3 ms·

Boeing's a weapons company that makes airplanes on the side. Commercial airplane revenue is now down to 32% of their total. [1] They've just honed in a bit too

Boeing's a weapons company that makes airplanes on the side. Commercial airplane revenue is now down to 32% of their total. [1] They've just honed in a bit too much on their primary money maker - killing people. [1] - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/032715/how-boeing-makes-its-money.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/032715/how-boe...

aredox 3y ago
This kind of degeneracy (normalisation of deviance[0]) is systemic. Expect problems to crop up in Boeing's weapons too sooner or later. I hope the US air force didn't let Boeing self-certify its products as much as the FAA did. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance
- jvm___ 3y ago
  Enshitification
  - rurban 3y ago
    McDonaldification rather. After their management took over Boeing, it went downhill.
    - ranger207 3y ago
      Same root cause
    - rurban 3y ago
      Sorry about the spelling error. "McDonellification"
- ghc 3y ago
  By law, Boeing must pay the USG for the USG to test and certify equipment produced for the government at one of many test ranges throughout the country. Exactly because companies can't be trusted to meet their contractual obligations. See https://www.test-evaluation.osd.mil https://www.test-evaluation.osd.mil for more info.
  - dahart 3y ago
    Same is true of their non-government products; planes have to be inspected and certified by the FAA for the same reason. Unfortunately, regulatory capture is preventing some of the proper checks and balances.
    - daveguy 3y ago
      Regulatory capture generally refers to putting up onerous and unnecessary regulations as a moat around a product or service. I think you're referring to the weakening/dismantling of regulatory requirements and enforcement favored by libertarians. Please correct me if I've misunderstood. Edit: Personally I think valid and helpful regulatory frameworks can easily drift into capture territory, so they must be vigilantly maintained. Also to keep incentives in alignment, the regulators shouldn't be able to jump back and forth between industry and regulation. Dismantling them, however, is worse. Like a long standing code base there's a lot of useful but misunderstood parts.
      - dahart 3y ago
        I’m not familiar with the meaning you’ve suggested. Can you provide supporting evidence for that definition? The only meaning I know for the phrase “Regulatory Capture” refers to the corruption of regulatory oversight by special interests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://study.com/academy/lesson/regulatory-capture-definition-theory.html https://study.com/academy/lesson/regulatory-capture-definiti... https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100411608 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
        daveguy 3y ago
        From your first link. > ...occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group. My description was just more succinct and didn't identify every single entity that could be coopted and every single group that could benefit. Regulatory capture is unnecessary and onerous checks and balances, not the removal of regulatory checks and balances that you implied.
- mihaaly 3y ago
  Luckily for them (military) dying of their own is more of a common thing than in passenger traffic. As well as secrecy of troublesome matters (e.g. weaknesses and vulnerability). Business as usual may carry on.
  - mihaaly 3y ago
    ... observing the few downvotes I have the feeling that I offended the sensitive patriotic hearts believing I had negative words on the beloved military. While in fact I had negative words on Boeing management, that they can abuse the inherent nature of military customers further and can carry on building crappy products blaming faults on the risky profession of home protecting soldiers. I felt like I had to clarify this before causing too much damage with my carelessly phrased sentences...
