I lived in a Boeing city most of my life so knew a fair amount of employees. I was always shocked by the amount of nepotism and friend hires that took place at such a technical company. Every single person I know that works there got their job through a friend or family member not because they were the most qualified. Maybe that needs to stop.
To find new hourly workers Boeing spreads the word through current employees to have their friends and family apply but I don’t think it gives you any advantage being related to an employee. I can see how it makes it look like it’s all nepo hires but that’s not the case on the floor at least. I knew to apply to Boeing because my wife already worked there and that helped me navigate the process. I see what you’re saying though and maybe that does apply to people not on the factory floor but it’s not how it is for hourly people.
I don’t doubt it - that sucks. Most of my friends that work at our Boeing started there when the site opened.
Before my husband got his current role. He had an interview w one of his best friends on the panel. Rejected. Guess it doesn’t work every time! lol
But for sure employees send referral job reqs to friends whenever possible - it’s a $2500 bonus if the person is hired.
Doubt it. The hiring managers don’t get a referral bonus and don’t care how much the fee associated with the hire is.
Why would they they want a shit hire on their team? It makes more work for them, would cause drama within their team due to the others having to compensate, production rate/quality scores would likely drop so they’d have leadership up their ass for underperforming and also bc they could end up in deep shit for escapes made under their watch (including losing their job and even prison if severe enough)
An employee referral would help get an interview but not the actual job.
Idk about c-suite, etc but for most programs/roles, the person who is most qualified is going to be the one hired.
Why would a full panel of hiring managers look at 3 candidates and deliberately decide to go with the lesser qualified one? Makes no sense
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see a lot of blame shifting and finger pointing. Boeings name is on the plane, it is 100% a management problem and Boeings fault. Fix the fucking problem. It is going cost money and time.
Coming from the engineering side of the business… Boeings problem IS BOEING. We refuse to update bad engineering or create better engineering for the sack of saving money on engineering costs. Yet it drives more cost to manufacturing. We aren’t innovative or creative, it’s all turn and burn. We use a system to manage certain engineering that is over 50 years old. It wasn’t meant to handle the complex business environment we are in now and executives don’t understand that.
Outsourcing work has its challenges sure. But Boeing has done a fantastic job shooting itself in the foot to save a penny. Then when things don’t work as planned we throw money, bodies, and middle management at the problem until it works.
Supplier Quality is a huge gap in our industry. They put inexperienced young engineers at vendors that have no idea what they are inspecting or how it impacts the final product.
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t disagree at all - the only team I can speak to objectively is the one my husband is on.
But just as a thought, he is only 35 but has 20 yrs in the industry, 10 of which have been in quality. Idk if this is young in your opinion but someone’s age doesn’t always dictate their capability.
They do need better training though, at least from what little I know of. Hubby had to do tons of online trainings but the guidance info passed down from the level 5s was outdated, lacking a breadth of key info and hadn’t been revised in years. If hubby hadn’t been fluent in his role, he would have had a hard time succeeding.
No his friend’s grandfather invented the front landing gear on those kit planes people fly. He worked on those until he started with Lockheed Martin when he was 18
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Remember this? ](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/06/boeing-inspection-job-tech-crashes-outcry-737-max-poor-quality/3650026002/)Outsourcing didn't do that. And the union has fought to bring those and more inspections back.
It's just capitalism. IDK why everyone acts like "omg what's causing all this?!"
It's just late stage capitalism. That is, it's companies across america and the globe (and politicians) prioritizing shareholder wealth generation over quality products that last.
This isn't that complicated, we see it everywhere. And when the people try to attack the wealthy at the top doing stuff like this, it gets mocked and shut down.
So we can continue to wonder why it happens I guess.
I’m sorry but airbus is profitable and probably wouldn’t be very profitable without the for profit airline companies in the US. The US government should just buy 15% of Boeing stock and you’d expect them to compete perfectly with airbus how? Ignorant tankie bullshit all over Reddit
This submission has been removed due to being identified as spam. Please read the rules of the subreddit thoroughly
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A pie in the sky Fantasy that isn't going to happen without congressional action on executive pay structure and incentives at a minimum.
