Boeing

[Uncle Rico]

Another boffo morning for Boeing.

At least the execs bonus checks are clearing.

[jesmu84]

Profit-above-all is the best way to run a society

[MU82]

John Oliver did an outstanding show on Boeing a few weeks back.

[dgies9156]

Boeing made a horrible decision several years ago when it failed to green light the 797, the proposed new mid-range jet that would have competed against the A321XLR. If they were going to stay with their existing product, they should have kept the 757 and adapted it for today markets. Either way, taking a 55 year old airplane that's a derivative of the 707-120, strapping new engines and composites on it is nuts.

That said, since they cleaned MCAS, nobody has died on a Boeing jet (because of Boeing). The Alaska incident was embarrassing because it was such a straightforward manufacturing screw-up. One hopes they've fixed it and we can move on.

As a final thought, the FAA is complicit in not doing its job initially and then, more recently, over-doing its job. The Max-10 should be out by now and I often wonder whether the delay on the Max-10 has more to do with the FAA's internal politics and fear of Congressional retribution than any concerns abut the plane's safety. The consequence is that the FAA is messing with American jobs, the largest single exporter in the United States and ultimately with our economy.

[Hards Alumni]

Boeing made a horrible decision several years ago when it failed to green light the 797, the proposed new mid-range jet that would have competed against the A321XLR. If they were going to stay with their existing product, they should have kept the 757 and adapted it for today markets. Either way, taking a 55 year old airplane that's a derivative of the 707-120, strapping new engines and composites on it is nuts.

That said, since they cleaned MCAS, nobody has died on a Boeing jet (because of Boeing). The Alaska incident was embarrassing because it was such a straightforward manufacturing screw-up. One hopes they've fixed it and we can move on.

As a final thought, the FAA is complicit in not doing its job initially and then, more recently, over-doing its job. The Max-10 should be out by now and I often wonder whether the delay on the Max-10 has more to do with the FAA's internal politics and fear of Congressional retribution than any concerns abut the plane's safety. The consequence is that the FAA is messing with American jobs, the largest single exporter in the United States and ultimately with our economy.

Yo get off Boeing's nuts.  They've cut corners in the name of profit for far too long.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Boeing's problems all have their roots in their purchase of McDonnell Douglas.

[Pakuni]

Boeing made a horrible decision several years ago when it failed to green light the 797, the proposed new mid-range jet that would have competed against the A321XLR. If they were going to stay with their existing product, they should have kept the 757 and adapted it for today markets. Either way, taking a 55 year old airplane that's a derivative of the 707-120, strapping new engines and composites on it is nuts.

That said, since they cleaned MCAS, nobody has died on a Boeing jet (because of Boeing). The Alaska incident was embarrassing because it was such a straightforward manufacturing screw-up. One hopes they've fixed it and we can move on.

As a final thought, the FAA is complicit in not doing its job initially and then, more recently, over-doing its job. The Max-10 should be out by now and I often wonder whether the delay on the Max-10 has more to do with the FAA's internal politics and fear of Congressional retribution than any concerns abut the plane's safety. The consequence is that the FAA is messing with American jobs, the largest single exporter in the United States and ultimately with our economy.

Of course the government is to blame for a private company's mistakes.

[dgies9156]

Of course the government is to blame for a private company's mistakes.

Brother Pakuni:

You have never worked in a heavily regulated industry, have you?

Also, have you every considered the meaning of the term "complicit?" I'm not absolving Boeing of blame but I am contending that some of the government actions didn't help the matter, especially if they are responsible for safety and soundness in the aviation industry.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The FAA has a known reputation with being a little to cozy with the airline industry. The issues around the certification of the 737 MAX are a great example. It's safe to say that relationship actually resulted in people dying.

Good thing the NTSB has maintained its independence.

[jesmu84]

We need more deregulation.

An unburdened private sector will police itself.

[Pakuni]

Brother Pakuni:

You have never worked in a heavily regulated industry, have you?

No, and neither have Boeing employees either, apparently.

Also, have you every considered the meaning of the term "complicit?" I'm not absolving Boeing of blame but I am contending that some of the government actions didn't help the matter, especially if they are responsible for safety and soundness in the aviation industry.

If your argument here is that the FAA didn't do a good enough job of ensuring that Boeing didn't cut corners, we have some agreement there. But that doesn't make the FAA "complicit" or responsible for Boeing's decision to cut corners.
But it seems a larger part of your grievance here isn't about the FAA doing too little, but rather doing too much (in this case, with the Max 10). This despite Boeing - not the FAA - being the entity that's taken steps to slow the regulatory process.

[Uncle Rico]

I strongly urge the abolition of the FAA and deregulation of the airline industry.  Yessir, we can count on them to put safety first without burdensome guidelines and oversight.  That’s the problem

[WarriorFan]

Boeing is a case of complete lack of oversight, incompetent management, and very little attention to the necessary details.  As a shareholder, in the recent proxy vote I have voted to remove their entire board.  Calhoun has always been a money-grubbing profit-first mercenary and now the whole group needs to go.  New board will hopefully bring new management.

It is absolutely shameful that the French (the same ones that make Peugeot and Citroen) now make better, cheaper, safer, more reliable aircraft than the Americans. 

As a frequent traveler, I now refuse to fly on 737-max.  Worried that the 787 will soon need to go on that list.

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

Brother Pakuni:

You have never worked in a heavily regulated industry, have you?

Also, have you every considered the meaning of the term "complicit?" I'm not absolving Boeing of blame but I am contending that some of the government actions didn't help the matter, especially if they are responsible for safety and soundness in the aviation industry.

