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 49
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-03 09:39:27 AM
8 votes:
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 08:20:06 AM
6 votes:
A lot of grocery baggers with engineering degrees in the Everett WA are feeling pretty smug right now.
2013-02-03 08:37:32 AM
4 votes:
Boeing is certainly bad enough, but 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. So really is this "787 revelation" comes as little surprise when viewed in light of corporate leadership that spends more time negotiating their golden parachutes than making sound business decisions or worrying about their employees, or the safety of their customers, or the safety of the customers of their customers and so on and so forth.

On a related note.....what do corporations and soylent green have in common?
2013-02-03 08:20:31 AM
4 votes:
wait wait wait, are you telling me quality and cost are directly related? Umpossible.
2013-02-03 08:10:34 AM
4 votes:
If it's Boeing, I'm not going.
2013-02-03 10:41:51 AM
3 votes:

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 09:36:46 AM
3 votes:

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 09:33:50 AM
3 votes:
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 08:21:32 AM
3 votes:

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?


Hey, gotta pay for those multi-million dollar exec bonuses some how. And the best part is many of the execs that pushed for outsourcing are long gone.
2013-02-03 12:38:59 PM
2 votes:
Typical case of trying to be too slick for their own good. Squeezing every last dime out of " right sourcing" from suppliers. Probably looked good on the powerpoint charts.
2013-02-03 11:26:05 AM
2 votes:

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 10:20:06 AM
2 votes:

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 10:07:30 AM
2 votes:

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 09:06:01 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-03 09:01:55 AM
2 votes:

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?


FTFA:

"Since the battery and its monitoring system were made in Japan, and all the connected pieces were integrated by French company Thales "

Third world?

PS - If Americans are stupid, why would you want *them* to build it?
2013-02-03 08:42:37 AM
2 votes:
I blame the Unions.

If they had not been so greedy, Boeing wouldn't have been forced to outsource to remain cost competitive.
2013-02-03 08:41:38 AM
2 votes:
"The supplier management organization (at Boeing) didn't have diddly-squat in terms of engineering capability when they sourced all that work," he said.

You mean a part of Boeing, a company that when they bought MD the first thing they did was let go a ton of engineers, didn't have any engineering staff handy? You're shiatting me.
2013-02-03 08:30:22 AM
2 votes:
And some executive still got a fat bonus for it.
2013-02-03 08:21:07 AM
2 votes:

EvilEgg: 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?

Hey it's cheap and most of the time it works.


that's a WONDERFUL thing to tell people just before you get on a plane.
2013-02-03 08:16:32 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-04 09:39:11 AM
1 votes:

EvilEgg: Hey it's cheap and most of the time it works.


When its making T-Shirts or fixing a problem networking your printer over the phone SURE.  When its "Building an airplane," things are different.
2013-02-04 02:22:01 AM
1 votes:

beefoe: Yes, Japanese manufacturers are known for their crappy technology and inattention to detail.  And would you rather rely on Boeing's in-house lithium battery expertise?

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.


It's cheaper because slave wages, lack of worker safety and pollution controls all contribute to higher corporate profits and not into the US labor market.

If you send every job of you can overseas, there will be no middle class left to buy things or pay taxes to fund our standard of living compared to the shiatholes we outsource to.

Unless we want third world infrastructure and barbaric living conditions we need to start employing Americans to make the things we buy.
2013-02-04 01:36:07 AM
1 votes:

Cataholic: Boeing's in-house union engineers pointing the fingers at everyone else?  Color me shocked.  They may be correct, but I'll wait for someone with a slightly smaller axe to grind before I pass judgment on how this happened.


my wife worked for that company in a different aerospace division until fairly recently. it was common knowledge in the company that the project was a bust almost from the initial phases.

 it was reasonable to assume there would be teething problems, but since they essentially tried to reinvent the way an aircraft was produced, on multiple levels, on the largest and most complex craft ever devised, using many new technologies and materials and construction techniques for the first time, all at once, with no template to work from, and expecting a seamless success on a short delivery timeline, of course it was an unmitigated disaster.

 the boeing engineers may have an axe to grind, but it doesn't mean they are not correct. many of them left, the rest knew they were in an untenable situation. some of it may also be the contractors problems, but the real finger pointing can be placed at the people at the top in boeing that saddled everyone downstream of them with this clusterfark of a project.
2013-02-03 11:26:30 PM
1 votes:
I dealt with a major US aerospace company (not boeing) in the 90s for the Australian DOD. They subcontracted the work out to 6 other companies - 1 Australian, 1 Canadian, and 1 Israeli and 3 US but they were responsible for overall design, integration and testing of the final product. When there was a problem, we went to them and expected that they are being across all the details and have a solution in chain. Most of the time they did.

They prided themselves on being a can do company that delivered results. When ever a problem with cropped up, their Weeners was engineering based, not reaching for the contract to try to weasel out of it.

There were some big challenges of the program and fortunately we the customer took quality and capability over some schedule. They delivered late, but delivered a product that was world class.

Some companies do it right.
2013-02-03 04:37:09 PM
1 votes:

Negligible: Everyone here is assuming malevolence where there really isn't any, just incompetence. The whole aerospace industry, starting right around 1999, decided it was going to be really smart and try to copy the Toyota system of building cars, except with airplanes. That included finding the lowest cost solution, which most of the time included large amounts of outsourcing from unionized shops, and for parts where you only needed 15 per year instead of the thousands for a car plant. The result is that all of the technical engineers have now become integrators of parts made by the lowest bidder and American manufacturing plants are actually assembly plants for parts made somewhere else.


It's not just the aerospace industry. The same practice has been going on for some time in the software industry, and in many cases, with the same outcome. For at least two companies at which I've worked, including my present company, project managers serve as those integrators, with a couple of developers added as "assemblers", ensuring the stuff developed in outsourced silos will integrate and work together. The fun part is watching this model fail on things that require both deep and wide knowledge of a software product - read "documentation, training, and support" - because folks that do piecework don't do "holistic overview."
2013-02-03 03:03:10 PM
1 votes:
You what we manufacture in this country?

Lawsuits and excuses.
2013-02-03 02:34:43 PM
1 votes:

jeffowl: I blame the Unions.

If they had not been so greedy, Boeing wouldn't have been forced to outsource to remain cost competitive.


So. . .

Boeing: We need you engineers to design our new airliner.

Engineering Union: Since you're a Fortune 500 multinational company that makes money hand-over-fist, and we're the highly educated technical professionals the design your core product, we want pay appropriate to our level of education and skill and the ability to live a comfortable lifestyle and support our families.

Boeing: That's outrageous!  You union thieves!  You should take minimum wage and be happy!  If we paid you that we would only have big profits, not ludicrously huge profits!  I'll outsource all this work to India and get Habib and Sanjay to design it for a quarter of what you are charging and it will be just as good!

Engineering Union: Yeah, tell me how that works for you.
2013-02-03 12:55:16 PM
1 votes:

mofa: Deathfrogg: 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
...
<snip>
Thats how Boeing does business.

I don't know the policies of the company you work for, but you need to use caution when posting information that might run afoul of your company's "Company Most Secret" information.  It's likely that any numbers with dollar signs are included in that definition.

Of course, like some traffic laws, a company's rule book could create situations in which 100% of all employees must violate some sort of rule in order to perform their jobs, making it easy to justify summary dismissal.  Hypothetically, of course.


I could give a fark.

A: I'm out of that business and currently in University. 25 years carving chunks of metal and shiat into something pretty and useful with ONE single week vacation and six layoffs in that whole time is enough. I went from making $10 an hour in 1984 to $18 in 2007.
B: That company, after being jerked around on 90 day net and having its entire production capacity monopolized for three years by the farktards in Everett, is now out of business because the boss decided that he should get paid first even if he couldn't make payroll or accounts payable on a four man shop while our receivables were consistently two months late.

So, It isn't my problem anymore.
2013-02-03 12:30:25 PM
1 votes:
Once a company gets big enough to pull in the kind of money that attracts C-level MBAs like sharks to fresh chum, it's time to cash out and go start another firm.
2013-02-03 12:27:42 PM
1 votes:
Any time one of your senior engineers uses the term "diddly-squat" in a statement to the media, things probably aren't going as well as they should be.
2013-02-03 11:05:50 AM
1 votes:
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 10:42:47 AM
1 votes:

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 10:41:27 AM
1 votes:

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 10:15:28 AM
1 votes:
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 10:10:27 AM
1 votes:

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 09:52:58 AM
1 votes:
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 09:32:07 AM
1 votes:

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 09:28:15 AM
1 votes:
I was looking forward to a resurgence of a form of cottage industry, such as much British manufacturing employed prior to the '70s. Having groups of suppliers providing parts that are assembled into a greater thing can work. Every arm or the industry must assume a share in responsibility (and pride) in the outcome.

Nothing wrong with the part being made in Japan (a la Boeing) as long as they hold interest in the overall outcome. Perhaps a significant portion of profits derived only from the resulting end-product, in place of exclusively direct up-front sales.

Boeing's fault was, as Hart-Smith predicted, that they outsourced risk and responsibility along with most of the work. That work was tiered at such distance that there was a dilution in share of responsibility for the overall outcome, potentially not much interest at all. Each supply chain tier needs to be completely engaged in the end product, not only the concern in a low-cost provider as we're experiencing here.
2013-02-03 09:16:57 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-03 08:44:37 AM
1 votes:
Yes, Japanese manufacturers are known for their crappy technology and inattention to detail.  And would you rather rely on Boeing's in-house lithium battery expertise?

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.

/still wearing tinfoil hat
/just in case
2013-02-03 08:39:21 AM
1 votes:
This is just part of a larger result of letting wall street run the country for the benefit of a few.

When idiots scream about "WE GOTTA TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK", I wonder how many realize who it is we really have to take our country back from.

Reaping the whirlwind, we are.
2013-02-03 08:31:36 AM
1 votes:
Doesn't matter, they'll just buy a few Senators to pass a law mandating the government purchase 5000 of them at a steep markup as part of the next defense spending bill.
2013-02-03 08:24:48 AM
1 votes:

BiffSpiffy: But Radio Shack parts mean that they just have to pop into any Mall and get replacements, right?


Only if you're looking for a new phone contract.
2013-02-03 08:22:48 AM
1 votes:
Mad Scientist: If it's Boeing, I'm not going.

"Boeing faces an indefinite grounding of the Dreamliner because of a battery fire"

Battery Fire Dreamlighter
2013-02-03 08:14:26 AM
1 votes:

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?


Hey it's cheap and most of the time it works.
2013-02-03 08:12:48 AM
1 votes:
fail.brm.sk
2013-02-03 08:12:24 AM
1 votes:
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?
2013-02-03 08:12:20 AM
1 votes:
I thought about saying something, then I was all, like, "Watch shis thit!"
2013-02-03 08:11:53 AM
1 votes:

Mad Scientist: If it's Boeing, I'm not going.


Done in one.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report