Mulally on BusinessWeek

[Blue Oval Staff]

ARTICLE LINK

[RichardJensen]

PLEASE let this not be another Kiley error fest.

 

WHY is their so little pride in workmanship in the media? WHY?

 

Kiley credits Mulally with being the CEO of Boeing.

 

Can't Businessweek get some Journalism major interns, and like house them in a some storage containers on the lowest level of the company parking garage, and have them fact check this stuff?

[Roadrunner]

WHY is their so little pride in workmanship in the media? WHY?

 

Kiley credits Mulally with being the CEO of Boeing.

 

Actually, it could have been many people who went through this story before it got posted who added that bit of information, if you're talking about the

I have been in on every Boeing (BA) airplane except the 707. [Mullaly was CEO of Boeing before joining Ford.]

 

...

 

And there is a lot of pride in workmanship, it's just the larger the article and the smaller the deadline, the more likely something is going to be screwed up.

[RichardJensen]

the larger the article and the smaller the deadline, the more likely something is going to be screwed up.

I'd be willing to except that as an excuse.

 

If Kiley weren't getting paid.

[30 OTT 6]

A quick check shows that Mulally was CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, which is the civil airline division of Boeing Corporation.

 

So Kiley is neither right nor wrong, but instead lacked clarity. All in all, not the big deal the usual suspects on BON make it to be.

[SysEng]

I have been in on every Boeing (BA) airplane except the 707. [Mullaly was CEO of Boeing before joining Ford.]

 

 

And he was boss when the 777 was intro'd. Or to be precise, the derivative of the 737 was intro'd. :huh:

 

Leadership was the 747, or the A380, or even the Lockheed Constellation. The 777 is like the Ford FiveHundred of the aviation business...

[keoni]

And he was boss when the 777 was intro'd. Or to be precise, the derivative of the 737 was intro'd. :huh:

 

Leadership was the 747, or the A380, or even the Lockheed Constellation. The 777 is like the Ford FiveHundred of the aviation business...

 

 

Huh? The 777 is the best (some say) widebody on the market.

 

Leadership was the A380? If you call delays of up to two years leadership....

Edited October 25, 2006 by Keoni

[Mark B. Morrow]

Huh? The 777 is the best (some say) widebody on the market.

 

Leadership was the A380? If you call delays of up to two years leadership....

If Ford built cars like Airbus builds the A380 we would still be waiting for the '05 Mustang.

[Bluecon]

And he was boss when the 777 was intro'd. Or to be precise, the derivative of the 737 was intro'd. :huh:

 

Leadership was the 747, or the A380, or even the Lockheed Constellation. The 777 is like the Ford FiveHundred of the aviation business...

Isn't the 777 more like the Camry of the plane business?

[waymondospiff]

Isn't the 777 more like the Camry of the plane business?

 

If you think the Camry is an engineering marvel that has effectively cornered the market and killed all competition, then yes, the B777 is the Camry of the plane business.

 

First 100% Computer-designed airplane (CAD & modelling)

First plane launched with 180-minute ETOPS certification at delivery

Largest twin-jet ever

Three all-new (limited derivative) engines (PW4070, Trent 800, GE90)

Highest-thrust engine ever - 115,000lbs GE90-115

Effectively killed two competitors (MD-11 & A340)

Longest-range airliner in the world (B777-200LR)

 

The B777 is a bit "boring" for aviation enthusiasts because it is so prevalent and common. It looks plain enough, with a low-wing, wing-mounted twin-engine configuration, but that disguises the fact that the B777 is so cost-efficient. All of the engineering feats of the B777 are clear to see in its awards (interiors, flight deck, achievement, flight testing, etc.) but are rather invisible to the customer - just as Boeing planned it.

 

And as forward-thinking and boundary-pushing as the B777 was in 1995, the B787 looks to push even farther when it is delivered in 2008.

 

Scott

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Adding to the above, the 777 also achieves a great deal of commonality with respect to the cockpit with the later generation 767s that were the mainstay of domestic widebody runs in the US and well represented the world over. This commonality allows crews to swap back and forth between the two aircraft very easily. Granted, the same cna be said for many airbus designs, but boeing had it down first in many areas.

 

The 777 was an aircraft that was designed around the needs of the major carriers and was intensely customer driven. The A380 is the answer to the question that almost no one was asking. There are very VERY few markets and routes that can support a plane that large at load factors approaching profitability. When Airbus shopped it around, they got told by many airlines that they weren't looking for another 4 engine plane. That the 747 was plenty big enough and they were even having a problem justifying its existence in their fleets when the more economical 777 exists. Granted, there are a few routes that almost demand an airplane with more than two engines, but, not enough to support two competitiors in the market.

