4 ms·

Rather we should let them fail. The US needs a company like Boeing, so simply start fresh, the subsidies will keep it afloat regardless.

ceejayoz 6y ago
It takes an existing major aircraft manufacturer years and billions of dollars to get a new aircraft up and running, and that's leveraging decades of experience, staffing, tooling, and existing facilities. It's not an easy industry to start a startup in.
- epicureanideal 6y ago
  No doubt if they went bankrupt some of their existing employees could make a case to investors to take over the company but run it in a way that doesn't destroy the company due to predictable quality issues. Especially employees who have a documented history of discussing those exact issues with management, being whistleblowers, etc.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    >...take over the company but run it in a way that doesn't destroy the company Obviously, there is selection bias, but rarely have I seen "investors" take over something without hollowing it out withing a few years. Looking at you Sencha and Thoma Bravo...
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  So what? It takes a lot of money and coordination to run a war effort too, or to go to the moon in the 1960s. It's not an easy industry if you're private without subsidies. But if the government sponsors it and it is a necessity, it's much easier.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > So what? It takes a lot of money and coordination to run a war effort too, or to go to the moon in the 1960s. Which is why government managed each of those. It sounds like you're arguing for nationalization, not subsidies.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      I'm not arguing for either option - both are essentially the same thing. I'm arguing that sometimes you need a new culture, and the old culture needs to be destroyed. So let it fail and just start over again.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  I assume "let them fail" = "let them run themselves in bankruptcy". At which point, a court manages their re-org into something (hopefully) more lean, efficient, and probably several smaller independent units.

ceejayoz 6y ago

It takes an existing major aircraft manufacturer years and billions of dollars to get a new aircraft up and running, and that's leveraging decades of experience, staffing, tooling, and existing facilities. It's not an easy industry to start a startup in.

epicureanideal 6y ago
No doubt if they went bankrupt some of their existing employees could make a case to investors to take over the company but run it in a way that doesn't destroy the company due to predictable quality issues. Especially employees who have a documented history of discussing those exact issues with management, being whistleblowers, etc.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  >...take over the company but run it in a way that doesn't destroy the company Obviously, there is selection bias, but rarely have I seen "investors" take over something without hollowing it out withing a few years. Looking at you Sencha and Thoma Bravo...
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
So what? It takes a lot of money and coordination to run a war effort too, or to go to the moon in the 1960s. It's not an easy industry if you're private without subsidies. But if the government sponsors it and it is a necessity, it's much easier.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > So what? It takes a lot of money and coordination to run a war effort too, or to go to the moon in the 1960s. Which is why government managed each of those. It sounds like you're arguing for nationalization, not subsidies.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    I'm not arguing for either option - both are essentially the same thing. I'm arguing that sometimes you need a new culture, and the old culture needs to be destroyed. So let it fail and just start over again.
alistairSH 6y ago
I assume "let them fail" = "let them run themselves in bankruptcy". At which point, a court manages their re-org into something (hopefully) more lean, efficient, and probably several smaller independent units.