Use code "mentournow" and the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/mentournow

@theregnarute

3 ай бұрын

don't tell me what to do xD

@cristianvrincianu9376

3 ай бұрын

Video: 14 minutes ago, comment: 2 hours ago

@MentourNow

3 ай бұрын

Yep, it’s uploaded hidden first so my Patreon can preview it. They have had it since Friday.

@keithmuir5077

3 ай бұрын

what have you been drinking?

@user-unknownorknown

3 ай бұрын

China map has Kyrgistan in it too...@@MentourNow

Boeing could make a profit at the last quarter of 2023 because of huge savings on bolts.

@MentourNow

3 ай бұрын

🤔😂😂

@HugoAelbrecht

3 ай бұрын

In fact Mentour made a small mistake: Boeing did NOT make a profit in Q4. Only the commercial Aviation division did. But your point is still valid: it’s in the commercial Aviation division that they saved on bolts!

@rayfreedell4411

3 ай бұрын

Not to mention the enormous training cost savings from MCAS!

@rayfreedell4411

3 ай бұрын

Top 'management' needs to forgo any and all bonuses, be replaced and move back to Seattle.

@forwardpaunganwa4135

3 ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂

-Warning, I’m a Boeing fan. I have worked at Boeing and now fly the 787 for a living. Here’s my opinion: Boeing management insists in operating under a business model that has been disastrous for decades now. This started way before the MD merger. They now find themselves in the awful position of not having money to bring more of the manufacturing back under their control, not being able to certify new airplanes on time and much less being able to develop a new design to replace the troubled and tired 737. Their management has to go. From the board of directors to their top management, all should be replaced with competent leaders. That is the only way to fix Boeing. Unfortunately, I do not see it happening. The company is run by arrogant people that know the government will keep them afloat no matter what. I feel terrible for the Boeing employees. Working there used to be a source of pride. I hope for their sake that things do change. Thank you Pieter for another amazing video.

@elbuggo

3 ай бұрын

Will probably get better when their DIE projects are completed!

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

@@elbuggo All you DEI people commenting all over every single KZread video citing it as the cause of ALL problems in the world is getting really old. You should understand that all rational people reading your comments are annoyed and simply see you as a programmed politically tribal mindless parrot suffering from a persecutory paranoid delusion that FOX News and the politicians they serve brainwashed you with. In other words, all you are doing is advertising the inner workings of your psychology to the world. The people reading the comments under a video about airplanes really aren't interested in what you think or how you feel with regard to your political brainwashing and your "done to" psychology. But I do hope that you have a wonderful day!

@Evan.01

3 ай бұрын

@@elbuggo This is an issue of cost-cutting, shareholder focused greed. ‘It’s the gays’ is a cop out argument. Take a closer look at the problem and come back with a smarter, well thought-out take.

@elbuggo

3 ай бұрын

@@Evan.01 That's is what I am saying. The DIE projects will be a HUGE improvement, probably!

@NicolaW72

3 ай бұрын

👍

Boeing: I need a boring year. Boeing door: this is too boring, let me go

@deepak7konka

3 ай бұрын

😂😂

@uglybetty8747

2 ай бұрын

Bloopppp adiosssssss

@orangeball5312

14 күн бұрын

Boeing door: boring huh? Lemme show you something fun

6:54 oh man that’s hilarious “Boeing just needs a boring year in 2024” [spongebob French voice] ONE DAY LATER

@reinasherman8009

2 ай бұрын

And now a whistleblower just happened to end up dead. Yeah I think Boeing is in for far less than a boring year.

@alsen99

2 ай бұрын

​@@reinasherman8009 just when Boeing is under a microscope, what a year for boeing

@NicePotato

Ай бұрын

And another Boeing incident with Southwest today. A boring year indeed.

Boeing started to go downhill when they concentrated on building shareholder value rather than building aircraft.

@aycc-nbh7289

3 ай бұрын

Doesn’t Airbus also have this issue?

@musiqtee

3 ай бұрын

@@aycc-nbh7289About 25% of shares are state owned, several countries. They also have an ongoing program for employees getting shares. Not saying this is “better”, but it may contribute to transparency, and ability / bravery to report issues without losing your job / influence, by not focusing solely on nominal growth. Most employees think a little differently if they also “own” a small representation - very “unamerican”, but more “european” as values go…?

@musiqtee

3 ай бұрын

@OP: Doesn’t this go for *every* huge enterprise - private or state…? 😂

@ramadhanisme7

3 ай бұрын

​@@aycc-nbh7289apparently no, airbus have a better reputation than boeing nowadays and their plane is better in almost every variable

@NoahSpurrier

3 ай бұрын

Did Boeing achieve either?

Using expert accountants to assure quality control was brilliant.

@huwzebediahthomas9193

3 ай бұрын

Ludicrous, isn't it? 😳😐😔

@altaccount4697

3 ай бұрын

They killed all their major competition (except Airbus) and spread out production all over the country. They axed quality control and cut corners to save money. They overworked and underpaid employees causing huge turnover so all the employees were new and had little experience, and so product quality went down the toilet. It's the same slow hypercapitalistic death every big company eventually dies, it's just scary when it happens to airplanes. Same reason Japanese made cars (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc) are so much better these days than American brands like Ford or Chevrolet.

@iPlayOnSpica

3 ай бұрын

​@@altaccount4697 Don't include the embarrassment that is Nissan in that list, plus it is no longer Japanese (it's more French than Japanese).

@classydave75

3 ай бұрын

@@altaccount4697 Indeed. Just, capitalism. No need to even add the "hyper" adjective...

@msromike123

3 ай бұрын

@@altaccount4697 Yeah, old news. The quality difference between Japanese cars and American cars is negligible. Of course, that wasn't always the case, but it's up to you to stay informed.

It'd be good if you could cover what Airbus is doing differently to avoid the pitfalls of Boeing's management style (or any other detractors)

@ShinyHelmet

3 ай бұрын

Installing bolts for starters. 🤣

@DeadKraken

3 ай бұрын

I think it's partially that the worker protection laws in EU and Europe are stronger and way way more protective towards workers than in the US, so Airbus can't actually make the same little greedy games Boeing does with their own engineers and staff. For example, the unions here have a very strong political and negotiating power, even if there's only one supplier and the workers have no alternative, they will still fight and are thus feared by businesses. This usually can push greedy businesses away to China or other less protected countries, but in the case of companies that *need* to be on european soil, it forces them to not cheapen out on things and makes their quality stronger and more reliable.

@nytracus9680

3 ай бұрын

I haven't checked but would assume there are more engineers and scientists in senior positions at Airbus. In France and Germany these professions are higher status and not dominated by clueless lawyers, accountants and MBAs.

@No-mq5lw

3 ай бұрын

@@DeadKraken Remember that the governments of France, Spain, and Germany have a large stake in Airbus. According to 1 site, they collectively make up about 25% ownership in Airbus. I'm sure that any of those would be less than happy in Airbus if they were to have fundamental QA issues. Also, Airbus has assembly facilities in the US and China as well.

@DeadKraken

3 ай бұрын

@@No-mq5lw If it's even partially government owned, then it makes even more sense that the workers in Europe have major benefits and are more protected. Working in companies either totally or partially owned by the government in Europe means your job is 100% safe, the company will have more problems trying to fire you than just paying better or respecting your rights. And usually european companies export parts of their worker protection rules as well, especially if they need both the european and the non-european parts to work in harmoniously.

So in summing up, your tankers have clothes, parts and tools left in their internal spaces, you bid on VC-25s at 20% (so far) of their actual cost, your years delayed crew capsule is optimistically 2 years behind it's most recent years delay, people are randomly drilling holes in your aft pressure bulkheads, and after all that your door plugs are flying out of your brand new airplanes.

I think the fact that flight search engines let you filter out maxs now is going to be their biggest challenge.

@davidcole333

3 ай бұрын

Really? The max is so unsafe that thousands of professional flight crews who make a living flying airplanes, get on board Max's everyday and do their job. The only thing that the unnamed search engine you speak of is doing is catering to mass hysteria fed by the media and KZread channels like this one to score likes. I'm pretty sure if the Max was unsafe that the pilot and flight attendant unions would be screaming bloody murder to get their members off of these airplanes.

@georgedyson9754

3 ай бұрын

No doubt many of those who are anxious about flying at all, will be less comfortable if they see it is a Boeing plane scheduled for their flight. I don't know how much having cheaper fares, say, for Boeing flights would make a difference or whether an airline would even be willing to do something like that as it would mean that having Boeing aircraft would be less profitable..

@RandomGuy9

3 ай бұрын

Oof!

@RCAvhstape

3 ай бұрын

Is this true? Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.