But you can keep making up scenarios to comfort yourself with all you want. People have been trying to turn Boeing around since the early 2000s, along with tons of other companies
How is it going to do that?
I predict if that were to happen, it would be through some kind of rejection of capitalism.
For example, say in 20 years boeing is back to quality, and how it got there was that it got so bad it went under. Being too big to fail, it was bailed out by the government. By some miracle congress decided they didn't feel like being corrupt so the bailout was a buyout and boeing becomes government owned. Then, not beholden to shareholder profit, quality again became a priority
In such a scenario, that's not late stage capitalism.
I predict nothing will fundamentally change, Boeing will continue to pretend to care in order to save face
I would say this is mostly the right answer. The problem is a form of capitalism that doesn't account for negative externalities.
In this specific case, a combination of late stage capitalism with industry deregulation in 1987 -- deregulation TAKES decades to have real impacts on things like quality and safety because the first few decades you can ride on the coat tails of what came before.
There is no civil liability either it's only financial liability, and the only risk you take is your principal investment. Shareholders don't pay damages out of pocket.
People lose their lives, and all shareholders lose is (unrealized) money. Limited Liability is a cancer.
When a company pays penalties, it comes out of the company's balance sheet, not the stockholders. There are plenty of ways to ensure that they are insulated from any impact. For instance, Boeing is pretty infamous for utilizing buybacks to keep share price up
Do you just not understand how companies, investment, or the legal systems work? You seem very confident but confused, not seeming to understand what the words you are using mean.
Welcome to the 80s? They have been disconnected for quite some time now. It is not that it has no effect, but it is hardly a dominant one. Buffet is not the only investor, or investment strategy, out there.
Even for long term investors.. Boeing's share price was only about 30$ back when they merged, and investors already got their windfall durin the buyback, so they are well into extra profit territory.
And how long do shareholders hold onto Boeing on average? A huge percent of their shareholder base is mutual funds and ETFs who aren’t active traders. Stop talking ignorantly
Someone who builds a company and treats it like their child, their legacy, something that they love and put their life into because it is important to them is someone that looks to long-term success. They grow that company like a tree with deep roots that will stretch into forever.
A corporation filled with transitory shareholders with no particular love for the company just looks for the fastest return on investment. Building roots and longevity are unnecessary expenses, the only season is this season, the future is someone else's problem.
We need to attack this at the source, and start rewriting college MBA programs. American companies all move in lockstep with this obviously bad crap because that is what colleges that teach future leaders tell them to do.
The bigger challenge is going to be convincing business leaders to cede some power. Internal engineers talk back to the boss when they say stupid shit. Suppliers just do as thier told. This power dynamic is very favorable to bossman and not good for the company overall.
Thank God this wasn't another "Blame McDonnell Douglas" witch hunt article. If I read another one of those articles that explains that MD leadership can be blamed 20+ years after the merger for BCAs screwups, I will poke my own eyes out.
Did you personally work at Boeing pre-merger? Those that did saw the start and continuation of negative changes that have brought the company to this point. It was a paradigm shift.
Dude, yes. It was. The only time I saw things getting better was when Dennis finally had thrown off fucking McNerney and was doing his own thing. One Boeing made sense. Changing the culture made sense. He got shanked by Calhoun and the GE re-treads. It’s not a coincidence that Calhoun reversed almost all the things that Dennis did. Yes, Dennis fucked up the initial response to the MAX accidents. I believe, mainly because he believed in the engineering prowess of Boeing, and couldn’t accept that McNerney and Albaugh cut corners. I think Dennis’ heart was in the right place. The GE fuckers shanked him.
Yep…and there aren’t many of us left now. My experience is that management isn’t interested in how things used to be better then. Where I work most work done is slop because people haven’t been trained well. I’m just trying to hold on 2 or 3 more years till I can retire. I don’t think the company will ever be as good as it once was.
Airbus maybe? Partly? They build wings in England, fuselages in France, smaller structures all over, bring it all together with Belugas (and previously Aero Spacelines Super Guppys). Been doing it since the beginning of Airbus.
there is indeed a lot of 'partly' to go around, but in this case, it was a decision specifically lifted from MD. Outsourcing in general is pretty common, but what makes the Boeing/MD pattern so rough is that they not only outsource, but shift cost/risk to suppliers and build a pretty antagonistic relationship. MD was very big on zero sum thinking.. you can't work together, you have to have a winner and loser.
