Insight - Filling the Gaps at Boeing, Part 5

News The Boeing KC-46 Tanker still has quality problems, and the Air Force is holding back $336 million in payments until a camera system works properly. This is just the latest of a series of problems with the tanker. Accounting charges for those issues now total over $5.1 billion as Boeing continues to struggle with quality control. There are currently four serious “Category 1” issues with the aircraft, including the retractable boom, fuel system, and two with the remote vision system. The criticism of the program has been particularly strong, even within the Pentagon. Analysis This is what happens when politicians overrule technical decisions. The late Senator John McCain championed the KC-46 over the Airbus MRTT that initially won the competition. The competition was re-bid, with Boeing coming out on top. Unfortunately, that was more than 10 years ago, and Boeing still hasn’t fixed all of the problems with the aircraft, some of which are transitioning from refueling to other roles. In the interim, the USAF would find it difficult to complete missions in a combat environment, and would be forced to utilize older KC-135s based on the 1950s Boeing 707 and the KC-10, based on the McDonnell-Douglas DC-10. But the old aircraft still work, but are costly to maintain in flight ready status. Insight The same issues that plague the Boeing 737 MAX, the 787, and the 777-X also plague the KC-46, which is a 767 derivative. The issues surrounding the KC-46 tend to focus on engineering high-tech systems that are critical to its mission, surprising deficiencies for a company like Boeing. Or should those deficiencies really be surprising, given what we’ve seen in recent years? The 787 experienced a myriad of quality issues due to both advanced technology and global manufacturing being undertaken simultaneously. It became clear early on in the program that Boeing bit off more than it could chew. The high-tech battery and electrical systems experienced problems, and resulted in a safety grounding. Now there are questions on the quality of fit between composite sections and potential premature wear of composite components. New deliveries are currently halted while Boeing tries to correct problems. Major fail. The 737 MAX experienced quality issues with its MCAS system that relied on a single sensor and resulted in two fatal crashes and an 18 month grounding. A lack of attention to detail in the design is evident, as no one in their right mind would design a flight-critical system that relied on a single sensor. All because they wanted to get around a training requirement. The 777-X experienced a fuselage failure during testing after the company attempted to narrow the side-walls of the aircraft to provide additional cabin space for 10 abreast seating. An explosion during a pressure test resulted in scrapping a test airplane and re-strengthening the fuselage. Similarly, the folding wingtips to enable the aircraft to get into a gate resulted in additional stresses within the composite wing, forcing a redesign. All because they wanted to squeeze in more room and fit into Class D instead of Class F gates. Major fail. The 737MAX and 787 have both found substantial quality control issues in manufacturing, and Boeing has not yet regained the production certificate for the 737 MAX, requiring each new aircraft to be inspected individually by the FAA. Finding debris in aircraft and having airlines complain about quality should never happen to an aircraft company. Major fail. For the KC-46, getting around having boom operators in the tail of the aircraft has proven difficult, as depth perception of approaching aircraft is hard to capture on flat screens in the center of the cabin. Two common threads emerge. First, Boeing seems to get in trouble when they try to “get around” things, whether training on the 737 or gate size for the 777X or operator position on the KC-46. There are certain things in aviation that simply cannot be “gotten around.” Second, the Boeing culture seems to have a “good enough” attitude rather than seeking excellence. Budgetary constraints lead to an attitude of “that’s what we could do for the money” rather than let’s make it bulletproof. Post the McDonnell-Douglas merger, the culture changed to one where finance, rather than engineering, was in control. Quality has suffered ever since. Can Boeing regain its former excellence. Yes, it can, but it will take new leadership and a decade or two to reverse the cultural changes introduced post-merger. There don’t appear to be a cadre of problem solvers that Joe Sutter once had in building the 747, as the financial folks ensured that the most expensive, and most experienced, engineers were the first to be bought out during downturns. Unfortunately, the company lost muscle, rather than fat. Rebuilding excellence takes time, effort, and tremendous attention to detail. The current executive team at Boeing simply doesn’t appear to be up to the task.

US Flight Planner	Airbus vs Boeing
US Airline Schedule Performance	Daily Production & Deliveries

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

flydubai Grows 737 MAX 9 Fleet, Adds Premium Capacity

Sun PhuQuoc’s 40 Dreamliners: Bold or Reckless?

Lufthansa Advances 787-9 Allegris Bookings