Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the MD acquisition didn't happen in a vacuum. At the time Airbus was becoming a government-backed behemoth, and the US government was allocating all of their political capital and military procurement at MD. So the whole point of acquiring MD was to get more favorable government treatment. What followed was not necessarily even about cost-cutting - they wanted to spread out the production of their aircraft from…
Isn't it wondrous what lobbying can do?
Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
91–100 of 150 posts
Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#92Huh, does this mean they're going to oust all the executives that resulted in the environment that produced the 737max saga?
Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I am a bit confused. Someone was supposed to be checking the bolts before the plane left the facility and they didn't. That seems to be a QC process issue more than a QA issue. But that also seems like splitting hairs. The problem is not one of engineering design, to OP's post.
I disagree somewhat. It should not be possible for a plane to leave the factory without completing all QC checks. People are fallible, so a robust process is critical, and designing/confirming a robust QC process is a QA responsibility.
Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#94Ablative management: Layered heat shield of dispensable people that burn off to protect the capsule with the execs.
This is the job description for the CSO (chief security officer): Get fired when the inevitable security breach occurs .
Breaches can happen for many reasons, from we do not give a fuck to everyone knows and have accepted the situation.
The job of the CSO is to bring things on the table even when they are not nice to hear, provide a solution and recommend priorities.
When well documented it is a good bottom protector.
Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#95Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person you are quoting did not express approval of Jack Welch. You are being downvoted for being unnecessarily argumentative and inflamatory, not for being wrong.
Argumentative? I agreed that he was a jackass with a pithy comment about spelling. Inflammatory? What else do you call a clown that would spit on his own mother for a nickel? Point taken, but FFS. The man was a grand mal asshole and that should be mentioned every time his name appears.
Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#97Ablative management: Layered heat shield of dispensable people that burn off to protect the capsule with the execs.
I get the sentiment, but I much prefer this to the alternative, which is rank and file employees getting laid off. It’s much better to have accountability that starts at the top and then trickles down. Too often it feels like workers are the only ones who suffer from the bad decisions of executive leadership.
Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#98Steps in the right direction, let's get rid of more engineers and replace them with more MBAs. > However, a person familiar with the decision and who asked not to be identified commenting on sensitive personnel decisions, confirmed that Clark’s leaving was not voluntary. > Clark is an engineer. His successor Ringgold has business degrees. However she began her aviation career performing avionics systems maintenance a…
I've mentioned it somewhere else, and maybe I've just been really unlucky with my experiences in industry but I'm at the point where I feel like someone with an MBA or finance background should start any new company (regardless of previous experience) by sitting in the janitor's closet for a month. If the janitor says they're ok, the MBA can start following the janitor around at a distance of 10 feet. If they don't s…
I’m not for one second saying that Boeing hasn’t been seriously mismanaged. The whole debacle has just inexplicably been some sort of lightning rod for people that want to flex their self-identified nerd cred by saying “ENGINEER GOOD BUSINESS BAD!”
Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, but systemically, that's not been their problem. Too many MBAs are making decisions without Engineering involvement. I know because my industry works the exact same way le rage
this is because shareholders (pension and investment fund managers) are all MBAs and they demand results a-la "quick wins" that forces management into short-term thinking, cutting corners and cutting costs
As usual, it IS a system’s issue. It’s an incentive issue. If the people that made decisions were incentivised to prioritise long-term stability and performance, they would. They aren’t, and the reason they aren’t isn’t solved with a swift “get rid of them all”. You think that these big scary business people you demonise don’t themselves have KPIs? The pressure of corporate America, of short-term returns, is still going to be there. Have you seen how drastically the average shareholding lifespan has dropped over the last 10 years? Businesses are just operating in more of an environment where long-term stability and even growth don’t matter.
Boeing is such an easy target. It’s very easy to just lazily say “Boeing is rotten!” and leave it at that, because then you get to pretend that the solution is easier than it is. Whilst there are definitely Boeing-specific circumstances that heavily heavily contribute, the reality is that Boeing has had few chances to ‘innovate’ in recent memory, especially with its new makeup. This is just what it looks like when they do. The reality is that this is merely a reflection of how the wider world works. And that’s the thing with systems problems. It’s intellectually dishonest to just sit back and “blame MBAs”. These sorts of problems fester in the wiring and the mechanics, with unpredictable consequences that are almost impossible to reverse by the time they’re realised.
The wheels were set in motion before the Boeing merger. It wasn’t a trigger, it was a consequence. Similarly, some “MBAs” making decisions, either with Boeing or investors, were themselves not the trigger. Fate had already been decided several layers up the stack when personal and organisational incentives were set as they are in the first place.
Re: Boeing ousts 737 MAX chief
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is really hard. China, Russia and Japan have tried state sponsored schemes without success. Bombardier of Canada had to throw in the towel, and Embraer of Brazil almost did. Part of the problem is also that airlines have been very good at squeezing the duopoly while demanding ever more. The competition, if it manages to get a plane in the air, usually isn’t as fuel efficient and so the airlines have mostly not bee…
Russia and Japan failed, but it's far too early to call COMAC from China a failure.