4 ms·

It’s funny that in this country it’s almost unthinkable, but I would imagine that in other countries the solution would be to nationalize the company.

Covzire 2y ago
[flagged]
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  This is utter nonsense. I happen to be a white guy working in aerospace. I love that we're finally starting to address some of the bias that has led to preferential hiring of people like me. The non-white, non-male, non-christian, and non-hetero colleagues I have are absolutely brilliant and earned their positions though hard work.
  - Covzire 2y ago
    There's nothing wrong with diversity but your career is stillborn if your management buys into the entire DEI cult. It's a dog whistle / trojan horse and not what you think it is.
    - razakel 2y ago
      How so?
    - foobarbecue 2y ago
      My carrer is doing just fine, thank you. You're seeing monsters under the bed. There is no "DEI cult." There's simply a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
bamboozled 2y ago
It just needs external regulation. The self regulation was a disaster.
- atoav 2y ago
  Well that and the people in charge during that decline need to feel personal consequences. This is also a problem of incentives:If you can roll your dice and the only possible outcomes are: A) you save your corporation some money while lowering reliability and fucking up safety, but you get a bonus and IF something happens you are either long gone or never held accountable B) you do nothing, you gain nothing Then it is clear why more people choose A. If you want management to feel what they are doing is "taking a risk", then make it really, actually risky for them. Especially if it has the potential to kill people. I am talking about significant jail time on top of losing all benefits made during the act. I am an electrical engineer. If something I am not giving my work due diligence and it ends up killing people, I go to jail. If management makes me use flammable materials to safe money and they burn down an orphanage it is a tragic accident that nobody can change, even when you have whistleblowers warning about it internally and publicly. I constantly heard the phrase that management has to earn a lot because of the huge responsibilities they carry. If the most dire consequence to breaking those responsibilities is that you leave your job with a golden parachute, then that does not sound like it comes at a huge risk. Sure you need to be able to act like a amoral psychopath, but that is a price they are willing to pay.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    during that decline need to feel personal consequences. This is just never going to happen. I agree with you but it's not how power structures work. Even if there was some type of governance structure setup to do this, those CEOs would workout how to make someone else the fall guy. The best hope we have is healthy competition, even now, I search for flight that offer AirBus.
skirge 2y ago
and censorship the test results?
- fransje26 2y ago
  The two things do not go hand in hand, no. It's akin to screaming "communism" when someone proposes public healthcare.
K0balt 2y ago
I can only imagine the damage to air travel if Boeing was managed like NASA.
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
The inverse happened: the nation was corporatized with regulatory capture and lobbyists purchasing influence outright, so that is prevented from happening.
AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
Our government is not competent enough to do that. Much of the issues Boeing has are as a result of government involvement. Just look at the entire starliner debacle, in any truly free market Boeing would have been fired as a vendor years ago. They were (and are) way behind schedule, their unmanned demo flight was a failure, they still went forward with a manned flight which has been an abject failure -- the crew is on month three of what was supposed to be a 3 hour^W^W9 day tour. They might not be coming home till February. I hope they have someone watering their plants.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  If by "involvement" you mean the opposite, sure. The government approved the merger. The government allowed Boeing to run with minimal FAA oversight. I'm speaking of their commercial aviation side, not the military/space stuff.
  - AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
    You seem to be agreeing that our government is not competent enough to handle Boeing from an oversight perspective, let alone actively running the company. I agree with both of your points, the government should never have allowed the McDonnell Douglas merger (I assume that's what you mean) and I can't possibly agree more that the FAA's "self certification" regime was a hilariously bad concept which was made worse by their implementation.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      I was responding to the contention that you made: "Much of the issues Boeing has are as a result of government involvement." The government hasn't been involved, that's the problem. We elected people who want to deregulate everything and this is what we get.

Covzire 2y ago

[flagged]

foobarbecue 2y ago
This is utter nonsense. I happen to be a white guy working in aerospace. I love that we're finally starting to address some of the bias that has led to preferential hiring of people like me. The non-white, non-male, non-christian, and non-hetero colleagues I have are absolutely brilliant and earned their positions though hard work.
- Covzire 2y ago
  There's nothing wrong with diversity but your career is stillborn if your management buys into the entire DEI cult. It's a dog whistle / trojan horse and not what you think it is.
  - razakel 2y ago
    How so?
  - foobarbecue 2y ago
    My carrer is doing just fine, thank you. You're seeing monsters under the bed. There is no "DEI cult." There's simply a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

bamboozled 2y ago

It just needs external regulation. The self regulation was a disaster.

atoav 2y ago
Well that and the people in charge during that decline need to feel personal consequences. This is also a problem of incentives:If you can roll your dice and the only possible outcomes are: A) you save your corporation some money while lowering reliability and fucking up safety, but you get a bonus and IF something happens you are either long gone or never held accountable B) you do nothing, you gain nothing Then it is clear why more people choose A. If you want management to feel what they are doing is "taking a risk", then make it really, actually risky for them. Especially if it has the potential to kill people. I am talking about significant jail time on top of losing all benefits made during the act. I am an electrical engineer. If something I am not giving my work due diligence and it ends up killing people, I go to jail. If management makes me use flammable materials to safe money and they burn down an orphanage it is a tragic accident that nobody can change, even when you have whistleblowers warning about it internally and publicly. I constantly heard the phrase that management has to earn a lot because of the huge responsibilities they carry. If the most dire consequence to breaking those responsibilities is that you leave your job with a golden parachute, then that does not sound like it comes at a huge risk. Sure you need to be able to act like a amoral psychopath, but that is a price they are willing to pay.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  during that decline need to feel personal consequences. This is just never going to happen. I agree with you but it's not how power structures work. Even if there was some type of governance structure setup to do this, those CEOs would workout how to make someone else the fall guy. The best hope we have is healthy competition, even now, I search for flight that offer AirBus.

skirge 2y ago

and censorship the test results?

fransje26 2y ago
The two things do not go hand in hand, no. It's akin to screaming "communism" when someone proposes public healthcare.

K0balt 2y ago

I can only imagine the damage to air travel if Boeing was managed like NASA.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

The inverse happened: the nation was corporatized with regulatory capture and lobbyists purchasing influence outright, so that is prevented from happening.

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago

Our government is not competent enough to do that. Much of the issues Boeing has are as a result of government involvement. Just look at the entire starliner debacle, in any truly free market Boeing would have been fired as a vendor years ago. They were (and are) way behind schedule, their unmanned demo flight was a failure, they still went forward with a manned flight which has been an abject failure -- the crew is on month three of what was supposed to be a 3 hour^W^W9 day tour. They might not be coming home till February. I hope they have someone watering their plants.

alistairSH 2y ago
If by "involvement" you mean the opposite, sure. The government approved the merger. The government allowed Boeing to run with minimal FAA oversight. I'm speaking of their commercial aviation side, not the military/space stuff.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  You seem to be agreeing that our government is not competent enough to handle Boeing from an oversight perspective, let alone actively running the company. I agree with both of your points, the government should never have allowed the McDonnell Douglas merger (I assume that's what you mean) and I can't possibly agree more that the FAA's "self certification" regime was a hilariously bad concept which was made worse by their implementation.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    I was responding to the contention that you made: "Much of the issues Boeing has are as a result of government involvement." The government hasn't been involved, that's the problem. We elected people who want to deregulate everything and this is what we get.