7 ms·

You gotta read between the lines. Boeing cannot be allowed to fail. The FAA is a formality. That's basically what is being said.

Solvency 3y ago
But why not? Why can't they fail? Why can the world have so many car makers and yacht makers but we can't disrupt up a flailing company like Boeing?
- gumby 3y ago
  Because they are a major military contractor. In fact the Boeing we know today was formed by a merger between the failing McDonnell-Douglas and then-successful Boeing — a merger basically forced by the DoD because MCD’s military contracting was too important to them. The management of the resulting company mostly came from MCD. Makes one wonder if the military and space sides of the business are also suffering quality problems or not.
  - voidfunc 3y ago
    Basically best to understanding Boeing and the US Government as one and the same the only difference is Boeing has a ticker symbol.
    - gumby 3y ago
      Boeing is a negligible subset of the USG though. I find it more weird when Lockheed, CSC etc contract to run non-military programs for the USG. Whatever your opinion of military matters, I think it’s a bad idea to have a company whose main objective is killing people manage a program designed to, say, keep people from starving to death.
      - m463 3y ago
        I agree, for example the Grumman LLV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV
      - voidfunc 3y ago
        Eh... also gotta consider Boeing employs 145K people.. it would be really bad if it went under.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        80% of the work a military does is to keep people from starving to death. It’s called “logistics”.
        gumby 3y ago
        Yeah, but not Lockheed
        philwelch 3y ago
        That’s not true. Lockheed makes cargo planes and helicopters.
        gumby 3y ago
        Yes but someone else ( the military) operates them, just as they do trucks and forklifts and whatever. I’m talking about Lockheed contracting with civilian governments to operate welfare systems and such.
        philwelch 3y ago
        I didn’t know Lockheed did that; do you have any sources? I’ve seen similar things (for instance, defense contractors also make mail trucks for the Postal Service), and the main reason for that is because doing business with the government is a big enough pain in the ass that it becomes a core competency in and of itself. Incidentally Sodexo—the cafeteria company—also has military contracts to run mess halls on military bases. So they are technically also a defense contractor. This isn’t surprising because they run cafeterias in hospitals and schools and prisons so they are also good at doing business with the government.
        p_l 3y ago
        Lockheed has considerable logistical arm, though mostly unrelated to feeding people anything other than lead and depleted uranium. It also sucks hilariously and if you think F-35 had avionics problems then you're just not ready for Lockheed-Martin quality in logistics.
  - noir_lord 3y ago
    Should split the companies and let the commercial arm sink or swim. It won’t happen because lobbying and been one of the big two is good for soft power so Boeing will be allowed to kill people as long as it stays under a certain rate.
  - privacyisntdead 3y ago
    In the years since, manufacturing problems have emerged[1] not only in the 737 but at other factories where Boeing makes its 787 Dreamliner, a U.S. military refueling tanker and Air Force One replacement jets[2], as well as at some of its key suppliers. https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/boeing-manufacturing-737-max-alaska-door-plug-spirit-18f7e233 https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/boeing-manufacturing-7... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-dreamliner-delays-faa-defects-11651067545 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-dreamliner-delays-faa-de... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-new-air-force-one-hit-by-production-mishaps-11649170748 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-new-air-force-one-hit-b...
  - philwelch 3y ago
    The space side of the business is a huge mess—Starliner was supposed to go into operation around the same time as Crew Dragon but got delayed by multiple issues. Also, Boeing’s status as a major military contractor is slipping. They have lost multiple contract bids in recent decades. As a consequence of losing the JSF competition they have also put a lot of lobbying and PR effort into attacking the F-35 in an attempt to drum up more business for the Super Hornet; this didn’t work out and Super Hornet production is set to end next year.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > But why not? Why can't they fail? Also see big banks. Some companies aren’t allowed to fail.
ScoobleDoodle 3y ago
Giving Boeing a pass just increases the blast radius to the airline industry and consumers. The management at Boeing putting in place an incentive structure counter to safety and engineering should be removed and replaced with people who can enable a return to an engineering and safety culture. Make Boeing management face the music and contain the blast radius to those who have lead poorly.

Solvency 3y ago

But why not? Why can't they fail? Why can the world have so many car makers and yacht makers but we can't disrupt up a flailing company like Boeing?

gumby 3y ago
Because they are a major military contractor. In fact the Boeing we know today was formed by a merger between the failing McDonnell-Douglas and then-successful Boeing — a merger basically forced by the DoD because MCD’s military contracting was too important to them. The management of the resulting company mostly came from MCD. Makes one wonder if the military and space sides of the business are also suffering quality problems or not.
- voidfunc 3y ago
  Basically best to understanding Boeing and the US Government as one and the same the only difference is Boeing has a ticker symbol.
  - gumby 3y ago
    Boeing is a negligible subset of the USG though. I find it more weird when Lockheed, CSC etc contract to run non-military programs for the USG. Whatever your opinion of military matters, I think it’s a bad idea to have a company whose main objective is killing people manage a program designed to, say, keep people from starving to death.
    - m463 3y ago
      I agree, for example the Grumman LLV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV
    - voidfunc 3y ago
      Eh... also gotta consider Boeing employs 145K people.. it would be really bad if it went under.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      80% of the work a military does is to keep people from starving to death. It’s called “logistics”.
      - gumby 3y ago
        Yeah, but not Lockheed
        philwelch 3y ago
        That’s not true. Lockheed makes cargo planes and helicopters.
        gumby 3y ago
        Yes but someone else ( the military) operates them, just as they do trucks and forklifts and whatever. I’m talking about Lockheed contracting with civilian governments to operate welfare systems and such.
        philwelch 3y ago
        I didn’t know Lockheed did that; do you have any sources? I’ve seen similar things (for instance, defense contractors also make mail trucks for the Postal Service), and the main reason for that is because doing business with the government is a big enough pain in the ass that it becomes a core competency in and of itself. Incidentally Sodexo—the cafeteria company—also has military contracts to run mess halls on military bases. So they are technically also a defense contractor. This isn’t surprising because they run cafeterias in hospitals and schools and prisons so they are also good at doing business with the government.
        p_l 3y ago
        Lockheed has considerable logistical arm, though mostly unrelated to feeding people anything other than lead and depleted uranium. It also sucks hilariously and if you think F-35 had avionics problems then you're just not ready for Lockheed-Martin quality in logistics.
- noir_lord 3y ago
  Should split the companies and let the commercial arm sink or swim. It won’t happen because lobbying and been one of the big two is good for soft power so Boeing will be allowed to kill people as long as it stays under a certain rate.
- privacyisntdead 3y ago
  In the years since, manufacturing problems have emerged[1] not only in the 737 but at other factories where Boeing makes its 787 Dreamliner, a U.S. military refueling tanker and Air Force One replacement jets[2], as well as at some of its key suppliers. https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/boeing-manufacturing-737-max-alaska-door-plug-spirit-18f7e233 https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/boeing-manufacturing-7... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-dreamliner-delays-faa-defects-11651067545 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-dreamliner-delays-faa-de... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-new-air-force-one-hit-by-production-mishaps-11649170748 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-new-air-force-one-hit-b...
- philwelch 3y ago
  The space side of the business is a huge mess—Starliner was supposed to go into operation around the same time as Crew Dragon but got delayed by multiple issues. Also, Boeing’s status as a major military contractor is slipping. They have lost multiple contract bids in recent decades. As a consequence of losing the JSF competition they have also put a lot of lobbying and PR effort into attacking the F-35 in an attempt to drum up more business for the Super Hornet; this didn’t work out and Super Hornet production is set to end next year.
lostlogin 3y ago
> But why not? Why can't they fail? Also see big banks. Some companies aren’t allowed to fail.

ScoobleDoodle 3y ago

Giving Boeing a pass just increases the blast radius to the airline industry and consumers. The management at Boeing putting in place an incentive structure counter to safety and engineering should be removed and replaced with people who can enable a return to an engineering and safety culture. Make Boeing management face the music and contain the blast radius to those who have lead poorly.