4 ms·

Boeing, Apple and few other companies are losing their way. They do not care about customers anymore and for few extra cents they do everything within their pow

Boeing, Apple and few other companies are losing their way. They do not care about customers anymore and for few extra cents they do everything within their power, including endangering customer lives.

rsynnott 3y ago
This is how all large companies have always worked. That's why the solution of hoping they'll be nice has rarely worked out. You want companies to behave themselves? You _regulate_ them. (There actually _is_ a partial market solution; if a company engages in sufficiently objectionable behaviour, or is sufficiently poorly run, it is unpurchasable by a lot of funds. It's a relatively low bar, though; despite being so poorly run that it is apparently unable to build planes reliably at all anymore, Boeing has an ESG score of 40. Which is _bad_, and worse than any other major aircraft manufacturer, but is not sufficient to make it untouchable.)
- kevincox 3y ago
  I don't think it necessary is. This is companies prioritizing short-term over the long term. In a world of cheap junk made by DNURES or some other six capital letter oversea retailer it seems that a strong brand name is more valuable than ever. But so many companies are throwing it away by making the same crap that those effectively no-name companies are. So why would I pay more for the same junk. But if they had a reputation of quality I would be happy to pay the premium. For Boeing the equation is probably a lot different. But it is clear that there is little consideration for the long-term in the market.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    > This is companies prioritizing short-term over the long term. Well, it is, but realistically that is almost what the dynamics of the situation _forces_ them to do, particularly over the sorts of timeframes that aircraft manufacturers run on. Taking the 737 MAX project as a whole, to the outside observer it would seem obvious that Boeing should have designed a new-generation plane to effectively compete with the A32X family; this would, _in the long run_, clearly have paid off. But if you're the CEO of Boeing, considering a project with a 20 year payoff period, well, in 20 years you're probably not CEO of Boeing anymore, if you're even still around at all. Selling very long-term investments to the public markets is also not necessarily easy. So "squeeze another few years out of the 60 year old design, at any cost" starts to look like an attractive option. On: > But if they had a reputation of quality I would be happy to pay the premium. I don't think that _really_ applies here. There are about twice as many A32Xneo orders as 737 Max orders, and it it fairly clearly the market's preferred plane, but if you want an A32Xneo today, you're going to be waiting _years_. As long as the 737 Max can get off the runway at all, it has a large captive market. (Part of the problem here is that there are only really two companies who make planes in this size class, and again that fact is a failure of regulation; both Boeing and Airbus are products of mergers which should arguably not have been permitted.)
- berniedurfee 3y ago
  Correct. Capitalism, by definition, has no conscience. Regulation provides the layer (sometimes facade) of moral and ethical control. The two forces are generally opposed, but, hopefully, balance out to keep our society and environment tenable.
sidewndr46 3y ago
Yeah, but iPhones don't fall from the sky with hundreds on board. I'm hardly a defender of Apple but I don't think it really matters here
JoshTko 3y ago
Wait, how has Apple been endangering customer lives?

rsynnott 3y ago

This is how all large companies have always worked. That's why the solution of hoping they'll be nice has rarely worked out. You want companies to behave themselves? You _regulate_ them. (There actually _is_ a partial market solution; if a company engages in sufficiently objectionable behaviour, or is sufficiently poorly run, it is unpurchasable by a lot of funds. It's a relatively low bar, though; despite being so poorly run that it is apparently unable to build planes reliably at all anymore, Boeing has an ESG score of 40. Which is _bad_, and worse than any other major aircraft manufacturer, but is not sufficient to make it untouchable.)

kevincox 3y ago
I don't think it necessary is. This is companies prioritizing short-term over the long term. In a world of cheap junk made by DNURES or some other six capital letter oversea retailer it seems that a strong brand name is more valuable than ever. But so many companies are throwing it away by making the same crap that those effectively no-name companies are. So why would I pay more for the same junk. But if they had a reputation of quality I would be happy to pay the premium. For Boeing the equation is probably a lot different. But it is clear that there is little consideration for the long-term in the market.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > This is companies prioritizing short-term over the long term. Well, it is, but realistically that is almost what the dynamics of the situation _forces_ them to do, particularly over the sorts of timeframes that aircraft manufacturers run on. Taking the 737 MAX project as a whole, to the outside observer it would seem obvious that Boeing should have designed a new-generation plane to effectively compete with the A32X family; this would, _in the long run_, clearly have paid off. But if you're the CEO of Boeing, considering a project with a 20 year payoff period, well, in 20 years you're probably not CEO of Boeing anymore, if you're even still around at all. Selling very long-term investments to the public markets is also not necessarily easy. So "squeeze another few years out of the 60 year old design, at any cost" starts to look like an attractive option. On: > But if they had a reputation of quality I would be happy to pay the premium. I don't think that _really_ applies here. There are about twice as many A32Xneo orders as 737 Max orders, and it it fairly clearly the market's preferred plane, but if you want an A32Xneo today, you're going to be waiting _years_. As long as the 737 Max can get off the runway at all, it has a large captive market. (Part of the problem here is that there are only really two companies who make planes in this size class, and again that fact is a failure of regulation; both Boeing and Airbus are products of mergers which should arguably not have been permitted.)
berniedurfee 3y ago
Correct. Capitalism, by definition, has no conscience. Regulation provides the layer (sometimes facade) of moral and ethical control. The two forces are generally opposed, but, hopefully, balance out to keep our society and environment tenable.

sidewndr46 3y ago

Yeah, but iPhones don't fall from the sky with hundreds on board. I'm hardly a defender of Apple but I don't think it really matters here

JoshTko 3y ago

Wait, how has Apple been endangering customer lives?