31–40 of 354 posts
Technically of course, Air Force One is a call sign, not an aircraft. The quote is from an FT article which indicates the Boeing bill for retrofitting two custom 747-8s was $3.9B USD, marked down from 5B after Trump called the price "ridiculous". I agree with him.
https://www.ft.com/content/d2bd472b-0e5d-459f-8503-04633aefe...
In what way is Airbus different? (Honest question of someone who has no knowledge about this industry.)
Mind you this happened around the same time many foundations of a lot of european institutions where formed, and airbus is the primary example of a intra-european company in both its bussiness form (being an S.E[0]) aswell as in the way its products get build across different member states.
Airbus has done the thing that the EU aims to do on a political scale, merge many different smaller european entities to stay competitive against both the US and China on the global scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's going to take a long time, but first is to destroy the myth that corporations have one purpose they need to fulfill: Generate revenue and ensure things are profitable for shareholders. This myth artificially took root in the 1970s. Business schools have to stop teaching this.
It took root in 1919, so I don't think that's actually the issue. The problem is short-term thinking based on financial markets and the ability of corporations to reinvest their capital freely. Regulating stock buybacks and the ability of corporations to invest in markets will cut down on corporate fissure.
in my opinion, it seeems to have been enormously on the rise since the end of world war 2 and especially after the end of the cold war.
And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever.
Why? Why are airlines so eager to buy such a compromised model from a company that destroyed its reputation? Is it really that cheap?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What can reasonably be done to combat it? Leadership at all the biggest firms is on board with shareholder capitalism. To them, Welch style management just means line goes up...
You need the owners to actually care.
The state should wield power it derives from the mandate given to it by it's people, and it should defend the capability to influence the economy with that.
This fact seems to have been forgotten since the end of the cold war, when neoliberal theory seems to have been the defacto "truth" in economics.
Jack Welch style management and shareholder capitalism are some of the most destructive forces in the US economy.
What can reasonably be done to combat it? Leadership at all the biggest firms is on board with shareholder capitalism. To them, Welch style management just means line goes up...
It was enabled by deregulation, so regulation seems important.
That was enabled by more overt bribery of politicians (PACs, super PACs, etc.). So stop the bribes.
That happened simultaneously with changes in how business was depicted by media, whether news or entertainment. So . . . convince the heads of that small handful of companies to change their representations.
And so far that's just the US. All of these things are global.
My point is that just combating the existing problems is akin to whack-a-mole. A new pervasive philosophy will replace neoliberalism, though. Maybe put effort into pushing whichever of those seems best?
Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…
China spent ~15 years developing the C919, and it's finally entering mass production. But it also appears to be sold out until the 2030s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's going to take a long time, but first is to destroy the myth that corporations have one purpose they need to fulfill: Generate revenue and ensure things are profitable for shareholders. This myth artificially took root in the 1970s. Business schools have to stop teaching this.
That will only happen if we change laws to make boards and executives criminally liable for these types of problems. We need to pierce the corporate veil and directly go after the responsible individuals when they, either directly or by deliberate ignorance, cause problems that lead to people dying etc. No shielding behind a corporation if your decisions to make lots more bucks led to avoidable deaths.
Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…
Here's what I don't understand: the 737 MAX was introduced in 2017. In 2018, two of them dropped out of the sky, the grounded for a while, it turned out Boeing had lost its engineering culture and its priority for safety, and it became clear that the 737 MAX had some serious design problems that they had tried to fix in software. And according to this article, the 737 MAX is Boeing's best selling plane ever. Why? Why…
The world is very small, and it can't support that many companies making passenger aircraft. If you want aircraft of that size, you have to buy Boeing or Airbus. Both are sold out until the 2030s. And if you are already operating Boeing aircraft, it's more cost-effective to buy more of them instead of switching to Airbus. China spent ~15 years developing the C919, and it's finally entering mass production. But it als…
There's an apparent contradiction here.
China spent ~15 years developing the C919, and it's finally entering mass production. But it also appears to be sold out until the 2030s.
And here.