Could Boeing End Up being SOLD?!

Рет қаралды 238,914

Жыл бұрын

Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/mentournow It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
-----------------------------------------------------
Is it possible that Lockheed Martin could buy Boeing? Yeah, believe me - I know this seems outrageous. But let me rephrase the question slightly: if ANYONE had to buy or take over an aerospace giant like Boeing, who could that buyer be?! Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
• Boeing CEO Says Aviati...
• Why Shares of Boeing A...
• Boeing has a 'serious ...
• Boeing's 777X | The GE...
• Boeing 777X won’t ‘rea...
• Boeing posts record fu...
• Boeing 787-10 Dreamlin...
• Boeing CEO Dave Calhou...
• Boeing CEO on supply c...
• Boeing engineers use u...
• The A320neo Family: Un...
• SUGAR Volt: Boeing's H...
• Airbus Atlantic Rochef...
• How Boeing Suppliers P...
• Media Briefing of Boei...
• Boeing aprueba acuerdo...
• Video
• Making the aircraft wi...
• Boeing Defense Highlig...
• Boeing Space Highlight...
• Production & Industria...
• The first delivery KC-...
• The Airbus A330 MRTT f...
• ULA 2021 Launch Highli...
• #SB1DEFIANT Flight Tes...
• And Then There Were 3:...
• Justice Department sue...
• Why The U.S. Governmen...
• US-EU trade dispute he...
• Delta Lockheed L-1011 ...
• LTU Lockheed L-1011 Tr...
• F-15EX for the U.S. Ai...
• Video
• From the Paris Air Sho...
• Veterans Make Us Better
• Who We Are: In the Wor...
• Over 1,000 Aircraft Or...
www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/bu...

Пікірлер: 1 200

@VivaLaDirt Жыл бұрын

Solution is simple: Don't replace engineer's with MBAs

@MentourNow Жыл бұрын

Good point!

@Alexanderius Жыл бұрын

👍

@ANobodyatall Жыл бұрын

Hire on the basis on competence, not 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Moreover, listen to the engineers!

@g-3409 Жыл бұрын

go woke, go broke…

@16randomcharacters Жыл бұрын

@@ANobodyatall you... do know that hiring MBAs isn't a diversity intiative, right?

@glennchartrand5411 Жыл бұрын

What made Boeing great was that it was run by engineers and this meant they could recruit the best engineers because it was possible for them to go all the way up the corporate ladder. Then the MBA's took over , not only did they start making stupid decisions, they also slammed the door shut on the engineers and created an extremely toxic corporate environment. So the people who should have been "mid-level" executives took over the Boardroom and the people that should have been running the company were driven out.

@jaysmith1408 Жыл бұрын

The nail in the coffin was to physically distance themselves from the engineers by moving to Illinois

@willyolio9590 Жыл бұрын

If they really needed business manages, they can take an engineer and give them a week of management and economics training. It's not like the MBAs require any actual skills harder than high school math.

@larrysmith6797 Жыл бұрын

That's MBAs, not MBA's.

@jonnieinbangkok Жыл бұрын

I think you're referring to McDonnell Douglas' takeover of Boeing 😂

@Doc_OLDGUY_Savage Жыл бұрын

@@larrysmith6797 MBAs, plural of MBA. Although it should read, 'It's not like those TURKEYS require any actual skills.'

@ImpactWench Жыл бұрын

"We are absolutely, 100% committed to destroying this company to bring you short-term ROI, which is why we're suspending all R&D" (standing ovation)

@wolfhalupka8992 Жыл бұрын

yeah- and if you stop doing R&D, then the end is in sight. of course, some chinese outfit will be willing to buy. sad....

@blueboats7530 Жыл бұрын

Really

@karlsailor Жыл бұрын

Just like the US Railroads

@gnarthdarkanen7464 Жыл бұрын

Mixed feelings... On the one hand, with the National Debt doubling every 5 to 7 years, and no end (nor so much as a slow-down) in sight, there WON'T BE a "long term" U.S. for any company to offer ROI in the longer term to market... On the other, "What damn difference does it make?" because with the imminent collapse of the economy, the dollar bill (a fantasy value decreed by a defunct Congress) is also going to fall flat. They may as well be playing with Monopoly Money... ;o)

@MrTaxiRob Жыл бұрын

@@gnarthdarkanen7464 the only fantasy here is yours. Look at trading volume of US dollars on international exchanges. Look at how many US dollars that PRC owns. The dollar isn't going anywhere soon, and US government debt has little to do with the value of the currency. That's why the Fed is a separate entity form the government to begin with.

@spacecadet35 Жыл бұрын

The trouble is that Boeing used to be an engineering company and now it is a marketing company. The current board only gets bonuses if they can make a return to shareholders every year, so they have been stripping all of the value out of the company and not caring about the long term. After all, when they finish destroying Boeing, the managers can give themselves huge golden parachutes and then find another company that they can destroy.

@toriless Жыл бұрын

Welcome to the Corporate infection

@thomasdalton1508 Жыл бұрын

Absolutely. Putting off developing a new aircraft until the next decade certainly sounds like they are not considering the long-term. It will probably be 2040 before it is available. They won't have anything the market is interested in for about a decade before that. How can they possibly survive without selling any aircraft for a decade? It will be great for their cashflows over the next few quarters, but will destroy the company.

@shauny2285 Жыл бұрын

I haven't seen a stock dividend since the first quarter of 2020.

@thomasdalton1508 Жыл бұрын

@@shauny2285 Which is probably why they want to improve their cashflow so they can start paying dividends again.

@PRH123 Жыл бұрын

I think everyone here is not taking into account the increased role of their military business. Boeing was always a military contractor, but back in the day tenders and competition were real and intense. There's far less competition nowadays for military contracts, and no issue to have massive cost overruns and under-performance. So they're making money hand over fist from military contracts, and the civil aircraft business is less interesting, and more difficult. Boeing also got heavily involved in financial services, which were also much more profitable for them than the civil aircraft business.

@tomjoseph1444 Жыл бұрын

As a retired Boeing engineer I really think they need a major shake up. They have conducted some shady business practices, i.e.; the way they went about buying McDonnell Douglas or even going back many years to the fact that they knew the problem with the 737 rudder servo from the very beginning.

@johnroberts2905 Жыл бұрын

It's arguable that the rot set in after the management of McDonnell Douglas got senior positions at Boeing....

@magnesiumtiger3620 Жыл бұрын

Wasn't the 737 rudder problem on the 737-200? Back in Boeing's good days without the MBAs in charge?

@tomjoseph1444 Жыл бұрын

@@magnesiumtiger3620 The accountants have always been in charge. Engineering wouldn't be as rushed as they are now. The rudder issue came up after the plane had passed into the production phase and the powers that be did not want any delays.

@peiershen8221 Жыл бұрын

I think they should just go out of business. I mean everything dies. Why not corporations? Isn't that what "Free Market" means?