@sarahparrish7206

3 ай бұрын

@@georgedyson9754Despite following so many pilot channels and reasonably understanding that crashes/accidents/dangerous situations are rare, I still decided to cancel my flight for spring break because neither my boyfriend nor I feel comfortable flying right now.

From what I have seen, MBA managers tend to regard quality control as a negative item in their balance sheets. The problem is that those balance sheets usually don't take into account the kind of blowback that is possible from two crashed Max-8's and a blown door plug on the Max 9.

@20chocsaday

3 ай бұрын

It is difficult to quantity their worth if not much happens. Similarly research will be represented as a Cost Centre.

@NicolaW72

3 ай бұрын

Indeed, exactly.

@dirtykraut

3 ай бұрын

The Quality of amazon electronic garbage is finally sucessfully scaled up to airplanes. 😂

@MrChadbag

3 ай бұрын

If your claim to your job as a manager is an MBA you've already failed. An MBA, in my book, is a negative on a CV unless there are clear long term technical and other qualifications and education and clear experience being successful.

@mediocreman2

3 ай бұрын

Oh but they got their bonus that year! That's all that matters I guess. I don't know how they can sleep at night.

The more Boeing is in the news, the more people will actively look at what aircraft are being flown to their destinations. I recently booked a trip from LAX to PDX on United Airlines, based on the two legs of the trip consisting of Airbus and Embraer aircraft, vs Alaska and Southwest flying 737 Max. I think more people are coming to the same conclusions

@burntnougat5341

3 ай бұрын

Noticed that too. Before you'd be a weirdo nerd if you talked about airplane types but now more and more normies are aware of what's flying them around

@PennPearson

2 ай бұрын

Right. I'll fly to Asia in the fall and will try hard to avoid flying on any Boeing aircraft.

@n118nw

Ай бұрын

@@PennPearson You probably won't be flying to Asia in a 737.. there's nothing wrong with flying on a 747, 767, 777, or 787.

@PennPearson

Ай бұрын

@@n118nw I see. Thanks for the information.

@PARABOLA1966

Ай бұрын

Your average individual doesn't know jack, about aircrafts, let alone about maintenence, design, etc.

I spent my career in the pharmaceutical industry, in quality and regulatory affairs. Safety disasters in pharma may not normally be as dramatic and well publicised as in the aero industry, but if anything I'd guess more lives are potentially at risk. Even so, management, and especially those in sales and marketing, wanted us to bend the rules as far as possible, and the constant pressure can be difficult to resist, day in, day out. In one company I worked at, we were known by marketing as the "sales prevention department". I wonder if it's like that at Boeing.

@apveening

3 ай бұрын

There have been some safety disasters in pharma that have been dramatic and well published (e.g. Thalidomide).

@TheGodpharma

3 ай бұрын

@@apveening I said "not normally".

@honza970

3 ай бұрын

@@apveening Sure, but that is 60 years ago. If the the example in your mind is that old, they are doing reasonably good job. Rofecoxib is a more recent example of a company withholding info about problems with the drug.

@paul756uk2

3 ай бұрын

​@@apveeningno mention of the recent one that's causing 10% excess deaths in the populations that took it then? The fact is that the pharmaceutical industry kill more people than any other.

@burntnougat5341

3 ай бұрын

Uh yeah the scamdemic that just happened a few years ago?

I worked as a contractor in Boeing engineering over 10 years ago. At the time i was tasked with evaluation of the production processes of the 787 tail section. After listing major issues with the design that would lead to near Impossible manufacturing challenges, I was asked to look into other areas as well in the next month. 2 months s later, an executive order came down, that would stop the whole project. That is all you need to know about manufacturing challenges at Boeing and their attitude towards quality.

@jpkatz1435

3 ай бұрын

Much thanks for the post. NOTHING LIKE HEARING FROM THE GUY THAT WAS ON FRONT LINE.

@jpkatz1435

3 ай бұрын

Much thanks for the post. NOTHING LIKE HEARING FROM THE GUY THAT WAS ON FRONT LINE.

@ejt3708

3 ай бұрын

Exactly. Wall Street doesn't care how many people die. If I were a young engineer I would be ashamed to work for Boeing. Now if Elon Musk saw the opportunity to bring in a better product, I would work for him.

@semilog643

3 ай бұрын

@@ejt3708 Yeah, you'd choose to work for an inveterate, pathological liar. Good call. Just terrific.

@classydave75

3 ай бұрын

@@ejt3708 What? Because you think Musk is better? He's a total charlatan and capricious billionaire hack. And that's being polite. Holy molly, for the love of God, stop dick riding that snake oil salesman. And billionaires in general.

Well, as Juan, a Boeing 777 pilot in his channel “Blancolirio” says, trying to save pennies, they lose billions 🤦

@nolan1481

3 ай бұрын

Tripping over a quarter to pick up a penny

@MQT-

3 ай бұрын

That's the new math of the century....COMMON CORE... PPL stop being such a jellyfish, it's a joke about common core

@cageordie

3 ай бұрын

Juan was also a 737 captain before he converted up to the 777. This all started with trying to screw the engineers on their pay and pensions, that was a small cost of a few hundred million over ten years compared to what Boeing lost on the 787 (development went from $10 billion to $34 billion). Every Boeing disaster is related to the damage they did to their engineering capability and each one comes with a multi billion dollar price tag.

@soeren72

3 ай бұрын

Agreed, but he also once said US pilots are better than all others because of the 1500hr requirement, even if those 1500hr is in a cropduster 🤣

@briancorrell

3 ай бұрын

@@MQT-oml shut up that's not the point

Captain Mentor, you are a serious, dedicated, unbiased, and completely honest aviation analyst. As such, we salute you. Your title, "Does Boeing Stand a chance anymore?" is in itself highly significant. The fact that such a subject could even be considered by an observer such as yourself (or any of the rest of us) indicates just how far down the slippery slope Boeing has fallen. Public opinion creates its own reality, and the gradient increases as time goes on. When the slope goes vertical, Boeing is going to be in deep trouble.

All of the losses suffered from fixed-price defense contracts are clear indication of Boeing's engineering weaknesses and/or serious disconnects between Engineering/Manufacturing Departments and Sales/Marketing (and Upper Management)! Alarm bells went off years ago about losses incurred from the USAF KC-46 aerial tankers (based on the Boeing 767) and to lesser extent USN P-8 (based on the Boeing 737-800). It is interesting to note that Airbus took 8 years, from cleansheet design in 2006 to flight certification in 2014, for the world leading A-350. Boeing is taking likely 12 years to modernize and upgrade its flagship B-777X from a proven airframe.

One of the major problem that has been ignored here is that this is the type of things that will make extremely difficult to get young people to want to work for the company in the long run. Even smaller plane manufacturers will probably seem like a better bet. If I was an engineer or a mechanic out of university I'd rather have daher, piper, texxtron or gulfstream on my CV than boeing. At least potential future employers wouldn't assume my work experience is synonymous with bad habits

@hakanevin8545

3 ай бұрын

Come on, you are being unfair. Bad habits are mainly at management level and at that level they are not even seen as bad habits!

@Jehty21

3 ай бұрын

​@@danp576what has the GA accident rate to do with the CV of an engineer? (Unless those accidents are linked to manufacturing defects. Which I don't think they are)

@torstenmautz195

3 ай бұрын

​​​@@Jehty21those where mainly maintenance or Pilot Errors. Those huge costly birds have way more Error mitigation systems and current trained pilots than those GA Planes. And Higher cost and lower staff in maintenance has Just drawn more mechanics out of GA and risen Ticket prices.

@ejt3708

3 ай бұрын

I said the same elsewhere in these comments. How boring it would be to work for a company that subordinates mathematics to greed! I would be afraid to fly in my own plane!

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

@@danp576 Your assertion that airliner design quality and GA accidents caused by pilot error somehow relate to each other or somehow indicate anything regarding engineering quality in commercial vs. GA is illogical. Data is very important.

Boeing is an absolutely glaring example of Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy. "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely." I believe one way to improve this situation would be to increase the salaries of the engineers and all workers who actually build the planes. Then fire half the managers and executives, and cut the salaries of the managers and executives remaining.

@RCAvhstape

3 ай бұрын

Jerry Pournelle was a great writer. RIP

@RexKarrs

3 ай бұрын

....and who would administer your plan?

@NAP795

3 ай бұрын

Referring to Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy, there is no clearer example of this pronouncement than the Combo of the NATO/European Union Warmongering/Economic(Sanction) Barbarism, but multiplied Boeing’s scenario x 1000’s.

@jkk916

3 ай бұрын

​@@NAP795 Economic sanction barbarism? Damn, it must hit you hard.

@20chocsaday

3 ай бұрын

During a tour of an old castle I was shown the bureau from which the estate was administered. The ruler was a bureaucrat.

