4 ms·

A bit ironic though because the CEO of Boing during their best years was William McPherson Allen, a lawyer.

sitharus 1y ago
He initially turned down the job because he felt that a lawyer wasn't the right person to run an engineering company, and from reports of people who worked with him he knew his knowledge limits and listened to the engineers. He took serious risks with the 707 and 747 projects because he trusted the people who understood the technology. MBAs and final-gasp lawyers concentrate on making the reported number go up in the short term, they won't take a hit now for a payoff in ten years.
- grepfru_it 1y ago
  Fun fact the 707 had the first implementation of “MCAS” because the plane had a tendency to pitch up in a certain flaps configuration. They added a stick nudger which applied light pressure in said config. Not a stick pusher, as it did not alert the pilots, it simply applied an extra input independent of the pilots. However this was made aware to all pilots of the plane and likely contributed to its certification. Also the 707 tail was extended by 40ft to give it better minimum ground speed control, this was retroactively applied to already built planes. Very interesting to see how this was applied in the past with a lawyer at the helm vs the current ceo during the launch of the 737Max
  - quacksilver 1y ago
    Assume 40 inches rather than 40ft Adding 12 meters to an aircraft is quite a big change.
    - grepfru_it 1y ago
      Mistake on my part they extended the tail to 40ft from 32ft
  - exidy 1y ago
    I think there might be some confusion here. The vertical stabiliser (not the tail) was extended by 40 inches [0] to combat concerns about poor yaw control. Although the Wikipedia article cites the UK ARB as the influence, it was also in response to the 1959 crash [1] of a 707 being used for training, in which Dutch roll was induced and later became so violent it ripped 3 engines off the wings. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#707-420 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#707-420 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Washington_Boeing_707_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Washington_Boeing_707_cra...
- izacus 1y ago
  Hmm, you now highlighted an interesting thing - every company (I've seen) being run to the ground by MBAs and Lawyers was done so because they outright refused to trust their employees. The usual playbook is severance of any transparency and communication and implementation of more and more paperwork and oversight over their employees with no nuance. In other words - complete lack of trust into employed specialists being able to do their work.
  - sitharus 1y ago
    yep, that's the most important thing about his operation of Boeing. Both the 707 and 747 were "bet the company" projects, in particular the 747 pushed Boeing to the brink of bankruptcy. However both were major successes because they took a gamble on the future of the aviation industry. In these days of "fiduciary responsibility" it's difficult to imagine any public company taking that kind of risk. Risk is what should make returns.
bluGill 1y ago
There are always people who work out despite common sense saying they shouldn't that doesn't mean common sense is wrong, it just means we don't understand what the real factors are.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Or we don't care because it's a rule of thumb not a law of physics.
flkiwi 1y ago
One of the most exceptional CEOs I've worked with was a lawyer. I still think the proverb is largely correct, along with the other proverb about the exception proving the rule.
- parineum 1y ago
  That's not what "the exception proves the rule" means. It means, when you see a sign that says an exception, "no parking Wednesdays between 8 and 12", it proves the rule that parking is allowed otherwise.
  - embwbam 1y ago
    I have heard that phrase a million times and never understood it until your example. Thank you
  - cgio 1y ago
    A phrase does not mean anything by itself. People mean something when they use it. You could argue that expressions carry some meaning, by virtue of shared use. But your definition does not align with the meaning most people make of this specific expression as you can witness above.
    - parineum 1y ago
      The way most people use it is wrong though and not in the normal "language evolves" way. The exception of a lawyer being a good CEO does not, in any way, prove that lawyers are not good CEOs .
      - tsimionescu 1y ago
        The phrase "most people mean the wrong thing by this phrase" makes no sense. A phrase means what most people mean by saying it, or understand by hearing it. So, "the exception that proves the rule" is, as its main modern meaning, a joking way of admitting that a rule (especially one that the speaker had argued for) is not actually a universal rule, while maintaining that it generally holds true. The examples of legal signs and so on are a more specific, technical, meaning that is only used in certain contexts, such as actual legal proceedings or at least informal discussions about laws or contract terms. When /u/flkiwi above said this phrase, they obviously meant it in the joking sense I gave, and which they had actually explained above. They agree that, in general, lawyers make bad CEOs, but they also personally know of exceptions. This is not "wrong usage", as proven by the fact that everyone who read the comment understood exactly what they meant. This whole thing reminds me of the people who complain about the use of literally as an amplifier instead of for its primary meaning as "wrong", with seemingly no understanding of how flourishes and rhetoric work (nor even of the history of words like "very", which used to be quite similar to "literally" a long time ago).
taneq 1y ago
I’d wager he wasn’t just a lawyer.
- dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
  Exactly, mostly likely he would have made a great engineer if that were his line of expertise.
dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
He was talking about stereotypes ... And yes professions have stereotypical personalities. Like the used car salesman.
ExoticPearTree 1y ago
> A bit ironic though because the CEO of Boing during their best years was William McPherson Allen, a lawyer. Just as there are good engineers, there are also bad ones. Same for every profession. I guess the question is: can Boeing really design a new plane where cost cutting, regulation interpretation and skirting, and greed are _not_ the driving factors? It feels like what Boeing is saving from all the nickel-and-dime it does on everything it ends up paying lawyers, fines and damages. I wonder how they manage to see this as good business. Or maybe they hope that "the next" time they'll score big without any penalties?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

He initially turned down the job because he felt that a lawyer wasn't the right person to run an engineering company, and from reports of people who worked with him he knew his knowledge limits and listened to the engineers. He took serious risks with the 707 and 747 projects because he trusted the people who understood the technology. MBAs and final-gasp lawyers concentrate on making the reported number go up in the short term, they won't take a hit now for a payoff in ten years.

grepfru_it 1y ago
Fun fact the 707 had the first implementation of “MCAS” because the plane had a tendency to pitch up in a certain flaps configuration. They added a stick nudger which applied light pressure in said config. Not a stick pusher, as it did not alert the pilots, it simply applied an extra input independent of the pilots. However this was made aware to all pilots of the plane and likely contributed to its certification. Also the 707 tail was extended by 40ft to give it better minimum ground speed control, this was retroactively applied to already built planes. Very interesting to see how this was applied in the past with a lawyer at the helm vs the current ceo during the launch of the 737Max
- quacksilver 1y ago
  Assume 40 inches rather than 40ft Adding 12 meters to an aircraft is quite a big change.
  - grepfru_it 1y ago
    Mistake on my part they extended the tail to 40ft from 32ft
- exidy 1y ago
  I think there might be some confusion here. The vertical stabiliser (not the tail) was extended by 40 inches [0] to combat concerns about poor yaw control. Although the Wikipedia article cites the UK ARB as the influence, it was also in response to the 1959 crash [1] of a 707 being used for training, in which Dutch roll was induced and later became so violent it ripped 3 engines off the wings. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#707-420 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#707-420 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Washington_Boeing_707_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Washington_Boeing_707_cra...
izacus 1y ago
Hmm, you now highlighted an interesting thing - every company (I've seen) being run to the ground by MBAs and Lawyers was done so because they outright refused to trust their employees. The usual playbook is severance of any transparency and communication and implementation of more and more paperwork and oversight over their employees with no nuance. In other words - complete lack of trust into employed specialists being able to do their work.
- sitharus 1y ago
  yep, that's the most important thing about his operation of Boeing. Both the 707 and 747 were "bet the company" projects, in particular the 747 pushed Boeing to the brink of bankruptcy. However both were major successes because they took a gamble on the future of the aviation industry. In these days of "fiduciary responsibility" it's difficult to imagine any public company taking that kind of risk. Risk is what should make returns.

bluGill 1y ago

There are always people who work out despite common sense saying they shouldn't that doesn't mean common sense is wrong, it just means we don't understand what the real factors are.

potato3732842 1y ago
Or we don't care because it's a rule of thumb not a law of physics.

flkiwi 1y ago

One of the most exceptional CEOs I've worked with was a lawyer. I still think the proverb is largely correct, along with the other proverb about the exception proving the rule.

parineum 1y ago
That's not what "the exception proves the rule" means. It means, when you see a sign that says an exception, "no parking Wednesdays between 8 and 12", it proves the rule that parking is allowed otherwise.
- embwbam 1y ago
  I have heard that phrase a million times and never understood it until your example. Thank you
- cgio 1y ago
  A phrase does not mean anything by itself. People mean something when they use it. You could argue that expressions carry some meaning, by virtue of shared use. But your definition does not align with the meaning most people make of this specific expression as you can witness above.
  - parineum 1y ago
    The way most people use it is wrong though and not in the normal "language evolves" way. The exception of a lawyer being a good CEO does not, in any way, prove that lawyers are not good CEOs .
    - tsimionescu 1y ago
      The phrase "most people mean the wrong thing by this phrase" makes no sense. A phrase means what most people mean by saying it, or understand by hearing it. So, "the exception that proves the rule" is, as its main modern meaning, a joking way of admitting that a rule (especially one that the speaker had argued for) is not actually a universal rule, while maintaining that it generally holds true. The examples of legal signs and so on are a more specific, technical, meaning that is only used in certain contexts, such as actual legal proceedings or at least informal discussions about laws or contract terms. When /u/flkiwi above said this phrase, they obviously meant it in the joking sense I gave, and which they had actually explained above. They agree that, in general, lawyers make bad CEOs, but they also personally know of exceptions. This is not "wrong usage", as proven by the fact that everyone who read the comment understood exactly what they meant. This whole thing reminds me of the people who complain about the use of literally as an amplifier instead of for its primary meaning as "wrong", with seemingly no understanding of how flourishes and rhetoric work (nor even of the history of words like "very", which used to be quite similar to "literally" a long time ago).

taneq 1y ago

I’d wager he wasn’t just a lawyer.

dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
Exactly, mostly likely he would have made a great engineer if that were his line of expertise.

dennis_jeeves2 1y ago

He was talking about stereotypes ... And yes professions have stereotypical personalities. Like the used car salesman.

ExoticPearTree 1y ago

> A bit ironic though because the CEO of Boing during their best years was William McPherson Allen, a lawyer. Just as there are good engineers, there are also bad ones. Same for every profession. I guess the question is: can Boeing really design a new plane where cost cutting, regulation interpretation and skirting, and greed are _not_ the driving factors? It feels like what Boeing is saving from all the nickel-and-dime it does on everything it ends up paying lawyers, fines and damages. I wonder how they manage to see this as good business. Or maybe they hope that "the next" time they'll score big without any penalties?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]