New Air Force One

[robav8r]

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.

Read this book . . . .

 

[robav8r]

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.

Can you explain further?

 

[robav8r]

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.

We recently did a Mission Assurance Assessment of NAOC. They have a very clear focus and direction on what the next VC airframe should look like. I agree that the government, and not Boeing, is the problem here.

 

[sevenhelmet]

We recently did a Mission Assurance Assessment of NAOC. They have a very clear focus and direction on what the next VC airframe should look like. I agree that the government, and not Boeing, is the problem here.

That's an excellent point. At some point, the good idea fairy needs to stop, so things can be built, tested, and delivered. USG as the customer is not good at knowing that point- often preferring to continue to fiddle with requirements and then punish the contractor for ensuing delays. Good communication and clear contract language are key.

Boeing has their problems, but it's likely not a 100% fault type of situation.

 

[Random8145]

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

The financial value of the shares. The ultimate goal of a company (done ethically of course) is to make money.