131–140 of 231 posts
"Kirby wasn’t specific about what planes the airline could acquire instead of the Max 10, but he noted that there is only one other global manufacturer of such large planes — Boeing’s European rival Airbus." Is it just me or is every player in the dramatis personae dancing around this and/or burying the lede? If they were ordering regional jets, sure, you could buy Embraer or Bombardier, I guess. But as it stands it'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I separate Boeing the business entity from the private capital that receives the cash.
The former is under the control of the latter.
A better question is what will Southwest Airlines do? They exclusively run 737s as I understand it and they effectively have no choice here to beta test Boeing's garbage. I think United CEO's comment is at best a renegotiation attempt.
Boeing's garbage is at least partially a direct result of Southwest being unwilling to accept a change in type rating for the new 737.
Consider if Boeing refused to build the MAX to be type rating identical. Southwest would -have- to buy and retrain. Sure, maybe Southwest would go to Airbus to spite Boeing, but I don't think that would happen if Boeing provided a better product. Airlines typically aren't that petty about these types of strategic decisions.
The MCAS fix themselves showed that MCAS wasn't fundamentally a bad idea - just that they had awful implementation (use both AOA sensors? Fail-safe if AOA sensors disagree? Provide proper limits and overrides?). And now after the entire kurfuffle and fixes, 737 MAX still has the same type rating as 737 NG in USA, Canada and Europe (that's just the ones that I checked).
MCAS and 737 MAX could have been a home run.
"Shares of The Boeing Co. fell less than 1%." They are too big to fail. So they will fail together with the entire state. 4 domestic aircraft manufacturers of the 1960s (Lockheed, Douglas, Convair, Boeing) is now one.
Boeing is already down 19% for the month - on news of the latest MAX issues. Investors have already hit the stock hard, and an operator saying they'll think about other options won't move the needle in the face of the REAL news that has already hurt the stock. If United announces they are cancelling their 200 Max 10 and Max 8s on order, then you can expect to see the stock dip further.
Seeing as the CEO stated they are "going to at least build a plan that doesn’t have the Max 10 in it", they damn well better follow through and cancel those MAX 10 orders.
Words are supposed to have meanings, after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn‘t maximize profits at all. Why do people operate on the principle „if it is bad it had to be because of maximizing profits“? This seems to be much more about corruption and misaligned incentives as well as bigcorp bullshit-job rot. There is really only one thing that can cure this and that is more fierce competition
Wait what. I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Bad Thing is because of "maximizing profits", but in this case you can point to incredibly specific things, done to maximize profits, that directly caused this crisis. After acquiring McDonnell, Boeing went on a spree of divestments where parts plants that supplied them were spun off into independent vendors. One of the biggest of these is Spirit Aerosystems, wh…
This isn't default bad. Do you build everything at your company, or buy some things? Specialization can be a boon.
>with Boeing having relatively little leverage in improving this state of affairs (one may argue that it's not terribly interested in improving the state of affairs).
One might argue that Boeing isn't interested making sure their planes are safe? Absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I separate Boeing the business entity from the private capital that receives the cash.
that's ridiculous. it's like saying i separate myself the employee from the private individual receiving the salary. the two are the same. Just because the catholic church can get away with separating the same entity into multiple parts doesn't mean anyone can or should
Actions have consequences. Boeing decided they wanted to focus on maximizing profits rather than allowing organic growth to follow on continued high quality engineering and services. In regulated industries, especially where safety is of utmost importance, this is exceptionally risky. They F'd around and found out, and imho the only solution is leadership and strategy changes to shrink their business and refocus on b…
This whole fiasco represents a leadership f$&* up of existential scale. A lot of this started when Boeing moved its HQ away from a core production hub. Leaders tucked way in offices make a lot worse decisions than leaders close to the literal nuts and bolts of a company. Boeing’s reputation was on the quality of its engineering and production. “If it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going” was a real phrase. The current Boeing l…
Does this the argument applies to this current ‘Return to office’ movement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Short term profits is what matter to the elite in these conglomerates That is not true. Long-term profits are by far the best thing for the owners in a corporation. See: Berkshire Hathaway. What happened here is someone got to be in charge who did not have the brain to do the job. When you see short-termism among CEO's, that's either due to a) owners not aligning the CEO's incentives correctly due to the owners' ne…
Honestly, Boeing makes the case for returning certain companies to elite control. Mullenberg, an engineer, burned down Boeing for tens of millions today. A family that controls it wouldn’t rationally do that.
Just skimming the wikis for Boeing, the 737 MAX, and the A320neo it looks like Boeing’s downfall should largely be attributed to McNerney. Mullenberg is guilty of shipping a doomed product and botching the response to the subsequent crashes.
Boeing should of just created a new plane with all the required development/testing instead of trying to take the MAX shortcut.
That has nothing at all to do with the window panel blowout though