If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times)   To the Farkers that predicted Boeing's extensive outsourcing and lack of oversight on the 787 design would come back to bit them in the ass, stand up and say 'I told you so'   (seattletimes.com) divider line 168
    More: Fail, Boeing  
•       •       •

14709 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2013 at 8:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-03 09:32:07 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Boeing tried to get quality work for schitt pay, and you wingnuts are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that it didn't work out for them.


It's not just that, Boeing has a long history of discouraging engineers from getting their PE certifications. An aerospace or aeronautical engineer with a PE can command a much higher salary than one without it. However an engineer without it can't sign off on their own work. And if you have something with as many parts and assemblies as an airliner and not enough engineers with PE's you get a nice back log of work. Of course it's not like the engineers at Boeing get to really do much, the heads of the various divisions aren't engineers and force the top engineers into meeting after meeting, on top of all the meetings without engineers there. And the meetings are the sort of things the engineers hate. Like meetings to discuss change requests, changes the design system can handle in real time without a problem. Basically management is acting like everyone is at a drafting table with a slide rule, while the engineers are cursing at their work stations they have to fill out change requests and get them approved, which can take a week.
 
2013-02-03 09:33:50 AM
Boeing's problem isn't that they outsourced manufacture.  Outsourcing manufacturing and assembly demonstrably works (look at Apple).  Outsourcing parts manufacturing to be later assembled by your own people demonstrably works (look at the auto industry).  In both of these cases, the designers and engineers are in-house.  Apple doesn't go to Foxxconn or any of its other suppliers and say "We need to refresh our smartphone lineup.  Please design a swank one for us.  Kthx."  Similarly, no serious auto company is going to allow a third party outsourcer to design their brake system or transmission.  In both cases, Apple and the car companies, design is done in-house.  Once they're satisfied with the fit and finish, they give detailed specifications to their suppliers.  You may even recall Foxxconn whining that Apple's iphone5 specifications were too exacting.

Boeing, on the other hand, tried to outsource way too early in the design phase.  Their engineers didn't first design the plane, build one and tweak things until they were satisfied and then produce a detailed set of specifications for their suppliers.  Instead, their suppliers essentially designed the parts themselves with little or no apparent oversight.  Saying to your suppliers "You figure it out" rarely works as intended.
 
2013-02-03 09:36:46 AM

arcas: Similarly, no serious auto company is going to allow a third party outsourcer to design their brake system or transmission



Not entirely true as far as transmissions go, the big two for transmissions ZF and Getrag both design stuff in house and various car makers will pick what fits their needs and then perhaps request changes, like to the size of the case or something else. Also both companies are so experienced that the car companies will come to them and tell them what they need and have them design it. But that's because both ZF and Getrag know what they're doing and have a long history of doing it very very well, their reputations ride on not farking things up.
 
2013-02-03 09:39:27 AM
Yeah, we said it. We screamed it from the rooftops. We told them that this would turn out to be a nightmare. The conversations my old company had with Boeing regarding how much work we could take in from them vs. the amount of work available from other sources, Boeing flat out telling us that if we wanted to make parts for them, we couldn't turn down a contract (bid exclusively on THEIR terms at the prices THEY dictate) and our other customers would have to wait. So we have to start turning down work from other customers, while we wait for Boeing to deliver their own certified materials that we aren't allowed to get anywhere else.

What Boeing does, once a small machine shop starts bidding on and doing their parts, is increase their level of work to the point where other customers are sacrificed to make room for doing Boeing work. They escalate this to the point where no other customers are needed (sez the bossman) and the company gets fat, buys new, very expensive machines (on credit) to conform to Boeing reliability standards, hires high salary programmers and administration staff to accommodate the growth, moves into a larger building (on credit) and goes to huge expense to meet inspection and shopworthiness criteria (cleanliness, organized according to Boeing Standards, six Sigma bullshiat and ANSI etc etc etc) hires a consultant or two to help the shop conform to those standards (@ $80-$100,000/year each who then milk the game until the bossman realized he's being farkED.)

