4 ms·

No, because the people at the top of Boeing produced unsafe airplanes that were more profitable for them. The company makes a ton of money, but some VP at Boei

No, because the people at the top of Boeing produced unsafe airplanes that were more profitable for them. The company makes a ton of money, but some VP at Boeing probably got a huge bonus to produce the 737 max cheaper. This company needs to be put through the wrath and scrutiny of the public markets

ClumsyPilot 7y ago
I can't think of any examples where 'scrutiny of public markets' caused positive change I would the company, can you? I have seen 'wrath' of the public markets causing the company to collapse. But here that's highly undesirable, hence I see the OP's question as quite reasonable.
- codingslave 7y ago
  I think the people who called the shots of the 737 MAX plane should be put on trial for murder.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    I agree, but I feel that's a distinct and separate issue to the original question by the OP. I feel the markets work in a darwinian manner, and as soon as we cant allow the company to fail, they stop working well.
    - codingslave 7y ago
      If the company is producing dangerous planes to create more profit, they should be shutdown. If the money is there, they will be replaced by another company, thats how capitalism works. If Boeing doesn't fail, then we end up with mediocrity. Theres so much capital floating around, investors are dying for profitable returns. The absence of Boeing would be welcomed by startups. We have been building safe planes for 30 years now, its no longer novel. This isnt rocket science, its well understood.
      - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        You view strikes me as simplistic and ignoring practical matters. 1) Building safe passenger jetsplanes is very much rocket science, and there are only a couple of companies capable of producing one at all, economics aside. 2) absence of boeing will also result in effective airbus monopoly and pain for consumers. It will take decades for any startup to even come close to replacing them. 3) we already have mediocrity, and the industry is hugely risk averse. There are designs by nasa and others, that significantly improve fuel economy and comfort, like "flying wing" design. They have stayed on the drawing board for 30 years because of risk aversion. That's the designs startup should be working on, if they have the chops to raise funding and prove safety. Source: my bos is an ex-airspace engineer
        codingslave 7y ago
        I have two family members that work at Boeing. Theres only a few companies building these planes because its hard to compete with a subsidized company like Boeing. Its already basically an arm of the government. Spacex basically surpassed NASA in ten years. Boeing is an overrated pile of garbage
        ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        Every time I see people saying that SpaceX Surpassed NASA I die a little inside, it's such an unfair statement! Just because you want to promote innovative companies does not mean you should do it at Nasa's expense. NASA has so many capabilities SpaceX never will. They have flown probes to gas giants and out of the solar system, landed on Moon, Mars and on Titan, have done atmospheric entry on Jupiter, build nuclear powered rovers, designed the SAFE reactor, James webb telescope, asteroid rendezvous, the list goes on an on. SpaceX has only ever flown three vehicles: Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon. They never did a mission outside low earth orbit, they have no means to land on the moon, or to power a spacecraft heading for Pluto, where solar power is useless. They don't have any experts in thousands of instruments Nasa designs and operates to observe black holes, underground ice on mars, etc. SpaceX also benefits from access to Nasa tech, facilities and funding. They are different organisations: SpaceX builds a vehicle and refines it endlessly to create a perfect product. Nasa does exploration and research, their vehicles aren't products, they are unique, custom built scientific instruments.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

I can't think of any examples where 'scrutiny of public markets' caused positive change I would the company, can you? I have seen 'wrath' of the public markets causing the company to collapse. But here that's highly undesirable, hence I see the OP's question as quite reasonable.

codingslave 7y ago
I think the people who called the shots of the 737 MAX plane should be put on trial for murder.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  I agree, but I feel that's a distinct and separate issue to the original question by the OP. I feel the markets work in a darwinian manner, and as soon as we cant allow the company to fail, they stop working well.
  - codingslave 7y ago
    If the company is producing dangerous planes to create more profit, they should be shutdown. If the money is there, they will be replaced by another company, thats how capitalism works. If Boeing doesn't fail, then we end up with mediocrity. Theres so much capital floating around, investors are dying for profitable returns. The absence of Boeing would be welcomed by startups. We have been building safe planes for 30 years now, its no longer novel. This isnt rocket science, its well understood.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      You view strikes me as simplistic and ignoring practical matters. 1) Building safe passenger jetsplanes is very much rocket science, and there are only a couple of companies capable of producing one at all, economics aside. 2) absence of boeing will also result in effective airbus monopoly and pain for consumers. It will take decades for any startup to even come close to replacing them. 3) we already have mediocrity, and the industry is hugely risk averse. There are designs by nasa and others, that significantly improve fuel economy and comfort, like "flying wing" design. They have stayed on the drawing board for 30 years because of risk aversion. That's the designs startup should be working on, if they have the chops to raise funding and prove safety. Source: my bos is an ex-airspace engineer
      - codingslave 7y ago
        I have two family members that work at Boeing. Theres only a few companies building these planes because its hard to compete with a subsidized company like Boeing. Its already basically an arm of the government. Spacex basically surpassed NASA in ten years. Boeing is an overrated pile of garbage
        ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        Every time I see people saying that SpaceX Surpassed NASA I die a little inside, it's such an unfair statement! Just because you want to promote innovative companies does not mean you should do it at Nasa's expense. NASA has so many capabilities SpaceX never will. They have flown probes to gas giants and out of the solar system, landed on Moon, Mars and on Titan, have done atmospheric entry on Jupiter, build nuclear powered rovers, designed the SAFE reactor, James webb telescope, asteroid rendezvous, the list goes on an on. SpaceX has only ever flown three vehicles: Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon. They never did a mission outside low earth orbit, they have no means to land on the moon, or to power a spacecraft heading for Pluto, where solar power is useless. They don't have any experts in thousands of instruments Nasa designs and operates to observe black holes, underground ice on mars, etc. SpaceX also benefits from access to Nasa tech, facilities and funding. They are different organisations: SpaceX builds a vehicle and refines it endlessly to create a perfect product. Nasa does exploration and research, their vehicles aren't products, they are unique, custom built scientific instruments.