on their product by saying: "The customer is buying a NEW aircraft, not a repaired one." Sheetmetal construction and repair is an art form. Those who do it are underpaid.
B737 "Maxx SHORTCUTS"
@@Crunch_dGH You said: "B737 "Maxx SHORTCUTS"" That is not a complete sentence. It says nothing.
I recall a Boeing engineer was fired after she discovered a sub manufacturer in California was building a section of the 737 fuselage incorrectly and instead of correcting it they released her. She and others were interviewed on 60 Minutes Australia after the 737 Max fiasco. Boeing obviously has major issues that are driven by its drive for profits and lack of pride in its product.
I believe she was in fear for her life. The 737 NG must be the worst of the variants. Extremely heavy landings caused the fuselage to break at the areas where the sections were joined. This should never happen. This is what happens when management is that profit driven, that any fault is swept under the carpet .
Looks like Boeing caught the GM disease.
60 Minutes Australia is notable for its exaggeration and misinformation by omission. Many years ago it claimed the Beech Super King was inherently dangerous after one broke up in flight in Australia. 60 Minutes said the wing had failed and had the usual "expert" claiming a design defect. The omission was that the aircraft was pulling at least 8G when it broke up and was intact up to that point. The reason for why the aircraft was in that position was never established but no fault with the aircraft was found. This was a thoroughly investigated crash because the Super King Air was and still is widely used in Australia for aeromedical, charter and at the time regional airline services.
How many activists do they have in managerial positions? It's all about the image not the product.
Sounds fishy to me!
At 8:18... The single biggest mistake Boeing ever made was merging with McDonald Douglas. It has been a race to the bottom ever since!
Should have been a buy of just the hard assets, not a merger. Any cook can tell you if you add a bad ingredient you ruin the whole dish.
also trying to modernise the 737, which was already limited
It was good merging with Mcdonald Douglas. You should tell them it was a big mistake instead of complaining on KZhead
The single biggest mistake you made Juan is your incorrect spelling of McDonnell Douglas.
@@Nickbaldeagle02 Yes, it's McDonald's Douglas, right?
I have worked for Boeing and Spirit in wichita and I have seen many of the changes you talked about and you are right on. We truly strive to make the best products for the costumers. There have been several changes that affect production, sometimes in a good way and others in a bad way. Take "just in time" parts for example. The concept looked good on paper and would save millions in inventory. The reality though was quite different. This caused part shortages from suppliers. Example being instead of making 50 part batches each time they made a part, it was now reduced to 20. The part shortage would drive up travel work in the factory which drives up overtime. Aldo, the parts would usually show up on Fridays. Which means the installers now would have to work the weekend. More overtime $. Just in time parts dosen't make any sense when you have a backlog of plane orders that are over 2000. Just my 2 cents. Keep up the good work.
Forget the humility, Scotttravis, you're the goods and we're all listening!
You can bet among the flaws announced already there are perhaps dozens being concealed. MCAS was a prime example to keep the buyers and pilots from the dark until the fault revealed itself in the two crashes. It is the evil intention of not honest that really put the buyers off.
this ⬆️⬆️👍🏻👍🏻
It's interesting that people can easily understand this, but not when it's Pfizer.
Boeing may have another issue with the trunnion pins in the landing gear. Alaska Airlines had a collapsed landing gear. It was initially blamed on a “hard landing” . But after they looked at the flight data recorder, they determined it was well within limits and not a particularly hard landing. So… the saga of the 737 continues
That will definitely effect Ryanair then.
@@frankowot4and that ain’t even a joke it’s true 😭
Were there any other incidents with 737 trunnion pins?
The G force was not proven to be OK! Those sensors only take samples spaced out in time; they are not intended to find transient spikes between the samples. The rate of descent was recorded in the blackbox but is being withheld
@@marcellkovacs5452 from what I’ve heard online, yes. But I don’t remember the specifics. And you do have to take online info with a grain of salt.
The US as a whole seems to really be into this infinite subcontracting. Even in public projects you find the same mindset of "cutting" costs through subcontractors and it always ends up causing problems with the complexity. A lot of times, if something goes wrong, and in engineering something always goes wrong, that complexity ends up costing even more money.
So true. More effort is made managing the items that have been subcontracted. The savings are lost and worse the skills in those areas tends to be lost as well.
