^^^

You see the root problem with a lot of clarity.

Wasn't Bill Boisture at the CEO helm of Beechcraft-Hawker for about 3 years prior to the disastrous loss of the Air Force contract for Light Support Aircraft and future trainers to Embraer? That was the beginning of the final end for Beech as an independent entity. Within 6 months later Boisture was demoted to some operating subsidiary and within a year later Beechcraft was bankrupt.

Whatever made him an apparently effective leader at Grumman-Gulfstream obviously didn't work at Beechcraft. And Boeing is a lot more complex than either. One management style does not fit all situations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-O75_caKwY

If Boeing built the Star Wars Death Star

NASA drops Starliner and will rely primarily on Dragon; and maybe Soyuz:

https://jalopnik.com/nasa-drops-boeing- ... 1851676293

no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should

Wasn't Bill Boisture at the CEO helm of Beechcraft-Hawker for about 3 years prior to the disastrous loss of the Air Force contract for Light Support Aircraft and future trainers to Embraer? That was the beginning of the final end for Beech as an independent entity. Within 6 months later Boisture was demoted to some operating subsidiary and within a year later Beechcraft was bankrupt.

Whatever made him an apparently effective leader at Grumman-Gulfstream obviously didn't work at Beechcraft. And Boeing is a lot more complex than either. One management style does not fit all situations.

We’re about 2 1/2 months to 2025 which is 5 years until SpaceX drops the ISS into the ocean. Considering that Starliner is over 10 years behind schedule with no end in sight, when do you just decide to cut your losses? Or do you keep pushing to get maybe a year or two out of it?

I say they are mesmerized by the sunk cost. They may put more money in past 2030.

IIRC, It's a Cost+ contract. There's not really a financial advantage for Boeing to give layoff notices now. Political hail mary playbook.

I think Boeing is smart to do it this way, even though it doesn't save them any money today. Why?

First is the political aspect that Ryan pointed out. "Hey Senators, look what the bad ol' DOGE people are probably going to make us do." Maybe that saves the program, or at least parts of it. Can't hurt, might help.

Second is that, since the contract is cost-plus, the sooner Boeing cuts their cost the less they will lose. You can bet that they have identified exactly which jobs and people are chargeable on that contract and which are overhead, and out of that combined pool which can be moved to other chargeable programs, and they've got those layoff notices locked and ready so that the instant the contract is terminated, they can start the layoffs.

Third is that under the WARN Act they must provide at least 60 days advance notice. The sooner they provide the notification, the more maneuvering room they have. If nothing happens, then nothing happens (apart from demoralizing and alienating their workforce, a post-McD-merger specialty of the house). If the contract is axed, they can move faster than if they'd waited to issue the WARN notifications.

Similar to discussions with my local pilot friends, and comments from John Freas. There is not much upside to getting Starliner up to shape, when it is years behind schedule, and the ISS is scheduled to deorbit in 5 years. The costs to bring the Starliner back into NASA's graces likely would never pay back in the few years remaining.

What is it now, 2 crew trips to the ISS a year, I dunno? But if it is 2 crew trips per year and Boeing had 1 of those, then 5 flights, is there enough margin to pay for the additional investment to get Starliner from where it is now to flight ready, no qualms from NASA, and back on the schedule?

I am not aware of any mission capabilities beyond ISS, could be way wrong on that.

There was discussion that Boeing may look for potential buyers of various programs, including Starliner, who would buy that now?

Like Crew Dragon, Starliner's primary purpose is to service the ISS. It is intended to provide redundancy for Dragon, with the same or similar functionality (crew transport, resupply, orbit boost, etc.) It's not technically needed, it's just redundancy to allow uninterrupted ISS support in the event of a problem with Dragon or Falcon9. The funny thing is that this is exactly the reverse of what everyone expected when this program began. Everybody expected Starliner to be the first to orbit and the primary vehicle for the purpose, with Dragon being the backup, if it ever made it that far. Now it's Falcon9 and Dragon that are the primary (only) US vehicle servicing the ISS and Starliner wishes it could rise to the level of second-fiddle.

If I understand the NASA contract correctly, they have committed to four more flights of Starliner, if and only if it is certified for crewed flight, which it is not and may never be. This is a fixed cost contract, so Boeing is taking a loss for every dollar they spend on Starliner from long ago to the end of the program, but those last few flights may help to cut their losses if they can get the thing certified without spending tons of money.

It's a real mess, and a glaring example of Boeing's slide into mediocrity (or worse). Given the current situation I am betting that the ISS will deorbit in 2030 and that will be the end of the Starliner program one way or another. I would be shocked if the vehicle is ever crew certified.

They signed a fixed price contract and didn’t deliver. There should be clawback.

They still have 2 problems still stuck on the ISS! Hopefully SpaceX will be able to get both Williams and Willmore back home in mid-March after they were stranded on that ISSland in June.