Why don't they just kill the 737 MAX program and start on another aircraft? As a consumer it will build confidence and trust in me.
It would bankrupt the company and put them years behind Airbus.
Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
91–100 of 637 posts
Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the normal standard is that 'x' has decided to spend more time with his family and is given a very nice golden parachute (pun definitely not intended nor applicable) this is indeed quite brutal. That doesn't rule out he will get lots of money for severance but it isn't going to come with a smile and a handshake.
I assume golden parachutes are built into the contract when they begin as the CEO.
"Golden parachute" is just a pejorative for "severance pay." And, it shouldn't be surprising the person hired to be a company's chief negotiator tends to negotiate themselves a good deal.
Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can easily see how any of these items could be explained by "pressure to deliver" and "reduction of costs".
> I can easily see how any of these items could be explained by "pressure to deliver" and "reduction of costs". Can you point to where in the PE Code of Ethics it says that cutting corners due to "pressure to deliver" is okay? The whole purpose of the PE designation is to avoid circumstances like that.
Why Engineers Must Remember the Kansas City Hyatt Tragedy
https://www.enr.com/articles/38400-why-engineers-must-rememb...
“Many false theories persist about the cause of this fatal collapse. The failure was not due to poor workmanship, shoddy materials, a rushed schedule, swaying from dancing, “harmonic vibrations” from the music, poor contractor communication or design changes that did not receive proper review.
As documented in the official investigation report, two professional engineers issued sealed design drawings without performing critical calculations to determine whether sufficient load capacity existed.”
Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#94I'm really glad to see that there is at least some type of corporate accountability going on for so many people dying. This probably should have happened sooner.
Quoting from the Code of Hammurabi (Ancient Babylon):
> If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
There's real accountability for you. Corporate accountability these days is a sick joke.
Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#95After both The Economist[1] and The New York Times [2] publicly undermined faith in Dennis Muilenberg. No question at this point that he needed to be replaced. The question is - why didn't the board act sooner? [1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/boeings-misplac... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/business/boeing-dennis-mu...
The NYT story in particular was hard-hitting and well sourced. Gotta wonder if these stories influenced the board to act now.
It's a bad look, because Boeing is consistently way too late to recognize what is obvious to those of us watching from home.
I continue to be astounded that our most senior leaders will not act in the long-term best interest of the organizations they lead.
It's been 37 years since the Tylenol crisis, where seven people in Chicago died after someone tampered with the pain reliever and contaminated it with potassium cyanide.
Way back then, Johnson & Johnson did far more than they were required to do. They pulled all Tylenol from all store shelves everywhere, and kept it off the market until they completely redesigned the packaging. They took complete responsibility. They over-communicated with regulators and with the public. Their market share plunged from 35% to 8% and they took a huge financial hit.
But what was bad for J&J in the short term was fantastically positive in the long term. Their brand recovered, stronger than ever, and they regained their dominant market share.
But today, leaders across the public and private sectors rarely act with this kind of understanding and foresight. Muilenburg downplayed the catastrophes, blamed the pilots, pressured regulators, tried to find cheap shortcuts to fix the problem, and made promises to suppliers and customers he couldn't keep.
So often what's best in the immediate term is worst for the long term. Why can't today's leaders think a little bigger, and optimize for the long term even if that has an immediate cost?
Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#96> Chairman David Calhoun will take over as CEO and president, effective Jan. 13, the company said, adding that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company. If they wanted to restore my confidence, they’d have picked an engineer, not an accountant.
Someone like Dennis Muilenburg then? If the last one was an engineer, why would another engineer restore your confidence any more?
I mean, I wasn’t particularly down on Muilenburg, I’m aware of his credentials, but haven’t followed this Boeing story closely enough to have an opinion on his culpability with respect to the 737 MAX.
So yes, if they were going to replace the CEO for the optics, “someone like Dennis Muilenburg” would have been the best-case scenario for me, rather than someone with non-engineering background/specialty.
For a sports analogy, CEO shuffling is kinda like coach/GM shuffling of pro sports teams - they’re there to take the blame when things go wrong, but picking a CEO without a related background is like picking a new coach from a different sport.
Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#97Why don't they just kill the 737 MAX program and start on another aircraft? As a consumer it will build confidence and trust in me.
Because it will take on the order of 10 years. What are the 737 customers going to fly in the mean time? Keeping old airplanes flying longer isn't exactly increasing security either. And there is no indication so far, that a 737 MAX with a fixed MCAS isn't safe. Don't get me wrong: I think Boeing should have created a true 737 successor long ago and should do ASAP. But until it is done, there is a need for a current…
> And there is no indication so far, that a 737 MAX with a fixed MCAS isn't safe.
I don't think that's quite true. There's been a large swathe of other problems [0] involved in the production.
Broken or damaged parts, engine shutdowns and faulty hydraulics are just some of the concerns that Boeing seemed to have glossed over.
There has to be a reason that Boeing was willing to go so far as halt production [1] to reassess the plane, and that won't be just one flaw.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/business/boeing-737-max-w...
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-weighs-cutting-or-haltin...
Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#98Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#99The big question for Boeing is how they will transition to a post-737 world. Until now, Boeing's business plan is that they will be building a starship for NASA in 2060, but you will still be stuck with a 737 on Southwest Airlines, a A320 on Jetblue, and never know that aviation could be better. The 737 throws off a lot of cash, but the single-aisle monoculture makes flying miserable. A 737 replacement will be expens…
There's no way they're going to develop a completely new plane. It may have new branding, but it's going to be a 737 at the bones. Since when has the airline industry ever considered passenger misery?
Airlines consider passenger misery a benefit:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21530964
Jules Dupuit, describing rail carriages, though the same logic applies:
It is not because of the several thousand francs which they would have to spend to cover the third class wagons or to upholster the benches. ... [I]t would happily sacrifice this [expense] for the sake of its popularity.
Its goal is to stop the traveler who can pay for the second class trip from going third class. It hurts the poor not because it wants them to personally suffer, but to scare the rich.
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/why-does-air-travel-suck-...
Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that the design is fundamentally flawed; the engines are too large to fit under the wings with the existing landing gear, so they were moved forward, thereby upsetting the balance between the center of thrust of the engines and the center of lift of the wings, thereby requiring a brittle MCAS system to attempt to compensate. The MCAS system itself is flawed in a number of ways, but the core proble…
Actually it's important to remember that MCAS was not fitted to make the plane safer. It was fited to make it behave the same way as a 737 so that pilots don't need to be retrained. If you would retrain pilots then the 737 MAX can be safely flown without MCAS. Pilots just need to be familiar with the different aerodynamics.
A 737 Max without MCAS doesn't have linearly increasing stick forces as AOA increases. This is a FAA requirement, so the 737 MAX can't be approved without the MCAS system, regardless if it could be flown by a trained pilot.