Is Boeing Doomed?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 май 2024
- Sign up for NordVPN and get an 4 EXTRA months using our link: www.NordVPN.com/TLDR
For decades, Boeing and Airbus have been dominating the plane market, but the recent issues with Boeing seemed to have pull Airbus ahead. So, in this video, we're going to take a look at the rivalry, the various problems afflicting Boeing, and whether this could be the beginning of the end for the aviation giant.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
1 - www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...
2 - Robison, P. (2022). Flying blind: The 737 MAX tragedy and the Fall of Boeing.
3 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-5...
4 - news.sky.com/story/boeing-737...
5 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-c...
6 - www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
7 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-6...
8 - www.economist.com/business/20...
9 - www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ho...
10 - www.ft.com/content/15cad233-9...
11 - www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...
12 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-6...
13 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-6...
14 - www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art...
15 - www.seattletimes.com/business...
16 - edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/bu...
17 - edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/po...
18 - www.statista.com/chart/20660/...
19 - www.ft.com/content/1d6aa5bb-b...
20 - www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art...
21 - edition.cnn.com/2023/04/26/bu...
22 - Robison, P. (2022). Flying blind: The 737 MAX tragedy and the Fall of Boeing.
23 - www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/bu...
24 - www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat...
25 - www.wsj.com/business/airlines...
26 - Robison, P. (2022). Flying blind: The 737 MAX tragedy and the Fall of Boeing.
27 - www.ft.com/content/1d6aa5bb-b...
28 - www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-incr...
29 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-6...
30 - www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ho...
31 - www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/bu...
32 - www.ft.com/content/1d6aa5bb-b...
33 - edition.cnn.com/2023/04/06/bu...
34 - www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art...
35 - www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art...
36 - www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art...
37 - www.economist.com/business/20...
00:00 - Introduction
01:15 - Boeing's Plane Problems
04:44 - Boeing's Relationship with Regulators
06:09 - How (Geo)politics has Hurt Boeing
07:27 - Sponsored Content
CORRECTION: As eagle-eyed viewers have pointed out, at 2:12 the text on screen says "MACS" when we're talking about the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS (pronounced “M-CAS”). Apologies for this error - we hope you nonetheless enjoyed the video!
TBTF - Too big to fail
also the door supplier is "Spirit Aero systems" not Sprint
Oh non, not another eagle eyed grammer nazi.
Correction - Boeing are retrofitting two B747-8's that were for transaero. they arent building one specially.
Please consider putting in place proofreading steps to catch those errors which reduce significantly the perception of quality of your final product. I understand RUclips does not make your job easier by not allowing to fix parts of video, making it even more important to get it right in one go.
General congratulations though to all TLDR enterprises, I subscribed since Brexit time and have been gradually subscribing to all sister channels.
Boeing is a company with a great future behind them
😂😂😂
Also flipped the saying
If it's boeing, I ain't going!
are you sure about that?
@@delta_cosmicyes
hahaha nice play with words 😂😂
The FAA letting boeing do its own testing is like letting kids grade their own exams
To be fair to the FAA (not that I wish to), the FAA's hands were tied due to budget cuts by Congress.
@@apveening I heard on the grapevine that faa and Boeing knew about the issues before the 2018 disaster but didn't want to lose the lead they had on airbus at the time.
@@BoyeeSmudger Penny wise and pound foolish.
FAA never ever has the right to tell OEM how to design and build airplanes. They just audit the written procedure, production and inspection records of the manufacturers in their oversight function. Delegating authority to OEM to inspect and audit for product acceptance is nothing new and nothing have changed. FAA never have the expertise to design and build a new airplane otherwise why would Boeing hire their own engineers? Why not just let FAA design the planes for Boeing?
@@Liberty2358 true, but it's the FAA that allow Boeing to design and manufacture in the first place.
Sounds like your American so will know better than I, but just like Easa part 21, it gives the authority for a business to design and manufacture parts. This can always be taken away, just like a repair shop can lose its authority to sign off a repaired part.
Not that it would ever happen, but perhaps the FAA need to start throwing their weight around - it seems like Boeing are putting the dollar over safety.
The FAA haven't had a good time of late, what with the whole 5g fiasco. It's cost the industry millions of dollars to retrofit radio altimeters due to the fact the telecoms and the FAA hasn't communicated.
