Boeing's 'that'll do' boo-boo
By Bo Inghbuff
Mobile Bay Times
First, I am a believer that Boeing for decades has built history-making large airplanes that changed the world ... recall the B-29 which helped win WWII, the first successful commercial airliner, the 707, the jaw-dropping 747, and world power-maker KC-135.
I also believe it did that because it was a company managed proudly and expertly by "airplane builders" who hired "salesmen" to sell them. Now, it appears to be a company run by "salesmen" who hire "airplane builders" to build them.
Could that be the reason why Boeing, knowing for at least a decade the Air Force would be requiring a new Tanker, would not enter a cutting edge product such as the KC-135 was when it introduced in the late 50's?
It is as if Boeing’s "salesmen" execs, believing that whatever they entered in the competition would be a slam dunk, decided to sell the Air Force (and the taxpayers) what we Southerners sometimes call a "that'll do"! Well, a "that'll do" did not do in this competition.
I fondly recall hearing the test pilot who "'rolled" the first production 707 (the KC-135 was the military Tanker version of the 707) describe the incredible maneuver with the four-engine airliner while doing a Seattle area demonstration for Pan Am and Boeing executives. A key Boeing executive was so upset he was going to fire the test pilot but a Pam Am exec said it was the greatest demonstration of an airliner he had ever seen, asked to laud the pilot, and was the first airline to take delivery.
At the '95 Paris Air Show I spotted that beautiful "next generation widebody" 777 ("triple 7"as a retired Delta pilot friend affectionately calls it) Boeing was displaying and was thrilled to see the citizens-of-the-world crowd lined up to view it (paying no attention to a Russian Tupelov or maybe it was an Ilyushin airliner parked near it). It reminded me of the pride I felt while visiting U.S. Military bases in Europe in 1975 and watching the F-16 demonstrated at the Paris Air Show on European television for the first time and how "wowed" over its performance the NATO military officers were that I spoke with.
Now we fast forward to 2008 and our country's and the world’s best and greatest large airplane builder, Boeing, with years to prepare for this competition, and an abundant team of talented aviation designers, engineers, and workers (note: many of them are members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers which represents the finest aviation craftsmen in the world ... case in point being the new F-22 Raptor they build in Marietta, GA at Lockheed), decides to enter and try to win the next generation Tanker competition with an airplane designed in and flown since the mid-1970's (a variation of the more than 30-year-old 767) that is not fly-by-wire (uses computers instead of hydraulics ... don’t ask me any more than that) or is built with newer composite materials instead of all metal (again don’t ask).
See why I call it a "that’ll do."
The tempest Boeing has created about losing the award does not strike me as a proud company believing they were wronged, truly have the right product, and wanting to rectify it with a legitimate protest, but a bunch of upset "salesmen" trying to point fingers and save face (along with their jobs) because they screwed up and lost the "big sale."
The loss of the Tanker is a blow to Boeing but it's also a wake-up call for the company, much like our traditional car makers have gotten from foreign competition. The Boeing employees, shareholders and all of us who revere our country’s oldest and finest large airplane builder deserve better than the "that’ll do" the current executive suite delivered up in this competition.
