No video
Is Boeing Doomed?
Рет қаралды 137,703
Күн бұрынSign up for NordVPN and get an 4 EXTRA months using our link: www.NordVPN.com...
For decades, Boeing and Airbus have been dominating the plane market, but the recent issues with Boeing seemed to have pull Airbus ahead. So, in this video, we're going to take a look at the rivalry, the various problems afflicting Boeing, and whether this could be the beginning of the end for the aviation giant.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahE...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
1 - www.bloomberg....
2 - Robison, P. (2022). Flying blind: The 737 MAX tragedy and the Fall of Boeing.
3 - www.bbc.co.uk/...
4 - news.sky.com/s...
5 - www.bbc.co.uk/...
6 - www.bloomberg....
7 - www.bbc.co.uk/...
8 - www.economist....
9 - www.thetimes.c...
10 - www.ft.com/con...
11 - www.bloomberg....
12 - www.bbc.co.uk/...
13 - www.bbc.co.uk/...
14 - www.bloomberg....
15 - www.seattletim...
16 - edition.cnn.co...
17 - edition.cnn.co...
18 - www.statista.c...
19 - www.ft.com/con...
20 - www.bloomberg....
21 - edition.cnn.co...
22 - Robison, P. (2022). Flying blind: The 737 MAX tragedy and the Fall of Boeing.
23 - www.nytimes.co...
24 - www.faa.gov/ot...
25 - www.wsj.com/bu...
26 - Robison, P. (2022). Flying blind: The 737 MAX tragedy and the Fall of Boeing.
27 - www.ft.com/con...
28 - www.faa.gov/ne...
29 - www.bbc.co.uk/...
30 - www.thetimes.c...
31 - www.nytimes.co...
32 - www.ft.com/con...
33 - edition.cnn.co...
34 - www.bloomberg....
35 - www.bloomberg....
36 - www.bloomberg....
37 - www.economist....
00:00 - Introduction
01:15 - Boeing's Plane Problems
04:44 - Boeing's Relationship with Regulators
06:09 - How (Geo)politics has Hurt Boeing
07:27 - Sponsored Content
@TLDRbusiness 7 ай бұрын
CORRECTION: As eagle-eyed viewers have pointed out, at 2:12 the text on screen says "MACS" when we're talking about the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS (pronounced “M-CAS”). Apologies for this error - we hope you nonetheless enjoyed the video!
@MaxiTB 7 ай бұрын
TBTF - Too big to fail
@Geoff31818 7 ай бұрын
also the door supplier is "Spirit Aero systems" not Sprint
@KAOST1ST1C-FN 7 ай бұрын
Oh non, not another eagle eyed grammer nazi.
@Geoff31818 7 ай бұрын
Correction - Boeing are retrofitting two B747-8's that were for transaero. they arent building one specially.
@lxndrlbr 7 ай бұрын
Please consider putting in place proofreading steps to catch those errors which reduce significantly the perception of quality of your final product. I understand KZfaq does not make your job easier by not allowing to fix parts of video, making it even more important to get it right in one go. General congratulations though to all TLDR enterprises, I subscribed since Brexit time and have been gradually subscribing to all sister channels.
@HALLish-jl5mo 7 ай бұрын
Boeing is a company with a great future behind them
@ProlificMarketingEnterpr-rw5vd 7 ай бұрын
😂😂😂
@BoyeeSmudger 7 ай бұрын
Also flipped the saying If it's boeing, I ain't going!
@delta_cosmic 7 ай бұрын
are you sure about that?
@ilmarilah1195 7 ай бұрын
@@delta_cosmicyes
@ilhamrj2599 7 ай бұрын
hahaha nice play with words 😂😂
@stephenallen4635 7 ай бұрын
Americas biggest mistake was coming up with the phrase "too big to fail"
@ChadSimplicio 7 ай бұрын
Without that phrase, American companies like Boeing, Ford, & GM would be long gone by now. While there may be off-shoots of Ford & GM for building & maintaining pickup trucks, and Boeing could return as a military & NASA manufacturer, other companies would become a bigger norm for Americans.
@stephenallen4635 7 ай бұрын
@@ChadSimplicio yes without that phrase big mismanaged companies that keep getting into financial trouble would be gone
@SoulDuckling126 7 ай бұрын
Yep, in the actual market economy that the USA really loves to praise, most of those bastards already bit the dust long ago. But then we gotta protect ~Congress members~ pensioners investment!
@bowler7922 7 ай бұрын
Exactly, Just look at what online shopping did to malls! Everyone thought that malls were too big to fail and now many are closing!
@toyotaprius79 7 ай бұрын
Really? There's a genocide ongoing right now by Israel
@Keylevitation 7 ай бұрын
The FAA letting boeing do its own testing is like letting kids grade their own exams
@apveening 7 ай бұрын
To be fair to the FAA (not that I wish to), the FAA's hands were tied due to budget cuts by Congress.
@BoyeeSmudger 7 ай бұрын
@@apveening I heard on the grapevine that faa and Boeing knew about the issues before the 2018 disaster but didn't want to lose the lead they had on airbus at the time.
@apveening 7 ай бұрын
@@BoyeeSmudger Penny wise and pound foolish.
@Liberty2358 7 ай бұрын
FAA never ever has the right to tell OEM how to design and build airplanes. They just audit the written procedure, production and inspection records of the manufacturers in their oversight function. Delegating authority to OEM to inspect and audit for product acceptance is nothing new and nothing have changed. FAA never have the expertise to design and build a new airplane otherwise why would Boeing hire their own engineers? Why not just let FAA design the planes for Boeing?
@BoyeeSmudger 7 ай бұрын
@@Liberty2358 true, but it's the FAA that allow Boeing to design and manufacture in the first place. Sounds like your American so will know better than I, but just like Easa part 21, it gives the authority for a business to design and manufacture parts. This can always be taken away, just like a repair shop can lose its authority to sign off a repaired part. Not that it would ever happen, but perhaps the FAA need to start throwing their weight around - it seems like Boeing are putting the dollar over safety. The FAA haven't had a good time of late, what with the whole 5g fiasco. It's cost the industry millions of dollars to retrofit radio altimeters due to the fact the telecoms and the FAA hasn't communicated. Interested to what your views are that side of the pond, it seems the FAA are heavily understaffed.
@Arguewithyourmom 7 ай бұрын
Never forget that Boeing thought it better to forsake a proven manufacturing history to avoid paying union wages. Profit over EVERYTHING, even human life.
@Lando-kx6so 7 ай бұрын
It's the American way
@Da__goat 7 ай бұрын
The MAX aircraft are entirely union built. STFU
@Agtsmirnoff 7 ай бұрын
Umm, most Boeing workers are unionized.
@TheSkcube 6 ай бұрын
@@Agtsmirnoffthey build a second assembly facility to hire non-union workers and a lot of QC errors have been traced to that plant.
@Agtsmirnoff 6 ай бұрын
@@TheSkcube Source? Proof? Link?
@DOSFS 7 ай бұрын
Short answer, no Boeing isn't go anyway. But yes, they need REALLY MASSIVE shake up of the company.
@jameskeys971 7 ай бұрын
Shake up not shack up
@JimAllen-Persona 7 ай бұрын
@@jameskeys971 Could need a shack up too, politicans are a bit quirky in that area.
@jameskeys971 7 ай бұрын
@@JimAllen-Persona good one!
@mellewisselo8025 7 ай бұрын
@@jameskeys971doesnt he mean check up?
@patrickcannell2258 7 ай бұрын
Kick the profit mad bean counters out of top management!
@criticalevent 7 ай бұрын
Boeing is too big to fail, but they sure seem to be eager to test the limits of that.
@Embargoman 7 ай бұрын
In the military Lockheed Martin is eating Boeing's lunch and in the civil aviation market Airbus is eating Boeing's lunch. Soon Air Force One will be a Hercules plane all customized for the President of the USA even Lockheed Martin will make the Air Force One another butt hurt for Boeing.
@richardc020 7 ай бұрын
They had to move the company to DC to keep it alive with lobbying. It’s now a lobbying company.
@Agtsmirnoff 7 ай бұрын
Dude they had a far worse safety record in the 70s and 80s and survived just fine
@Embargoman 7 ай бұрын
@@Agtsmirnoff If Mitsubishi where to made jets then Boeing will be next in line to Fokker.
@Agtsmirnoff 7 ай бұрын
@@Embargoman I don't understand what you are saying.
@Interitus1 7 ай бұрын
A major issue was presented in a documentary i watched about how boeing used to be run by engineers, and so they made quality planes but it is now run by managers trying to make the largest profit and appease their shareholders. Boeing won't go anywhere, but it's going to take a lot for people to trust them the same way they used to.
@domfjbrown75 6 ай бұрын
The rot set in with the Macdonnell-Douglas merger - just took a couple of decades to filter through the system...
@AnthonyTolhurst-dw1nc 6 ай бұрын
If it’s Boeing, I’m NOT going. Until they get that 797 out (if they can, with real engineers, not Moneymen)!
@jpazinho 7 ай бұрын
Boeing decided to innovate by allowing airlines to maintain an open door policy with its 737 max 9
@AnthonyTolhurst-dw1nc 6 ай бұрын
Great laugh, ta
@alantunbridge8919 7 ай бұрын
I worked in the British aircraft industry in the 1960’s,where we used to receive reports from the Association of American Airlines detailing unexpected problems. 80% were Boeing 727, so the current situation is not new to them.
@midcenturymoldy 7 ай бұрын
1:38 Of course, in true KZfaq fashion, that photo of a crashed Lion Air 737 is neither the fatal crash in question nor even a 737 Max.
@carlosbarton763 7 ай бұрын
No fatalities whatsoever regarding the crashed plane in the photograph either
@getnohappy 7 ай бұрын
Boeing is a case study in Late Capitalism: take one of the world's greatest and profitable engineering firms and spend 20+ years running it like a private equity firm devoted to the short-term maximizing of shareholder value. No amount of shocks will change this, as those making the decisions make too much money from the latter approach.
@VeritasEtAequitas 7 ай бұрын
That's not late "capitalism". That's globalism under zxxnist control.
@Jay...777 7 ай бұрын
Boeing went for short term max money. The Max is inherently an unstable aircraft - the engines are in the wrong place - so it needs software to keep it stable. The Max should be scraped.
@HadenAndShit 7 ай бұрын
@@Jay...777Don't get me wrong, the Max is still a great plane. The Max was meant to hit the market where it was needed, a new variant of the same plane so that airlines didn't need to retrain their pilots, so they kept the same airframe, made more fuel efficient engines, but the engines in order to be more efficient needed to be bigger, so they had to introduce MCAS to make up for it. Not ideal, but I can see why the MAX became a thing. In general it is just these quality issues and training issues that need to be addressed.
@Jay...777 7 ай бұрын
Big expensive mistake, so lots of juicy excuses. lol None would be required if the plane flew without software.@@HadenAndShit
@baa0325 7 ай бұрын
“Late capitalism,” whatever. I’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes!
@Monkwrestler 7 ай бұрын
MACS? I thought it was MCAS? didn't know Apple had a hand in the crashes :P
@Nightzo 7 ай бұрын
The MACs are blowing the Windows out of aircrafts
@RMBPrograms 7 ай бұрын
1:36 - The top image does not show Lion Air flight 610, the first plane that crashed due to MCAS. Flight 610 crashed at a steep nose-down attitude at over 350 kts. There would never be such a well-preserved wreck after that immensely violent impact. I assume this is an image of Lion Air flight 904?
@rubyjohn 7 ай бұрын
Thanks for your great work. Correction at 2:12 - It should be MCAS, not MACS 🍎 lol
@luphaestus 7 ай бұрын
He even said mcas lol. How did they not notice
@smalltime0 7 ай бұрын
@@luphaestus ikr I thought I was having a stroke
@zenster1097 7 ай бұрын
Quality control issues like Boeing. Lol.
@laurensnieuwland4657 7 ай бұрын
Just a heads up, the picture of a deadly crash at the beginning of the video is from Turkish Airlines flight 1951, NOT one of the deadly 737 MAX crashes. Said flight crashed due to a faulty radio altimeter, and pilot error.
@Elephanthajsnen 7 ай бұрын
How can you misspell MCAS on your most prominent graphic used throughout the video?
@ElysiumCreator 7 ай бұрын
The incredible documentary Downfall: The Case Against Boeing in its middle third really goes into depth about how bad Boeing’s corporate and safety culture is, I’d recommend anyone who is interested to watch it.
@aycc-nbh7289 7 ай бұрын
And how come no similar documentaries about Airbus exist, given that they still have yet to fix their landing gear issue that has been plaguing them for 20 years?
@neelkrishna 7 ай бұрын
@@aycc-nbh7289I guess because 350 people didn’t just die on an airbus
@aycc-nbh7289 7 ай бұрын
@@neelkrishnaThey very well could have if things went any more awry than they did.
@errorsofmodernism7331 7 ай бұрын
It is clear at this point that Boeing has a systemic problem and this is not an isolated issue. When I book flights now I deliberately seek airlines that fly Airbus or older Boeing products like the 777.
@apveening 7 ай бұрын
You are not the only one and I've heard/read stories of travel agencies carrying extra insurance for rebooking for travelers who specifically insisted on not flying with certain aircraft in case the originally planned aircraft is being replaced with one the traveler does not accept.
@Liberty2358 7 ай бұрын
The probable cause in this case is likely to be worker caused. This type of error is difficult if not impossible to eliminate entirely. Even with 100% inspection you still will need to rely of the integrity of the workers to not alter or perform unauthorized rework on the airplane. Until we can eliminate people from the entire production and quality system, we cannot completely eliminate people caused problems and compromise a complex product such as an airplane.
@apveening 7 ай бұрын
@@Liberty2358 But it can be minimized by making sure the workers take pride in their workmanship and allowing them to do their job properly. Part of that is proper remuneration and no excessive salaries (and bonuses) for manglement. Ford understood that when he started his assembly lines and paid his workers enough to afford their own model T.
@gaborrajnai6213 7 ай бұрын
The 777 is an awesome plane.
@Liberty2358 7 ай бұрын
@@apveening Boeing did minimize the amount of people caused error by their procedure that is why flying have never been safer since 1960. However, one can never prevent an insane co-pilot or pilot from crashing their planes, I believe we have had several cases in recent years.
@portcybertryx222 7 ай бұрын
I think the government won’t allow Boeing to quit. They still have a large portfolio and though the 737 is a core part of their commercial orders Airbus is simply too overwhelmed to take up any new orders right now so as long as Boeing can sort out its QC issues airlines will still be reliant even if begrudgingly. Also Airbus has had its own issues with the A350 and has its supply chain issues though to a much lesser extent than Boeing.
@BoyeeSmudger 7 ай бұрын
Used to work at the site where they manufacture the rear spars for -900 and -1000. There were no major issues for the rear spars, nor can I remember any other issues?
@mulholandalcoholic 7 ай бұрын
@@BoyeeSmudger They had some teething trouble with the A350 paint, nothing related to safety. You can google Qatar Airways vs Airbus
@iangill8984 7 ай бұрын
@@mulholandalcoholic I was on a TUI 787 and noticed the wing covered with patches of tape and different colours of paint, it looked like a school arts project! I spoke to a friend who is an aircraft engineer, it was a paint issue. It appears similar to the A350 issue, both aircraft have lots of composite material.
@dimitristsekeris1821 7 ай бұрын
What do you mean "Airbus is too overwhelmed"?