@johnroberts2905 Жыл бұрын

@@peiershen8221 So what about the 10,000 Boeing planes flying in commercial service? Who's going to make parts to maintain them?

@GrannySmith123 Жыл бұрын

I was THE QA Inspector for 737 Max Pylons involved from day 1. When this project started we had 0 dedicated engineers on the project all of them were pulled in from different programs. As soon as we got drawing authority from Boeing all those people were sent back to the programs they were pulled from. Boeings constant changes to JUST THAT hardware led to much confusion as the engineers initially involved weren't available to assist much of the time. During and after the pandemic we kept being told how far behind we were, as they were stockpiling struts (pylons) and fuselage at one point having over 100 shipsets parked and covered on the tarmac across the road, or in warehouse buildings. And even though those parts were ALREADY "SOLD" to Boeing they kept (keep?) making changes that we'd have to pull back in and rework to current configuration. Made for many headaches writing and re-writing FAI reports I took early out retirement, a year ago. Just couldn't deal with the stress and BS nonsense. I can remember when it was a source of pride to work for Boeing. That has changed due to their talk of "quality without compromise" and their shameful walk of QUANTITY without compromise. They're pushing more mvp "self inspect" operations if it wasn't for government/FAA compliance they wouldn't even bother with "non value added" (inspection costs them money) QA inspections

@toriless Жыл бұрын

Being pulled alone is not a negative, it depends on other variables

@daniel11111 Жыл бұрын

Even as a massive Airbus fan this is very concerning to me. We have realistically only two companies making long range passenger jets, and we need more competition, not less. Any lack of innovation from Boeing would entail Airbus getting complacent and we as customers, lose.

@barracuda7018 Жыл бұрын

Airbus fan?? thats original...A380 proved to be the worst commercial screwup in civil aviation history ..25 billion Euro invested with ZERO return..

@johnpapworth433 11 ай бұрын

@barracuda7018 so what? They tried it. However it seems some airlines want a restart in production. But they may have spent that money with the A380, it's not quite in the same league as the 737-Max fiasco is it? The A380 didn't kill 100s of people

@ruzicas.5819 10 ай бұрын

Airbus will have COMAC to compete. 😂

@ruzicas.5819 10 ай бұрын

@@barracuda7018Lol. So what? Books are still in plus. 😊

@johnellis5828 9 ай бұрын

Airbus is okay, but they have the same problems as Boeing in quality issues. While Boeings recent problems are severe in nature, Airbus has significantly more problems overall that require maintenance and loss of use during maintenance. However, this happens with boats, cars, and trains too, but with airplanes it is much more important that it doesn't break, so I think it looks worse than it is when a plane is taken out of service for fleet-wide repairs (except for the 737 MAX case).

@hentaioverwhelming Жыл бұрын

Boeing's fatal mistake was buying McDonnell Douglas and not purging the entirety of MD's executives and mid-level management

@talusranch990 Жыл бұрын

Md was the buyer

@crankychris2 Жыл бұрын

@@talusranch990 Officially, it was a 'merger' but IMO you are correct.

@jamesbriers696 Жыл бұрын

MD couldn't run a commercial aircraft company then and can't run one now.

@toriless Жыл бұрын

maybe, I still like the MD10

@mchristr Жыл бұрын

That was 25 years ago. Let's move on.

@ryan22370 Жыл бұрын

I have three friends who interact with Boeing on different projects. I used to think it was a great company until all my friends from college started experience the mess first hand. First the B-52 modernization program. Management has their head to far up their ass that the devs for the software upgrades just end up going around in circles and can never get anything finished except for bureaucratic paperwork. Next KC-46 program. They thought they could just plug and play with the 767 and management refused to admit there were problems until after the airplane shipped and couldn't do its job. Most concerning though is a friend who works at NASA in JSC. They deal directly with boeing engineers concerning starliner. His role again is software development on the NASA side. Boeing only cares about profit and results even when its clear that the spacecraft would kill its occupants in its current configuration. Of course Boeing doesn't take NASA's concerns seriously and that's how you get one failed mission and a partial failed mission. The entire company is rotton to its core.

@RS-ls7mm Жыл бұрын

I also had to deal with the Boeing software group. Very high turn over. Management decided to hire only mediocre people (coders, engineers, managers, test) and try to contain their mistakes with "processes". These processes were so dehumanizing that only the most ana! people could take it for long. The group used to be very good before processes.

@mrvwbug4423 Жыл бұрын

Don't forget rampant quality control issues in the Kansas and South Carolina plants, to the point where the USAF is only accepting KC-46s from Everett and a number of major airlines will only accept 787s from Everett. And Boeing wants to close down Everett and Renton to get rid of their union. It's almost as if they didn't envision that using half price non-union labor in "right to work" states would be a problem. And if the SC plant ever unionizes Boeing will lose ALL their tax breaks in SC, part of the deal they made with Nikki Haley was that their tax breaks were contingent on keeping the SC plant union -free.

@nomayor1 Жыл бұрын

Boeing and its execs are an integral part of the Pentagon-MIC revolving door. Boeing will never go down, it is critical to the US spreading mayhem, sorry I mean "democracy", around the world.

@4loops43 6 ай бұрын

Star liner is the worst of all Boeing issues 😂. If justice existed the corruption right there would put all management in jail

@phildane7411 Жыл бұрын

Ironic that Boeing have been bleating about government subsidies for Airbus for years, yet it looks as if they may be needing exactly that (overtly - they've been getting covert subsidies virtually for ever) themselves..

@Napoleon_Blownapart Жыл бұрын

To be fair, Airbus got 0% interest loans. They had to be paid back.

@todortodorov940 Жыл бұрын

Contrary to Airbus' loans, Boeing is just going to pocket the government money (and possibly pay out dividends).

@mrvwbug4423 Жыл бұрын

Boeing could end up nationalized, but likely only the defense division would end up state owned and the commercial division killed off, I doubt they could find a buyer for it.

@TheDavidlloydjones Жыл бұрын

Everything Boeing has ever done in the jet age has been based on the B-52 -- a very profitable program paid for by the government.

@sylvietougas9374 Жыл бұрын

They have to pull out of the narrow body business. They have a 60+year old design that has not been competitive for the past 20 years and that can only sell at 70% discount.

@ryanzondervan7780 Жыл бұрын

I lived in Seattle during the 787 launch debacle; from what I remember this program was supposed to be Boeing's "moonshot" in that if successful, they would essentially be outsourcing major engineering work to component suppliers. Unfortunately we all know how that turned out and I don't think there was a "Plan B." (as an interesting aside - I had a friend who worked for one of the 787 component suppliers; we went out for dinner when I was visiting the west coast back in 2006 and I asked him how things were going and he spit out his drink and started laughing. I asked if his company's part of the project was just vaporware at that point and he said vaporware would be a compliment; it was more like nothing-ware.)

@MusicalMemeology Жыл бұрын

The fact they’re more focussed on unlocking value rather than just being an engineering giant shows they still have a way to go.

@sheiladikshit5110 Жыл бұрын

this is endemic across all american industries, not just aviation.

