3 ms·

Key difference though, the corners Boeing cuts are to line the pockets of their execs and stockholders. One thing to be pushing boundaries, doing something nev

Key difference though, the corners Boeing cuts are to line the pockets of their execs and stockholders. One thing to be pushing boundaries, doing something never done before, everyone knows there are significant risks. Another altogether to be doing a terrible job to save money doing something that has been done successfully time and time again.

Aloha 2y ago
You act like this is different now than it was with NAA or Grumman in 1965, it's not. The nature of companies has not changed that much since 1965. But many of the same issues still exist, poorly defined requirements being the primary one.
- lukev 2y ago
  The MBA-brained focus on short term profits is a relatively recent development and was not nearly as prevalent back then. Safety engineering is about as long-term a value as you can imagine, so it makes sense that it's one of the things being cut as companies move to focus almost exclusively on quarterly reports.
  - CraigJPerry 2y ago
    >> focus on short term profits is a relatively recent development and was not nearly as prevalent back then That’s not true, nasa engaged in studies of its suppliers in the 60s to determine if their short term profit seeking was working well enough that it might encourage further capital investments from the private sector in supply chain companies, nasa wanted to make sure there was enough fat in what it paid suppliers to attract further investment but not so much to attract public scandal as to the disposal of public tax dollars.
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      > That’s not true, nasa engaged in studies of its suppliers in the 60s […] Are these available online anywhere? Curious to know how they calculated (?) such things.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > The nature of companies has not changed that much since 1965. The nature of management has changed since the 1970s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory

Aloha 2y ago

You act like this is different now than it was with NAA or Grumman in 1965, it's not. The nature of companies has not changed that much since 1965. But many of the same issues still exist, poorly defined requirements being the primary one.

lukev 2y ago
The MBA-brained focus on short term profits is a relatively recent development and was not nearly as prevalent back then. Safety engineering is about as long-term a value as you can imagine, so it makes sense that it's one of the things being cut as companies move to focus almost exclusively on quarterly reports.
- CraigJPerry 2y ago
  >> focus on short term profits is a relatively recent development and was not nearly as prevalent back then That’s not true, nasa engaged in studies of its suppliers in the 60s to determine if their short term profit seeking was working well enough that it might encourage further capital investments from the private sector in supply chain companies, nasa wanted to make sure there was enough fat in what it paid suppliers to attract further investment but not so much to attract public scandal as to the disposal of public tax dollars.
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > That’s not true, nasa engaged in studies of its suppliers in the 60s […] Are these available online anywhere? Curious to know how they calculated (?) such things.
throw0101d 2y ago
> The nature of companies has not changed that much since 1965. The nature of management has changed since the 1970s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory