4 ms·
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 spe
by 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 agoYou 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 agoI 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.