@call_me_stan5887 10 ай бұрын

not only throughout american industries - it happens all over the world

@abikeanditsboy3449 Жыл бұрын

Boeing was doing great until they bought McDonnell Douglas. Boeing made the classic mistake of keeping the failed management of McDonnell Douglas in place and thought that somehow the failed management wouldn't fail at Boeing. The big clue that the culture of failure that MD brought to the table would also fail at Boeing was that they _had_ already failed and caused the downfall of MD. The culture of failure that Boeing brought into the company is now bearing fruit. Though it’s too late, Boeing needs to stop focusing on turning profits for Wall Street and focus on making wise decisions and growing the company which will in turn make profits for Wall Street. They need a long term vision on where the company is going to go but now they’re just struggling with the day-to-day task of keeping the company afloat.

@tnickknight Жыл бұрын

The MD staff are almost all gone , that was long ago

@mmm0404 Жыл бұрын

I swear even in 2050, y'all be recycling this lame old story.

@tnickknight Жыл бұрын

@@mmm0404 sorry if you have the attention span of a gnat. The rest of the world remembers their victims and their actions. Luckily we have Airbus. When Boeing has actually made changes,. Then the world might start to change their mind.. For now tou can hope.america will just continue to rig the market to help.Boeing

@markevans2294 Жыл бұрын

It's been suggested, as a joke, that McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing...

@Epic_C Жыл бұрын

@@tnickknight Yes but the MD culture still exists. Remember the 737 Max fiasco?

@alanc.1213 Жыл бұрын

The Hawker Siddeley Trident was the first Passenger Aircraft to be fitted with an Auto land CAT3 as Heathrow in the 1960's and 70's was often fog bound in the winter, they needed the technology for such a system to land up to CAT3 condition's. So the Lockheed Tri-Star was a great aircraft....with many new features, way better than the floored DC-10 which was a death trap....waiting to happen!

@davidcole333 Жыл бұрын

Nope...DC-10 was fine...the morons working on it were not.

@NicolaW72 Жыл бұрын

Yes, indeed.

@tlanderso07 Жыл бұрын

I’ve heard the problem is the McDonald Douglas MBA bean counter culture took over running things instead of the company being a company with a engineering culture with engineers calling the shots. It’s horrible to work at an engineering company where the management is not passionate about engineering and are beam counters.

@stephenarbon2227 Жыл бұрын

You need a balance, RR [engines] was an engineering led company which went broke, partly because it ignored the financial side of the business.

@robbrie Жыл бұрын

Yup, Boeing-MD marriage was a bit of a reverse merger. Boeing became the surviving company, but it was the MD's senior management who were the ones that were in charge. Well documented in the recent Netflix 737MAX documentary .

@talusranch990 Жыл бұрын

Good ears

@dummgelauft Жыл бұрын

GE.

@bigfoottoo2841 Жыл бұрын

Let the Chinese buy it!

@hjr2000 Жыл бұрын

Another brilliant video from Petter, the quality of the analysis is brilliant as ever. I don't understand how you have time to ever fly aircraft as well as run your channel! Love from the UK! 🙂

@MentourNow Жыл бұрын

I’m not actually flying at the moment. I’ll be back in the cockpit in June. Thanks though!

@dontarguewithidiots7459 Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow Yeah man. I just returned to the channel and am always struck by how intelligent and well thought out your analysis is. Seriously.

@neeneko Жыл бұрын

I will never understand Boeing's management decisions. McDonnell Douglas collapses due to poor management, Boeing buys them.. then replaces their management and corporate culture with McDonnell Douglas people. It is truly baffling and has destroyed Boeing from the inside.

@paul756uk2 Жыл бұрын

Maybe that's the intention. After all they're doing it to the whole country. (And the rest of the developed west).

@cskvision Жыл бұрын

The fallout from having bean counters ruling the roost instead of engineers

@Tintenkobold Жыл бұрын

I produced carbon fiber parts for 787. Instructions where never respected, except on the day Boeing did the audit (which was known before so we could prepare). It was all about money and time. There will be much more problems in the future when these parts fall from the sky.

@grahamstevenson1740 Жыл бұрын

Sounds like the 737 and parts made by Ducommun and Spirit AreroSystems.

@badgermoon9229 Жыл бұрын

Why not tell someone that matters then instead of posting about it on KZfaq?

@grahamstevenson1740 Жыл бұрын

@@badgermoon9229 Boeing have a habit of ignoring such news and persecuting the messenger. Plenty of people have been fired by Boeing for 'whistle blowing.'

@jg5001 Жыл бұрын

@@badgermoon9229 nobody at Boeing gives a flying F about safety and certainly don't care if parts are made shoddy, just as long as said parts get assembled into a plane-like form, on time, then employees get paid and Wall Street is happy. The saying USED to be: if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going. Now it's: if IT'S Boeing, I ain't going.

@badgermoon9229 Жыл бұрын

@@jg5001 Yikes. I never imagined that company would operate that way, but I guess when you let the bean counters run the show anything is possible. I've seen it in the industry I retired from.

@daleast5047 Жыл бұрын

In the 1980s we at Boeing were so jugged up with the need to deliver 747-400s. We had them built and stacked up like cord wood on the flight line. Boeing and Lockeed leaders got together and worked out a deal for Lockeed to send 100's and 100's of their top Mechanics for at least six months to help us push through the bulge of aircraft to delivery. We all got along really well and worked together seamlessly. As an aside, we all liked each so much that we created a T-shirt that said we are BoeLocs.

@RCAvhstape Жыл бұрын

These big companies don't (usually) actually hate each other, they are just competitive rivals. On lots of projects one company will be the prime contractor, and lots of other contractors will be subcontractors, so engineers from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, etc. will find themselves working side by side on the same team for a particular project, sometimes for years on end. At the worker bee engineer level they will all drink beer together at the end of the work day.

@neeneko Жыл бұрын

And now Boeing is stuck (at least on the defense side) paired with Raytheon, who is more interested in sabotaging projects to make Boeing look bad and thus get the whole contract themselves than actually delivering.

@RCAvhstape Жыл бұрын

I should add, making friends among other companies is also a viable strategy for an engineer to find new job opportunities. Jumping ship from company to company is sometimes the best way to get a good pay bump.

@neeneko Жыл бұрын

@@RCAvhstape You can have good relationships and bad relationships. The one with Lockheed Martin was pretty good, the one with Raytheon is toxic as hell, with engineers intentionally making each other's jobs harder and information flow being minimal.

@RCAvhstape Жыл бұрын

@@neeneko Definitely can be the case, especially if there is poor management/leadership.

@David_Best Жыл бұрын

Yes, there's an alternative: Embraer ends up buying the commercial part of Boeing, while LM buys the defense part. Watch this comment in 5-8 years.

@Sophie-and-Ken Жыл бұрын

The US government would not let the company be sold to a foreign entity. I can see a Chinese company being the main buyer. I do agree Lockheed Martin would buy the defence side first splitting the company up.

