New Air Force One

[Llarry]

In 2018, the USAF obtained two near zero-time Boeing 747-8I airframes for conversion into next-generation presidential transport aircraft. The expensive project was to result in an IOC of 2024 for the two VC-25Bs, allowing the retirement of the long-serving VC-25As.

Hold on to your hats, because this project has gone way over budget and way over timeline. I don't know what the currently projected costs is; I'm an American taxpayer and I don't have the heart to find out. But the current completion date is 2029. Eleven years to convert already built aircraft!

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

Hold on to your hats, because this project has gone way over budget and way over timeline. I don't know what the currently projected costs is; I'm an American taxpayer and I don't have the heart to find out. But the current completion date is 2029. Eleven years to convert already built aircraft!

I think we all can understand the needs for new VC-25s, and the specialized requirements for its mission.
But 11 years for a upgrade to existing aircraft?
And to think it took about the same time to conceive, design, build and fly the first 757.
Years ago, I had such confidence in Boeing, especially compared to the ScareBus, that I would tell ticket sales, "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going."
I really don't know what has happened at Boeing that allowed it to fall from being the standard bearer as the best aircraft in the world.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I think we all can understand the needs for new VC-25s, and the specialized requirements for its mission.
But 11 years for a upgrade to existing aircraft?
And to think it took about the same time to conceive, design, build and fly the first 757.
Years ago, I had such confidence in Boeing, especially compared to the ScareBus, that I would tell ticket sales, "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going."

Same.

I really don't know what has happened at Boeing that allowed it to fall from being the standard bearer as the best aircraft in the world.

In short, they went from being engineer led and product focused, to being finance led and profit focused. This following an insidious merger with McDonnell Douglas. The former is an industry-wide problem. Boeing is hurting the most in part because they’re the biggest. There is also a massive generational shift happening across skilled labor and engineering right now- experienced employees are retiring, and there replacements aren’t up to speed yet.

Here is one article that outlines the problem.

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago | Working Knowledge

www.library.hbs.edu

 

[Griz882]

In short, they went from being engineer led and product focused, to being finance led and profit

Are you sure it wasn’t being “woke?” I keed…I keed…what has happened at Boeing is a shame and I hope they can get the old mojo back.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Are you sure it wasn’t being “woke?” I keed…I keed…

I chuckled. Sadly, that is probably the excuse that will be used by the mindless narcissists currently in control.

what has happened at Boeing is a shame and I hope they can get the old mojo back.

Agreed!

 

[Faded Float Coat]

From Everett Herald, "President Donald Trump, furious about delays in delivering two new Air Force One jets, has empowered Elon Musk to explore drastic options to prod Boeing to move faster, including relaxing security clearance standards for some who work on the presidential planes. His administration has even discussed whether a luxury jet could be acquired and refitted during the wait, according to five people with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe closely held deliberations."

 

[Random8145]

One thing I've also read is Boeing HAD to change from how it originally was. It was extremely engineering-focused, which it could afford to be because of a lack of competition. The engineers cared strictly about designing world-class airplanes an not at all about controlling cost. But as competition began appearing, Boeing's lack of financial control became a liability and some controls had to be implemented. Long story short is they went way too far with that and undid too much of the engineering culture.

 

[Faded Float Coat]

One thing I've also read is Boeing HAD to change from how it originally was. It was extremely engineering-focused, which it could afford to be because of a lack of competition. The engineers cared strictly about designing world-class airplanes an not at all about controlling cost.

That's a false binary that plagues many companies. A company can produce quality products for a profit, but it becomes a question of how much profit; there is a tipping point. Boeing found it. Adding Musk to the mix will not improve any part of the situation.

 

[Griz882]

That's a false binary that plagues many companies. A company can produce quality products for a profit, but it becomes a question of how much profit; there is a tipping point. Boeing found it. Adding Musk to the mix will not improve any part of the situation.

By profits I think you mean stock-holder share value. We are, without a doubt, in an odd place where share-holder is almost the entire focus of most corporations (as opposed to engineering for example). Any CEO being told that “better engineering is the way to go, but it will come with a loss to stock value.” Will immediately reply - “So what are the other options?” probably followed by by some shouting about “efficiency” and “lean six sigma.”

 

[BigRed389]

Attended a class where one of the units was taught by a retired CFO of one of the Big 5. He spoke about how the influence of the MBA and Finance types (speaking as formerly having been one) was what was driving companies and their decision makers. To put it simply, corporate leadership is incentivized by the metrics that net them bonuses (personally).