Short term profit. Maintaining the necessary capabilities means continuous investment, subcontract hides the costs of the latter making it appear cheaper.
nothing good comes from subcontractors
Boeing is a private company, only made it because of free market capitalism
The video mentions (but doesn't highlight) the reason why subcontracting is advantageous. If the rear pressure bulkheads were still built in-house by Boeing, they would've had to shut down their entire production line while they tracked down and fixed the problem. But because the part is made by Spirit and two other subcontractors, only Spirit has to shut down their production. Boeing can still source the parts from the two other subcontractors, and keep their production lines running. Redundancy improves uptime. Specialization is what took us out of the stone age. Before then, everyone had to hunt and gather their own food, build their own shelter, make their own clothing and tools, etc. By spinning these tasks off to certain individuals (subcontractors) who could then specialize in making only those items or doing those activities, they could become more skilled at it than someone whose time was distracted by lots of other activities (can do a better job in less time with less effort). And the people who can now trade for those products or jobs gain a lot more time they can use on other activities. That improves productivity. Nearly everything we build and use in our lives today is thanks to specialization / subcontracting. The problem is it's not obvious how much specialization is the right amount. And different jobs can be optimal at different levels of specialization. Should the seamstress make her own cloth bolts and thread? Or is it better for her to buy them pre-made by someone else specialized in making just those? Most of economics is trying out different levels of specialization, and scaling back when things have become too specialized. All to try to get back in that optimal range. If you refuse to accept those occasional failures, you will never find that optimal range. And you will operate ignorant that you are doing so inefficiently.
When I interned at Boeing years ago, I was told that fuselages would routinely come from Wichita with bullet holes because it was a favorite pastime of people in rural parts of Kansas and the other states between there and Washington to shoot the fuselages as they passed by rail. Not sure if it was a true story.
Tis true. Holes are plugged with rivets. Not a big deal.
After latest fuselage issue on the Air Alaska flight, I will never get on a 737 again!
If Boeing could only stop worrying about they’re share price for a minute they might actually be able to keep this plane in the sky.
Thing is, the share price does actually matter a huge amount at the moment. They're deep in debt and borrowing more (they owe $137billion), so that to keep the whole thing afloat they've got to look like a lean, mean, going-places, successful machine. If the share price collapses, suddenly they don't look like that anymore. Boeing probably then can't get more money and probably gets forced to cease trading soon thereafter for want of cash. The chaos of the past few years has at least allowed Boeing to promise "jam tomorrow", and disguises the true financial position of the company. If everything were ticking along smoothly but they were making the losses like they have been over the past four years, the share price would be toast. Everyone is probably assuming that if Boeing can get back to normalcy, everything will be OK. The $137billion questions are 1) can they restore normalcy? 2) will the order book pay off the debt? 3) are there any more surprises on the horizon? My guess is that, having ducked proper, rigorous QC for years, decades, there's a lot of QC skeletons in Boeing's cupboard. My reasoning is as follows. The fact that problems keep emerging "by chance" like this suggests to me that they've not had a wholesale about-turn on QC. If they knew how to do QC properly and had had (post MAX) a thorough review of what they were doing and how well they were doing it, they'd have found all these problems some years ago (and, probably, they'd not have launched MAX in the first place). The fact that they're still finding problems now across their entire product line up means they didn't go looking for them then, and probably aren't actively looking for them now. So the chances are, they've yet not found everything there is to find. The other worrying angle is that they've already announced, no new aircraft until next decade. They're taking a development holiday. Meanwhile, Airbus already has a coherent product line up which has room for growth, tons of cash in the bank, no debt, and is clearly capable of delivering quality aircraft on reliable schedules at profitable prices with few issues. Airbus can afford to out-develop Boeing without breaking into a sweat. Airbus's biggest problem is that with Boeing performing so badly, the pressure for Airbus to keep developing their own line-up is low; how to keep all that talent on tap and competent, when there's no real commercial need to build anything new? Boeing are going to have to work hard just to preserve the market share they've got, never mind regain ground against Airbus.
No one cares, Boeing can EAD @@abarratt8869
If they'd stop worrying about their share price, their share price would go *up* because they wouldn't keep cutting corners.
@@gelatinous6915 I'm not sure about that. If they did stop caring about the share price, perhaps that's an indication of a serious intent to get engineering and product strategy right. To work, they'd need investors who recognise that intent and are willing to go along with it. Thing is, long term investors might look at the debt pile and conclude that they can achieve the same market share by starting a fresh debt free company. The new start up costs are likely cheaper than paying back $137billion. So they'd need long term investors who love the Boeing name.
@@gelatinous6915 Its more complicated than that, but yeah, over long term, this would be ideal, especially with more aircraft production from china and russia. Unfortunately, the board and executive team at Boeing are so far up their own asses, they cant see how much destruction they've caused the company.
Most impressive thing about Boing, is that they continue to disapoint without going out of buisness.
Thats not too hard when youre integrated into the Military/Space Industrial Complex so deep that the only option for the US is to throw Taxpayeer Money at you if your financials start looking bad. And if they keep looking bad, there always will be the next Military or Space contract where noone REALLY expect results (at least noone important) so you just get free government Money. Boeing isnt about building Airplanes or building anything. Its about influencing Voters by creating or removing jobs in key areas, paying Dividends to important Shareholders and keeping control over key elements of the supply chain. Money isnt an Issue.
