Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 637 posts

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#241

Post by khuey »

jonplackett wrote: post #236
cattlemansgold wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Starliner mission was a test. You wouldn't have 100% confidence that a test would be executed flawlessly. The purpose of the test is to find flaws in the system, and that's exactly what they did.

Reminds me of the news coverage of SpaceX’s first landing attempts, where they crashed into the barge and exploded and everyone was like “it’s a failure, it will never work”. Yeah but so much went right. I think it’s just the (well deserved) media narrative Boeing is in now. When you kill hundreds of people and then pretend it wasn’t your fault, you get what’s coming to you.

The obvious difference is that SpaceX's landings were secondary objectives and something that nobody had ever done before. Getting in the proper orbit to the ISS was a primary objective for Starliner and something we've been doing for 20 years.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#242

Post by [deleted] »

leesalminen wrote: post #221
fooster wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect to be able to sit in my seat without having my knees crushed? How about that for a start?

Then you could purchase a different fare class. The market has largely spoken already- people prefer lower fares over comfortable seats.

[deleted]

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#243

Post by Spooky23 »

lhopki01 wrote: post #185
Spooky23 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't until political winds shift and you get some regulatory intervention. I would project around 2030, when the major carriers are all ground away and the financial shenanigans of low cost airlines (example: Norwegian Airlines with NY->Europe trips that cost less than the parking) run out of gas. Without that, there's no motivation to do anything but shave every marginal dollar. Competitive forces are limited…

Low cost airlines have thrived in Europe for the last 30 years. The only thing that was protecting the trans Atlantic airlines was that there were designated airlines allowed to fly those routes.

I missed where RyanAir or EasyJet was flying short-haul widebody jets!

My point is, when you optimize exclusively for cost, you will only get cheap and will not get any kind of improvement in customer experience. The only reason that Spirit Airways doesn't dangle you from a net hanging from the ceiling is that safety regulations don't allow for it.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#244

Post by allen3 »

This seemed like a likely outcome when he was stripped of his chairman role, the board needed a sacrificial lamb and he was it. Given the nytimes article yesterday the board deciding to cut ties during the week of Christmas is very telling. Muilenburg was not the CEO during the 737 MAX initial approval and served as the president for the defense side of Boeing, he was dealt a bad hand. However, the ensuring crisis showed he was not a crisis manager and had difficulties navigating the PR crisis that followed. But, the take home from all of this is that the brand took a big hit to its reputation.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#245

Post by jtc331 »

everybodyknows wrote: post #65
brohee wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess it's the following: https://investors.boeing.com/investors/investor-news/press-r... "The Board of Directors decided that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the Company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders. " is quite brutal indeed, more something I'd expect from commentary.

Maybe the board deserves equal brutality? But no, its chairman is now made the new CEO ...

The chairman was also recently appointed.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#246

Post by crowbahr »

cattlemansgold wrote: post #232
jefe_ wrote: post #114

Boeing was still promising end of year FAA certification for 737 Max as recently as early December. Around that time, they had a spokesperson on CNBC who was asked directly how the outstanding steps (which indicated February at the earliest) aligned with their end of year statements and the position was essentially, 'we've been saying end of year and end of year could still happen.' When your brand is suffering a cri…

The Starliner mission was a test. You wouldn't have 100% confidence that a test would be executed flawlessly. The purpose of the test is to find flaws in the system, and that's exactly what they did.

Yes but the test was not supposed to be basic orbital insertion, it was supposed to be ISS rendezvous.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#247

Post by sbuttgereit »

cattlemansgold wrote: post #232
jefe_ wrote: post #114

Boeing was still promising end of year FAA certification for 737 Max as recently as early December. Around that time, they had a spokesperson on CNBC who was asked directly how the outstanding steps (which indicated February at the earliest) aligned with their end of year statements and the position was essentially, 'we've been saying end of year and end of year could still happen.' When your brand is suffering a cri…

The Starliner mission was a test. You wouldn't have 100% confidence that a test would be executed flawlessly. The purpose of the test is to find flaws in the system, and that's exactly what they did.

I"m not completely sure that's the case (and to be fair, I've not been following Starliner closely, so could well be wrong).

There are tests to prove out ideas during the course of development, but then there are tests which would perhaps be more accurately called "demonstrations"; where you're not trying to find flaws and refine your designs, but rather prove that you're [insert thing-name you're proving here] actually works the way you are representing it to work.

I understood this test to be more in the demonstration category, where Boeing would/should have had very high confidence, but they needed to prove to NASA that their spacecraft worked as advertised. If that's true, it was almost more a test on how much NASA should trust the confidence of the Boeing team than it was a test engineering and manufacture.

If that wasn't the character of the test, then I apologize for the distraction.

Re: Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

#248

Post by Rebelgecko »

jonplackett wrote: post #236
cattlemansgold wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Starliner mission was a test. You wouldn't have 100% confidence that a test would be executed flawlessly. The purpose of the test is to find flaws in the system, and that's exactly what they did.

Reminds me of the news coverage of SpaceX’s first landing attempts, where they crashed into the barge and exploded and everyone was like “it’s a failure, it will never work”. Yeah but so much went right. I think it’s just the (well deserved) media narrative Boeing is in now. When you kill hundreds of people and then pretend it wasn’t your fault, you get what’s coming to you.

After SpaceX's failures, lots of people were saying things like "This is why they test— if you're not occassionally failing, you're not pushing the limits enough".

I would guess that at least in part the difference in attitudes is because SpaceX is considered more startup-y and Boeing is more associated with the "failure is not an option" ethos.

Post reply on HN