Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens

Post by softwaredoug » Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

qwioeue wrote: post #474

softwaredoug wrote: post #188

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.

Boeing stock price today is 337.55. In Jan 2009, it was $42. That's a 8x return. SP500 closed at 3221 today. In Jan 2009, it was about $890 and that is only a 3.6x return. Hindsight is 20/20, but you might've been even happier if you kept all your 401k in Boeing.

Post by mahalol » Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

distances wrote: post #387

lokedhs wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One option is to not fly american airlines (with a lower case a). The highest rated US airline is 3 out of 5 stars on Skytrax. As far as I understand, the reason for this is that foreign airlines are not allowed to fly US domestic routes, and most US people don't fly international which means they don't know that things could be better. It also seems like people in the US to a greater extent than other countries only…

> It also seems like people in the US to a greater extent than other countries only cares about ticket price, which means that even if an airline wants to improve their quality they can't use it to compete I'm not so sure people do it any different elsewhere. I mostly fly in Europe and have definitely never considered anything else than price and suitable flight times. I consider all airlines to provide the same stan…

Post by munk-a » Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

cowmoo728 wrote: post #404

munk-a wrote: post #233

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.

Skilled leaders make a big difference in organizations, and they have skills that engineers don't (always) have. A leader that discounts the advice of his engineers is doomed to failure, but an engineer promoted to leadership that doesn't know how to people manage and steer the ship will also fail. It seems that some of these fluffy C-level people are actually good at their jobs, but we haven't found how to reliably…

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 10:49 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #427

vkou wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pensions are insured by the US gov’t up to a limit, I believe around $60K per year.

Post by ericd » Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #429

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am still a bit puzzled how cheerful some people seem about a product that was unable to fulfill its purpose: Starliner getting to its intended destination. Calling a space capsule a product and treating it like some kind of tech product launch and framing it's success that way is weird. It's a spacecraft and the mission was meant to test its capabilities and get data about it during an actual orbital flight, then…

We launched the ISS over 20 years ago. If you look 20 years down the road from Kitty Hawk, we had already built tens of thousands of manned aircraft and fought a world war with them at that point in time. Apparently, 20 years of progress and "promise" ain't what it used to be.