Does Boeing need one for the Dreamliner?
When you look at both Boeing and Airbus, you have to ask, can’t anyone play this game? And how did we get in a position in which there are only two manufacturers of large air transports in the world?
11 thoughts on “A Truth And Reconciliation Commission”
Comments are closed.
The move away from vertical integration has cost Boeing dearly. That and pissing off the engineers during the strike ten years ago.
Dennis hit it square on – Boeing’s folly was believing that they could get fully assembled AND INTEGRATED AND TESTED sections from their subs. Integrating and testing large aerospace assemblies is goddamn difficult work, and there ain’t that many companies that know how to do it – especially at the 2nd-tier and below subcontractor level.
Boeing just isn’t the same company that my dad as an A&P mechanic/inspector worked for when the 747 came out.
This is what happens when accountants run aerospace companies.
ken anthony – it was before my time, but didn’t the 747 have problems of a similar magnitude? I heard that Boeing mortgaged the company to get tail number one out.
Boeing had to eventually outsource manufacturing. Unfortunately, US workers cost too much. They could either outsource the whole factory, outsource big pieces, or outsource little pieces. They went the middle route, which doesn’t seem all that much better or worse than the other options. If it doesn’t kill them, it will make them stronger.
I’m more concerned about the technical aspects of the 787. Not any engineering shortcomings, but having the unprecedented amount of composites seems like asking for a BOAC moment. But someone had to do it first, and it was always going to take a long time and a lot of money. And after this, Airbus will get to cherry pick project managers and structural engineers, so Boeing won’t have a second chance. So the only way to do the 787 is to get it right the first time. If that means losing half their up-front orders and being 30 month late, then it could very possibly still come out on the plus side.
All those crying about the vertical de-integration: if Boeing had the machinist’s strike like last year and they were making the whole plane in house, we would be talking about how Boeing is either 1) a sad casualty of this recession or 2) another company Obama is bailing out.
And how did we get in a position in which there are only two manufacturers of large air transports in the world?
See last comment by Henry Vanderbilt here:
http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/experts-on-the-internet-x-33-gigaprograms-and-real-progress/
Us venerable types recall that the government policy of forcing “defense consolidation” in the mid-nineties is what led to the current situation with only two or three major aerospace outfits left, none particularly supportive of innovation.
Roga sez: All those crying about the vertical de-integration: if Boeing had the machinist’s strike like last year and they were making the whole plane in house, we would be talking about how Boeing is either 1) a sad casualty of this recession or 2) another company Obama is bailing out.
You misunderstand the point (or at least my point): nobody expects Boeing to make the whole airplane itself; for example, the 747 tail section was built by, IIRC, LTV in Dallas. However, on the 787, Boeing’s schedule was built around getting fully integrated and tested assemblies, including wiring harnesses, avionics, ECS, etc., etc., in from their subs, then “snapping them together” for final assembly and checkout. This on an airplane with much more electronics than any other they’ve done, plus much more composite structure than anybody has done before on a commercial jetliner. Boeing did not include room in their schedule to do detailed wringout of every major assembly they got from their suppliers. THAT’s what is killing them on the 787.
I don’t know how you got your two points from what Dennis and I said; seemed like a non sequitor.
I fail to understand how reducing vertical integration to this degree helps in such a market. Unless the company is competing for government subsidies and wants to spread it over as many districts or countries as possible (ala Airbus) it makes little sense. I mean, just look at the dedicated transportation infrastructure these companies need to transport wings around for final integration. That can’t be cheap. Or look at the problems Airbus had because design work was done at different sites, in different countries, which used different CATIA design software versions. Had it been designed all in one place, I bet that would not have happened to begin with.
I do remember the mumbles at the time Boeing HQ moved from Seattle to Chicago. That was a mess.
Yeah, doing an all composite airplane brings shades of the de Havilland Comet again. This is one reason why Airbus is being pretty conservative with materials, when they were among the first to integrate fly-by-wire in civilian airliners.
As for the 787 issues, I get surprised when an aircraft project is delivered on time and with the required features. Besides the initial missteps with A380, the A400M project has been a colossal bungle for Airbus. There wasn’t a clear governance structure for the project, the engine developer was selected by fiat, and the airplane is overweight.
I would like to put a plug in here for Elon as he has gone out of his way to be vertically integrated so that he could control his costs and production processes.
Mature technologies can be competitively outsourced, new developments bring disaster with this approach.
Dennis, except on his electric car where the batteries and car body are done by subcontractors.
Not a nit pick of your post, I greatly admire what he has done with his rockets.
I was referencing the space biz of his. I don’t really follow the Tesla thing.