@teytreet7358 Жыл бұрын

LM buying Boeing would be sad. There would be basically no competition in the defense market.

@mmm0404 Жыл бұрын

Sounds like a bad joke.

@oldnepalihippie Жыл бұрын

@@Sophie-and-Ken ditto

@Sevoverkill Жыл бұрын

Embraer doesn't have enough money to keep themselves afloat, let alone buy anyone else lol

@ayadabukhamsin4477 Жыл бұрын

Moving the HQ from Seattle to Chicago was an extremely unwise move.

@4loops43 6 ай бұрын

I can’t fault any company from leaving Seattle but I suggest they should have moved out entirely

@TurboTigerDK1 Жыл бұрын

The narrow market problem for Boeing is that the 737 design is outdated, the 737 had its first flight in 1967, and was in part based on elements of the 727, which itself draws on the 707 design. Having flown both the 737, and now current on A320, and as a A220 SFI the Airbus lineup is just superior in almost every way.

@ivanviera4773 Жыл бұрын

An Airbus continues to make versions of the A321 next year comes the XLR and there its even talk about a stretched version the A322 with a composite wing down the line.

@mmm0404 Жыл бұрын

The a320 design is almost 40 years old. Its outdated too. It's not age, it's the fact that the 737MAX was grounded for 2 years, and recovering from that will take years. The a220 was not designed by Airbus BTW.

@ortahopaninsefiri Жыл бұрын

@@mmm0404 what is relevance of a220 not being designed by boeing? airbus owns the program now, when you buy an a220, you buy an airbus. also 737 and a320 both outdated but we cannot forget that 737 outdates a320 by 20 years so much more modern in my opinion

@asicdathens Жыл бұрын

737 still uses steel cables and pulleys to move control surfaces. Technologically 737 is closer to B-29 than a modern airplane

@markevans2294 Жыл бұрын

All of Boeing's narrow bodies, including the 757, have the same fuselage diameter. The A320 fuselage is slightly wider. Which means it can take LD3-45 containers. Potentially quicker to turn around. Something more likely to impress the airlines than 16cm wider cabin.

@yacaattwood2421 Жыл бұрын

I worked for Northrop Grumman from 1989-1998; there was a proposal for a merger with Lockheed, which was shot down by the DOJ as eliminating competition

@bmstylee Жыл бұрын

If we could only get the DOJ to do that nowadays. It seems we're seeing more and more mergers that lessen competition.

@stevekirk8546 Жыл бұрын

I never imagined I could sit here on a Sunday afternoon absolutely entranced by your insight of the finances and production capabilities of aerospace manufacturers and the attitude of regulatory bodies. Fascinating - thank you.

@Inkling777 Жыл бұрын

*The belief in "too big to fail" is poison for large corporations from banking to aviation.* It _privatizes_ the _benefits_ of high-risk policies while _socializing_ their _costs._ Boeing took a risk when it tried to build a 737MAX that required no additional simulator time. If that'd succeeded, Boeing executives would have pocketed large bonuses from the increased sales. That scheme failed and now an almost everyone in aviation distrusts the company where 'safety first' no longer rules. Now those same executives are likely to go, cap in hand to the U.S. government for assistance and even open bailouts. The costs of mistakes made by Boeing corporate are to be borne by American taxpayers because Boeing is "too big to fail."

@altinisikege Жыл бұрын

Rest in peace Boeing and it's reputation

@tnickknight Жыл бұрын

They already sacked their reputation

@juansanchez-tr1dq Жыл бұрын

@@tnickknight, and they did this quite some time ago!

@tnickknight Жыл бұрын

@@juansanchez-tr1dq what, they still are in a mess, since they killed this people and blamed them for Boeing's garbage

@altinisikege Жыл бұрын

But at this point there is no returning

@11x Жыл бұрын

@@altinisikegeOK keyboard expert lol. They have over 5000 commercial jets backlogged. Why do ppl like you want to see a global company fail anyway, your door dash job not keeping you happy? They have manufacturing all over the world supporting over 200,000 (including subsidiaries) well paid employees. They're not going anywhere so find something else to cry about.

@babyUFO. Жыл бұрын

0:47 You can add Starliner and SLS to that list of failures.

@Alucard-gt1zf Жыл бұрын

Sls wasn't a failure though? Delayed, yes but it still went to the moon and its going to go back twice more

@martinmaltbor1290 Жыл бұрын

Worked for Boeing in the 90's as a licensed aircraft mechanic and it was a very negative experience for me both on the professional and on the personal level. Now I can't help but to gleefully and joyfully see the demise of this company. Their dysfunctional arrogance is catching up with them.

@walideg5304 10 ай бұрын

MDD culture. It has contaminated Boeing

@JohnB-kc3jx Жыл бұрын

I see consolidation and the creation of an American conglomerate (Northrup, Boeing, Lockheed etc) to compete with EADS

@MentourNow Жыл бұрын

That’s fully possible!

@ZZZZZ23490 Жыл бұрын

EADS doesn't exist anymore. today it's Airbus

@andrewlarson7895 Жыл бұрын

Doubtfully because our government will say its a Monopoly. Were other countries would say yeah go for..

@ivanxyz1 Жыл бұрын

Hmmm...sounds interesting, but I don't see why Northrup and Lockheed would go through the trouble. They are not in financial trouble and are doing perfectly fine. Why muddy the waters? Every company wants to grow. True. But that is an awful lot of hassle and a lot of regulatory hurdles to jump over worldwide to take over a troubled company. The best thing for Boeing to do is to fire the MBAs, dilute shareholders with a few secondary offerings, move the headquarters back to Seattle-Everett, and let the engineers start a new innovative aircraft design.

@gerhardma4687 Жыл бұрын

@@andrewlarson7895 No, this monopoly formation would be prohibited everywhere. The resulting market power would eliminate almost all competition. This would also be prohibited by the European Monopolies Commission.

@jsvette56 Жыл бұрын

I went to work for Boeing in 1963 as a newly minted engineer and eventually worked on the Saturn V Moon program and Boeing was a well-run company. But I believe its downfall started in 2001 when the headquarter was moved from Seattle to Chicago and the Bean counters, not pilots and engineers started running the company. These execs were more interested in a higher stock price and their retirement fund, and not the corporation's welfare.

@MrGoesBoom Жыл бұрын

The idea that any single company can be considered 'too important' to fail under it's own inadequacies, mismanagement, incompetence and likely several other descriptors is disgusting. Let them fail. Something better will eventually fill the hole they left, and hopefully learn from their mistakes. Boeing failing would be a tragedy mostly for the people at the top and the people holding stock.

@Jehty_ Жыл бұрын

I don't think that if one entity of a duopoly fails that something better will fill the hole. It will just become a monopoly.

@bertjilk3456 Жыл бұрын

There's only one place that could fill the hole, and that's a certain Asian power. Considering their propensity to weaponise everything at their disposal, that's not a desirable outcome. So, yes, keeping Boeing afloat is really important. I hate the way that profit has overridden strong engineering, though.

