4 ms·

If Boeing doesn't go through a convincing change, I doubt they'll sell a lot of planes. And that's fine. Bad companies get replaced by good ones. Life goes on.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
For the people who are still alive, at least. There's at least three problems with this laissez-faire ideal: 1) For some reason that is hard to understand, the prospect of Boeing's long-term decline does not necessarily translate into incentives for the people at the helm to steer it right. They can reap unfathomable rewards while guiding it to its doom. That's not only perverse and unjust, it's also bad for incentivizing success. This is not necessarily something specific to Boeing; any company is vulnerable to this disease. 2) It may be a contagious condition. When executives who ruined Boeing leave the company, they may take up influential positions at other companies, and have similar destructive effects. It's hard to understand how this can happen, but it's the sort of thing that does happen; that is a major problem that deserves to be solved. 3) A Darwinian process of creative destruction is fine if Boeing were sinking because it was improving but too slowly, and Airbus had improved even more and faster and surpassed it. If Canon replaces Kodak, life goes on and we get nice cameras. But in a case where Boeing dies not by being outgrown but by regressing, because 2024-Boeing has worse quality standards than 1994-Boeing, there's nothing fine about that; that's something that should concern anybody who cares about the production of high-quality airplanes. It's worth examining how we got here, and if an incentive disconnect at the executive level is responsible then there could be very valuable lessons to learn about corporate governance going forward.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tomcar288 2y ago
i'm no expert on this but i thought the military buys a bunch of stuff from them because there's no other choice, right? and all those airlines, their only other choice is airbus. the industry simply doesnt compete enough, no?
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Depends on the kind of aircraft, but there are other options. Cargo are often Boeing because they specialize in that kind of aircraft, and there are a fair number of aircraft that are modified off of Boeing base-aircraft (AWACS was built on the 707; KC-46 the cursed refueler program is built on the 767). Fighters, bombers, and helicopters are more varied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_m...
- NickC25 2y ago
  I think you're right - some of the hardware the military buys from Boeing is because legally they can't buy from anyone else. IIRC they are forced to buy American made stuff on national security grounds. I don't have a problem with that, except that Boeing's products kinda suck.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    There's a priority for US-based, but it's not a hard requirement. KC-46 was almost the KC-45, that was an NG/Airbus effort built on the A330.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Which has been a complete shitshow while the Airbus alternative keeps snagging up customers around the world. > By January 2021, Boeing's losses on the program were estimated at $5 billion (~$5.55 billion in 2023).[88] At the time, it was expected that the KC-46 would not be combat ready until at least late 2023.[89] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus
      - Jtsummers 2y ago
        Yep, why I wrote this in my other comment: KC-46 the cursed refueler program. It's an excellent example of the self-inflicted wounds plaguing US DOD acquisition and sustainment programs.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

For the people who are still alive, at least. There's at least three problems with this laissez-faire ideal: 1) For some reason that is hard to understand, the prospect of Boeing's long-term decline does not necessarily translate into incentives for the people at the helm to steer it right. They can reap unfathomable rewards while guiding it to its doom. That's not only perverse and unjust, it's also bad for incentivizing success. This is not necessarily something specific to Boeing; any company is vulnerable to this disease. 2) It may be a contagious condition. When executives who ruined Boeing leave the company, they may take up influential positions at other companies, and have similar destructive effects. It's hard to understand how this can happen, but it's the sort of thing that does happen; that is a major problem that deserves to be solved. 3) A Darwinian process of creative destruction is fine if Boeing were sinking because it was improving but too slowly, and Airbus had improved even more and faster and surpassed it. If Canon replaces Kodak, life goes on and we get nice cameras. But in a case where Boeing dies not by being outgrown but by regressing, because 2024-Boeing has worse quality standards than 1994-Boeing, there's nothing fine about that; that's something that should concern anybody who cares about the production of high-quality airplanes. It's worth examining how we got here, and if an incentive disconnect at the executive level is responsible then there could be very valuable lessons to learn about corporate governance going forward.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tomcar288 2y ago

i'm no expert on this but i thought the military buys a bunch of stuff from them because there's no other choice, right? and all those airlines, their only other choice is airbus. the industry simply doesnt compete enough, no?

Jtsummers 2y ago
Depends on the kind of aircraft, but there are other options. Cargo are often Boeing because they specialize in that kind of aircraft, and there are a fair number of aircraft that are modified off of Boeing base-aircraft (AWACS was built on the 707; KC-46 the cursed refueler program is built on the 767). Fighters, bombers, and helicopters are more varied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_m...
NickC25 2y ago
I think you're right - some of the hardware the military buys from Boeing is because legally they can't buy from anyone else. IIRC they are forced to buy American made stuff on national security grounds. I don't have a problem with that, except that Boeing's products kinda suck.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  There's a priority for US-based, but it's not a hard requirement. KC-46 was almost the KC-45, that was an NG/Airbus effort built on the A330.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Which has been a complete shitshow while the Airbus alternative keeps snagging up customers around the world. > By January 2021, Boeing's losses on the program were estimated at $5 billion (~$5.55 billion in 2023).[88] At the time, it was expected that the KC-46 would not be combat ready until at least late 2023.[89] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      Yep, why I wrote this in my other comment: KC-46 the cursed refueler program. It's an excellent example of the self-inflicted wounds plaguing US DOD acquisition and sustainment programs.