Always felt they started going downhill after the Dreamliner battery fires in 2013. Probably started well before that, but that was my WTF moment

@Shadow__133

3 ай бұрын

I feel like it started earlier, with the new composite rudder delaminations on 737s. The icing in the cake for me was calling that 2 out of 3 failed space capsule chute deployment a success 😂

Just having dinner one night with several Boeing gray beards in Renton was enough to really give me pause on flying newer Boeing jets, especially 737 lines. Not just money, but genuine corner cutting. They were more surprised by the recent 737 issues, deadly as they were. These folks were all just waiting out their retirements, struggling to protect the safety of their own work. It was at once so sad and so scary.

maybe the union should consider writing a clause that requires 51% or more of boeing's senior management to be aircraft engineers. I mean, the biggest change made between their years of dominance in the airplane industry, and their current series of unfortunate events is that their management went from people who build airplanes to people who build profits.

@paulholmes672

3 ай бұрын

And people that assumed they could increase those profits while divesting quality and logistics to new subcontractors and at the same time telling them to charge less for parts, or else. Boeing's accountant profiteering managers and planned "You have to give them to us cheaper as you need us.", are still scratching their heads over Spirit saying the heck with that and are now are building Airbus parts at increasing rates, forcing Boeing to compete for factory space. Irony at its finest.

@smalltime0

3 ай бұрын

@@zakirsiddiqui1 everyone jumps on 'it was the greedy business people' bandwagon

@kenbrown2808

3 ай бұрын

@@smalltime0 maybe it's because if all the times we've heard, "we can increase profits by reducing quality" from all directions, not just boeing.

@kenbrown2808

3 ай бұрын

@paulholmes672 every time i hear so.ebody say they can contract things out cheaper than they can do it in house, the math requires a reduction in quality to offset the cost of adding a middleman.

@ivansemanco6976

3 ай бұрын

Problem is, in todays world they more probably negotiate 51% or more woman, aliens, green etc. species than engineers. They are now push this in Europe… Instead capabilities and qualification we are hiring thru some strange and idiotic criteria.

The problem is that Boeing seems dead set on continuing along the same path that got it into trouble in the first place. Instead of fixing their current product line, developing new aircraft, and getting back into focus as an engineering centered company, it still has a CEO who is primarily a private equity bean counter oriented towards profits. It moved its headquarters closer to Washington DC so its leaders could lobby Congress better and more easily, making it harder for them to keep a closer eye on its factories. Until it changes its ways, for instance, like Intel did by firing its CEO and hiring Gelsinger, who was a former Intel engineer, I don't see Boeing ever recovering. Instead, it's just going to go the way of Curtiss-Wright, North American Aviation, and other formerly great aviation companies as they stopped focusing on excellent engineering and instead went for the profits.

@raytrevor1

3 ай бұрын

Absolutely. Nothing will improve while the same people are in charge.

@fighter5583

3 ай бұрын

Changing the CEO isn't going to do much. You have to change the board too, and anyone in management positions that have been incompetent or felonious at their job.

@gandalfgreyhame3425

3 ай бұрын

@@fighter5583 Well, yes. They need to move their headquarters back to Seattle for that matter. Why is their entire management staff on the opposite side of the American continent?

@awdrifter3394

3 ай бұрын

Yep, if they are really big on safety, they would be stopping the development of 737 Max 7 and 10, instead start a brand new design.

@Flulix

3 ай бұрын

Boeing has died out because of the 1997 merge but they have still have a chance to beat Airbus by basically reengineering the 737 MAX with the following: The new engines will be smaller but will be 10% more efficient and powerful compared to its competition (still the CFML). MCAS will be removed after they have tested all 737 MAX variants with the new engine with the MCAS disabled and should have no high attitude upon takeoff. With the door problems on the 737-9, Boeing will either replace the door with a window panel (with tight bolts ofc) or use a custom fuselage with no emergency door instead. Boeing will recommend airlines to use the new standards I just said and it should have no problem. This is their chance to beat Airbus and to fix the 737 MAX problems with better engineering and no profits made by the CEO.

The problem may be much deeper. Yesterday I have the production of Steinway Pianos vs. Yamaha Pianos seen. Of course, this is about a completely different product. But the difference was, shortened, Middle Ages vs. Modern times.

I am relatively new to your channels, and find the content on both your channels really informative and interesting. Keep up the great work!🙂

For a company that 5 years ago, after the MCAS disaster, stated that they were going to focus on safety, they keep dropping the ball and they keep asking for exemptions. Boeing is going to be second place for years to come. I can only hope that their next, clean sheet design, will really start with a clean slate and give them a new start so that by the middle of the next decade, they can claw back out of the pit they dug for themselves.

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

They didn't drop the ball. They dropped the bolts.

@jenda386

3 ай бұрын

I don't see how that's possible when the CEO stated that they don't plan on even starting development of a new model within this decade. They may have a new type ready by mid 2040s if all goes reasonably well.

@northwesttravels7234

3 ай бұрын

A clean sheet design with an inexperienced workforce could be problematic.

@BabyMakR

3 ай бұрын

Not only did they not focus on safety, they fired all the QA staff causing door plugs to start falling out of aircraft.

@cpnlsn88

3 ай бұрын

I think their position is perilous. They need a clean sheet replacement of the 737 in the long term. When the new plane launches it will have a few crashes as most new systems do and then Boeing will really struggle in credibility. Especially if basic things like bolts etc. The malaise, sadly, is in the corporate culture. Safety first means a short term hit on shareholder return. There's the rub.

Boeing needs to return to being an engineering company first. The world of aviation needs the competition.

@vikos78

3 ай бұрын

They have burned too much cash. Now they deperately need to sale, fast and a lot. Proper engineering strategy and R&D are just wishful thinking, no time for this, Airbus is way ahead. Plus new various regulations on emission and so on will soon be a new burden.

@RohankrishnaB

3 ай бұрын

I agree, I would also bet on Comac too, in a decade or so, I am sure we will have Comac-, exciting times for aviation

@chrisschack9716

3 ай бұрын

@@vikos78 problem is, we're seeing what comes of doing it the other way. If Boeing keeps trying to do that, I doubt things will get better for them.

@TheLetsboogiedown

3 ай бұрын

This is the problem in healthcare also. C-suite is focused on profits only. They have removed the doctors and the humanity from the leadership positions

@jxxxxx44

3 ай бұрын

​@@RohankrishnaBcan we please, PLEASE not bring a CCP company into this conversation 😭😭😭

Thanks for mentioning this “sister channel” to Mentour Pilot as you did in your last MP video, you should mention it more often. I’ve been watching your excellent MP channel for several years, but didn’t know about this one. Yay for this discovery! More fascinating content for us to watch!

Thank you for broadening my knowledge on airliners,procedures and weather condition baswd flying

I'm really digging your map of China at 2:49 , where, somehow, it annexed both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

@daniel1wantedtowin

3 ай бұрын

and Taiwan

@adamsaint2890

3 ай бұрын

+10 social credit points for Mentour

@RocketboyX

3 ай бұрын

CCP APPROVED!

@smalltime0

3 ай бұрын

Also recognises Kashmir, except the bit China controls

@Muzakman37

3 ай бұрын

It's a map from 2040.

Amazing really, once Boeing came up against competition it couldn't crush or buy-out it's really been struggling to keep up. Americans apparently love competition and believe in market forces dictating, but only when it means American firms are on top. Airbus is one of the most remarkable projects to emerge out of Europe since WW2, it shows what Europe is capable of when it pools its forces and talents together.

@Karibanu

3 ай бұрын

Like the US is an open market anyway - try selling aircraft to the US military without using a US contractor as a front ( and probably having to re-engineer the thing to use local content ).

@trin162

3 ай бұрын

What do you expect from the most corrupt nation on earth.

@jamesprice4647

3 ай бұрын

Many aerospace companies are effectively part of the Department of Defense. @@Karibanu

@Karibanu

3 ай бұрын

@@jamesprice4647 Or the other way around, as it is in other places ( UK waves hi ). Armed forces-govt defence & procurement department-defence contractors are a merry-go-round of carreer posts circling the black hole of defence costs. That doesn't stop other govts being open to buying abroad ( even France, occasionally! ). I get there's notions of national security, but that also doesn't stop the US buying abroad dressed up as local product... and homegrown contractors are as liable to fail as foreign ones. Just got to have that cut, I guess. I wonder how many civil Airbus sales there'd be without local construction.

@valvodka

2 ай бұрын

And is highly subsidized with free taxpayer capital infusions

The Bread 'n' Butter graphic is genius and hilarious! I got a good laugh that I needed today! Thanks!! I love both of your channels. Keep up the great content. Fly safe!!

I've always loved the Boeings I've flown. From KC-135s in the USAF to the B-727, the B-737-200, the 757, 767, and the 777. But Boeing's lost their way. Many have said that they started listening to the MBAs instead of their engineers. I'm sure that's too simple, but an aspect anyway.

