[Morte42]

Boeing intentionally spread its operations to as many states as possible in the US to guarantee itself some level of privilege amongst a large number of politicians from both major parties. There are clearly downsides to having manufacturing split up like this but the decision wasn't made for its engineering perks. Boeing is a sinking ship but nobody is eager to rock the boat lest their part of the ship take on more water than the others.

[stefan_]

That’s not really any different from how Airbus works (and explicitly so). But I learned that Boeing literally outsourced the fuselage and that makes you wonder if they are really fit to build airplanes…

[dreamcompiler]

Boeing outsourced the fuselage to Boeing in Wichita, which had always built them. Boeing spun off that branch into a separate company now called Spirit, which is still basically Boeing except for its name.

[panick21_]

Spirit is not just Boeing. Since the Spin-out Spirit has been buying many other companies and they are a supplier to both Boeing and Airbus. About 65% of their costumer base is Boeing. Spirit is a totally independent company.

[hakfoo]

If it's "still Boeing except for the name", that still smells funny.

They got something out of spawning a new corporate entity. Without a convincing TL;DR I think most of us will assume it's for reasons that sound good to Boeing business people, but not to outside people. (I. e. being a "new entity" to avoid existing labour contracts, or serving as a liability firewall in the event chunks of plane start flying off)

[Sirizarry]

Do you have an article or two where I could start the airbus rabbit hole?

[pcurve]

Here's a growing list of approved suppliers for Airbus. https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/2023-04...

Their larger planes are assembled in Toulouse, but smaller planes are made globally.

[HeWhoLurksLate]

Lockheed Martin similarly has operations spread out to curry favors, but they also seem to build reliable stuff...

[damiankennedy]

The F-35 has been plagued with defects. Even the ejector seat had a defect.

[janice1999]

Breaking the pilots neck is indeed a defect! [0]

There were also serious issues with ejector sear components that affected dozens of other aircraft. [1]

Here's a depressing read: "All The Ways The F-35 Tried To Kill Its Pilot Prior To Eglin AFB Crash" [2]

[0] https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2015/10/14/usaf-ac...

[1] https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/08/15/all-us-air-force-...

[2] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36970/all-the-ways-the...

[ta1243]

> Breaking the pilots neck is indeed a defect! [0]

I love how the URL says "breaking news". It literally is.

[fransje26]

They have so many defects, they stopped communicating about them (since 2021 if I recall properly?), and until that point, the list had only been ever-increasing.

By the time they stopped communicating about the (800+) unsolved issues, they had more than 2 dozens potentially lethal for the pilots.

For the fun: https://archive.is/eA7Rr

[HeWhoLurksLate]

...okay then, looks like I was wrong. Guess they have a better PR department?

[DoingIsLearning]

Boeing's (aeronautic business) end-users are millions of passengers, Lockheed Martin's end-users are Defense and Intelligence. No need for damage control if mum's the word.

[inferiorhuman]

They were "smart" enough to get out of the airliner business after the rather spectacular failure of the L-1011 and the whole wings falling off thing they went through with the Electra.

The military has a much higher tolerance for bullshit. The wings keep falling off the C-130 and the military keeps flying them (and the C-5).

[hypercube33]

I can't find a lot about c130 wings falling off. I found this which implies a known problem for c130a's wingbox which has a billion to retrofit with a new design - https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-sad-story-of-tanker-130-...

Any more information?

[inferiorhuman]

Not much more information, but it's happened a few times.

https://www.iprr.org/comps/T82story.htm

https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/c130-crash-of-197...

https://www.defensedaily.com/hercules-crash-in-baghdad-point...

[philwelch]

A couple of points about the F-35.

The requirements of a commercial airliner are a lot different than those of a cutting edge fighter jet. The F-35 ejection seat is too powerful and might injure smaller pilots, sure. But if I’m flying in contested airspace with enemy air defenses and fighter jets trying to shoot at me, I’d still feel a lot safer in an F-35 than in an Airbus.

There has been a lot of FUD about the F-35 spread around the press, but a surprising amount of this FUD comes straight from Boeing. You see, Boeing makes the Super Hornet, and every F-35 sale Lockheed Martin makes is a potential Super Hornet sale that Boeing has lost. Don’t get me wrong, the Super Hornet is an awesome fighter, but despite what Boeing would have you think, it doesn’t come close to the capabilities of an F-35.

Obviously I would much prefer my country and its allies to buy fighter jets from some perfect aerospace company that makes completely flawless aircraft, even when those aircraft contain groundbreaking innovations at the bleeding edge of what is technically possible. Fingers crossed that enough lessons were learned that when NGAD comes out, it’s a lot faster and smoother than the F-35 process, but this stuff is hard for everyone and for all the deserved criticism that the American military-industrial complex gets, nobody else in the world actually does a better job of making fighter jets.

[hintymad]

> Boeing intentionally spread its operations to as many states as possible

Interestingly, it is the senators who forced Boeing's hand, according to the ACQ podcast on Lockheed Martin. The senators were responsible to approve all kinds of government budgets for Boeing, and they wouldn't approve it unless Boeing also created jobs in their states.