Why Airbus will Beat the Crap out of Boeing

by Martin Nix, contributor

TOO MUCH MILITARY ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS

Boeing isn�t Boeing anymore. It is Hughes-North-American-McDonnell-Douglas. It is no longer the airline manufacturer of choice, but now the space station, rocketship and the jet fighter company. Now military arms sales are a factor in commercial airplane sales. C-17 sales are promoted at the expense of 747 sales, two airplanes with similar capability. The Commercial Airline side is like working for the United Nations. There are people from Iraq sitting next to people from Iran, Israelis next to Palestinians, and people from Bosnia and Yugosolavia, all working on a common goal to provide a world-wide transportation system. Military people often use the commercial side as lunch, expecting it to give them jobs when they get laid off from a weapons contract. Profits from the commercial airline manufacturing are diverted to subsidize new weapons. Boeing should be a transportation company and contribute to national defense only with airframe derivatives (such as AWACS, Airborne Laser, etc). Let the military side form their own company separate from the commercial airlines. The current company is too big, and the airline business requires undivided attention. It is time Phil Condit stopped playing with his toys and get back to Seattle!

ENERGY, ENERGY, ENERGY

Airplanes run on oil. As the price of oil goes up, airplane sales go down. As people spend more on utility bills, they have less to spend on luxury items like airplane tickets. Unlike cars, which potentially can be electric, natural gas, propane, or hydrogen, airplanes have primarily one energy source: oil. Unlike Airbus, Boeing considers alternative fuels for commercial aircraft to be a joke. The fact is Boeing doesn�t want to solve the energy problem, despite plea after plea from the airlines to solve the high price of fuel. Airlines consume a major portion of the nation�s oil supply. Like it or not, the United States is dangerously dependent on foreign petroleum, and there is only so much oil in the ground. But do you think the oil companies will stand by and allow sonic cruisers to run on alcohol, or cargo aircraft to run on propane and natural gas? There are other energy sources, a point not missed by Airbus.

LACK OF CONCERNS FOR QUALITY AND SAFETY

The deliberate placing of production and profits before safety needs to stop. Boeing wants engineers to compromise their sense of public responsibility. Harry Stonecipher and his gang tried to implement �self inspections� instead of having real inspectors. Boeing doesn�t sell airplanes, it sells safety. So when the company punishes those who catch errors, it only creates distrust among the customers. Military aircraft are different: just push the button and parachute out. TWA 800 is a prime example. Boeing was perfectly aware of the potential of exploding fuel tanks! The company is not proactive. It should 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 gate expecting a parking place. It is time for all Boeing employees to leave their cars at home. The company could purchase electric vehicles to form carpools, implement mandatory vanpooling, put in a building-to-building transit/cargo system, build monorails between buildings, etc. The company literally has over a square mile of parking lot, land that could be used for other purposes. Airbus employees ride the train. Boeing could get 50,000 vehicles (in Puget Sound) off the road. According to Boeing�s own data the company has close to 75,000 parking places, totalling a land value of close to a half billion dollars.

TOO MUCH MANAGEMENT

The compnay has a general policy of creating a supervisor/subordinate ratio of about one to seven. Instead, increase this ratio to one to twenty. Between a bottom-rung employee and the CEO, there are many layers of management. When the CEO can�t even meet or talk with the people at the bottom, something is wrong. Making the company more egalitarian would enhance communications and place responsibility where it should be: at the lead and employee level.

EXCESSIVE WAGES FOR EXECS

I see lots of people with Master degrees walking the streets looking for work. There is no shortage of skilled people. When upper managemers get excessive wages, there is a two-tier society. There needs to be more of a middle ground. Boeing management acts too much like a country-club for the elite. Too much goes into stock benefits and not enough is plowed back into R&D, education, improving production and helping employees pay their utility bills. This disparity creates all kinds of labor/management issues.

EXCESSIVE WAGE DEMANDS BY EMPLOYEES

We are caught in a price/wage/energy spiral. As the prices of gasoline, and electricity go up, employees demand and get higher wages. This only fuels inflation. Instead of a cost of living increase, use company perks to reward energy efficiency. Somehow, Airbus doesn�t seem to have as many labor/management conflicts, a fact not missed by international airlines. These conflicts only cause distrust in the airline companies, which are concerned that Boeing will not meet their needs.

The author is a former employee of Boeing.