Boeing at X-Roads?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remi, the scenario(s) you describe could make for interesting corporate fiction. We're to believe the FAA and Congress freeze in place, and looting of the company proceeds unchallenged? No proxy fights? no derivative lawsuits? No special-purpose receivership (okay, now I'm pitching fiction, because it would require legislation, if it were even possible). But I'm not seeing a green-light signal in your pitch.
Did you read Velocci's piece in Aviation Week, I wonder? I mean, the man has some depth of experience from which to opine.
Did you read Velocci's piece in Aviation Week, I wonder? I mean, the man has some depth of experience from which to opine.
Lets see, Boeing has a serious issue.
No senior management is let go.
Response: Things won't improve because it's the same old management
Some senior management is let go.
Response: SCAPEGOAT! HE TOLD THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEM SO THEY FIRED HIM!
Did I miss anything?
No senior management is let go.
Response: Things won't improve because it's the same old management
Some senior management is let go.
Response: SCAPEGOAT! HE TOLD THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEM SO THEY FIRED HIM!
Did I miss anything?
remi, the scenario(s) you describe could make for interesting corporate fiction. We're to believe the FAA and Congress freeze in place, and looting of the company proceeds unchallenged? No proxy fights? no derivative lawsuits? No special-purpose receivership (okay, now I'm pitching fiction, because it would require legislation, if it were even possible). But I'm not seeing a green-light signal in your pitch.
Did you read Velocci's piece in Aviation Week, I wonder? I mean, the man has some depth of experience from which to opine.
Did you read Velocci's piece in Aviation Week, I wonder? I mean, the man has some depth of experience from which to opine.
FAA has no power to alter nor interest in altering Boeing's business plans. Congress will not, I hope, shovel more money into Boeing to "revitalize" (read: prop up) the American airliner business, which Boeing, as a sole supplier that has ended new product development, has single-handedly doomed. Congress might be more amenable to giving Boeing's defense business some help, if it's no longer Boeing.
Shareholders are doing pretty well, considering. What could they do to turn their positions around? Kick out management and the board and start designing new aircraft and completely revamp the culture? That's insanity. They should find a US company that wants to partner with Bombardier (might be locked out by Airbus) or Embraer or Cessna/Textron or GD/Gulfstream to start an innovative clean-sheet medium size airliner that Boeing should have brought to market 10 years ago (oh well). Or maybe see if the Boom/Northrop collaboration could actually be a much much bigger deal than currently envisioned.
The only reason to be a Boeing shareholder is to hope more money bleeds out as the company shrivels. I have confidence that current management can achieve this at least on the commercial side, but, wow, the defense side is Humpty Dumpty broken.
Finally, one might wonder if a US company could find a way to partner with Airbus (for airframes, not just engines), as they seem to be a competent going concern. Maybe that's the way: A 3-way Airbus/Bombardier/US-Airco partnership.
Last edited by remi; 22nd Feb 2024 at 01:57.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Exactly what did I say that wasn't completely factual?"
None of it was fact. It's all speculation as to how you project future events occuring. It's not a courtroom here but if it were, I'd like to voir dire the witness, to explore whether bias might be present?
Regardless, I'll stick - the future acts and omissions your sequential scenario posits, singly and most especially collectively, trigger heavy breach of fiduciary duty problems. Your scenario asks us to take institutional shareholders for fools.
And if you believe the Congressional Committees with jurisdiction relating primarily (as well as secondarily) to Boeing are going to sit idly by, then you should be charging good high rates for tours of the D.C. you know.
Perhaps you have insider information or a plausible source for it, and perhaps know a lot more than you can reveal here.
None of it was fact. It's all speculation as to how you project future events occuring. It's not a courtroom here but if it were, I'd like to voir dire the witness, to explore whether bias might be present?
Regardless, I'll stick - the future acts and omissions your sequential scenario posits, singly and most especially collectively, trigger heavy breach of fiduciary duty problems. Your scenario asks us to take institutional shareholders for fools.
And if you believe the Congressional Committees with jurisdiction relating primarily (as well as secondarily) to Boeing are going to sit idly by, then you should be charging good high rates for tours of the D.C. you know.
Perhaps you have insider information or a plausible source for it, and perhaps know a lot more than you can reveal here.
Who are they going to replace him with? Someone who was a "Senior Quality Manager" for three months? She will no doubt bring about a complete change in safety and quality culture.
Last edited by remi; 22nd Feb 2024 at 02:28.
"Exactly what did I say that wasn't completely factual?"
None of it was fact. It's all speculation as to how you project future events occuring. It's not a courtroom here but if it were, I'd like to voir dire the witness, to explore whether bias might be present?
Regardless, I'll stick - the future acts and omissions your sequential scenario posits, singly and most especially collectively, trigger heavy breach of fiduciary duty problems. Your scenario asks us to take institutional shareholders for fools.
And if you believe the Congressional Committees with jurisdiction relating primarily (as well as secondarily) to Boeing are going to sit idly by, then you should be charging good high rates for tours of the D.C. you know.
Perhaps you have insider information or a plausible source for it, and perhaps know a lot more than you can reveal here.
None of it was fact. It's all speculation as to how you project future events occuring. It's not a courtroom here but if it were, I'd like to voir dire the witness, to explore whether bias might be present?
Regardless, I'll stick - the future acts and omissions your sequential scenario posits, singly and most especially collectively, trigger heavy breach of fiduciary duty problems. Your scenario asks us to take institutional shareholders for fools.
And if you believe the Congressional Committees with jurisdiction relating primarily (as well as secondarily) to Boeing are going to sit idly by, then you should be charging good high rates for tours of the D.C. you know.
Perhaps you have insider information or a plausible source for it, and perhaps know a lot more than you can reveal here.
-- what new airframe is Boeing developing? what new airframe has been announced (this would precede availability by 5-10 years)?
* Develop derivative products using minimal resources and expenditure, using information control, and outright deception if necessary, to avoid regulatory friction
-- what Boeing product since 2003 hasn't been derivative?
* Sell obsolescing products into markets with inelastic demand
-- how does Boeing continue to sell MAX?
* End expenditures on costly quality and safety processes that negatively affect production rate
-- I mean, this is literally on their executive slideshows
* Use mechanisms independent of product design and quality to increase shareholder "value," in particular stock buyback
-- ....?
* Issue golden parachutes to executive management as needed during wind-down "messaging strategy"
-- I'm sorry not sorry Ed, here's some $10Ms to help with your summer homes
The only thing that Congress can do to/for Boeing is hand out more money. In what way will more money change Boeing's culture or "rescue" the American airliner industry? They're just going to suck that money up and give it to themselves and shareholders. Congress will be much better off sending money to Ukraine, which is actually just a subsidy to American defense industry, which at least has to meet standards and deadlines.
Last edited by remi; 22nd Feb 2024 at 02:33.
I agree, they don't invest enough in future commercial products. They are headed towards a cliff with limited life, upgraded legacy products. This might be the result of short term financial investors partially having taken over the stock. People that just don't understand aircraft manufacturing investment cycles. The new built huge composite wing center at Everett proves that Boeing had different plans not too long ago.
Another problem is that traditional cash cow programs don't make money anymore. Services are what is left being profitable these days.
Another problem is that traditional cash cow programs don't make money anymore. Services are what is left being profitable these days.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An entrenched culture (in any organisation) of leadership that NEVER says sorry or admits mistakes is demonstrably unlikely to change.
When businesses (or banks, or hospitals, or armies , or governments) are run by accountants and litigation lawyers this is what you get.
When businesses (or banks, or hospitals, or armies , or governments) are run by accountants and litigation lawyers this is what you get.
I agree, they don't invest enough in future commercial products. They are headed towards a cliff with limited life, upgraded legacy products. This might be the result of short term financial investors partially having taken over the stock. People that just don't understand aircraft manufacturing investment cycles. The new built huge composite wing center at Everett proves that Boeing had different plans not too long ago.
Another problem is that traditional cash cow programs don't make money anymore. Services are what is left being profitable these days.
Another problem is that traditional cash cow programs don't make money anymore. Services are what is left being profitable these days.
Boeing's response was to mind meld with a defense manufacturer with a history of underperformance, incompetence, and failure in civilian aviation, and proceed to apply that culture of failure and devolution to their workforce and product line.
An entrenched culture (in any organisation) of leadership that NEVER says sorry or admits mistakes is demonstrably unlikely to change.
When businesses (or banks, or hospitals, or armies , or governments) are run by accountants and litigation lawyers this is what you get.
When businesses (or banks, or hospitals, or armies , or governments) are run by accountants and litigation lawyers this is what you get.
"Here, Mr Clark, we're gonna let you go due to a serious failure".
"Hmmm, well Mr Chairman, seriously, we have the 737 quality issues gripped".
"No, you still don't understand, do you. The day before the door issue Boeing stock was at $249. 10 days after it was at $200. That's the big issue. causing our stock to go down. Do you know what that could have done to my personal financial standing if I hadn't dumped my company stock last year ? As it is our good friends on Wall Street have told their wives not to invite my wife to the annual polo match. Hey, now THAT's what is serious."
"Hmmm, well Mr Chairman, seriously, we have the 737 quality issues gripped".
"No, you still don't understand, do you. The day before the door issue Boeing stock was at $249. 10 days after it was at $200. That's the big issue. causing our stock to go down. Do you know what that could have done to my personal financial standing if I hadn't dumped my company stock last year ? As it is our good friends on Wall Street have told their wives not to invite my wife to the annual polo match. Hey, now THAT's what is serious."
Do you know he raised any alarms that perhaps this cost cutting was going too far, that the product was suffering?
Given that QC/QA in Renton is seriously deficient, can you think of a better person to put the train back on the rails than someone who was a Quality Manager?
Apologies but I have to say this.
Dear Boeing:
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So his job was to run the program into the ground for last 18 years? His job was to encourage and enable a culture where cutting corners and dodging paperwork (which allowed an aircraft to be delivered with no bolts holding a door plug closed) was allowed - even encouraged?
Also, reminder: Clark did not run the program for anything like 18 years.
Nope, I think you got it - both are true. Replace the entire executive suite and probably 3 levels of them at least, no golden parachutes.
Too Little too late. Boeing has no future, what a shame that what was THE world leader in airliner production can't even maintain basic QC on an airframe they have been building for 57 years.
The DC10 intro was not an unqualified success initially. Two catastrophic crashes, Turkish ex Paris and United @ Chicago where the engine fell off: aircraft was pitched up to V2 as per training and the now less aerodynamic wing stalled with a subsequent wing drop and crash. The aircraft was grounded until various modifications were made. A similar story to the 737 Max in some ways. The aircraft had moderate sales and for British interests predominantly in Laker and BCal. Not really a viable competitor to the 747. Boeing was a proper engineering company in those days.