@portcybertryx222 7 ай бұрын
@@dimitristsekeris1821 they have a lot of backlog of current orders and their manufacturing lines are at capacity
@relucentsandman6447 7 ай бұрын
"plagued by issues" is one way to say "a series of self inflicted errors and unforced blunders" 😂
@apainintheaas 7 ай бұрын
Boeing is to big to fail. US government would not let that happen. Seeing Airbus, as the smaller player, profit from the situation is probably not bad. Forces the giant Boeing to put in the work and up it's game. Edit: Airbus isn't smaller, my knowledge was outdated. I have been corrected in the comments.
@random-username5 7 ай бұрын
America doesn't care
@normanedwards7220 7 ай бұрын
The u.s. goverment are not the people who decide if Boeing succeed or fail , it is the airlines of the world who decide that , at this moment in time Boeing are not in their good books , a grounded Boeing is just a large investment, not earning anything , and costing a lot of money every second it sits there , the competitors with airbus fleets are laughing all the way to the bank , even some American airlines are flying airbus
@kenoliver8913 7 ай бұрын
Hell, not just the US government. No other government would tolerate a world monopoly in commercial airliners either. The EU would probably deal with it by breaking Airbus up, the Chinese would immediately pour trillions into a whole range of clean sheet designs for COMAC, and a whole host of other governments would probably offer some bailout money in return for shares in Boeing. BTW Airbus is not the smaller player. Airbus make and sell more considerably more airliners than Boeing. Where Boeing is bigger is in defence.
@smallfox8623 7 ай бұрын
Airbus isn’t the smaller player in civilian aviation anymore
@lubo5651 7 ай бұрын
@andreassag And this aren´t even the correct numbers. Boeing has 6216 unfilled orders and Airbus has 8598 unfilled orders. And btw Boeing made a loss of 5.053 billion USD in 2022 where as Airbus made a profit of 4.247 billion USD.
@dustinabigan2776 7 ай бұрын
Somewhat obvious answer is that the company isn't doomed, but it doesn't help that Boeing once claimed that the MAX is safe after solving MCAS then now a door from a MAX plane fails. Airlines would likely continue to order the plane because the A320NEO has a quite the backlog and the C919 is still in early production, but companies would likely be less trustful of Boeing's aircraft quality (which could be the case for whether or not airlines would want to lease certain aircraft over others). Chances are increased FAA scrutiny could also lead to even more faults being identified if the rabbit hole goes that deep. So if anything this could be another tip of the iceburg that leads to even more problems for Boeing. With the kind of culture they've had since McDonnell Douglas, the past few years have basically been about the company reaping what they've sowed.
@hus390 7 ай бұрын
MCAS was a different problem that impacted all Max family. This one is a problem of specific type/series Max-8 with the plug in the middle.
@itsme-vw5yo 7 ай бұрын
@@hus390 Max 9 not 8
@dimitristsekeris1821 7 ай бұрын
Boeing is America's "free market" in a nutshell.
@davidblair9877 7 ай бұрын
Free market for the workers, socialism for the employers.
@JenniferA886 7 ай бұрын
MCAS… not MACS
@jimpad5608 7 ай бұрын
While the COMAC C919 is very unlikely to be purchased by a European or American carrier, China is offering very deep discounts on the C919 to Asian carriers. Because of the massive problems at Boeing and the decades long order backlog at Airbus, the C919 could grab a significant market share in Asia and Africa causing further financial problems for Boeing.
@Embargoman 7 ай бұрын
I see that to say with Petro in Colombia is going to be Avianca doing a big fat order of COMAC planes and other Colombian airlines are either buying COMAC or Airbus probably, Gustavo Petro might ban Boeing products in Colombia for good and his plane will be an Airbus.
@NeostormXLMAX 6 ай бұрын
based amerimutts seething
@TisDansk 5 ай бұрын
@@NeostormXLMAX🤓
@Anirossa 7 ай бұрын
Boeing became a Ford of the sky. Profits over the lives of their customers.
@gaborrajnai6213 7 ай бұрын
Oh the whole MCAS was invented because the 737 MAX is inherently an unsafe plane. Its jet engines were redesigned after the hull was completed. This gave more lift ahead of the plane's center of gravity, which means, if the pilot does not interact with the yoke, the plane does not put its nose downwards, thatswy gaining speed, but it puts its nose upwards, thatswhy its easier to stall. The solution of the problem was the MCAS, which wouldnt let the pilots to stall the plane, but it was always a bandaid to cheat basic physics. It had its accidents during takeoff, because if the MCAS decided that the pilot pull up the yoke too agressively after leaving the ground, it would by design push the nose downwards, and there was simply not enough altitude to correct the mistake.
@gh8447 7 ай бұрын
When you make statements like _'the 737 MAX is inherently an unsafe plane'_ followed by calling the fuselage a _'hull'_ followed saying the engines _'gave more lift'..._ my dude, stop. Go back and research the topic more thoroughly.
