Boeing at X-Roads?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is exactly the problem. The man at the top should not be making decisions by himself and responsibility should be distributed throughout the organisation. But that having one point of responsibility is off course easier for the shareholders.
And then there is the fallacy of "the more we pay, the better the CEO is"...
And then there is the fallacy of "the more we pay, the better the CEO is"...
On the first, of course in a large enterprise, decisions of any consequence are made through processes in which several individuals and groups participate and hold varying degress of responsibility. But the CEO still has the highest measure of responsibility.
When things go off the rails, and even more so when things crash and burn, the CEO position is assigned major responsibility. I mean, Muilenburg, Calhoun, excellent instances of this. So, likewise, even though major strategy decisions (to pick just one area) are made by processes in which several gropus and individuals participate, the CEO has the heaviest share of responsibility for getting the decision right. Again, this isn't about justifying or merely excusing the Boeing comp packages, let alone those deals in the shadow of 346 senseless air crash fatalities and a seriously damaged corporate icon with continuing challenges for quality, safety culture.... and now Starliner delayed indefinitely too.
On the second point, that's probably a very prevalent fallacy. (It's also prevalent in the context of attorneys and billable hourly rates.)
On the first, of course in a large enterprise, decisions of any consequence are made through processes in which several individuals and groups participate and hold varying degress of responsibility. But the CEO still has the highest measure of responsibility.
When things go off the rails, and even more so when things crash and burn, the CEO position is assigned major responsibility. I mean, Muilenburg, Calhoun, excellent instances of this. So, likewise, even though major strategy decisions (to pick just one area) are made by processes in which several gropus and individuals participate, the CEO has the heaviest share of responsibility for getting the decision right. Again, this isn't about justifying or merely excusing the Boeing comp packages, let alone those deals in the shadow of 346 senseless air crash fatalities and a seriously damaged corporate icon with continuing challenges for quality, safety culture.... and now Starliner delayed indefinitely too.
On the first, of course in a large enterprise, decisions of any consequence are made through processes in which several individuals and groups participate and hold varying degress of responsibility. But the CEO still has the highest measure of responsibility.
When things go off the rails, and even more so when things crash and burn, the CEO position is assigned major responsibility. I mean, Muilenburg, Calhoun, excellent instances of this. So, likewise, even though major strategy decisions (to pick just one area) are made by processes in which several gropus and individuals participate, the CEO has the heaviest share of responsibility for getting the decision right. Again, this isn't about justifying or merely excusing the Boeing comp packages, let alone those deals in the shadow of 346 senseless air crash fatalities and a seriously damaged corporate icon with continuing challenges for quality, safety culture.... and now Starliner delayed indefinitely too.
It's like the old saying regarding crash helmets - if you have a ten-dollar head, buy a ten-dollar helmet (BTW, the last helmet I bought before I retired from racing was over $500, and I got it wholesale). Paying more doesn't guarantee higher quality, but paying to little will guarantee lower quality.
My philosophy regarding CEOs is simple - if the CEO is good, and doing a good job, it's difficult to pay him too much since they are - more than anyone else - key to the success of the company.
A bad CEO doesn't earn anything, they cost the company money (even if they don't get paid).
The following users liked this post:
A bad CEO for who and when? I think the anwer is shareholders in the short term...
A good CEO is not only driven by what the (short term) value is of his package of shares but is vested in the long term prospect of the company, far beyond his reign.
A good CEO is not only driven by what the (short term) value is of his package of shares but is vested in the long term prospect of the company, far beyond his reign.
The following users liked this post:
This is where you have to look at the concept/theory/conspiracy theory of 'transition investing' - which is a theory that states that since the majority of investment is now by institutions that have invested in the market as a whole (and who control the vast majority of investment capital) that decisions will be made by those institutions 'for the greater good'.
That theory basically says that those firms which are investing 'for the good of the whole' might decide that less air travel overall is required 'for the greater good' (i.e. to combat climate change etc) and might take control of a firm such as Boeing with a mind to creating a decline in quality and production volume, to reduce air travel as a whole and to increase the public's fear and apprehension around air travel. i.e. that the entire thing is deliberate and that a beancounter CEO was picked over and above an engineering-type CEO deliberately because 'they' want to reduce air travel volume.
The BBC journalist Adam Curtis has gone into this a bit.
The thing to consider - if you consider this theory - is that it nicely ties everyone up in a circle pointing fingers at each other (it basically says that you have to blame yourself as the investment firms in question are US firms) so it's an ideal theory to be promulgated by a foreign adversary if in fact they had managed to infiltrate and undermine to a large extent. So bear in mind that it could well be propaganda.
That theory basically says that those firms which are investing 'for the good of the whole' might decide that less air travel overall is required 'for the greater good' (i.e. to combat climate change etc) and might take control of a firm such as Boeing with a mind to creating a decline in quality and production volume, to reduce air travel as a whole and to increase the public's fear and apprehension around air travel. i.e. that the entire thing is deliberate and that a beancounter CEO was picked over and above an engineering-type CEO deliberately because 'they' want to reduce air travel volume.