One of the Elephant in the room for this full story is Southwest (and to a certain degree, Ryanair in Europe). They are single type fleets and Boeing simply updated the 737 instead of going for a clean sheet design just to help them keep fleet commonality. I don't see how Boeing could squeeze out a new iteration from the basic 737 type certificate, so both will need to switch to a new type. If Boeing succeed in bringing them to a new design, they have a fighting chance, if not, they are relegated to a slow decline. Surely, we are talking of a change that will happen 10+ years from now, but they need to start planning for it now if they want to make it happen.

@NicolaW72

3 ай бұрын

I don´t know if I heard it in another video of Petter or readed it somewhere else: Another problem of Boeing is indeed that they have a narrower range of customers for their most important product: The 737-MAX-Production depends mostly on a relatively small number of really big customers like Southwest, Ryanair, United and Alaska. If only these four customers would jump off from their orders it would be a huge blow for Boeing at a whole. The whole 737MAX8-200 program is specialized on the needs of Ryanair. The whole 737MAX7 program will be specialized on the needs of Southwest. There´re of course other customers, but they would never be able to compensate these few big ones. This is dangerous for Boeing. In opposite Airbus has a much wider range of customers for their A320neo-family program. Even if all the Indian Airlines, who ordered more than 1500 A320family-aircrafts only in the last year, would jump off as customers, this would of course be a loss for Airbus, but not a really threatening beat. So Airbus does not depend from special wishes of a few big customers.

@ValNishino

3 ай бұрын

@@NicolaW72 Long line of airlines waiting to snap up those 1500 A320, too

@LucaAlbertalli

3 ай бұрын

@@NicolaW72 United has already a few A321 in its fleet and is eager to take more as Petter said. Alaska had A320 in its fleet till a few years ago from the Virgin America merger (such a pity, Virgin America was awesome) so only SWA and Ryanair are really "safe" customers for now. But I doubt Boeing leadership has the leadership skills to play this game.

@trthib

3 ай бұрын

Both airlines should buy enough Boeing stocks to get a seat at the table and steer the company in the right direction, that might be a matter of survival for them

@steveperreira5850

3 ай бұрын

I don’t on any of their stock and I never will. I don’t buy penny stocks.

Boeing is riding on their name from 25 years ago, 50 years ago.

@utuber34500

3 ай бұрын

How was this commented two days ago?

@Ticklestein

3 ай бұрын

@@utuber34500I think Bearcub is the editor (and thus has the direct link when it’s still unlisted and not public yet)

@wadehiggins1114

3 ай бұрын

​@@utuber34500I saw that also 😂

@hakanevin8545

3 ай бұрын

@@utuber34500 Patreon?

@kay9549

3 ай бұрын

bearcubdaycare Boeing has been around for many years. Having said that, looking back over the years, they always gave MD a run for there money. Hopefully whatever is happening, hope that all goes well. There will be always a competitive whether whom has the edge, MD, Boeing, Airbus. A question is did Boeing merge or buy out MD.

Brilliant analysis, thank you!

An incredibly informative article Clear and really well structured. Thanks

It's worth mentioning that profit is not just about sales prices for number of aircraft delivered, but also the very significant long-term maintenance profit that comes with each one as well.

@whysoserious8666

3 ай бұрын

Agree, but Boeings focus on short term quarterly numbers is killing them. The guy getting the aircraft delivered on time isn’t concerned about the long term maintenance profits. Removing quality control layers that can be a check on that bias is costing them. I don’t think for a minute that a Boeing employee would intentionally let a defective aircraft leave the plant, but we’re all humans and managers pushing schedule creates a lot of pressure. In this industry 90% quality isn’t good enough.

What is the possibility Embraer taking some of the single-aisle market from Airbus and Boeing with its E-Jet family? Seems like Embraer is gaining reputation for quality and efficiency.

@tomstravels520

3 ай бұрын

The E-Jet cannot compete with the 737/A320. It’s a regional jet

@shi01

3 ай бұрын

Basically 0. Embreaer deliberately choose to not go toe to toe with Airbus and Boeing by designing the E-Jet family for a niche market segment which wasn't originally served by the two juggernauts. That only changed somewhat with the accuisitaion of the Bombardier C-Series by Airbus.

@trthib

3 ай бұрын

Another reason for the Airbus & Boeing duopoly is that it's not just about building planes, you need to have the capacity to train thousands of crew on the aircraft type for their certification, the capacity to train the mechanics and the supply and network of parts all over the world Embraer can realistically only grow slowly developing all that

@beyondEV

3 ай бұрын

@@shi01 C Series -> A220, because Boeing tried to abuse "buy america first" to keep bombardier out of the american market. By the time they lost, Airbus had already acquired it. The would try the same... unless they could shallow Embraer. But that is no longer a option.

@Gameflyer001

3 ай бұрын

@@tomstravels520 it can compete with the A220/CSeries though, as intended.

Now after they assassinated The Whistleblower they're really screwed

Thanks!

They waste too much time saving a Cent, instead making quality aircraft

@theregnarute

3 ай бұрын

@@danp576 yeah you live in a former nation turned out country that is now run by israelis, extremely decrepit old folks and women. so yeah, not a great outlook.

@stevekranz2025

3 ай бұрын

During my last several years at Boeing, the saying "stepping over dollars to save dimes" was common around many areas...

@charlie7mason

3 ай бұрын

@@danp576 What exactly are you even trying to say?

@ooooneeee

2 ай бұрын

And it's costing them billions.

I worked with, not for, Boeing on one of the contracts the company I worked for before retirement. It was a only a few years after the McDonnell-Douglas take over. There was still a lot of resentment within the workforce and it showed in various ways, one side not informing the other what was going on, beancounters overruling engineers, etc. I think this has a lot to do with their problems.

When B bought McD, they payed with a "stock swap". This operation made McD formers controllers the "New B" shareholders controllers. Well it's seems that we are seeing the history repeated itself with the same captains in command.

Yet again very interesting video. Thanks, great channel !!!

Fixing the production of 737 Max for Boeing will be very difficult. Have been in some very large international companies and have seen very incompetent people working there because they had good social connections or they were receiving very small salaries. The problem for any CEO is that he doesn't know where are those incompetent people. Building planes is not a business where you can make many mistakes and still continue.

@raytrevor1

3 ай бұрын

Even worse when the CEO is incompetent.

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

That's what QA is supposed to be for.

@apveening

3 ай бұрын

@@StratMatt777 But that is a real challenge when QA happens to be staffed with the incompetents shuffled there from other branches

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

@@apveening When I was hired at Boeing in 1997 as a 747 wingline assembly mechanic I went through 2 or 4 weeks (I can't remember) of training to read and interpret drawings, drill (ream) accurate holes etc. Your assertion that QA people are not given any training seems illogical to me. Also, the FAA wouldn't allow QA people to not be trained to do their job. Of course, I have no idea what has been going on at Boeing for 25 years, but your assertion seems quite illogical.

@akureiokamii

3 ай бұрын

I will not fly inside a 737 MAX anymore. Or for that matter any "newer" type Boeing planes.

"Too big to fail". Here, US government will never let Boeing fail.

@huwzebediahthomas9193

3 ай бұрын

US let their metals industries slip away. Companies like Boeing is the next step.

@beyondEV

3 ай бұрын

True. And corruption will secure the US market for them. But if Comac gets serious, the could become the new duopoly (with Airbus) outside the US.

@jantjarks7946

3 ай бұрын

Question is if the public are aboard, after all they are paying the tickets. Or not. Flight booking pages allowing to sort out flights with the 737 is not necessarily the best foundation to operate with.

@danbenson7587

3 ай бұрын

Where’s McDonell Douglas? Etc. Yep, they don’t go broke so much as absorbed.

@jimgraham6722

3 ай бұрын

Probably.

Your analysis is really, really good! Thank you!

Boeing is a textbook example of why not to turn into a ultracapitalistic company more focused on the money than building decent aircraft. Quality in the long run pays for itself: As a company, would you rather pay a little more to keep the quality up and keep your supply chain in house where you can manage quality better? Or would you rather end up paying a LOT more for lawyers, lawsuits and companies not ordering your aircraft? Building quality is an investment in reputation and not getting the pants sued off of you. I think it should make sense to focus on a decent product rather than quarterly profits that can disappear after a few shitty incidents that damage your reputation and customer confidence.

Airbus said in their annual press conference just last week that the A320 replacement will come in the late 2030s. This will be a clean sheet design using 100% SAF. They also are working on a hydrogen powered aircraft most likely fuel cell) in service in 2035.

@classydave75

3 ай бұрын

Their hydrogen projects are very interesting but 2035 is a very optimistic target...

@sw7366

3 ай бұрын

Politics forces aggressive estimates ​@classydave75 Politicians only care about being on the correct bandwagon $$$$$$$

@georgedyson9754

3 ай бұрын

I'm still curious as to how the whole hydrogen supply infrastructure is going to be created. Hydrogen is a very explosive gas and it is very good at leaking because of the size of the molecule, it also embrittles many metals. So likely it will need shipping as another gas such as ammonia, for example, which also has many safety issues because of toxicity. Then tehere is the issue of manufacturing hydrogen - electrolytical or chemical. Is either of these actually better for the environment. The thing about environmental issues is they have to be looked at from cradle to grave - the fact that the final product is greener is NOT the whole issue.

@matsv201

3 ай бұрын

The fuel cell aircraft is unlikely to happen. The issue is speed. A fuel cell and electric motor have less power density so they have to fly slower to compensate. Range and fuel handling ks also a issue Doing the math of it, it just don't line up as a profitable aircraft compare to day using SAF.

@trthib

3 ай бұрын

@@classydave75 Hydrogen has a few huge advantages, it is on the radar of almost everyone now, from shipbuilders to semi trucks to using it to stock solar and wind energy when not needed, the development can benefit a lot of the research that is done all over.... We know how to make it and it seems to be widely accessible (including in countries without petrol - France found a huge deposit in Alsace a couple of month ago)

Excellent, comprehensive analysis, Petter. Thanks!😊

@MentourNow

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Another First Class video. Airline aviation is a really intriguing topic.

Excellent!! Every video is carefully research, by a man with complete knowledge of the aviation industry!

They need to cut out this 60+ year old model and start with a new plane in this segment

@robroilen4441

3 ай бұрын

That's crazy, I didn't know the laws of physics changed within the last 60 years

@GeoStreber

3 ай бұрын

Laws of physics don't change, but engineering standards do. Back in the 60s, the engines were a lot smaller and less efficient. And the current airframe just cannot be fitted to modern ones properly anymore. The thinking that a design could be infinitely upgraded killed 338 people. So far. @@robroilen4441

@tonisimeunic7717

3 ай бұрын

@@robroilen4441well aerodynamics certainly changed lol. We saw how well that bodied with first maxes crashed because there has to be installed MCAS because plane was prone to stall of putting bigger engines on 50+ year old design ;)

@petercedilnik3254

3 ай бұрын

It has nothing to do with laws of physics @@robroilen4441

@robroilen4441

3 ай бұрын

@@tonisimeunic7717 I encourage you to read the actual crash investigations and original certification materials about the plane. It was found multiple times from 2012 to 2022 that the plane is completely stable with or without MCAS.

Excellent analysis. Most of the aircraft I travel in are Airbus aircraft, but I have a soft spot for the 737, 747 and 787. I hope Boeing solve their QC issues.. and also stop the bleading out of quality personnel in the design depts and assembly lines.

@MentourNow

3 ай бұрын

I agree. Thanks for your nice comment

@apveening

3 ай бұрын

I prefer Airbus as a passenger, much quieter than Boeing.

McDonnell Douglas's problem (doing business as "Boeing") is that when they took over Boeing, they got rid of the engineers and promptly moved far away from them. It's the only reason why they're in Chicago. Back when Boeing actually existed, management was filled with engineers, and as engineers, they often wandered from the offices to the production line to see what was happening. If problems developed, everyone got involved in finding a solution, and that's where Boeing's history of engineering greatness comes from. Management from the CEO down were right down in there working to resolve the problems. Since McD-D took over, manglement was less concerned with the engineering and more concerned with the numbers - and walking the line was frowned upon as engineers have bad news and their fixes cost money. So they up and moved everyone to Chicago where they wouldn't hear of those problems. Of course, given how slowly the aircraft industry moves, it took that long for that decision to catch up with them, and that's what happened. And now, Boeing's engineers are gone, tired of being ignored (and likely have flocked elsewhere - Airbus among other companies) Remember when Boeing aircraft were good? That you wanted to ride in a Boeing over an Airbus? "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going"? Yeah, that doesn't seem to be happening, and I think it's becoming to the point people are avoiding Boeing and going with Airbus instead. Boeing is going to need to do a complete house cleaning and to stop concentrating on the CEO's new yacht and get back down to the basics of engineering before things can change for the better. Of course, I suppose they can start with negotiating a new contract with the union. The union's in control here and maybe if they actually manage to hammer out a new contract then it might be a beacon of hope. But if they decide to try to bully the union, then pretty much all hope is lost and the management just Do Not Get It(tm). And Boeing will become yet another extinct aviation company. There aren't many of those left - the likes of Cessna and Beechcraft being of the legacy companies (Piper collapsed and was resurrected as the New Piper company).

@apveening

3 ай бұрын

"And Boeing will become yet another extinct aviation company." That won't happen as Boeing is too big to fail.

This has probably been said before but when I learned that Boeing was no longer run by engineers but by accountants it has been no surprise that they find themselves in their current parlous state. Reputation can take a lifetime to build and can be destroyed in a flash. Until they can recover their fine engineering culture then they will continue to underperform. Apologies to accountants who read this. You do a vital job which I would never diminish.

Here’s some insane food for though, Boeing introduced the 707, 727, 737, AND the freaking 747 in less time than it’s taking for them to release the 777-X. That’s seriously crazy they managed to design, build, test, and start production of all those ground breaking airframes in such a short time and now the modern Boeing is just truly incompetent. If it weren’t for all the military contracts I don’t see how the company would survive.

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

GE engine development troubles + Covid?

@RCAvhstape

3 ай бұрын

Yep. And I'd feel safer on any one of those 60s era jets than a brand new Boeing.

@RCAvhstape

3 ай бұрын

​@@StratMatt777Excuses.

@apveening

3 ай бұрын

@@StratMatt777 There were engine development troubles with the B747 as well.

@filanfyretracker

3 ай бұрын

If they were not a major defense contractor I suspect they would have had much harder times at getting repeated bailouts. its not just that they are our only civil airliner company with a huge workforce that gets them easy access to bailouts but its considered a national security issue. They are also one half of ULA which is the only US satellite launch provider other than SpaceX.

Although I'm not a fan of boeing planes as a rule, its important that boeing remains one of the main players because for customers, a monopoly is not a good thing at all.

@SadisticSenpai61

3 ай бұрын

I don't know that Boeing ending up going under would necessarily mean Airbus would have a monopoly. Boeing would likely be bought out by new owners (probably some venture capital firm), restructured, maybe renamed, and then continue making airplanes. It is a profitable industry and they do have all the logistics and systems in place to build airplanes, after all. Not that venture capitalists would be much better at managing the company than current Boeing execs are - they're even more "profit-first" in "managing." Or Boeing could be broken up and sold off piece-meal. At which point, it's possible that companies that currently make parts for Boeing (but aren't subsidiaries as Boeing has sold off a lot of the stuff they used to do in-house) could come together to form a conglomerate that makes airplanes. Isn't that how Airbus basically got started? A joint venture between a lot of companies and countries? I could be remembering wrong. After all, if Boeing goes under and those companies don't find new buyers for those parts? They go under too. And Airbus already has its own supply chains. Hell, I could see Lockheed Martin or another large military contractor that's flush with cash swooping in and buying up Boeing. It's similar to a lot of stuff they already do and comes with a supply chain already pre-built - a supply chain that is dependent on selling to Boeing. Although I will note that a monopoly doesn't _have_ to be bad. The airline industry is heavily regulated enough that they might be able to get away with a monopoly without any compromises in safety (compared to the current situation at least). And I don't really know how much Airbus would be able to raise their prices and still sell new airplanes at the current rate (or even increased rate without a competitor). Raise the prices too much and the used market will see a drastic uptick in appeal to airlines, even if it does mean increased maintenance costs. As for innovations in design and fuel usage? There's enough pressure in the industry to be more fuel efficient overall (as fuel is the single largest operating expense of an airline) that I think even with a monopoly, Airbus would feel pressure to continue innovating in that area. Not as much as they currently do ofc, but it would still be present. The fact that Airbus is based in the EU which has stricter regulations in general than the US is also to our advantage here. But overall, I don't think an Airbus monopoly would last too long. Simply because too many other companies would see an opportunity to make money by getting into the field - most likely companies that are currently best known as military contractors. And I suspect that the US government would happily sponsor/fund/etc such efforts as well simply so they don't have to rely on another country for all of their airplanes (but especially government owned/run airplanes such as Air Force One and all the planes operated by the military). Cuz the US loves capitalism until their pet industries and companies start failing. And then they absolutely love bailing out those corporations or using tax-payer funds to create new private and independent companies that don't share their profits with the very ppl that got them started in the first place. ...Sorry for the essay. 😅

@Taladar2003

3 ай бұрын

Not really. I agree on the monopoly but all we need is some second major manufacturer, doesn't have to be Boeing, and in fact it would be beneficial for competition if it was someone more competent than Boeing.