    - xxpor 3y ago
      When was the last time the AF lost a tanker?
      - mihaaly 3y ago
        Why tanker specifically? Which specific failiure mode of which specific component in the past was indicator in military use equipment for Boeing's present organizational f ups with the potential of future consequences?
        xxpor 3y ago
        The KC-46 shitshow was what I was thinking of.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- delfinom 3y ago
  Eh Boeing has been having issues delivering Air Force contracts already. They fucked up QC on KC-46s so bad that the air force was basically getting free planes after fines were levied. The Air Force is different than airlines in the fact they basically tear down the plane after receiving it to inspect it. They found all kinds of shit like fucking wrenches left in the wall. It's gotten so bad that Boeing announced they will no longer accept fixed price contracts from the military because they are that broken as a company and no longer able to manage anything.
  - xenonite 3y ago
    “B company” ;) Similar story: Bombardier trains in Switzerland. The defects required Bombardier to not only fix, but deliver several extra trains for free.
  - xnzakg 3y ago
    Thought you were joking about the wrenches part but apparently it's true? https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/04/02/air-force-again-halts-kc-46-deliveries-after-more-debris-found/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/04/02...
- lamontcg 3y ago
  Obligatory youtube video on the normalization of deviance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o
faitswulff 3y ago
Seems their primary business is leaking into their secondary business
- AwaAwa 3y ago
  Do not doubt the quality of their secondary business has leaked into their primary business.
  - josephg 3y ago
    I think that was a joke.
foofie 3y ago
> Boeing's a weapons company that makes airplanes on the side. I don't think this is an honest assessment. From your own source, Boeing's "Defense, Space, and Security" segment draw 39% of the company's revenue, while it's "Commercial Airplanes" segment accounted for 32% of its revenue. I don't think that there is a single company on earth that would describe the source of a third of its whole revenue as something they do "on the side". Moreso when the top segment is barely over 5% larger, and is comprised of a coarse agglomeration of activities that may or may not be all related.
- ethagknight 3y ago
  Depends on what global services is
  - HillRat 3y ago
    BGS is a combination of relatively random acquisitions, such as Aviall (aircraft parts and consumables wholesale) and Jeppesen (charts and training materials). Some military contracts in there, but mostly commercial.
  - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
    Article says it's comprised of "supply chain and logistics management, engineering, maintenance and modifications, upgrades and conversions, spare parts, pilot and maintenance training systems and services, data analytics, and digital services." I don't fully understand the breakdown, looks like they're doing some finance BS to push costs into the commercial and military segments (which report losses) and list global services as pure profit for some MBA reason. How else does the segment grow 180% year-over-year?
- drcongo 3y ago
  Which direction are those figures trending though?
  - foofie 3y ago
    > Which direction are those figures trending though? As Boeing's 737 MAX problems started in 2018 and all 737 MAX were grounded in 2019, I'd be surprised if these figures are already reflecting a considerable drop in Boeing's revenue from commercial planes.
taneq 3y ago
*homed in, although the idea of a knife-sharpening (honing) missile is amusing. :D