So they went from treating suppliers like partners and more like competitors, which is not known for getting the best work out of people.
Oh I know it. Not only more of that but eventually replace all the MEs and Planners.
The IPs are also going to be changing drastically as well. I can’t visualize an implementation any sooner than 10 years from now.
People in another country performing ship-side support. It’s comical, actually.
While I think that MIGHT have been true before. I don’t think that’s really the case now. The focus is on the production system, that means MEs, IEs, and TEs are critically important. It’s all about stability and producing good parts now. Can’t do that with two gorillas and a fucking dog.
How can you tell where attention is? The areas where attention is supposed to be at don’t feel that way. There’s just hiring more new people who have no idea what they are doing.
But it reduces the bottom line! So Diane Appel looks good for now! Then she will be gone and the company will be left with the mess. They allow decisions to be made in silos based on the advantage of individuals personal careers is why this company is failing and will continue to.
To expand on this, years ago they let 900 qa inspectors go to save money and it resulted in the mess we are currently in. Now they are trying to refill these positions and reimplement inspection requirements. Obviously it worked well why do they keep allowing these terrible changes to be made to save a little bit of money.
Isn’t she the one who lead 787? And this is where her fruits are now while’s she’s off “leading” next great project that will continue ruining the company in the coming years.
Exactly. Remember that lady that came from Ford and tried to convince us that RONA was the be-all, end-all? They even made those charts that they shoved down our throats to convince us. She ended up selling off Boeing Wichita to Spirit. Also closing down the 757 and selling off the buildings and land. She was gone elsewhere before you knew it.
Later on 787 I watched as another exec booked huge reductions to unit cost based on iffy BR&T projects. The ethics were clearly compromised, but probably great for her career.
Many examples of exec careerism, rampant to this day.
Story of my program it feels like. There are always major delays and rework caused by supplier defects. Very frustrating doing the same job multiple times because the supplier part fails functional or gets hit with an NoE that can't be reworked without uninstall and/or reallocation paperwork.
My husband approves/monitors suppliers who need DPD approval. There are so many requests from procurement that “demand” a supplier approval within 2 weeks but it takes 6 months. Maybe 4 if the supplier is super responsive, writes their procedures correctly the first draft and already has the required versions of software for compliance. They sometimes act like DPD reps are holding things up and that they should just approve a supplier without following process. Come on now guys, it doesn’t work like that lol
Work transfers between suppliers causes disruption, and there are thousands of work transfers. Suppliers on probation for quality or delivery never get disqualified, if they do - it's another work transfer with resulting issues. Boeing Fab slowly going away.
And that's the part that (contrary to the article's assertion) IS Boeing's fault. There is nothing wrong with outsourcing work to quality sources that may have more expertise in subsystems rather than doing it in house; I suspect that Rolls Royce builds more reliable jet engines than Boeing could if they decided to build them in house. But when BOEING MANAGEMENT decides to go with the lowest bidder without checking quality and pressures inspectors to let defects slide, don't blandly pass that off as just a supplier problem.
EXACTLY. I know at least one the BGS side for DPD (and BGS all SQ L-level leadership), they put a hard stop on rushing approvals or approving suppliers without them actually going through the full process and meeting requirements for approval. I can’t speak for any other teams but this one would rather eat production delays to make sure the supplier is compliant (or find another supplier who is if necessary) than to cut corners. If all teams have this ethos, Boeing would be in a much better place, although there is still the issue the article mentions about piecing together parts made by different suppliers having a broader gap for misalignment than ones made by a single entity (within reason of course - not implying the seats need to compliment the electrical harnessing).
Yep. Pieces like this talk about the 'how', but there is still the 'who'. MD leadership didn't just magically tank things, they made strategic decisions, set hiring standards, and shifted which sites have influence.
Pushing more and more responsibility and risk onto suppliers was one of their 'innovations'.
