Boeing is too profit focused. No more "fixed price contracts"? That just means no contract for Boeing. SpaceX and other companies will just be eating it's lunch.
yeah that's basically busuiness speak for, if we can't pester congress for more money than we actually need, we don't want to be a part of it. Very reassuring from one of the biggest aerospace companies in the world.
You can’t have for profit which requires incentives and results then offer guaranteed profit yet the government has given it to Boeing. Blame your government.
@@theclamhammer4447 well I think the government is starting to figure out that spacex can do exactly what Boeing can and more while being faster and cheaper so they gonna be getting this contracts
So your position is that a corporation, which has a fiduciary responsibility to its' shareholders, should continue to absorb losses indefinitely because...reasons? You do realize that, at the end of the day, someone has to pay for all of this, and if it isn't Boeing, then it will be you and me and every other taxpayer, right?
@@welles28 it’s their own doing maybe if your product wasn’t extremely over budget and way off schedule and have so many issues it wouldn’t happen. Spacex got less money and they seem to be doing just fine and idk about you but I’ll fly on dragon 10 times before a starliner
Starliner's June 5th launch suffered from serious post-launch issues, including the failure of five thrusters and numerous helium leaks. They only reason they were able to dock at the ISS was because they were able to fix some (but not all) of the thrusters in-flight, forcing them to perform a manual docking. If I were NASA, I'd be requiring another test flight before certifying it, because they still have not demonstrated a successful mission without major in-flight technical failures.
yup, its strange that this video didn't mention any of these issues. The video made it seem like the starliner launch was entirely successful and is ready to fulfill future spaceflight missions.
yea they have become so comfortable, because now they are being funded by the government and they know they are too big to fail, so they became lazy and corrupt.
Two big difference between SpaceX and Boeing. One's intent on developing a launch vehicle that could take people to Mars (as ambitious as that sounds), while the other one has a main goal of making money. I'm sure there are lots of smart people on both companies, but leadership and vision matters a lot.
I will day. Spaacex wants to make money to. But they get their money from decent sources! I.e they launch other people's sats. They have starlink (amazing product btw)
It's really just because of one person. Without the dude, we would have been riding soyuz now while cheering the amazing feat of Boeing fixing another defect for a mere billion
@@EvilNeuro That's true, SpaceX also wants to make money, and they differ in ways where they are making a lot of profit from their innovative launch system and products. Another interesting way to differentiate is that making money is a means to an end for SpaceX. The end is to populate Mars/make us multiplanetary. On the other hand Boeing's end is to make money/raise its stock price, and the means is to outsource and cut cost. Many people like to use the lens of - it's a company therefore its out there to make money, which is obviously true, any company that doesn't make money will go bankrupt, but is "wanting to make money" the root of evil within itself? One have to break down the "why" a company wants to make more money, and whether their actions align with their mission statement. One can look into how a company spends its profit to get a clear picture. SpaceX spend their money on research and development, to the point of receiving criticism of being a money pit, while Boeing spend their money on R&D too, but majority of it was spent on stock buybacks. Obviously there are countless other metrics, such as the company culture, pace of innovation, product development timeline, quality or safety of products, and the list goes on. Though most can already paint a larger picture with just those few aspects mentioned.
Their goal is even more ambitious than that, build a city of a million people on Mars by 2050. Probably not gonna happen, but even they accomplish only 0.1% of that goal, that's still a colony of 1,000 people.
I don't feel this video identified the root cause of why Boeing is delayed and overbudget. The video title: "Why It Took Boeing A Decade ....." suggested it would explain why they are delayed, however I don't think identifying valve issues and highlighting how SpaceX did it so much faster and cheaper, explains why.
They touched on the root issue when comparing SpaceX's goals to Boeing's. SpaceX is committed to expanding the human presence in space. Their long-term plan is to put people in permanent bases on the moon and on Mars. Boeing is in the business of getting money from the government. Their long-term plan is to keep getting money from the government.
Fixed price contracts limit innovation and incentivizes cutting corners. Non-fixed contracts enable greater discussion between the contractor and contractee. Non-fixed contracts also pressure the contractor to supervise and scrutinize each stage of the contract.
@@VersaFlowthat's the nonsense traditional MIC pushes. Boeing had decades of experience, got more money for the same program than SpaceX, SpaceX still managed to complete their contract faster and cheaper. How do you 'explain' that?
The problem is Boeing has gotten too close to the Government and gotten comfortable knowing they can get more money basically whenever they want instead of a fixed amount to develop something. This creates a situation where the company has zero incentive to be quick or efficient in its design process. Spacex on the other hand had a fixed amount and knew if they couldn't get it to work they wouldn't get any handouts and so they were actually required to be fast and effective and deliver a good product the first time.
Don't forget those lobbyists they have bribing politicians to get them limitless military contracts. The Pentagon routinely cannot pass financial audits..."Losing" billions in the thin air...no accountability.
I agree that you can make that case, but at the same time I believe that your faith in Lord Musk may be misplaced, given his less than steady (and seemingly de-compensating) stewardship of X and Tesla.
Until the 1970s Boeing was an engineering focused company with engineers and aviators making up the majority of management. Emphasis was placed on providing quality, safe products and customer satisfaction. In the 1970s management began to be dominated by MBAs and accountants. Emphasis changed to short term profits and share value. This only became worse when McDonald Douglas merged with Boeing.
Actually if you look at the transaction Douglass bought Boeing with Boeings money to avoid bankruptcy and still managed control of the board and just a few years later hit headquarters moved to Chicago which isn’t that far from its Missouri former headquarters and much further away from the Seattle Boeing business. Hence Boeing died July 1, 1997
That is a very broad generalization. That said, things pretty clearly started deteriorating for the company after the McDonnell Douglas acquisition/merger.
@@lennard4454 It quite appropriate with no overconfidence. Intel had the same missteps. You can't put somebody at the head of a technology forward company who has no background in any of the basic sciences. Bill Allen was a JD by trade but he spent so much time around airframe production by the time he took Boeing reins that he understood the development cycles. You put Target's CEO in charge of Nvidia or Northrup and it will be dead in 3 years. That moved to Chicago that separated the head from the hands did not help either.
But according to media, Mr. Musk is worse than MBA, he actually knows nothing and often acts like a drunken person. How could SpaceX have survived with him?
@@tomdavis8757 it's true Boeing didn't profit from CCDev. But what @welles28 doesn't seem to understand is that it was Boeing's responsibility to (1) Bid a price and solution they can actually deliver (2) Reduce costs through good management, innovation and efficiencies (3) Compete with other players on cost, capability, and delivery date. Boeing failed in each and every area. Boeing is saying that fixed price contracts are too risky because they can't correctly estimate a price range for their own proposals. They could simply add more padding to de-risk budget overrun, but then they would be eliminated on the basis of price, because they can't compete with more nimble players. This is a pretty typical situation for a legacy company that became complacent and inefficient, enjoying an environment of protection and misaligned incentives.
The launch cadence for SpaceX so far this year is currently a launch every 2.7 DAYS. Last year's cadence was a launch every 3.8 days. Practice makes perfect.
Reusable rockets is a massive economic advantage. Also starlink let's them get data from unrecoverable spacecraft that others don't have access to. Like for Starship they got visual and sensory telemetry live right until it blew up!
Left unmentioned in this report is the fact that despite Boeing's contract being "fixed price", it's clear that Boeing for one-and quite possibly NASA themselves-were counting on this "fixed" nature being flexible as usual. Boeing asked NASA for an additional $279 million beyond what they were being paid, and the US taxpayers paid Boeing that extra $279 million, courtesy of an obliging NASA. The only reason this didn't continue is because the Inspector General caught wind of it and put a stop to it. Boeing didn't even possess the grace to silently let it drop, as they wrote a thoroughly pi-sy letter explaining why they should be allowed to continue getting paid additional money regardless of the contract being "fixed price."
@UberHypnotoad Not just Boeing. From the Ashley Vance biography, there was a story about one engineer who obtained a quote for a release mechanism, and it was, I dunno, $30,,000? Elon laughed and said, "It's no more complex than a garage door opener. Go and design one, your budget is $1,500" Took the guy months, but he got it built for under $1,000. Until SpaceX, the whole aerospace supply chain was bloated, slow, and complacent. My guess is right now, some woke up, some are still managing to sell to Boeing, the rest are in gone.
Did you see the control panel in the Starliner? It looks like Apollo with toggle switches everywhere They haven't hardly improved their engineering a bit They are antiques! Compare to SpaceX dragon control panel which is super clean and software driven.
It’s not safe. But my morbid view is that it’s what’s going to take to stop this incompetent company from doing anything further with space program. Boeing is going to be brought down to its knees. All mid managers that are making decision based on cost will be fired and the engineering and safety culture can thrive again.
@@bubamaranovichok4901 lmao the Russians? Why? Just hire SpaceX, it’s cheaper, faster, and easier for NASA. Oh wait, can’t have Boeing looking bad now can they?
Boeing is way too profit driven. Several billions overbudget and 7 years behind schedule is unacceptable, and that's in addition to the SLS moon rocket being $6 billion over budget and 6 years behind schedule
I guess they can prove their viability by not accepting anything but cost+ contracts going forward? :) Rather unfortunate that they are not adapting as we all would be better for having 2+ companies competing in space.
That may preclude Boeing from future participation in crewed spaceflight: why would anybody ever agree to give Boeing a cost-plus contract when far more experienced competitors like SpaceX are willing to do it for fixed-price?
Interesting mention of flying to commercial space stations. With Crew Dragon being $55 million per seat and Starliner doing the exact same job for $90 million what fool would choose Starliner?
Elan is a brilliant engineer. Most of his engineering is innovative and he makes it work. It's his business and social activities you should keep an eye on. Boeing went south when they decided they didn't need a new air frame for the 737MAX.
Despite what this video claims @ 8:33 and 11:25 , I think it's safe to assume that Boeing's "Stuckliner" won't be getting that certification from NASA anytime soon...
Commenting out of ignorance from the sidelines; it seems to me that wanting 'open' contracts (where the manufacturer could charge more in the future) as opposed to not wanting 'hard cut' contracts (where you can't charge more in the future) is fishy. If a contractor told me they won't sign a deal unless they can charge me more later, I wouldn't want that deal. So good for NASA that they are now seemingly going for clearly defined budgets with no added cost later for their contracts. I hope all other government branches do the same with their deals.
When I was lead tech on the SM, most techs I had literally had no experience including 1 that was completely deaf, so I had to spend a lot of time just trying to communicate and train the guy. I couldn't get ppl off my team even after they damaged parts. I have never seen a more incompetent management team in my career.
People with disabilities deserve reasonable accommodations. Implying that hiring a deaf person is a poor management decision isn't a great thing to say.
@@AM-tu1rc I took what they said as it's a bad decision to hire people with disabilities when they also don't provide reasonable accommodations. Not that hiring them period is bad.
A lot of people often cannot differentiate SpaceX and Boeing as both companies are corporations that our out there to make a profit. Though I would argue that there is a distinct difference between the two. Many people like to use the lens of - it's a company therefore its out there to make money, which is obviously true, any company that doesn't make money will go bankrupt, but is "wanting to make money" the root of evil within itself? One have to break down the "why" a company wants to make more money, and whether their actions align with their mission statement. One can look into how a company spends its profit to get a clear picture. SpaceX spend their money on research and development, to the point of receiving criticism of being a money pit, while Boeing spend their money on R&D too, but majority of it was spent on stock buybacks. Obviously there are countless other metrics, such as the company culture, pace of innovation, product development timeline, quality or safety of products, and the list goes on. Though most can already paint a larger picture with just those few aspects mentioned.
FINALLY, a strategy that works for me!! You explain everything, you don't leave anything out. My demo account is going up and soon I will be confident enough to move on to the real.
With his experience making SpaceX rockets Elon Musk should seriously consider making commercial aircrafts in the light of Boeing's problems . Atleast we will be able to maintain a working duopoly if not a tripoly with the Chinese entering the race .
"Rest assured, we have not signed any new fixed price contracts nor plan to." As someone who cares about the safety of astronauts and the timely development of space technology, I AM resting assured that Boeing is steering clear of NASA contracts.
All Companies in the U.S. needs to increase there TCQ Total Cost of Quality for Preventative and Appraisal Cost by 15%. This will help the company slot
I don't think money is the issue. The quality of employee has declined enormously in the last decade. People just don't care about their quality of work nor safety in most jobs.
Boeing received 1.68 billion more, five years late, with legacy rocket components minus the capsule, and as of June 2024, Starliner launched and still has leaks. Boeing as a company has become extremely complacent, and they are no longer innovating, essentially as a company they’ve gotten lazy due to all the bloated government contracts limitless & guaranteed might add. Boeing needs to go back to the way they used to be no manager should manage anything unless they were an engineer.
2:42 "CNBC wanted to explore why Boeing - a legacy space company - has struggled to build a vehicle to take people to space." You answered your own question. The reason a legacy space company is struggling and underperforming is BECAUSE it is a legacy space company.
They are stuck in the past whilst SpaceX are charging ahead full speed for the future. Once Starship becomes operational all other spacecraft will largely become obsolete(especially if I can hit the price goals per-launch). Hell just the sheer versatility of starship is staggering. You could use it to transport people from Earth to Mars, as a habitation base, a space station, an orbital repair facility, earth-earth cargo/passenger transport, etc. etc. etc! Once starship is equipped with nuclear engines or a similar technology it will literally be impossible to compete against it.
@@raybod1775 Musk co-founded PayPal/X, made Tesla successful from scratch, made SpaceX successful from scratch; and was involved in the founding of OpenAI. Musk by FAR is the greatest CEO of the last 100 years.
Over 30 years I worked for numerous engineering companies. Some screwed up, which was always due to management failures. In general it was inability to manage teams or an inability to manage projects. Often management regarded engineers as the problem, and they knew better, pushing the engineers to produce more, and more rapidly than they said they could. Inevitably corners were cut, processes not followed, short term gain meant long term problems. Software might be a mess, full of bugs and unmaintainable. The best companies I worked in were led by engineers. The worst were led by accountants, management specialists with MBAs, or, and these were the worst, marketing wonks.
Boeing's space arm is the former Hughes Aircraft Company's Space and Communications Group, headquartered in El Segundo, California, just across the street from the southern runways at Los Angeles International Airport.
This situation seems to mirror the current societal state; widespread issues plague railroads and shipping containers, yet there appears to be a lack of concern or a sense of waiting for inevitable consequences. Boeing faces challenges that, erroneously, they expect the public to resolve.
Boeing had a massive head start, and was given every conceivable advantage along the way. They should be embarrassed, because their performance is nothing short of inexcusable.
Reporting Lite. Don’t ask why. Don’t delve into the Boeing corporate C-Suite Finance-bros outsourcing Boeing’s production line. Don’t question the military-industrial complex. Just keep it light. Don’t upset the subject of the story. Reporting Lite.
Damn near any company given the option of cost plus or fixed bid will take cost plus, assuming the “plus” is in line with their general profit margins. It’s risk free return, compared to the absolute slaughter that has been inflicted by the fixed price starliner and AF1 contracts.
Yeah cost plus is no more reasonable way to go, when companyes like spaceX can make it for fixed prize. Its the worse, least motivating posibility. Longer you make it more money you get. It directly motivates company to have delays and overprized everythink becouse, why not. You get paid for everythink, you get more money for longer time.
You may very well be right, but that proceeds from the assumption that space is or will be a profitable business in the near term. There doesn't seem to be much support for that case.
The time fram from the selection of the Mercury 7 astronauts to Tranquility Base was 10 years and 3 months. One spaceship 10 years to 1st flight. . WTF!!
Rather than competing with other companies, Boeing is mis-using its relationship with the US government to squeeze more money from the existing space contract. SpaceX was able to deliver its contract to US government at a cheaper price more than a year earlier. Boeing needs to re-invent itself or else these contracts need to go to other more successful, modern space companies.
Seems like Boeing's management has learned nothing from the past. They seemed to be blaming projects which brings in cash, technical expertise and transferable skills rather their own mismanagement.
In general, the space industry is expected to grow over the next hundred years. However, it appears that Boeing’s efforts are insufficient. Their rocket designs seem outdated, and their safety measures are highly questionable.
Cost plus contracts fleece the tax payer and result in delays/failures that companies like Boeing profit from. I hope our legislators see this and stop these open contracts in military too where tax payer losses are huge from contractors failures. We need more companies like SpaceX willing to deliver at a price at the company’s risk. It will make our military more capable
Musk doesn’t like delays, history should tell him why NASA has delays. Example Challenger 1986 and Columbia in 2003, we don’t need to loose more astronauts
For decades, Boeing didn't face any external pressure to innovate or be as good as possible. And then the internal pressure disappeared as well when the company was no longer lead by engineers.
Blaming everything on dei won't solve anything, what happened to Boeing is very well-documented, stock buyback, replacing engineers with MBA, cutting corners, focusing on short-term goals instead of long- term ones etc... It's Jack Welch's legacy
Its funny how you right-wingers just regurgitate what rightwing media tells you to be outraged by....without even knowing the facts. Stop and take a look at Boeings workforce sometime....you know what you will see? Rooms and rooms filled with just old white men. Then go take a look at SpaceX's workforce and you will see the most diverse workforce in the industry by far....Young people, people of color, women (even in leadership roles) including those girls with the color dyed hair that y'all hate so much...lol Isn't that funny? SpaceX has the most diverse workforce in the industry and are by far are the most successful and productive company in its class. And the less diverse legacy companies like Boeing are struggling and are literally getting lapped and can no longer compete with SpaceX. Hmmm....it's almost as if your entire "DEI" narrative you were told to cry & complain about....is nonsense and has no basis in reality. OOPS.
