From over at the Space News web site

Boeing announced Oct. 26 it will take yet another charge against earnings because of delays in the CST-100 Starliner commercial crew program, bringing the total losses recorded by the company to date on the program to nearly $900 million.

The latest charge brings the total losses announced by Boeing on the Starliner program to $883 million dating back to early 2020, when the company took a $410 million charge after a first uncrewed test flight, called Orbital Flight Test (OFT) was cut short by technical problems. The company took an additional $185 million charge in October 2021 when valve problems delayed the OFT-2 mission.

The company did caution in the SEC filing that this latest charge may not be the last for the Starliner program. “Risk remains that we may record additional losses in future periods,” it stated.

As one of the commenters stated

If people didn't see the value of NASA doing more business this way, then this is it. None of this was charged to the taxpayer. It's all on Boeing to endure in terms of financial losses.

Read the complete article at https://spacenews.com/boeings-starliner-charges-approach-900-million

__________________
Web Site and Blog
https://rocketryjournal.wordpress.com

YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/@AustinAerospace

3D Printing Designs
https://www.thingiverse.com/austin_aerospace_education

Software
https://sourceforge.net/u/austinaerospace/profile

As someone who worked at Boeing for nearly 38 years (though not on spacecraft), all I can say about this is *sigh*

__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE

And it should NOT be on the taxpayer.

Cost over-runs on all gov't contracts should ALWAYS be on the supplier.
If they didn't figure in ALL proper costs in their "bid package", tough ROXX even to the point of bankruptcy.

Private-sector suppliers don't get to just tack-on additional costs to their purchasers, gov't contractors should have to follow.
That would quickly eliminate garbage products like the TURD F-35 underwhelming fighter jet.
With the exception of stealth, the F-35 is a POS.
ANY new fighter aircraft that cannot maintain Mach 2.0 sustained flight without damage should be summarily DITCHED. That used to be an unwritten rule that STILL should exist for USAF aircraft. As far as USN and USMC aircraft, those have to be more "Jack of all Trades, yet King of NONE". The F-14 was the exception to that and should STILL be flying.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

Sad, for sure. I left HP in 2001 feeling much the same way, after working for almost 25 years for what I considered the premier engineering company.

__________________
Lee Reep
NAR 55948

Projects: Semroc Saturn 1B, Ken Foss Designs Mini Satellite Interceptor
In the Paint Shop: Nothing! Too cold!
Launch-Ready: Farside-X, Maxi Honest John, Super Scamp

Boeing built lunar orbiters and Mariner 10 in the 60's, with thrusters. Over 50 years later they can't keep a thruster valve from leaking. Fer cryin out loud, they built the S-1C! SMH

__________________
I love sanding.

Agree with tbzep above.
If they did it effectively 50 years ago, it's ABSURD they can't now.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

More stuff to make you wonder about Boeing.



Today I see this over at Business Insider...

Boeing lost $766 million during the third quarter of this year on the project to build two planes that will serve as the next Air Force One, the company said in its latest earnings report. The figure takes the company's losses for the project to $1.9 billion since it began.


[I]n a quarterly earnings call in April this year that the "unique" agreement exposed the company to "a very unique set of risks that Boeing probably shouldn't have taken." At the time, Boeing representatives said the company had lost a total of $1.14 billion, including a further $660 million in the first quarter, on the planes, per an SEC filing.
...

The first of the new jets, which Boeing is not building from scratch, but from two repurposed jetliners, was originally scheduled to enter service in 2024.
...
The program is up to three years behind schedule, per Reuters.

On two planes that were already built and just needed modifications, Boeing has lost $1.9 billion. It was supposed to take 6 years - and 4 years into the project they are 3 years behind schedule.


Full article at https://www.businessinsider.com/boe...-losses-2022-10

__________________
Web Site and Blog
https://rocketryjournal.wordpress.com

YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/@AustinAerospace

3D Printing Designs
https://www.thingiverse.com/austin_aerospace_education

Software
https://sourceforge.net/u/austinaerospace/profile

The new AF-1's can take a loss and probably be written off as advertising. I'm sure that's why they signed a contract at such a low amount. It would be really bad for business if the POTUS were to start flying Airbus.

However, it seems that it is costing them way more than they thought, and the cost is increasing by the minute. Sounds like Starliner, eh?

__________________
I love sanding.

So much engineering knowhow has been lost due to outsourcing. It makes a huge difference whether your engineers are working directly with workers vs. mailing plans and specs to China; solid feedback about why a design doesn't work makes for a better engineer. Big corporations in pursuit of a cheaper bottom line (and no unions) did this to us (and themselves, it seems).

__________________
NAR # 115523
Once upon a better day... SAM #0076
My site: http://rocketry.gonnerman.org

Outsourcing might be a little of it. But in this case it's probably more like the difficulty in meeting evolving requirements for high-level secure communications equipment, some defensive capabilities and who knows what Trump insisted on in the actual interior, and making all that play nice together inside a working aircraft. The actual airframes and the systems that make it work as an aircraft, are the easy part in these sorts of projects. It's kind of like trying to create a luxury suite with the communications capabilities (and maybe even some of the signals intelligence capabilities) of an airborne early warning aircraft and the defensive capability of a submarine hunter, all coexisting with the airplane as an airplane.

That doesn't excuse it being well behind schedule and/or overrunning its budget — but the idea suggested in the article that "they're not even building them from scratch" completely misses what the real work is here.

__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE