5 ms·

In aerospace, saftey actually is the business model so?

by hef19898 3y ago

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> In aerospace, saftey actually is the business model so? I should have inc the relevant quote(fixd). Anyway, that was my understanding. But in my linked article, Boeing's CEO corrects me: "We don’t ‘sell’ safety; that’s not our business model." This is his day job after all.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Well, seems he was somewhat mistaken after all, wasn't he?
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    Where was he mistaken? He knew his job, did it to completion and was very well rewarded the entire time. His work at Boeing is so well regarded that investors couldn't wait to firehose capital his way. ref:https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/former-boeing-ceo-muilenburg-heads-200m-blank-check-venture/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/forme... Boeing's CEO is what success looks like.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      And yet Boeing became the posterchild, and but of jokes, for really bad engineering. And sold products that killed a couple of hundred people... Truely long term success for the company.
      - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        > And sold products that killed a couple of hundred people... Truely long term success for the company. That sort of long term outcome is fairly irrelevant to the people in control. Short term profits are what matter. Burn and bail. After enough years of profit-taking by burning thru hard-built assets - you have the only long term success that matters (to the people with control).
- foolswisdom 3y ago
  Is it not "a" business model, or not Boeing's business model? The latter is exactly what the FAA is saying :-).
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > Is it not "a" business model, or not Boeing's business model? The latter is exactly what the FAA is saying The FAA doesn't seem to take any notice of Boeing's business model.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  And that's completely out of line with the general picture on aviation. The fact that Boeing doesn't think it's their business doesn't mean that nobody thinks it's their business.
SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
No, safety is part of the marketing. If people think the planes are safe, then they'll fly on them & customers (airlines) will buy them. If people think they're not safe, then they won't fly on them and airlines won't want to buy them. If someone is actually injured then there's liability, but that's usually a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the potential marketing effects of safety incidents. To Boeing, planes need to be safe enough to not cause airlines to cancel orders or result in excessive fines from the government. Any additional safety is waste. The optimal number of people killed is higher than 0 when trying to maximize profits. As Mike Rowe says, "Safety Third"[1]. The need to make money is first, then willingness to assume risk, and finally safety. [1] https://mikerowe.com/2022/03/the-origin-of-safety-third/ https://mikerowe.com/2022/03/the-origin-of-safety-third/
- hef19898 3y ago
  Thanks for providing a glimps at why those Boeing fuck-ups happened... Safety third, are ypu kidding me? I just hope you don't work on stuff that can kill people...
  - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
    How can safety ever be first? If there's any amount of safety risk by doing a thing, then (if safety is truly first and overrides all other concerns) that thing should not be done. Nobody avoids all safety risk, so safety is trivially not first. No corporation has ever put the safety of its workers or customers above its own existence. That doesn't mean they don't take measures to improve safety, just that it's not able to override all other concerns. It's ultimately up to the people who are put at risk to manage their own safety & decide which risks to take, that cannot be entirely delegated to the organizations putting one at risk! "Safety First" encourages dangerous complacency on the part of the people bearing the risk.

In aerospace, saftey actually is the business model so?

> In aerospace, saftey actually is the business model so? I should have inc the relevant quote(fixd). Anyway, that was my understanding. But in my linked article, Boeing's CEO corrects me: "We don’t ‘sell’ safety; that’s not our business model." This is his day job after all.

hef19898 3y ago
Well, seems he was somewhat mistaken after all, wasn't he?
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  Where was he mistaken? He knew his job, did it to completion and was very well rewarded the entire time. His work at Boeing is so well regarded that investors couldn't wait to firehose capital his way. ref:https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/former-boeing-ceo-muilenburg-heads-200m-blank-check-venture/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/forme... Boeing's CEO is what success looks like.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    And yet Boeing became the posterchild, and but of jokes, for really bad engineering. And sold products that killed a couple of hundred people... Truely long term success for the company.
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      > And sold products that killed a couple of hundred people... Truely long term success for the company. That sort of long term outcome is fairly irrelevant to the people in control. Short term profits are what matter. Burn and bail. After enough years of profit-taking by burning thru hard-built assets - you have the only long term success that matters (to the people with control).
foolswisdom 3y ago
Is it not "a" business model, or not Boeing's business model? The latter is exactly what the FAA is saying :-).
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > Is it not "a" business model, or not Boeing's business model? The latter is exactly what the FAA is saying The FAA doesn't seem to take any notice of Boeing's business model.
marcosdumay 3y ago
And that's completely out of line with the general picture on aviation. The fact that Boeing doesn't think it's their business doesn't mean that nobody thinks it's their business.

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago

No, safety is part of the marketing. If people think the planes are safe, then they'll fly on them & customers (airlines) will buy them. If people think they're not safe, then they won't fly on them and airlines won't want to buy them. If someone is actually injured then there's liability, but that's usually a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the potential marketing effects of safety incidents. To Boeing, planes need to be safe enough to not cause airlines to cancel orders or result in excessive fines from the government. Any additional safety is waste. The optimal number of people killed is higher than 0 when trying to maximize profits. As Mike Rowe says, "Safety Third"[1]. The need to make money is first, then willingness to assume risk, and finally safety. [1] https://mikerowe.com/2022/03/the-origin-of-safety-third/ https://mikerowe.com/2022/03/the-origin-of-safety-third/

hef19898 3y ago
Thanks for providing a glimps at why those Boeing fuck-ups happened... Safety third, are ypu kidding me? I just hope you don't work on stuff that can kill people...
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
  How can safety ever be first? If there's any amount of safety risk by doing a thing, then (if safety is truly first and overrides all other concerns) that thing should not be done. Nobody avoids all safety risk, so safety is trivially not first. No corporation has ever put the safety of its workers or customers above its own existence. That doesn't mean they don't take measures to improve safety, just that it's not able to override all other concerns. It's ultimately up to the people who are put at risk to manage their own safety & decide which risks to take, that cannot be entirely delegated to the organizations putting one at risk! "Safety First" encourages dangerous complacency on the part of the people bearing the risk.