Boeing at X-Roads?
If they did occur and were never reported how would the press report on that? If they were "nothing burgers" then wasn't the original evaluation by Boeing correct? The first incident we know about was reported by the crew to their maintainers; certainly a search of operator records would find similar problems where the pilots shut off the electric trim in order to restrain MCAS.
Are the US operators complicit in hiding information about MCAS?
Are the US operators complicit in hiding information about MCAS?
Not sure if I am missing out on some news, but hasn't the MCAS defect been modded at this point?
Kinda sorry to see this turn into an MCAS hamsterwheel.
Spoiler
https://aviationweek.com/mro/safety-...grades-737-max
https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraf...lerting-system
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all blends together. The EICAS shoe is still waiting to drop, which with the most recent extra years delay of the MAX 10 might well be revisited, as the waiver for modern crew alerting is written into law with a date that depends on the certification of the MAX 10.
https://aviationweek.com/mro/safety-...grades-737-max
https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraf...lerting-system
https://aviationweek.com/mro/safety-...grades-737-max
https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraf...lerting-system
Just highlighting one subpart, the planned appearance before a Senate Subcommittee of the most recently publicized whistleblower - depending on what is revealed and whether his (anticipated) revelations about 787 production imply (or even demonstrate) new and serious concerns - could provide the political cover and impetus for FAA to take an even more stringent approach to any and all pending matters before the agency.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 17th Apr 2024 at 18:16.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 118
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just speechless
Coming from the new Boeing chairman to justify the 33 M$ pay package of the current CEO:
“Our compensation program is designed to align leadership pay with the long term performance of our business,” said Steve Mollenkopf, Boeing’s new chairman, when asked how the company can justify such a high compensation package given recent safety grievances. “It’s really driven by meeting our commitments to the highest safety and quality standards.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/17/i...age/index.html
Coming from the new Boeing chairman to justify the 33 M$ pay package of the current CEO:
“Our compensation program is designed to align leadership pay with the long term performance of our business,” said Steve Mollenkopf, Boeing’s new chairman, when asked how the company can justify such a high compensation package given recent safety grievances. “It’s really driven by meeting our commitments to the highest safety and quality standards.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/17/i...age/index.html🤔🤨🙄……….
Shouldn't the entire board step down after this debacle and the statements they made. ' Giving greater emphasis on quality and safety' shouldn't they be ingrained in the very core of everyone in management in the aviation business-. Apparnetly other things were more important in the CEOs objectives. Go back xx years and they lay off half of Seattle but a CEO who has overseen the dismantling of a once great company gets $33m a year !
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Farnham
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s a straightforward lie from the chairman. The executive reward scheme is linked to their extraction of money from Boeing, be it dividends or share buy-backs. Everything else is secondary. Those decades of under-investment may well be fatal. Wall Street is the problem - read Makers vs Takers by Rana Faroohar. Wall Street is no longer about ‘investment’ but speculative trading and wealth extraction.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it seems to this SLF/Attorney that something is being overlooked, in the drastic criticism and deriding of the executive comp package awarded to the embattled Mr. Calhoun.
One could argue, and not without much good reason, that taking account of only the glaring failures of the current Board and top management is not just unfair - after all, fairness to these individuals departed into the Indian Ocean with the Lion Air flight more than five years ago - not just unfair, it's also dense, maybe even obtuse. What accounting is there for all of the things they got right? Take the KC-46 program. Lots of troubles in and around that program, correct? Junk and debris and whatnot left where it shouldn't be, inside completed airframes, the scandal with the procurement controvery or controversies, probably more I'm just not aware of or not recalling - also correct, yes? But how many flight hours has the tanker completed, how many upgrades or modifications of its systems, how much expansion of its operating profile, and so forth? It would not be unreasonable to take the same analytic approach to many of Boeing's programs.
But it's not the approach I think is most fitting to the moment. Let's go back in time, okay? Dennis Muilenburg has done a serial face-plant in the aftermath of either just the first MAX air crash disaster, or the aftermath of the second, depending on your point of view about all the events. (Saying it this way allows for those who assert that the company folded, wilted, in the face of ignorant press and other media frenzy after the Ethiopian air crash disaster, in their ignoring the failures of the airline, the aviators, and the Ethiopian government.) So, that CEO is going to get the boot. Here's the question.
At that point in time, what executive comp package would have been sufficient, would have been marketable in the pool of available executive level talent, to attract an individual with the required leadership, strategic, implementation, delegation, political, and any other capabilities and capacities you contend are needed now for Boeing? Use any reasonable set of qualifications and qualities you like, whether or not you can name someone specifically who would fit that description. You think such business types (heck, I'm just a legal type, 33 million U.S. dollars sounds like a pretty big bankroll to this SLF/attorney but what do I know?) work for nominal or ordinary amounts?
Now take that into the present. What do you think it will take to attract someone to the CEO role at Boeing TODAY who has the required talents, abilities, experience, etc etc.,? By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, this post uses "you" indiscriminately, it's not directed at anyone specifically, it's just convenience of form.
One could argue, and not without much good reason, that taking account of only the glaring failures of the current Board and top management is not just unfair - after all, fairness to these individuals departed into the Indian Ocean with the Lion Air flight more than five years ago - not just unfair, it's also dense, maybe even obtuse. What accounting is there for all of the things they got right? Take the KC-46 program. Lots of troubles in and around that program, correct? Junk and debris and whatnot left where it shouldn't be, inside completed airframes, the scandal with the procurement controvery or controversies, probably more I'm just not aware of or not recalling - also correct, yes? But how many flight hours has the tanker completed, how many upgrades or modifications of its systems, how much expansion of its operating profile, and so forth? It would not be unreasonable to take the same analytic approach to many of Boeing's programs.
