Pay attention to the language - ‘Boeing needed cash to assuage it’s shareholders and executives’
What does it mean? It presents Boeing as a ‘separate’ entity that has to throw a bone to shareholders and executives. But they are Boeing, they own it and run it. There is no separation.
A more accurate way to describe it would be to say that the owners of Boeing decided to pillage the company and put money into their own pocket - sell factories and do share buybacks. Get rid of talent, etc. The exact same thing is happening across the board, in every company in the west, American railways, water companies in UK, and now it has come for us, it’s happening in google and Microsoft.
They are run by executives who know nothing about airplanes / engineering and don’t give a shit.
We are catering to financialisation and killing the real economy. The idea that when financial institutions make money that’s the main thing in the economy will spell our doom.
I recently saw a report from a financial institution that predicts that if climate change causes water shortages and farming losses, the impact on economy will be 5%. because the share of farming in the economy is about that much. They have little appreciation for knock on effects.
The finance industry is not run by people who are smarter than the rest of us, it is run by people detached from reality who never pay the price of their mistakes, as happened in 2008
This is super important. It reminds me of the line from "Succession," when Brian Cox says, "The Ford Motor company is barely real. It's a shorthand for a set of financial interests."
We use the word "Boeing" as if it is a real thing. In fact it is a set (as well as many subsets) of individuals pursuing a variety of goals.
When we say "Boeing" quote "lost its way," maybe that is reasonable language for the entirety of the Boeing corporation. But you can just as easily say, "How Boeing willfully endangered the lives of its passengers by cutting corners" if you're referring to the subset of individuals who command Boeing and created this set of incentives.
> run by executives who know nothing about airplanes / engineering
Dennis Mullenberg and Jack Welch were pillaging executives and engineers. The myth of engineering management being inherently incorruptible is empirically misplaced.
It describes how it used providers instead of internalization to push down on the prices.
However, to anyone who might expect it, it doesn’t tell that Boeing has fired 900 QAs out of 3000 back in 2021.
This documentary is not as damning as Al Jezeera’s documentary on the 2013 airframe mishaps: https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os
Maybe it’s a European bias, but I’d like to see more shame (and jail time) upon the Boeing management, down to the guy at the bottom who signed off the bolt work without even looking at the plane, which is criminal. But I’m fair, I’d also enjoy the management of Volkswagen going to jail, like that manager who went to holidays through a USA connection and was intercepted by the US border and is still rotting in jail.
> the guy at the bottom who signed off the bolt work without even looking at the plane, which is criminal
Rumour is [1] bolt removal was entered in the tracking system as 'opening' the door rather than 'removing' the door and hence it didn't attract a re-inspection.
Boeing is one of the crown jewel flag carrying brands of US superiority, a major jobs provider across several states, and a huge defense supplier, nobody from Boeing is ever going to jail.
Deals will be done behind closed doors on how to sort things out quietly and the show will go on.
One of the ways the “West” begins/is losing its way: don’t prioritize the truth and don’t focus on the truly important things. Think short term. It took them long to get to this point.
It's not the West as a whole, it's a specific group of MBA-types which hijacked many institutions. We know where the problem is coming from. We have enough people who want to do stuff like building planes properly. The next step is to make domain knowledge mandatory for leadership roles.
I think what people don't fully appreciate is that the US will never allow Boeing to go bankrupt. A ecosystem around it is too important for the military industry.
Worst case scenario they'll order 200 of the worst assembled 737s as troop carriers. Hopefully they'll then just have them sit in an Arizona desert.
Is it possible for a hundred billion dollar company to hold constant stream of innovation that is not in big tech?
From what I understand MBA-fication of innovation is inevitable. Innovation is funded by revenue and revenue is backed by sales. Sales is driven by "who you know" aka networking.
Technical prowess will convince someone to buy your product, but networking gets you through the doors in the first. Inevitably you need MBAs to generate revenue. After a certain points MBA-fication creeps in to engineering decisions and innovation.
From what I understand, innovation is largely fueled by chaos and risk. MBA fundamentally is about risk minimization and certainty. So, I can't blame Boeing, like I can't blame Intel, IBM, Ford, GM, General Electric, Phillips etc.