Interested to what your views are that side of the pond, it seems the FAA are heavily understaffed.
Americas biggest mistake was coming up with the phrase "too big to fail"
Without that phrase, American companies like Boeing, Ford, & GM would be long gone by now. While there may be off-shoots of Ford & GM for building & maintaining pickup trucks, and Boeing could return as a military & NASA manufacturer, other companies would become a bigger norm for Americans.
@@ChadSimplicio yes without that phrase big mismanaged companies that keep getting into financial trouble would be gone
Yep, in the actual market economy that the USA really loves to praise, most of those bastards already bit the dust long ago.
But then we gotta protect ~Congress members~ pensioners investment!
Exactly, Just look at what online shopping did to malls! Everyone thought that malls were too big to fail and now many are closing!
Really?
There's a genocide ongoing right now by Israel
Never forget that Boeing thought it better to forsake a proven manufacturing history to avoid paying union wages. Profit over EVERYTHING, even human life.
It's the American way
The MAX aircraft are entirely union built. STFU
Umm, most Boeing workers are unionized.
@@Agtsmirnoffthey build a second assembly facility to hire non-union workers and a lot of QC errors have been traced to that plant.
@@TheSkcube
Source? Proof? Link?
Boeing decided to innovate by allowing airlines to maintain an open door policy with its 737 max 9
Great laugh, ta
A major issue was presented in a documentary i watched about how boeing used to be run by engineers, and so they made quality planes but it is now run by managers trying to make the largest profit and appease their shareholders. Boeing won't go anywhere, but it's going to take a lot for people to trust them the same way they used to.
The rot set in with the Macdonnell-Douglas merger - just took a couple of decades to filter through the system...
If it’s Boeing, I’m NOT going. Until they get that 797 out (if they can, with real engineers, not Moneymen)!
Short answer, no Boeing isn't go anyway. But yes, they need REALLY MASSIVE shake up of the company.
Shake up not shack up
@@jameskeys971 Could need a shack up too, politicans are a bit quirky in that area.
@@JimAllen-Persona good one!
@@jameskeys971doesnt he mean check up?
Kick the profit mad bean counters out of top management!
Boeing is too big to fail, but they sure seem to be eager to test the limits of that.
In the military Lockheed Martin is eating Boeing's lunch and in the civil aviation market Airbus is eating Boeing's lunch.
Soon Air Force One will be a Hercules plane all customized for the President of the USA even Lockheed Martin will make the Air Force One another butt hurt for Boeing.
They had to move the company to DC to keep it alive with lobbying. It’s now a lobbying company.
Dude they had a far worse safety record in the 70s and 80s and survived just fine
@@Agtsmirnoff If Mitsubishi where to made jets then Boeing will be next in line to Fokker.
@@Embargoman
I don't understand what you are saying.
1:38 Of course, in true RUclips fashion, that photo of a crashed Lion Air 737 is neither the fatal crash in question nor even a 737 Max.
No fatalities whatsoever regarding the crashed plane in the photograph either
MACS? I thought it was MCAS? didn't know Apple had a hand in the crashes :P
The MACs are blowing the Windows out of aircrafts
Boeing is a case study in Late Capitalism: take one of the world's greatest and profitable engineering firms and spend 20+ years running it like a private equity firm devoted to the short-term maximizing of shareholder value. No amount of shocks will change this, as those making the decisions make too much money from the latter approach.
That's not late "capitalism". That's globalism under zxxnist control.
Boeing went for short term max money. The Max is inherently an unstable aircraft - the engines are in the wrong place - so it needs software to keep it stable. The Max should be scraped.
@@Jay...777Don't get me wrong, the Max is still a great plane. The Max was meant to hit the market where it was needed, a new variant of the same plane so that airlines didn't need to retrain their pilots, so they kept the same airframe, made more fuel efficient engines, but the engines in order to be more efficient needed to be bigger, so they had to introduce MCAS to make up for it. Not ideal, but I can see why the MAX became a thing. In general it is just these quality issues and training issues that need to be addressed.
Big expensive mistake, so lots of juicy excuses. lol None would be required if the plane flew without software.@@HadenAndShit
“Late capitalism,” whatever. I’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes!
I worked in the British aircraft industry in the 1960’s,where we used to receive reports from the Association of American Airlines detailing unexpected problems. 80% were Boeing 727, so the current situation is not new to them.