Then, after Boeing totally monopolizes the shop and floods it with so much work that it can never get done in time, (yeah, weekly surprise "emergencies" WE NEED THIS NOW AIRCRAFT ON GROUND AND NO EXPENSE SPARED) they yank the rug out from under the company because lag time causes increasing delays in deliveries, not to mention the stupid bullshiat castings that Boeing delivers that must be machined RIGHT NOW but somehow, are never consistent enough coming in the door to build reliable tooling for, and we spend weeks, goddamn WEEKS re-engineering and refining those fixtures at our own expense to get a consistent part run, because Boeing cannot spare an extra .05 of an inch of material on the profile of each one to allow for machining. They demand a zero-level scrap rate, and will repeatedly reject parts that are perfectly in conformance just to save their own warehouse space and provide them with an excuse to "negotiate" a lower price, "or else".

Boeing specializes in totally screwing over and destroying small machine shops. Anyone that delves into doing small-shop level work for Boeing goes out of business within six or seven years. Once you agree to a sourcing contract, they dictate the prices of the parts you make even if that price won't even pay the wages of the workers actually making the parts, and there is no room for error. I've watched shops go from a half dozen or so top-notch machinists to 40 mediocre and barely trained operators on million-dollar machines in a shop with painted floors in temperature controlled buildings, to ZERO in the span of about 4-5 years. They do this over, and over, and over again.

After all of that, they then start contracting with foreign firms to make the same parts, and what they get is a 90% scrap rate and they still make money as they can afford to pay for the surplus material required to compensate for that.

Boeing can go to hell.
 
2013-02-03 09:40:13 AM
im just happy nobody died due to this plane crashing. Yet.
 
2013-02-03 09:42:43 AM
Fast
Cheap
Good
Choose two.
 
2013-02-03 09:52:58 AM
madgordy: this all began when the Feds had Boeing bail out/buy McDonald1Douglas, the Douglas execs were put on Boeings board and eventually became a majority.   the company moved it's HQ to the Douglas HQ in Chicago2,  and started a massive outsourcing campaign.   They laid off 1/5th of the Boeing workers in favor of the outsource people.

Suddenly the McD scandles and corruption was hitting boeing.  Remember the Air Tanker Fiasco?  All Douglas execs, all corrupt.

1) Its McDonnell
2) McDonnell Douglas had it headquarters in St Louis, and if you're referring to the pre-merger Douglas Aircraft Company, that was based in L.A.
 
2013-02-03 09:57:26 AM
Wait, you mean refusing to pay in-house folks a few bucks more to do it right is a bad idea?  WHOA!
 
2013-02-03 10:00:12 AM

ComaToast: My iPhone was built by outsourcing to soulless companies whose employees are suicidal. Let's let them build airplane parts!


that iphone is perty good huh, the made in the usa smart phones not so much
 
2013-02-03 10:00:21 AM
Scarebus! Scarebus!!

Ooops ... wrong thread.

Screamliner!!!
 
2013-02-03 10:07:30 AM

madgordy: this all began when the Feds had Boeing bail out/buy McDonald Douglas, the Douglas execs were put on Boeings board and eventually became a majority.   the company moved it's HQ to the Douglas HQ in Chicago,  and started a massive outsourcing campaign.   They laid off 1/5th of the Boeing workers in favor of the outsource people.

Suddenly the McD scandles and corruption was hitting boeing.  Remember the Air Tanker Fiasco?  All Douglas execs, all corrupt.


Boeing's move to Chicago wasn't about the lower tax rates in Illinois, it was the fact that after 30 years of tax deferrals and waivers in Washington State, the time came to pay the piper and make up for those deferred taxes, and Boeing flat out refused to pay the taxes that they had already agreed to pay. Washington State has a law in its Constitution forbidding direct subsidy of business, Illinois has no such law. Boeing demands that the State pays most of the costs of its business, demanding the State conform to their demands for tax structure to support their employment requirements, then outsources the work anyway.

Building airplanes is just an ancillary business. Their major business is generating cash flow to support their executives bonus and salary structures. They'll pay 35 cents dividend per share, while the board members take home $20 million per year in bonuses.
 
2013-02-03 10:10:27 AM

haywatchthis: that iphone is perty good huh, the made in the usa smart phones not so much


If your iPhone freezes up, it doesn't kill three hundred people though.
 