The most mendacious and destructive idea to have ever been been conceived. Customers, employees and governments can screw themselves, only the wealthy matter. Propped up by the concept of a corporation as a legal entity with the same rights as a person, who happens to be a sociopath.
Boeing has to redesign how they design planes (for example without outsourcing not just the manufacturing but also the design of various pieces as they are currently doing), then design a new plane that's safer and cheaper. They don't have the money to do that. A government bailout may be the only solution, because otherwise we'll be looking at an Airbus monopoly.
> don't have the money to do that. A government bailout may be the only solution
On the condition of bankruptcy, sure. (This is how we did the auto bailouts.)
In reality, we probably need a break-up (and recombination of spun-out factories). Keep the military contractor a monolith. But reïnject competition into our civil aviation sector.
These are explicitly not a design issue, but a manufacturing process issue.
And I'm not sure if you want current Boeing to do a clean-sheet 737 replacement with their current engineering culture. The reason it isn't more unsafe is that a lot of it was designed so long ago (some parts even as far back as the 707).
Then again, the Dreamliner seems to be doing okay-ish now.
It isn't necessarily capitalism. The plan economy didn't do well either.
It's that the overall mind set has turned to greed, and (almost) everybody thinks it's ok. So people grab what they can at any cost. You can see it on this forum as well.
This is a common excuse or conspiracy theory if you live near Mac or Boeing plants, it may or may not be true.
Boeing bought Mac in '97, over 25 years ago. That's a whole generation of employees. Coming from St. Louis I've been hearing Boeing folks blame Mac for their failures for years which is probably because few are left from Mac to disagree, and when Mac folks did complain it was when they were getting laid off around 99.
It's been 25 years, these problems now are all of Boeing's makings, there is no Mac and hasn't been for a long time. Mac didn't make the MAX nor did it not bolt doors to planes. All of this is easily explained by general growth and stagnation of a company but conspiracies are more fun. None of this fixes the current issues.
I can see the copium is strong with this group. Does it really matter who's to blame when the problems are at this level? It just needs a fix.
Boeing bought Mac, but Mac's management and priorities infected Boeing. Maybe Boeing's old-school managers would have succumbed to Jack Welch's financialization scheme, lured by fat stacks of cash, but Mac's people certainly accelerated that process.
You can convincingly argue that Mac did make the MAX and Mac did oversee a process where planes flew without doors bolted on, because Boeing no longer exists. It's just Mac wearing Boeing's branding and facilites like a skin suit.
[+] [-] ClumsyPilot|2 years ago|reply
What does it mean? It presents Boeing as a ‘separate’ entity that has to throw a bone to shareholders and executives. But they are Boeing, they own it and run it. There is no separation.
A more accurate way to describe it would be to say that the owners of Boeing decided to pillage the company and put money into their own pocket - sell factories and do share buybacks. Get rid of talent, etc. The exact same thing is happening across the board, in every company in the west, American railways, water companies in UK, and now it has come for us, it’s happening in google and Microsoft.
They are run by executives who know nothing about airplanes / engineering and don’t give a shit.
We are catering to financialisation and killing the real economy. The idea that when financial institutions make money that’s the main thing in the economy will spell our doom.
I recently saw a report from a financial institution that predicts that if climate change causes water shortages and farming losses, the impact on economy will be 5%. because the share of farming in the economy is about that much. They have little appreciation for knock on effects.
The finance industry is not run by people who are smarter than the rest of us, it is run by people detached from reality who never pay the price of their mistakes, as happened in 2008
[+] [-] life-and-quiet|2 years ago|reply
We use the word "Boeing" as if it is a real thing. In fact it is a set (as well as many subsets) of individuals pursuing a variety of goals.
When we say "Boeing" quote "lost its way," maybe that is reasonable language for the entirety of the Boeing corporation. But you can just as easily say, "How Boeing willfully endangered the lives of its passengers by cutting corners" if you're referring to the subset of individuals who command Boeing and created this set of incentives.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
Dennis Mullenberg and Jack Welch were pillaging executives and engineers. The myth of engineering management being inherently incorruptible is empirically misplaced.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg...
[+] [-] FirmwareBurner|2 years ago|reply
Boeing execs: "We're listening"
[+] [-] p_l|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eastbound|2 years ago|reply
However, to anyone who might expect it, it doesn’t tell that Boeing has fired 900 QAs out of 3000 back in 2021.