@@loulahassan4191it's a convenient scape goar that let racist and sexist people dog whistle and get the warm and fuzzy about how great old white men are. The truth is Boeing likely suffered from a variety of things that stem from a bad management and over priotizing profits, theres a news I was listening to earlier about one of their factories was raided due to staff having various opiates and drugs, there also has been a over focussing on profits leading to many bad management decision like spreading out the workforce and skirting certain. Regulations as they did with the max8 it'sa problem on a broad scale and isn't down to just "Boeing hired a black women see what happened" that's just ridiculous and dishonest.
That fixed-price contract saved taxpayers a lot of money. It is a smart way to incentivize companies to complete projects on time and within the budget.
Yeah. Once you are done with those ISS missions, Just turn them into Roomy automatic tourist space capsules for Private stations like Axiom or Whatever. Its a win-win if they hack it. Revenue from non-commercial spaceflights is going to be huge once space flight regs for tourist applications mellow down with more development of sustainable spacecrafts that provide cheaper space flights where volume will be the key not niche. Provided they don't go in the direction of their passenger planes and put profit above all else. I love boeing, I hope they clean up their act and re-start.
They have been taking advantage of cost plus contracts for decades, charging as much as they like. Now they are getting fixed price contracts and they don't want them, maybe they shouldn't have been taking advantage of the government then.
No mention of the merger with Mac Dac and the radical change in management philosophy which followed, which most industry insiders seem to feel is the root of Boeing's problems. Instead of engineers managing their projects, it's now accountants and finance guys.
Boeing is too profit focused. No more "fixed price contracts"? That just means no contract for Boeing. SpaceX and other companies will just be eating it's lunch.
yeah that's basically busuiness speak for, if we can't pester congress for more money than we actually need, we don't want to be a part of it. Very reassuring from one of the biggest aerospace companies in the world.
You can’t have for profit which requires incentives and results then offer guaranteed profit yet the government has given it to Boeing. Blame your government.
@@theclamhammer4447 well I think the government is starting to figure out that spacex can do exactly what Boeing can and more while being faster and cheaper so they gonna be getting this contracts
So your position is that a corporation, which has a fiduciary responsibility to its' shareholders, should continue to absorb losses indefinitely because...reasons? You do realize that, at the end of the day, someone has to pay for all of this, and if it isn't Boeing, then it will be you and me and every other taxpayer, right?
@@welles28 it’s their own doing maybe if your product wasn’t extremely over budget and way off schedule and have so many issues it wouldn’t happen. Spacex got less money and they seem to be doing just fine and idk about you but I’ll fly on dragon 10 times before a starliner
Starliner's June 5th launch suffered from serious post-launch issues, including the failure of five thrusters and numerous helium leaks. They only reason they were able to dock at the ISS was because they were able to fix some (but not all) of the thrusters in-flight, forcing them to perform a manual docking. If I were NASA, I'd be requiring another test flight before certifying it, because they still have not demonstrated a successful mission without major in-flight technical failures.
yup, its strange that this video didn't mention any of these issues. The video made it seem like the starliner launch was entirely successful and is ready to fulfill future spaceflight missions.
and it still has to return safely
I am not an engineer but i think US UK is the best among the bests in this kind of large engine. If they could not get better then we are doomed.
@@cp987also strangely missing from the news is the fact that the ULA Atlas V first stage is powered by Russian err Soviet RD180 engines. 😂
@@yevgeny79 and not reusable
Boeing isn't the same company anymore.
yea they have become so comfortable, because now they are being funded by the government and they know they are too big to fail, so they became lazy and corrupt.
Trump got involved. That's the reason its going to hell.
Nor is CNBC
Obviously
@@AnetaMihaylova-d6f Are you a human?
Two big difference between SpaceX and Boeing. One's intent on developing a launch vehicle that could take people to Mars (as ambitious as that sounds), while the other one has a main goal of making money. I'm sure there are lots of smart people on both companies, but leadership and vision matters a lot.
I will day. Spaacex wants to make money to.
But they get their money from decent sources!
I.e they launch other people's sats. They have starlink (amazing product btw)
It's really just because of one person. Without the dude, we would have been riding soyuz now while cheering the amazing feat of Boeing fixing another defect for a mere billion
@@EvilNeuro That's true, SpaceX also wants to make money, and they differ in ways where they are making a lot of profit from their innovative launch system and products. Another interesting way to differentiate is that making money is a means to an end for SpaceX. The end is to populate Mars/make us multiplanetary. On the other hand Boeing's end is to make money/raise its stock price, and the means is to outsource and cut cost.
Many people like to use the lens of - it's a company therefore its out there to make money, which is obviously true, any company that doesn't make money will go bankrupt, but is "wanting to make money" the root of evil within itself? One have to break down the "why" a company wants to make more money, and whether their actions align with their mission statement. One can look into how a company spends its profit to get a clear picture. SpaceX spend their money on research and development, to the point of receiving criticism of being a money pit, while Boeing spend their money on R&D too, but majority of it was spent on stock buybacks. Obviously there are countless other metrics, such as the company culture, pace of innovation, product development timeline, quality or safety of products, and the list goes on. Though most can already paint a larger picture with just those few aspects mentioned.
Their goal is even more ambitious than that, build a city of a million people on Mars by 2050. Probably not gonna happen, but even they accomplish only 0.1% of that goal, that's still a colony of 1,000 people.
@@EvilNeuro SpaceX gets paid by the government lol. Starlink is a money pit.
I don't feel this video identified the root cause of why Boeing is delayed and overbudget. The video title: "Why It Took Boeing A Decade ....." suggested it would explain why they are delayed, however I don't think identifying valve issues and highlighting how SpaceX did it so much faster and cheaper, explains why.
They touched on the root issue when comparing SpaceX's goals to Boeing's. SpaceX is committed to expanding the human presence in space. Their long-term plan is to put people in permanent bases on the moon and on Mars. Boeing is in the business of getting money from the government. Their long-term plan is to keep getting money from the government.
