Why Airbus will Beat the Crap out of Boeing

by Martin Nix, contributor

TOO MUCH MILITARY ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE COMMERCIALBUSINESS

Boeing isn’t Boeing anymore. It isHughes-North-American-McDonnell-Douglas. It is no longer the airlinemanufacturer of choice, but now the space station, rocketship and thejet fighter company. Now military arms sales are a factor incommercial airplane sales. C-17 sales are promoted at the expense of747 sales, two airplanes with similar capability. The CommercialAirline side is like working for the United Nations. There are peoplefrom Iraq sitting next to people from Iran, Israelis next toPalestinians, and people from Bosnia and Yugosolavia, all working on acommon goal to provide a world-wide transportation system. Militarypeople often use the commercial side as lunch, expecting it to givethem jobs when they get laid off from a weapons contract. Profits fromthe commercial airline manufacturing are diverted to subsidize newweapons. Boeing should be a transportation company and contribute tonational defense only with airframe derivatives (such as AWACS,Airborne Laser, etc). Let the military side form their own companyseparate from the commercial airlines. The current company is too big,and the airline business requires undivided attention. It is time PhilCondit stopped playing with his toys and get back to Seattle!

ENERGY, ENERGY, ENERGY

Airplanes run on oil. As the price of oil goes up, airplanesales go down. As people spend more on utility bills, they have lessto spend on luxury items like airplane tickets. Unlike cars, whichpotentially can be electric, natural gas, propane, or hydrogen,airplanes have primarily one energy source: oil. Unlike Airbus, Boeingconsiders alternative fuels for commercial aircraft to be a joke. Thefact is Boeing doesn’t want to solve the energy problem, despite pleaafter plea from the airlines to solve the high price of fuel. Airlinesconsume a major portion of the nation’s oil supply. Like it or not,the United States is dangerously dependent on foreign petroleum, andthere is only so much oil in the ground. But do you think the oilcompanies will stand by and allow sonic cruisers to run on alcohol, orcargo aircraft to run on propane and natural gas? There are otherenergy sources, a point not missed by Airbus.

LACK OF CONCERNS FOR QUALITY AND SAFETY

The deliberate placing of production and profits before safetyneeds to stop. Boeing wants engineers to compromise their sense ofpublic responsibility. Harry Stonecipher and his gang tried toimplement “self inspections” instead of having real inspectors. Boeingdoesn’t sell airplanes, it sells safety. So when the company punishesthose who catch errors, it only creates distrust among the customers.Military aircraft are different: just push the button and parachuteout. TWA 800 is a prime example. Boeing was perfectly aware of thepotential of exploding fuel tanks! The company is not proactive. Itshould be able to look into the future, and recognize the issues.Airbus, in contrast, believes in quality.

TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC

Each day, Boeing managers drive their gas-hogs through the gateexpecting a parking place. It is time for all Boeing employees toleave their cars at home. The company could purchase electric vehiclesto form carpools, implement mandatory vanpooling, put in abuilding-to-building transit/cargo system, build monorails betweenbuildings, etc. The company literally has over a square mile ofparking lot, land that could be used for other purposes. Airbusemployees ride the train. Boeing could get 50,000 vehicles (in PugetSound) off the road. According to Boeing’s own data the company hasclose to 75,000 parking places, totalling a land value of close to ahalf billion dollars.

TOO MUCH MANAGEMENT

The compnay has a general policy of creating asupervisor/subordinate ratio of about one to seven. Instead, increasethis ratio to one to twenty. Between a bottom-rung employee and theCEO, there are many layers of management. When the CEO can’t even meetor talk with the people at the bottom, something is wrong. Making thecompany more egalitarian would enhance communications and placeresponsibility where it should be: at the lead and employee level.

EXCESSIVE WAGES FOR EXECS

I see lots of people with Master degrees walking the streetslooking for work. There is no shortage of skilled people. When uppermanagemers get excessive wages, there is a two-tier society. Thereneeds to be more of a middle ground. Boeing management acts too muchlike a country-club for the elite. Too much goes into stock benefitsand not enough is plowed back into R&D, education, improvingproduction and helping employees pay their utility bills. Thisdisparity creates all kinds of labor/management issues.

EXCESSIVE WAGE DEMANDS BY EMPLOYEES

We are caught in a price/wage/energy spiral. As the prices ofgasoline, and electricity go up, employees demand and get higherwages. This only fuels inflation. Instead of a cost of livingincrease, use company perks to reward energy efficiency. Somehow,Airbus doesn’t seem to have as many labor/management conflicts, a factnot missed by international airlines. These conflicts only causedistrust in the airline companies, which are concerned that Boeingwill not meet their needs.

The author is a former employee of Boeing.