This documentary is not as damning as Al Jezeera’s documentary on the 2013 airframe mishaps: https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os
Maybe it’s a European bias, but I’d like to see more shame (and jail time) upon the Boeing management, down to the guy at the bottom who signed off the bolt work without even looking at the plane, which is criminal. But I’m fair, I’d also enjoy the management of Volkswagen going to jail, like that manager who went to holidays through a USA connection and was intercepted by the US border and is still rotting in jail.
[+] [-] michaelt|2 years ago|reply
Rumour is [1] bolt removal was entered in the tracking system as 'opening' the door rather than 'removing' the door and hence it didn't attract a re-inspection.
[1] https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...
[+] [-] FirmwareBurner|2 years ago|reply
Deals will be done behind closed doors on how to sort things out quietly and the show will go on.
[+] [-] aktuel|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neverrroot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mglz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Judgmentality|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asmor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thsksbd|2 years ago|reply
Worst case scenario they'll order 200 of the worst assembled 737s as troop carriers. Hopefully they'll then just have them sit in an Arizona desert.
[+] [-] atonse|2 years ago|reply
But I do agree in general that the US Gov would want there to be an American civilian aircraft manufacturer.
Otherwise it’s just Airbus, right?
[+] [-] mooreds|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpursley|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wqtz|2 years ago|reply
From what I understand MBA-fication of innovation is inevitable. Innovation is funded by revenue and revenue is backed by sales. Sales is driven by "who you know" aka networking.
Technical prowess will convince someone to buy your product, but networking gets you through the doors in the first. Inevitably you need MBAs to generate revenue. After a certain points MBA-fication creeps in to engineering decisions and innovation.
From what I understand, innovation is largely fueled by chaos and risk. MBA fundamentally is about risk minimization and certainty. So, I can't blame Boeing, like I can't blame Intel, IBM, Ford, GM, General Electric, Phillips etc.
[+] [-] russellbeattie|2 years ago|reply
The most mendacious and destructive idea to have ever been been conceived. Customers, employees and governments can screw themselves, only the wealthy matter. Propped up by the concept of a corporation as a legal entity with the same rights as a person, who happens to be a sociopath.
[+] [-] slyall|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breadwinner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
On the condition of bankruptcy, sure. (This is how we did the auto bailouts.)
In reality, we probably need a break-up (and recombination of spun-out factories). Keep the military contractor a monolith. But reïnject competition into our civil aviation sector.
[+] [-] asmor|2 years ago|reply
And I'm not sure if you want current Boeing to do a clean-sheet 737 replacement with their current engineering culture. The reason it isn't more unsafe is that a lot of it was designed so long ago (some parts even as far back as the 707).
Then again, the Dreamliner seems to be doing okay-ish now.
[+] [-] aaomidi|2 years ago|reply
Capitalism doesn’t learn its lessons.
[+] [-] tgv|2 years ago|reply
It's that the overall mind set has turned to greed, and (almost) everybody thinks it's ok. So people grab what they can at any cost. You can see it on this forum as well.
[+] [-] grogenaut|2 years ago|reply
Boeing bought Mac in '97, over 25 years ago. That's a whole generation of employees. Coming from St. Louis I've been hearing Boeing folks blame Mac for their failures for years which is probably because few are left from Mac to disagree, and when Mac folks did complain it was when they were getting laid off around 99.
It's been 25 years, these problems now are all of Boeing's makings, there is no Mac and hasn't been for a long time. Mac didn't make the MAX nor did it not bolt doors to planes. All of this is easily explained by general growth and stagnation of a company but conspiracies are more fun. None of this fixes the current issues.
I can see the copium is strong with this group. Does it really matter who's to blame when the problems are at this level? It just needs a fix.
[+] [-] MengerSponge|2 years ago|reply
You can convincingly argue that Mac did make the MAX and Mac did oversee a process where planes flew without doors bolted on, because Boeing no longer exists. It's just Mac wearing Boeing's branding and facilites like a skin suit.
[+] [-] RajT88|2 years ago|reply
https://kevinkruse.com/the-ceo-and-the-three-envelopes/
[+] [-] jacquesm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prithvi24|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waveBidder|2 years ago|reply