Click my CoPilot Fitness link go.mycopilot.com/mentournow to get 14 days FREE with your own expert personal trainer!

@sobhansonicofficial9640

Ай бұрын

Come to bangladesh pls❤

@sparky6086

Ай бұрын

When Apple w/ Steve Jobs was having trouble, their competitor, Microsoft w/ Jobs' friend, Bill Gates, helped Apple, because Gates knew, that without at least one significant competetor, Microsoft could be put under the anti-trust microscope & could be broken up or subject to sufficating government regulation.

@LaczPro

Ай бұрын

Best aviation grandpa on the internet?

@michalsetlak

Ай бұрын

My rule #1: NO APPLE. The 1st computer I've ever touched was an Apple II, later I've had to work on Macs for years. Never again!!! It's a totalitarian system. No Apple!

@leisti

Ай бұрын

@@michalsetlak What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Boeing’s CEO is an accountant. Airbus’s CEO is an engineer who came up though the company in R&D.

@alexandermonro6768

Ай бұрын

Airbus seems to be steadily growing and succeeding for decades. Boeing seems to be going the other way. Could this be related to the background of their respective CEOs?

@sanjaypopcorn

Ай бұрын

​@@alexandermonro6768The CEO of a company, play a huge role in the direction they want to take the company in and its priorities. So yes.

@GH-oi2jf

Ай бұрын

Remember that former CEO Muilenburg came up from Boeing engineering. Boeing does have engineers in key executine positions, including the President of Boeing Commercial Aircraft.

@hundredfireify

Ай бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Too bad they're not DOING THEIR F*CKING JOB

@fromgermany271

Ай бұрын

From my experience the most critical difference between an accountant and an engineer is their handling of uncertainties. For an engineer it‘s about to guess at least it an unfavorable thing, in critical just assume the worst, while an accountant assumes any unknown cost as zero. This is reason why some „business decisions“ leave the non-dyscalculating employees just shaking heads. Just heard a student in the gym telling an other one from the same Highschool why he choose business admin for next step. He had a 5 (guess it‘s F in some countries) in math. Any questions? 😂

As an aerospace engineer who holds Boeing in the highest esteem, it breaks my heart to say this, but American companies are no longer into engineering. They are into money games, stock prices, quarterly profits, management fad du jour, and they have nowhere to go but down. The country that produced the most brilliant engineers and scientists who could put a man on the Moon half-a-century ago because of its critical thinking ability, is now in the optimism business. Sad state of affairs.

@poetryflynn3712

Ай бұрын

Realistically, America never had that. It was all borrowed brain drain from Europe and now India and Asia. The most famous American scientists came from Europe.

@innerlight7018

Ай бұрын

In case of Boeing, that was obvious and to be expected since 1997.

@Bob-nc5hz

Ай бұрын

There's an old quote that man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest, but turns out finance is worse than either, it just didn't exist back then.

@Dirk-van-den-Berg

Ай бұрын

I think you meant du jour.

@vivektulja4516

Ай бұрын

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg yes, thanks. I will correct it. French is not my strong point :-)

I'm living in Toulouse and have a lot of friends working on Airbus assembly line. They actually complain a lot with parts build by Spirit Aerosystems, saying that provider is probably their worst in terms of quality and number of rejected parts. Airbus is under pressure with that kind of suppliers as that leads to a lot of time loss. So I think that if Airbus wants to buy some of the factories from Spirit is also to gain control on quality and improve it.

@Dirk-van-den-Berg

Ай бұрын

There is the answer we are looking for. The number of rejected parts. Probably much higher than in Renton or Everett or South Carolina. What I do like to know though is how Airbus communicates with their (independent) suppliers and how they take care of suppliers that don't meet the quality-expectations.

@MBSteinNL

Ай бұрын

​@@Dirk-van-den-Berg Generally there should be penalty clauses in contracts, but cutting off a supplier is probably a last measure if the rejection rate is way too big and the supplier shows no signs of improvement

@ytzpilot

Ай бұрын

I don’t see Boeing interested in buying all of Spirit Aerospace just the Wichita facility, which would allow a restructuring, or Airbus or other suppliers to take over other facilities. There are other players like Collin’s Aerospace that would do a better job then the current situation

@kernelpanic5198

Ай бұрын

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg It's a bit more complicated, I think. As Peter said, Airbus is struggling to be able to build more plane as their orders are gigantic. That puts everyone under pressure and makes the decision to reject parts harder to take. That leads from workers in assembly line perspective that they also have to deal with an overall quality reduction that will have consequence in the future. They don't expect big issues like Boeing on brand-new planes, but probably small malfunctions that will be more frequent as planes build recently gets older. Still, the quality control at Airbus is very experienced and is the main reason why Airbus is not facing the same problems Boeing have. Also, the design of Airbus planes is in general slightly more modern (Airbus is only 50 years old after all), which avoids some problems.

@Dirk-van-den-Berg

Ай бұрын

@@ytzpilotBoeing could take a first step and change the supplycontract so that controls are built in into the supplychain. But since they have a bad reputation themselves, that is gonna take a while. In fact, they would have to start all over again.

One thing you have to remember about modern upper corporate management is that they don't care about the effects 10 years from now because they won't be there anymore. So if it can maximize to their advantage now in the shorter term, something that might kill them 10 years from now is not of consequence. That will be someone else's problem

@roberthevern6169

Ай бұрын

So true! They're almost like 'carpetbaggers'!

@qwesx

Ай бұрын

Whenever this is brought up I am getting reminded of how in Japan it's essentially an unwritten law that if you start working at some big company then you'll also end your career there as well (although that mindset seems to be slowly changing). You start as some low level worker and then, over the years, move on to higher positions, at least until your tasks start getting out of your league and that's where you end the career. This has obvious advantages, in the sense that most people consider the company to be their second family (or even their first one...) and try to not make any obvious short-term-profits-who-cares-about-the-future decisions. But there are also not-so-obvious disadvantages - see for example the Olympus scandal from 2011.

@Nocturna.

Ай бұрын

These old rags can’t even feed themselves without help, they’re almost dead, why does profit matter to them? I don’t get it. If you have billions of dollars, you can already buy some countries, what will a few more millions even do to your dying ass? The only answer I see is mental illness. They already sold their souls, what is next?

@goalroad9716

Ай бұрын

Yet its funny they keep talking about sustainability. Irony.

@jmac1099

Ай бұрын

this is correct.. Hence where Boeing is now and where they continue to go. this is not a new thing, there has been warnings about this ever since the merger with MD.. MD got boeing to MD to buy boeing with boeing's money.

I also work for a large American company that behave in a similar fatuous manner to Boeing. They talk a good talk, drive down costs, care little about quality or personnel. Their only focus is their dwindling profits and appear not to understand that a happy workforce and happy customers make for a strong profit margin. Putting the cart before the horse.

@iloveaviation-burgerclub-a8145

Ай бұрын

I worked for Airbus and Bombardier, A380, A400M, A340-600, A350, BD100, all HLS and CC. And safety was never a topic any compromise was made. Not even hair thin. Our counterparts were technicians of the highest grade such as Willi Elmers and no matter what it was technology, process stability, safety, maintainability, performance... that was nothing to reduce or degregate. We found solutions to be cost effective by finding new production methods, better logistics and interchangeable parts. Not by using a simplex design for critical Class 2 or Class 1 parts/units/systems to save the buck. I once was into offering a PCU for 747-800 and noticed the tendencies. No BAFO for us back then. What a luck. Boeing was the most respected company in aerospace on level with NASA, BAE, NACA. The ruinners are rich now, noone seems to have a possibility to make them accountable for their devestating doing. And I fear that nothing will change because we don't want to change. Because we pay respect for wealth and not for what a man achieves. Productive people are called loosers, and it is the managers and bean counters, the betrayers and frauders everyone looks up to.

@G73Server

Ай бұрын

Come to Europe! A lot of companies understand that here, and its safe.

@ImBarryScottCSS

Ай бұрын

I'll take General Motors for $500 Alex.

@rrai1999

Ай бұрын

@@G73Server Uh.. That's a really, really naive world outlook you have there "european".

@jordanhildebrandt3705

Ай бұрын

Those Harvard Business grads have hurt everybody but themselves. Arrogance is a hell of a drug.

I'm experiencing a similar disaster with my employer, who happens to be the US federal government or at least my part of it. The system has been infected with box checkers for a very long time, and it's finally reached a critical mass. Add to that policies box checkers have implemented have gutted our core competencies to the point where we can't do engineering anymore just pushing paperwork to have contractors do the engineering. So when something that requires critical thinking comes along, we struggle hard. Boeing is in the same position. And the solution is the same. You literally have to fire a lot of the bureaucracy en masse and identity the people who know how to get things done no matter what and get them into leadership positions.

@kittytrail

Ай бұрын

problem is specific applied know how doesn't translate into managing know how. then who will do the work when those with the know how have been sent to management hell, contractors? 🙄 good engineers need very good engineering skills, if they got some decent managerial skills that's even better but not vital. good managers need very good managerial skills and if they have decent engineering skills, that's better and in lots of cases, can even be vital for the company.

@ElectricUAM

Ай бұрын

Sadly, our country is run by corporate lobbies and vested financial pressures. That's not a sustainable business model, as we can see here.

@smakfu1375

Ай бұрын

100% correct.

@ajg617

Ай бұрын

@@kittytrail Worked for the old AT&T Bell Labs. Astonishing engineering prowess - but when the Labs was told to develop something that will make a profit AT&T 'sold' it to Lucent, then Alcatel, now Nokia.

@agcons

Ай бұрын

OMG it's not just us. This is where we're at with my part of the Canadian public service too. I've called them "checklist workers" but we're talking about the same thing. I've also been complaining about goal drift, where the rules themselves become more important than the activities they were created to support: again very similar to you. I'll be out very soon, but the organisation is heading very much in the wrong direction.

In 40 years of being a consumer, employee, contractor, and now a business owner and employer, I cannot recall a single example where outsourcing a key production process resulted in a company's long term strength and success, but so many examples where such decisions led to a company's demise. No matter how it is arranged, it's simply not possible to effectively control and oversee an outsourced layer, and that layer will require its own profit margin with its own incentives and temptations to maximize those profits, an ultimate conflict of interests. There are too many boardrooms occupied by too many stuffed suits who are too easily tempted by deceptive promises and overoptimistic numbers, blind to their impact on the long term strength and integrity of the company. A decade from now, nobody will remember Spirit Aerosystems, but everyone will recognize Boeing whether or not they are still in business. Why, WHY relinquish control of critical aspects of your production to a company no one knows, no one will remember, and that has relatively little to lose??? As a small time and relatively new small business owner, even I can clearly see the foolishness of this thinking. My other observation... Although Airbus hasn't exactly extended a hand to Boeing, Petter's point reminds me that competitors rely on each other in many ways and they should not automatically be adversaries. It is in the best interest of both Boeing and Airbus that the other survive and remain strong. If either fail, the void will be filled by the likes of Comac, UAC, or some other company from a place that doesn't play nice on the global stage. That won't be good for anyone, especially the survivor of the Airbus/Boeing rivalry. If you are a firmly entrenched supporter of Airbus or Boeing hoping the other will fail, you should carefully consider how they actually need each other and maybe reframe your perspective before your wish comes true.

@BlackoutKollision

Ай бұрын

I’m reminded of the congratulatory video Airbus released about Boeing’s centennial a few years ago. Both companies have had different approaches and solutions to the same problem and I agree that they can only benefit as they can learn from each other as professional rivals. Despite how people might feel, the world is in fact big enough for both to exist, prosper, and push innovation in the aviation industry. Cheers to the competition.

@2adamast

Ай бұрын

You mean Apple doesn't outsource successfully to China

@alsheremeta

Ай бұрын

Boeing would never be allowed to fail.... Can you imagine the chaos in the airline industry if Boeing wasn't there supplying all the products and services that they do to the airlines. If there was no buyer for Boeing, the US government would have to take it over. But I'm sure the Chinese would come forward and buy Boeing.

@AbuPaul

Ай бұрын

Elon, is that you?

@parishsirius

Ай бұрын

Airbus has much more subcontractors. And as a easa DOA holder it is Airbus's job to ensure subcontractors quality. It is impossible to build everything by itself

I just want to say that this channel, and Mentour Pilot, are, BY FAR, the most interesting channels I have ever seen on KZread in a very long time. The way that everything is explained is very well structured and incredibly interesting and thoughtful. I have found myself seeing these videos every night after work, intrigued about the Boeing/Airbus situation, aviation news, and incidents/accidents. If I ever had some interest in the aviation industry, your channels have raised it a 1000%. Thank you very much for your work on these channels.

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Wow, that's awesome to hear, thank you!

@roberthevern6169

Ай бұрын

Welcome aboard the 'truth train' (Cat Stevens, 1971)

@insightphoto

Ай бұрын

Absolutely agreed, I'm not involved in aerospace or air travel industries but I love Petter's craftsmanship, attention to detail and relatable presentation style.

I worked for Airbus and Bombardier, A380, A400M, A340-600, A350, BD100, all HLS and CC. And safety was never a topic any compromise was made. Not even hair thin. Our counterparts were technicians of the highest grade such as Willi Elmers and no matter what it was technology, process stability, safety, maintainability, performance... that was nothing to reduce or degregate. We found solutions to be cost effective by finding new production methods, better logistics and interchangeable parts. Not by using a simplex design for critical Class 2 or Class 1 parts/units/systems to save the buck. I once was into offering a PCU for 747-800 and noticed the tendencies. No BAFO for us back then. What a luck. Boeing was the most respected company in aerospace on level with NASA, BAE, NACA. The ruinners are rich now, noone seems to have a possibility to make them accountable for their devestating doing. And I fear that nothing will change because we don't want to change. Because we pay respect for wealth and not for what a man achieves. Productive people are called loosers, and it is the managers and bean counters, the betrayers and frauders everyone looks up to.

@Nocturna.

Ай бұрын

what you said is sadly the reality. And this mentality is also so incremented in our society that we won’t change until the world ends

For the 10000000000th time (other people have said this) this is what happens when you let accountants and business majors into management.

@davidjma7226

Ай бұрын

Yep MBA = Management By Adolescents

@fbollaert

Ай бұрын

the bean counters ...it is very important but it is only 1 aspect of the picture

@soccerguy2433

Ай бұрын

Mullenburger was an engineer

@konradcomrade4845

Ай бұрын

in the old Times, engineers were at the helm of technical companies; the successful ones, those who decided the outcome of a battle, not the "quarterly result". Wallstreet is to blame, unequivocally!

@Lucien86

Ай бұрын

@@konradcomrade4845 In a word SpaceX. The worlds most successful space company and basically run by engineers.

In spite of 2 crashes Boeing CEO still took home millions in bonuses

@hankhulator5007

Ай бұрын

This is the most visible thing in crony capitalism… (comes directly from governments, where people make terrible mistakes but still are promoted to an even better job ($) or a golden closet - when you take that out of the equation, almost everything works fine).

@Adamroable

Ай бұрын

​@@hankhulator5007 from a crony capitalism perspective, no mistakes have been made.

@NAP795

Ай бұрын

And so will Calhoun, when he is dispatched from Boeing, which should be pretty soon!!

@hankhulator5007

Ай бұрын

@@Adamroable Unfortunately yes :/

@45-Subscribers

Ай бұрын

60 million!

When Airbus started, it did not own any of its production facilities. Aérospatiale, BAe Aerospace, as well as some companies in Spain and Germany (forget their names) provided production facilities and there were huge fights/delays on who would build what. Airbus then went through a transformation where it became a corporation owned by those companies, and who bought those facilities from those companies at which point it could better coordinate who would do what. Eventually BAe pulled out and sold its shares in Airbus, but Airbus was already stuck with the Boughton plant and decided to keep it even though it was no longer necessary (in past, because Airbus was government created, it needed to create jobs in every country whose governments helped create Airbus). In essence, Airbus went in the opposite direction of Boeing to consolidate its production into its own facilities for the most part.

@TheThirdFall

Ай бұрын

Yes, the work share was (and still is) a huge issue for Airbus. It was one of the reasons why they finally merged the national companies into EADS, but I think national governments were also pragmatic enough to realise that Airbus needed to be a single company and not fractured between several countries and companies. There's still a lot of political interference in the management of Airbus, but they seem to keep it to an acceptable (for governments) level. One interesting thing with Airbus is that it shouldn't really work on paper, yet it does. I'm surprised that the UK operation still exists, but from what I understand, it works well and the costs/risks of moving the UK operations would massively outweigh the benefits of doing it. (DASA was the German company, CASA was the Spanish one)

@tenkloosterherman

Ай бұрын

Also Fokker Aerospace in the Netherlands at the beginning.

@jfmezei

Ай бұрын

Thanks. I had not heard about Fokker participating in Airbus. But it makes sense as they were a european company. @@tenkloosterherman

@martijn9568

Ай бұрын

@@TheThirdFallIt’s like the European Union. Sounds like it doesn’t work, which is why it does.😉 Create enough infighting that outsiders don’t see it working, or as a threat. At the same time boring, but important things such as standardisation between member states succeeds.

Every time I've seen a company contract work out that they don't want to do, or add middlemen in their process it always starts out cheaper than doing it themselves directly, but over time it ends up being more expensive. Always. You cannot have more people involved and expect them to not want to get paid more.

@danharold3087

Ай бұрын

The auto industry has the same problem.

@geofftimm2291

Ай бұрын

In the USofA some contracting out, to small and/or minority business, is a contract requirement, Government contracts usually, but there are other considerations.

@cordawg89

Ай бұрын

A lot of newer companies are bringing more stuff in house after seeing this model fail over and over. They have more to lose so they can’t afford to be short sighted. I’m not a fan of Musk however SpaceX can do stuff better and cheaper than Boeing (Dragon vs Starliner) and this is one of the many reasons

@MBSteinNL

Ай бұрын

A lot of the subcontracting by large firms in the US I believe is also for political lobbying reasons - you can pressure politicians by pointing at how many jobs you contracted.

@kenbrown2808

Ай бұрын

I keep telling people: outsourcing is the opposite of getting rid of the middleman.

Please don't ever stop making in-depth LONG-form content! This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that I love watching

Question would be, do they even deserve being helped at this point, we should await the investigation, but the whistleblower did die under very suspicious circumstances for putting it mildly.

@danharold3087

Ай бұрын

By that logic we should shut down most every corporation in the world because they all have problems. Your brush is far too wide. Obviously there is a group at Boeing covering their backside. This murder is an indicator that the heat is on.

@MedicineRunner

Ай бұрын

Yup, exactly my thoughts lol

@raymarshall6721

Ай бұрын

The whistleblower was in his own legal mess. Not uncommon to take the easy way out when you're targeted in a legal proceedings which could (and likely would) ruin you

@shimes424

Ай бұрын

@@raymarshall6721 which was what? He was suing Boeing

@NicolaW72

Ай бұрын

Boeing as supplier of Airbus would be a nightmare for both of them. So maybe this is the basis for an agreement.

1:45 also around that time MDD management decided that their core *purpose* was to provide revenue for shareholders. That is also why they moved the HQ to Chicago: they wanted to be closer to finance, and not bothered by the complains of manufacturing. These are things they literally stated at the time. And I would not be as optimistic as Peter on management getting its sh*t straight: in 2022 they moved HQ even further away from manufacturing to Virginia, in order to get closer to the fed and pentagon. And a proposal by a shareholder to move the HQ back to Seattle early this year was rejected by the board without being brought to ballot as interference with management prerogative.

@kevina4140

Ай бұрын

And sadly all those involved have made their tens of millions and of course ran off with the money.

@user-tx7hh8lm8k

Ай бұрын

Being just a pilot and...mister nobody. My heart goes out for Boeing!!...

@Greatdome99

Ай бұрын

I hate to tell you, but that IS capitalism. ALL capitalized companies think this. "Increase shareholder value." Period.

@ralphclark

Ай бұрын

Would.anybody be kind enough to condense this for me?

@StevenFuller55

Ай бұрын

@ralphclark See @TravisFabel8040 comment nearby for a short statement. Near-term tactics, and fast profits are more rewarding to the management than setting the company up for long-term success. There are many examples through history. e.g. Auto companies making big profits on large pickups and SUVs, and giving up on small efficient cars because they are not profitable this year.

I worked for an areospace supplier that made parts for Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed, and Bombardier. Each supplier had its own quality management, which included instructions what to do with a missing part or which tools were permitted to be used, foundries you could order metal from and so on. So Airbus just managed this better. Hearing about the use of improvised tools or testing liquids is something Boeing should have caught. Even if they buy them how will they catch these items.

@hankhulator5007

Ай бұрын

There are also other reasons, each and every newbie in Airbus is mentored for at least 2 years, and failing the well established procedures can drive them directly to unemployment - so, quality of work and strict respect of procedures is their (main) pillar.

@ebsalonga

Ай бұрын

I agree. If Spirit is also making the A350 fuselage and there seems to be less quality issues with that aircraft, then something is wrong with Boeing’s expectations. There is nothing wrong with outsourcing, as long as standards are properly met.

Boeing can't fix their quality problem by buying Spirit. Boeing needs new management that understands quality.

@agathonaspire

Ай бұрын

isn't that supposed to be Spirit who should control their quality?

@trollmastermike52845

Ай бұрын

Airbus buys out Boeing and gets superior euro engineers, and management teams that can do the job right

@liam3284

29 күн бұрын

Or at least management who set expectations for quality. A problem is, those people who cared about quality likely left or were "performance managed" out of a role.

I see the Boeing parts of Spirit being sold back to Boeing, the A220 wing plant acquired by Airbus, and the rest remaining with a smaller Spirit.

@evinnra2779

Ай бұрын

Basic principle to live by in whatever we do is that simplicity is divine.

One of the things I have noticed watching both Boeing, but also game companies like Wizards of the Coast and Unity , and HP's position on customers and their ink subscriptions, etc., is that one of the key elements of a company's well being does not seem to be at all considered by management. There is a fundamental deficiency in the formation of these management types. I think that customer/community good will is a key component of sustained viability. Trying to squeeze the last dime out of customers and similar strategies cannot be undertaken without considering the effect on goodwill. Your company's production and costs may not have changed a thing, but if you lose the goodwill of those who spend their money on you, you may become non-competitive overnight.

@bluefish239

Ай бұрын

There's someone who coined the "enshitification" to describe this. It's basically the natural outcome of a world that values constant growth even though it's impossible. It's also why this keeps happening, the management will keep pushing and trimming things until goodwill is finally broken (and once that happens there is no winning it back) and the management doesn't care, they'll just jump ship with their golden parachutes and find a new company to slowly consume until all that's left is garbage.

@traveller23e

Ай бұрын

But the thing is, management isn't paid to make the company long-term profitable or stable, management is paid to get the highest short-term return on investment. It's all about the stock market.

@unwillingly_will

Ай бұрын

My friend, you've just arrived on the fundamental flaw of capitalism, seriously well done. This happen in all private companies, sometimes to a lesser extent, sometimes bigger, but it is always happening. Management aren't hired or even legally obligated to make the world a better place for the workers or customers belew them, they are hired and legally obligated to make as much profit as quickly as possible for the shareholders/owners, consequences be damned.

@triadwarfare

Ай бұрын

High salaries, especially compared to the rest of the world, necessitate greedy practices just to keep going. But I do understand why they need high salaries as cost of living can be very expensive. But if you take your American salary to a third world country, you can live like a king. I think the world needs some kind of a reset to fix this inequality, so the greedy practices can stop.

@MarinCipollina

Ай бұрын

It always seems to come back to one of the many fundamental flaws of a capitalist economic system.

I must say that the A220 is an excellent aircraft from a passenger perspective. I found it much more comfortable to fly in than both A320 and 737.

@Infiltator2

Ай бұрын

Tbh i aslo should be. There are 40 years between these Aircrafts

@Dirk-van-den-Berg

Ай бұрын

There is no comparison. Each airline has its own cabinlayout. I am an Airbusfan, but noticed on the AerLingus A320 crappy seats, while the Wizzair A321 was very comfy. On both I sat on the exitrow. IMHO it all depends on the kind of seats the airline puts in the cabin.

@geley5285

Ай бұрын

Probably because it wasn't designed by Airbus

@thecaynuck

Ай бұрын

Its also not even an actual Airbus plane. Bombardier made it!

@Dirk-van-den-Berg

Ай бұрын

@@thecaynuckBombardier designed it. Airbus made it to what it is today.

Why airbus doesn't have the same quality issues with Spirit as Boeing? Hmmm, I have a crazy theory, but hear me out: The problem may not be Spirit, but Boeing. Wild, I know.

@danharold3087

Ай бұрын

Another possibility is that Airbus is doing a better job at catching escapements.

@ryanlittleton5615

Ай бұрын

Airbus may have a far more reasonable schedule.

@jim.franklin

Ай бұрын

Having worked alongside some Airbus people - they are far more diligent, but also pragmatically helpful when issues arise - perhaps Boeing issue with Spirit is a management and attitude one rather than general quality issues. It is always better to work WITH contractors than against them.

@BlueSkyUp_EU

Ай бұрын

There's someone from Toulouse in this comment section. They say that Airbus assembly line workers consider Spirit to be their worst supplier when it comes to quality.

@joe2mercs

Ай бұрын

I think the speed and diligence with which Airbus resolves non compliances is in contrast to Boeing who rather shoot the messenger than address issues. At the heart of Airbus is a culture of using innovation and quality as long term competitive advantages whilst Boeing appears to have chosen to put short term profits and share holder value above all else.

Just for info, the Broughton facility in North Wales wasn’t Hawker Siddeley during WW2. The airfield was developed during WW2 as a shadow factory, all effort was made to keep its existence unknown. It was owned by Vickers Armstrong. In the late 1940s De Havilland took the site over. Hawker Siddeley followed, and then British Aerospace, BAe Systems, and finally Airbus. The runway and airfield are known as Hawarden Airfield, CEG being its code. As for Airbus helping Boeing, it’s of course widely known that the order book for Airbus is quite a few years solidly booked out, unless more capacity can be developed in the near term of course. It strikes me that Airbus almost NEEDS a fairly strong Boeing…it would actually not benefit if things got worse for Boeing. Certainly from Airbus there’s a big respect for Boeing and all that it’s achieved. There are emerging competitors of course….. Embraer are doing a fabulous job, with their range of commercial a/c. It remains to be seen what inroads China, Japan, and Russia can make in the decades to come, to name but three. Another aspect to keep in mind regarding Boeing success helping Airbus is, Airbus’ supply chain is often shared with Boeing. Those suppliers depend on order books from both the giants. If Boeing really struggled, it would make things less sustainable for the suppliers to Airbus which make structures and components large and small for both companies. Thanks as always for your amazing presentations. ❤

I really appreciate your videos. On one side, you really know your stuff, and even as a captain, that isn't automatically true. Like this video... Many pilots get up and go to work every workday not knowing what beyond the next leg, but these in-depth analysis really require more. Also, from the technical aspect, you really have good knowledge, which to some level is required as cockpit-crew, but the level of detail you provide surpass that. Some accidents, like the one with Alaska Airlines off the coast of LA (MD-80), is an accident that I really had explained in great detail what possible was wrong by a relative that has been very techincal with aircrafts all his life, and you match that level of detail. So your videos are in a class of their own.

RIP John Barnett...this is on you Boeing.

@sc1338

Ай бұрын

False

@sapphirejunction8993

Ай бұрын

@@sc1338 Just face it, Boeing offed him.

@raymarshall6721

Ай бұрын

​@@sapphirejunction8993on what motivation considering he had already testified? He was facing his own legal battle that he was likely to lose and lose everything in the process. It's not uncommon for someone to take the easy way out when they realize they're at the end of their own road.

@shimes424

Ай бұрын

@@raymarshall6721what legal battle?

@sapphirejunction8993

Ай бұрын

@@raymarshall6721 What legal battle??? He was still in the process of blowing the entire lid off Boeing's entire criminal operation on the shop floor where critical quality checks & safety standards were being ignored for profit thus putting out aircraft which aren't fit to fly. Undercover footage had 10 out 15 shop floor employees say they wouldn't fly on the planes they were putting together!

Just an acknowledgment of the brilliant editing & production on this video, Mentour! I don’t know if you have an editor but someone is very talented.

When will management realize that optimizing or restructuring for some KPI is very dangerous? A KPI just gives one view of reality and you need a lot of other knowledge to adequately understand what is going on. But that you know requires a bit of technical knowledge and actually understand the process in detail not just an extreme birds view from a boardroam where they discuss KPI and its influence on their massive bonuses?

@JamieEHunter

Ай бұрын

The thinking which emerged from the Harvard MBA has utterly destroyed proper, competitive capitalism. It drives the worst kind of behaviour.

@MrNikolidas

Ай бұрын

They could have one KPI metric that tracks how many planes fell out of the sky every quarter.

@joostvhts

Ай бұрын

@@JamieEHunter I was literally trying to prevent myself from replying that I think I've become pretty much a communist but yeah I just have to agree here

@nst1981

Ай бұрын

KPIs are rubbish. Managers just cherry pick the KPIs which make them look good.

@Odessey878

Ай бұрын

What is KPI?

The chopping up and outsourcing of design occurred under CEO James McNerney, a GE Jack Welch protege who had done the same chop and outsource routine at 3M before he came to Boeing. Outsourcing design of consumer products is a lot different than airplanes. Investors loved his actions at both companies, employees objected at both companies. (Listen to your employees who know the products better than you do!) Airbus should absolutely bring the A220 production back under its wing, no pun intended. They have a complex structure as well but closer organization of their supply chain and this has absolutely been an advantage for them. 4:20 The dirty secret of aviation accounting is that "free cash flow" is based on projections of airplanes not made yet. This is why they can endlessly tout FCA as if it actually means something, and explains some of the pressure on production to avoid delays that would expose the company's forecast inadequacies and scare investors. Airbus uses a stricter accounting standard so they aren't as exposed to this self-imposed risk.

@philipambler3825

Ай бұрын

Beautiful, and so clear!

@Paul1958R

Ай бұрын

Its the Jack Welsh way. Also read about former Boeing, and McDonnell-Douglas, executives Philip Condit and Harry Stonecipher. Both ardent disciples of GEs 'neutron' Jack Welsh - one of the most evil corporate executives that ever lived - and both part of why Boeing is where it is today.

@ParadigmSh1ft_

Ай бұрын

Are you saying Boeing recognises rev before delivering a plane?

@celan4288

Ай бұрын

@@ParadigmSh1ft_ Yes, they recognize revenue based on projected deliverables over the life of a platform. They are supposed to disclose risks to the forecast but are given lots of leeway on doing so. They can also manipulate the numbers. For example, if they project they'll sell 1000 planes instead of 800 planes over the life of the platform, bam! Their revenue goes up and their amortized losses per period go down. This is an accounting standard in GAAP (US accounting standards) called program accounting, which Boeing helped to create. Airbus uses the IFRS standard which is based on airplanes delivered.

@ParadigmSh1ft_

Ай бұрын

@@celan4288 Wow! Thanks for the info, that is insane to me and just further shows the money people are in control over at Boeing.

I’ve been working for Boeing since 1985 mostly on chinooks and ospreys and I’ve seen them trying to ruin their business several times. They had a world class wire harness factory that I spent several years working in. In the same building they assembled various pieces of equipment for the aircraft such as power distribution and avionics equipment. At that time any repairs and improvements such as wire lengths as well as parts for damaged components were immediately available. They also used the wire shop as an entry level position and a well of talent they could tap into. In 1995 they off-loaded the work all the equipment and parts, they couldn’t see that they were going to lose control of a large part of their production. We the workers told them that they were now at the mercy of whoever they had given the work to. The accountants were so happy and the products have been going downhill from there.

It’s crazy to me that despite being spread across several countries, Airbus is: run more efficiently, has a stronger work culture, and produces better airplanes.

2:15 As a system manager one thing I learned is that management rules the benchmarks and indicators as tools to the objects management has set, never let the benchmarks and indicators rule You, they are not Your real objectives.

@poetryflynn3712

Ай бұрын

I've learned that management is usually a person giving orders that are ideal but really meaningless. We spend more time pretending to meet these metrics than actually doing our jobs. But if you admit that you're laughed out the door. You can usually tell who's a bad leader by what roles they delegate out to who. Outsourcing roles critical to the business is a mistake. Outsourcing your ability to lead because you want to spend more time selling your product is also a mistake.

Calhoun has a point that re-acquiring Spirit might not solve the problems there. Boeing management has pathologies almost identical to Spirit’s.

Airbus probably doesn't even want Boeing to be their supplier as a contractor for their planes 😅

@sc1338

Ай бұрын

Airbus has problems too sweety

@charlesjay8818

Ай бұрын

@@sc1338 yes but not on the scale of Boeing

Working for an American owned company in the British Isles, making parts for both Boeing and Airbus, I can say that the Shareholders are the top priority. This year has been especially bad as we approach the end of the financial year. The drive to hold minimal inventory has been one of the key metrics over the last few years but then add to that not paying suppliers to make sure you are cash rich is short term gain. Moving into April we are going to be struggling for months to get back to normal on the production front. Trust in a company is hard won but easily lost. I like my job but I am unsure if I can keep working for this company if things get even worse. I will say that quality is not an issue with us it is just the companies practices with suppliers etc that I am against.

@MBSteinNL

Ай бұрын

... Thar practice is as shit as it can be. Here in the Netherlands things like that also started to get out of hand (larger companies only paying after 60-90 days, while demanding payment in 30), but it's retreated a little after the government threatened with new laws if companies wouldn't quickly become more reasonable vs smaller companies and consumers.

@richardacevedo280

Ай бұрын

I somehow learned two things in my life: When all is lost, all a man has is his word. And. The only difference between a poor and a rich person is the price of his toys. His dignity being equal in either case. Bad practice even at the organizational level seems to be in disagreement with these two premises. I wish you the best when you make a move.

@shansuleiman2567

Ай бұрын

Sad to know such practices are common now in Europe. It is worst in the Far East. We have account receivables in months and years. To the point, that the clients keep losing our invoices. Very sad for the small companies.

Now retired, but spent many years at Airbus working on supply chain relationships, we (they) have a VERY different approach to managing key suppliers. It takes more time and effort, but it pays off in the end, especially when things go wrong. PS the US suppliers were always among the most difficult to deal with. great channel, keep it up. PPS The A220 was always going to take 10 years to sort out, particularly the industries relationships.

I wonder how many fans of Petter’s KZread channels have flown with Petter as a pilot and had no idea.

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Me too!

@twitmoe4004

Ай бұрын

@@MentourNow So post your flight schedule so that we know.

@juttaweise

Ай бұрын

@@twitmoe4004 good one 🙂

@juttaweise

Ай бұрын

@@twitmoe4004 actually one just needs to pay attention the moment before the plane starts, because the captain always tells his name and welcoming his passengers ;o))

A very interesting and thoughtfully presented view into the complexities of modern aircraft production and the difficulties that Boeing and, to a lesser extent, airbus are facing. I very much appreciated your honesty in saying, "I don't know," where things were genuinly unclear instead of trying to gloss over them with unsubstantiated opinion as some presenters are sometimes prone to do. It is these areas of uncertainty that can be the most interesting and entertaining, and possibly the most important, parts of the story. I learned a lot from this episode and look forward to more analysis like it.

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Thank you!

Wasn’t expecting Prestwick to be mentioned, you’ve made this Scot happy haha

The best thing would be for both Airbus and Boeing to be strong. It’s good for competition and innovation.

@shogun2215

Ай бұрын

Shame that's not how things work out. Boeing used to be the one to bully and buy out rivals, and now they're at risk of their precious house of cards falling down.

@delta_cosmic

Ай бұрын

one cares about aviation the other cares about the money it generates

@philiproseel3506

Ай бұрын

@@delta_cosmic Obviously, it would require Boeing to pull its finger out. Not seeing it, however.

@BlueSkyUp_EU

Ай бұрын

​@@delta_cosmicI'd say that one is too greedy and the other is too proud. Give monopoly to any of the two and you'll get to see their true colors.

@gpaull2

Ай бұрын

Airbus has also had its share of issues in the past. Lots of the current Boeing haters are either unaware, or bandwagon jumpers. Don’t forget or ignore history.

14:17 LMAO oops, I meant Lima Mike Alpha Oscar

@wadehiggins1114

Ай бұрын

Lima Oscar Lima

@BigWhoopZH

Ай бұрын

That was funny 😂

@greenesyt563

Ай бұрын

Foxtrot Uniform November November Yankee

Brilliant and crystal clear as usual.

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Thank you!

Petter, excellent video, as always. Being a 737 pilot yourself, I’d like to know how your 737 pilots community and yourself feel about all this turmoil around Boeing and, in particular, the 737. Does it have an impact on your work, or how you were forecasting your career/next steps?

Your sense of humour got me 😁 Beside the interesting way of putting out information for people that have no background about aviation to a understandable language without losing interest,your story telling is amazing.

I saw this news at Maximus channel. Thanks for detailing more this info.

Doing stock buy-backs were also a strong signal, that they care more about money than technology.

Just fyi David Calhoun announced his resignation from Boeing today and will be leaving by the end of the year. He has already given his replacement full powers. She is a ~ 30-year employee and 5th generation Boeing worker. In other words, she is from the days of the engineering mindset days. Maybe some things will change now? Btw, this is from the BNN (Boeing News Network) site. Not Fox News...

@RobertBeck-pp2ru

Ай бұрын

They have to go way deeper than that. The company is basically non- functional as a quality plane manufacturer as long as the rest of C-suite is still involved.

@renefuller9241

Ай бұрын

@@RobertBeck-pp2ru You're right, baby-steps... :) They don't have much time to do baby-steps, but they are getting the message...

As a frequent flyer l find all the intrigue and the complexity surrounding the manufacturing of all aircrafts you have highlighted l am simply amazed that there's not more serious issues with air travel. Keep up the very informative videos and stay safe.

Great work! Thank you for these engaging videos.

Will you be covering the story of the sudden death of a Boeing whistle blower? I’m generally not the conspiratorial type but the timing and circumstances of his death seem incredibly suspicious.

@mark675

Ай бұрын

Of course he wont

@ohnoimissed

Ай бұрын

Aside from the fact that the idea that Boeing would order or be involved in a hit on anyone is absurd, even if we supposed for a moment they might, it would make no sense for them to do it when they did as he had already given his testimony against them and the damage was done. He'd said his piece. His own brother said he suffered anxiety and PTSD as a result of his time at Boeing, so while they might be considered morally culpable, the conclusion of suicide seems far more likely, though no less tragic. Perhaps he simply wanted to hold out long enough to deliver his testimony.

@gpaull2

Ай бұрын

Not much point with the current lack of hard facts…the public does a good job dreaming up conspiracy theories all on their own.

@chipmo

Ай бұрын

I understand the motivation for this question but I actually think that Mentour Pilot here is fundamentally unqualified to really speak on that, especially as there is so little information to go on.

@eannliska423

Ай бұрын

I am also interested in this, but it's outside his area of expertise, and he has mentioned in many videos that he only likes to deal in hard facts. Such a speculation video is not what he does.

Petter, never stop doing what your doing

You really do a great amount of accurate and detailed study for your presentations...so in depth and real!

Great and thoughtful video. Thank you. Really enjoyed your analysis.

To be honest at this stage with the on going issue with the Pratt & Whitney engines I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus does decide to just foot the bill and just re-winging the A220 and then offering the CFM LEAP-1A as an engine option with the Airbus UK division making the said wing. I'm almost positively sure that Airbus if required would be able to bring a lot of the outsourced parts from Spirit AeroSystems back in house as they have both the know how, factory's and most importantly the capital to do so.

Maybe Airbus can teach Boeing not to kill its employees? That'd be a start.

Man, we love your channels at our house and are always watching you! I'm frustrated that I just saw that I've been unsubscribed from this channel and after this I'm going to go to check your Mentour Pilot channel. I hope you are doing well and we look forward to seeing your next video!

Always brings meaningful and knowledgeable insights on the aviation world thank so much we learning a lot from you be blessed ❤❤❤🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Thank you!

To believe this premise, one must believe Spirit is at the heart of Boeing's quality issues. I am left with the fear that Boeing re-acquiring Spirit simply makes it easier for Boeing to hide its quality shortcuts...

@tenkloosterherman

Ай бұрын

Spirit is to blame originally, but Boeing remains responsible for the whole product in the end.

Dave Calhoun is the best CEO Airbus ever had

@veeman1961

Ай бұрын

I actually think Dennis Muillenberg takes that title!

@juttaweise

Ай бұрын

Airbus???

@No_Camping

Ай бұрын

@@juttaweise Check "humor" in the dictionary.

great informative video. thank you!

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

I use to work for spirit aero systems in prestwick. Essentially we are skilled fitters meaning we could take a wing and produce it start to finish. I myself completed a 4 year apprenticeship including theory as well as practical, from my understanding spirit in Kansas functions more as a production line/less skilled labour and semi skilled labour. That being said spirit in prestwick has been in decline for the past 5 year due to mismanagement and poor performance of the new A320 spoiler programme, this as well as an extremely competitive airport (prestwick currently houses a GE genX overhaul site, Ryanair heavy maintenance, Woodward and Collins aerospace sites) has led to spirit now hiring more under qualified staff as opposed to skilled mechanics due to lower wages than comparable sites. Hope this explains the issue a bit!

Ever since I learned Spirit was working for Airbus as well, I was wondering myself the same question (how come they don't have any qc issues with Spirit). In any case, I hope Airbus doesn't get too deep into the 3D chess of it all. Just keep doing what you're doing well, make good airplanes, let Boeing correct - or screw - itself.

@kenoliver8913

Ай бұрын

If Boeing went broke or withdrew from commercial aviation it would be a disaster for everyone INCLUDING Airbus. Imagine the reaction - the US and Chinese governments would not tolerate the monopoly for a moment, for a start. Dominating but not owning the market is a far more sustainable and longterm profitable position than being a true monopoly. So in the big picture it is not surprising that Airbus would discreetly give Boeing a hand. Microsoft gave Apple a cheap loan in the early 1990s, for the same reason.

@dddaddy

Ай бұрын

@@kenoliver8913 If I had to guess, they won't ever let Boeing go out of business - it's too important for the government for a number of reasons, none of them being commercial aviation. I just don't have much taste for this manouvering, that's all I meant.

This is what Anglo-American style of investment does. It places all the focus on regular growth but ends up destroying long term value. They take a reputation that an old company has spent decades building and then effectively exploit the reputation but neglect the very thing that got it there. By the time it goes pop all the management that caused it have long gone to repeat the same thing at the next company.

@RobertBeck-pp2ru

Ай бұрын

Said so very well!

Excellent video, as usual. Please, please, please, keep up the great work.

Fascinating and illuminating, as always. Thank you.

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

I mentioned your YT channel our on local news network yesterday. Well, I used you for citation.

@jonahplayscello

Ай бұрын

Nice

There’s a Boeing factory here in the UK as well. In Sheffield

@stevemawer848

Ай бұрын

Does it make the in-flight cutlery? 🙂

Interesting thoughts. Wonder how it will turn out. I have been working with Short Bros. back in 1981. at that time they were producing engine pods for 737 and wings for Fokker 100 aircraft, but their main business was building Shorts Skyvan and 330. They just had started building the Shorts 360. Those were the times 😉

While watching this, we crossed paths with the Airbus Beluga over Belgium while flying in a SAS Airbus A320 Neo. It was a magnificent sight, and maybe even transporting some wings from Spirit. How apropos.

I gave you a like for the disappointed look when I didn't press like immediately. Made me laugh aloud

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Thank you!

@stevemawer848

Ай бұрын

I press like before I watch - I know I'll like it. I've only pressed subscribe once, though, for fear of being unsubscribed half the time. 🙂

@darrenhillman8396

Ай бұрын

@@stevemawer848Same here! 😆

I believe it is very clear how one company can produce great components for one client and defective ones for another. In these high-tech companies, the client does not just give some money and get some parts. They get involved in the whole process. It is not at all difficult to see a company like Airbus sending engineers and helping to create a good working relationship with Spirit, while Boeing sends accountants to find corners to cut.

@danharold3087

Ай бұрын

I am not sure that is fair. Because we don't know. It may be that after Boeing gets things worked out their people go home while Airbus maintains a staff there to ensure thing do not revert. After the MAX crashes both Boing and more importantly the FAA told us the MAX was a very safe plane. Then somebody(s) failed to bolt the plug door(s) down.

@andresvillarreal9271

Ай бұрын

@@danharold3087 The problem is a lot more complex than someone forgetting to put some screws. Many steps have to fail before something as apparently simple as a lack of screws ends up happening.

@ComradeCatpurrnicus

Ай бұрын

That's why oversight and regulations are good, without them, in an economic system that prioritizes money over all else, people will cut corners, especially when the consequences for those corners being cut pail in comparison to the profits they'll reap in until the corner cutting catches up.

@danharold3087

Ай бұрын

​@@andresvillarreal9271 Undoubtedly. But it does not get public notice until "somebody(s) failed to bolt the plug door(s) down." I stand by my post. Lets not debate POV.

@jfrancobelge

Ай бұрын

It seems that Airbus has better quality control and systematically rejects faulty parts before assembly. Logically, this should prompt Spirit to be more cautious about the parts they send to Airbus. If Boeing improves their own quality control , Spirit will have to straighten their act.

I have watched you for a while and I really like how informative your videos are 🙂

Excellent analysis and speculation. Thanks!

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Thank you too!

Ditto across other industries, I.e. private equity taking over medical professionals

You can find how Airbus USA treats the workers on the assembly lines. They get a good salary, other than Spirit. They send them on a 6 month training to Germany and more. What is Boeing doing ? They will do more inspections, but they have laid them off so they are gone. Words, words, words.

@helenorgarycrevonis2022

Ай бұрын

Most of the major corporations in US have lost their way, they have no morals, no ethics and no accountability ( I do not mean WS stock share proces). With the crony capitalism and no oversight that is what we get. The US system is broken not only in production facilities but accross the specter - Washington ppolitics and agencies. I do not see major improvements in the near future...we do not have qualified people to implement the improvements.

@cellevangiel5973

Ай бұрын

They have the famous Freedom, the Americans are so proud about.@@helenorgarycrevonis2022

As someone who has experience in managing complex contracted-out functions (not aviation related), my view is that whether contracting out works depends a helluva lot on the detail of the contracts. Where the function should never have been contracted out because it is actually a core function of the contractee (eg Spirit's Wichita facility) it takes more work by both but if the detailed arrangements are done right it can still function fine. But once either party threatens to set the lawyers onto the other then both have lost bigtime. I suspect Airbus' contracts (and personal relations too) with Shorts plc (Spirit's Belfast facility) look very different to Boeing's arrangements with Spirit.

Probably one of the most interesting videos you have made. I enjoy the safety related topics as an engineer. But the techno-economic crossover is a step up. Well done!

If Boeing buy Spirit then Lockheed and Northrup-Grumman will not be happy that a competitor will be in charge of making parts for their aircraft anymore than Airbus will. This could become a very messy affair indeed.

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Why? Boeing has made parts for Lockheed and Northrop aircraft in the past.

@jim.franklin

Ай бұрын

@@MentourNow Are you sure of that Petter, the three have a very rocky history over military contracts.

@88SC

Ай бұрын

B-2 is an example, there are others.

@jim.franklin

Ай бұрын

@@88SC Thanks. 👍👍

@nrml76

Ай бұрын

@jim.franklin ​ They fight for contracts but once the deal is finalised the losers make the most of bad situation by getting as much business as they can.

I love how personal greed, incompetence and failure constantly gets rewarded in this story. That echoes the broader situation across the US corporate landscape since C-suite interests alignment with shareholder profits became sacrosanct in the 90s... EVERYBODY loses so a select few can make off with the bank. Lessons of Game Theory turned on their head. I guess we just HAVE to go down this road every 100 years, have it blow up in our faces, wage a huge war, course correct, thrive and finally creep back to "trickle down"...

@bluelithium9808

Ай бұрын

Governmental and societal landscape too. A perfect storm of greed, incompetence and corruption.

This was super interesting! I hope the board at Spirit leverage any advantages they have - must be difficult being between Boeing and Airbus' conflicting demands. Its also a shame the A220 hasn't yet turned a profit - as a passenger, its a joy to fly in! (I take Swiss out of London City) I love it.

Interesting information. I truly enjoy watching your videos.

But was it not Boeing that repaired the door and cut corners so it would have to be documented and inspected and even photographed the missing bolts or was it spirit contractors ? It gets so confusing

@danharold3087

Ай бұрын

Spirit people repaired the door seal at the Boeing factory.

@tenkloosterherman

Ай бұрын

Boeing is not sure, because a lot of Quality Management documents can not be found.

Put an engineer back in the helm.

Petter, you present impressive details and information. Believe me, your Team is doing great work! Keep it up & many thanks

This is the part that warrant a quick business class in marketing and strategic maneuvers in a highly competitive arena. There's a long list of stories about companies engaging in practices to get an edge at the expense of other competitors. I'll be very curious to see how this will play out when Airbus, that already manufactures parts in the US, had to purchase a segment of Bombardier in order to re-establish a fair leveled playing field so that the A220 could be sold in America. Great video, I this will inspire the conversation about aviation safety.

Boeing merging with McDonnell Douglass is one thing, but taking over McDonnell's management was a huge mistake and in my humble opinion is the main reason why Boeing is so messed up. I mean there's a reason why McDonnell Douglass was in such bad shape by the time Boeing took over. I said this back then when it happened and considering all that's happened since then, I still believe that

@Maximspec

Ай бұрын

McDonnell's personnel was telling totally oposite opinion. As they met with all that stuff like "Boeing salute" and etc,

@lj5632

26 күн бұрын

They guys who designed a320 flight deck were the same who were previously fired by md managers while proposing a more advanced md11 flight deck

Boeing brought this on themselves by putting profit before anything else. Their lobbying efforts gave them the ability to circumvent quality control, and even certification requirements. They are in the top 10 of lobbyists in Washington, having spent over 300 million on lobbying since the late 90s. One senator even took 200k to lobby the faa for Boeing. Just gotta follow the money.

@danharold3087

Ай бұрын

Yes. It seem that lobbying is an effective use of money for Boeing and Airbus. According to ResearchGate, Airbus has seen a significant increase in firm lobbying over the past decade. According to OpenSecrets, Airbus Group spent $240,000 on lobbying in 2023. In 2024, Airbus Group plans to spend $3,070,000 on lobbying. This is from the net. The magnitude of increase is considerably more concerning than the amount or magnitude. "According to the website Open Secrets, the European planemaker is listed as having had 32 (US?) lobbyists in 2023 with lobbying expenditures totaling about $3 million. However, this is a fraction of the $14.5 million logged by Boeing in the same year. The American planemaker had 109 lobbyists in 2023." Boeing ills are not limited to Boeing. Sadly it is the direction global business is going.

I learn something from every ne of your videos; this one was very informative!

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Awesome to hear, thank you!

I get to watch the Belugas going to and from Broughton, they seem to prefer a low approach over the Denbigh mountain range. The A380 wings were too big and had to go down the River Dee on a barge but only when the tide was just right to get it under the bridges.

Airbus buys Spirit. Game over

Boeing has helped the Europeans so much (Concorde, ETOPS, Taxation, WTO disputes, A220 lawsuit etc) that I am sure that Airbus and EADS just can't wait to extend the same courtesy back. Well, I can now see the possibility of an old Airbus target again... Air Force One will eventually be an Airbus. If I was Airbus, I would take on Spirit and leave Boeing just with Mitsubishi (yet, this would probably not be approved by the US antitrust that would come rushing in to defend their little darling). By the way, this is just a joke... If you find me dead it wasn't a suicide either!

@patrickpeters2903

Ай бұрын

Lol....Airbus built a fantastic company. 20 years ago, Boeing was still the undisputed leader in the commercial aviation. But then the management made suicidal decisions. And today Boeing is the sheep. Will the wolf eat the sheep? I really don't think so. Airbus is aware of potential newcomers. Like the chinese Comac....but my guess is that Boeing will become only a widebody challenger. The Max is a failure. The B787 and the B777X programs can save Boeing. If and only the quality flaws disappear very soon. To make safe and profitable planes....

@omgsrsly

Ай бұрын

If I were Airbus I'd wait until after the election. I don't know yet whether that would mean helping a true friend or a blackmailer who bullies you

14:21 that frown when he saw that we ain’t subscribing got me laughing 😂

Thank you for this informative video. I was surprised that you did not mention that Northrop produces many of the ribs for Airbus airplanes in the composite material factory in Utah. A few years ago Airbus was quite upset with northrops quality. This would be worth looking into.

The MDD merger killed Boeing

@user-ue6zx2do2f

Ай бұрын

No the management did

@delta_cosmic

Ай бұрын

@@user-ue6zx2do2fthe current management was really because of the merger

@BlueSkyUp_EU

Ай бұрын

Like many say, "MD bought Boeing with Boeing's money"

@gotbordercollies

Ай бұрын

The management was from MD so there is the issue.

@HenriqueCarneiroM

Ай бұрын

The MDD realized their dream of beating Boeing....How? Within the inside 😂😂😂

From the Senate inquiry and subsequent DOJ investigation, it seems like it's a Boeing culture of short-term profit over quality issue than anything else. The talk about acquiring Spirit Aerosystems by Boeing is just a distraction and subterfuge by Boeing management. If they intend to improve quality then they should rehire quality control inspectors that they got rid of and revitalize the quality control and engineering-driven culture at Boeing. That's what made the company great and an industry leader in the first place in its heydays.

I enjoyed your video. I like your analysis between Airbus and Boeing.

@MentourNow

Ай бұрын

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!

Honestly all top management should be engineers period. These days engineers runs all successful companies in America.

@alexausberlin

Ай бұрын

As an engineer, I've witnessed some of these decisions that I thought would never happen if management really understood how the business works. But to announce something like that with total confidence... You are then confronted with problems that only cost you time and distract you from your work.

"If it's Boeing - I aint going."

But Boeing reaquiring Spirit Aerospace doesn't address the root cause of the safety/quality failures. The *CULTURE* at Boeing is driven by accountants and they just want to push as much product (revenue) out the door as possible. If you talk quality control to an accountant, it's like discussing Greek philosophy with your dog. To an accountant or MBA, quality is just an expense that they don't understand and looks bad on the cost spreadsheet.

@cluasa

21 күн бұрын

Michael O'Leary (CEO Ryanair. They own a few 737) has been broadly supportive of Boeing, uncharacteristically. However he was admamant that the 737 product needed an engineer/QC person in charge, not a sales person. Selling planes is not the problem. Building ones that don't fall out of the sky is the challenge at the moment. O'Leary said, many years ago that the first serious safety incident (like a door falling off) at Ryanair would be the last. They don't care about passengers much, but aircraft safety and integrity is important. QC is really the only game in town for Boeing. It would take a lot of very expensive QC to make your share price tank 23%. But that's what NOT spending the money has achieved. I guess, when the QC problems are fixed and the share price recovers, someone will claim credit for increasing the share price 33%, back to where it was.

The right question would be: "does Spirit need Boeing to hire subcontractor companies to design variations for old airframes?" Or Spirit can hire itself these subcontractors - or even better - do develop its own Design Organization and design a decent NMA...