Everything about the economy is fake. Every big company has ghosts like this.
I say this constantly and will continue to say it, Boeing is only still alive because of the military.
Face it Orville...they make great aircraft and really don't have any problem selling their aircraft to hundreds of airlines. They are beloved by the pilots that fly them. Perhaps you are the one with the problem.
B737 "Maxx SHORTCUTS"
Having worked in production in the aviation industry. I find the fact the work force didn't point these problems out mind blowing considering they were riveting a pressure bulkhead.
A friend of mine works Boeing @ Renton and he said that the floor workers have tried to report but have been quashed by higher up. And when a couple of individuals tried to anonymously report to the FAA the FAA ratted them out to Boeing (so "name" told us your doing this wrong, is that true? And retaliation happened to them, lesson learned by everyone.
They did. Their concerns were downplayed or ignored, in some cases the people who raised their concerns were either placed in different areas or let go.
The sad thing is that both of these problems were obviously known to Spirit, and they kept the information to themselves in order to save money, not knowing (or, apparently, caring) if the problems affected the safety of the aircraft. In the case of the vertical stabilizer, Spirit clearly had the specifications of the fuselage (since they built it), so when it came time to install the fittings to attach the vertical stabilizer, and they couldn't be installed according to specifications, they would have immediately noticed that those two fittings were not manufactured to specifications. A competent company would have rejected the non-conforming fittings rather than altering the installation (which then resulted in the fittings themselves and their installations to be out-of-specifications). In the case of the aft bulkhead, it was Spirit itself that drilled the "snowmen" holes (and, presumably, inspected the work), so they cannot, in ANY reasonable way, claim that they didn't know about the issue.
"Snowmen" is the sort of home DIY mistake that duffers like me make. You don't expect them from a major aircraft manufacturer.
Nobody is blaming the mistake, it's not throwing out the part and starting over that's the problem. Somebody knew it was there and sent it down the line.
14:53 My grandpa worked for McDonnell Douglas for quite a few years, as did many people in our area who live near STL. The stories he has told me about how badly MD screwed over its own employees during the merger with Boeing, was very infuriating to listen to. Not just that but all the times workers like him tried to tell the "higher ups" that planes weren't being built safely (for many different reasons) they were completely ignored by the superiors who only cared about money/profits.
This sums up all of corporate America. It’s not just Boeing/McDonnell Douglas. It’s a corporate culture of “make more money next quarter no matter how you do it.” There’s no satisfaction in status quo, or consistently making a good product and turning a consistent profit. Employees are nothing but a liability and a “resource” to be managed and minimized to maximize efficiency and profits. The mega-corporate “too big to fail” system breeds incompetence. Unfortunately it’s hard to go back from where they are now without taking the country with them.
@@azrailroader the problem isn't just incompetence or 'too big to fail'., but how the 80s changed ideas about investing. Long gone are the days where investors (the ones who really make the decisions) are interested in steady long term profits. The corporate equivalent of house flipping turned out to be much more lucrative, so anyone who didn't play along got out competed for people and companies who did.
@@neeneko I could see that too
I was working for Dow when they took on the Union Carbide acquisition. The UC acquisition almost sunk Dow, who way overpaid for the company. Many Dow employees put in double hours at no pay for 3 years to merge UC into Dow. Then Dow told us we would not get paid for that work. Involved employees raised holy hell about that and Dow ended up paying everyone in the company for that merger. Some shit for brains accountants told Dow the company profit would increase, but that did not happen. Most of the UC plants were shut down.
McDonnell Douglas was the worst! Nothing but contempt for that company and its managerial class.
Hats off to Mentour Pilot for this very informative deep dive into the esoterica of the airplane manufacturing business, an area where most pilots would probably not go!
After watching the hard work that goes into creating and maintaining machines like this, I understand why my old man always said that the stock market is the closest man has gotten yet to alchemy. Creating stupendous amounts of money out of thin air. Humanity always wanted it easy
Hahaha. This is my favorite comment!
Not so fast. I have done my fair bit of prospecting in there. Lost over $30,000. I can conclusively say that it didn’t PAN OUT well for me :)
Lol. Tell that to the Warren Buffet’s and Charlie Munger’s. Actually some others are good. Cathy Wood predicted a rise in oil prices due to the Ukraine situation. My own adviser Mary Elizabeth Huxley also predicted that precious metals will go up during a recession after the pandemic. My portfolio has grown over $400,000 in 8 months so I guess some are better at prospecting stocks than others
Sounds great. I can’t get into Warren’s por,tfolio anyway to see how he does it. Does Mary attend to individual clients or is she institutional
She’s as personal as it can get. Worked in Merrill Lynch and manages private por,tfolios. She’s the best bet if you are looking for something personal. I can't drop her number here but she has a public cntact website where you can reach her
Boeing still proving they can continue to disappoint. It's impressive really.
It does take a certain amount of talent.
