Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boeing’s Problems Started Long Ago
Boeing Made a Change to Its Corporate Culture Decades Ago. Now It’s Paying the Price
What got lost in all this shuffling is a corporate culture that once prized engineering and safety, replaced by one that seemed to be more focused on delivering profits over perfection. The Boeing community in Seattle has been vocal about attributing this slide to the acquisition of McDonnell Douglas, whose leaders took over Boeing’s top jobs and reshaped the culture around cost control. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/o...-airlines.html
Yeah the joke is MD bought Boeing with Boeing's $$$. Boeing is WAY to big to fail of course.
Yes, the Seattle Times published many articles after the two fatal crashes killed ~ 350 people in 2018-2019, and there were statements from Boeing employees, the FAA, pilots, and industry observers. Going back to the McDonnell-Douglass acquisition, it was senior executives from McDonnell Douglas who took over the company and changed their main drivers - from product excellence, to maximizing profits - through the minimization of costs. So things were simply being done the fastest and the cheapest way. It's just a different company than it used to be and this change of priorities coming down from the top is probably the most fundamental problem.
Then, as you note, it's actually a problem that Boeing has so much clout, because Boeing does most of the inspection and testing due to their clout and the FAA's weakness, and it's a matter of Boeing thinking that what the FAA doesn't know won't hurt them. Although there was plenty of damaging testimony in Congressional hearings, Congress took no significant actions to actually change how Boeing was doing business, and clearly Boeing saw no reason to change. That they were petitioning the FAA recently for a safety exemption from rules required for a new model of a 737 Max plane is clear proof that Boeing was unmoved by these fatal accidents and they had not changed their priorities - it's perverse really, that they would still be making requests like that, after 350 deaths. Since the door plug blew out of the 737 Max and there's been heightened scrutiny and criticism, they withdrew that request, but if this most recent failure hadn't occurred, they'd still be pressuring the FAA to grant an exemption so planes with a design flaw can be sold sooner and optimize their bottom line. I mean, every commercial company has to make money - nothing wrong with that, but when this goal begins to trump all other considerations, that's not a sound way to run a company.
In 2021, Boeing the company, paid $2.5 billion dollars to settle a charge of criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States brought by the Dept of Justice - specifically, lying to the FAA about the MCAS system. "The deferred prosecution agreement closes the DOJ’s roughly two-year probe and drops all charges after three years if there aren’t additional violations." And this is just what they admitted to, under a negotiated settlement. Many observers have said that Boeing was let off too lightly. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/doj-...x-crashes.html
The company got rid of their CEO Dennis Muilenburg, who was the face of the company after the two tragic crashes. But there has been no indication that the rest of the leadership is any different than he was. The company still focuses on ruthlessly cutting costs at the expense of product quality and safety. Firing Muilenburg appears to be just another PR move by Boeing - they used him as the fall guy to present the appearance of accountability and fundamental change. But aside from the symbolic change at CEO, there hasn't been any meaningful accountability, and there certainly hasn't been any fundamental change.
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 02-01-2024 at 05:44 PM..
If you read the long Boeing thread this issue is noted many times. Indeed they put "shareholder value" over safety. It is noted that "shareholder value" lags when developing a new plane so Boeing simply cobbled together one.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
If you read the long Boeing thread this issue is noted many times. Indeed they put "shareholder value" over safety. It is noted that "shareholder value" lags when developing a new plane so Boeing simply cobbled together one.
It seems a shame to drag the Douglas name into this whole shamozzle given how many DC-3s etc. are likely still front-line transportation in far-off corners of the world.
It seems a shame to drag the Douglas name into this whole shamozzle given how many DC-3s etc. are likely still front-line transportation in far-off corners of the world.
Well, on the other hand, they did build the DC-10 that had serious safety issues, due in no little part to - checks notes - problems with a door.
Status:
"Eating cheetos and watching dirty movies"
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Montgomery County TX
7 posts, read 7,663 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutdoorLover
Yes, the Seattle Times published many articles after the two fatal crashes killed ~ 350 people in 2018-2019, and there were statements from Boeing employees, the FAA, pilots, and industry observers. Going back to the McDonnell-Douglass acquisition, it was senior executives from McDonnell Douglas who took over the company and changed their main drivers - from product excellence, to maximizing profits - through the minimization of costs. So things were simply being done the fastest and the cheapest way. It's just a different company than it used to be and this change of priorities coming down from the top is probably the most fundamental problem.
Then, as you note, it's actually a problem that Boeing has so much clout, because Boeing does most of the inspection and testing due to their clout and the FAA's weakness, and it's a matter of Boeing thinking that what the FAA doesn't know won't hurt them. Although there was plenty of damaging testimony in Congressional hearings, Congress took no significant actions to actually change how Boeing was doing business, and clearly Boeing saw no reason to change. That they were petitioning the FAA recently for a safety exemption from rules required for a new model of a 737 Max plane is clear proof that Boeing was unmoved by these fatal accidents and they had not changed their priorities - it's perverse really, that they would still be making requests like that, after 350 deaths. Since the door plug blew out of the 737 Max and there's been heightened scrutiny and criticism, they withdrew that request, but if this most recent failure hadn't occurred, they'd still be pressuring the FAA to grant an exemption so planes with a design flaw can be sold sooner and optimize their bottom line. I mean, every commercial company has to make money - nothing wrong with that, but when this goal begins to trump all other considerations, that's not a sound way to run a company.
It's the Ford Pinto all over again. Boeing can write $100 checks to some poor third-worlder's family instead of spending billions on quality control, and still come out ahead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