 

The death knell for Airbus may very well occur soon. Boeing is already well into another update of the 747, the -8XX or whatever they're calling it today. Their are doing to it what the 787 does for the 767, basically making the structural and aerodynamic changes needed to make it 15% more efficient, They're updating the interior to make it more modern, adding the changes that were so well received from the 787, and also adding another section to the fusealage to give it the capacity to expand the lower deck seating by several rows, and either more second deck seating or added luxury amenities. Other changes will make it the most efficient seat mile plane in existence. The only way that the A380 will be superior (efficiency wise, it will still have more absolute passenger capacity) at the new 747's launch will be when its fully loaded as a freighter, and that will be marginal at best.

 

What killed the MD-11 was McDonald-Douglases lack of foresight when they designed the wings of the MD-11. Had they done what every other manufacturer does when they design a comercial aircraft, they would have included enough flexibility to allow for the plane to be lengthened without having to make drastic changes to the wings. Instead, when the design for the MD-12 was proposed, which was to be the 777-200 and 300 beater, it included a completely redesigned wing. The expense was too great for a limping MD to handle at the time, and that was their death sentence. The Md-11 was a fine aircraft for its design envelope, and was very efficient for its time. It was immediately available for any overseas route that you wanted to fly without an ETOPS restrictions (it had three engines) and was easily convertible to cargo configurations. It had its drawbacks, especially with servicing the center engine, though they are vastly overstated in the grand scheme of things.

 

Personally, I've always had the fear that, with the 777, they're going to get a whole lot of people wet one day, but, given that its got a decade of safety behind it, I think that its proven well its basic safety. We'll just have to see how maintenance (which is also increasingly being farmed out over seas) keeps them there.

 

Oh, and the Camry of the plane business is the 737-XXX. There's a "million" of them and they're very reliable.

[Harley Lover]

Please, don't confuse the nattering nabobs of negativity with facts. :lol:

[SysEng]

The B777 is a bit "boring" for aviation enthusiasts because it is so prevalent and common. It looks plain enough, with a low-wing, wing-mounted twin-engine configuration...

 

Well, the Ford 500 is pretty plain as well. Not necessarily a bad car either. But that don't mean much.

 

As for 777 vs A380, get over it folks, they nailed Boeing right to the floor. Anybody who thinks a "wiring harness" takes 2 years to redesign, doesn't recognize "other factors" when they see 'em. There is a very large market for the A380, and its just getting off the ground now. Just doesn't happen to be the USA

[Mark B. Morrow]

Well, the Ford 500 is pretty plain as well. Not necessarily a bad car either. But that don't mean much.

 

As for 777 vs A380, get over it folks, they nailed Boeing right to the floor. Anybody who thinks a "wiring harness" takes 2 years to redesign, doesn't recognize "other factors" when they see 'em. There is a very large market for the A380, and its just getting off the ground now. Just doesn't happen to be the USA

 

 

The A380 may be just getting off the ground but Airbus substantially raised their break even rate on it and some of their customers won't wait out a two year delivery delay. This resulted in the recent managment shake up.

[DCK]

How the hell did this thread that was established around a very good interview turn into a crap over a simple mistake by the interviewer...................jesus christ.

[RichardJensen]

How the hell did this thread that was established around a very good interview turn into a crap over a simple mistake by the interviewer...................jesus christ.

Same reason why you haven't been banned.

 

No moderation.

 

Take what you like along with what you don't like. It's two sides of the same coin.

[Guest Sixcav]

In other words DCK, Richie is the reason.

[waymondospiff]

As for 777 vs A380, get over it folks, they nailed Boeing right to the floor. Anybody who thinks a "wiring harness" takes 2 years to redesign, doesn't recognize "other factors" when they see 'em. There is a very large market for the A380, and its just getting off the ground now. Just doesn't happen to be the USA

 

Umm...not sure what you mean by "other factors." It is well documented in the press that while a "simple wiring harness" isn't hard to redesign it can be when your engineer centers are using different version of non-backwards compatible software, wiring has to run through fuselage braces which was designed for smaller wiring, and every design change needs to be documented and certified by authorities before the plane can be used. So yeah, it's "just a wiring problem" but it's a doozy.

 

And I'm not one to write-off the A380 as many others already have as there is a definite market for the airplane. The problem is the lack of a sizable market today. Heathrow is the only airport in the world that is essentially "capped" for growth. Even Frankfurt & Paris-CDG are able to expand and the Far East has tried land reclaimation projects to build convenient airports. There is no doubt a need by some carriers for a high-capacity airliner, the question is will it be profitable to make those airplanes. Reports have said the breakeven factor for Airbus has risen to 420 A380s. With an order book of 159, 420 looks awfully far away.

 

But how this relates to Mulally? Well, I guess by cancelling the proposed MD-12 (which really was a non-starter to begin with) and limiting development funding to a stretched& modernized B747 (Called the -8F & -8I, old_fairmont_wagon.) has proven to be a solid choice. While there has yet to be a passenger carrier order for the B747-8I, the B747-8F has soundly outsold the A380-800F.