Impressive and amusing unless you have to fly on one of their bunkers. I wonder how many snowman holes A jet liner can’t fly with before it comes apart down the road with fatigue failure. We will find out with Boeing, indeed we will!
Waw!!!! Such comments coming from people with no clue of how the aerospace/aviation industry work.
737 Max is a gift that keeps on giving.
... especially for the content creators :)
@@todortodorov940🤣🤣🤣
This video contains a lot of foresight there, and you could almost predict that quality problems were going to crop up, as was evident just last week with the Alaska Airlines flight.
How the Alaskan Airlines 737-9 fuselage failed is beyond imagination.
It's getting to the point now where I'm starting to become nervous to fly any new Boeing aircraft, which I never thought I'd say.
Yep....I have changed from "if it ain't Boeing I ain't going" to "If it's Boeing I ain't going"
The planes designed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s are the ones I want to fly on.
@@ajs41 747 & 757
Yes, and I am thinking of travelling by Ship. Am retired so time does not matter.
@@leonardbenzies6374 I'd say that's the classy way to go, but modern cruise ships are usually a bit like a floating Las Vegas so maybe not!
It’s hard to fathom that any aircraft supplier would possibly machine the snowman holes in such a critical piece. Not without engineering approvals. So there must be a trace history in who did it, when, and who approved it. And more importantly WHY it was put in the machine to bore the holes so incorrectly and how many where done without corrective action required.
I'd thought it was a poorly supported part during machining.
I have seen parts snowmanned by a machine because of improper tack placement (moved a bat up by 2 rows which led to .247 holes (with countersinks) over lapping to the point that it was a figure 8. There are also the parts with predrilled pilots on one side that someone may not know is there. Then they go to drill from the other side and mix the pilot and double hole, edge margin issues, or snowman. Or have an angled hole through a thick stack up and full sized back through straight (working on the skin you drill full size from outside in but pilot inside out) which leads to damaged holes. Qa should have caught this and gotten a dispo from engineering on how to fix it or replace it.
If I remember correctly, Airbus added small surveillance cams to their riveting machines at wing production site. Putting 60000 rivets produced 60000 shorts as camera turned on and off with the machine. QC then may have inspected these videos.
You know it was over for boeing from the moment that traditional US major airliners started operating airbus aircraft... Right there it become obvious that something's not right.
Don’t mention it. It was a huge deal with newspapers shaming Delta when they went with the A330 neo and A350 to replace their old 767 and 747. Apparently, the deal with Boeing fell through and Airbus quickly capitalized on the opportunity to secure and order from a major US airline
@@worldlinerai Thank God. It should have happened years ago but the S goverment kept covering for Boeing.
I don’t know why Boeing when merging with McDonald Douglas’s, a failing airline manufacturer went « Ah, we need to have the same working culture as them, because it worked well for them ». I am a proud European over what airbus has become, but I am saddened to see Boeing falling so low with their 737 max
How were they a failing airline manufacturer? Boeing isn't to blame due to tne Mcdonald Douglas merger
The reason for failing on tne max is due to their supier not producing good quality parts
You're another one. McDonnell Douglas.
McDonnell Douglas made the F-15, F-18 and other military aircrafts. A lot of lucrative government money in making advanced military aircrafts
@@nickolliver3021 If the supplier is not doing a good enough job then Boeing should catch those mistakes and manage them with the supplier.
As a former journeyman industrial machinist (long, long ago) I got a knot in my gut when you described the two separate error types. How the hell did this get past manufacturing inspection - or did the engineers buy off on these nonconformities? Yes, inspections are expensive, but I bet they look a little less so in hindsight.
I am pretty sure they didn´t. I am pretty sure there has been some Non compliances raised either by manufacturing it self or inspectors. but some manager decided to carry for some cost and delay reasons of their own. I bet their bonuses were involved ...
Boeing NDI tech here, assigned to 737 APB program. I was directly involved in the radiology of the aft pressure bulkhead here, and I can say there are a couple inaccuracies in this video, but I can’t say what. Part of this was the drilling. Not snowmen bad, but close. It isn’t a flight safety issue, and more a lifetime of the airframe concern.
@Mentour, your videos are so, so detailed. I think not even National Geographic would manage to do such a good job. Well done! Love watching your videos. A lot to learn from.
This is a great video, but i feel you absolutely need to do an update video addressing the sidewall plug falling out of the 737 MAX 9. Love your work!
I think it's time for Boeing to develop a brand new 737 from scratch at this point.
They could call it the 73.17.
How many screw ups and dangerous shortcuts would they manage in the design of something NEW at this point?
Perhaps refrigerators and washing machines as it's less demanding.
New 757 to include taller gear than 737.