@gaborrajnai6213 7 ай бұрын
They originally planned to use Pratt and Whitney engines, but then Canadians came up with the CFM LEAP engines, which are more fuel efficient, although 20 percent bigger. Add salt to the injury CMF worked in tandem with Airbus, so the engine was designd to be compatible with the A320 Neo. The size of the engines generates the additional lift, not the torque, and Boeing instead of redesigning the hull, decided to solve the issue by software adjustments. Thatshow the MCAS was born. There was a little bit of a political battle over the decision, since the US president, who I dont remember which was at the time, didnt want a Canadian powerplant for American planes, so he went into a little trade war with Canada, thatshow Airbus acquired the engine. Then when Boeing realized, that the A320 NEO will be more fuel economical than the 737 MAX, literally begged to the Whitehouse to let them use it, because they know its a primary choice for any airline to have fuel efficient planes. @@gh8447
@Jay...777 7 ай бұрын
Boeing went for short term max money. The Max is inherently an unstable aircraft - the engines are in the wrong place - so it needs software to keep it stable. The Max should be scraped.
@wanderingfido 7 ай бұрын
Has anyone seen the new meme? "I accidentallly put my phone in airplane mode and my front door blew off."
@napoleonibonaparte7198 6 ай бұрын
Boeing has never been synonymous with safety, especially their 737s. Meanwhile, Airbus almost always looks at Boeing planes and see where they could improve theirs.
@JuanCAraujoS 7 ай бұрын
Don't take Embraer (the brazilian aircraft manufacturer) off your radar. They have been serving smaller airlines in Latin America which used to be Boeing customers. Those smaller markets might hurt Boeing's finances by a thusand cuts, if you know what I mean.
@FameyFamous 7 ай бұрын
Embraer is a big player in the regional jet market, but they don’t compete with Airbus and Boeing long and medium haul passenger planes.
@JuanCAraujoS 7 ай бұрын
@@FameyFamous Then again, this was a Market dominated by Boeing not long ago. That's what I'm talking about.
@FameyFamous 7 ай бұрын
@@JuanCAraujoS are you thinking of the Boeing 717? It was developed by MD and killed by Boeing a few years after the merger. I don't think Boeing has been a major player in the regional jet market. But I agree with you that it would be nice to see someone like Embraer rise up to challenge the duopoly. (I'm impressed that Comac developed a plane. They haven't proven that they can develop mass production capacity.)
@chunchoi4434 7 ай бұрын
I don't see it ending well Bombardier decided to up it's game and get into the market between regional and short range single aisle, and the company is not just gone.
@phildane7411 6 ай бұрын
@@FameyFamous It was only in ~ 2000, that The Times said that Airbus' aim to equal Boeing was a silly fantasy, and look at the situation now. It's not impossible that Embraer could become a major player.
@TheSithTeacher 7 ай бұрын
MACS = Maneuver Assisting Crash System @02:12 😅
@carlosfurukawa6133 7 ай бұрын
Guys, sorry to bother but please check out the details of your video.. MCAS, not MACS. Also, the airplanes fallen in 2018 were not from Alaska airlines.. you guys can do better!
@adioosdiditi 7 ай бұрын
Propped up by military contracts, Boeing isn't going anywhere. I wish it would just go away. That company is making flying so unsafe for the rest of the world. Why should the rest of us suffer??
@benwilliams4699 7 ай бұрын
The image of a Lion Air aircraft in water at 1:41 is of flight 904 that crashed short of the runway in 2013 with no fatalities. The 737 Max accident was in 2018.
@oldskoolmusicnostalgia 7 ай бұрын
A complacent company that has forsaken its leadership, near-monopoly position which it enjoyed until the 1970s. Airbus has been a rare but massive European success story that started from almost nothing, they deserve a lot of credit.
@argo9750 7 ай бұрын
Airbus started from nothing, but with massive backing of European countries. Airbus did very well after being Kickstarted, but it's not really from nothing.
@Dpmt 6 ай бұрын
Boeing has been on the decline since the McDonnell Douglas merger. It’s been said that McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money. I think a key indicator was when the corporate HQ was moved from Seattle, where the engineers were, to Chicago.
@billbarr7591 7 ай бұрын
Never mind the advertising junk about keeping yourself safe on-line...keep yourself safe travelling by air by avoiding Boeing 737 MAX junk and book alternatives where available. Personally I would not sit in a MAX even if it was a cheap fare.
@omegaRST 6 ай бұрын
Boeing: "you dont need a door to fly" Ryanair CEO: "WRITE THAT DOWN"
@firefly4f4 7 ай бұрын
This is also the same company that says they can't make money on fixed price contracts (eg, Starliner). Which I take to mean that they're doing a combination of the following: * Bidding low to win the contract * Greatly nderestimating how much their design will cost * Figuring they'll still be able to somehow get compensated for unforeseen expenses
@Dexemplu 7 ай бұрын
Hey guys, just some feedback: you need to either clean your camera lens better / more often or replace the lens if its damaged. Whenever you cut to the desk, I feel like my glasses are dirty 😅 thanks for the videos!
@Luke-xw6xx 7 ай бұрын
9:18 The Picture is from an incident in Bali in 2013, not the recent crash!
@tylerpentecost9669 6 ай бұрын
Does flying and surviving in a modern Boeing aircraft count towards death-defying feats (like whitewater rafting) that make somebody a badass?
@MidwestTrainsAndTrucks 6 ай бұрын
No. These airplane incidents are very rare. Even flying on a 737 Max 9 is still very much safer than driving a car.