@matgeezer2094 Жыл бұрын

If its too big to fail, then it's too big - used to be considered common sense. I don't know enough detail of airplane manufacturing to know if that still applies

@Saml01 Жыл бұрын

Short BA?

@neeneko Жыл бұрын

Or better yet : if a company is too important to fail, nationalize it. A lot of these bailout problems came from deregulation and transfering public tasks to private investors. If something is so important to the nation that it needs to be run well, don't let people with other priorities run it.

@richardr8850 Жыл бұрын

Excellent and interesting vid as always. One minor point, I think that the Hawker Siddley Trident was ahead of the Lockheed L1011 with autoland.

@beagle7622 Жыл бұрын

It certainly was. An extraordinary bit of Engineering.. Was landed in testing zero zero visibilty, just remarkable.

@paulkirkland3263 Жыл бұрын

Another well-made and interesting dive into the commercial aviation industry. I love this channel.

@vircervoteksisto5038 Жыл бұрын

The real reason Boeing is still an independent company is because the production and engineering challenges faced by Boeing are so unique, so difficult and so rarely profitable that no other company on the planet, with the exception of Airbus, would even dream of taking them on.

@bearcubdaycare Жыл бұрын

Commercial and military are different markets. Spinning off the former might make sense. The loss making bits could be wound down, the manufacturing tightened up, and a new design treated as the venture capital exercise that it really is. But, that might reveal too much. 787 and 777 aren't new anymore (and Boeing is struggling even with those), and everything else is several decades old, with a few reengines. There just isn't much there, other than a name. If a spin off and then merger with Embraer commercial isn't in the cards, then maybe spin off just the name, buy the C Series off Airbus (which doesn't seem to want it or do much with it), and slap the Boeing name on that, while rustling up a bit of money to expand that line (-500, a long range version, a business jet version, someday perhaps a wider fuselage aircraft).

@MrJimheeren Жыл бұрын

Why on earth would Airbus sell the C series to Boeing. It’s one of the best selling aircraft in the world. And hugely popular in Europe

@andrewlarson7895 Жыл бұрын

And just think Boeing could have had the c-series before airbus.🙄

@Walkingloser-Tom Жыл бұрын

You're videos are brilliant, i obviously love the ones you do on crashes, equipment failures etc but now as an investor I love learning where they Industry is going, keep us updated on battery tech, autonomy, drones etc and thank you thank you thank you.

@KainzMusic Жыл бұрын

I thoroughly enjoy your videos! The fascination of the BTS of air disaster along with the aftermath for the FAA and the manufacturers involved. The educational aspects of videos like this where you dig into what's happening with the industry and its participants. Thank you for this channel!

@khakiswag Жыл бұрын

Boeing needs to start fresh and merge the 737 and 757 into one single isle aircraft. Call it the 808 to signify Boeing is done with the past and moving into the future. Airlines still love the aging but still top performing 757, especially Delta. Southwest has also shown interest in this as a 737 replacement. With today’s manufacturing technologies and a clean sheet design they could make the center wing box section the differentiator with the 757 size version getting a bigger section with longer wingspan and double bogie landing gear.

@cayman9873 Сағат бұрын

I will try to never fly on a boeing unless its a 747

@johncassels3475 Жыл бұрын

Great video as always. But I believe the Trident was the first airliner with an autoland system, the Tristar came later.

@juanpablo681 Жыл бұрын

Great video, but gonna nitpick a bit. The first airliner to provide autoland capability was the TRIDENT in 1965. With passengers on a commercial flight. That is a full 5 years before the TriStar ever even flew. Great job and keep these videos coming!

@jmac838 Жыл бұрын

Another good one! You forgot to point out Boeing’s (Re)organizational self ind 0:06 uced challenges and Boeing Global Services. The Tanker resides there (within Maintenance & Mods) not in BDS.

@graysono Жыл бұрын

The first plane I ever flew as a student was as a just 14 year old in Summer 1985. Plane was a 1966 Money M20C. With the infamous Johnson Bar undercarriage lever to retract and extend it. One day I lifted her off nice and short and grabbed gear up quickly. Plabea owner who was giving me my flying start pulled the power. "Now what, you're about to have an expensive belly slide!" Lesson was, in a retractable single do this. Positive Rate, no more runway I can land on should I have to, gear up. I ended up having a long radio announcer career rather than a flying one but I kept flying doing MEIR, getting CPL and even doing some ATPL exams. It was a superb lesson as a kid pilot.

@ajg617 Жыл бұрын

Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin all have significant engineering capacity working high profile air and space programs for the Dept of Defense. However, they (or the companies they swallowed up) all bailed on the commercial airliner business decades ago. Personally, I'd think Northrup would be a possibility.

@arunthomas189 Жыл бұрын

Thank you Petter and team for another brilliant analysis! I think they should bring back ex CEO and Legend Alan Mullally out of retirement to turn Boeing around again….just like what he did in the 90s and early 2000s and what he did with Ford Motor Co. afterwards in the Mid 2000s.

@thetowndrunk988 Жыл бұрын

Love how you take the time to cover industry news, Petter. It’s interesting stuff (especially when you own stock in these companies 😐)

@arnoldhau1 Жыл бұрын

I dont think Airbus would want Boeing to fail. The Duopoly is quite profitable, so I dont think they would want to break it. If Boeing was to fail, they would be a target for Comac and that would be very bad for Airbus. But then on the other hand, the US Government would never allow Comac to buy Boeing.

@kenoliver8913 11 ай бұрын

In the early 1990s Microsoft rescued Apple from bankruptcy on precisely this calculation - that no government anywhere would tolerate a monopoly in such a strategic sector. If Airbus tried to buy Boeing the EU would probably be even quicker than the US or Chinese governments to nip such a thought in the bud. Airbus know they need Boeing to stay alive, though don't want them to be TOO alive (not that there is currently much risk of the second). If Boeing needs a big loan to survive people might be surprised who will be happy to provide it.

@arknu Жыл бұрын

Shows what happens when you let accountants and MBAs run a company rather than people who know what they are doing.

@ghost307 Жыл бұрын

Exact same thing happened at NASA. Engineers in charge = landed on the moon. MBAs in charge = loss of 2 shuttles (with all hands) and inability to find butt with both hands and a map.

@Dutcheh Жыл бұрын

MBAs and accountants have always run Boeing. An engineer could never run Boeing. Think about what you're saying for a second.

@ghost307 Жыл бұрын

@@Dutcheh It's always about teamwork. The change now is that MBAs have the final word and refuse to work with others to find a compromise that works at the lowest cost. Engineers seek out the most economical path...MBAs only seek out the absolute cheapest.

@Dutcheh Жыл бұрын

@@ghost307 What you said makes no sense. Also, engineers aren’t seeking the most “economical path” when they wouldn’t even know what that path is. It’s quite literally impossible that an engineer would know that.