I think it's time for the US to develop a brand new Boeing at this point. That merger with MDD turned the company from engineering-focused to profit-focused, and being profit-focused when you're not a financial management company is a mistake 100% of the time, but it takes JUST long enough to manifest negative results that it ensures the CEOs who caused it can safely retire with a golden parachute, so that's just capitalism working as intended (sarcastic eyeroll).
The worst single plane disaster ever was caused by a badly repaired rear pressure bulk head. These problems are more evidence that boeing are only interested in profits and not safety or quality.
And that JAL Flight 123 747 bulkhead was badly repaired by Boeing, I might add.
@@msmirandagirl ditto that
A few years ago I saw a documentary on YT about building this type of aircraft. Employees who worked for Boeing made striking statements regarding build quality and quality control. One person answered negatively when asked whether he would fly on a Boeing aircraft himself. Very special if the builders already have doubts about what they want.
Thank you for these amazing aviation industry insider videos. It’s fascinating to hear how things work behind the scenes!
You got it right when you pointed out criticism that "Boeing was not properly sharing profits with suppliers." That dates back to the MD management takeover. About twenty years ago when that was happening I had a friend who was in parts acquisition for Boeing's assembly lines. She was starting to hate her job and told me why. Boeing management was requiring her to write letters that said in essence, "This is to notify you that we have been pay $100 for this part. In the future we will pay you $80." Dictated price cuts like that made it hard for those companies, including Spirit, to retain good employees and keep up quality. What we're seeing now is a result of that.
Yeah that's kind of a silly take. Suppliers sign contracts, and whatever profit the contractor makes later is irrelevant to the initial contracts. Every major company fights for the best deals they can with subcontractors. There is not duty to "share" any profits. That's for the shareholders!
@@uclajd "There is not duty to "share" any profits. That's for the shareholders" Aren't ethics important?! Your suppliers will either supply subpar junk or go out of business if you don't value them and pay them properly... Choosing the cheapest supplier and getting subpar parts will just destroy your own reputation. (cough, Volkswagen, BMW, Fiat Chrysler for example).
@@TassieLorenzo LOL ethics. Your ethics are to your shareholders. If a company is competent to make aircraft parts, it should be competent enough to advocate for itself in the contracting process, or it does not belong in business. Capitalism is based on enlightened self-interest, not sharing, you child.
Those bolts in the pressurisation bulkhead were the very culprits of the Japan 123 flihgt crash, after a faulty repair. Now the flaw is even into the new brand production.
They had a much bigger mistake in Japan 123
You are absolutely right 😮
They tend to use blind rivets rather than bolts, and therein lies the problem. The rivet heads hide that ‘pull- through’ events at enlarged holes can occur leaving two parts unsecured. The repair principle requires that replacement rivets are reinstalled with washers positioned on the back side to provide holes of appropriate size to prevent ‘pull-through’ to secure the parts together.
Whilst accepting that Japan 123 situation was more extensive, you do not expect it to be built in to a new plane. So long as the snowmen exist, a repeat of Japan 123 is on the cards… So, we’re back to profits rules safety!
@@andrewbrown6786B737 "Maxx SHORTCUTS"
Fun fact! All of the original batch of Dreamliners from the SC facility had to get sent to other factories to fix them since they were not assembled properly!
You should make one of these new what's wrong with Boeing videos every month
This keeps up, you're going to make me into an Airbus man.
That's his plan.
I'm still a Boeing fan
Boeing is all that is needed to accomplish that
These snowman holes are only not considered a flight security issue until after it becomes one after a bit of wear and material stress. Like when after a catastrophic event it is established that a couple of rivets tore loose, due to the oversized holes.
Wasn’t there a plane that its aft bulk head failed and tore the vertical stabiliser and rudder with it? That was caused by a an improper repair but as you said over time stress will cause it to fail
@@MRTJ434 Yes, I saw that on 'Mayday' and was immediately reminded of that episode.
@@MRTJ434 JAL123, 504 deaths. Worst single aircraft accident ever.
@@stephengrimmer35 thats the one i was thinking of. It’s the typical behaviour in these big corporations make changes when people lose their lives. Soo sad that’s the way it is
That repair was incorrectly done. The book specified like three concentric rows of rivets and they used two. Then again, if the engineers had been more prescient, they might have designed the tail to not blow apart if the aft bulkhead failed.
Another great video Petter. Thank you. I feel like I'm rambling but again very clear and concise presentation of complex issues that are yet to be finalized.
So Add loose door plugs on the max 9 to the problem list, a few days ago Alaskan airlines flight 1282 blew out a door plug at 16000 feet. Investigators found that bolts holding the door plug on were loose. Whole fleet is grounded again
The Max seems to have been the decision of accountants and greedy mangament. It should have been a clean sheet design. Probably would have worked out cheaper in the long run, and be a better aircraft.
I don't know how many times this need to be said, but the Max uses an old frame because airlines wanted Boeing to keep the old frame.
Fair enough
almost the whole problem with the Max is the airlines didnt want to retrain their pilots. So it had to work the same.