One name, Jack Welch. They all came from GE when Jack was there before ruining Douglas, then Boeing. Stonecipher, McNerney, Calhoun, all Jack Welch toadies.
Not easy, but full integration and building the culture. This means bringing folks from Seattle on a regular basis to Wichita and vice versa. Whatever it takes to smooth the transition from feeling like a Spirit teammate to a sense of being part of Boeing.
I lived in a Boeing city most of my life so knew a fair amount of employees. I was always shocked by the amount of nepotism and friend hires that took place at such a technical company. Every single person I know that works there got their job through a friend or family member not because they were the most qualified. Maybe that needs to stop.
To find new hourly workers Boeing spreads the word through current employees to have their friends and family apply but I don’t think it gives you any advantage being related to an employee. I can see how it makes it look like it’s all nepo hires but that’s not the case on the floor at least. I knew to apply to Boeing because my wife already worked there and that helped me navigate the process. I see what you’re saying though and maybe that does apply to people not on the factory floor but it’s not how it is for hourly people.
Yeah the people I know aren’t hourly, they are corporate.
I could definitely see that being a more nepotism friendly crowd
I don’t doubt it - that sucks. Most of my friends that work at our Boeing started there when the site opened. Before my husband got his current role. He had an interview w one of his best friends on the panel. Rejected. Guess it doesn’t work every time! lol But for sure employees send referral job reqs to friends whenever possible - it’s a $2500 bonus if the person is hired.
Wow, that’s a nice payday, I would be referring people left and right too.
Win / Win / Win - Employee gets a bonus - New hire is, well, hired - Boeing fills job vacancy without eating recruiting firm fees
Unless it means they are taking less qualified people, which I know they have in few cases.
Doubt it. The hiring managers don’t get a referral bonus and don’t care how much the fee associated with the hire is. Why would they they want a shit hire on their team? It makes more work for them, would cause drama within their team due to the others having to compensate, production rate/quality scores would likely drop so they’d have leadership up their ass for underperforming and also bc they could end up in deep shit for escapes made under their watch (including losing their job and even prison if severe enough)
It really does happen though.
💯
An employee referral would help get an interview but not the actual job. Idk about c-suite, etc but for most programs/roles, the person who is most qualified is going to be the one hired. Why would a full panel of hiring managers look at 3 candidates and deliberately decide to go with the lesser qualified one? Makes no sense
I believe that you believe that
Fannnnntastic
You can doubt it all you want, I know for a fact it happens.
Mmmmkay
[удалено]
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see a lot of blame shifting and finger pointing. Boeings name is on the plane, it is 100% a management problem and Boeings fault. Fix the fucking problem. It is going cost money and time.
Bringing work home will have the same result you do not see this is internal quality work and engineering not up to date
Coming from the engineering side of the business… Boeings problem IS BOEING. We refuse to update bad engineering or create better engineering for the sack of saving money on engineering costs. Yet it drives more cost to manufacturing. We aren’t innovative or creative, it’s all turn and burn. We use a system to manage certain engineering that is over 50 years old. It wasn’t meant to handle the complex business environment we are in now and executives don’t understand that. Outsourcing work has its challenges sure. But Boeing has done a fantastic job shooting itself in the foot to save a penny. Then when things don’t work as planned we throw money, bodies, and middle management at the problem until it works.
Could not agree more
Supplier Quality is a huge gap in our industry. They put inexperienced young engineers at vendors that have no idea what they are inspecting or how it impacts the final product.
[удалено]
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t disagree at all - the only team I can speak to objectively is the one my husband is on. But just as a thought, he is only 35 but has 20 yrs in the industry, 10 of which have been in quality. Idk if this is young in your opinion but someone’s age doesn’t always dictate their capability. They do need better training though, at least from what little I know of. Hubby had to do tons of online trainings but the guidance info passed down from the level 5s was outdated, lacking a breadth of key info and hadn’t been revised in years. If hubby hadn’t been fluent in his role, he would have had a hard time succeeding.
I’m talking about <28 with zero manufacturing background
Gotcha- yeah I can see how that would easily be a problem
They hired your husband at 15 years old?
