3 ms·
I hope you're being sarcastic. Bailing out companies that fail to do the right thing only encourages that behavior. The opposite should happen, the government s
by driverdan 3y ago
I hope you're being sarcastic. Bailing out companies that fail to do the right thing only encourages that behavior. The opposite should happen, the government should take them to task possibly leading to them going out of business.
- aaomidi 3y agoHonestly I think the best thing here would be to subsidize the regulation for getting new planes approved as a long term debt to the government. Government helps ease the cost and increases the speed of confirming new plane designs, in exchange for a long term commitment by the company to provide planes for various US subsidized air routes.
- caseyy 3y agoIt is in the interest of the public that Boeing remains competitive in this space. Otherwise, companies like Airbus would no longer be incentivized to pursue technical excellence as a competitive advantage. For them too it would become a sensible business decision to count beans and cut corners. Overall, everyone would be worse off. Market-dominating companies have problems like that. If we strike them off for this, that’s not sustainable. Public bailouts are unsustainable, too. But it would be worse if the company isn’t kept around. It would be good if there was a way to somehow penalize the people at Boeing for acting this way, with total negligence towards lives of their passengers. So that this would stand as an effective deterrent for the future. I think this is what everyone wants, not the downfall of Boeing.