You can’t expect investors to wait an extra quarter for millions in profits never going to happen!!! Shortsightedness has killed many companies; blockbuster and Netflix comes to mind
@@lhk7006, No, they kept the old frame design so that they can go through the simpler route in certification of the aircraft and many of the decision made were to reduce the cost of recertification the aircraft and the pilots. It was idea sold to the airline by Boeing.
The Everett plant is still served by a rail spur that goes directly into the facility. The rail line that serves the Renton plant is still completely active on its southern end and is the way Renton receives its "cigars" (fuselages). In fact, the BNSF trains from Wichita carrying the Renton fuselages often stop at Mukilteo in order to drop the cars with 777 parts. In other words, dropping a 737 fuselage for Everett is actually already on the train's route, and shaves about 30 miles off the distance it travels from Wichita. A test train carrying 737 fuselages has already been run "up the hill" in order to help set-up the logistics for the new assembly line. The P-8 is assembled in Renton, and then flown to the Thompson Site at Boeing Field for final assembly and electronics installation.
I ride my mountain bike along the rail road route from Mukilteo/Edgewater Park to the factory. You're absolutely correct - I've seen a couple of 737s parked at the west side of the factory.
I once visited that plant in Witchita Kansas. It was (then) the home of the Boeing Military Airplane Company, and it was right across the street from McConnell Air Force Base -- a major military installation. I walked into a huge room with rows and rows of desks where engineers worked. This was in the mid 1980s and I was meeting with some engineers who were dealing with a computer on the planes that displayed information, (flight plans and locations of weather stations, etc.) for the flight crews.
With how Boeing handled the original Max8 issue, I simply don't trust them to not try and hide any future issues.
I recall a Japanese aircraft which had a tail strike which required a repair of the bulkhead. The repair wasn't well made, and the bulkhead failed much earlier than the 50K pressurisation cycles, while the aircraft was flying, and ended into the side of a mountain. Are we sure that the oval-shaped holes can be fixed without negative effects for all the lifetime of the aircraft? Thank you Mentor Pilot. Greetings Anthony PS.: I don't like the closing jingle. Not that is important, it's just my opinion...
JAL 123
I've watched way too many videos where the flaw that caused the crash was not easily seen in routine maintenance or inspection. An aft pressure bulkhead failure is the stuff of nightmares.
Yeah JAL123, a 747 with 500 people on board. The bulkhead blew out and took out all four hydraulic systems, the pilots tried to keep it in the air as long as they could but ultimately it crashed, the mechanic that made the repair killed himself even though it was done years earlier.
jal 123, the root cause was a faulty repair after a tailstrike made years earlier
@@fuzzy1dk Yep. And JAL weren't sure that their own people where up to the job so they paid out for a Boeing team to fly to Japan and do the work. For all the good that did.
Can't say I've ever come across a Boeing supplier, myself included, who was happy working with them.
What is your business with Boeing?
he's prolly a janitor at a tier 2 or 3 supplier lmao certainly not a t1. @@Dirk-van-den-Berg
Back in the 1970's, it was great to work with them. They had some very impressive engineers. Worked for a machine tool builder supplying FabDiv.
I can imagine. Boeing practically had a monopoly on planes for longhaul. In 1996 I was on holiday on the westcoast, and visited the plant in Everett. Little did I know about the starting competition between Boeing and the emerging Airbus. @@SteamCrane
When Spirit was building wings for Gulfstream, one wing was delivered with an error 1/4", or about 6 mm. Gulfstream now builds their own wings.
You know the executives at the airlines know that their 1/4" thick aluminum airplanes can't penetrate a 2" inch thick iron plate skyscraper. Some concessions were made 20 years ago to keep the piece with them and that we are beginning to see the side effects of such now. No oversite. Only on paper.
Sub-contracting is a big problem in the industry. No matter how carefully you check the workpieces, there are always opportunities to mess up.
I always said that the 737 Max, was like Boeing's version of the DC-10. They should have shut down production of the 737 Max and stuck with their "Golden girl" , the 757. That was a near perfect aircraft. Will never understand why they didn't stay with it.
A friend of mine is a retired pilot for AA and flew the 707, 727, 757 and 767. I asked him which one was his favorite and he said it was hands down the 757
Because of Southwest Airlines.
My thoughts exactly.
The 757 was a great and frankly beautiful aircraft. But it came down to bean counting. The 737-800 could carry about as many passengers as a 757-200. The 737 burned much less fuel and thus was far cheaper to operate by the airline customers. But yes, the pilots loved the 757. I did too.
used to work there agree 99.8 % the 767 was a great plane to but still going to miss the Queen of the sky's (757 single isle 767 double isle same plane almost )
It's funny how you mention Aerostructures in Hamble, (noe GE of course) as I used to work there quite a few years ago. I used to repair the Aircraft Manufacturing Tools, which were mainly Riveters and Drills for obvious reasons..... It was quite an experience and I used to love walking around the complex seeing how things were manufactured. I also had to along with colleagues test and set "Hand/Arm Vibration" Regs on certain tools. it was just strange hearing the name "Aerostructures".... Thanks.