@Dutcheh Жыл бұрын

@@ghost307 Also, I know this conspiracy sounds like it makes sense. Accountants aren’t allowed to make company decisions. They have to be CMAs for that. So i know you are unaware of what you’re talking about because accountants just track and prepare financial statements. They do not make financial decisions.

@peterzander5615 Жыл бұрын

I think Boeing to much focus satisfield shareholders and lost focus of safety and making a very good product last 20 years or so. Beginning of 2000 Boeing cost around 40$ and vinter 2019 round 450$ And then come the tragedi with 2 737Max crash and it occur it was a constrctionfailure. As Petter say in video it cost 19billion $ and the cost for bad godwill may be even more. This is money the company could have invest in a brand new aircraft. Greed is good in some business but not if your a manufacturer of airplanes.

@erichusmann5145 Жыл бұрын

Petter, I have a challenge for you. Full story of ULA, from start to current, including why it formed (start with the EELV process). It's not exactly lined up with aviation, but it'll get you some insight into the Boeing mindset.

@alcoyne3333333333333 Жыл бұрын

Boeing did what all American companies do . And got more worried about money for Investors and lost their best staff.

@Steve-gc5nt Жыл бұрын

It's the same here in the UK.

@conbertbenneck49 Жыл бұрын

Boeing didn't loose their best staff. Engineers were fired - the first to go the oldest with the most experience. From what I read and see, they must have done the same to their Quality Control personnel, how else do you only find a defective titanium part when the aircraft is fully assembled and ready for delivery. Where was the incoming inspection at the Italian vendor? Did Boeing Audit the Italian Vendor's Quality Control System? Why didn't Boeing's Incoming Inspection find the defect when the parts arrived at their door?

@MACIMACI Жыл бұрын

So the only true part of yesterday’s April Fools prank about Lockheed buying Boeing, was that Boeing may actually be up for grabs… dang-

@edwardwright8127 Жыл бұрын

I was waiting for you to mention United Launch Alliance. You finally did, but strangely, you failed to mention a really big development with implications for the future of both Boeing and Lockheed. ULA is currently up for sale.

@Suburp212 Жыл бұрын

There are a ton of Hedgefonds ready to pounce on Boeing and then slice and dice it.

@wradak Жыл бұрын

Must be quite frustrating for their engineers. Are there any numbers available on how many Boeing engineers went off to find their luck with Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Embraer etc.?

@mithrandirthegrey7644 Жыл бұрын

Yeah there’s no way Boeing disappears. They make weapons for the military.

@heidirabenau511 Жыл бұрын

Boeing as a company isn't going anywhere any time soon, Boeing Commercial is a sitting duck not Boeing as a company.

@kirilmihaylov1934 Жыл бұрын

@@heidirabenau511 which is very bad for the flying public

@commerce-usa Жыл бұрын

Petter, one of my first thoughts was the 757 being relaunched with upgraded engines and avionics. Were you thinking that in your closing remarks? Great job on this really difficult business problem. 👍

@danharold3087 Жыл бұрын

5 years too late to make that work.

@pablopicaro7649 Жыл бұрын

757 tooling was all scraped 20 years ago, the production area is now where 787 front section is made (by Junk Bond subcontractor 'Spririt Aerosystems')

@ThunderboltDragon Жыл бұрын

The 757 is obsolete in more ways then the engines. IIRC Petter did a video on it a couple months ago and the main point was that the 757 was too heavy in relation to it's capacity (particular he wings). Video id: fh6oh9hrBuU (or just search Mentour Now channel for "Is Boeing Planning a 757 MAX?!").

@victormikecharlie1596 Жыл бұрын

That's impossible now

@jobbiejew Жыл бұрын

Might sound harsh but I would LOVE to see Lockheed to re-enter the commercial airliner field to directly compete with Boeing on that front and for them to absolutely decimate Boeing in its present form. It would be good to see a Lockheed / Airbus duopoly instead of the Boeing / Airbus duopoly. Quiet frankly, I’m not a fan of Boeing for their practises, treatment of staff, and a plethora of other reasons.

@k53847 Жыл бұрын

Further consolidation of the defense prime contractors would be highly undesirable. We've gone from 51 to 5 in 30 years. We need more competing primes, not less. So DoD can't allow LockMart, GD, or NG to acquire it.

@Matticitt Жыл бұрын

This is what happens when you have a board of people only interested in financial gains short term. Just a few % more every year. That's sweet for imediate return on investment for the investors but it's a death blow to a company long term. We saw that with many companies over the years and we see than now with Boeing.

@samaanalkhaldi2364 Жыл бұрын

A new airplane that uses the 787 technology and building materials can help Boeing to survive, also I believe that new airplane should be a replacement for the discounted 757. Always enjoying your videos 👌 thank 😀

@kirilmihaylov1934 Жыл бұрын

They don't have the money to do another big project mate

@davidtuer5825 Жыл бұрын

The moment you here about a company "unlocking value" you know it's on the way out.

@superskullmaster Жыл бұрын

I work at Lockheed, trust me, this company is DONE with commercial projects.

@wyoboatman Жыл бұрын

Boeing isn’t selling and isn’t for sale, Boeing isn’t going anywhere.

@MentourNow Жыл бұрын

The future will tell

@dinky9216 Жыл бұрын

That's the problem. They need to be in the going places industry.

@wyoboatman Жыл бұрын

@Dinky In the context you're talking, they are. The 777X will once again be a revolutionary aircraft. Boeing has been the leader in aircraft innovation for decades. I don't believe that will change now. What we're seeing is the popularity of piling on when something is perceived as being a way. The more its said the more its believed. Boeing has done plenty to bring that on itself but IMO its being far overblown.

@soeren72 Жыл бұрын

They could hand it over to a museum. 😂😂

@Ficon Жыл бұрын

Wall Street, which doesn’t produce anything tangible, applauded a manufacturer’s plan to not produce anything tangible.

@hualani6785 Жыл бұрын

Interesting. I always enjoy your video presentations on Mentour Now! as well as Mentour Pilot as well as everything you offer, fascinating to hear your experienced POV. Im curious concerning Boeing's future, why you mainly concentrate on commercial retail portion of the corporation. How is it that the DOD contracts and other divisions aren't usually factored in too much? It's terrific that in this video, for the first time, I've heard you mention the defense division. "Say What" made me grin, albeit, finding the partnership for UK heli's unusual? Hmm. Boeing has worked w/UK & EU corporations for as long as they've been in business. GE Aviation? OMG please no! TY for another interesting video.

@IamCec Жыл бұрын

Wonder when they’ll start to regret that MD merger 🧐

@rascal28 Жыл бұрын

The evil is in charge now and we paid for all this in our retirement risks/gains

@amazer747 Жыл бұрын

Interesting analysis on the future of Boeing. I was however wondering about your comment at16:10 - I thought the first airliner using autoland was the Trident as flown by BEA/British Airways using the Smiths Autoland system rather than the later L1011.