SpaceX has the potential to go bankrupt with the way it's destroying Starship over and over.
@@yaash4123 They landed both stages during the last flight. Don't see what you are talking about.
@@yaash4123 I don't think you understand what prototyping and test flights means...
@@yaash4123braindead comment
Fixed price is how all contracts should be
Fixed price contracts limit innovation and incentivizes cutting corners. Non-fixed contracts enable greater discussion between the contractor and contractee. Non-fixed contracts also pressure the contractor to supervise and scrutinize each stage of the contract.
You are correct. As Warren Buffet stated, you get what you incentivize. Cost+ incentivizes waste.
@@VersaFlowbut Starliner doesn't innovate.
@@RossComputerGuy Starliner is a fixed price contract...
@@VersaFlowthat's the nonsense traditional MIC pushes. Boeing had decades of experience, got more money for the same program than SpaceX, SpaceX still managed to complete their contract faster and cheaper. How do you 'explain' that?
The problem is Boeing has gotten too close to the Government and gotten comfortable knowing they can get more money basically whenever they want instead of a fixed amount to develop something. This creates a situation where the company has zero incentive to be quick or efficient in its design process. Spacex on the other hand had a fixed amount and knew if they couldn't get it to work they wouldn't get any handouts and so they were actually required to be fast and effective and deliver a good product the first time.
Don't forget those lobbyists they have bribing politicians to get them limitless military contracts. The Pentagon routinely cannot pass financial audits..."Losing" billions in the thin air...no accountability.
Another example of the govt getting involved into something they shouldn’t have and it going down the drain
I agree that you can make that case, but at the same time I believe that your faith in Lord Musk may be misplaced, given his less than steady (and seemingly de-compensating) stewardship of X and Tesla.
@@welles28 Except we’re talking about SpaceX which isn’t what you mentioned
@@Robweisenhowseractually this is lack of government because FAA part of government didn't do their job to regulate Boeing
Until the 1970s Boeing was an engineering focused company with engineers and aviators making up the majority of management. Emphasis was placed on providing quality, safe products and customer satisfaction. In the 1970s management began to be dominated by MBAs and accountants. Emphasis changed to short term profits and share value. This only became worse when McDonald Douglas merged with Boeing.
Greed is never good remember that that
道格拉斯实际上吸收了波音，而不是波音吸收了道格拉斯。
@@言午-o3o LOL. You are right. Officially it was the other way.....but....
Actually if you look at the transaction Douglass bought Boeing with Boeings money to avoid bankruptcy and still managed control of the board and just a few years later hit headquarters moved to Chicago which isn’t that far from its Missouri former headquarters and much further away from the Seattle Boeing business. Hence Boeing died July 1, 1997
When a MBA is in charge of an Engineering company, you will have problems.
That is a very broad generalization. That said, things pretty clearly started deteriorating for the company after the McDonnell Douglas acquisition/merger.
Dunning-kruger comment
@@lennard4454 It quite appropriate with no overconfidence. Intel had the same missteps. You can't put somebody at the head of a technology forward company who has no background in any of the basic sciences. Bill Allen was a JD by trade but he spent so much time around airframe production by the time he took Boeing reins that he understood the development cycles. You put Target's CEO in charge of Nvidia or Northrup and it will be dead in 3 years. That moved to Chicago that separated the head from the hands did not help either.
But according to media, Mr. Musk is worse than MBA, he actually knows nothing and often acts like a drunken person. How could SpaceX have survived with him?
Maybe not when the MBA also has a degree in engineering.
Boeing was too preoccupied trying to put on gigantic engines on the 737 that wasn't designed for them.
To be fair, the aircraft business is one that makes Boeing actual profits. Starliner does not.
Not anymore .
@@welles28so you know how much nasa paid for this aircraft and/or mission?
@@tomdavis8757 it's true Boeing didn't profit from CCDev. But what @welles28 doesn't seem to understand is that it was Boeing's responsibility to (1) Bid a price and solution they can actually deliver (2) Reduce costs through good management, innovation and efficiencies (3) Compete with other players on cost, capability, and delivery date. Boeing failed in each and every area. Boeing is saying that fixed price contracts are too risky because they can't correctly estimate a price range for their own proposals. They could simply add more padding to de-risk budget overrun, but then they would be eliminated on the basis of price, because they can't compete with more nimble players. This is a pretty typical situation for a legacy company that became complacent and inefficient, enjoying an environment of protection and misaligned incentives.
That is a different division of Boeing.
The launch cadence for SpaceX so far this year is currently a launch every 2.7 DAYS. Last year's cadence was a launch every 3.8 days. Practice makes perfect.
The advantage of their rocket being reusable is they can learn more these returned rockets. Each launch is in fact an iteration in testing.
@@steyefong590 Agile testing, same thing with the starship, each launch has some improvement than the last launch.
Reusable rockets is a massive economic advantage. Also starlink let's them get data from unrecoverable spacecraft that others don't have access to. Like for Starship they got visual and sensory telemetry live right until it blew up!
@@xstaticelite1640 Yeah but i just hope next time they could put a windshield wiper next flight :>
Left unmentioned in this report is the fact that despite Boeing's contract being "fixed price", it's clear that Boeing for one-and quite possibly NASA themselves-were counting on this "fixed" nature being flexible as usual. Boeing asked NASA for an additional $279 million beyond what they were being paid, and the US taxpayers paid Boeing that extra $279 million, courtesy of an obliging NASA. The only reason this didn't continue is because the Inspector General caught wind of it and put a stop to it. Boeing didn't even possess the grace to silently let it drop, as they wrote a thoroughly pi-sy letter explaining why they should be allowed to continue getting paid additional money regardless of the contract being "fixed price."
When you’re composed of companies that basically enjoyed a monopoly for so long, there’s just no competition to stay sharp.
Well said .
@UberHypnotoad Not just Boeing. From the Ashley Vance biography, there was a story about one engineer who obtained a quote for a release mechanism, and it was, I dunno, $30,,000? Elon laughed and said, "It's no more complex than a garage door opener. Go and design one, your budget is $1,500" Took the guy months, but he got it built for under $1,000. Until SpaceX, the whole aerospace supply chain was bloated, slow, and complacent. My guess is right now, some woke up, some are still managing to sell to Boeing, the rest are in gone.
Did you see the control panel in the Starliner? It looks like Apollo with toggle switches everywhere They haven't hardly improved their engineering a bit They are antiques! Compare to SpaceX dragon control panel which is super clean and software driven.
Let's be real here, SpaceX is gonna go places far more faster than these guys wish they could do in a lifetime
Absolutely especially after ift4 showcased how capable their rocket is
How was the gas leak going? Please make sure those astronauts come back to earth safely.
It’s not safe. But my morbid view is that it’s what’s going to take to stop this incompetent company from doing anything further with space program. Boeing is going to be brought down to its knees. All mid managers that are making decision based on cost will be fired and the engineering and safety culture can thrive again.
Enough of hopes, just ask the Russians again to sell properly working rocket engines, and bring home those damn astronauts!
@@bubamaranovichok4901you mean SpaceX?
@@bubamaranovichok4901 lmao the Russians? Why? Just hire SpaceX, it’s cheaper, faster, and easier for NASA. Oh wait, can’t have Boeing looking bad now can they?
astronauts are in their space suit during reentry, so even the door blow off mid-space, they would be totally fine
Overruns means profits to shareholders, and they only care about those.
How is Boeing/ULA suppose to be a viable competitor if its launchers aren't reusable it seems like that alone makes it uncompetitive against SpaceX
Assuming it doesn’t shut down after the ISS contracts, the starliner will be launched on a ULA Vulcan rocket which will be partially reusable.
@@SciFlyGal we will see if it actually "will be".
@@SciFlyGal "Partially reusable" one day. Not in the near term and maybe never.
Boeing is way too profit driven. Several billions overbudget and 7 years behind schedule is unacceptable, and that's in addition to the SLS moon rocket being $6 billion over budget and 6 years behind schedule
Not a fan of CNBC but this was great reporting and a great story!
I guess they can prove their viability by not accepting anything but cost+ contracts going forward? :) Rather unfortunate that they are not adapting as we all would be better for having 2+ companies competing in space.
That may preclude Boeing from future participation in crewed spaceflight: why would anybody ever agree to give Boeing a cost-plus contract when far more experienced competitors like SpaceX are willing to do it for fixed-price?
8:51 - Fixed price structure? I thought cutting cost only happened in their commercial aircraft, but their space program too? Wow, just wow!
Interesting mention of flying to commercial space stations. With Crew Dragon being $55 million per seat and Starliner doing the exact same job for $90 million what fool would choose Starliner?
Btw it cost more to fly on the Starliner than just bought a seat on the Soyuz spacecraft from Russia
Elan is a brilliant engineer. Most of his engineering is innovative and he makes it work. It's his business and social activities you should keep an eye on. Boeing went south when they decided they didn't need a new air frame for the 737MAX.
The only reason why Boeing doesn't want fixed contracts is because they have less freedom to cook the books.
You don't need to cook the books when you're financially rewarded for working as slowly as possible
Actually, fixed price contracts are subject to tons of accounting estimates and have far more opportunity to be fudged.
Which part of the rocket fell off?
The part with huge hairy ballssss😂😂😂😂
@@cobracommander.1958 Know what NASA meant in 1986? Need Another Seven Astronauts.
Whistle blower fell of 😂
The front fell off. And by front I mean the part of the thrusters that works.
SpaceX can flew 2 dragon with amount of money you put into single Starliner mission Boeing, and even more reliable
Despite what this video claims @ 8:33 and 11:25 , I think it's safe to assume that Boeing's "Stuckliner" won't be getting that certification from NASA anytime soon...
I would not trust that “Starliner” to carry me back home to Earth. SpaceX Dragon to the rescue.
Loved this piece 🙏🔥
Funny how Russia was not mentioned when talking about Atlas V.
Commenting out of ignorance from the sidelines; it seems to me that wanting 'open' contracts (where the manufacturer could charge more in the future) as opposed to not wanting 'hard cut' contracts (where you can't charge more in the future) is fishy.
If a contractor told me they won't sign a deal unless they can charge me more later, I wouldn't want that deal.
So good for NASA that they are now seemingly going for clearly defined budgets with no added cost later for their contracts. I hope all other government branches do the same with their deals.
Complain to your representatives in Congress and President about cost plus contracts. We can’t sit on the sidelines while our tax money gets wasted.
Boeing, an engineering company, does not run by engineers but accountants and lawyers. I think that's why.
When I was lead tech on the SM, most techs I had literally had no experience including 1 that was completely deaf, so I had to spend a lot of time just trying to communicate and train the guy. I couldn't get ppl off my team even after they damaged parts. I have never seen a more incompetent management team in my career.
People with disabilities deserve reasonable accommodations. Implying that hiring a deaf person is a poor management decision isn't a great thing to say.
@@AM-tu1rc I took what they said as it's a bad decision to hire people with disabilities when they also don't provide reasonable accommodations. Not that hiring them period is bad.
@@AM-tu1rcREASONABLE
@@AM-tu1rc Some companies may hire people with disabilities for tax reductions they provide, but this is not US only thing.
The size also shrunk from large capsule to two person size cabin.
A lot of people often cannot differentiate SpaceX and Boeing as both companies are corporations that our out there to make a profit. Though I would argue that there is a distinct difference between the two.
Many people like to use the lens of - it's a company therefore its out there to make money, which is obviously true, any company that doesn't make money will go bankrupt, but is "wanting to make money" the root of evil within itself? One have to break down the "why" a company wants to make more money, and whether their actions align with their mission statement. One can look into how a company spends its profit to get a clear picture. SpaceX spend their money on research and development, to the point of receiving criticism of being a money pit, while Boeing spend their money on R&D too, but majority of it was spent on stock buybacks. Obviously there are countless other metrics, such as the company culture, pace of innovation, product development timeline, quality or safety of products, and the list goes on. Though most can already paint a larger picture with just those few aspects mentioned.