Interesting report. Thanks! I live close to Everett and the rail lines. I have seen fuselage shipments pass by recently, so I believe there are still Everett to Renton rail shipments. Perhaps you meant that there used to be a dedicated rail line.
At the beginning of the video you said you would cover why Airbus did a 180 on subcontracting some of its production. From the Boeing side we’ve seen lots of things go wrong, so I’d love to hear more about that Airbus perspective.
@19:10
Hi Petter. I don't understand how its ruled out that these issues are not present in airplanes currently flying in the air. Could you please explain a bit more? I have friends using the MAX 8 regularly and these production mistakes are quite furious to say the least
No they're saying it's not an immediate safety concern for currently flying aircraft, presumably based on engineering analysis, meaning they still need to remediate the problem but they don't have to ground these planes until they are fixed.
It's something like a component originally rated to 200% of flight load can only handle 180% because of the mistakes. So it needs to be fixed, but not urgently.
I think he’s saying it’s not an immediate safety concern which it’s not.
They’re just waiting for a couple of them to drop down and kill a few hundred.
My home airport is Renton - where the 737s get built. It makes me sad every time they have issues because it’s actually very cool to see the planes take their first flights. It’s less cool though when you know it’s starting to become a criticized / problematic plane. I once had one hold short for me as I approached to land in a 172 haha.
The C17 was plagued. Problems solved and it is the star of the Air Force.
Good video. We should be grateful for the inspectors at Boeing who found the snowmen. I found myself thinking of that Japanese B747 crash. Spirit? I had never heard of it.
The McDonnell Douglas board members who led the DC10 disasters have now posioned Boing as well. It's a real shame
@@arisnotheles Read the book Destination Disaster for a little background on the MD management style of the 1970's that sadly has been implemented at Boeing
@@arisnotheles but the current Boeing management is from the McDonnell Douglas Beancounter school. Boeing was drawing a world-class talent and serving their customers quite well from Seattle where the planes were built. Then McDonald Douglas moved to Chicago because United was one of their biggest customers and they wanted to be close. Then United started buying airbus. Now they moved it to Northern Virginia because it’s close to world-class talent. It actually is because it’s cheaper. Bean counters. They built plants in the south because they weren’t union. Saves money. There was an Aljareeza documentary where some of the workers building the planes in South Carolina said they wouldn’t fly on one. That’s why the merger with McDonell Douglas was a single, biggest mistake Boeing ever made.
A few years ago I flew my Musketeer in to Renton. The ground controller told me to taxi to the FBO "past the 737s", but that didn't exactly narrow it down so I pleaded "unfamiliar!" and asked for progressive taxi.
Loved the video! So informative and interesting. Thank you for shedding the light on such “behind the scenes” operations and challenges that Boeing is facing. I hope it ends up well and keep the beloved 737MAX safe airplane.
>the beloved 737MAX Lolwut, beloved by who? lmao
@@hadesflames oh you pissed off because of “beloved”!! Well it meant the B737 in general as it’s considered a very reliable aircraft! If that’s making sense to simple minded people!!!
Very informative video. Great work! Thank you.
Worrying for Max8 aircraft in service. My main concerns are how many Sprint made bulkheads are currently flying around with elongated “snowmen” holes, and even more concerning is what is their pressure cycle to failure, ie. how many take off and landings and flight hours logged at high pressure? Thanks for clearly explaining these issues which I had only vaguely heard about previously.
reminds me of what happened to the china airways plane with he bulk head repair
@@wayneandrews9298 Japan Airlines wasn't it?
@@jambon7681 eeerrrmmm , i think we are both right ,, china airlines 611 did suffer a catastrophic failure & split apart & crashed & yes it was the japan airlines flight 123 that suffered the catastrophic failure when the the bulkhead gave in ,, very similar but of course very different ...
I’m not a financial expert by any means, but it seems to me that this whole RONA thing only works if those divisions produce different products. If what a division is producing is core to your own company’s product, you would think that that was maybe more important than the fact it made less money? Maybe your profits in other areas are because this department exists? And if you spin off the department into its own company, not only do you lose precise control, but it also has its own complete management structure which will make it less aligned with you and more expensive
Yeah exactly, if your other products are fundamentally reliant on it then the theory doesn't make nearly as much sense. An example of this that always gets to me is when some penny-pinching government cuts its rail service to small towns in the middle of nowhere. Sure, maybe the line didn't turn much or any of a profit, but if I can't get to the nearest major city then the fancy high-speed line passing by there that they keep bragging about is fucking useless.
