4 ms·

Wait what. I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Bad Thing is because of "maximizing profits", but in this case you can point to incredibly specific thin

Wait what. I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Bad Thing is because of "maximizing profits", but in this case you can point to incredibly specific things, done to maximize profits, that directly caused this crisis. After acquiring McDonnell, Boeing went on a spree of divestments where parts plants that supplied them were spun off into independent vendors. One of the biggest of these is Spirit Aerosystems, which provides the fuselage assembly for the 737. The divestments were specifically motivated by improving short-term profitability of the company, in the classic "sell it and rent it back" mode that's particularly in mode with private equity. By all accounts quality control at Spirit Aerosystems has suffered since, with Boeing having relatively little leverage in improving this state of affairs (one may argue that it's not terribly interested in improving the state of affairs). As far as we know the aircraft that kicked off this crisis was delivered from Spirit with an incorrectly installed plug door (more specifically, the bolts that secured it from opening were not installed at all) Sure, not everything is corporate greed, but there's a really bright and direct line here between the financialization of Boeing in the mid-00s and this specific crisis.

WalterBright 3y ago
NASA subcontracted about everything for the space program.
- emgeee 3y ago
  NASA is a government organization with different incentives, and, has arguably suffers from similar problems that Boeing is experiencing.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > arguably suffers from similar problems that Boeing is experiencing. What problems are you referring to?
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      To airplanes failing and killing everybody inside. Excessive costs for new projects. Not upgrading their core technology. But I dont think the comparison makes much sense.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  and between the end of Apollo and the emergence of "new space" companies like SpaceX, we saw them get taken for a ride by those very subcontractors with absurdly overpriced cost-plus projects that were always over budget, late and did the bare minimum to meet requirements. Funnily, even with NASA's example, we have several instances of Boeing screwing up everything in favor of short term gains. ULA had to be 'forced' into existence by the government, because Boeing was caught conducting espionage on Lockheed Martin and was at risk of getting barred from government rocket launches (which would've left the US with only one launch service provider). They also tried to amend their bid on the Artemis lander competition, potentially after having info on others' bids leaked to them by a NASA insider. They forced ULA to severely limit the capabilities of Vulcan to not make SLS unnecessary (even tried to get people fired for it). Then, of course, we have the ongoing engineering disasters of SLS and Starliner. I'm also not really sure how NASA fits considering that they have no monetary profit motive. They subcontract everything because that's just how the government does most of its procurement.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > we saw them get taken for a ride by those very subcontractors with absurdly overpriced cost-plus projects that were always over budget, late and did the bare minimum to meet requirements. What is the evidence of that? Certainly there's every reason to believe that they exceeded requirements by a lot: NASA not only has an astounding successs rate (in the most challenging engineering and manufacturing challenges in human history) but their missions tend to last far longer than the specifications. Voyager 1 and 2 are still flying, and so is that helicopter. In fact, is there any organization ever that is a worse fit for the description, "did the bare minimum to meet requirements". For an interesting description of how NASA engineering and budgeting actually work, here's someone from JPL (for a bit more, see other comments from the same user): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39083086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39083086
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      I'm talking about the contractors. Most of the rovers, orbiters etc which we think of when we think of NASA overperforming, like Curiosity, Spirit, Voyager, Cassini, were built by JPL, not Boeing, Lockmart or NG.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>After acquiring McDonnell, Boeing went on a spree of divestments where parts plants that supplied them were spun off into independent vendors. This isn't default bad. Do you build everything at your company, or buy some things? Specialization can be a boon. >with Boeing having relatively little leverage in improving this state of affairs (one may argue that it's not terribly interested in improving the state of affairs). One might argue that Boeing isn't interested making sure their planes are safe? Absurd.
- lumost 3y ago
  There is something different that happens in a vertically integrated engineering firms. In the event of a critical defect - very senior engineers will find out the specific people who caused the defect, and vet that the appropriate corrective actions have taken place. Likewise, if you do your job well on sub-assembly 529ca - you have the opportunity to be noticed and move up to bigger projects without changing firms. These records are persistent in the company, and it can be highly embarrassing and impactful to have caused the issue many years later. When you've outsourced the supply chain, personal responsibility is washed in a sea of lawyers, managers, buyers, and other personnel - the incentive to do your job to the 80-90% of completion and no more is extremely strong as it makes everything look better over the next 2-3 years.
  - WanderPanda 3y ago
    You raise a very good point. If you join a company with the goal of retiring in the same company after a a 40-year career, the incentives are much better aligned than with contractors. Maybe the demise of the 40-year career in modern companies is one of the bigger elephants in the room
    - lumost 3y ago
      I'm not sure you even need a 40 year career. In my current (Tech/Software) shop, the Distinguished Engineer (Lead engineer for a group of ~2-5k engineers). Can very quickly learn your name from your successes and failures. The highest priority projects will pull talent from these successes. In the span of 2-4 years you can go from sub-assembly 1234 to lead of (biggest project). In theory, you can pivot the entire knowledge "supply chain" to a different problem in 1-2 years in this manner. Shifting a contracted supply chain could take decades if it was even possible.

