Boeing: How much trouble is the company in?
"It's as if I'm watching a troubled child" is how Captain Dennis Tajer describes flying a Boeing 737 Max.
"The culture at Boeing has been toxic to trust for over a decade now," (Adam Dickson, a former senior manager at Boeing) says.
Five years ago Boeing faced one of the biggest scandals in its history, after two brand new 737 Max planes were lost in almost identical accidents that cost 346 lives.
The cause was flawed flight control software, details of which it was accused of deliberately concealing from regulators.
Meanwhile, further evidence of how production problems could endanger safety emerged this week.
The FAA warned that improperly installed wiring bundles on 737 Max planes could become damaged, leading to controls on the wings deploying unexpectedly, and making the aircraft start to roll.
If not addressed, it said, this "could result in loss of control of the airplane". Hundreds of planes already in service will have to be checked as a result.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Which car company did you say you worked for again?
A major one.
Why do you expect it to be different for any of them?
It's a sequence of quotes from Fight Club
They have to factor in the cost of the reputational damage too. But yeah, it’s all a dollar game.
Reputational damage is almost negligible in the modern market. Market capture in most hard-good industries, especially specialized industries like aerospace, is complete enough that you have very few options - sure, you could just not buy a Boeing airliner for your airline, but you have exactly two choices in large aircraft, and it's not like production is easily-scalable.
the first rule...
we don’t talk about Bruno
Not as much as they should be in, probably.
They also likely murdered John Barnett, but I'm sure they are too big to fail or be tried for murder.
Kinda hard to try a corporation for murder and stick it in jail, even though we all know it’s a person.
Whole company? Very difficult.
Whole board of directors? That’s easy
Objectively? In a lot of trouble. Real world, though? They are one of the largest companies that feeds/works for the American Military Weapons Complex plus they are also among the largest lobbying/donors of the Federal Government. Just behind pharma.
That is where this will fuck Boeing, you can buy regulators for having the side of your plane fall off in flight, or an Auto piolet that loves to use the lithobreak, but don't fuck with the US military contracting system. The DOD contracts for things with very specific and some times stupid standards, but they get exactly what you paid for or else.
Likely not a all... The only chance these behemoth companies get punished is by the public turning on them but they have already insulated themselves from that (most people would not know how to avoid their planes when booking the next vacation on Expedia)
In a properly working environment, even a Capitalist one, the government should intervene, jail the board, and either nationalize it or auction it off for parts... The most important part is really the jailing of the board
Boeing and the american government are too deep in bed. Nothing significant will happen. Maybe a few executives get fired just to satisfy the demands for action. In fact the american government will likely bail the company out when things take a dive (their stock as well as their aircraft).
Sadly, I believe you are 100% right
No trouble at all. It's impossible to get into trouble when there is no competition.
except from Airbus... so yeah. there's competition.
Et moi, Bombardier?
And what aboot Canadair?
hardly. airbus can't double it's production overnight.
They're not American, the US government would sooner ban them than levy consequences on the American company.
I miss North American Aviation.
Even if Boeing doesn't face any real consequences, I hope airlines take this time to just go full Airbus even if it's out of fear from future litigation and not inherent customer safety. Airbus should also jump on this opportunity and offer some good deals for actual functioning and safety tested aircraft.
The main issue is that Airbus has a huge backlog for their aircraft which continues to grow. They're slowly adding more capacity, but not nearly fast enough to satisfy their current demand, let alone what additional customers would bring.
I have a simple solution: force Boeing to go back to it's management roots. Require all C-levels to have engineering degrees.
But the shareholders would rather see the company be shut down than give up some profit.
Also, put an end to their union busting garbage. Then quality that they were known for was established when all of their labor was done by well-compensated union labor, instead of outsourcing to get around union contracts.
I really hope this allows a third and perhaps even a fourth company to enter the market
Be careful what you wish for. Some of the most likely contenders are Lockheed, Raytheon, and a few other military contractors that haven't broken into the civilian market yet.
Not really. The most likely contenders I could see now are Embraer and Comac (Chinese aircraft manufacturer). A few years ago Bombardier could have been a very likely contender, but not today.
I could see Lockheed and Raytheon entering the civilian market only if the demand on the military side starts drying up, which in this climate I find doubtful.
I remember reading the Chinese had stagnated investment into Comac because it was more cost effective for their airlines to buy Boeing planes instead. But after the two 737-MAX crash, the Chinese was restarting investment and R&D for a Boeing replacement, however because they were far behind due to lack of investments, they wouldn't have anything ready until 2026 the earliest. So I doubt they will be able to compete anytime soon.
I look forward to seeing it play out. More competition is always better than less competition.
Volkswagen Aero
Imagine the emco2 emissions
A flying VW camping bus
A flying lada for ryanair
The founder, William Boeing, was a a white segregationist, active against mixed racial marriages, believed in the pure white blood and shit. His parents were Austrian/ German, Böing. America, the land of opportunity.
Sure, and Henry Ford was an out-and-out antisemite who published a newspaper where he serialized the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Hitler kept a photo of him on his desk.
That doesn't mean we should expect Ford cars to fall apart on the road.
It's way too late to be pissed off about William Boeing or Henry Ford. Or Hugo Boss or Ferdinand Porsche, who directly worked with the Nazis.
Or IBM or the Coca-Cola company, which did too.
Etc.
Henry Ford is also the reason kids learn square dancing in school. I actually had to learn how to dance like a hillbilly in gym class because some long-dead antisemite was once convinced that jazz music and the Charleston (read: black people and anything cultural that they contribute) would corrupt the youth, who could only be saved by the purity of barnyard dancing.
I don't know how this contributes to the conversation at hand, but I think about it a lot.
Ugh. I hated square dancing so much.
Swing your partner round and round,
Pick her up and throw her down.
Makes sense given the crowd.
Did you learn other kinds of dance too? That sounds...not bad.
No, just square dancing. Nothing else.
That was my grade school experience as well. Even as a child I was confused by how much square dancing they made us do and absolutely no other forms of dance.
It was a PE activity in my school.
Yes, it's truly wild how often things in the United States often originate from a fascistic or cultish source. Daylight savings time, cereal, etc. granted it's been almost 40 years. I don't know if they still do it. But they did back in the '70s and '80s for sure. But with all the satanic panic of the '90s I doubt they started pushing it any less LOL.
How does DST tie in?
Initially it was called war time. And it was even used even in Europe from WWI through WWII. But post WWII most abandoned it. Including the United States. It had nothing to do with farmers. They're actually one of the groups most against it.
It was standardized in the United States in 1966 at the behest of wealthy retailers who lobbied the government. Believing the extra hour of daylight correlated in some meaningful way to increased sales. It didn't. But that was the rationale.
The most recent changes to DST, pushing it to the first of November. Happened in the late 2010's. Largely pushed for by candy makers/retailers, again claiming it would boost sales and somehow be safer. (Halloween)
That's sad, in my elementary school we learned square dancing, but also the Mexican Hat Dance and Tinikling and the Polka, I can't remember if there were others since it was back in the 1960s. I think learning the Charleston would have been fun! When I taught 2nd grade, dance wasn't part of PE but for a countries around the world assembly I taught my class some Russian (and, now I know better, some of it was Ukrainian) folk dances I had learned from my Russian ballet teacher. They got a kick out of it.
Coca Cola?
From what I understand they severed all business with Germany when the war started and because of this Germany had to start making Fanta.
Coca-Cola didn't officially sever ties until 1941, when America entered the war, not when it started. Fanta was manufactured by Coca-Cola's facilities in Nazi Germany with the full expectation that those facilities would re-merge with Coca-Cola when the war was over. And guess what happened when the war was over?
Well yeah the bottling plants were the property of Coca-Cola before the war. After the war it would be expected that property would be returned to Coca Cola. Bottling plants are physical things that couldn't be instantly teleported from Germany when Germany declared war on the US, so they continued to operate. The existence of Fanta proves that Coca Cola didn't support the bottling plants in Germany, not evidence they were colluding with the Nazi government. If they were secretly supplying those bottling plants they would've been able to continue producing Coca Cola and Fanta wouldn't exist.
Yes Coca Cola existed in the same time period as the Nazis. Maybe they should've stopped doing business with Germany earlier. But the idea that a business is going to push political ideals seems like an unreasonable expectation. There's no clear path for a business on this other than following the law which Coca Cola did. The real question should be about why the US government didn't impose sanctions on Germany earlier for their horrible politics. It's really elected governments that should decide foreign policy, not private entities.
I really think this is beside my point.
You're point being that anyone that people in the past should have known the future?
History is like a mystery novel where you've read the last chapter first. People in the past didn't immediately think Nazi=bad like we do today. The full extent of how evil they were hadn't happened yet. Remember there are many things that you're associated with now that in the future will be seen as monstrous.
Right now there are many acts of violence towards Jews by certain movements. How careful have you been in making sure you have no associations with that?
No, my point was that the antisemitism of Henry Ford (and other issues there) have no bearing on the problems their companies are responsible for today.
And do tell me, and I'm Jewish incidentally, how to disassociate myself from violence towards Jews.
Be that as it may, Boeing himself was a stickler for quality and set a vision of quality and excellence that made Boeing aircraft some of the safest in the fleet, up until their merger with McDonnell Douglas. It was said he'd rather go out of business than ship a shoddy product.
The corporation isn't the person. That's sort of the point.
That has little to nothing to do with the current state of affairs at Boeing. The current situation was brought about by the merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, with the MDD executives joining Boeing's board of directors and continuing the same shitty behaviour. Eg, with the MD-10 and its cargo door, the issue was raised at design stage, denied until after 2 massive fatal accidents occurred, and then they tried to get around it with "gentleman's agreements" with the FAA - just like with the MCAS issue on the 737 MAX.
The problems can be pinned down to a very small number of executives, who belong in prison.
And part of the problem is that McDonnell Douglas left the commercial aviation market because they couldn't compete with Boeing.
If you can't beat them, merge and rot them from the inside out!
Are you asserting 737 Max issues and the latency to mechanically resolve them is caused by a family legacy of white supremacy haunting the board rooms of present day Boeing HQ?
Because I otherwise don't see your point in the context of this article and news.
I don't see the point either, though it's an interesting (and sad) piece of trivia, which I didn't know.
I had the pleasure of interviewing several engineers from Boeing with PhDs and almost the worst interviews ever. Very awkward interviews and possibly the worst in person interview ever.