True, internal cost allocation is a stupid idea brought into big companies. Every year, something is shuffled (e.g. switch from an expensive component to a cheap one) by the customer departments to save costs. But as these costs are driven mainly by fixed costs e.g. personnel, next year these costs will be allocated to the remaining or other parts of the equation😂 Outsourcing of important „components“ of the whole operation pipeline in most cases leads to costs which are just written on another page of the same financial statement. Only sometimes costs can be transferred to employees or the customer or society, but that‘s actually a bad thing.
Well, this particular video was just, not to put too fine a point on it, bloody excellent. Thanks Mentour!
And today we even have newer problems ...
Boeing management is so good it chased Bombardier into the arms of Airbus and the Canadian military's fighter procurement to Lockheed Martin.
They also blew a buyout of Brazils succesfull Embraer
It's too bad we live in a world where a board of directors can decided to add systems to a plane that malfunction, killing people, then cover it up and face NO criminal liability.
that is because the corporations ARE the government.
You are absolutely right 😮😮😮
True
Could all this fitment issues and bolt misalignemnts be also an issue for the 737 MAX 9 emergency exit door on the alaskan airlines fligth? Asking since the emergency door was sealed in place and never meant to open with this aircraft
It looks like the latest accident is related to this snowman defect. The aircraft actually suffered pressure issues prior to fuselage explosion. It's not a simple bolt issue, so all 737 max airplanes should be grounded until a permanent solution is found.
I grew up in Wichita. It was then known as the Air Capital of the World - what with many aerospace legacies there, such as the aforementioned Boeing, and also Cessna (where I did my first ground school lessons in high school), Beechcraft, Learjet, et al~ Fun times!
A guy I'd once worked with had been with Toyota manufacturing in Buffalo, WV for many years before deciding to take an early retirement. In the beginning, he said, Japanese engineers were on-site overseeing every aspect of production. Included in their oversight was how easily everyone involved with the assembling of engines built there performed their duties. It was vital to the Japanese that personnel could do their jobs as effectively and easily as possible. Once they'd ironed out the kinks, they returned to Japan. In their places were installed American management personnel. I asked him if he liked working for the Japanese or their American counterparts. He preferred the Japanese engineers because they truly did care how worked flowed and quality was maintained through all phases of manufacture. The Americans, he said, couldn't have cared less about anyone there; that all they were interested in was getting engines out the door. I believed him.
Thanks for sharing this story. I feel that these Americans really need to be more humble and learn from other people. Sloppy everyday a little bit will eventually snowball to a catastrophic issue.
Manufacture in America they said!
Great to hear a reasoned discussion about the Max,most media seems to go for the sensational and not the facts! Thanks
For some reasons, this kind of pattern reminds me of stories I've heard with Airbus. My family comes from a rural area in France around Meaulte/Albert. Historically this has been the home of Potez, so, even if rural, this area has a long aviation history, (there is even a Potez 36 hanged off the ceiling of the Albert train station). Now days it an Airbus site. But a few years back, Airbus tried to make this location a subcontractor (splitting it into Aerolia). It seems they have been reverting this trend back a bit, but I'm still kind of worried about it (if it was to shutdown or even just scale down, the social impact would be huge for the area).
Why is it that every project Boeing is involved with has gone to hell because of bad management? Does anyone know if these managers are the same ones responsible for their space devision? The starliner is delayed indefinitely now and Boeing are getting sued for cutting corners on the Artemis SLS core stage which resulted in the loss of many ride-share satellites.
Not sure if this problem caused by spirit is due to Boeing management. Seems like a Spirit cover-up at the manufacturing level.
To be honest, I would be amazed if they were the same managers. The company culture, however, could certainly be to blame. Boeing has certainly been a massive disappointment in many areas recently.
This is an excellent presentation. Thank you for doing the research into this situation and telling it like it is.
an outstanding explanation of all the different facets and intricacies affecting Boeing at the moment....
10% of the holes are "snowman" holes... that is quite a high error rate....especially if by chance group together. And if the rear bulkhead goes. it often takes out the hydraulics controlling the rears stabilizer, rendering the airplane almost unflyable
I'd like to know why the FAA determined that the elongated holes on the pressure bulkhead aren't a safety issue.
$$$$$$$
summer intern decision, the FAA and FDA should be combined
In last 7 years I flew in Boeing only once and most airlines had Airbus planes here. Now that airlines started ordering Boeing planes after they solved their 737max issues they are still facing inconsistency in production. Also this creates second thoughts in my mind.
I flew on a Max8 the other day for the first time. I can confirm that I survived.
346 did not
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going ! 😮
@@bartsolari5035 😔 I know. It's terrible but can we name a plane that hasn't had any incidents?
I like the way you explain every thing. Very interesting all of your videos, because I remain hooked up to the stories and your knowledge, is supreme !! And now, you are starting to speak Castillian or Castellano, not Spanish, muy bien amigo !!!