Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

Post by blotter_paper » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #21

markus_zhang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what Capitalism does, to make as much money as possible. And it's up to the government to regulate them, and it failed to do so.

Boing has lost a lot of money on this, which capitalism should avoid no government intervention required. Instead, this is not really capitalism at work but internal forces inside a giant organization. The risk reward calculation for internal management does not track the company’s overall risks vs reward resulting in company wide losses.

Post by pcurve » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 5:26 AM UTC

notreallymee wrote: post #32

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #5

I hate the "everything must be a profit center" MBA attitude. Boeing is a profitable company because they make machines that fly people from place to place safely and efficiently. Part of that is having training, support, service, replacement parts, sales, manufacturing, IT, R&D, and all the other things required to make things fly. It's easy to sit in a conference room and say "gee, IT hasn't made any money, instead…

Using a throwaway account. A few years ago I did some consulting work for British Airways. It was interesting in that as far as the planes themselves, and the operational risk of the planes was concerned, the company had their shit together. Decisions made from a safety first point of view. Engineers making the calls. Everything else no object. But ALL the software around the planes, from the ops to ALL of the b2c wa…

Post by cmurf » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 5:36 AM UTC

blotter_paper wrote: post #69

SequoiaHope wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I’m a leftist. So I sympathize with what you are saying. But you have to be careful using the term “capitalism”. It’s a highly overloaded term. For example I’ve come to realize that libertarians use the term quite differently from leftists. So if you use the term in mixed company you will find a lot of confusion results. It can be helpful to use other terminology which is less confusing. For example, Marxist econo…

Anarchist here, used to identify as a communist. I'd argue that both of your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco, but that the latter ("free economic exchange through markets") seems more in line with what GP was wanting to, err, correct; I read GP as wanting more regulation for airplanes, which is antithetical to free exchange. I feel like the market itself will correct f…

Post by speedplane » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 5:49 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #72

speedplane wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting. One purpose of regulation i…

> For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure.

Post by blotter_paper » Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 5:51 AM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #75

blotter_paper wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchist here, used to identify as a communist. I'd argue that both of your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco, but that the latter ("free economic exchange through markets") seems more in line with what GP was wanting to, err, correct; I read GP as wanting more regulation for airplanes, which is antithetical to free exchange. I feel like the market itself will correct f…

Democracy (and variants) is obviously in conflict with "long enough time scale", as in anything highly motivating the electorate will choose to compel a legislative alternative to free market outcomes. The not so subtle difference between a legislated outcome and a free market one, is the former is the sovereign, and near as I can tell not a single country's founding ideas/documents specify an economic system.