2013-02-03 10:13:06 AM

Dogsbody: Fast
Cheap
Good
Choose two.


I am stealing that, thanks.
 
2013-02-03 10:15:22 AM
NPR had a segment on this.  Instead of giving blueprints to the supplier like before, this time they gave them requirements and had the supplier create the blueprints, then the parts from their own blueprints.  Oops.

/former Boeing employee
/former MDC employee too
/madgordy, Bhags: citation?
 
2013-02-03 10:15:28 AM
FTFA: The senior Boeing engineer with indirect knowledge of the battery and electrical system troubles believes that's what happened.  "Internally, we may not have the engineering horsepower required to understand the depths of the (battery system) problem as quickly as we prefer," he said. "We let too much capability slip away from us."

FTFA:  . . .  management recognized the shortfall in supplier oversight a couple of years ago and has staffed up its supplier management organization since then.

Not enough in-house engineering expertise to even write detailed specs correctly?  Yeah, Boeing really learned a lesson from this.  Adding more management to oversee the outsourced suppliers is definitely the right answer.
 
2013-02-03 10:20:06 AM

homelessdude: beefoe: Everyone outsources everything.  Most companies (Apple and perhaps every other computer company) don't ever even touch any phase of their production.  It's efficient, cost effective and lets companies take advantage of best-in-class technology and fabrication.  It's just how things are done now, not some evil conspiracy.

I agree with the thought of outsourcing as a viable business and manufacturing method. It makes sense and while it hurts domestically, it is the way the world works. For my part, I deal every single day with the barrage of low cost providers in my field from outside of my country. It drives me crazy but it also drives me to improve my skillset to stay ahead of the pack. It is the only way to stay viable in my field.

The problem though with outsourcing is that all too often, the decision to outsource is not to take advantage of "best-in-class technology and fabrication". Instead, it is due to people channeling the work flow where the bottom line is paramount and not the product. Yes, companies need to make their money and all that and profit is good and necessary for corporate survival. But when a completely inferior product is created (and in this case, maybe a truly fatal flaw), then the methods of production and the reasons for choosing those techniques must be questioned. I am no aerospace engineer by any stretch or a production guru, but after so many mis-steps in the 787's short life, it is difficult not to be at least a little skeptical.

Something is rotten in Denmark....or Seattle as it were.


I am in Aerospace (not Boeing), and I can assure you the outsourcing is scary as hell.  They ship stuff out all over the place and the fight to get the components and systems qualified to our satisfaction is mind boggling.  We have to CONSTANTLY fight Program Management and push back against components that failed tests, don't meet our specifications, etc.  The suppliers are always giving us the "But we feel it's good enough and meets the spirit of the specification", while we scream that it FAILED and they need to fix the design.  Then Program management comes down on us with the schedule pressure because the calendar they have shows everything being done early, because that's how if should be in the land of unicorns.
Many of us Engineers have pictures of the Space Shuttle Challenger on our desks with the quote "At least they made the schedule".  (A few of the more dickhead Program Managers have seen that and damn near blew their stacks.  The good ones have seen that and said "Lets do whatever we have to in order to ensure that doesn't happen to us, but they are outnumbered by a massive margin.)
I used to like to fly.  I no longer do.
 
2013-02-03 10:23:02 AM
This story can't be true. The specs were met. They were enforcing the schedule. The boxes were checked. The risks were all green. Therefore failure is not possible.

FTA: "As to our quality flow down through our supply chain, we have very robust processes,"

Maybe aerospace companies should focus on robust engineering instead of robust processes. "Systems engineering" doesn't work so well when many of your (systems) engineers have little technical experience-- especially design/test/integration experience. Too often they are focused on the process instead of the product.
 
2013-02-03 10:23:40 AM

WhyteRaven74: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Boeing tried to get quality work for schitt pay, and you wingnuts are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that it didn't work out for them.