@jeremypearson6852

3 ай бұрын

Just imagine if Airbus didn’t exist. It would be impossible for Boeing to make anywhere near the number of aircraft required worldwide.

@apveening

3 ай бұрын

@@SadisticSenpai61 No problem with the essay, I mostly agree with it. You are only overlooking the possibility of a competitor from somewhere else. And the PRC is already trying to get into the game (Comac 919) and is doing that slowly and carefully (very unlike most recent endeavors from there), so I have to give them better than even odds in succeeding.

@SadisticSenpai61

3 ай бұрын

@@apveening Technically an outside company could start at any time and probably do somewhat well within the industry as a whole. That's why I didn't really go into that part. I'm not surprised that China is looking to start their own airline manufacturer. I'm only surprised they didn't get in earlier. It wouldn't surprise me if Russia started their own up again as well (and they're probably already working on it TBH). Esp with the difficulties they've been having with the trade embargos in airline parts. You can only cannibalize parts from grounded planes for so long before you start running out of spare parts. But the main reason I highlighted military contractors is cuz they not only have the capital to do so, but some of them used to make airplanes. Lockheed Martin used to be in the commercial airline business, after all - well, a couple mergers ago anyway.

I think Boeing has squandered the good will that once insulated them from all the competitors. At one time Boeing had a slogan "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!". And now, passengers are beginning to question that premise. For a long time, I've been a Boeing fan. Since the days when the Boeing 707 entered the market. I just missed a flight on a Boeing Clipper Seaplane, when we moved over seas. The flight the week later as a Lockheed Constellation! And my next trip back to the US was on a DC-3. That airline (BWIA) bought a 707, then a 727, and stayed all Boeing for decades. I was a real Boeing fan for a long time. Boeing's design philosophy of not "hiding" anything from the crew made sense. The throttle position told you EXACTLY what thrust had been commanded. Autothrottle or not. But with MACS Boeing started playing games with what had been a core tennant. A good, reliable, "honest" aircraft. Then when build quality started suffering, so did my unwavering belief in the "rightness" of that loyalty. I'm not sure they will ever get it back. My career as a pilot is over, due to age and health.. so what I think about Boeing's reputation probably doesn't matter much any more.. But If it IS Boeing, it now rates a second look. Bill Boeing must be spinning in his crypt!

Many years ago, I remember a production meeting in which the plant manager said this about the maintenance techs....."Maintenance is a necessary evil", because maintenance tech didn't add value to the product (assembling parts, operating machinery, etc. to make a completed product). I was shocked (I was a maintenance engineer at the time) but tried to keep my face from showing it. It was a eye opener for me to realize that maintenance was NOT considered a valuable part of the team.

Don't forget, that Boeing got the KC46 contract by screwing Airbus/Grumman out of it.

@apveening

3 ай бұрын

And that contributed to Airbus's decision to not even offer the A380 for consideration for the next Airforce One, thus restricting the choice the Pentagon had (and leading to massive cost overruns).

@solandri69

3 ай бұрын

Actually, the GAO (which nixed Airbus winning the original contract) made the right call on that one. The USAF laid out the criteria the planes had to meet, and specifically said no "extra credit" would be given for exceeding the criteria. But then in the report awarding the contract to Airbus, said the primary reason Airbus' entry won was because it exceeded the range criteria. Boeing's argument was that if they'd known additional consideration would've been given for exceeding the criteria, they could've submitted a design based on the 777 rather than the 767. I thought Airbus still had a good shot at winning the second time around, but they withdrew from the competition. If you're gonna blame someone, blame the Air Force brass who made those rules - zero consideration for exceeding requirements seems rather shortsighted.

@j0ckel617

3 ай бұрын

@@solandri69 the main reason I say, that Boeing screwed/lobbied them out of it is, that the A330MRTT/KC45 was already flying and refueling planes left and right, doing everything it was supposed to, whereas Boeing‘s KC46 was a paper plane.

@burntnougat5341

3 ай бұрын

Don't forget Boeing tried to prevent the sale of the A220 in the US too

@rorykeegan1895

3 ай бұрын

@@apveening Get real, Airforce One being a European designed & built aircraft? Why would Airbus even waste their time bidding? Nobody I knew at Airbus were that stupid.

That word “report / 😮reports” is one that’s used a lot, a very big lot, in Petter’s shows. I love the way he pronounces the end of it. Sounds a bit like “reportsh”. Appart from that, his accent is impeccable! Still his cute Swedish accent slips through from time to time. And I find it charming 😊

@montebont

3 ай бұрын

I'm Dutch and I do the same...In Nordic languages the trailing "s" is a slightly "hissing" sounds. In English it is closer to a soft "z". It's ed versus ed ;-)

@Standswithafistremembers

3 ай бұрын

My favourite one is the way he pronounces "jets" ❤

@fazerider9287

3 ай бұрын

I rather like his pronunciation of zero as "serro" too. :)

This is really hitting home for me. I've been a fan for a long time and always enjoy your videos. It's always nice to have perspective on your life, I feel like I go through the same struggles and have been in a bad spot for a while. I've lost interest in a lot since my last relationship and I'm glad you posted this maybe it will be what I need to get myself back on track. I've been given a lot of great opportunities that I'm afraid I'll toss away if I don't get ahold of my mental health. I hope you get yourself back on track as well the first step is recognizing the problem and knowing where you stand.

Boeing will survive because Airbus simply cannot supply the entire market alone.

@jodyyy8752

2 ай бұрын

And this is effing sad

@tomasinasau3309

2 ай бұрын

lol 😂 airbus actually could that’s the funny part

@mateoqueen7834

2 ай бұрын

@@tomasinasau3309did you watch the video?

@pierrechardaire8525

Ай бұрын

Boeing will survive because serious airlines do not want to see a monopolistic market.

Hmm, wouldn't it make more sense to install a few temperature sensors on the nacelle and have them turn the anti-ice off automatically if it gets too hot? Instead of trying to invent and manufacture new composite parts, they could stop frying them, through the extremely innovative technology of a ... thermostat?

@huwzebediahthomas9193

3 ай бұрын

Carbon fiber is not a good heat conductor, isn't it?

@TheBackyardChemist

3 ай бұрын

@@huwzebediahthomas9193 It is probably better than glass fibers

@user-dr7rc2ll7o

3 ай бұрын

😂😂😂

@johngibson3837

3 ай бұрын

Hey up mate I agree totally in this modern world a temp sensor or 50 is a pretty good view ov what's going on with the heat but why wasn't that done on the engine test bed

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

Then the airplane is grounded when the air temperature sensors fail. Better to design it properly now than to apply a patch to try to prevent the airplane from eating itself.

Man I honestly hope Boeing recovers from all of this. You can’t even say anything positive about Boeing without people reminding you what kind of company they are

@s2snider

3 ай бұрын

I hope so too, but with a board of directors that is focused on the long term, which may mean a wholesale change of members. What may be required are federal income tax rules that collect heavily on short term gains and are much easier on long term gains. Something like this would discourage the greediest from even wanting to serve on the board. Plus, this would make it so it's in every board member's interest to do the right thing for the company's future.

I was an OTR truck driver and I delivered to Boeing more times than I can remember. This is ~2010-2018. They were so cocky they wanted us to break HOS rules to go from one facility to another in Seattle. I told them I was not doing it anymore, not even 5 minutes. Last time, I clocked in the sleeper, went to sleep and when they woke me I told them they had interrupted my sleep and I would move the truck in 10 hours. They threatened calling the police, said they had national security something, something, and I rolled up my window and went back to sleep. No more Boeing dispatches sent to me. Safety was not their thing then and nothing has seemed to have changed.

Most international carriers fly the 350 as their flagship now, pretty telling

If it's Max Boeing, I'm not going!

@wadehiggins1114

3 ай бұрын

If it's a boeing, I'm NEVER going!

@Pekiii92

3 ай бұрын

If it's MAX, I ain't PAX.

@GeoStreber

3 ай бұрын

I'd rather fly on a Tu-104 than on a 737Max at this point.

@Nikzmat

3 ай бұрын

@@Pekiii92 should have said: If it's a MAX, I ain't gonna be a PAX

@aliancemd

3 ай бұрын

Literally days ago they found that at least 50 737(non-MAX) frames have misplaced rivets that could lead to sudden decompression and hull loss in the air.

When you let shareholders and profits cut corners can’t bitch when it bites you. They took the risk for profits it’s their own fault.

Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids goodbye He waited his whole damn life to take that flight And as the Boeing crashed down, he thought "Well, isn't this nice?"

Excellent work, Petter & team! 👏 I prefer to read news than watch videos about the industry, but this one is the best synthesis I’ve seen so far. Oftentimes too much attention is given to competition and market share - by analysts because of immediate profitability, and by the press because it makes a good story. So the key word for Boeing seems to be what you said toward the beginning: hope for a few boring years. The market share battle is lost in the immediate future. The focus should be on tightening quality control to restore trust (from Boeing, imagine that 😢) and doing what they do best - design beautiful machines. Stock price and market share will take care of themselves.

787 isn't built in everett. It is rebuilt right in everett

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

LOL!

We need more of these informative videos. Thank you Petter.

Great video! Just a tiny nitpick, when showing a map of China at 2:46 Kirghizistan was included into the lable "China"

So sad. Been a Boeing fan since a teenager. The 707 was the first jet that I flew on. Enjoyed flights on the powerful 727 (with tail winds, flew Miami to MoBay in 45 minutes). This is the result of a focus on the stock market vs. engineering and Quality, sacrificing Excellence for short term financial gains. (Similar happened to IBM.)

Great video Petter! Thanks for providing this information! Learned a lot! 🙂

Petter/Mentour, Fantastic video/analysis - thank you! Perhaps in a future video you can do an indepth analysis of Airbus. As an American I dont hear much in the media about its strengths/weaknesses/issues. Paul (in MA USA)

@NicolaW72

3 ай бұрын

👍 Maybe including the story of Frank Borrman, the man who saved Airbus.

Just again... Blown away (no pun intended) by the quality of Mentour pilot videos. How big is the supporting team?

I’ve always been a Boeing fan and loved flying on the 737 but didn’t realize they’re pretty cramped. I’m a tall guy but have really enjoyed the space on the a320 family planes. Add in the the fact that Boeing doesn’t care about safety I choose airlines that offer airbus planes.

A lot of companies would be really pleased to have a full order book stretching years into the future.

@tomsorrell4918

3 ай бұрын

I have stock options that expire in June and December of 2025. I'm betting big on the stock price being higher then...

@kw8757

3 ай бұрын

@@tomsorrell4918 For which company? Airbus or Boeing?

My perception is that Boeing is not shaking the tree hard enough in the QC side of the problem. To be a company centered in engineering, that is astonishing. When the disaster caused by the MCAS software happened, they had a golden opportunity to stop, rethink what was wrong with their processes, and focus on delivering quality. That never happened, they continued plugging emergency stopgap solutions all over the place and the results of that strategy are seen today. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep on hitting manufacturing issues in the near future

@haqvor

3 ай бұрын

Boeing haven't been an engineering company for a long time. Their sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value and it is run by accountants. The problem is not QC, manufacturing or bad engineering those problems are only the symptoms of a bad company culture created by the incompetent leadership.

@bartsolari5035

3 ай бұрын

Boeing does not care...the PG&E mentality and cozy with govt

@hundredfireify

3 ай бұрын

"Company centered in engineering" 😂

@maxenielsen

3 ай бұрын

“plugging stopgap measures” is an interesting phrase in light of the Alaska Airlines blowout ;o)

A purchased a significant position in September, and despite these issues, it’s holding supremely good.

@simian_essence

3 ай бұрын

Post again in 10 years. I'd be very curious to see how you're doing then.

‘If you think safety is expensive, try an accident’ - Stelios Haji Ioannou, founder of Easyjet.

Once passengers lose confidence in the aircraft product, especially when it involves perceived safety issues, the company took a defensive stand which in the end will be similar to MD's handling of the DC-10. MD eventually addressed the DC-10 safety issues, but by then the damage to the aircraft's reputation was done and the passenger confidence in the product failed. These same executives always delay appropriate decision making to until there is no choice. Since the previous MD executives now run Boeing, I expect a similar outcome, that is Boeing will fail due to shortsighted executives who only have their wallet contents as a priority and to the flying public's reluctance to board their aircraft.

@StratMatt777

3 ай бұрын

People were flying DC-10s in the 1980s and 1990s with no awareness they were flying on a DC-10. But it took time... time enough for a new generation of people to be produced who hadn't experienced that hadn't experienced the 1970s news cycles (just kidding on that last part). ;)

@montebont

3 ай бұрын

Well said. At he end of the day "informed" passengers decide the fate of an airline or a type of airplane. Whatever the extra cost I don't want to fly in a plane that has a reputation of losing a door in flight. You might argue it was an accident in a single plane. But the root cause is a lack of QA: if the defect was not detected in a single plane it might occur in multiple planes.

@0Clewi0

3 ай бұрын

Though it will be hard to measure how many passengers will look ahead of time and make decisions that monetarily affects airlines. As the passenger aren't Boeing's clients accountability from the mass public will be hard.

@marcmcreynolds2827

3 ай бұрын

DC-10s continued to be flown in large numbers long after the celebrated crashes. After the early '80s recession was over, plenty of DC-10s continued to be ordered and sold. It continued to beat the L-1011 in sales competitions, especially for long-haul routes. "previous MD executives" were gone a long long time ago.

@0521coxy

3 ай бұрын

I mean I now look ahead and make sure I’m not on a max or a boeing if I have the option to fly on an airbus

Boeing should be really worried about the A220-500. Maybe they should work on a clean sheet of their own starting now!

@aycc-nbh7289

3 ай бұрын

Maybe they could either buy Embraer or build a “B717 MAX” plane.

@euloge996

3 ай бұрын

No, there is no 220-500, it would kill the a320neo

@chakraborty1989

3 ай бұрын

P&W saving boeings ass then with the engine issues with A220

@hakanevin8545

3 ай бұрын

As Mentour Pilot explained in another video, A220 program is not profitable yet. Until they reduce the costs, Airbus will not develop an A220-500. BTW, did you know that A220 fuselages are manufactured by Spirit?

@aycc-nbh7289

3 ай бұрын

@@euloge996How? It would likely not hold as many passengers or as much cargo.

To figure out if Boeing can recover, imagine yourself in the following position: You are an airline company looking to supplement your existing fleet of aircraft with some new planes of any type or size. 3 days ago you got a call from you insurance agency announcing that in light of recent events, they’ll be upping your premiums by 5 milllion/year for every Boeing aircraft in your inventory and 15 million/year for every 737 Max in your inventory starting next fiscal quarter. And that’s very inconvenient because 4 days ago the FAA called and grounded all the 737s for an indeterminate amount of time due to mechanical issues. In top of that, your PR department just reported several people called and requested cancellations when they confirmed the aircraft they were going to be flying on was a Boeing aircraft. Do you plan to buy more Boeing planes, or perhaps planes from literally any other manufacture with a competitive product?

Greetings from India. Extremely informative video. 👏

Airbus doesn't take any shortcuts and as a result their aircraft are more expensive and secure. For Boeing it's the opposite. It's quite obvious which strategy has proven to be more successful.

@chaffsalvo

3 ай бұрын

HUH?!?. Airbus is typically considered cheaper than Boeing. As for safety Airbus has had its issues. Air France 447 (A340) crashed due to software issue reminiscent of 737 MCAS problem. AA587 (A300) vertical stab ripped off overstressed by pilot rudder inputs. Airbus doesnt have a monopoly on quality and safety.

@Ben21756

3 ай бұрын

@@chaffsalvo I don't think it's fair to blame Airbus for the Air France 447 incident. A frozen pitot tube could have happened to any other plane, and it was the pilot's response to an otherwise manageable technical issue that led to the crash. This incident is not comparable to MCAS, and it's not the fault of Airbus software, either.

@tanmayta9131

3 ай бұрын

@@chaffsalvo Bruh... What are you even talking about? The Air France 447 accident involved the plane flying through some terrible weather which started to overwhelm the heating elements in the pitot tubes and caused a small build-up of ice in the pitot tubes which temporarily caused them to deliver erroneous airspeed data which resulted in the FMC (Flight Management Computer) reverting into Alternate Law where certain protections are not available. The accident was caused by the FO commanding maximum pitch-up from the aircraft for several minutes resulting in a stall that they never recovered from. The FMC would have limited the aircraft's pitch had it been operating in Normal Law which it unfortunately was not. The only "software issue" identified was that the stall warning and stick shaker event only lasted for the first few seconds after the aircraft entered the stall since after that the aircraft's indicated airspeed had dropped below 60 knots and the Flight Computer silenced the stall warning as it was deemed that such low airspeeds would only be possible on the ground where a stall warning would be irrelevant. The investigators concluded that while the stall warning being silenced was a contributing factor to the crash, a quick look at the artificial horizon would have shown that the plane was in a 46-degree nose-up attitude and that combined with their rapidly decreasing altitude would have clearly indicated that they were in a stall. The final investigation report states that the primary reason for the accident was a complete lack of situational awareness on behalf of the pilots. I wonder how you would justify calling this a "software issue reminiscent of MCAS". I do not see any similarities between this incident and those involving MCAS, especially since the only "software error" to have occurred here had nothing to do with the flight controls and the pilots were 100% in control of the aircraft when this accident happened. Stop making up random $#!T and spreading misinformation. Mentour himself has made a very good video explaining the crash of Air France 447. Maybe you should watch that. 👉kzread.info/dash/bejne/l2l1qap-hduyfag.html

One thing I think is being overlooked is the reputation damage that could lead to fliers choosing not to fly on max variant planes, if resistance is high enough it could lead airlines to switch to other alternatives. The Max variants have gotten such a bad reputation that several people I know have sworn never to fly on one, and some booking sites even have set up an option to exclude booking flights on those planes.

@aycc-nbh7289

3 ай бұрын

It isn’t like they will have much of a choice if last-minute cancellations and equipment changes force them onto these planes.

@Underestimated37

3 ай бұрын

@@aycc-nbh7289 that’s more an exception rather than a rule, I wouldn’t be surprised if some people just outright refuse to fly on one though regardless

@aycc-nbh7289

3 ай бұрын

@@Underestimated37What do you mean? These sorts of events happen all of the time, especially if people need to make alternate arrangements if significant delays cause them to miss their connections.

@Underestimated37

3 ай бұрын

@@aycc-nbh7289 when airlines switch planes they usually stick to the same type, as the pilots don’t change, usually they’re type rated for one type of plane, they’re not going to go substituting a Boeing for an airbus, and people have and are outright refusing to fly on max variant planes. They refuse to go on flights that use the max types, even at short notice. In their mind it’s about convenience vs them risking their lives. Potential death is a pretty strong driving force that will make people do illogical things. And in those peoples minds, regardless of what the reality of the situation may be, they see these planes as death traps, and outright refuse to fly on them. Hence booking sites making an explicit no max variant option for booking flights. Missed connections be damned, there is a subset of people who refuse to fly on the max planes now, it’s a reality and one that is going to affect the industry regardless.

@Jehty21

3 ай бұрын

I doubt that any significant number of people would do that. Just look at basically any other boycott. (of course it being a safety concern might motivate more people to boycott than let's say a moral concerns)

One problem facing all aircraft manufacturers and jet engine makers is the availability of key raw materials used in the critical rotating parts at very high temperatures inside the engine, in particular, aerospace grades of cobalt. Outside of China, only three brands are certified for aerospace: Glencore (Nikkelwerk); Vale (Port Colborne); and Sumitomo. These same grades are also used in orthapaedic implants and industrial gas turbines. This is not the same cobalt going into lithium-ion batteries, but the markets are connected. Aerospace demand is said to be rising by 1,000 tonnes/year, but production is falling. The aerospace brands of cobalt are all byproducts of nickel metal production, used in stainless and alloy steel production, not the nickel that goes into batteries. At current prices on the London Metal Exchange nickel producers, except Indonesia, are losing money, so there is no incentive for producers to increase production of nickel or cobalt. Unless that changes, at some point in the next two years, the superalloys makers that supply the engine manufacturers will not be able to obtain enough cobalt to produce sufficient quantities of superalloy to meet the demand of engine manufacturers, resulting in even more delays and productivity and deliveries at Airbus, Boeing and Embraer declining. In 1977/78 when cobalt prices soared to around $50/lb, Rolls-Royce went to great lengths to research an alternative to cobalt. After more than a year, it found only one alternative metal that could achieve the same thermal and performance results in a superalloy as cobalt: platinum. The cost of platinum was and still is prohibitive. When it comes to superalloys in aircraft engines, there is no alternative to cobalt. Possibly, within three-to-five years, the Chinese battery industry will come up with a cost-effective technology to dissolve aerospace grades of cobalt for use in electric-vehicle batteries, as it will struggle to find enough cobalt hydroxide and cobalt sulphate to use in batteries and will be forced to go higher up the value chain in cobalt. Then the battery industry will be competing with the aerospace sector for those grades of cobalt. While the battery industry has been able to reduce cobalt content in batteries, in order to achieve long distances between charges, the batteries need greater density, which can only be achieved with cobalt. As the aviation industry strives for greater fuel efficiency and longer ranges, this can only be achieved by obtaining more thrust per litre of fuel burned, operating at higher temperatures. This can only be achieved with more cobalt in the superalloys. Superalloys have to operate effectively at two-thirds of their melting temperature and cobalt is critical in achieving that.

Perhaps if Boeing was still an engineering company their customers might say "we'll wait for them" but Boeing stopped being an engineering company when they let MD buy them out with their own money.

It would require a gargantuan turnaround in the culture throughout Boeing and its supply chain to keep up with Airbus and that's just in the present, nevermind the future. I don't believe that Boeing could withstand a ground-breaking Airbus design, not that I think one is coming soon, but with CFM engines on the horizon Boeing is certainly on the clock.

It is going to be really hard for them to ensure proper QA/QC control because they split up their manufacturing of parts to so many sub suppliers so all of those would need to step up their game or Boeing would need to make a massive investment in doing very in depth QC on delivered parts which is just not realistic. People forget that QA/QC procedures is not just something you put on paper it is a cultural thing within your company, you need to get everyone onboard with it and on top it. If Jimmy the floor cleaner spots a missing bolt by accident they should feel encouraged to report it, which might sound silly, but a LOT of people are deadly afraid to point out mistakes because of how the company culture deals with such things. Say we get all of that sorted we still need to convince the FAA that we have managed it which means they will need to inspect all those sub suppliers, talk to the people there, check the procedures etc etc etc. Then finally they will get a green light to ramp up production, but might still be told that at random 1 plane a month is selected for additional QC just to ensure all is right for some years. The FAA is under heavy fire as is Boeing and they are not going to want to take risks and they do not have profits to worry about. It all comes down to that classic of quotes: "It takes years to build up your reputation and just a second to ruin it all.". Boeing is going to be suffering for a long time to come because of their own greed induced failures.

I had dinner with a friend who is a 737 captain. He had a couple of thoughts. First, he still prefers Boeing to Airbus. Airbus aircraft are far too automated for his liking. As he has explained before, a pilot can turn off the FMS on a Boeing. It takes work, but it can be done. You can't disable the FMS on an Airbus. The computer will always be assisting (or second guessing) the pilot. Second, when Boeing bought McDonnel Douglas, the cost-cutting culture of Douglas Aircraft crept in. Think of the DC-10. There were so many short cuts made, to catch up with the L-1011 program. Every Douglas jet had been announced, following a Boeing program, whether the DC-8, the DC-9, the DC-10, or the MD-11. One would think that the acquiring company's culture would survive, but often, the senior executives of the acquired company often push that company's culture into the whole company. Perhaps Boeing needs to recruit a senior executive from Lockheed Martin or Northrup Grumman to become CEO and reinvent the culture.

The threat to Boeing is not Airbus - it is the Chinese producer COMAC. The C919; which is now certified; is a direct competitor to the 737. Sure, it's not much different to a 30-year old Airbus, but it's still 30 years younger than a 737.

@ACPilot

3 ай бұрын

But the MAX is still a better aircraft than the C919, efficiency, products support etc.

Somebody somewhere has recently realized they forgot to fit the bolts in the plug door……I would like to find out who didn’t do their job properly…..

@BLUESBOYBENFIELD

3 ай бұрын

Yes, let’s have the guys name……

@BrianHoff04

3 ай бұрын

Because knowing the person's name will fix the process? Do you work in mfg?

@oystercatcher943

3 ай бұрын

It’s surely not one persons fault. It likely training, management, procedures. Remember the Swiss cheese model?

@thewhitefalcon8539

3 ай бұрын

​@@oystercatcher943 Everything is the fault of one person, who must be punished as much as possible. Don't you remember conservative ideology?

@tomstravels520

3 ай бұрын

@@danp576Alabama???? That’s where Airbus makes its aircraft so doubt it

The ramp up to 75 single aisle aircraft per month was a target for Airbus back in 2017. Covid put a stop to that and the ongoing issues with supply chains is still a drag on achieving that. Last year space was released at the Toulouse site for a new A320 assembly line, previously being the A380 FAL. This will take time to ramp up even if the supply chain recovers because people have to be trained, tooling needs to mature etc. Airbus has already signaled that it intends to start designing the next gen single aisle and so it can be expected that they will want to sell as many current aircraft to finance these aircraft of the future. It will be interesting to see whether a stretched A220-500 becomes an interim design between current aircraft and next gen. The stretch design is already possible and a new second engine option may secure additional customers. It is clear that signalling new and more modern aircraft is a clear contrast with Boeing who want every cent out of the 737's sixty year old design. The accountants are still in charge at Boeing.

Until these companies start getting jail time for involved persons or fines that actually hurt them, this will never stop.