4 ms·

Boeing should be put in receivership, all top management fired with bonuses and stock grants clawed back. The rot needs to be cut out. Boeing is too important

Boeing should be put in receivership, all top management fired with bonuses and stock grants clawed back. The rot needs to be cut out. Boeing is too important to be run by MBAs and private equity wannabes

consumer451 3y ago
Just imagine if we lived in such a world.
zeroCalories 3y ago
At this point Boeing may as well be nationalized with how deeply embedded it is with U.S defense and economy.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Guess we need to put the federal government into receivership then /s
- takoid 3y ago
  Outside of early 20th-century Italy and Germany, which countries have actively pursued nationalization of industries in a late-stage capitalism phase of development? What were the outcomes? Are there more effective alternatives?
  - gumby 3y ago
    Post-WWII France and UK, France even into the 80s. US nationalized passenger rail into Amtrak in ‘71. New York took over the private subway companies in the 40s. Since the 1980s the US uses a different mechanism (as they did with Boeing) where the state leaves the companies listed on the stock exchange but influences policy by guaranteed purchase orders, forced mergers (else you lose those purchase orders) etc — privatization in all but name.
    - Log_out_ 3y ago
      Wouldn't count the US though. Privat industry regularly sabotage state enterprises via lobbyism.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sologoub 3y ago
Can’t speak for “private equity wannabes”, but good MBA programs emphasize quality and processes with checks and balances quite a bit. I can’t think of a scenario where an MBA program material would lead to recommendation to willfully incur this much liability and brand damage. There simply isn’t enough profit in the world from cutting corners to pay for carrying this absurd risk. More likely, this is blatant lack of competition and accountability, aided by a huge dose of collective incompetence. Very said to see this from such an important company/institution. This might be the personification of repercussions of too big to fail.
- DrFalkyn 3y ago
  Its not the MBA, its the background of those calling the shots. Having people who were purely finance/marketing/business people be in charge of an engineering company is asking for trouble. So an engineer/STEM works in the industry, then later gets an MBA, that's a different story. If Boeing just wants to be a marketing/finance company they should fire all their engineers and contract it out to someone who actually cares. I don't think this should be all that controversial. People with a medical background should run hospitals/clincs, people from creative backgrounds should run media companies, people with finance backgrounds should run finance companies etc. Of course, you need to know some finance/marketing/management to get that high up the corporate ladder. The problem is the thinking that those types know how to run every business, just because of their 'Wharton/Harvard/etc. MBA
- NicoJuicy 3y ago
  Nah. An electronic company I know of handles with the US a lot. Every 4 years there is new management trying to get costs down and the same thing happens every time. They once forced them to help outsource production to China and get a commission or no commission at all. After a year of production, they crawled back since the Chinese used cheaper components and did insufficient testing. It just needed a couple of production issues and lots of warranty claims.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    That's how GM wrecked Opel. Every few years, management changed, and the freshly parachuted new guy from the US mothership needed to make a mark for themselves to be promoted. Cost-cutting was the only way they knew, because first they were Americans, and second, they had no long-term attachment. Of course, the relentless cost-cutting without consideration for anything else soon ends you with quality issues and unhappy customers. Market forces at work. Forty years ago, they made very decent cars.

consumer451 3y ago

Just imagine if we lived in such a world.

zeroCalories 3y ago

At this point Boeing may as well be nationalized with how deeply embedded it is with U.S defense and economy.

_heimdall 3y ago
Guess we need to put the federal government into receivership then /s
takoid 3y ago
Outside of early 20th-century Italy and Germany, which countries have actively pursued nationalization of industries in a late-stage capitalism phase of development? What were the outcomes? Are there more effective alternatives?
- gumby 3y ago
  Post-WWII France and UK, France even into the 80s. US nationalized passenger rail into Amtrak in ‘71. New York took over the private subway companies in the 40s. Since the 1980s the US uses a different mechanism (as they did with Boeing) where the state leaves the companies listed on the stock exchange but influences policy by guaranteed purchase orders, forced mergers (else you lose those purchase orders) etc — privatization in all but name.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    Wouldn't count the US though. Privat industry regularly sabotage state enterprises via lobbyism.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sologoub 3y ago

Can’t speak for “private equity wannabes”, but good MBA programs emphasize quality and processes with checks and balances quite a bit. I can’t think of a scenario where an MBA program material would lead to recommendation to willfully incur this much liability and brand damage. There simply isn’t enough profit in the world from cutting corners to pay for carrying this absurd risk. More likely, this is blatant lack of competition and accountability, aided by a huge dose of collective incompetence. Very said to see this from such an important company/institution. This might be the personification of repercussions of too big to fail.

DrFalkyn 3y ago
Its not the MBA, its the background of those calling the shots. Having people who were purely finance/marketing/business people be in charge of an engineering company is asking for trouble. So an engineer/STEM works in the industry, then later gets an MBA, that's a different story. If Boeing just wants to be a marketing/finance company they should fire all their engineers and contract it out to someone who actually cares. I don't think this should be all that controversial. People with a medical background should run hospitals/clincs, people from creative backgrounds should run media companies, people with finance backgrounds should run finance companies etc. Of course, you need to know some finance/marketing/management to get that high up the corporate ladder. The problem is the thinking that those types know how to run every business, just because of their 'Wharton/Harvard/etc. MBA
NicoJuicy 3y ago
Nah. An electronic company I know of handles with the US a lot. Every 4 years there is new management trying to get costs down and the same thing happens every time. They once forced them to help outsource production to China and get a commission or no commission at all. After a year of production, they crawled back since the Chinese used cheaper components and did insufficient testing. It just needed a couple of production issues and lots of warranty claims.
- HarryHirsch 3y ago
  That's how GM wrecked Opel. Every few years, management changed, and the freshly parachuted new guy from the US mothership needed to make a mark for themselves to be promoted. Cost-cutting was the only way they knew, because first they were Americans, and second, they had no long-term attachment. Of course, the relentless cost-cutting without consideration for anything else soon ends you with quality issues and unhappy customers. Market forces at work. Forty years ago, they made very decent cars.