The BBC journalist Adam Curtis has gone into this a bit.
The thing to consider - if you consider this theory - is that it nicely ties everyone up in a circle pointing fingers at each other (it basically says that you have to blame yourself as the investment firms in question are US firms) so it's an ideal theory to be promulgated by a foreign adversary if in fact they had managed to infiltrate and undermine to a large extent. So bear in mind that it could well be propaganda.
"That theory basically says that those firms which are investing 'for the good of the whole' might decide that less air travel overall is required 'for the greater good' (i.e. to combat climate change etc) and might take control of a firm such as Boeing with a mind to creating a decline in quality and production volume, to reduce air travel as a whole and to increase the public's fear and apprehension around air travel. i.e. that the entire thing is deliberate and that a beancounter CEO was picked over and above an engineering-type CEO deliberately because 'they' want to reduce air travel volume."
that is the craziest conspiracy theory I've ever heard............................... up there with the Lizard people
that is the craziest conspiracy theory I've ever heard............................... up there with the Lizard people
The following 3 users liked this post by Asturias56:
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes I think it's actually quite a good advantage to hold a professional status such that, when one posts on this forum, one must be cognizant of staying within such status, that is, within the status of Self-Loading Freight (hereinafter, and previously, "SLF"), combined with Attorney (what is the difference between a dead skunk in the middle of the road, and a dead attorney similarly located? The tire skid marks before the . . . .).
In this instance, and notwithstanding that it has been quite a volume of posts on various threads since this SLF/Attorney has seen the phrase, "pointy end of the airplane", but regardless of that, consider for a moment what things are like, in a general sense, up there. Up in the pointy end. Sterile Cockpit Environment. Memory Items. Fly the Blessed Airplane. How would I know, as I'm not a pilot and never had "fam[iliarization]" flight privileges as an ATCO or on account of some other aviation discipline? Precisely because I am SLF/Attorney, and had to learn (and it's a continual process, by the way) when the basic idea is, No Talking, Don't Touch Anything.
It's kind of like the "No Smoking" signage displayed throughout transport category aircraft. They mean business. In a larger way, in my efforts to understand it all at least, the pointy end people are very much, very very much, about meaning "all business." See, for example, Sterile Cockpit Environment.
So. Take the theory posited a few posts above. I'm quite convinced that it is an insult to the aviator community. Beyond that, just try to square it with how seriously matters are taken, up in the pointy end of the airplane. It's ridiculous.
Maybe I've romanticized the exeprience of professional pilots, especially those whose careers are in what I think is called "line flying", but is there not some analogue to, or possibly extension of, "the romance of the road" up there? You understand, Kerouac, Neal Cassidy, even the greatly missed Tom Wolfe? --- can you just imagine the send-up he could give to this idea of transition investing? Oh wow.
In this instance, and notwithstanding that it has been quite a volume of posts on various threads since this SLF/Attorney has seen the phrase, "pointy end of the airplane", but regardless of that, consider for a moment what things are like, in a general sense, up there. Up in the pointy end. Sterile Cockpit Environment. Memory Items. Fly the Blessed Airplane. How would I know, as I'm not a pilot and never had "fam[iliarization]" flight privileges as an ATCO or on account of some other aviation discipline? Precisely because I am SLF/Attorney, and had to learn (and it's a continual process, by the way) when the basic idea is, No Talking, Don't Touch Anything.
It's kind of like the "No Smoking" signage displayed throughout transport category aircraft. They mean business. In a larger way, in my efforts to understand it all at least, the pointy end people are very much, very very much, about meaning "all business." See, for example, Sterile Cockpit Environment.
So. Take the theory posited a few posts above. I'm quite convinced that it is an insult to the aviator community. Beyond that, just try to square it with how seriously matters are taken, up in the pointy end of the airplane. It's ridiculous.
Maybe I've romanticized the exeprience of professional pilots, especially those whose careers are in what I think is called "line flying", but is there not some analogue to, or possibly extension of, "the romance of the road" up there? You understand, Kerouac, Neal Cassidy, even the greatly missed Tom Wolfe? --- can you just imagine the send-up he could give to this idea of transition investing? Oh wow.
It's so easy to blame all those in a company with a title starting with C.
We should not forget, all these C- people (including the board) are just implementing/realizing what the short term profit chasing shareholders demand. Don't do what the shareholders want, and you're out.
As such, when a company "fails", just take away the shares from the shareholders, sell out to the highest bidder and reinject the results into the company.
Easy, and will take care, shareholders will need to have as priority the long term existence/success of the company, otherwise risking to loose the invested money, long before the compant goes bankrupt.
We should not forget, all these C- people (including the board) are just implementing/realizing what the short term profit chasing shareholders demand. Don't do what the shareholders want, and you're out.
As such, when a company "fails", just take away the shares from the shareholders, sell out to the highest bidder and reinject the results into the company.
Easy, and will take care, shareholders will need to have as priority the long term existence/success of the company, otherwise risking to loose the invested money, long before the compant goes bankrupt.
What is conjecture is saying that Boeing is 'being allowed to decline' because of that - i.e. that the investors are not concerned about ensuring that a great CEO is in place because the long term plan is to transition out of that investment or that they believe that their investment in Boeing will become less relevant to their overall growth as time goes on. That's the conjecture.
As I said, it isn't a theory I like because it's very neat and circular - it basically says 'you're doing this to yourself.' In the case of a company like Boeing you should of course consider geopolitics, industrial espionage, espionage, sabotage, all the usual facets.
The following users liked this post:
"That theory basically says that those firms which are investing 'for the good of the whole' might decide that less air travel overall is required 'for the greater good' (i.e. to combat climate change etc) and might take control of a firm such as Boeing with a mind to creating a decline in quality and production volume, to reduce air travel as a whole and to increase the public's fear and apprehension around air travel. i.e. that the entire thing is deliberate and that a beancounter CEO was picked over and above an engineering-type CEO deliberately because 'they' want to reduce air travel volume."
There's not that much intersection in the Venn diagram these days between "shareholder value" and "long term outlook." In the current financial and regulatory environment, there's just no incentive for them to be harmonized in a public company.
Given what the Boeing share price has done over the last few years, I'd say the Board and CEO have failed miserably at that share value thing - short or long term.
In 2009 it was at $30 a share. It went up from there to over $350 in the span of 9 years, meeting both short and long term definitions. Had one bought in 2009 and held on and then sold the day after the $440 spike that would have been a 1000% long term capital gain in those 9 years. Except for the spike the stock had plateaued at $350 for most of a year.
The performance of the last few years was primarily established at least a decade ago. Not sure anything but firing all the employees and defaulting on all contracts could have avoided someone using a zip-tie to hold a plug door closed and not telling anyone the bolts were missing.
The performance of the last few years was primarily established at least a decade ago. Not sure anything but firing all the employees and defaulting on all contracts could have avoided someone using a zip-tie to hold a plug door closed and not telling anyone the bolts were missing.
The following users liked this post:
The Boeing shares have become just like Twitter, Tesla, and now the "Truth Social", no real substance, but pumped up to the max on fau promises, to the extreme profit of those "early on" on board and on the costs of all those who stepped in and/or the other stakeholders. That's a pretty reliable way to make a fortune and a pretty guarantee it will crash some moment in the future.
The big (?) Q is: Is this the type of honesty the world needs to move to the future? Ahum, Musk, Thumb, and many of their compatriots being considered honest?
The shares got pumped up because Ronald Reagan signed into law an over-ride of the previous illegal act of a company manipulating the stock price via buybacks. There was a good reason to make it illegal and this is an excellent example of why to make it illegal again. It's a stupid use of money that is more attractive than smart uses of money.
Paxing All Over The World
In 1945, Bill Allen became CEO of Boeing to deal with the post war era. I saw this reported as being a letter he wrote to himself at the START of his tenure. Let me know if you think this is not true.
In the last 45 years the Stock Market Casino was once again let loose, with no one even trying to look out for the company ten years down the road. The politicians readily adopted the same plot, summarised as, "Make it work in 3.5 years [4.5 in some countries] so that we can show the shareholders/voters how brilliant we are. If it fails - bury it and/or blame others"
- Be considerate of my associates' views.
- Don't talk too much, let others talk.
- Make a sincere effort to understand labor's viewpoint.
- Develop a postwar future for Boeing.
In the last 45 years the Stock Market Casino was once again let loose, with no one even trying to look out for the company ten years down the road. The politicians readily adopted the same plot, summarised as, "Make it work in 3.5 years [4.5 in some countries] so that we can show the shareholders/voters how brilliant we are. If it fails - bury it and/or blame others"
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 72
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wall Street Journal reporting that Boeing has submitted to FAA a set of metrics by which its performance of improvements in quality will be measured. The production cap for 737 aircraft remains in place, for now.
FAA Administrator Whitaker held a press conference today focused on this particular aspect of the Boeing oversight situation.
Excepts from WSJ article:
"Boeing said the metrics will track defects, employee proficiency, supplier shortages, factory work done out of sequence and time spent fixing production flaws introduced by Boeing and by suppliers. The company said it has set thresholds that would trigger corrective action for each criteria.
"Boeing said it would release more details of the plan shortly. The company said it would focus on workforce training investments, simplifying manufacturing plans and processes, eliminating defects and improving its quality and safety culture."
FAA Administrator Whitaker held a press conference today focused on this particular aspect of the Boeing oversight situation.
Excepts from WSJ article:
"Boeing said the metrics will track defects, employee proficiency, supplier shortages, factory work done out of sequence and time spent fixing production flaws introduced by Boeing and by suppliers. The company said it has set thresholds that would trigger corrective action for each criteria.
"Boeing said it would release more details of the plan shortly. The company said it would focus on workforce training investments, simplifying manufacturing plans and processes, eliminating defects and improving its quality and safety culture."
Colour me surprised that a high tec manufacturer doesn't have these things in place already...
The following users liked this post: