Posted on 12/19/2010 8:27:52 AM PST by buzzer
As Boeing prepares to announce yet another delay for the 787 Dreamliner — at least three months, possibly six or more — the crucial jet program is in even worse shape than it appears. The problems go well beyond the latest setback, an in-flight electrical fire last month that has grounded the test planes.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Over reaching and over marketing.
I don’t know about the engineering union (if there is one), but the Machinists went on strike for 57 days. And the number of days they were on strike is just a small measure of the difficulty they’ve caused. Of course, it might have already been delayed, but there is no question they made it worse. And I would not absolve them from responsibility for the pre-strike delay, either.
Of course, you are right that not every problem the company has is attributable to the union. But like the auto industry, I would place most of the blame on the union.
Blaming unions is a copout in this situation. $26/hr is chicken feed for this program, the problem is having a buildable plane.
It has nothing to do with $26 per hour. It has to do with the lack of cooperation.
They went “lean” and “green”. Bad idea.
Boy you hit the motherload here. It is about passion.
My question is how many Boeing Engrs know how to fly or do some off those hobbies. In the 60's it was common place, ditto that the auto industry, so many of the good ones modify cars or race them. I am curious from the 777 to the 787 how many of the engineers @ Boeing are hombuilders (aircraft) and how the number of EAA/homebuilders have dwindled....
Oh man have you hit it... I have an older airplane bud that swears it was the “MBA Mentality” that destroyed GM....
Misdiagnosing a problem will only lead to the wrong solution.
The 787 problems were not caused by the union.
If you want to understand it you are going to have to look a little deeper.
Here is a little tidbit for the anti-union folks. (I am one of them but not rabidly). The company is hiring people today at the same starting pay as they did 25 years ago. So to say the union has forced excessive wages on the company is just not true.
I agree that misdiagnosing the problem leads to the wrong solution... Which is why I’m trying to correct your misperception. The rate of pay is only a very small part of the cost that a union imposes. With a union, management’s control over the operation is significantly weakened.
But it’s one of those things that’s difficult to persuade people of. For decades, the public blamed management for the
Big 3’s problems. Yes, management... but more particularly management that is beholden to and constrained by the union.
My perception of the situation is based on a lot more than this article.
The airplane was late before an IAM mechanic ever turned a wrench.
That is standard procedure for the last few years among the high level MBA crowd.
Those of us who have to actually build things call it insanity.
4400+ and counting
Was it 3 years late? Read the link to the article I posted. The strike alone cost them $2 billion. And that is a small part of the cost of unionism. Think of all the extra workers, supplies and equipment they could have bought with that money to keep this thing on track.
The instant I learned that Boeing was having labor trouble, I knew Boeing was going to face difficulty getting this job done on time—or done at all for that matter, and that I would someday find myself trying to explain to someone why they are wrong when they insist that it’s not the union’s fault. A business model where the workers are adversarial to management is a business model which is sure to fail in the end. Yet for some folks, it’s never the union’s fault. You can always make a defensible argument that it’s management’s fault. Afterall, management makes the decisions. But what you’re ignoring is that management’s decisions are often not really discretionary. They make decisions based on the economic realities that they are presented with, and the union is one of those realities.
If it were only about justice, then I would say, “Fine. They get what they deserve, which in the end will be an unemployment check.” But unfortunately, these institutions are wreaking havoc on our entire society.
The program started with EXISTING knowledge and hardware, then escalated both. It did NOT start from zero.
Hint - STILL wrong.
The strike was avoidable. So the $2B could have been saved.
I like how you divined that “The instant I learned that Boeing was having labor trouble, I knew Boeing was going to face difficulty getting this job done on time—or done at all for that matter,”
You are missing a major point. By the time of the strike the program was already in trouble.
Do you think I first learned of their labor problems on the day that they started? I am not saying that labor problems are the only possible cause of a “delay.” But if you don’t have a delay, then you did not set an aggressive enough deadline. There is a difference between a minor delay and a catastrophic delay. Unfortunately, Boeing may soon be facing the latter.
So, by your logic, if you have a riding lawn mower then you can build a F1 car. And if you have a Wright flyer then you can go supersonic
You must be a government worker with a government education.
Enough of you with your trivial illogic.
I agree an aggressive schedule can help keep everybody focused, but this was insanity dressed up in a power point presentation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.