It's not just that, Boeing has a long history of discouraging engineers from getting their PE certifications. An aerospace or aeronautical engineer with a PE can command a much higher salary than one without it. However an engineer without it can't sign off on their own work. And if you have something with as many parts and assemblies as an airliner and not enough engineers with PE's you get a nice back log of work. Of course it's not like the engineers at Boeing get to really do much, the heads of the various divisions aren't engineers and force the top engineers into meeting after meeting, on top of all the meetings without engineers there. And the meetings are the sort of things the engineers hate. Like meetings to discuss change requests, changes the design system can handle in real time without a problem. Basically management is acting like everyone is at a drafting table with a slide rule, while the engineers are cursing at their work stations they have to fill out change requests and get them approved, which can take a week.


No sh*t...
 
2013-02-03 10:41:27 AM

homelessdude: let us not forget that a good portion of the country almost elected another person with a long history of outsourcing and he would have been president

Instead, we got the guy who is fighting to give Corporations even more powers and outsource jobs to newer cheaper locales.

A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations

dl.dropbox.com

/Corporations aren't just people
//They're the most important people of all
 
2013-02-03 10:41:51 AM

Farkage: homelessdude: beefoe: Everyone outsources everything.  Most companies (Apple and perhaps every other computer company) don't ever even touch any phase of their production.  It's efficient, cost effective and lets companies take advantage of best-in-class technology and fabrication.  It's just how things are done now, not some evil conspiracy.

I agree with the thought of outsourcing as a viable business and manufacturing method. It makes sense and while it hurts domestically, it is the way the world works. For my part, I deal every single day with the barrage of low cost providers in my field from outside of my country. It drives me crazy but it also drives me to improve my skillset to stay ahead of the pack. It is the only way to stay viable in my field.

The problem though with outsourcing is that all too often, the decision to outsource is not to take advantage of "best-in-class technology and fabrication". Instead, it is due to people channeling the work flow where the bottom line is paramount and not the product. Yes, companies need to make their money and all that and profit is good and necessary for corporate survival. But when a completely inferior product is created (and in this case, maybe a truly fatal flaw), then the methods of production and the reasons for choosing those techniques must be questioned. I am no aerospace engineer by any stretch or a production guru, but after so many mis-steps in the 787's short life, it is difficult not to be at least a little skeptical.

Something is rotten in Denmark....or Seattle as it were.

I am in Aerospace (not Boeing), and I can assure you the outsourcing is scary as hell.  They ship stuff out all over the place and the fight to get the components and systems qualified to our satisfaction is mind boggling.  We have to CONSTANTLY fight Program Management and push back against components that failed tests, don't meet our specifications, etc.  The suppliers are always giving us the "But we feel it's good enough and ...


Seattle Boeing has known this was a screwed up idea for years. But when you play engineers off against each other, open separate companies in South Carolina just so you can show Wall Street how you whipped the unions .. then engineers turn into commodies and are interchangeable.

Which is exactly what you don't want when building and designing a plane. You want dedicated long term top of the industry pros who are invested in their work coming out right.

Old Boeing was an Engineering-first company. Mullaly would have made a fine senior exec for Boeing. Instead he was forced out by the Stonecipher McDonnell politicians. And now runs Ford, doing pretty well last I heard.

I still trust the old Boeing work, the 737's and such.

The product of when the company was still run by engineers and located its HQ right where the work was going on, no skirting the issue for the execs, they were our neighbors.

Now, that stupid rented tower in Chicago might as well be in europe for all they care about what happens to the plane's quality. They've insulated themselves. Engineering trouble is just seen as another cost of doing business.

The same crappy planes McDonnel built, like the DC10 and then renamed MD Deathbombs... Thats the future of Boeing. All the senior execs from McDonnell's fault when people start dying.
 
2013-02-03 10:42:47 AM

Satan's Dumptruck Driver: This story can't be true. The specs were met. They were enforcing the schedule. The boxes were checked. The risks were all green. Therefore failure is not possible.

FTA: "As to our quality flow down through our supply chain, we have very robust processes,"

Maybe aerospace companies should focus on robust engineering instead of robust processes. "Systems engineering" doesn't work so well when many of your (systems) engineers have little technical experience-- especially design/test/integration experience. Too often they are focused on the process instead of the product.



Several times I've seen parts come in, aluminium castings/forgings or polycarbonate, where hole locations are toleranced geometrically at .0039 of an inch (thats .1mm) on the prints. Machine the part, inspect it on the machine and it is in tolerance. Take it off the jig, deburr it, clean it and send it to inspection, and its out by .001". Reject!

