From Wings to Woes: The Rise and Fall of Boeing Aircraft Through The Eyes of Someone With Deep Roots
Updates: August 3, 2024
Accountability and repercussions of Boeing’s management
In this article, which I first published on June 29, 2024, I outlined how the merger between aerospace giants Boeing and McDonnell Douglas led to a management style takeover by McDonnell Douglas’ cost-driven style, squeezing out Boeing’s old management style of engineering-driven high-quality assurance style, which has had profound repercussions on the products Boeing turned out, to the company’s detriment.
I hope that Boeing’s return to engineering quality, as its historic core value, will restore not only the quality of the products it develops but also public trust in the company, which has suffered so much during its cost-driven management style since its merger with McDonnell Douglas.
Boeing Appoints New CEO Amidst $1.4 Billion Quarterly Loss
In a recent move to correct its course, Boeing appointed Robert “Kelly” Ortberg as Boeing’s CEO, effective August 8, 2024. Mr. Ortberg has a solid foundation in mechanical engineering and an abundance of aircraft expertise. Ortberg, a prominent figure at Collins Aircraft and a former CEO of Rockwell Collins, is acknowledged for his leadership throughout periods of substantial mergers and acquisitions, which were crucial in expanding the company’s capabilities across multiple aircraft technologies.
The selection of Ortberg is viewed as a calculated strategic move by Boeing to bolster its emphasis on engineering and quality assurance—two crucial areas as the corporation strives to overcome recent setbacks and rebuild its standing in the aerospace industry. His track record of managing intricate aerospace operations points to a dedication to incorporating strong engineering standards into Boeing’s operations, which may spur innovations and enhancements in aircraft performance and safety.
Ortberg is likely to focus on strengthening Boeing’s engineering quality, aligning with the company’s historic core competencies, and making sure strict safety requirements are followed across all Boeing aerospace projects, given his experience and track record. Under his direction, Boeing’s commitment to operational integrity and technological excellence in the face of fierce industry rivalry is expected to be significantly reaffirmed.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) division
Following serious quality problems with its 737 MAX aircraft, which were involved in two deadly disasters that claimed 346 lives, Boeing has faced dire financial consequences. Following these events, Boeing acknowledged that it had misled US authorities about the safety features of the airplane, which resulted in a $243.6 million fine as part of a larger settlement.
Boeing and the Department of Justice reached a $2.5 billion deferred prosecution deal in 2021, meaning that Boeing will not face a fraud trial. A $500 million fund was established as part of this deal to provide compensation to the relatives of the 737 MAX disaster victims. Even after the 737 MAX was put back into service, Boeing’s aircraft quality problems persisted.
Since the 737 MAX fleet was grounded in 2019, Boeing has recorded $31.9 billion in cumulative core operational losses. These losses include penalties, payments to the relatives of the victims, and continuing difficulties with the operations of the 737 MAX and other aircraft in its fleet.
Here are the specific dollar amounts associated with Boeing’s losses:
- Fines: Boeing was fined $243.6 million as part of its plea deal with the Department of Justice.
- Compensation to Victims’ Families: The plea deal also included the establishment of a $500 million fund intended to compensate the heirs, relatives, and legal beneficiaries of the passengers who died in the Boeing 737 MAX crashes.
- Overall Losses: Since the grounding of the 737 MAX fleet in 2019, Boeing has reported core operating losses totaling $31.9 billion, which include the fines, compensation, and ongoing operational challenges linked to the 737 MAX and other aircraft in its fleet.
Boeing orders tumble as troubled aircraft maker struggles to overcome its latest crisis
Boeing is currently experiencing a substantial decline in orders, which represents yet another obstacle for the aircraft manufacturer. This decline is primarily due to the 737 MAX incidents and other operational challenges, which have resulted in ongoing crises and public confidence issues. The decline in orders underscores the more extensive influence on Boeing’s financial health and market position as it addresses these challenges. In order to rebuild trust with airlines and passengers, which is essential for future stability and development, the company must address both the technical and reputational aspects of its recovery. This situation is also indicative of the aerospace industry’s intensely competitive nature, which prioritizes safety and reliability.
