171–180 of 637 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't 346 people die in unnecessary deaths?!
> Didn't 346 people die in unnecessary deaths?! I suppose, but if more people die because of the now well-known management failures at Boeing continue, their deaths will be even more unnecessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know the smell of gas? That's the smell of 300 souls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_School_explosion Pretty much all safety measures are written in blood.
I knew natural gas had an additive so we could smell it, but I didn't realize it came on the heals of this disaster. I guess that makes sense though. We have culturally evolved to care more about physical safety today; a good sign that our State worked by being held accountable to people. The stuff that is happening with Boeing is a total regression, and it will be interesting to see how regressions like this can be…
I understand that ensuring the safety of new airplane designs is more complicated than adding odor to natural gas. But this is not a product where society wants producers to "move fast and break things". We expect a minimum level of safety i.e the plane not falling out of the sky.
If I recall Boeing asks the US to tariff Bombardiers aircraft (300%?)[1] that pushed a potential competitor (Bombardier) to work with Airbus (The Airbus 220 is a Bombardier design).
edit: Added: [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/boeings-trade-dispute-canada...
[1]https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/analy...
I worked in defense as a boeing sub. Boeing was the prime on radars and all manner of defense contracts that will keep them afloat (defense industry is another not very competetive one..).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some people do get a sense of pride and fulfillment out of doing a good job. But a good job for a CEO is building shareholder value, which is now understood as "[wringing] all the money out of the company that they can [for the shareholders]." That's a different job than building an organization that consistently chooses safety over schedule and cost.
That's not a sound long-term plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it will take on the order of 10 years. What are the 737 customers going to fly in the mean time? Keeping old airplanes flying longer isn't exactly increasing security either. And there is no indication so far, that a 737 MAX with a fixed MCAS isn't safe. Don't get me wrong: I think Boeing should have created a true 737 successor long ago and should do ASAP. But until it is done, there is a need for a current…
> And there is no indication so far, that a 737 MAX with a fixed MCAS isn't safe. At this point, that plane has no goodwill whatsoever left to it. The onus is on it proving that it's safe, not on its critics proving it's unsafe, because the only sensible assumption is that it's not safe and that Boeing does not and ill not self-regulate (big duh). > I think Boeing should have created a true 737 successor long ago and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not so sure about the "Making Billions" bit. They are going to have to either do a massive 11 figure write down or spread out their losses on the Max over the next 10+ years. Either one is a pretty bitter pill to swallow. I'm betting we'll see a huge write down when the new CEO takes over, that way they can push as much blame as possible on the old regime and move forward with a clean-ish slate.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people do get a sense of pride and fulfillment out of doing a good job that money can't provide.
We're talking about incentives . Sky-high executive compensation packages don't encourage people to do a better job — they insulate them from failure, thereby disincentivizing them and encouraging them to go down the path of short-termism.
... is apparently the argument.
I mean, see also: drug tests for the minimum wage workers, but the CEO? Of course not. Mere employees better not be moonlighting or doing anything else, but the CEO? On two other boards, "advising" a startup on the side, working on another part-time (also as CEO—their "executive assistant" at their 20-person startup actually runs the company)
Watched an aljazira documentary about falling standards at a Boeing factory a couple of years ago and been waiting to see if something like this would happen. Now they're gonna sacrifice a lamb, keep same corporate struture and philosophy, keep on making billions, remember to appologise even more next time.
Do you have a link to it? Or was it only shown on television? I'd like to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os
https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/2014/09/i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not so sure about the "Making Billions" bit. They are going to have to either do a massive 11 figure write down or spread out their losses on the Max over the next 10+ years. Either one is a pretty bitter pill to swallow. I'm betting we'll see a huge write down when the new CEO takes over, that way they can push as much blame as possible on the old regime and move forward with a clean-ish slate.
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.