5 ms·

Given the scrutiny on this plane, do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes? I'm surprised they're willing to risk

Given the scrutiny on this plane, do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes? I'm surprised they're willing to risk it.

Guthur 6y ago
The source of this claim is entitled to an opinion but it does seem in the minority.
Traster 6y ago
The failure at Boeing wasn't just some individual s/w issue. It was an organisational problem that caused them to make decisions to expedite release out of a plane that wasn't safe. The question isn't have they fixed the issue or not. The question is have they made the organisational changes to ensure that their complex hierarchy of management can't overrule technical experts about whether safe procedures have been followed. In my opinion, given the timescales and what people are reporting, the same people who pushed to get the 737Max out the door in an unsafe manner in the first place in order to meet over-ambitious targets, will probably have also been motivated to push through sign-off on these changes too. The question is less about whether Boeing can afford another crash, it's more about whether all the individuals in the hierarchy can afford to tell their boss the 737Max isn't ready- or as is likely, that it cannot ever be made safe in an economical way.
jacquesm 6y ago
I'm 100% certain Boeing would be able to survive as an organization. Boeing is an extremely large defense contractor and for that reason alone too big to fail.
- StreamBright 6y ago
  Yes, the government created yet another situation where it does not matter what happens on the market the company does not fail. This is why capitalism does not work as people think it works, governments actively circumventing the basic rules of markets.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    What do you mean "the government created" - some markets naturally have a tendency to create monopolies because they are winner takes all. Governments have to actively interfere with that process and break them up - just look at bit tech.
    - Guthur 6y ago
      Come on, which ones are you talking about FB, Twitter, Netflix, Google, MS, Amazon, Oracle, Intel, AMD, Nvidia and on and on. How many companies does there have to be for the monopoly record to stop? Frankly at this stage I'd have to say that word doesn't mean what HN thinks it means.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Do multiple cosecutive indictments by the ECJ not prove to you that Google has a monopily? What does it take to convince you, sacret gospel?
        Guthur 6y ago
        Those are for anti competitive behaviour, it's actually not the same thing. One may led to the other but that's not equivalency. If you want to say Google and other companies may engage in anti competitive behaviour, sure. It's a somewhat subjective line though because most companies are in competition and trying to take or guard share from others, is that anti competitive?
    - curryst 6y ago
      Them being a defense contractor creates a situation where their airplane business can't be allowed to fail for national security reasons. Even if another business takes their place, it will take time to ramp up, which may not be acceptable. That's the part the government created. There is a secondary problem in the duopoly that is Boeing and Airbus, but the government didn't necessarily cause that (that I'm aware of).
  - 6y ago
wombatmobile 6y ago
> Given the scrutiny on this plane, do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes? I'm surprised they're willing to risk it. Did you think that after the first one crashed? If a third one crashes, will your logic become even stronger in the aftermath of that?
M2Ys4U 6y ago
>do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes? The US government will not let Boeing die, even if it should.
calyth2018 6y ago
In a pay-to-play industry, where Boeing make things other than commercial aircraft, and knowing that American administration, regardless of political persuation, will keep it alive? Sure.

Given the scrutiny on this plane, do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes? I'm surprised they're willing to risk it.

Guthur 6y ago

The source of this claim is entitled to an opinion but it does seem in the minority.

Traster 6y ago

The failure at Boeing wasn't just some individual s/w issue. It was an organisational problem that caused them to make decisions to expedite release out of a plane that wasn't safe. The question isn't have they fixed the issue or not. The question is have they made the organisational changes to ensure that their complex hierarchy of management can't overrule technical experts about whether safe procedures have been followed. In my opinion, given the timescales and what people are reporting, the same people who pushed to get the 737Max out the door in an unsafe manner in the first place in order to meet over-ambitious targets, will probably have also been motivated to push through sign-off on these changes too. The question is less about whether Boeing can afford another crash, it's more about whether all the individuals in the hierarchy can afford to tell their boss the 737Max isn't ready- or as is likely, that it cannot ever be made safe in an economical way.

jacquesm 6y ago

I'm 100% certain Boeing would be able to survive as an organization. Boeing is an extremely large defense contractor and for that reason alone too big to fail.

StreamBright 6y ago
Yes, the government created yet another situation where it does not matter what happens on the market the company does not fail. This is why capitalism does not work as people think it works, governments actively circumventing the basic rules of markets.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  What do you mean "the government created" - some markets naturally have a tendency to create monopolies because they are winner takes all. Governments have to actively interfere with that process and break them up - just look at bit tech.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    Come on, which ones are you talking about FB, Twitter, Netflix, Google, MS, Amazon, Oracle, Intel, AMD, Nvidia and on and on. How many companies does there have to be for the monopoly record to stop? Frankly at this stage I'd have to say that word doesn't mean what HN thinks it means.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Do multiple cosecutive indictments by the ECJ not prove to you that Google has a monopily? What does it take to convince you, sacret gospel?
      - Guthur 6y ago
        Those are for anti competitive behaviour, it's actually not the same thing. One may led to the other but that's not equivalency. If you want to say Google and other companies may engage in anti competitive behaviour, sure. It's a somewhat subjective line though because most companies are in competition and trying to take or guard share from others, is that anti competitive?
  - curryst 6y ago
    Them being a defense contractor creates a situation where their airplane business can't be allowed to fail for national security reasons. Even if another business takes their place, it will take time to ramp up, which may not be acceptable. That's the part the government created. There is a secondary problem in the duopoly that is Boeing and Airbus, but the government didn't necessarily cause that (that I'm aware of).
- 6y ago

wombatmobile 6y ago

> Given the scrutiny on this plane, do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes? I'm surprised they're willing to risk it. Did you think that after the first one crashed? If a third one crashes, will your logic become even stronger in the aftermath of that?

M2Ys4U 6y ago

>do you think Boeing would be able to survive as an organisation if another one crashes? The US government will not let Boeing die, even if it should.

calyth2018 6y ago

In a pay-to-play industry, where Boeing make things other than commercial aircraft, and knowing that American administration, regardless of political persuation, will keep it alive? Sure.