@clariesat 6 ай бұрын
Yes
@andrewcox4386 7 ай бұрын
Boeing likes to keep mentioning Spirit but as the type certificate holder they are responsible for oversight of their suppliers and in this case the checking & sign off of the fitting of the door plug was Boeing's responsibility
@johnchristmas7522 6 ай бұрын
100% Correct
@MartinJordan 7 ай бұрын
Man. The errors and typos in this made me leave. The lack of attention to detail makes me question the entire content.
@Flowreac 7 ай бұрын
The fact that they were allowed to certify and assess themselves is beyond negligent. What a surprise that according to Boeing, Boeing met and still meets regulatory requirements.
@adriancooper78 7 ай бұрын
Did Boeing do Bombardier dirty awhile back with the A220 aircraft?
@tobiwan001 7 ай бұрын
In the past the military contracts were sufficient so sibsidize the civilian business. Overvalued contracts, corruption during the tender process like with the KC-46 tanker and US hyper-protectionism have saved the company so far from total failure. As the biggest American exporter they will continue to feed them with money no matter how bad their products get. That's probably not a good idea, but the US government has in the past always done what Boeing told them to.
@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031 6 ай бұрын
And the american economists continues criticizing the asian model of capitalism, but they basically do the same, but without the japanese or korean quality... And when the american products have quality, they are expensive and the companies are extorsive (like Apple, for example).
@tobiwan001 6 ай бұрын
@@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031 well. The economists are right. The USA is just creating private monopolies that‘s why GDP keeps increasing but most people don’t get any benefits from the growth. The US is now capitalist but no longer a market economy. Economists are right to point out that this is flawed.
@carlosgd8903 7 ай бұрын
The Lion Air picture is wrong. After the crash into the ocean, there was nothing left
@tanmaygupta5504 7 ай бұрын
Boeing's problems came in the 1990s when they wanted to merge with McDonnell Douglas. In the 1990s, the Boeing 737 had issues with unauthorized rudder commands (rudder is the part that turns the plane, mostly right or left). There were two crashes that killed 150 people. They then merged with McDonnell. In the 2000s, there were numerous issues with the development of the 787. In 2018 and 2019, there was the Max issues. Now there are issues with the Max once again. Essentially, since 1989, Boeing has had manufacturing problems, such that it allowed for the rapid rise of Airbus. It's gonna take another 30 years to change the culture of Boeing again back to manufacturing safe planes. God help us all until then.
@andrewlucey6601 7 ай бұрын
Why do you show a Ryanair plane flying just above the flames in your front caption ?
@cobaltblue1975 7 ай бұрын
And that's just their airplanes. They aren't doing so hot in the spacecraft division either.
@stickynorth 7 ай бұрын
It certainly doesn't help that companies image. I for one will never fly on a Boeing product when their are safer and better alternatives from Airbus and Embraer...
@crearekrelnein2601 5 ай бұрын
Unfortunately passengers don’t have a choice when it comes to flying which plane You get what the Airline purchases
@davidwestwoodharrison 7 ай бұрын
MCAS typo, chaps.
@moy2010 7 ай бұрын
Boeing: Our planes are super safe. Source? Trust me, bro.
@redbarchetta8782 7 ай бұрын
Boeing management spent the last 20 years moving further and further from where Boeing planes are manufactured in favor for military contracts. Look where Boeing headquarters are now based to find that answer. BCA is not as important to Boeing as their military side is now.
@rjeffm1 7 ай бұрын
Its a bit ironic that a video whose subject is founded in quality issues can't get a 4 letter acronym right. Presumably the reasons it wasn't fixed are similar. Otherwise, a good video
@markvolpe2305 7 ай бұрын
This all boils down to the management of Boeing being run by bean counters instead of engineers like it use to prior to the merger with McDonnell Douglass.
@ludwigtails 7 ай бұрын
In short. If Boeing is still able to get more than 100+ order everyday with their 787. No, they won’t go out of business.
@Perich29 7 ай бұрын
Boeing needs to end production on 737 Max and only do wide body planes and leave the narrow body planes to Airbus and Embraer.
@schrama007 7 ай бұрын
why is your studio looking misty?
@CO84trucker 7 ай бұрын
When one door closes, another one opens!
@crearekrelnein2601 5 ай бұрын
How does the acronym MACS stand for “Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System” Do you think i’m dyslexic or are my eyes cheating on me?
@akwasiboat 6 ай бұрын
*You mentioned the country Addis Ababa is located in but, didn't do same for Jakarta.*
@JAYFULFILMZ 5 ай бұрын
Boeing has reported negative earnings consecutively since 2021! With their safety reputation being so low nowadays, bankruptcy is definitely on the horizon if something doesn’t happen soon! They are in extreme danger!
@mshotz1 7 ай бұрын
Another American company destroyed by "Business Majors" H-P used to be one of the premier tech companies in the world and build most of their high-end equipment in the USA, providing good jobs that paid well. Then a Business Major ran the company into ground trying to "Maximize Shareholder Value." Now Boeing. The US Railroad network is suffering the same fate.
@none941 7 ай бұрын
Boeing Commercial could be shuttered while the other divisions sail along. Frankly, it is no more than Boeing deserves after selling-out their previous engineering excellence to make the McDonnell-Douglas merger deal. The bean counters took over and the current state of affairs, quality-wise, is the natural and unfortunate result.