@frankkolmann4801 Жыл бұрын

I am so sad that engineers are not respected. I was trained Civil Engineer. I was astonished when the lecturers insisted that we as engineers must simply respond and react to management. I saw people who had absolutely no clue about engineering making decisions and insisting on bad practices with the threat always of the company will fail if you dont do as we, management, say. Yes in the short term, money was made. In the end the chickens come home and the price needs to be paid. Management puts more pressure on the engineers. Engineers cannot perform miracles. Engineers leave. Company fails.

@laurentiutrifan8173 Жыл бұрын

Before money, Boeing - desperately - needs a new management. One with good technical backround ... & blls big & strong enough - to dare to create new, innovative aircrafts + integrity powerful enough - to cut out all the BeS parts suppliers. Here, in România, we have a saying: "Decît c-un prost la cîştig ... mai bine c-un deştept la pagubă" (Don't make team with a fool - for gaining money ... and is, actually, better to be in a team with a smart one - even in a losing game ). 😏 And I'm not saying that Calhoun is a fool. He is a sure progress ... if we compare him with that disaster of CEO ... Muilenburg. But ... also ... he is "too little, too late" for what Boeing needs. If they could ... they should clone Joe Sutter. 😉

@MrGoesBoom Жыл бұрын

So basically back to their roots and get rid of the sludge they picked up from McDonnell Douglas which is when the company really started to go downhill

@wowpeter Жыл бұрын

I am just dropping a name here: Alan Mulally Boeing should have made him the CEO of the company and not push him to leave Boeing to go turn around Ford (which he successfully turn around). He is a brilliant engineer that has a vision, good business accumen, good team work, great personality, andost of all the technical know how to bring Boeing back to it's engineering root.

@laurentiutrifan8173 Жыл бұрын

@@wowpeter And I drop 2 names .. cause I think that Boeing can use all the help that they can get: 1. Sir Tim Clark - as CEO 2. Carlos Ghosn - as Financial Chief. And I know that the americans are behind his arrest ... but I also think that ... with the right amount of money ... and enough bttkissing ... the peace can be done. 😉

@neeneko Жыл бұрын

The tricky part about management with technical backgrounds is that they tend to overapply their own silo of knowledge to other domains since they do not have time to learn all the differnt procsses and needs but they know what worked in their field. In a way it is better to get technical knowledge OUT of upper management and strengthen it at a lower level, that way upper mangement is not tempted to come up with their own low level ideas

@tnuag01 Жыл бұрын

Trident had autoland before the Tristar.

@charltonlwalker Жыл бұрын

I wonder how many Boeing employees work from home and never miss yoga and brunch.

@PrSK-ml4py Жыл бұрын

Let's all work from home! Maybe we will not need Boeing then?

@suzannetitkemeyernlq Жыл бұрын

Thank you for covering this. I am seriously thinking about buying stock in different airplane manufacturing companies. I know I'm gambling on this, but the timing feels right.

@phoneticau Жыл бұрын

Boeing has defence and space systems as well

@danharold3087 Жыл бұрын

As much as Boeing needs money it needs a Tesla or SpaceX style development team. I realize there would be difficulties with the FAA which needs to be fixed REGARDLESS if anybody is to profitably build airliners in the US. Boeing is moving in the right direction with the digital design space. We need to look at how we do things. The team that developed the software to land the falcon 9 consisted of 1 empowered software engineer.

@neeneko Жыл бұрын

Oh dear expletive no. Boeing trying to emulate startups and internet companies is one of the major problems it needs to correct. You can't play fast and loose with aircraft, and quality has sunk significantly as they have tried to adopt these patterns. I understand people like the excitement (and profits) of these software companies, but that is excitement best enjoyed from a distance when it will not effect you.

@danharold3087 Жыл бұрын

@@neeneko You are mischaracterizing the process by calling it fast and loose. Tesla is building some amazingly SAFE cars. The giga castings are designed as crumple zones for high speed impact. There is a vast difference between between it and suffering paralysis from fossilization, Everything still needs to tested for safety. Tesla can crash test entire cars using digital models. While not a direct correlation SpaceX is a better fit than Tesla. Look at what they have done and are doing. Not saying Tesla or SpaceX is an exact fit. A blend tailored to aircraft production is required. Things like designing the product to be assembled by automation apply directly with none of the drawbacks you are thinking of. It can be made to work. Boeing will be able to design and build safer airplanes for less. It will be uber competitive. It is the only reason way for Boeing to be competitive.

@TheDapperLynx Жыл бұрын

@@danharold3087 I don't believe for a second that the company that literally ranked dead last in build quality (this is from J.D. Power, not just my opinion) is making cars that are "safe".

@danharold3087 Жыл бұрын

@@TheDapperLynx J D powers is a scam. Tesla does not pay for advertising so it will never rank well with J D Powers. "If a company wants to feature J.D. Power in an advertisement (like those car commercials you might see), the company has to pay a licensing fee for it. " Tesla is getting top crash test scores all over the globe. US NCAP and Australia. Lets not make this about you hating Tesla. There are gobs of threads where you can do that.

@sperrfeuer4158 Жыл бұрын

If I remember correctly Boeing is heavily involved with the US defense industry, so I’d say the odds of them being sold, at least to a company outside the US, is about 0.0%

@albrechtjohnj Жыл бұрын

As an American I am really proud of what Boeing used to be. They were bold and in so doing changed the world. They bet the company to develop the 747, which offered air travel to vastly more people. Now they need a successor to the 757 with a built in customer base but what do they want to do? Nothing. Hand over market share to Airbus. Did the bean counters consider that losing customer base will increase their cost basis? Boeing needs their leadership changed, Wall Street be damned.

@whoami155 Жыл бұрын

I don't think Boeing is in as big a trouble as you seem to put it @mentourpilot. I think their almost maniacal focus on wallst quarterly performance has meant they don't spend enough time and resources on fixing their current 787 and 737max issues. It's not like they suddenly forgot how to build great planes. They need a strong engineering leadership at the helm.

@daveballard8673 Жыл бұрын

Boeing today is run via colored macros on spreadsheets.

@deth3021 Жыл бұрын

They haven't forgotten, but did retire.

@neeneko Жыл бұрын

@@daveballard8673 heh.. someone has seen the MD spreadsheets....

@CKLee-rs4kl Жыл бұрын

Both models have been returned to service; I don't believe any large corporation made their projected earnings in the current business climate so panic at this point is unnecessary. Yes, the company needs stronger engineering leadership; they've lost a lot of good people in the past couple of decades; but more importantly the top corporate management needs to be flushed out of the company and corporate offices need to be be brought back to Seattle. The biggest mistake the board of directors made was not selecting Allan Mulally as CEO when they finally got rid of Phil Condit.

@jonathanlee7045 Жыл бұрын

Boeing is in huge trouble. I currently work for Boeing and build the 737 MAX. And it’s in utter shambles on the production line.