1:36 - The top image does not show Lion Air flight 610, the first plane that crashed due to MCAS. Flight 610 crashed at a steep nose-down attitude at over 350 kts. There would never be such a well-preserved wreck after that immensely violent impact. I assume this is an image of Lion Air flight 904?
Thanks for your great work. Correction at 2:12 - It should be MCAS, not MACS 🍎 lol
He even said mcas lol. How did they not notice
@@luphaestus ikr I thought I was having a stroke
Quality control issues like Boeing. Lol.
How can you misspell MCAS on your most prominent graphic used throughout the video?
The incredible documentary Downfall: The Case Against Boeing in its middle third really goes into depth about how bad Boeing’s corporate and safety culture is, I’d recommend anyone who is interested to watch it.
And how come no similar documentaries about Airbus exist, given that they still have yet to fix their landing gear issue that has been plaguing them for 20 years?
@@aycc-nbh7289I guess because 350 people didn’t just die on an airbus
@@neelkrishnaThey very well could have if things went any more awry than they did.
It is clear at this point that Boeing has a systemic problem and this is not an isolated issue. When I book flights now I deliberately seek airlines that fly Airbus or older Boeing products like the 777.
You are not the only one and I've heard/read stories of travel agencies carrying extra insurance for rebooking for travelers who specifically insisted on not flying with certain aircraft in case the originally planned aircraft is being replaced with one the traveler does not accept.
The probable cause in this case is likely to be worker caused. This type of error is difficult if not impossible to eliminate entirely. Even with 100% inspection you still will need to rely of the integrity of the workers to not alter or perform unauthorized rework on the airplane. Until we can eliminate people from the entire production and quality system, we cannot completely eliminate people caused problems and compromise a complex product such as an airplane.
@@Liberty2358 But it can be minimized by making sure the workers take pride in their workmanship and allowing them to do their job properly. Part of that is proper remuneration and no excessive salaries (and bonuses) for manglement. Ford understood that when he started his assembly lines and paid his workers enough to afford their own model T.
The 777 is an awesome plane.
@@apveening Boeing did minimize the amount of people caused error by their procedure that is why flying have never been safer since 1960. However, one can never prevent an insane co-pilot or pilot from crashing their planes, I believe we have had several cases in recent years.
Just a heads up, the picture of a deadly crash at the beginning of the video is from Turkish Airlines flight 1951, NOT one of the deadly 737 MAX crashes. Said flight crashed due to a faulty radio altimeter, and pilot error.
"plagued by issues" is one way to say "a series of self inflicted errors and unforced blunders" 😂
I think the government won’t allow Boeing to quit. They still have a large portfolio and though the 737 is a core part of their commercial orders Airbus is simply too overwhelmed to take up any new orders right now so as long as Boeing can sort out its QC issues airlines will still be reliant even if begrudgingly. Also Airbus has had its own issues with the A350 and has its supply chain issues though to a much lesser extent than Boeing.
Used to work at the site where they manufacture the rear spars for -900 and -1000. There were no major issues for the rear spars, nor can I remember any other issues?
@@BoyeeSmudger They had some teething trouble with the A350 paint, nothing related to safety. You can google Qatar Airways vs Airbus
@@mulholandalcoholic I was on a TUI 787 and noticed the wing covered with patches of tape and different colours of paint, it looked like a school arts project! I spoke to a friend who is an aircraft engineer, it was a paint issue. It appears similar to the A350 issue, both aircraft have lots of composite material.
What do you mean "Airbus is too overwhelmed"?
@@dimitristsekeris1821 they have a lot of backlog of current orders and their manufacturing lines are at capacity
MCAS… not MACS
Somewhat obvious answer is that the company isn't doomed, but it doesn't help that Boeing once claimed that the MAX is safe after solving MCAS then now a door from a MAX plane fails. Airlines would likely continue to order the plane because the A320NEO has a quite the backlog and the C919 is still in early production, but companies would likely be less trustful of Boeing's aircraft quality (which could be the case for whether or not airlines would want to lease certain aircraft over others).
Chances are increased FAA scrutiny could also lead to even more faults being identified if the rabbit hole goes that deep. So if anything this could be another tip of the iceburg that leads to even more problems for Boeing. With the kind of culture they've had since McDonnell Douglas, the past few years have basically been about the company reaping what they've sowed.