@domfjbrown75 6 ай бұрын
Merging with McDonnell-Douglas really mucked up their safety culture... Profits before people. Well, the value of shares can go down as well as up, and they'll tank for Boeing pretty quick at this rate...
@fra93ilgrande 6 ай бұрын
True that. I thinks the 737 Max is like a modern DC-10 💀 🛩️ 💥 Meanwhile Airbus now: 🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿
@jocelynharris-fx8ho 7 ай бұрын
Boeing forgot, that they were once the Industry standard and everyone looked up to THEM. It's heartbreaking when I look back and remember, how seeing the Boeing name evoked pride and confidence. They stood for quality, safety and sophistication but no more. This is another case of a great American company losing it's way. How far the mighty have fallen. 😮 Is it too late to put this " Humpty Dumpty" back together again ?
@kuromyou7969 6 ай бұрын
They got too big for their britches and stopped innovating.
@otrab1080 7 ай бұрын
It looks like your camera is heavily smudged or your room is full of fog.
@user-eg6pt8rs3l 6 ай бұрын
Nothing is forever.
@Sir_Uncle_Ned 7 ай бұрын
Boeing aren't just an aircraft company. They're an aeroSPACE company helping make SLS happen and experiencing another dumpster fire in the form of the Boeing StarLiner, a space capsule that is built on a fixed price contract rather than the traditional space industry Cost Plus contract which means Boeing are absolutely haemorrhaging money with the various failures on that project, having to fly two more test flights than they had planned for entirely on their dime. Meanwhile their main competitor SpaceX are making launches of their Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule so routine that they've become literally the most reliable spacecraft ever built. With the Falcon 9 enjoying 100% mission success across 96 launches in 2023 with the only failure being a Falcon 9 first stage falling over on the recovery barge in rough seas, and that was the 19th launch for that particular first stage where the original design of the Falcon 9 Block 5 predicted 10 flights before requiring disposal. That can't exactly be helping matters.
@Liberty2358 7 ай бұрын
Graphics errors, wrong Lion Air on the water, MCAS not MACS. You should check and compare the number of AD from the FAA against Airbus and Boeing Airplanes. Airbus has plenty of ADs against their AP.
@gh8447 7 ай бұрын
Airworthiness Directives are not uncommon and usually not that big a deal (though they can be). Generally they are just 'bug fixes' that the regulatory body (FAA, EASA, etc.) considers important enough to mandate and set a limit on how soon the 'fix' should be embodied. Grounding an aircraft is another thing entirely.
@Liberty2358 7 ай бұрын
@@gh8447 You are right, ADs are common for all airplanes regardless of OEM. However, many of the AD will "ground" the airplane because the airlines cannot fly them without the corrective action to remove the "unsafe conditions" listed on the AD. United Airline has to pull dozens their oldest 777 out of service to fix an issue with the P&W Engine a couple of years ago. These planes were effectively grounded without a formal grounding. FAA in this case may have overreacted due to political pressure. As the door plug issue appears to be human caused (by the workers) and not with the proven design of the plug or management interference.
@gh8447 7 ай бұрын
@@Liberty2358 Yes, that is also true; an AD can technically 'ground' an aircraft by mandating immediate (i.e.: before further flight) corrective action. I was differentiating that from when a regulatory body 'grounds' an aircraft preventing further flight until corrective action is carried out (or occasionally revoking the type certificate grounding it permanently!) The door plug issue does look like human error on installation, but I've not seen anything yet (I've not been following _that_ closely) that rules out an error in the accomplishment instructions...
@Liberty2358 7 ай бұрын
@@gh8447 Political theatric is more important than actually removing "unsafe conditions" from real airplanes. FAA did not ground the oldest 777 with P&W engines even though the ADs took dozens of planes out of service at United Airlines. The root cause was metal fatigue of the fan blade but one of the AD require rework with the T/R and Boeing did a great job and help UAL get those 1990s 777 back into service. Ref (United Flight 328).
@michaelmayhem350 7 ай бұрын
For anyone who wants more info on this, there's a very well done documentary on Netflix about Boeing & how basically they merged with McConnell-Douglas and everything went down the tube.
@Bruss390 7 ай бұрын
They haven’t merged with Ryanair? Do you mean partnered with or something?
@michaelmayhem350 7 ай бұрын
@@Bruss390 sorry was reading about them in the news while typing. I fixed my comment lol
@JimAllen-Persona 7 ай бұрын
@@Bruss390 Merged with Ryanair? Yeah, that makes sense. I think they meant Douglas. See what happens when you let AI write your comments? :-)
@sadmanh0 7 ай бұрын
that sounds like propaganda from Boeing execs honestly, just throwing all the blame on a company that hasn't existed for decades and most ppl have never heard of.
@BrySkye 7 ай бұрын
@@sadmanh0 A fair bit of the Boeing upper management are former McDonnel-Douglas people (ie, they kind of failed upwards). It's more a complaint that's come from the lower/actual engineering levels within Boeing and outside observers rather than Boeing execs.
@TopShot501st 7 ай бұрын
Airbus lost lots of money betting on the A380
@Blank00 6 ай бұрын
To be fair, the AOG scandal is in no way Boeing’s fault. If this is Boeing’s fault, then Airbus must also be blamed.