I worked in pharma for a decade and can verify that less regulation kills people. You are incorrect.

[tower912]

Lack of standards in my career kills firefighters as well as civilians.   See: Charleston furniture store fire.

Give me standards and then enforcement.

[lawdog77]

I would say my profession needs more regulation. There are still too many dumb crooked lawyers practicing.

[dgies9156]

Nobody, including me, is arguing for no regulation of business. Even the most conservative of MAGA conservatives would argue for some regulation. Period.

I work advising banks. I worked with clients through the S&L crisis and, more recently, through the crisis of 2008.  There are not many more regulated industries than banking -- nuclear power and pharma come to mind -- but they're truly exceptions.

The secret to regulation isn't more -- or less for that matter -- regulation. It's when to intervene, and how. My own experience in my career is that regulators too often get caught in issues, concerns and policies that have nothing to do with their jobs as regulators. Others are trying to solve the last crisis rather than prevent the next one. In banking, we were worried about credit quality when Silicon Valley Bank, which had nothing to do with credit quality, hit. Our regulators were so busy worried about establishing enough loan loss reserves they stopped worrying about interest rate risk and liquidity risk. It was the 1980s V2.0.

The other problem with regulators is that regulatory agencies are a great place for experience. Your team work there for four or five years, gain a critical tool set and then go to private industry. The people you don't want regulating too often are agency lifers! The folks that are really good and understand what they're regulating too often end up leaving.

I've traveled a lot over the years and spend a good bit of time on Boeing airplanes. I flew on the DC-10 quite a bit as well. The DC-10 made the Max look like high quality airplane. We had cargo door blow-outs that killed 273 persons near Paris. A disposable engine caused by an improper maintenance procedure combined with bad flight manuals caused the Chicago accident. The 10 had some serious problems that were corrected and the plane is still in use at FedEx. I'm sure Max will be fine.

Ultimately, budget cuts and shortcuts are what happened at Boeing. The FAA delegated its authority to company inspectors. What the heck did they think would happen? Delegated authority in the regulatory world is not often a good thing. That happens in too many regulatory environments. An agency delegates the responsibility but maintains the obligation for something work properly. What could go wrong with that????

[jesmu84]

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

Why do we want government regulation?

[dgies9156]

If your argument here is that the FAA didn't do a good enough job of ensuring that Boeing didn't cut corners, we have some agreement there. But that doesn't make the FAA "complicit" or responsible for Boeing's decision to cut corners.

I'm not sure regulators -- or Congress for that matter -- see it that way.

A few years back, a savings bank in Chicago (Superior Savings in Oak Brook) was declared insolvent and seized by the FDIC. The Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS") was the agency in charge. The Chicago OTS field office "missed" the problems that led to the failure. OTS Washington (before it was absorbed into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) completely closed the Chicago Field Office, transferred its functions to Dallas or Atlanta and did the government version of a layoff -- eliminated jobs and allowed those affected to apply for other positions in the Agency. Only those who had favor in Washington ultimately were hired.

The people who "certified" the Max or delegated field authority to Boeing probably were quietly "eliminated" from their jobs. Older administrators retired. If I had a nickel for every time some windy, unknown Congressman from Backwater, ND called for Boeing's head, abolition of the FAA and replacement with another agency and burning of all Boeing regulators at the stake on Capitol Hill, I'd be rich!

For the record, the FAA was created in the late 1950s as a consequence of a horrible accident over the Grand Canyon. A United DC-7 and a TWA Super Constellation collided over the Grand Canyon in 1956. Everyone on both planes died. There was no effective air traffic control system at the time and the then-aviation regulator, the Civil Aeronautics Board, had not made national air traffic control a key part of its work. The CAB stuck to corruptly regulating fares and service until the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (Thank You, President Carter!!) put the CAB out of business.

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

Maybe part of the problem is uncontrolled consolidation.

[dgies9156]

Maybe part of the problem is uncontrolled consolidation.

Brother Plaque:

You make an interesting point from both a financial and operational standpoint. Nationally, we went from having three domestic commercial aircraft producers (Douglas, Lockheed and Boeing) plus a smaller one (Convair), to one -- Boeing. Plus the demand for commercial passenger aircraft has skyrocketed. Worldwide, excluding China, there's only two companies that make commercial aircraft. The consequence is enormous profits and enormous production pressure on those firms that are left.

President Harry S Truman once argued in the insurance business that the country would be better off with 100 local insurance underwriters than one Metropolitan Life. I'm not sure he was wrong. President Truman, whether he knew it or not, was arguing basic diversification theory.

The problem has been efficiency and technology. Since the 1970s, computerized design and manufacturing has made production far more efficient. IT systems have made it possible for trillion dollar banks and for 90 percent of the nation's deposits to be held by half dozen or so banks. It's eliminated many smaller producers of everything from candy to computers to, well, you name it. Big is more efficient and more profitable, but it's not always better.

We used to have local stores that reflected the taste of the communities in which they were located. Whether it was Dayton's in Minneapolis, Boston Store in Milwaukee or Cain/Sloan in Nashville, these were small merchants who knew the tastes of their town. Homogenized Walmarts and Targets may make products cheaper by exploiting slave and child labor in China and with their high-powered distribution systems, but are the folks in Dubuque better off with a Super Walmart on Highway 20 than they were with Rosheks in downtown Dubuque?

[MU82]

Don’t worry, folks … Boeing management will come out of all this $ati$factorily.