So you call the engineers up at the Kite Factory, and try to get information on what they would suggest as to a good method to achieve that tolerance. The 25 year old schnook on the phone who is fresh out of New Delhi University School of Engineering tells you to filter and chill the coolant.

Headdesk.

So you do that. You spend the $1500 to buy a rather expensive filtration system for the coolant, and then a chilling system (Boeing approved of course) and spend the next two weeks trying to figure out how to hold that goddamn tolerance, for what turns out to be a through-hole clearance on a flexible hydraulic line.
 
2013-02-03 10:50:18 AM

Deathfrogg: Satan's Dumptruck Driver: This story can't be true. The specs were met. They were enforcing the schedule. The boxes were checked. The risks were all green. Therefore failure is not possible.

FTA: "As to our quality flow down through our supply chain, we have very robust processes,"

Maybe aerospace companies should focus on robust engineering instead of robust processes. "Systems engineering" doesn't work so well when many of your (systems) engineers have little technical experience-- especially design/test/integration experience. Too often they are focused on the process instead of the product.


Several times I've seen parts come in, aluminium castings/forgings or polycarbonate, where hole locations are toleranced geometrically at .0039 of an inch (thats .1mm) on the prints. Machine the part, inspect it on the machine and it is in tolerance. Take it off the jig, deburr it, clean it and send it to inspection, and its out by .001". Reject!

So you call the engineers up at the Kite Factory, and try to get information on what they would suggest as to a good method to achieve that tolerance. The 25 year old schnook on the phone who is fresh out of New Delhi University School of Engineering tells you to filter and chill the coolant.

Headdesk.

So you do that. You spend the $1500 to buy a rather expensive filtration system for the coolant, and then a chilling system (Boeing approved of course) and spend the next two weeks trying to figure out how to hold that goddamn tolerance, for what turns out to be a through-hole clearance on a flexible hydraulic line.


It's rather sad how people with no clue throw down stupidly tight and unnecessary GD&T stuff just because...
 
2013-02-03 10:51:15 AM
I have yet to see a case where outsourcing anything besides payroll (no I don't work for ADP but they seem to have their act together) actually worked the way it was intended. Outsource enterprise tech ops: costs go up, service level goes down. Outsource HR: same thing.

The old saying: if you want something done right, do it yourself, still holds true. Every time you outsource something, you forfeit a potential means of competitive advantage. Unfortunately, the C level execs who hold this line are often the ones run out on a rail. I can only speculate that there are massive kickbacks at stake between the board members of outsurcers and outsourcees. Nothing else would explain why otherwise intellegent people do things that will so obviously end badly.
 
2013-02-03 10:51:35 AM

Deathfrogg: So you call the engineers up at the Kite Factory, and try to get information on what they would suggest as to a good method to achieve that tolerance. The 25 year old schnook on the phone who is fresh out of New Delhi University School of Engineering tells you to filter and chill the coolant.


Sounds like somebody needs a refresher course. It's all ball-bearings these days.
 
2013-02-03 10:52:09 AM

Farkage: The suppliers are always giving us the "But we feel it's good enough and meets the spirit of the specification",


Wow, there's a line of bullshiat I've never heard before..."meets the spirit of the specification"...
 
2013-02-03 10:57:17 AM

Day_Old_Dutchie: styckx: Outsourcing shiat to third world countries known for half assing shiat at the expense of American stupidity isn't a good idea still? Who'da thunk it?

Damned shareholders and other assorted paper shufflers, who don't give a flying fark about the long-term consequences to jobs or the public as long as the original decision to outsource and supposedly better value makes enough for them to make a killing when they unload their poisoned stock on some poor sucker.




Don't ha know? The only reason why firms exist is to proved jobs for workers?
 
2013-02-03 10:58:33 AM
But if they ground the planes, can they still sell two or three tickets for every seat?
 
2013-02-03 10:58:39 AM
Yes, but I expect to be told that this is all the union's fault. That's what dumb people do. They find a simple source of a complex problem.
 
2013-02-03 10:59:16 AM

Deathfrogg: Satan's Dumptruck Driver: This story can't be true. The specs were met. They were enforcing the schedule. The boxes were checked. The risks were all green. Therefore failure is not possible.

FTA: "As to our quality flow down through our supply chain, we have very robust processes,"

Maybe aerospace companies should focus on robust engineering instead of robust processes. "Systems engineering" doesn't work so well when many of your (systems) engineers have little technical experience-- especially design/test/integration experience. Too often they are focused on the process instead of the product.


Several times I've seen parts come in, aluminium castings/forgings or polycarbonate, where hole locations are toleranced geometrically at .0039 of an inch (thats .1mm) on the prints. Machine the part, inspect it on the machine and it is in tolerance. Take it off the jig, deburr it, clean it and send it to inspection, and its out by .001". Reject!

So you call the engineers up at the Kite Factory, and try to get information on what they would suggest as to a good method to achieve that tolerance. The 25 year old schnook on the phone who is fresh out of New Delhi University School of Engineering tells you to filter and chill the coolant.

Headdesk.

So you do that. You spend the $1500 to buy a rather expensive filtration system for the coolant, and then a chilling system (Boeing approved of course) and spend the next two weeks trying to figure out how to hold that goddamn tolerance, for what turns out to be a through-hole clearance on a flexible hydraulic line.


just waller it out, make the goddam thing fit, we do't pay you to think we pay you to work
 
2013-02-03 10:59:51 AM

Ishidan: Farkage: The suppliers are always giving us the "But we feel it's good enough and meets the spirit of the specification",

Wow, there's a line of bullshiat I've never heard before..."meets the spirit of the specification"...


My freaking head exploded!  I mean holy shiat!  They were COMPLETELY serious and I had to tell them the only way I would let that part fly was if they put their wives and kids on the aircraft and we would sit in lawn chairs on the tarmac and watch. (I was dead farking serious and so pissed I was almost shaking - it was a primary flight control component too).  Even with that they tried to push the issue.  Scary sh*t...
 
2013-02-03 11:00:16 AM
Is this the same company that was trying to move out of Washington to a right to work state to break the unions?  Wonder how that cost savings will help with this?
 
2013-02-03 11:03:38 AM
arcas:Similarly, no serious auto company is going to allow a third party outsourcer to design their brake system or transmission.

Well, you know how it is...up until now it was airframe by Boeing, ENGINES by Pratt and Whitney, TIRES by Michelin, so on and so forth.  They just tried to outsource more key components until it screwed up.
 
2013-02-03 11:05:50 AM
I told you so:
* fuselage parts outsourced to an Italian supplier who didn't even have a CAD system, let alone the ability to use Boeing's CATIA.  That meant when components showed up they didn't align with other fuselage pieces
* the shortest flight test schedule (by several months) ever for a Boeing plane, despite using a new design
* completelly new manufacturing techniques for composites
* tight top-down control of schedule and feedback -- meaning that senior management was bullshiatted by the program managers
 
2013-02-03 11:06:20 AM
WOW, Subby!  You are so smart!  I didn't know BOEING made BATTERIES!!  Holy crap...maybe I should run down to the Radio Shack or Target and buy Boeing batteries for my garage door opener.

Because we all know, when you buy a car, that car manufacturer made EVERY SINGLE PART IN THE CAR IN THEIR FACTORY.  They don't outsource the radio, the glass, the tires, the wheels, the seats, the door panels, the lights, the light bulbs, hoses, cooling systems, electronic controls, brakes, assemblies, the floormats, the radiator, etc.  Nope.  All of it is made in-house.

Just like Boeing.  The make every part in house in Seattle or Wichita or South Carolina.  Hell, the even assemble stuff in their shiny downtown Chicago tower!  They never outsource the manufacture of stuff like ENGINES, BATTERIES, landing gear, avionics, tires, hoses, sub-assemblies, lubricants, etc.

/Subby really showed his ass today
//Stupid
 
2013-02-03 11:07:33 AM

homelessdude: beefoe: Everyone outsources everything.  Most companies (Apple and perhaps every other computer company) don't ever even touch any phase of their production.  It's efficient, cost effective and lets companies take advantage of best-in-class technology and fabrication.  It's just how things are done now, not some evil conspiracy.

