Friday, July 10, 2009

Missed milestone

Gosh, two days ago it was 07/08/09? Was it not two years ago that Boeing rolled out the Potemkin airliner? Talk about 'pulling wool' over our eyes.

When will Boeing step up and be honest about what is going on with this plane? At this point and time, how can we believe what we hear from them? Do the powers that be speak with a forked tongue or do they just not understand? Or, is it just bad culture?

flightblogger has a recap and commentary to which this blog will respond with additional content.

Expect another poll series the next few days: Poll1, ..., Poll6


08/24/2016 -- Boeing is 100, this year.

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Critics can be more of a bane than boon.

07/11/2009 -- Notice the comment about Boeing bashing which ought to be dampened with reason, except stopping a swinging pendulum may be difficult.

Related posts: Here we go again (issues are: Earned value, Parameterized Models, Hype over hypothesis, Misused mathematics, Underdetermination), Out on a limb (the Board and management are way off - can they learn?), Scale up versus extrapolation (basic tenets were ignored in the rush to claim fame - not much wiser than a toddler - which is what computation can do the mind, by the way).

Modified: 08/24/2016


Anonymous said...

The perrenial Boeing cheerleading squad has all of a sudden gone cynical.

First one to climb out of the Boeing tank was Ostrower.

Joining him today is Richard Aboulafia:

Even the ubiquitous Boeing booster and serial Airbus hater Saj Amahd at fleetbuzz has to resort to trumpeting 747-8 over 787:

I suspect the next quarterly earnings call will pull Scott Hamilton into the light also:

Boeing has pretty much lost the financial analysts already, and the P.I. Writer Andrea James seems to not only be enjoying taking the piss out on Boeing, but egging on the readers also.

Even the Evertt HErald is now seriously musing over Boeing:

AJSwtlk said...

Thanks for the comment. I've noticed that the mood seems to have changed.

But, Boeing bashing ought not swing out as far as was the mania in 2007 (despite the notion of equal reactions).

Perhaps, Boeing will now emphasize that big projects need incremental planning, testing along the way, and not getting the cart before the horse.

Then, they could take a stance that would show the world how project management and engineering is done by the big boys, meaning those who can tackle increasingly complicated technology, ever-changing requirements, and unmanageable expectations while actually accomplishing (without the hubris, Scott C and Jim M - ah, beating on the internal workers - great move, big guy).

After all, when one considers what has been put together, it is a real thing (and moved under its own power this week). It's not an illusion (albeit, how far the thing is from goals remains to be seen).

What has been wrong all along is the hype (Scott C listen up) that was allowed to bubble beyond proportions that are healthy (not unlike the economy, folks).

I am very sure that many Boeing engineers are just sick with angst. We ought not beat on them; the Board and those upper rank people the main fault here.

I'm not a Boeing rah-rah person, yet we need to start to criticize the critics. Jon is trying to atone for his being seduced by the mania. RA leases planes; has he ever done anything real?

Let's keep it real, people, please. Any paragons can demonstrate their prowess in the public eye at any time. Just let us know so that we can watch.

Anonymous said...

Absolutly I will not take a shot at the engineers or the manufacturing people on the pointy end. And least not those on Boing's payroll.

This is purely the inability of the executives to grasp design/build.

It's easy to surrender control on that which is simple.

Aircraft are not simple.

Control was exchanged for cost, when in reality the two are hopelessly intertwined.

While I dissagree with the notion of potential mediocraty for 787, financially, the program is now showing signs of slipping into a level of financial devastation for the company. It may well take all units on order now or more, for the program to fully recoup the costs involved. I suspect the upkeep and repair of the broken Vought operation will be financial ball and chain for many, many years.

Vought pretty much had to agree to the sale, because the operation was sending all of vought hurtling towards bankruptcy.

One has to wonder how other Boeing partners are handling the cost of the delays, and how this would affect such partnerships in the future.

Were I a potential partner candidate for say, a prospective 797, I would think twice, and demand much more from Boeing. In other words, a truck load of cash and reams of escape clauses.

Anonymous said...

What might be interesting to look at further, assuming one could find someone who is objective, is whether having Wichita in-house might have helped.

For one, Turner was caught on tape laughing at Boeing's problems. Yes. Had he worked for Boeing, rather than spend his time collecting all the monies that he got from the sale and counting the future monies, he could have had his team actually help Boeing and not just go after their own glories.

Oh well. Harry, you sure did your number on both MD 1 and MD 2 (yes, Boeing). Bell, you sure helped, too.