MCAS was a different problem that impacted all Max family. This one is a problem of specific type/series Max-8 with the plug in the middle.
@@hus390 Max 9 not 8
While the COMAC C919 is very unlikely to be purchased by a European or American carrier, China is offering very deep discounts on the C919 to Asian carriers. Because of the massive problems at Boeing and the decades long order backlog at Airbus, the C919 could grab a significant market share in Asia and Africa causing further financial problems for Boeing.
I see that to say with Petro in Colombia is going to be Avianca doing a big fat order of COMAC planes and other Colombian airlines are either buying COMAC or Airbus probably, Gustavo Petro might ban Boeing products in Colombia for good and his plane will be an Airbus.
based amerimutts seething
@@NeostormXLMAX🤓
Boeing is to big to fail. US government would not let that happen. Seeing Airbus, as the smaller player, profit from the situation is probably not bad. Forces the giant Boeing to put in the work and up it's game.
Edit: Airbus isn't smaller, my knowledge was outdated. I have been corrected in the comments.
America doesn't care
The u.s. goverment are not the people who decide if Boeing succeed or fail , it is the airlines of the world who decide that , at this moment in time Boeing are not in their good books , a grounded Boeing is just a large investment, not earning anything , and costing a lot of money every second it sits there , the competitors with airbus fleets are laughing all the way to the bank , even some American airlines are flying airbus
Hell, not just the US government. No other government would tolerate a world monopoly in commercial airliners either. The EU would probably deal with it by breaking Airbus up, the Chinese would immediately pour trillions into a whole range of clean sheet designs for COMAC, and a whole host of other governments would probably offer some bailout money in return for shares in Boeing.
BTW Airbus is not the smaller player. Airbus make and sell more considerably more airliners than Boeing. Where Boeing is bigger is in defence.
Airbus isn’t the smaller player in civilian aviation anymore
I wouldn't call Airbus a small player, when they deliver 50% more planes (725 vs 480) a year, and has an order book of ~60% more than that of Boing (2319 vs 1456). At least in civilian aviation.
Boeing is America's "free market" in a nutshell.
Free market for the workers, socialism for the employers.
Oh the whole MCAS was invented because the 737 MAX is inherently an unsafe plane. Its jet engines were redesigned after the hull was completed. This gave more lift ahead of the plane's center of gravity, which means, if the pilot does not interact with the yoke, the plane does not put its nose downwards, thatswy gaining speed, but it puts its nose upwards, thatswhy its easier to stall. The solution of the problem was the MCAS, which wouldnt let the pilots to stall the plane, but it was always a bandaid to cheat basic physics. It had its accidents during takeoff, because if the MCAS decided that the pilot pull up the yoke too agressively after leaving the ground, it would by design push the nose downwards, and there was simply not enough altitude to correct the mistake.
When you make statements like _'the 737 MAX is inherently an unsafe plane'_ followed by calling the fuselage a _'hull'_ followed saying the engines _'gave more lift'..._ my dude, stop. Go back and research the topic more thoroughly.
They originally planned to use Pratt and Whitney engines, but then Canadians came up with the CFM LEAP engines, which are more fuel efficient, although 20 percent bigger. Add salt to the injury CMF worked in tandem with Airbus, so the engine was designd to be compatible with the A320 Neo. The size of the engines generates the additional lift, not the torque, and Boeing instead of redesigning the hull, decided to solve the issue by software adjustments. Thatshow the MCAS was born. There was a little bit of a political battle over the decision, since the US president, who I dont remember which was at the time, didnt want a Canadian powerplant for American planes, so he went into a little trade war with Canada, thatshow Airbus acquired the engine. Then when Boeing realized, that the A320 NEO will be more fuel economical than the 737 MAX, literally begged to the Whitehouse to let them use it, because they know its a primary choice for any airline to have fuel efficient planes. @@gh8447
Boeing went for short term max money. The Max is inherently an unstable aircraft - the engines are in the wrong place - so it needs software to keep it stable. The Max should be scraped.
Has anyone seen the new meme? "I accidentallly put my phone in airplane mode and my front door blew off."
Boeing became a Ford of the sky. Profits over the lives of their customers.
MACS = Maneuver Assisting Crash System @02:12 😅
Don't take Embraer (the brazilian aircraft manufacturer) off your radar. They have been serving smaller airlines in Latin America which used to be Boeing customers. Those smaller markets might hurt Boeing's finances by a thusand cuts, if you know what I mean.
Embraer is a big player in the regional jet market, but they don’t compete with Airbus and Boeing long and medium haul passenger planes.
@@FameyFamous Then again, this was a Market dominated by Boeing not long ago. That's what I'm talking about.
@@JuanCarlosAraujoS are you thinking of the Boeing 717? It was developed by MD and killed by Boeing a few years after the merger. I don't think Boeing has been a major player in the regional jet market.
But I agree with you that it would be nice to see someone like Embraer rise up to challenge the duopoly. (I'm impressed that Comac developed a plane. They haven't proven that they can develop mass production capacity.)
I don't see it ending well
Bombardier decided to up it's game and get into the market between regional and short range single aisle, and the company is not just gone.
@@FameyFamous It was only in ~ 2000, that The Times said that Airbus' aim to equal Boeing was a silly fantasy, and look at the situation now. It's not impossible that Embraer could become a major player.
Boeing has never been synonymous with safety, especially their 737s. Meanwhile, Airbus almost always looks at Boeing planes and see where they could improve theirs.
A complacent company that has forsaken its leadership, near-monopoly position which it enjoyed until the 1970s. Airbus has been a rare but massive European success story that started from almost nothing, they deserve a lot of credit.
Airbus started from nothing, but with massive backing of European countries. Airbus did very well after being Kickstarted, but it's not really from nothing.
Never mind the advertising junk about keeping yourself safe on-line...keep yourself safe travelling by air by avoiding Boeing 737 MAX junk and book alternatives where available. Personally I would not sit in a MAX even if it was a cheap fare.
Does flying and surviving in a modern Boeing aircraft count towards death-defying feats (like whitewater rafting) that make somebody a badass?
No. These airplane incidents are very rare. Even flying on a 737 Max 9 is still very much safer than driving a car.
Yes
Boeing likes to keep mentioning Spirit but as the type certificate holder they are responsible for oversight of their suppliers and in this case the checking & sign off of the fitting of the door plug was Boeing's responsibility
100% Correct
In the past the military contracts were sufficient so sibsidize the civilian business. Overvalued contracts, corruption during the tender process like with the KC-46 tanker and US hyper-protectionism have saved the company so far from total failure. As the biggest American exporter they will continue to feed them with money no matter how bad their products get. That's probably not a good idea, but the US government has in the past always done what Boeing told them to.
And the american economists continues criticizing the asian model of capitalism, but they basically do the same, but without the japanese or korean quality... And when the american products have quality, they are expensive and the companies are extorsive (like Apple, for example).
@@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031 well. The economists are right. The USA is just creating private monopolies that‘s why GDP keeps increasing but most people don’t get any benefits from the growth. The US is now capitalist but no longer a market economy. Economists are right to point out that this is flawed.
Guys, sorry to bother but please check out the details of your video.. MCAS, not MACS. Also, the airplanes fallen in 2018 were not from Alaska airlines.. you guys can do better!
Hey guys, just some feedback: you need to either clean your camera lens better / more often or replace the lens if its damaged. Whenever you cut to the desk, I feel like my glasses are dirty 😅 thanks for the videos!
The fact that they were allowed to certify and assess themselves is beyond negligent. What a surprise that according to Boeing, Boeing met and still meets regulatory requirements.
This is also the same company that says they can't make money on fixed price contracts (eg, Starliner).
Which I take to mean that they're doing a combination of the following:
* Bidding low to win the contract
* Greatly nderestimating how much their design will cost
* Figuring they'll still be able to somehow get compensated for unforeseen expenses
Propped up by military contracts, Boeing isn't going anywhere. I wish it would just go away. That company is making flying so unsafe for the rest of the world. Why should the rest of us suffer??
Boeing: "you dont need a door to fly"
Ryanair CEO: "WRITE THAT DOWN"
Boeing's problems came in the 1990s when they wanted to merge with McDonnell Douglas. In the 1990s, the Boeing 737 had issues with unauthorized rudder commands (rudder is the part that turns the plane, mostly right or left). There were two crashes that killed 150 people. They then merged with McDonnell. In the 2000s, there were numerous issues with the development of the 787. In 2018 and 2019, there was the Max issues. Now there are issues with the Max once again. Essentially, since 1989, Boeing has had manufacturing problems, such that it allowed for the rapid rise of Airbus. It's gonna take another 30 years to change the culture of Boeing again back to manufacturing safe planes. God help us all until then.