I agree with the thought of outsourcing as a viable business and manufacturing method. It makes sense and while it hurts domestically, it is the way the world works. For my part, I deal every single day with the barrage of low cost providers in my field from outside of my country. It drives me crazy but it also drives me to improve my skillset to stay ahead of the pack. It is the only way to stay viable in my field.

The problem though with outsourcing is that all too often, the decision to outsource is not to take advantage of "best-in-class technology and fabrication". Instead, it is due to people channeling the work flow where the bottom line is paramount and not the product. Yes, companies need to make their money and all that and profit is good and necessary for corporate survival. But when a completely inferior product is created (and in this case, maybe a truly fatal flaw), then the methods of production and the reasons for choosing those techniques must be questioned. I am no aerospace engineer by any stretch or a production guru, but after so many mis-steps in the 787's short life, it is difficult not to be at least a little skeptical.

Something is rotten in Denmark....or Seattle as it were.


Honestly, is this who fiasco much different than Boeing hiring a bunch of homeless dudes (no offense) and putting them on the production line. Blaming the failures on, "Well the Union labor was too expensive".
 
2013-02-03 11:09:10 AM
Which executive(s) thought this was a good idea, and have they been shown the door yet? Someone needs to fall on their sword for this one.
 
2013-02-03 11:14:20 AM

Day_Old_Dutchie: styckx: Outsourcing shiat to third world countries known for half assing shiat at the expense of American stupidity isn't a good idea still? Who'da thunk it?

Damned shareholders, customers,and other assorted paper shufflers, who don't give a flying fark about the long-term consequences to jobs or the public as long as the original decision to outsource and supposedly better value makes enough for them to make a killing when they unload their poisoned stock on some poor sucker.


FTFY
 
2013-02-03 11:18:13 AM

Deathfrogg: madgordy: this all began when the Feds had Boeing bail out/buy McDonald Douglas, the Douglas execs were put on Boeings board and eventually became a majority.   the company moved it's HQ to the Douglas HQ in Chicago,  and started a massive outsourcing campaign.   They laid off 1/5th of the Boeing workers in favor of the outsource people.

Suddenly the McD scandles and corruption was hitting boeing.  Remember the Air Tanker Fiasco?  All Douglas execs, all corrupt.

Boeing's move to Chicago wasn't about the lower tax rates in Illinois, it was the fact that after 30 years of tax deferrals and waivers in Washington State, the time came to pay the piper and make up for those deferred taxes, and Boeing flat out refused to pay the taxes that they had already agreed to pay. Washington State has a law in its Constitution forbidding direct subsidy of business, Illinois has no such law. Boeing demands that the State pays most of the costs of its business, demanding the State conform to their demands for tax structure to support their employment requirements, then outsources the work anyway.

Building airplanes is just an ancillary business. Their major business is generating cash flow to support their executives bonus and salary structures. They'll pay 35 cents dividend per share, while the board members take home $20 million per year in bonuses.




It takes all day to fly from Seattle to Washington DC. If you are bidding on military contracts you need to be closer. Priorities, it's all about priorities. Commercial is secondary business at Boeing now.
 
2013-02-03 11:23:11 AM

Dogsbody: Fast
Cheap
Good
Choose two.


Seeing how it took 10 years to develop and the fleet has been grounded, it sounds like Boeing only chose one.
 
2013-02-03 11:23:57 AM
I've seen similar results in larger software development projects where a substantial portion of the work was outsourced overseas. Nevermind the communication issues that come up in what should be a simple conference call.
 
2013-02-03 11:26:05 AM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros:
Sounds like somebody needs a refresher course. It's all ball-bearings these days.


Actually, you'd be amazed at the number and variety of bushings they use. We'd get sacks of pre-fab 17-4 bushings coated in alodine, 1000 or more at a time, that we'd have to bore out and hold .0005 on the size. Not difficult really, small lathe will hold that all day with only a few insert changes. But they'll only pay 30 cents each. Can get three a minute if you're sharp. So, 90 cents a minute. Times 60, thats $54 an hour.

The shop needs $75 an hour minimum to break even.