@aniladivishnu7960 7 ай бұрын
In most of the videos, people in the comments section are saying that in the past Boeing used to build safer planes, while it is somewhat true, they have to remember that cargo door opening in the 747 thrust reverser deploying in flight in the 767 Are the issues which Boeing knew about But now the unsafe practices has been ramp up
@c0d3warrior 7 ай бұрын
Good video, except one thing: The parts of the video recording yourself seem grayish/foggy. Possible issues with converting between different color spaces?
@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031 6 ай бұрын
3:12 looks like the insede of a military helicopter from vietnam era, but without the machinegun.
@chrisb9143 6 ай бұрын
Airbus: "Money money money!" Europe: "Taxes taxes taxes!" Everyone else: "time to start building rails and trains"
@Entertainment- 7 ай бұрын
Says MCAS *shows MACS*
@cernanoliveros3407 6 ай бұрын
The problem is not the implementation of mcas to avoid building and certifying an entirely new plane, the problem is boeing knew to how make that mcas safer only that it was offered as an extra but not part of the standard package
@TheTferrer 7 ай бұрын
Boeing needs to stop boinging around and get serious about quality control.
@alexandersheppard1997 7 ай бұрын
I won't fly on any boeing product anymore. This company doesn't give a shit about safety.
@ferminromero2602 7 ай бұрын
Excellent documentary. The US business system of stock price and MBAs running companies sacrifice long term performance for short term gains and executive bonuses. Engineers must return to the helm for the sake of aviation safety and economic stability. This is only one industry of many afflicted by egos over common sense.
@ferminromero2602 6 ай бұрын
Thanks for the clarification. @@DaveP-uv1ml
@Mr._Pollo 6 ай бұрын
2:17 MACS? What about MCAS?
@johnchristmas7522 6 ай бұрын
As a bystander, with no axe to grind. I find it very strange that many people dont realise just how serious things are for Boeing. First you had the situation where Boeing of old joined with McDonald Douglas (not a great name, the DC10 comes to mind). Then finds itself being run by McDonald Douglas management-we all saw where that went with the MAX debacle. The 'new' management has the same ethos-Wall St first. Now we have yet another MAX fiasco. Unfortunately, this does not stay within the bounds of America, its now world wide. Where people and companies could rely on Boeing to build good safe aircraft. Thats disappearing fast. Added to that, is now after years, the FAA has done what it should have done years ago, stopped the certification until things are SAFE. This adds to Boeings problems because huge customers are waiting for their aircraft. United and South West now cant expand and grow and will be forced to look elsewhere. It wont be Airbus because, they too are struggling with deliveries. So who? Comac? they would just LOVE an order. That would be the final nail in the coffin for Boeing. I feel sad for all the good clever people of Boeing who have been sold short by bad management. Lets truly hope, that the Boeing management see the error of their ways and change, otherwise things look grim...
@yaboytaha 7 ай бұрын
I don’t think the US government would let Boeing fail. It’s arguably the biggest airplane manufacturer and they make important civilian and defense aircraft, so them failing would be bad for airlines and governments. Quality control at Boeing has dwindled massively since their merger with McDonnell Douglas and going public on the stock market. They should sort that out ASAP.
@delta_cosmic 7 ай бұрын
USA is gonna defend Boeing as much as possible, it's just that for passengers or even those who are into engineering, it's just cringe to see boeing not paying attention to the details.
@Embargoman 7 ай бұрын
Probably they are going to let Lockheed Martin kill Boeing!
@kuromyou7969 6 ай бұрын
They've also stopped innovating too. Figured they were so big, they didn't have to. Then Airbus swooped in.
@smynhn47 7 ай бұрын
Should have never canceled the 757.
@Jin-Ro 7 ай бұрын
Airbus overtook Boeing 4 years ago, they had ~62% market share in 2019. Now that the doors are falling off Boeing, literally and figuratively, that will only increase. Your researchers need to research more 🙄
@ritzrocco494 7 ай бұрын
I like how sources are included
@TheRuben_music 6 ай бұрын
Airbus 320neo are AMAZING to fly with. Just had 4 flights this week.
@waltbroedner4754 6 ай бұрын
Boeing owns the US government, most politicians own their stock, so it will only fail when the US government fails. Barack Obama “I’m expecting a gold watch from Boeing at the end of my presidency, because I know that I’m on the list of top salesmen at Boeing”
@Hype7media 6 ай бұрын
I wonder how much of the old Macdonald Douglas staff and operating procedures are still prevalent throughout the now Boeing company since the merger the current boeing logo is actually the MacDonald Douglas logo
@yellowboeing6030 7 ай бұрын
No no not near cruising altitude, not even half way.
@BadByte 6 ай бұрын
Let's not forget Sprint aerosystems IS Boeing, used to be Boeing but now a daughter company. Technicalities lawyers love to argue over but for the layman they are Boeing.
@smalltime0 7 ай бұрын
Fun thing about the air force one contract, the air force wanted the replacement to adhere to FAA regulations (the previous ones didn't need to). The current issues with MCAS/parts/exploding doors probably means that the planes will have to undergo a full FAA certification process
@frankpinmtl 6 ай бұрын
"A spot of bother..." Classic British understatement