WalterBright 3y ago

NASA subcontracted about everything for the space program.

emgeee 3y ago
NASA is a government organization with different incentives, and, has arguably suffers from similar problems that Boeing is experiencing.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > arguably suffers from similar problems that Boeing is experiencing. What problems are you referring to?
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    To airplanes failing and killing everybody inside. Excessive costs for new projects. Not upgrading their core technology. But I dont think the comparison makes much sense.
dotnet00 3y ago
and between the end of Apollo and the emergence of "new space" companies like SpaceX, we saw them get taken for a ride by those very subcontractors with absurdly overpriced cost-plus projects that were always over budget, late and did the bare minimum to meet requirements. Funnily, even with NASA's example, we have several instances of Boeing screwing up everything in favor of short term gains. ULA had to be 'forced' into existence by the government, because Boeing was caught conducting espionage on Lockheed Martin and was at risk of getting barred from government rocket launches (which would've left the US with only one launch service provider). They also tried to amend their bid on the Artemis lander competition, potentially after having info on others' bids leaked to them by a NASA insider. They forced ULA to severely limit the capabilities of Vulcan to not make SLS unnecessary (even tried to get people fired for it). Then, of course, we have the ongoing engineering disasters of SLS and Starliner. I'm also not really sure how NASA fits considering that they have no monetary profit motive. They subcontract everything because that's just how the government does most of its procurement.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > we saw them get taken for a ride by those very subcontractors with absurdly overpriced cost-plus projects that were always over budget, late and did the bare minimum to meet requirements. What is the evidence of that? Certainly there's every reason to believe that they exceeded requirements by a lot: NASA not only has an astounding successs rate (in the most challenging engineering and manufacturing challenges in human history) but their missions tend to last far longer than the specifications. Voyager 1 and 2 are still flying, and so is that helicopter. In fact, is there any organization ever that is a worse fit for the description, "did the bare minimum to meet requirements". For an interesting description of how NASA engineering and budgeting actually work, here's someone from JPL (for a bit more, see other comments from the same user): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39083086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39083086
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    I'm talking about the contractors. Most of the rovers, orbiters etc which we think of when we think of NASA overperforming, like Curiosity, Spirit, Voyager, Cassini, were built by JPL, not Boeing, Lockmart or NG.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>After acquiring McDonnell, Boeing went on a spree of divestments where parts plants that supplied them were spun off into independent vendors. This isn't default bad. Do you build everything at your company, or buy some things? Specialization can be a boon. >with Boeing having relatively little leverage in improving this state of affairs (one may argue that it's not terribly interested in improving the state of affairs). One might argue that Boeing isn't interested making sure their planes are safe? Absurd.

lumost 3y ago
There is something different that happens in a vertically integrated engineering firms. In the event of a critical defect - very senior engineers will find out the specific people who caused the defect, and vet that the appropriate corrective actions have taken place. Likewise, if you do your job well on sub-assembly 529ca - you have the opportunity to be noticed and move up to bigger projects without changing firms. These records are persistent in the company, and it can be highly embarrassing and impactful to have caused the issue many years later. When you've outsourced the supply chain, personal responsibility is washed in a sea of lawyers, managers, buyers, and other personnel - the incentive to do your job to the 80-90% of completion and no more is extremely strong as it makes everything look better over the next 2-3 years.
- WanderPanda 3y ago
  You raise a very good point. If you join a company with the goal of retiring in the same company after a a 40-year career, the incentives are much better aligned than with contractors. Maybe the demise of the 40-year career in modern companies is one of the bigger elephants in the room
  - lumost 3y ago
    I'm not sure you even need a 40 year career. In my current (Tech/Software) shop, the Distinguished Engineer (Lead engineer for a group of ~2-5k engineers). Can very quickly learn your name from your successes and failures. The highest priority projects will pull talent from these successes. In the span of 2-4 years you can go from sub-assembly 1234 to lead of (biggest project). In theory, you can pivot the entire knowledge "supply chain" to a different problem in 1-2 years in this manner. Shifting a contracted supply chain could take decades if it was even possible.