Boeing Starliner
The Boeing Starliner, officially known as the CST-100 Starliner, is managed and developed by Boeing’s Space division.
Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner is currently grappling with severe technical setbacks that threaten the success of its mission and overall program. Notably, the Starliner has experienced problems with helium leaks and thruster malfunctions during its orbit. These issues have raised significant concerns about the spacecraft’s ability to safely return astronauts from the International Space Station (ISS) to Earth.
- Helium Leaks: The Starliner has faced persistent problems with helium leaks in its propulsion system. Helium is critical for pressurizing the fuel systems that power the spacecraft’s thrusters. These leaks were identified at various stages, including before launch and while docked at the ISS. Although some of these leaks have been addressed, their recurrence indicates ongoing challenges with the spacecraft’s helium systems.
- Thruster Issues: Alongside helium leaks, the Starliner has also had issues with its reaction control system (RCS) thrusters, which are essential for maneuvering the spacecraft in orbit. Out of the 28 thrusters, several failed during the mission. Although most were subsequently restored to function, the reliability of these thrusters remains a concern for safe re-entry and landing procedures.
- Impact on Missions: These technical issues have led to extended missions and delays in returning astronauts to Earth. The astronauts aboard have had their stay unexpectedly prolonged, pending resolutions to these technical challenges. This situation underscores the complexity and risks associated with space missions, especially concerning the safe return of crew members.
These setbacks highlight the broader challenges Boeing faces in its aerospace division, notably in maintaining the reliability and safety of its spacecraft amid intense competition and scrutiny. The company is continuously working to resolve these issues, emphasizing the importance of safety and thorough testing in its operations. As Boeing addresses these challenges, the focus remains on ensuring that such technical problems do not compromise future missions and astronaut safety.
These issues affect the future of the Starliner and other projects at Boeing’s Space Division.
Conclusion:
As Boeing navigates these turbulent times, my hope remains firm: a revitalized emphasis on engineering and quality will not only restore the integrity and reliability of Boeing’s products but also reestablish public trust. There is an optimistic future ahead with Ortberg at the reins, one that ideally restores Boeing to its status as a paragon of aerospace excellence, fuelled by unwavering dedication to safety, innovation, and engineering expertise.
Founding and Pioneering Years: Boeing started in a little boathouse on Seattle’s Lake Union in 1916 when William E. Boeing, a brilliant timber industrialist, decided to enter the aviation business. What would grow to be a worldwide aerospace giant began with this humble start.
The Model C seaplane, which the firm produced for the US Navy during World War I, was its first major success. Boeing’s engineering skills and creativity were made possible by its early emphasis on military aircraft.
Transition to Commercial Aviation: Following World War I, Boeing soon turned to commercial aviation, a decision driven by the demands of peacetime and the increasing popularity of air travel. Major accomplishments throughout the 1920s and 1930s included the debut of the Boeing Model 80A, one of the first aircraft built expressly for passenger comfort, and the ground-breaking Boeing 307 Stratoliner, the first pressurized commercial aircraft.
Jet Age Revolution and Global Expansion Boeing started the jet era with the 1958 launch of the Boeing 707, drastically reducing flying times between continents and transforming air travel. The Boeing 720, 727, and the legendary 747, also known as the “Jumbo Jet,” which democratized international aviation, came next in 1970. The Boeing 757 and 767, designed to satisfy various market demands, from short-haul to long-haul flights, were introduced in the 1980s.
Challenges and Transformations
Antitrust Lawsuit and Corporate Restructuring: One significant turning point in Boeing’s history occurred in 1934 when an antitrust action mandated that Boeing sell United Airlines, which had been a component of its operations. Boeing then refocused on aircraft production with this forced split, which also prepared the way for its mid-century jet-era breakthroughs.
Airbus’s Entry into the Market: In order to take on American behemoths like Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, a European consortium of aircraft firms formed Airbus in 1970. First flown in 1972, the Airbus A300 entered service in 1974. Being the first twin-engine wide-body aircraft in history, the A300 aimed directly at the market that was controlled by Boeing’s 747, the smaller 737, and McDonnell Douglas’s DC-10.
