5 ms·

So what exactly would the CEO have to have done to "build planes"? Some wiring? Screwing in things? Ordered parts? Quality tested a component? Why not the need

So what exactly would the CEO have to have done to "build planes"? Some wiring? Screwing in things? Ordered parts? Quality tested a component? Why not the need to also piloting a plane to understand how it works? What specific part imbues the required understanding? What if CEO build other things than planes?

clouddrover 3y ago
To actually have done something and contributed to designing and producing aircraft. To actually have an aeronautical engineering background. That's the business Boeing is in. Putting inexpert people in positions of authority is guaranteed to damage a business, as Boeing is now finding out.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  In the anstract, do you think civilian control of the military is wrong then, too? Should experts always be in control everywhere or are there limits?
  - Filligree 3y ago
    The military likely would be more effective with generals in charge, yes. There are downsides to that, which is why we don't do it. You can judge for yourself if those same downsides apply to Boeing.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      I think that goes to the heart of it: I am not sure generals would necessarily be better at achieving the political objectives of what the military is for. In the same way, I couldn't say if Boing would need something more closer to a priest or a technocrat.
  - clouddrover 3y ago
    Civilians don't run the military. The military experts run the military. That's a good thing. And the military doesn't run the government. That's also a good thing. The only way your analogy works is if you think it's a good idea to appoint generals and admirals who have no military experience. I hope you don't.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      In most Western countries the most senior person in command is a civilian, not a general or admiral (and there are civilians in various other positions, too).
      - clouddrover 3y ago
        Answer what has been put to you: Do you think people with no military experience should be generals and admirals?
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        I don't see that as the right analogy, because the highest command authority already is with a civilian. Anyway, why not under certain circumstances? Already now there are differences between countries what is run by the military and what isn't.
        clouddrover 3y ago
        > Anyway, why not under certain circumstances? Because someone with no military experience is inexpert. They don't know what they're doing. In the military a lack of expertise is very likely to result in people dying unnecessarily.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        So when currently in country A something is done by the military and in country B by civilians, only country A has it right? The US army corps of engineers being in charge of levees isn't the only way, for example. A lot of generals don't fight wars. And those who do, are under civilian supervision.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Civilians control but don't manage the military. They control it, in the sense of setting the goals, but they don't generally manage things after that. The equivalent here would be the customers.
arcbyte 3y ago
You need two types of experience: deep and abstract. You need the deep experience of having worked inside the beaurocracy of a huge effort on some tiny piece of the project. You need the abstract experience of having built a smaller, less complicated version of an entire plane yourself. Think RC model plane here. And yes you should be at least an RC pilot. With both of those experiences you will be able to extrapolate very closely everything you need to know to be succesful in establishing an engineering culture.

clouddrover 3y ago

To actually have done something and contributed to designing and producing aircraft. To actually have an aeronautical engineering background. That's the business Boeing is in. Putting inexpert people in positions of authority is guaranteed to damage a business, as Boeing is now finding out.

RandomLensman 3y ago
In the anstract, do you think civilian control of the military is wrong then, too? Should experts always be in control everywhere or are there limits?
- Filligree 3y ago
  The military likely would be more effective with generals in charge, yes. There are downsides to that, which is why we don't do it. You can judge for yourself if those same downsides apply to Boeing.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    I think that goes to the heart of it: I am not sure generals would necessarily be better at achieving the political objectives of what the military is for. In the same way, I couldn't say if Boing would need something more closer to a priest or a technocrat.
- clouddrover 3y ago
  Civilians don't run the military. The military experts run the military. That's a good thing. And the military doesn't run the government. That's also a good thing. The only way your analogy works is if you think it's a good idea to appoint generals and admirals who have no military experience. I hope you don't.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    In most Western countries the most senior person in command is a civilian, not a general or admiral (and there are civilians in various other positions, too).
    - clouddrover 3y ago
      Answer what has been put to you: Do you think people with no military experience should be generals and admirals?
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        I don't see that as the right analogy, because the highest command authority already is with a civilian. Anyway, why not under certain circumstances? Already now there are differences between countries what is run by the military and what isn't.
        clouddrover 3y ago
        > Anyway, why not under certain circumstances? Because someone with no military experience is inexpert. They don't know what they're doing. In the military a lack of expertise is very likely to result in people dying unnecessarily.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        So when currently in country A something is done by the military and in country B by civilians, only country A has it right? The US army corps of engineers being in charge of levees isn't the only way, for example. A lot of generals don't fight wars. And those who do, are under civilian supervision.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Civilians control but don't manage the military. They control it, in the sense of setting the goals, but they don't generally manage things after that. The equivalent here would be the customers.

arcbyte 3y ago

You need two types of experience: deep and abstract. You need the deep experience of having worked inside the beaurocracy of a huge effort on some tiny piece of the project. You need the abstract experience of having built a smaller, less complicated version of an entire plane yourself. Think RC model plane here. And yes you should be at least an RC pilot. With both of those experiences you will be able to extrapolate very closely everything you need to know to be succesful in establishing an engineering culture.