aredox 3y ago

This kind of degeneracy (normalisation of deviance[0]) is systemic. Expect problems to crop up in Boeing's weapons too sooner or later. I hope the US air force didn't let Boeing self-certify its products as much as the FAA did. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance

jvm___ 3y ago
Enshitification
- rurban 3y ago
  McDonaldification rather. After their management took over Boeing, it went downhill.
  - ranger207 3y ago
    Same root cause
  - rurban 3y ago
    Sorry about the spelling error. "McDonellification"
ghc 3y ago
By law, Boeing must pay the USG for the USG to test and certify equipment produced for the government at one of many test ranges throughout the country. Exactly because companies can't be trusted to meet their contractual obligations. See https://www.test-evaluation.osd.mil https://www.test-evaluation.osd.mil for more info.
- dahart 3y ago
  Same is true of their non-government products; planes have to be inspected and certified by the FAA for the same reason. Unfortunately, regulatory capture is preventing some of the proper checks and balances.
  - daveguy 3y ago
    Regulatory capture generally refers to putting up onerous and unnecessary regulations as a moat around a product or service. I think you're referring to the weakening/dismantling of regulatory requirements and enforcement favored by libertarians. Please correct me if I've misunderstood. Edit: Personally I think valid and helpful regulatory frameworks can easily drift into capture territory, so they must be vigilantly maintained. Also to keep incentives in alignment, the regulators shouldn't be able to jump back and forth between industry and regulation. Dismantling them, however, is worse. Like a long standing code base there's a lot of useful but misunderstood parts.
    - dahart 3y ago
      I’m not familiar with the meaning you’ve suggested. Can you provide supporting evidence for that definition? The only meaning I know for the phrase “Regulatory Capture” refers to the corruption of regulatory oversight by special interests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://study.com/academy/lesson/regulatory-capture-definition-theory.html https://study.com/academy/lesson/regulatory-capture-definiti... https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100411608 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
      - daveguy 3y ago
        From your first link. > ...occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group. My description was just more succinct and didn't identify every single entity that could be coopted and every single group that could benefit. Regulatory capture is unnecessary and onerous checks and balances, not the removal of regulatory checks and balances that you implied.
mihaaly 3y ago
Luckily for them (military) dying of their own is more of a common thing than in passenger traffic. As well as secrecy of troublesome matters (e.g. weaknesses and vulnerability). Business as usual may carry on.
- mihaaly 3y ago
  ... observing the few downvotes I have the feeling that I offended the sensitive patriotic hearts believing I had negative words on the beloved military. While in fact I had negative words on Boeing management, that they can abuse the inherent nature of military customers further and can carry on building crappy products blaming faults on the risky profession of home protecting soldiers. I felt like I had to clarify this before causing too much damage with my carelessly phrased sentences...
  - xxpor 3y ago
    When was the last time the AF lost a tanker?
    - mihaaly 3y ago
      Why tanker specifically? Which specific failiure mode of which specific component in the past was indicator in military use equipment for Boeing's present organizational f ups with the potential of future consequences?
      - xxpor 3y ago
        The KC-46 shitshow was what I was thinking of.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
delfinom 3y ago
Eh Boeing has been having issues delivering Air Force contracts already. They fucked up QC on KC-46s so bad that the air force was basically getting free planes after fines were levied. The Air Force is different than airlines in the fact they basically tear down the plane after receiving it to inspect it. They found all kinds of shit like fucking wrenches left in the wall. It's gotten so bad that Boeing announced they will no longer accept fixed price contracts from the military because they are that broken as a company and no longer able to manage anything.
- xenonite 3y ago
  “B company” ;) Similar story: Bombardier trains in Switzerland. The defects required Bombardier to not only fix, but deliver several extra trains for free.
- xnzakg 3y ago
  Thought you were joking about the wrenches part but apparently it's true? https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/04/02/air-force-again-halts-kc-46-deliveries-after-more-debris-found/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/04/02...
lamontcg 3y ago
Obligatory youtube video on the normalization of deviance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o

faitswulff 3y ago

Seems their primary business is leaking into their secondary business

AwaAwa 3y ago
Do not doubt the quality of their secondary business has leaked into their primary business.
- josephg 3y ago
  I think that was a joke.

foofie 3y ago

> Boeing's a weapons company that makes airplanes on the side. I don't think this is an honest assessment. From your own source, Boeing's "Defense, Space, and Security" segment draw 39% of the company's revenue, while it's "Commercial Airplanes" segment accounted for 32% of its revenue. I don't think that there is a single company on earth that would describe the source of a third of its whole revenue as something they do "on the side". Moreso when the top segment is barely over 5% larger, and is comprised of a coarse agglomeration of activities that may or may not be all related.

ethagknight 3y ago
Depends on what global services is
- HillRat 3y ago
  BGS is a combination of relatively random acquisitions, such as Aviall (aircraft parts and consumables wholesale) and Jeppesen (charts and training materials). Some military contracts in there, but mostly commercial.
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  Article says it's comprised of "supply chain and logistics management, engineering, maintenance and modifications, upgrades and conversions, spare parts, pilot and maintenance training systems and services, data analytics, and digital services." I don't fully understand the breakdown, looks like they're doing some finance BS to push costs into the commercial and military segments (which report losses) and list global services as pure profit for some MBA reason. How else does the segment grow 180% year-over-year?
drcongo 3y ago
Which direction are those figures trending though?
- foofie 3y ago
  > Which direction are those figures trending though? As Boeing's 737 MAX problems started in 2018 and all 737 MAX were grounded in 2019, I'd be surprised if these figures are already reflecting a considerable drop in Boeing's revenue from commercial planes.

taneq 3y ago

*homed in, although the idea of a knife-sharpening (honing) missile is amusing. :D