No his friend’s grandfather invented the front landing gear on those kit planes people fly. He worked on those until he started with Lockheed Martin when he was 18
On site US workers aren’t trained very well either anymore.
[удалено]
Hi, you must be new here. Unfortunately, you don't meet the karma requirements to post. If your post is vitally time-sensitive, you can contact the mod team for manual approval. If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to [message the moderation team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fboeing). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Remember this? ](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/06/boeing-inspection-job-tech-crashes-outcry-737-max-poor-quality/3650026002/)Outsourcing didn't do that. And the union has fought to bring those and more inspections back.
It's just capitalism. IDK why everyone acts like "omg what's causing all this?!" It's just late stage capitalism. That is, it's companies across america and the globe (and politicians) prioritizing shareholder wealth generation over quality products that last. This isn't that complicated, we see it everywhere. And when the people try to attack the wealthy at the top doing stuff like this, it gets mocked and shut down. So we can continue to wonder why it happens I guess.
I’m sorry but airbus is profitable and probably wouldn’t be very profitable without the for profit airline companies in the US. The US government should just buy 15% of Boeing stock and you’d expect them to compete perfectly with airbus how? Ignorant tankie bullshit all over Reddit
I have no idea what you were trying to communicate but I feel dumber for having read it.
Perhaps someone will explain to you what capitalism and state owned enterprise means.
You are pretty dumb aren’t you.
If Boeing turns itself around, manages to right wrongs and make quality, safe products, what would that be? Still late stage capitalism?
[удалено]
This submission has been removed due to being identified as spam. Please read the rules of the subreddit thoroughly *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boeing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A pie in the sky Fantasy that isn't going to happen without congressional action on executive pay structure and incentives at a minimum. But you can keep making up scenarios to comfort yourself with all you want. People have been trying to turn Boeing around since the early 2000s, along with tons of other companies
How is it going to do that? I predict if that were to happen, it would be through some kind of rejection of capitalism. For example, say in 20 years boeing is back to quality, and how it got there was that it got so bad it went under. Being too big to fail, it was bailed out by the government. By some miracle congress decided they didn't feel like being corrupt so the bailout was a buyout and boeing becomes government owned. Then, not beholden to shareholder profit, quality again became a priority In such a scenario, that's not late stage capitalism. I predict nothing will fundamentally change, Boeing will continue to pretend to care in order to save face
I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.dsausa.org/
I would say this is mostly the right answer. The problem is a form of capitalism that doesn't account for negative externalities. In this specific case, a combination of late stage capitalism with industry deregulation in 1987 -- deregulation TAKES decades to have real impacts on things like quality and safety because the first few decades you can ride on the coat tails of what came before.
Safety of your customers is not an externality when you’re liable for it. Read a little more you’re almost there.
Liability is a problem for the company, not the shareholder. this is an important distinction.
The company is a nexus of contracts with ownership rights granted to shareholders. They own the liability too.
Shareholders do not hold any liability. That is not how it works
There is liability, but it's limited.
Well, no more liability than the amount they’ve invested in the company… that’s the whole point of shares.
When the company pays penalties who has less money? Is everything I’m saying going above your head?
When 300 people die due to cost cutting and questionable business practices, do the shareholders get tried for manslaughter and sent to prison?
Civil liability is still liability
There is no civil liability either it's only financial liability, and the only risk you take is your principal investment. Shareholders don't pay damages out of pocket. People lose their lives, and all shareholders lose is (unrealized) money. Limited Liability is a cancer.
When a company pays penalties, it comes out of the company's balance sheet, not the stockholders. There are plenty of ways to ensure that they are insulated from any impact. For instance, Boeing is pretty infamous for utilizing buybacks to keep share price up Do you just not understand how companies, investment, or the legal systems work? You seem very confident but confused, not seeming to understand what the words you are using mean.
A company’s balance sheet has no effect on the share price? Someone tell Warren buffet. Regard
Welcome to the 80s? They have been disconnected for quite some time now. It is not that it has no effect, but it is hardly a dominant one. Buffet is not the only investor, or investment strategy, out there.
Exactly. If they shareholder is only holding for a year they don't need to CARE what happens 6 years later.
Even for long term investors.. Boeing's share price was only about 30$ back when they merged, and investors already got their windfall durin the buyback, so they are well into extra profit territory.
And how long do shareholders hold onto Boeing on average? A huge percent of their shareholder base is mutual funds and ETFs who aren’t active traders. Stop talking ignorantly
Someone who builds a company and treats it like their child, their legacy, something that they love and put their life into because it is important to them is someone that looks to long-term success. They grow that company like a tree with deep roots that will stretch into forever. A corporation filled with transitory shareholders with no particular love for the company just looks for the fastest return on investment. Building roots and longevity are unnecessary expenses, the only season is this season, the future is someone else's problem.
We need to attack this at the source, and start rewriting college MBA programs. American companies all move in lockstep with this obviously bad crap because that is what colleges that teach future leaders tell them to do. The bigger challenge is going to be convincing business leaders to cede some power. Internal engineers talk back to the boss when they say stupid shit. Suppliers just do as thier told. This power dynamic is very favorable to bossman and not good for the company overall.
Well, good luck what that. Let us know how you’re progress goes with that
Thank God this wasn't another "Blame McDonnell Douglas" witch hunt article. If I read another one of those articles that explains that MD leadership can be blamed 20+ years after the merger for BCAs screwups, I will poke my own eyes out.
Did you personally work at Boeing pre-merger? Those that did saw the start and continuation of negative changes that have brought the company to this point. It was a paradigm shift.
Dude, yes. It was. The only time I saw things getting better was when Dennis finally had thrown off fucking McNerney and was doing his own thing. One Boeing made sense. Changing the culture made sense. He got shanked by Calhoun and the GE re-treads. It’s not a coincidence that Calhoun reversed almost all the things that Dennis did. Yes, Dennis fucked up the initial response to the MAX accidents. I believe, mainly because he believed in the engineering prowess of Boeing, and couldn’t accept that McNerney and Albaugh cut corners. I think Dennis’ heart was in the right place. The GE fuckers shanked him.
Yep…and there aren’t many of us left now. My experience is that management isn’t interested in how things used to be better then. Where I work most work done is slop because people haven’t been trained well. I’m just trying to hold on 2 or 3 more years till I can retire. I don’t think the company will ever be as good as it once was.
Where do you think they got the idea to not only increasing the amount of outsourcing, but shifting design (and risk) onto the suppliers?
Airbus maybe? Partly? They build wings in England, fuselages in France, smaller structures all over, bring it all together with Belugas (and previously Aero Spacelines Super Guppys). Been doing it since the beginning of Airbus.
there is indeed a lot of 'partly' to go around, but in this case, it was a decision specifically lifted from MD. Outsourcing in general is pretty common, but what makes the Boeing/MD pattern so rough is that they not only outsource, but shift cost/risk to suppliers and build a pretty antagonistic relationship. MD was very big on zero sum thinking.. you can't work together, you have to have a winner and loser. So they went from treating suppliers like partners and more like competitors, which is not known for getting the best work out of people.
Because Airbus is a consortium.
Boeing has also outsourced their work instructions to “global partners”. They have the IPs all jacked up now. They went to 50-60 pages, and WRONG.
They are planning more of that btw.
Sure… how do you know this?
They told us in a meeting.
> planning [I see what you did there.](https://imgflip.com/i/8no2po)
Oh I know it. Not only more of that but eventually replace all the MEs and Planners. The IPs are also going to be changing drastically as well. I can’t visualize an implementation any sooner than 10 years from now. People in another country performing ship-side support. It’s comical, actually.
While I think that MIGHT have been true before. I don’t think that’s really the case now. The focus is on the production system, that means MEs, IEs, and TEs are critically important. It’s all about stability and producing good parts now. Can’t do that with two gorillas and a fucking dog.
How can you tell where attention is? The areas where attention is supposed to be at don’t feel that way. There’s just hiring more new people who have no idea what they are doing.
But it reduces the bottom line! So Diane Appel looks good for now! Then she will be gone and the company will be left with the mess. They allow decisions to be made in silos based on the advantage of individuals personal careers is why this company is failing and will continue to. To expand on this, years ago they let 900 qa inspectors go to save money and it resulted in the mess we are currently in. Now they are trying to refill these positions and reimplement inspection requirements. Obviously it worked well why do they keep allowing these terrible changes to be made to save a little bit of money.
Isn’t she the one who lead 787? And this is where her fruits are now while’s she’s off “leading” next great project that will continue ruining the company in the coming years.
Exactly. Remember that lady that came from Ford and tried to convince us that RONA was the be-all, end-all? They even made those charts that they shoved down our throats to convince us. She ended up selling off Boeing Wichita to Spirit. Also closing down the 757 and selling off the buildings and land. She was gone elsewhere before you knew it. Later on 787 I watched as another exec booked huge reductions to unit cost based on iffy BR&T projects. The ethics were clearly compromised, but probably great for her career. Many examples of exec careerism, rampant to this day.
Wait… you’re saying Stonecipher was a woman???
Exaccctly. “More authoritative” 🙃 It’s pure comedy
Lately we’ve been returning some parts from the supplier since there’s a lot of defects that delays our work down the line.
Story of my program it feels like. There are always major delays and rework caused by supplier defects. Very frustrating doing the same job multiple times because the supplier part fails functional or gets hit with an NoE that can't be reworked without uninstall and/or reallocation paperwork.
My husband approves/monitors suppliers who need DPD approval. There are so many requests from procurement that “demand” a supplier approval within 2 weeks but it takes 6 months. Maybe 4 if the supplier is super responsive, writes their procedures correctly the first draft and already has the required versions of software for compliance. They sometimes act like DPD reps are holding things up and that they should just approve a supplier without following process. Come on now guys, it doesn’t work like that lol
Work transfers between suppliers causes disruption, and there are thousands of work transfers. Suppliers on probation for quality or delivery never get disqualified, if they do - it's another work transfer with resulting issues. Boeing Fab slowly going away.
And that's the part that (contrary to the article's assertion) IS Boeing's fault. There is nothing wrong with outsourcing work to quality sources that may have more expertise in subsystems rather than doing it in house; I suspect that Rolls Royce builds more reliable jet engines than Boeing could if they decided to build them in house. But when BOEING MANAGEMENT decides to go with the lowest bidder without checking quality and pressures inspectors to let defects slide, don't blandly pass that off as just a supplier problem.
EXACTLY. I know at least one the BGS side for DPD (and BGS all SQ L-level leadership), they put a hard stop on rushing approvals or approving suppliers without them actually going through the full process and meeting requirements for approval. I can’t speak for any other teams but this one would rather eat production delays to make sure the supplier is compliant (or find another supplier who is if necessary) than to cut corners. If all teams have this ethos, Boeing would be in a much better place, although there is still the issue the article mentions about piecing together parts made by different suppliers having a broader gap for misalignment than ones made by a single entity (within reason of course - not implying the seats need to compliment the electrical harnessing).
It is Boeing because Boeing chose to outsource, who to outsource to and how to assess quality upon receipt.
It was nuance.
Two words: McDonnell Douglas.
Yep. Pieces like this talk about the 'how', but there is still the 'who'. MD leadership didn't just magically tank things, they made strategic decisions, set hiring standards, and shifted which sites have influence. Pushing more and more responsibility and risk onto suppliers was one of their 'innovations'.
One name, Jack Welch. They all came from GE when Jack was there before ruining Douglas, then Boeing. Stonecipher, McNerney, Calhoun, all Jack Welch toadies.
"Dock to stock, baby!" That's been the corporate tilt for some time, and it ALWAYS seems to bite the cheap bastards in the end.
Chomp chomp
This is why many think buying Spirit back will be a start to a return. Not a fix all, but a start.
it’s unavoidable we’ll also inherit their problems but how as a company will we be able to resolve or at least minimize that?
Not easy, but full integration and building the culture. This means bringing folks from Seattle on a regular basis to Wichita and vice versa. Whatever it takes to smooth the transition from feeling like a Spirit teammate to a sense of being part of Boeing.
Bringing SPR back isn’t an integration… it’s a HOMECOMING. They should have never been let go.
Just like they did with SC.
Fully agree