The Downfall of a Great American Airplane Company

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Well, to be fair Rip, I think you have a bit more of an insiders insight.  

I just didn't think about the aspects, outside of putting the actual plane together, that could be exported.

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic.  This "Offload road" and globalization began occuring in 1990.  It affected mostly hourly workers...the Engineers didn't give a hoot until THEIR jobs began going overseas...now its a big deal!

[Furball]

thats quite impressive ripdweeb, nice one!  Hope you saw some of that $4m as reward!

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by niknak
You undoubtedly know more about the situation than i do (i don't really have much knowledge of Boeing) it is just that the statements made seem quite alarming and echo some of the worries people express where i work.

Do you believe this was not in fact written, as it was clamied to be, by a Boeing engineer?

Its no doubt that its written by a Boeing engineer. Actually, he'd BETTER be unemployed because some of the information he spoke of above could be considered proprietary information.

And let me go on record to say he makes some very good points.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Furball
thats quite impressive ripdweeb, nice one!  Hope you saw some of that $4m as reward!

Umm, sort of...I was "retained" during a big lay-off.  one of two guys that got a retention in a group of 200 NC Programmers/Toolmakers.  So, my reward was "my job" LOL!
Needless to say, I'm very leary of documenting anything that could be conceived as cost savings to this day.

[gofaster]

A good piece of writing ruined by some obvious ax-grinding:

The former executives of McDonnell-Douglas (which arguably as a company was, in the end, a complete failure in the design and manufacture of commercial aircraft) have taken control of Boeing and seem determined to gut the commercial airplane business - all in the name of "increasing shareholder value".

McDonnell-Douglas did a pretty good job with the DC-10.  The only major crashes I know of were attributed to engine separation due to unauthorize maintenance procedures that damaged wing connection points (O'Hare, 1979) and the other due to engine fan blade separation (Sioux City, 1989) that damaged hydraulics in the tail section.  There was also an incident at LAX where a blown tire caused a DC-10 to skid and burn, killing 2 people. M-D didn't build engines, nor did it build tires. On the other hand, the Boeing 747 suffered corrosion problems in its right wing engine attachment pins that caused at least 2 crashes (El Al cargo 747 in 1992 and a China Airlines cargo 747 in 1991).  In fact, there are 32 known crashes involving Boeing 747s, but only 18 listings for the DC-10.  So I wouldn't call the DC-10 a complete failure.

They are pursuing a strategy of accumulating a network of
"risk-sharing partners" so Boeing can concentrate on its core competency of "large scale systems integration."

If this is Boeing's true business path, then it is on its way out of the airplane manufacturing business and on its way to serving as a consultancy.  "Systems integration" can be done for other manufacturers, too, such as Airbus.

Or, one reason for spreading its ops around the world, other than to get cheap labor, may be to hide its assets against a major lawsuit.  If a claim were brought against Boeing in the US, it could simply file bankruptcy in the US and re-establish its HQ in another country, but retain its international design centers and re-start its business with minimum down time.  While this might be good for the executives, it won't be good for victims' families.

If proof is required, ask yourself: "What is left of McDonnell-Douglas' commercial aircraft business?"

The 717.

I couldn't find any crash info on the 717, though I did find an advisory about premature spoiler metal fatigue.

[mora]

Infact there was one accident involving a Turkish DC-10 which was caused by a cargo door separation but that was caused by failure to follow AD's and SB's:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1974/740303-1.htm

This was the first cargo door incident and it nearly crashed too. There was some incredible flight crew perfomance almost comparable to Sioux City which saved this one:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1972/720612-0.htm

[Chairboy]

386 DC-10s were built.

Over 1,300 747s have been built so far.  

The 747 has flown a few billion more miles then teh DC-10, so the 32 747 crashes compares pretty good compared to the 18 DC-10 crashes, especially when considering how much more time in the air the 747 family has.

[rpm]

Perhaps the trouble lies in Boeing employees playing on the internet when they should be focused on their jobs and productivity. But wait..if they do more work and less play, the job would finish sooner, safer and cost the customer less...we can't have that.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by rpm371
Perhaps the trouble lies in Boeing employees playing on the internet when they should be focused on their jobs and productivity. But wait..if they do more work and less play, the job would finish sooner, safer and cost the customer less...we can't have that.

While I realize it saddens you that I am present to dispell your political myths you post, rest assured that many people are able to multi-task while doing their respective jobs efficiently.  Multi-tasking is obviously something you don't have the skill to do since you feel compelled to make the aforementioned comment.

[rabbidrabbit]

[ due to engine fan blade separation (Sioux City, 1989) that damaged hydraulics in the tail section.  ]


This was due to GE not controlling the production processes in the metalurgy that went into the joining of the disk portions.  My dear ole dad was the one to let FAA in on that detail.  Kudos to him since they found many more disks that were cracked as well.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
While I realize it saddens you that I am present to dispell your political myths you post, rest assured that many people are able to multi-task while doing their respective jobs efficiently.  Multi-taksing is obviously don't have the skill to do since you feel compelled to make the aforementioned comment.

I just wanted to point out not all Boeing employees are taking their jobs serious enough to devote all their attention to it and would rather goof off. Nothing personal. It's like when my employees want to talk on their cell phones. They have 3 breaks per day and can make their calls then. Any emergency calls can be placed thru the office. It's also our corporate policy not to allow personal access to the internet on company time. Both are poor work habits.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by rpm371
I just wanted to point out not all Boeing employees are taking their jobs serious enough to devote all their attention to it and would rather goof off. Nothing personal. It's like when my employees want to talk on their cell phones. They have 3 breaks per day and can make their calls then. Any emergency calls can be placed thru the office. It's also our corporate policy not to allow personal access to the internet on company time. Both are poor work habits.

Why not replace "Boeing" with any corporation?  You think this is inherent strictly to Boeing?

[rpm]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why not replace "Boeing" with any corporation?  You think this is inherent strictly to Boeing?

I agree with you there. Boeing is not the only corporation with sloppy employee work ethics. Ford, Chrysler and GM had a bad problem with it in the 70's & 80's.

[Charon]

I thought it was going to be a post about Curtiss.

Charon

[Yeager]

You work for Boeing rpm?