Too many managers and not enough engineers...I reckon
In light of recent events, hearing Boeing and Space in the same sentence, makes me worrisome!
To be fair to Boeing. Their aircraft are fine. The issues are at the maintenance level which is usually airlines, and there's a ton of media hype.
@@jamescarter8311 Right! Go tell that to the people who died because of MCAS!
Question, why can we IMPROVE and MODERNISE space shuttle program ???
FINALLY, a strategy that works for me!! You explain everything, you don't leave anything out. My demo account is going up and soon I will be confident enough to move on to the real.
Thye made it to the ISS but once again had leaks.
Leaks, shmeaks. :)
With his experience making SpaceX rockets Elon Musk should seriously consider making commercial aircrafts in the light of Boeing's problems . Atleast we will be able to maintain a working duopoly if not a tripoly with the Chinese entering the race .
They could but what is the ultimate goal?
"Rest assured, we have not signed any new fixed price contracts nor plan to."
As someone who cares about the safety of astronauts and the timely development of space technology, I AM resting assured that Boeing is steering clear of NASA contracts.
All Companies in the U.S. needs to increase there TCQ Total Cost of Quality for Preventative and Appraisal Cost by 15%. This will help the company slot
I don't think money is the issue. The quality of employee has declined enormously in the last decade. People just don't care about their quality of work nor safety in most jobs.
If there's one thing I've learnt about a healthy money mindset, it's this. Money cannot and must not be the goal.
Starliner, the Ford Edsel of space capsules.
Boeing received 1.68 billion more, five years late, with legacy rocket components minus the capsule, and as of June 2024, Starliner launched and still has leaks. Boeing as a company has become extremely complacent, and they are no longer innovating, essentially as a company they’ve gotten lazy due to all the bloated government contracts limitless & guaranteed might add. Boeing needs to go back to the way they used to be no manager should manage anything unless they were an engineer.
2:42 "CNBC wanted to explore why Boeing - a legacy space company - has struggled to build a vehicle to take people to space."
You answered your own question. The reason a legacy space company is struggling and underperforming is BECAUSE it is a legacy space company.
They are stuck in the past whilst SpaceX are charging ahead full speed for the future. Once Starship becomes operational all other spacecraft will largely become obsolete(especially if I can hit the price goals per-launch). Hell just the sheer versatility of starship is staggering. You could use it to transport people from Earth to Mars, as a habitation base, a space station, an orbital repair facility, earth-earth cargo/passenger transport, etc. etc. etc! Once starship is equipped with nuclear engines or a similar technology it will literally be impossible to compete against it.
All the good boeing workers went to spaceX that's the real reason lmao
It's ALL Elon Musk -- the greatest CEO in 100 years. Period.
Maybe second or third, after CEO of Nvidia and Microsoft.
@@raybod1775 Musk co-founded PayPal/X, made Tesla successful from scratch, made SpaceX successful from scratch; and was involved in the founding of OpenAI.
Musk by FAR is the greatest CEO of the last 100 years.
Over 30 years I worked for numerous engineering companies. Some screwed up, which was always due to management failures. In general it was inability to manage teams or an inability to manage projects. Often management regarded engineers as the problem, and they knew better, pushing the engineers to produce more, and more rapidly than they said they could. Inevitably corners were cut, processes not followed, short term gain meant long term problems. Software might be a mess, full of bugs and unmaintainable. The best companies I worked in were led by engineers. The worst were led by accountants, management specialists with MBAs, or, and these were the worst, marketing wonks.
Boeing's space arm is the former Hughes Aircraft Company's Space and Communications Group, headquartered in El Segundo, California, just across the street from the southern runways at Los Angeles International Airport.
That’s not accurate. That’s their satellites division. Space Arm for launches is in Houston
This situation seems to mirror the current societal state; widespread issues plague railroads and shipping containers, yet there appears to be a lack of concern or a sense of waiting for inevitable consequences. Boeing faces challenges that, erroneously, they expect the public to resolve.
Boeing moved it's headquarters to Chicago and left all it's best Executives and Engineers in Seattle with huge Golden Parachutes.
Engineer hands on, Manager mouth on.
Boeing had a massive head start, and was given every conceivable advantage along the way. They should be embarrassed, because their performance is nothing short of inexcusable.
Reporting Lite. Don’t ask why. Don’t delve into the Boeing corporate C-Suite Finance-bros outsourcing Boeing’s production line. Don’t question the military-industrial complex. Just keep it light. Don’t upset the subject of the story. Reporting Lite.
That’s why most of us read comments, to get the truth.
because they are used to only being held to their own standard, while still being given a blank check
We don’t like to sign contracts that hold our feet to the fire. We want a high cost so we make more.
- Boeing
Thanks taxpayers
Damn near any company given the option of cost plus or fixed bid will take cost plus, assuming the “plus” is in line with their general profit margins. It’s risk free return, compared to the absolute slaughter that has been inflicted by the fixed price starliner and AF1 contracts.
@@qwerty112311 yup. Cost plus only benefits the contractor.
Yeah cost plus is no more reasonable way to go, when companyes like spaceX can make it for fixed prize. Its the worse, least motivating posibility. Longer you make it more money you get. It directly motivates company to have delays and overprized everythink becouse, why not. You get paid for everythink, you get more money for longer time.
9:01 just give everything to SpaceX.
I'm flying on a Boeing plane next week. Just sat down with my lawyer and finished my will.
If Boeing doesn't like fixed price contracts, they may just find themselves on the sidelines.
You may very well be right, but that proceeds from the assumption that space is or will be a profitable business in the near term. There doesn't seem to be much support for that case.
@@welles28 SpaceX is profitable.
@@welles28 Boeing signs deals for fixed cost airplanes or no private company would buy them.
The time fram from the selection of the Mercury 7 astronauts to Tranquility Base was 10 years and 3 months.
One spaceship 10 years to 1st flight.
.
WTF!!
this being rocket will blow up
The rocket door will dismantle midway to space
You mean they sent live astronauts up there on a Boeing? Holy crap!
CNBC can you all do one on RocketLab?
Boeing lost it's edge when it changed from a tech company into a for profit company, and layed off or sold the good engineers.
HOW FINANCIAL ENGINEERING RUINED AN ENGINEERING COMPANY 101
"737 anxiety is turning us all into amateur aeronautics experts" is mentioned at the beginning of the video. The comment section reinforces this.
Boeing had two billion more than SpaceX, and now it's stuck in space?
Rather than competing with other companies, Boeing is mis-using its relationship with the US government to squeeze more money from the existing space contract. SpaceX was able to deliver its contract to US government at a cheaper price more than a year earlier. Boeing needs to re-invent itself or else these contracts need to go to other more successful, modern space companies.
well done
Seems like Boeing's management has learned nothing from the past. They seemed to be blaming projects which brings in cash, technical expertise and transferable skills rather their own mismanagement.
Boeing isn’t as concerned with product quality as profit.
Results shout for practical progress, old methods too expensive and its history
The future of space must be efficient
In general, the space industry is expected to grow over the next hundred years. However, it appears that Boeing’s efforts are insufficient. Their rocket designs seem outdated, and their safety measures are highly questionable.
Cost plus contracts fleece the tax payer and result in delays/failures that companies like Boeing profit from. I hope our legislators see this and stop these open contracts in military too where tax payer losses are huge from contractors failures. We need more companies like SpaceX willing to deliver at a price at the company’s risk. It will make our military more capable
Contact your legislators in Congress and President, too many of us are passive. Things will only change if politicians get enough complaints.
Musk doesn’t like delays, history should tell him why NASA has delays. Example Challenger 1986 and Columbia in 2003, we don’t need to loose more astronauts
odd comment
For decades, Boeing didn't face any external pressure to innovate or be as good as possible. And then the internal pressure disappeared as well when the company was no longer lead by engineers.
Should we concer about the safety measures? #boeing
Spacex has Elon Musk leading it and Boeing has bean counters leading it.
Yep, the number one reason Elon won't take SpaceX public.
Criem as seguintes Formas e projetos que estou enviando...teste 09 e caixa 50. Glorias a Deus.
Lembrem de mim. Na horas de dificuldades reúnam suas equipes e orem com toda força de fôlego a Deus.
Foquem nessa pesquisa de estudos, construção de soldadores, drones gravidade 0 e transportadores.espaciais..
The very short answer as to why: because it is a Boeing....
our love cant back
Thanks God the US has Elon
"We're not going to sign any more contracts unless the US taxpayer is on the hook for our failures!!!" LOL
Deixa comigo Boeing, teus perseguidores estão minhas mãos. Amadureçam juntos. Unidos pela glória de Deus.
This is how Challenger blew up. have yet we not learned when things don't work right don't put lives at risk.
BOEING is more concern with DEI than making things work, I guarantee SPACEX don't have time for that
Blaming everything on dei won't solve anything, what happened to Boeing is very well-documented, stock buyback, replacing engineers with MBA, cutting corners, focusing on short-term goals instead of long- term ones etc... It's Jack Welch's legacy
Its funny how you right-wingers just regurgitate what rightwing media tells you to be outraged by....without even knowing the facts.
Stop and take a look at Boeings workforce sometime....you know what you will see? Rooms and rooms filled with just old white men. Then go take a look at SpaceX's workforce and you will see the most diverse workforce in the industry by far....Young people, people of color, women (even in leadership roles) including those girls with the color dyed hair that y'all hate so much...lol
Isn't that funny? SpaceX has the most diverse workforce in the industry and are by far are the most successful and productive company in its class. And the less diverse legacy companies like Boeing are struggling and are literally getting lapped and can no longer compete with SpaceX.
Hmmm....it's almost as if your entire "DEI" narrative you were told to cry & complain about....is nonsense and has no basis in reality. OOPS.
@@loulahassan4191it's a convenient scape goar that let racist and sexist people dog whistle and get the warm and fuzzy about how great old white men are. The truth is Boeing likely suffered from a variety of things that stem from a bad management and over priotizing profits, theres a news I was listening to earlier about one of their factories was raided due to staff having various opiates and drugs, there also has been a over focussing on profits leading to many bad management decision like spreading out the workforce and skirting certain. Regulations as they did with the max8 it'sa problem on a broad scale and isn't down to just "Boeing hired a black women see what happened" that's just ridiculous and dishonest.
That fixed-price contract saved taxpayers a lot of money. It is a smart way to incentivize companies to complete projects on time and within the budget.
No surprise Boeing is becoming an indianized company.
Named for a bounce back:
Boeing!
Yeah. Once you are done with those ISS missions, Just turn them into Roomy automatic tourist space capsules for Private stations like Axiom or Whatever. Its a win-win if they hack it. Revenue from non-commercial spaceflights is going to be huge once space flight regs for tourist applications mellow down with more development of sustainable spacecrafts that provide cheaper space flights where volume will be the key not niche. Provided they don't go in the direction of their passenger planes and put profit above all else. I love boeing, I hope they clean up their act and re-start.
AMZ120K can go 50x after the full launch is happening mark my words
Would be cool if NASA could control the production of their own rockets again.
SpaceX does it better.
At this point it time too play it safe and have space x send right crew dragon too get the astronauts
They have been taking advantage of cost plus contracts for decades, charging as much as they like. Now they are getting fixed price contracts and they don't want them, maybe they shouldn't have been taking advantage of the government then.
No mention of the merger with Mac Dac and the radical change in management philosophy which followed, which most industry insiders seem to feel is the root of Boeing's problems. Instead of engineers managing their projects, it's now accountants and finance guys.
If possible, I would not fly with a Boeing product these days. Be it Space or Aircraft. I just do not trust them anymore... sadly.