4 ms·
That's actually exactly the wrong thing to do. The problem, at least in this case, is that Boeing chose to break off what is now known as Spirit Aerosystems in
by flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
That's actually exactly the wrong thing to do.
The problem, at least in this case, is that Boeing chose to break off what is now known as Spirit Aerosystems into a separate entity, and now Spirit has Boeing by the balls because Boeing can't replace them and has to deal with the consequences of their shitty manufacturing and QC.
- klyrs 3y agoNah, we just need to break them up along the vertical: decapitate the company, and let the engineers run it again.
- ramesh31 3y ago>The problem, at least in this case, is that Boeing chose to break off what is now known as Spirit Aerosystems into a separate entity Spirit is nothing more than a basket of limited liability set up by Boeing for precisely such an ocurrence. Pretending that it's anything else is just buying into their BS corporate spin.
- ensignavenger 3y agoYour comment seems to imply that Spirit is owned or primarily owned by Boeing? But I can't find any support for that. See https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPR/holders https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPR/holders Am I misunderstanding your point?
- beart 3y agoBoeing originally owned the facility and sold it. Spirit was founded explicitly to buy and run the facility.
- ensignavenger 3y agoBut Boeing doesn't appear to be maintaining any significant ownership or control over the company. They have other customers, including Boeings biggest competition. Usually the term "liability sheild" would impy that the subject still owns, controls, or otherwise profits from the companies operations, while shielding the subject from liability for the companies actions. It appears that Spirit is in fact very independant from Boeing at present.
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y agoA simple web search will show that's not true, unless you have some evidence to back up your claim?