301–310 of 637 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Most business in the United States is done despite of management, not because of it. You must be very unhappy in your cubicle.
have you seen anyone ever happy in a cubicle?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Most business in the United States is done despite of management, not because of it. You must be very unhappy in your cubicle.
have you seen anyone ever happy in a cubicle?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you were following the articles then you'd know that various people did those on criteria set by management, independently in a non-communicating and problem oppressing organization structure created by the management. So in short: all of those were caused by the accountants....
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the... “One of the people familiar with MCAS’s evolution said the _system designers_ didn’t see any need to add an additional sensor or redundancy because the hazard assessment had determined that an MCAS failure in normal flight would only qualify in the “major” category for which the single sensor is the norm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know the brand wouldn't have recovered from the 27% loss anyway?
How do you make any judgment about historical events when you can't run concurrent A/B tests? If America stayed home in World War 2, how do you know the Allies wouldn't have won anyway?
Why isn't it enough to retrofit all past and future models with enough hardware redundancy and create a properly written MCAS software? Wasn't the design sound, except for the lack of hardware sensor redundancy and naively written software? Why do they need to stop production and so on?
If that was all that's needed 737 Max's would all be back in the air by now. There is a fundamental problem in the design. The plane tends to pitch up when accelerating. Under certain circumstances this can cause the plane to stall and fall out of the sky. This was fixed using software. Most planes have airframes that are aerodynamically stable in and of itself. The 737 Max requires software assistance to be at the s…
They all do this. You have giant engines on the underside of the wing; what else would you expect to happen when you throttle up at low airspeed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty standard new CEO move. Big impairment, net income goes way down, next few years look a lot better. Meanwhile cash flow doesn’t change.
How does cash flow not change when you have to scrap the whole lot of 737Max orders?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point we (society at large) are going to realize these fluffy c-level people are toxic and remove value from companies - then, ideally, we'll move back to a default of promoting internally.
And then you just end up with all old, conservative c levels. There is no easy answer except careful hiring and accountability.
After 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will fly on it. It will have gotten more scrutiny than other planes.
Yup, every pilot I know, even if they will never fly one, now knows what to do. None of them express any reservation other than the way flight control software is headed.
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/pilot-procedure-co...
Former Boeing employee here[1]: I remember when the company decided to do all 401k matching in Boeing stock in 2009. It seemed like a sketchy, borderline unethical way to keep the stock price afloat. All to say I’m happy to have transitioned all my 401k years ago! [1] I worked in the defense industry. Nothing to do with planes: my company was acquired by Boeing and operated relatively independently.
I love that idea for 401k matching. All the downsides of a pension [1], combined with all the downsides of a 401k[2], with none of the upsides of either! [1] If your employer goes belly up after you retire, you are screwed. [2] Because it's fixed contribution, as opposed to fixed payout, if you lived longer than you planned, you are screwed.