Impact on Boeing: Particularly during the 1970s oil crisis, airlines were drawn to Airbus’s innovative approach to aircraft design and emphasis on fuel efficiency. By introducing fly-by-wire technology and a uniform cockpit design throughout its aircraft, the European manufacturer continued to improve and increase its appeal to airlines by reducing training and maintenance costs with the A310 followed by the A320.
Boeing’s Response and Management Changes: The growth of Airbus as a strong rival in the commercial aircraft industry affected Boeing’s leadership styles, particularly after the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas. To stay competitive, the new management approach — which was influenced by McDonnell Douglas’s culture — began to concentrate more on cost-cutting, market response, and accelerating production cycles.
Merger with McDonnell Douglas The 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas signaled a sea change in Boeing’s corporate culture, which now placed a higher priority on cost-effectiveness and market share rather than engineering excellence. This shift had an impact on a number of Boeing’s strategic choices and operations, which led to the 737 MAX’s development and subsequent controversy.
Boeing’s company culture and operational strategy were significantly impacted by the 1997 merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, which combined two aerospace titans with very different management styles.
Boeing’s Management Style: Engineering-Driven and Innovative
Boeing has always had an engineering-driven culture that emphasized creativity and excellence. Often with strong engineering backgrounds, managers were heavily involved in the design and development processes. This approach produced an environment where quality and attention to detail were critical. Boeing’s guiding idea was to push the envelope of aviation technology, which produced famous airplanes like the 707 and 747. A strong focus on safety and dependability in aircraft design, together with a managerial approach that promoted innovation and the pursuit of technical excellence, supported these advancements.
McDonnell Douglas’s Management Style: Cost-Control and Efficiency
By the time of the merger, McDonnell Douglas, on the other hand, had established a management approach that was more efficient and cost-driven. This was largely due to its heavy involvement with military contracts, which required tight budgetary compliance and frequently put cost ahead of innovation. The management of the corporation concentrated more on profitability and completing fixed-cost contracts than it did on ongoing technical choices. With an emphasis more on continuing and gradually improving present designs than on cutting-edge technology, this strategy was less flexible and more hierarchical.
Cultural Integration and Challenges Post-Merger
The merger of these two companies brought McDonnell Douglas’s cost-control philosophy into Boeing’s innovative engineering culture. This integration led to a significant shift in Boeing’s management style, moving it away from its traditional engineering-centric approach towards a model that placed greater emphasis on cost efficiency and market competitiveness.
This shift had profound implications for Boeing. The new management approach altered the company’s internal priorities, subtly degrading the ingrained culture of quality and safety. As profit margins and market pressures took precedence, there were notable changes in how new aircraft were developed. The need to compete more directly with Airbus led to faster production timelines, which some critics argue came at the expense of the rigorous testing and quality assurance that had been synonymous with Boeing’s brand.
Impact on Boeing’s Operations and Reputation
The change in management style contributed to several high-profile issues, most notably the 737 MAX crisis. The problems with the 737 MAX were symptomatic of a broader cultural problem where efficiency and speed were prioritized over thorough engineering and safety protocols. This management style — rooted in McDonnell Douglas’s legacy — ultimately contributed to Boeing’s most significant reputational and financial setbacks in recent history.
737 MAX Crisis The 737 MAX crisis revealed substantial oversight and safety compliance problems, leading to two tragic accidents and a worldwide fleet suspension. This not only led to financial losses but also damaged Boeing’s reputation for safety and reliability, leading to a reevaluation of its internal and production practices and intense regulatory scrutiny.
Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner
The CST-100 Starliner was designed to transport up to seven passengers — or a mix of crew and cargo — to the International Space Station (ISS). It is part of NASA’s broader strategy to engage commercial aerospace firms in low-Earth orbit missions, which also includes SpaceX with its Crew Dragon spacecraft. The Starliner is intended to be reusable up to ten times with a six-month turnaround time and can dock autonomously to the ISS.
Challenges and Setbacks
Despite its potential, the Starliner program has encountered significant challenges:
- Test Flight Issues: In December 2019, Orbital Flight Test-1 (OFT-1) was the spacecraft’s first test flight without a crew. It failed to dock with the ISS due to software errors that caused the mission clock to show incorrect times. Due to this time error, Starliner fired incorrectly and entered the wrong orbit. Following reviews showed that there wasn’t sufficient testing and oversight, which pointed out more serious issues with Boeing’s testing procedures.
- Software and Valve Issues: Things got even more complicated as they were getting ready for the OFT-2 launch when unexpected valve issues in the spacecraft’s propulsion system caused delays. These problems brought to light possible problems with quality control and led to more testing and reviews to make sure the vehicles were safe and reliable.
- Impact on Missions and Crew: Starliner setbacks have left astronauts stuck on the ISS, but missions are planned with plenty of time to return and multiple ways to get them home, such as the Russian Soyuz and the SpaceX Crew Dragon. The delays have also made it more difficult for NASA to manage its resources and schedules. They also again, damaged Boeing’s image and showed how hard it is for the company to keep up its level of dependability in the new area of commercial flying.
NASA selected the Starliner as one of the two vehicles for its Commercial Crew program. Nevertheless, it encountered a string of issues that are quite distinct from the SpaceX Crew Dragon’s more successful missions. The Starliner had difficulties with its thrusters and a helium leak during its first flight with people on board. These issues had been sufficiently serious to require that the astronauts stay on the ISS indefinitely. This is a real-time test of the spacecraft’s systems and Boeing’s ability to contend with issues that come up in space.
Critically, the story about the Starliner’s longer mission makes me wonder if Boeing will be able to match the dependability and efficiency shown by SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, which has already finished several crewed trips to the ISS. The contrast demonstrates just how competitive the private space industry is and how hard it is to make spacecraft safe enough for humans while still meeting strict safety standards.
Conclusion:
This article describes the story of Boeing’s long history, from its beginnings in 1916 to its important roles in aviation and space research. It also shows how the company’s management philosophy shifted after it merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997. This merger was a major turning point because it brought in a management style that put cost and speed first. This was very different from Boeing’s traditional, engineering-driven approach, which emphasized innovation from the ground up.
This shows that Boeing’s early successes were a result of its dedication to cutting-edge engineering. Notable accomplishments, like the 707 and 747, show how Boeing challenges the boundaries of technology while focusing on quality and dependability. These aircraft not only transformed the way people flew, but they additionally established Boeing as a leader in the commercial transport industry.
Instead, when McDonnell Douglas’s management style was incorporated into Boeing’s, it made big changes to how the company worked. The focus shifted to saving money and getting products to market quickly. McDonnell Douglas was designed to operate using restricted funds, especially from military contracts. This change in culture started to affect every part of Boeing’s commercial aircraft business, from how the products were made to how important decisions were made.
The 737 MAX issues made the effects of this shift obvious. In the rush to be competitive and respond to the market, terrible safety mistakes were made. In the same way, Boeing’s move to get into commercial aerospace with the CST-100 Starliner has had problems, such as technical issues and mission delays. These problems show the problems with a management style that might put other goals ahead of strict engineering quality.
It’s clear that the way Boeing and McDonnell Douglas managed their projects has changed a lot and will continue to change the way the company works. The process of adapting and the issues that arose show how important it is to find a balance between the drive to be innovative and strict engineering and safety rules. For Boeing to move forward, it needs to not only deal with the current technical and management problems but also recommit itself to the core values of dedication to engineering and safety that used to define its history. In a market that is very competitive and changing quickly, Boeing will need to find this balance if it wants to recover its standing in the aerospace industry and win back the trust of its customers and other important people.
If you enjoyed this article, throw me some Medium love!
Support my work:
Clap up to 50 times, and leave a message to share your thoughts.
I invite your feedback. Your insights are invaluable to me. Your feedback will shape the evolution of future journals. Thank you for joining me on this journey, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Be sure to follow for more content like this one!
©Public Domain Dedication (CC0) Smithsonian
And, as required by the Medium Gods, I do have affiliate links