 

More pointedly, this points to the Boeing strategy: less bragging, more results. Boeing decided not to challenge Airbus with another money-losing, ego-swelling large plane, instead focusing on the large replacement market for the aging A300/A310/A330/A340/B767 aircraft families and came up with the B787. The B787 won't have much to brag about for passengers, it's a rather plain looking, bland aircraft - but it is totally revolutionary from cost, construction, maintenance, and efficiency standpoints. And Boeing has sold out the first four years of production - before the first plane has even been constructed! Airbus is now struggling to catch-up with another delay for the proposed A350 as Airbus redesigns the plane, again, for, I believe, the fourth time and is trying to secure government backing for the A350's development costs as they swell on top of the costs of fixing the A380.

 

Which would you rather Ford be like? Building triumphs that don't sell or building reliable, workhorse planes that are profitable?

 

Fancy that.

 

Scott

[Mark B. Morrow]

The one major difference between the airplane business and tha car business is that passengers on the jetliner couldn't care less what the plane looks like. They are not buying it and their friends won't see them in it.

 

That said, I am optimistic about Mulally as Ford's CEO. He has driven most of the Ford line and he seems to have a clear understanding of the differences between Boeing and Ford's respective customers. He also isn't given to panic in light of all the gloom and doom that boeing lived through and Ford is going through now. Airplanes are a long term investment and the business needs to take a long term view. The car business has become a longer view business in the last 30 years since the annual model change is history.

 

Anyone who knows the history knows that Ford has been down this road before. When the challenges arose, Ford met them with great products like the Model A, V-8, '49 Ford, T-bir5d, Falcon, Mustang, Escort, Taurus Explorer, and many others.

 

With the quality reviews on the Fusion and 500 and the current anticipation of the Edge introduction, Ford will work its way back. It won't be easy or quick but I believe it will happen. As tough as things look now, Ford is not in as bad shape as it was in 1980 or as Chrysler was in 1979.

[Edstock]

Thanks, Scott.

[RichardJensen]

passengers on the jetliner couldn't care less what the plane looks like

I thought it was interesting that Mulally credited consumer preference for point-to-point routes as one of the factors behind the design of the 787.

 

I also think it very fitting that a guy who led projects that were commercial successes, while being disdained by 'plane guys' should come to Detroit. Ford needs a leader that isn't afraid of doing what's smart, when it's not 'cool'.

Edited October 25, 2006 by RichardJensen

[DCK]

Same reason why you haven't been banned.

 

No moderation.

 

Take what you like along with what you don't like. It's two sides of the same coin.

Anyone with a brain understands you're nothing but a joke, Your philosophy is simply you agree with me that every single thing ford dows is perfect in everyway an spineverysingle piece of news about ford into good...............or you hate ford.

 

That is your philosphy along with many brain dead people here as well who if anyone says anything not absolutely positive about Ford then they absolutely hate them. My approach to supporting Ford is to be strict and only accept the best foot foward and many of their current products simply don't jusitfy their best work and I will certainly give my opinion on them.

 

Like I said you're trully the meaning of what a pathetic joke is here. You want me banned simply being strict with Ford............................................which only cements what kind of person you are.

Edited October 25, 2006 by DCK

[RichardJensen]

You want me banned simply being strict with Ford

If I wanted you banned, you would be banned.

 

Unless you want this board run the way I want it run, you aren't going to get your way.

 

You don't like threads that veer off topic? Well, tough.

 

There are plenty of people on board that think you should be banned, and they don't get their way either.

Edited October 25, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Roadrunner]

<< passengers on the jetliner couldn't care less what the plane looks like >>

 

True, in some regards. But they do care a lot about how comfortable they are.

 

On the other hand, you bring up a good point that customers go by the airline (and especially a matrix, I think, of flying time vs. money vs. amenities) and the plane is secondary for American airliners.

 

The car business is much different: you buy a car at $20k, and you're stuck with it for a long while.

[keoni]

<< passengers on the jetliner couldn't care less what the plane looks like >>

 

True, in some regards. But they do care a lot about how comfortable they are.

 

On the other hand, you bring up a good point that customers go by the airline (and especially a matrix, I think, of flying time vs. money vs. amenities) and the plane is secondary for American airliners.

 

The car business is much different: you buy a car at $20k, and you're stuck with it for a long while.

 

Plus the 787 was designed to be the most comfortable jetliner ever with higher humidity levels, a higher cabin presurization, larger windows (I've read that the mockup even has windows in the lav), LED lighting, and more interior space. I'm not sure how much Mullay can be credited but if he brings some of those ideals regarding passenger comfort to Ford's customers, then I'm all for it.