251–260 of 454 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like this guy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg
More like this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk Someone with an engineering background and a pinch of Vlad the Impaler;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The problem, at least in this case, is that Boeing chose to break off what is now known as Spirit Aerosystems into a separate entity Spirit is nothing more than a basket of limited liability set up by Boeing for precisely such an ocurrence. Pretending that it's anything else is just buying into their BS corporate spin.
Your comment seems to imply that Spirit is owned or primarily owned by Boeing? But I can't find any support for that. See https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPR/holders Am I misunderstanding your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like this guy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg
More like this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk Someone with an engineering background and a pinch of Vlad the Impaler;)
If you approve of Elon as a leader, he is basically the embodiment of “you do not need to be an engineer to run a highly technical company”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did. The engine cowling was made by Boeing and was supposed to stay on when the engine lost fan blades, the cowling was what struck the side of the aircraft and broke the window in question. Boeing is redesigning the 737 cowlings to better respond to blade out failures.
Turns out you’re correct. The engine is a CFM, but the cowling (which is supposed to contain ejected fan blades) is designed by the airframe manufacturer. In this case, Boeing. TIL! Chalk one death up to a Boeing design in the last 21 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did. The engine cowling was made by Boeing and was supposed to stay on when the engine lost fan blades, the cowling was what struck the side of the aircraft and broke the window in question. Boeing is redesigning the 737 cowlings to better respond to blade out failures.
Turns out you’re correct. The engine is a CFM, but the cowling (which is supposed to contain ejected fan blades) is designed by the airframe manufacturer. In this case, Boeing. TIL! Chalk one death up to a Boeing design in the last 21 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like this guy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg
More like this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk Someone with an engineering background and a pinch of Vlad the Impaler;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why? The CEO of a company this big, no matter their background, has no business building an intimate understanding of the tech. This is certainly a point of contention in modern schools of business thought, but the concept of a CEO who doesn't understand what the company builds is bizarre to me. The CEO of Boeing, IMO, should probably have aircraft engineering experience, and, ideally, also be a pilot with the suit…
Does the CEO need to know these things? I would argue no. What needs to happen is the CEO needs to listen and trust the technical people that report to him. There is a misalignment of priorities that will never be fixed as long as the primary incentive for the CEO is to maximize shareholder value. If you remove that, and force the primary incentiven to be safety over profits, the rest of the business will follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because most readers of this site are American, and fly on airlines from the US. When assessing their risk, it makes sense to use US statistics.
This is kind of why I don't mind playing Russian Roulette. I mean, think about the chances! Despite all the times people have played the game, how many have died in San Francisco, between 3rd Street and New Montgomery Street, while it's been raining on a Monday when Lionel Messi didn't play in Hong Kong because of injury. The chances are minuscule.
In fact, none have died doing either of those things independently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why? The CEO of a company this big, no matter their background, has no business building an intimate understanding of the tech. This is certainly a point of contention in modern schools of business thought, but the concept of a CEO who doesn't understand what the company builds is bizarre to me. The CEO of Boeing, IMO, should probably have aircraft engineering experience, and, ideally, also be a pilot with the suit…
>> also be a pilot with the suitable type ratings to fly the stuff they build. Why the pilot? When it comes to handling these machines, the pilots are one small corner. I would think that someone with experience keeping them safe and functional would be more on point these days. How about someone with the ratings for maintaining the machines? No pilot has ever inspected let alone installed a door plug.
Can you be a successful CEO of a car manufacturer if you cannot drive a car?