I like how sources are included
Man. The errors and typos in this made me leave. The lack of attention to detail makes me question the entire content.
9:18 The Picture is from an incident in Bali in 2013, not the recent crash!
It certainly doesn't help that companies image. I for one will never fly on a Boeing product when their are safer and better alternatives from Airbus and Embraer...
The Lion Air picture is wrong. After the crash into the ocean, there was nothing left
The image of a Lion Air aircraft in water at 1:41 is of flight 904 that crashed short of the runway in 2013 with no fatalities. The 737 Max accident was in 2018.
Did Boeing do Bombardier dirty awhile back with the A220 aircraft?
In most of the videos, people in the comments section are saying that in the past Boeing used to build safer planes, while it is somewhat true, they have to remember that cargo door opening in the 747 thrust reverser deploying in flight in the 767 Are the issues which Boeing knew about But now the unsafe practices has been ramp up
great video, just missing some color correction on that S-LOG ;)
Boeing management spent the last 20 years moving further and further from where Boeing planes are manufactured in favor for military contracts. Look where Boeing headquarters are now based to find that answer. BCA is not as important to Boeing as their military side is now.
Oh My Gosh! you guys are finally posting posting on the business page!
Please do more.
If that door had hit the tail rendering the airplane uncontrollable, the crashing of a 3rd 737 MAX could have been the beginning of Boeing's rapid decent into financial disaster.
The door weighs just 125 lbs and is composite, I don’t think it could have caused significant damage to the tail. Not that you want to test that of course.
A door damaging a large modern plane like the 737 enough to cause an accident is unlikely (especially the implosion would have forced the door far) however in the 60s there was a British made airplane that crashed due to these circumstances- Dan Air flight 240 had it's rear door pulled off due to a failed (and overly complicated ) locking mechanism and smash into the horizontal stabiliser- however the door rather than fall away was left indented into the stabiliser causing the aircraft to pitch up, stall and crash with all lost on board. The accident craft was a Hawker Siddeley HS 748- a turbo prop far slower than a 737
Unfortunately passengers don’t have a choice when it comes to flying which plane
You get what the Airline purchases
Good video, except one thing: The parts of the video recording yourself seem grayish/foggy. Possible issues with converting between different color spaces?
Boeing: Our planes are super safe. Source? Trust me, bro.
This all boils down to the management of Boeing being run by bean counters instead of engineers like it use to prior to the merger with McDonnell Douglass.
MCAS typo, chaps.
And that's just their airplanes. They aren't doing so hot in the spacecraft division either.
Boeing Commercial could be shuttered while the other divisions sail along. Frankly, it is no more than Boeing deserves after selling-out their previous engineering excellence to make the McDonnell-Douglas merger deal. The bean counters took over and the current state of affairs, quality-wise, is the natural and unfortunate result.
In short.
If Boeing is still able to get more than 100+ order everyday with their 787. No, they won’t go out of business.
Boeing needs to end production on 737 Max and only do wide body planes and leave the narrow body planes to Airbus and Embraer.
The problem is not the implementation of mcas to avoid building and certifying an entirely new plane, the problem is boeing knew to how make that mcas safer only that it was offered as an extra but not part of the standard package
Its a bit ironic that a video whose subject is founded in quality issues can't get a 4 letter acronym right. Presumably the reasons it wasn't fixed are similar. Otherwise, a good video
For anyone who wants more info on this, there's a very well done documentary on Netflix about Boeing & how basically they merged with McConnell-Douglas and everything went down the tube.
They haven’t merged with Ryanair? Do you mean partnered with or something?
@@Bruss390 sorry was reading about them in the news while typing. I fixed my comment lol
@@Bruss390 Merged with Ryanair? Yeah, that makes sense. I think they meant Douglas. See what happens when you let AI write your comments? :-)
that sounds like propaganda from Boeing execs honestly, just throwing all the blame on a company that hasn't existed for decades and most ppl have never heard of.
@@sadmanh0 A fair bit of the Boeing upper management are former McDonnel-Douglas people (ie, they kind of failed upwards). It's more a complaint that's come from the lower/actual engineering levels within Boeing and outside observers rather than Boeing execs.
When one door closes, another one opens!
*You mentioned the country Addis Ababa is located in but, didn't do same for Jakarta.*
I wonder how much of the old Macdonald Douglas staff and operating procedures are still prevalent throughout the now Boeing company since the merger the current boeing logo is actually the MacDonald Douglas logo
As a bystander, with no axe to grind. I find it very strange that many people dont realise just how serious things are for Boeing. First you had the situation where Boeing of old joined with McDonald Douglas (not a great name, the DC10 comes to mind). Then finds itself being run by McDonald Douglas management-we all saw where that went with the MAX debacle. The 'new' management has the same ethos-Wall St first. Now we have yet another MAX fiasco. Unfortunately, this does not stay within the bounds of America, its now world wide. Where people and companies could rely on Boeing to build good safe aircraft. Thats disappearing fast. Added to that, is now after years, the FAA has done what it should have done years ago, stopped the certification until things are SAFE.
This adds to Boeings problems because huge customers are waiting for their aircraft. United and South West now cant expand and grow and will be forced to look elsewhere. It wont be Airbus because, they too are struggling with deliveries. So who? Comac? they would just LOVE an order. That would be the final nail in the coffin for Boeing. I feel sad for all the good clever people of Boeing who have been sold short by bad management. Lets truly hope, that the Boeing management see the error of their ways and change, otherwise things look grim...
Merging with McDonnell-Douglas really mucked up their safety culture... Profits before people. Well, the value of shares can go down as well as up, and they'll tank for Boeing pretty quick at this rate...
True that. I thinks the 737 Max is like a modern DC-10 💀 🛩️ 💥
Meanwhile Airbus now: 🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿
Boeing forgot, that they were once the Industry standard and everyone looked up to THEM. It's heartbreaking when I look back and remember, how seeing the Boeing name evoked pride and confidence. They stood for quality, safety and sophistication but no more. This is another case of a great American company losing it's way. How far the mighty have fallen. 😮 Is it too late to put this " Humpty Dumpty" back together again ?
They got too big for their britches and stopped innovating.
USA is gonna defend Boeing as much as possible, it's just that for passengers or even those who are into engineering, it's just cringe to see boeing not paying attention to the details.
Probably they are going to let Lockheed Martin kill Boeing!
They've also stopped innovating too. Figured they were so big, they didn't have to. Then Airbus swooped in.
Nothing is forever.
Another American company destroyed by "Business Majors" H-P used to be one of the premier tech companies in the world and build most of their high-end equipment in the USA, providing good jobs that paid well. Then a Business Major ran the company into ground trying to "Maximize Shareholder Value."
Now Boeing. The US Railroad network is suffering the same fate.
Boeing has reported negative earnings consecutively since 2021! With their safety reputation being so low nowadays, bankruptcy is definitely on the horizon if something doesn’t happen soon! They are in extreme danger!
Excellent documentary. The US business system of stock price and MBAs running companies sacrifice long term performance for short term gains and executive bonuses. Engineers must return to the helm for the sake of aviation safety and economic stability. This is only one industry of many afflicted by egos over common sense.
Thanks for the clarification. @@DaveP-uv1ml
Lol, why would the American government allow a company to regulate themselves? We are so pro business here that we let the dumbest things slide.
They need to let that laissez-faire attitude work for citizens, too. I have paid taxes for a while, so there is no reason for the IRS to audit my documents anymore.....
That's not American or pro-business. It's zxxnist globalist and has been for close to a century.
Jon Ostrower:
Well, certainly, Congress is going to be asking questions about that in the weeks to come, I think, from an oversight perspective.
It's really important to remember that while the conversation has focused on Spirit AeroSystems, the supplier to Boeing, and Boeing itself, when the MAX returned to service in the end of 2020 following the grounding, the FAA took back responsibility for key delegated tasks, including the final inspection and airworthiness ticketing of each and every delivery.
So the FAA has played a role and been integrally involved in Boeing's factories and their deliveries since then. So, certainly, how they have approached this is going to be an important question going forward.
The door blowing off on Spirit is the fault of the FAA. The FAA took over the inspection and reasonability in 2020.
why is your studio looking misty?
The regulations to put a new type of airplane in the air are pretty insane, its why Boeing keep using the same models and you never see a "leap" in passenger air craft. Its also why you never see new compeitors. The fact that the US, China, and EU only have 1 air plane manufacturer each is pretty telling how expensive it is for commercial aircraft.
Airbus: "Money money money!"
Europe: "Taxes taxes taxes!"
Everyone else: "time to start building rails and trains"
2:17 MACS? What about MCAS?
Graphics errors, wrong Lion Air on the water, MCAS not MACS. You should check and compare the number of AD from the FAA against Airbus and Boeing Airplanes. Airbus has plenty of ADs against their AP.
Airworthiness Directives are not uncommon and usually not that big a deal (though they can be). Generally they are just 'bug fixes' that the regulatory body (FAA, EASA, etc.) considers important enough to mandate and set a limit on how soon the 'fix' should be embodied. Grounding an aircraft is another thing entirely.
@@gh8447 You are right, ADs are common for all airplanes regardless of OEM. However, many of the AD will "ground" the airplane because the airlines cannot fly them without the corrective action to remove the "unsafe conditions" listed on the AD. United Airline has to pull dozens their oldest 777 out of service to fix an issue with the P&W Engine a couple of years ago. These planes were effectively grounded without a formal grounding. FAA in this case may have overreacted due to political pressure. As the door plug issue appears to be human caused (by the workers) and not with the proven design of the plug or management interference.
@@Liberty2358 Yes, that is also true; an AD can technically 'ground' an aircraft by mandating immediate (i.e.: before further flight) corrective action. I was differentiating that from when a regulatory body 'grounds' an aircraft preventing further flight until corrective action is carried out (or occasionally revoking the type certificate grounding it permanently!)
The door plug issue does look like human error on installation, but I've not seen anything yet (I've not been following _that_ closely) that rules out an error in the accomplishment instructions...
@@gh8447 Political theatric is more important than actually removing "unsafe conditions" from real airplanes. FAA did not ground the oldest 777 with P&W engines even though the ADs took dozens of planes out of service at United Airlines. The root cause was metal fatigue of the fan blade but one of the AD require rework with the T/R and Boeing did a great job and help UAL get those 1990s 777 back into service. Ref (United Flight 328).
To be fair, the AOG scandal is in no way Boeing’s fault. If this is Boeing’s fault, then Airbus must also be blamed.
Boeing needs to stop boinging around and get serious about quality control.
Why do you show a Ryanair plane flying just above the flames in your front caption ?
Airbus overtook Boeing 4 years ago, they had ~62% market share in 2019. Now that the doors are falling off Boeing, literally and figuratively, that will only increase. Your researchers need to research more 🙄
Airbus lost lots of money betting on the A380
It looks like your camera is heavily smudged or your room is full of fog.
btw: The C919 had two Customers, where every one had one (O-N-E or 1 or "a single") Aircraft of this Type in use.
So the Delivery Rate is 0.16 Planes per Month since the first delivery to a Customer.
Airbus is working on 70 A320 class Planes per month and Boeing is sure over 50.
Forget Comac, until they complete the 100th Plane in Service before 2025
Boeing aren't just an aircraft company. They're an aeroSPACE company helping make SLS happen and experiencing another dumpster fire in the form of the Boeing StarLiner, a space capsule that is built on a fixed price contract rather than the traditional space industry Cost Plus contract which means Boeing are absolutely haemorrhaging money with the various failures on that project, having to fly two more test flights than they had planned for entirely on their dime. Meanwhile their main competitor SpaceX are making launches of their Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule so routine that they've become literally the most reliable spacecraft ever built. With the Falcon 9 enjoying 100% mission success across 96 launches in 2023 with the only failure being a Falcon 9 first stage falling over on the recovery barge in rough seas, and that was the 19th launch for that particular first stage where the original design of the Falcon 9 Block 5 predicted 10 flights before requiring disposal.
That can't exactly be helping matters.
Says MCAS *shows MACS*
Airbus 320neo are AMAZING to fly with. Just had 4 flights this week.
7:19 typo on Commercial Airplanes.... :)
What about the revolving door between Boeing and the FAA?
The major reason for the hidden MCAS was that all pilots trained and certified to fly 737 would not need to be retrained and certified. These costs far outweigh the already significant new plane certification.
The gross part is Boeing initially blamed the pilots for the crashes.
3:55, when was the 787 grounded «multiple times» due to its design? Last time i checked they had a manufacturing halt and the grounding was rooted back to Rolls Royce engines…
Yes it was grounded once for two months in 2013. But this is just plain misleading quoting «multiple times» because of quality issues.