But it's not the approach I think is most fitting to the moment. Let's go back in time, okay? Dennis Muilenburg has done a serial face-plant in the aftermath of either just the first MAX air crash disaster, or the aftermath of the second, depending on your point of view about all the events. (Saying it this way allows for those who assert that the company folded, wilted, in the face of ignorant press and other media frenzy after the Ethiopian air crash disaster, in their ignoring the failures of the airline, the aviators, and the Ethiopian government.) So, that CEO is going to get the boot. Here's the question.
At that point in time, what executive comp package would have been sufficient, would have been marketable in the pool of available executive level talent, to attract an individual with the required leadership, strategic, implementation, delegation, political, and any other capabilities and capacities you contend are needed now for Boeing? Use any reasonable set of qualifications and qualities you like, whether or not you can name someone specifically who would fit that description. You think such business types (heck, I'm just a legal type, 33 million U.S. dollars sounds like a pretty big bankroll to this SLF/attorney but what do I know?) work for nominal or ordinary amounts?
Now take that into the present. What do you think it will take to attract someone to the CEO role at Boeing TODAY who has the required talents, abilities, experience, etc etc.,? By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, this post uses "you" indiscriminately, it's not directed at anyone specifically, it's just convenience of form.
Whether they'd be allowed to succeed or not...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which really begs the question. Let's say such a former Chief of Staff took on this massive, and massively difficult, challenge of returning Company to engineering preeminence. What would the financial reward be once this imagined, and hoped-for, restoration had been accomplished? Surely it would not be proper to say only Thank You for Your Service while Dennis M. and Dave Calhoun hold onto multi-millions..... ?
Which really begs the question. Let's say such a former Chief of Staff took on this massive, and massively difficult, challenge of returning Company to engineering preeminence. What would the financial reward be once this imagined, and hoped-for, restoration had been accomplished? Surely it would not be proper to say only Thank You for Your Service while Dennis M. and Dave Calhoun hold onto multi-millions..... ?
I don’t have a problem with richly rewarding success, but that is not what happened here. The problems at Boeing were obvious when Muilenburg got the chop. The current boss could have take decisive action to right the ship, but chose the same old same old, knowing that no matter what happened he would get his big payout.
What should be: Performance based incentive metrics that cover the quality and innovation, not short term stock appreciation
What is: Performance based metrics that only reward short term stock appreciation
The people who could fix Boeing don’t want the job and the people who want the job can’t fix Boeing.
Which really begs the question. Let's say such a former Chief of Staff took on this massive, and massively difficult, challenge of returning Company to engineering preeminence. What would the financial reward be once this imagined, and hoped-for, restoration had been accomplished? Surely it would not be proper to say only Thank You for Your Service while Dennis M. and Dave Calhoun hold onto multi-millions..... ?
Most people aren't paid according to the value of the company they work for. To the extent that they are, in my opinion, every single employee should precisely the same percentage of compensation determined by stock performance, nor should a form of compensation like options be offered to some employees and not others. The hoi pollio get RSUs these days, which are equivalent to salary for tax purposes, and executives should be treated the same.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 794
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-52, the main gear, both fore and aft, consist of two bogies side by side each having two wheels, the left bogies retract forward and the right retracts aft. Left side operates from No. 1 hydraulic system, right No 2. Each set can be slewed left or right up to 12° for cross wind landing. Steering is through the rudder pedals which rotates the front bogies through +- 55°.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same as everyone else who does a job well: The agreed upon compensation. I think compensation of $500k-1M is adequate for pretty much everyone. Even neurosurgeons.
Most people aren't paid according to the value of the company they work for. To the extent that they are, in my opinion, every single employee should precisely the same percentage of compensation determined by stock performance, nor should a form of compensation like options be offered to some employees and not others. The hoi pollio get RSUs these days, which are equivalent to salary for tax purposes, and executives should be treated the same.
Most people aren't paid according to the value of the company they work for. To the extent that they are, in my opinion, every single employee should precisely the same percentage of compensation determined by stock performance, nor should a form of compensation like options be offered to some employees and not others. The hoi pollio get RSUs these days, which are equivalent to salary for tax purposes, and executives should be treated the same.
So the person coming into the role has one helluva heavy burden to carry. The level of responsibilities ..... but that's just wording, just a phrase. The impact of getting things wrong is so serious, the challenges of getting them right so heavy, it's quite a lot, isn't it? So maybe this is just my culture showing - my family of origin wasn't anywhere close to an Ivy League MBA or a C-suite - but large executive compensation packages are commensurate with the impact and burdens of the particular position's responsibilities.
Of course almost everything about the way Boeing's senior management and Board have performed has been absurdly poor. The point I'm disagreeing with is that the order of magnitude difference between the highest ranking executives, and middle managers and even larger difference with technical and other employees and contractors, is improper. The level of responsibilities justifies the differences.
And I'd bet that if Wimpy was in this thread, sure he would rail against the many millions the recent highest ranked executives raked in despite gross failures and crises at the Company but -- it would also largely be for show, for form. The production floor and engineering and technical staff want a Company that knows where the heck it's going, and how it plans to get there, and understand that those highest ranking executives aren't just doing a job.
And then there is the fallacy of "the more we pay, the better the CEO is"...
Last edited by procede; 23rd May 2024 at 07:27.