@timovehkaoja Жыл бұрын

Should Mentour NOW! buy Boeing? 🤔

@NicolaW72 Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much for this Video! It´s difficult to say anything valide about this topic - too many unknown and changing developments have impacts on it. It´s a difficult time for Boeing and their Top-Managements caused it. It will be crucial for the future of the Company if the current Top-Management is really backing this Company or if they want to sell the Company out and walk away with as much Money as possible.

@lancethompson6839 Жыл бұрын

That was terrific--nice analysis and insight!

@deanwood1338 Жыл бұрын

Day late for April fools 🤣

@MentourNow Жыл бұрын

It was planned to go live yesterday but we kept it, just for that reason

@deanwood1338 Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow haha love it. Wonder how many people will comment without knowing 🤣🤦‍♂️

@Michaelorwa Жыл бұрын

Maybe Airbus could buy Boeing commercial airlines

@mmm0404 Жыл бұрын

First of all, the US gov would never allow that. Secondly, global Antitrust organisations would never approve Airbus turning into a monopoly.

@pete5668 Жыл бұрын

@@mmm0404 The US government is OK with Luxottica dominating the eyeglasses market, why not Airbus dominating the jet airliner market?

@mmm0404 Жыл бұрын

@@pete5668 Airbus is only dominating the narrow body market, Boeing dominates the widebody, freighter, defence and space segment in comparison. Anyways, how do you compare one of the largest exporters by value and important US defence and military partner with a eyewear company? 😆😆🙈. Boeing is involved in projects of national security. Lol😆😆

@darojos Жыл бұрын

I live near Seattle and have always thought of Boeing and the pride of the area. How far they fall...

@GenoSalvati Жыл бұрын

Ideally - NG buys Boeing Defense, giving Boeing Commercial Aviation the cash needed to create a new plane. NG and Boeing Defense have produced some good things together in the past (Black Widow, for example). This new organization would benefit from being separated from the struggling aviation business, and would find it easier to focus on just defense.

@raccoonstudios4458 Жыл бұрын

Airbus is and always has been a joint project of several European countries and I'd bet my bottom dollar that they receive significant research money from government, likely enough for launching major new airliners. Boeing correctly challenged this and should continue to do so. You can't directly compare the two companies because unlike airbus, money for commercial aviation for Boeing is funded by airplane sales and not government

@MentourNow Жыл бұрын

As discussed in the video, there are nuances here

@heidirabenau511 Жыл бұрын

Boeing does receive funding every now and again from Congress, that's why there was a whole trade deal between the US and EU.

@totalrecone Жыл бұрын

And Calhoun is still in the top job? How?

@kbtred51 11 ай бұрын

You should do a vid on AUTO-LAND (eliminating pilots). 1011 was first WIDE-BODY. From the outset, the DH.121 was planned to employ avionics that were very advanced for the period. Among other capabilities, they would offer automatic approach and landing within a few years of service entry. Completely automatic blind landing system was developed by Hawker Siddeley and Smiths Aircraft Instruments. It was capable of guiding the aircraft automatically during airfield approach, flare, touchdown and even roll-out from the landing runway. The system was intended to offer autoland by 1970. In the event, it enabled the Trident to perform the first automatic landing by a civil airliner in scheduled passenger service on 10 June 1965 and the first genuinely "blind" landing in scheduled passenger service on 4 November 1966.

@coriscotupi Жыл бұрын

16:02 - _"The Tristar [...] was the first airliner to have an autoland system"_ No, it was not. The HS-121 Trident had full autoland almost a decade before the Tristar's maiden flight. Great video, BTW. Keep them coming.

@peterheinzo515 Жыл бұрын

oh god hes starting to add in small mistakes to boost engagement too.. please stop its so annoying

@coriscotupi Жыл бұрын

@@peterheinzo515 That would be mean!

@vortmax1981 Жыл бұрын

I'm so glad you mentioned Starliner, because I'm a space geek and that's my go-to for Boeing incompetence. I can see the US government letting LockMart take over Boeing's space and defense side of ULA. but I think you're right about the passenger aircraft side.

@kenoliver8913 11 ай бұрын

Yes, a breakup of Boeing rather than a simple takeover looks much more likely, and would be much more effective in getting better products from them too. Lockheed is a natural buyer of their defence division, Embraer (if they can get the cash) of their commercial plane division. But no government anywhere - including Europe - will tolerate an Airbus monopoly in large commercial planes. Airbus must know that so they would not be amongst the bidders.

@t5ruxlee210 Жыл бұрын

Some say the ungolden touch of ex Douglas execs tracks all the way back to, at least, their supposed late start, rush job, "DC10 ambush" of the 1011...

@johnroberts2905 Жыл бұрын

16:11 - Hawker Siddeley Trident was the first with Autoland, used commercially years before the Tristar ever made a test flight...

@Dani-it5sy Жыл бұрын

I have worked at several transport companies with a huge fleet of trucks but they almost never run one brand for the whole fleet. Always at least 2 brands and quite equally divided. You will shoot yourself in the foot if you bind yourself to one supplier. There must be competition. If airlines all go for Airbus they basically ruin their own supply market.

@echo3201 Жыл бұрын

Smaller airlines tend to stick to their brand bc the knowledge build-up for the pilots & engineering staff is too costly when split. Only the largest airlines like American, Delta, United, Lufthansa, Emirates, Qatar etc operate both brands. When a small airline switches brand, that's a BFD in the industry because if they take on the cost of switching, that usually means they've considered the next 2 decades of purchases.

@Alucard-gt1zf Жыл бұрын

Yeah but you and your vans are a little bit different from airplanes now aren't you? Any monkey can drive a van but a pilot needs to be certified in all aircraft they fly in and that's a lot more time and money for an airline

@Dani-it5sy Жыл бұрын

@@Alucard-gt1zf Just by your language I know you have no clue what you are on about. Are you even a grownup?

@iwannaratrod Жыл бұрын

The sheer audacity of Calhoon saying he didn't know the depth of the issues. That is almost certainly a straight-up lie meant to save face. He was the head of the board of directors before becoming CEO. He was literally in charge of the body that made all major decisions during their issues. They "fired" the CEO, who executed what the board said to do......then replaced him with the guy that was literally telling him what to do. Boeing management is their own worst enemy and still has their head so far up their ass that they can't see the light of day. Also, Boeing is already government funded. They get a ton of government money and pay zero taxes.

@Full888. Жыл бұрын

Great video, Thanks Mentour👍I'm really in favor for the widebody double isle airplanes, such as the, 777, 787, A350 and my favorite the A380, really hope these will be successful flying for years to come,👍

@Perich29 Жыл бұрын

If I fly on narrow body planes it better be Airbus, Boeing does good job with their wide body planes than they do with narrow body planes.

@grahamstevenson1740 Жыл бұрын

Come on Mentour Pilot, you should know that fist autoland was installed on the Hawker Siddeley Trident, decades before the L-1011 flew one !

@kueller917 Жыл бұрын

The surprising partnerships aren't _too_ surprising when you remember this is business and not sports. Execs got money loyalty more than brand loyalty so no foul in working together if it can benefit both parties.