So, company culture tends to focus on short term goals to show profitability (quarterly reports) or stock prices. The stock market particularly drives this as the reality is most investors don’t have the time or knowledge base to really understand the long term economics of an industry (the micro to macro level depth and big picture).

This was in response to…why the hell wouldn’t a US shipyard that knows it has a guaranteed demand signal for decades to come (assuming America didn’t take a giant dump) invest some of their profits back to ensure they can remain technologically viable and relevant, and perform better long term? Answer was it went past the time horizon they give a shit about.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Any CEO being told that “better engineering is the way to go, but it will come with a loss to stock value.” Will immediately reply - “So what are the other options?” probably followed by by some shouting about “efficiency” and “lean six sigma.”

I may be unfairly biased, but for me, those terms have become synonymous with “compromise the product”. The latter one really gets my hackles up, particularly since it is couched in tacticool marketing terms. At some point, the product becomes so compromised, it doesn’t do the job anymore. Customers tend to notice that.

The world doesn’t need more PMPs and lean six sigma super ninjaku keyboard warriors. It needs solid engineers and skilled labor technicians.

Just my opinion.

 

[Random8145]

Attended a class where one of the units was taught by a retired CFO of one of the Big 5. He spoke about how the influence of the MBA and Finance types (speaking as formerly having been one) was what was driving companies and their decision makers. To put it simply, corporate leadership is incentivized by the metrics that net them bonuses (personally).

So, company culture tends to focus on short term goals to show profitability (quarterly reports) or stock prices. The stock market particularly drives this as the reality is most investors don’t have the time or knowledge base to really understand the long term economics of an industry (the micro to macro level depth and big picture).

This was in response to…why the hell wouldn’t a US shipyard that knows it has a guaranteed demand signal for decades to come (assuming America didn’t take a giant dump) invest some of their profits back to ensure they can remain technologically viable and relevant, and perform better long term? Answer was it went past the time horizon they give a shit about.

This is a major issue in proper management of businesses---management compensation. If the compensation is done wrongly, it will incentive short-term thinking on the part of the management, which is of course bad. Getting the management compensation issue right requires an ethical CEO and board.

Seeking to maximize value for the shareholders is what should be a company's primary focus, but to do that properly requires focusing on the long-term. Focusing on the short-term just results in bad management and/or eventually wrecking the company.

I will say that Lean manufacturing implemented properly will net great results. If it is just done as a surface-level corporate quick-fix however, where management claims, "We're now Lean!" it will fail.

 

[Flash]

I think we all can understand the needs for new VC-25s, and the specialized requirements for its mission.
But 11 years for a upgrade to existing aircraft?

Sooooo....this is almost certainly not all Boeing's fault, and they may be less at fault than the government in this particular case. Presidential aircraft are very unique and come with a multitude of unique and complex requirements from self-protection to C4 to self-sustainment, and all of it has to meet standards that far exceed commercial ones and likely some 'regular' mil ones.

Throw in the fact that several different agencies/entities each have their own requirements outside the DoD, like the Secret Service, it makes things that much more complex. The fact they weren't built from the frame out as VC-25's likely complicates things. And having seen it myself, those requirements have likely evolved/changed and been added on to over the years. "Wait, we need this capability now...."

One only needs to look at the VH-92 procurement as an excellent example of how the new VC-25 procurement unfortunately isn't unique. According to recent reports even though all VH-92's have been delivered it maybe until the end of the decade that they will fully take over the mission.

 

[taxi1]

Seeking to maximize value for the shareholders is what should be a company's primary focus

What exactly (or vaguely) do you mean by value?

 

[Swanee]

It needs solid engineers and skilled labor technicians

It also needs to pay them for what their true value is, and reward them for their superior performance. Yet the current construct seems to reward the CEOs and the like for the hard work and performance of the white and blue collar.


The rise of the boutique instrument and music electronics/effects industries are somewhat related to this. There is a market for the mass production of cheap stuff that does the job, but there are a lot of end users who simply cannot accept the lower quality mass market product and have the money to ensure their standard is met.

The VC-25b has to meet a standard. The people who work on it have to meet a standard. The contractors who clean the bathrooms and mop the floors in our SCIF (it's the ANG...) have to have security clearances AND they have to be escorted because they aren't read in. Same with the contractors who built the place. We don't house the President and their cabinet.

I know that it might look like bloat to the uninitiated South African swallow, but it's all about not accepting any unnecessary risk. What's the risk if the airplane isn't delivered until 2029? That Trump has to be smarter and plan his travels to be more efficient? That he can't play golf in Florida as much? Holy smokes, that sounds like a great cost saving measure to the American Tax Payers!