The inserts are $15-$20 each, three corners on each one. You wanna pay some schnook $15 an hour who is intelligent enough to run the machine and not have his hand held and his nose blown every time he pushes the Start button. For a run of 2000, one can reasonably expect to turn the insert every half hour or so, thats five minutes each time to turn the insert and touch it off on the toolsetter to reset the zero on the corner and dork around backing the offset out and walking it back in so you don't scrap the part. That puts a new insert in the bar every hour and a half if everything goes perfectly. Break an insert, and thats probably 15 minutes of farking around because it bent the damn hold down screw, which is about $10 each for each one of those. Wrap a chip and that shatters the bar, which will run anywhere from $70-$200 to replace that.

Now, do that on a 20,000 part run and ship them out a week after getting the sacks of bushings in the door.

Thats how Boeing does business.
 
2013-02-03 11:28:19 AM

Mi-5: WOW, Subby!  You are so smart!  I didn't know BOEING made BATTERIES!!  Holy crap...maybe I should run down to the Radio Shack or Target and buy Boeing batteries for my garage door opener.

Because we all know, when you buy a car, that car manufacturer made EVERY SINGLE PART IN THE CAR IN THEIR FACTORY.  They don't outsource the radio, the glass, the tires, the wheels, the seats, the door panels, the lights, the light bulbs, hoses, cooling systems, electronic controls, brakes, assemblies, the floormats, the radiator, etc.  Nope.  All of it is made in-house.

Just like Boeing.  The make every part in house in Seattle or Wichita or South Carolina.  Hell, the even assemble stuff in their shiny downtown Chicago tower!  They never outsource the manufacture of stuff like ENGINES, BATTERIES, landing gear, avionics, tires, hoses, sub-assemblies, lubricants, etc.

/Subby really showed his ass today
//Stupid


You know that the the entire 787 fleet is grounded until further notice, yes?
 
2013-02-03 11:29:18 AM

MindStalker: Honestly, is this who fiasco much different than Boeing hiring a bunch of homeless dudes (no offense) and putting them on the production line. Blaming the failures on, "Well the Union labor was too expensive".


heh heh ....no offence taken....I get your point.
 
2013-02-03 11:31:11 AM
Wait what!?!?!

"On the 787, he said, Boeing management thought it could outsource risk and responsibility along with most of the work."

Wow, Boeing management in this case are either stupid or lazy...or both. The prime never cede's risk, it's always the prime's fault.
 
2013-02-03 11:33:47 AM

priapic_abandon: I've seen similar results in larger software development projects where a substantial portion of the work was outsourced overseas. Nevermind the communication issues that come up in what should be a simple conference call.


With people who don't all speak the same language natively.

Hell, I was just helping out at a local block party last night as traffic control...in Chinatown.  I can't tell you how many times somebody approached my barricade and yelled "I TURN HEA YAH?  I TURN!"  "No, sir, this road is closed."  "I TURN HEAH!"
 
2013-02-03 11:35:09 AM

HempHead:  
It takes all day to fly from Seattle to Washington DC. If you are bidding on military contracts you need to be closer. Priorities, it's all about priorities. Commercial is secondary business at Boeing now.


When Boeing is negotiating a contract with the Pentagon, the government employee is on the other end of the phone with a rubber stamp. The only "flying" involved is the directors on the company jets heading out to their condos in the Bahamas.
 
2013-02-03 11:36:42 AM

DaWormyPimpsta: [fail.brm.sk image 384x439]


Dig deeper, Watson!
 
2013-02-03 11:38:05 AM
Ouch! Something just bit me!
I'd bite it back if I could catch it.


/wo hoo, rack me up a cool dozen!!!
 
2013-02-03 11:40:11 AM
If you want ti done right, you have to do it yourself ....

stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-03 11:47:13 AM

johnnyrocket: Wait what!?!?!

"On the 787, he said, Boeing management thought it could outsource risk and responsibility along with most of the work."

Wow, Boeing management in this case are either stupid or lazy...or both. The prime never cedes risk, it's always the prime's fault.


Not up on the latest management paradigm, I see.  Management never cedes REWARD.  Privatize reward, socialize risk.
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report