What a cluster…

Status
Not open for further replies.
“…a whistleblower alleged that Boeing had actually outsourced its Air Force One modification work to a company owned by a foreign government. Indeed, allegations go on to note that at least one Saudi national was given top-secret Air Force One specifications, a clear issue of national security.”

:yikes:
 
Holy crap.

I’m so happy I unloaded all of my Boeing stock.
 
There isn't much new here. The part about GDC being 80% owned by Saudis is old (but no less disturbing) news.
 
But.. but…. the saudis are our allies, right? I mean look at all the support they give us in dealing with all of the problem children in the middle east. Isn’t that why we sell them weapons and other military equipment?




Yes that was sarcasm.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
There isn't much new here. The part about GDC being 80% owned by Saudis is old (but no less disturbing) news.
Click to expand...

The biggest oil refinery in the U.S. is owned by the Saudis, and as of 2017 completely under their control. What’s the point of pulling our own oil out of the ground when the Saudis could push a button and shut down our refining it?
 
What happens when a hard core engineering company that used to lead the world starts to get run by a bunch of NYC wall street MBA types who don't know a flaperon from a fribillator.

And the saudis are criminals.
 
Getonit said:
What happens when a hard core engineering company that used to lead the world starts to get run by a bunch of NYC wall street MBA types who don't know a flaperon from a fribillator.
Click to expand...
And when the Wall Street/MBA types turn it all over to the engineers, you get the Beech Starship. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
And when the Wall Street/MBA types turn it all over to the engineers, you get the Beech Starship. ;)[/QUOTE

I maintained years ago that if I was named the President of the company I worked for at the time my first act was going to be firing the CFO. Not because he was a bad CFO (actually, he was pretty good), but because he had too much power and the engineers were going to take back the company. It never happened, obviously, and after I left the company was sold. Oh well...

Then there's Continental Airlines dba United Airlines and MacDonnell dba Boeing. Two screwups.
Click to expand...
 
Getonit said:
What happens when a hard core engineering company that used to lead the world starts to get run by a bunch of NYC wall street MBA types who don't know a flaperon from a fribillator.
Click to expand...

Extract as much profit as possible for the short-term shareholder gain, long-term consequences be damned. It's the way we've been operating as a country for decades now.

It's a real shame, when you asked me at age 10 what I wanted to do it was always the same: "Grow up to be an aerospace engineer and work at Boeing." Now that I am all grown up and have the credentials to do so, I am quite reticent to work there.
 
AKiss20 said:
Extract as much profit as possible for the short-term shareholder gain, long-term consequences be damned. It's the way we've been operating as a country for decades now.

It's a real shame, when you asked me at age 10 what I wanted to do it was always the same: "Grow up to be an aerospace engineer and work at Boeing." Now that I am all grown up and have the credentials to do so, I am quite reticent to work there.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not true; you simply cannot use that "we" as if most companies operate that way. The company for which my company has provided services for more than two decades often posts notes such as "... we expect to show profit eleven years after certification ..." to employees. That's not short-term.
 
Boeing ruins everything if you give them enough time.
 
Yeah, most big companies are like that, to one degree on another.
 
DaleB said:
Holy crap.

I’m so happy I unloaded all of my Boeing stock.
Click to expand...


I dumped mine after the Star liner couldn’t reach the ISS and based on the recent news, it was a good call.
 
AKiss20 said:
Extract as much profit as possible for the short-term shareholder gain, long-term consequences be damned. It's the way we've been operating as a country for decades now.

It's a real shame, when you asked me at age 10 what I wanted to do it was always the same: "Grow up to be an aerospace engineer and work at Boeing." Now that I am all grown up and have the credentials to do so, I am quite reticent to work there.
Click to expand...

Boeing.... you can certainly buy better, but you can’t pay more!
 
SkyDog58 said:
Well, they seem to have a more successful and storied history than any other aviation manufacturer ever, either civil or military.
Click to expand...

That was old Boeing. This is the new Boeing we are talking about.
 
Walboy said:
So...ForeFlight is doomed?
Click to expand...
That was my thought the minute I heard of the acquisition.

They will die the slow and painful (for the users) death of the bean counters and woketude.
 
LesGawlik said:
That was my thought the minute I heard of the acquisition.

They will die the slow and painful (for the users) death of the bean counters and woketude.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing the woketude connection in this.
 
Those articles fail to make the case that "woketude" played a role in Boeing's loss of excellence in engineering and manufacturing. If there are excesses, those could just be another symptom of clueless management.
 
Palmpilot said:
Those articles fail to make the case that "woketude" played a role in Boeing's loss of excellence in engineering and manufacturing.
Click to expand...


They would if they could make the case that "woke" hiring practices have led to a staff with marginal or inadequate skills. Having witnessed such myself and seen HR-directed hires and promotions, I can believe that "woketude" causing a loss of excellence could be true. But I agree, the articles fail to make the case.

It's a difficult case to make, though, for anyone who's not directly involved in the situation.
 
I don't think there's any dispute that Boeing's standard for technical excellence has slipped, or that Boeing has become woke. I never said that one was because of the other. I don't really care why, just that.
 
I wrote, "They (the Foreflight App people) will die the slow and painful (for the users) death of the bean counters and woketude." The bean counters at Boeing and its corporate woketude will cause the FF application to lose its excellence.

A failure of a company or a product can have more than one contributing cause.
 
LesGawlik said:
I wrote, "They (the Foreflight App people) will die the slow and painful (for the users) death of the bean counters and woketude." The bean counters at Boeing and its corporate woketude will cause the FF application to lose its excellence.

A failure of a company or a product can have more than one contributing cause.
Click to expand...
Just because something can happen doesn't mean it did.
 
LesGawlik said:
The phrase "will die" is pretty clear to most. It's a shame it isn't to everyone.
Click to expand...
I was responding to your statement about the causes, not the prediction.
 
LesGawlik said:
I wrote, "They (the Foreflight App people) will die the slow and painful (for the users) death of the bean counters and woketude." The bean counters at Boeing and its corporate woketude will cause the FF application to lose its excellence.

A failure of a company or a product can have more than one contributing cause.
Click to expand...
And "woketude" hasn't been shown to be a cause. If anything, opening the pool of qualified candidates improves the likelihood of success.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
If anything, opening the pool of qualified candidates improves the likelihood of success.
Click to expand...

Certainly. But accepting less qualified candidates to satisfy the "woketude" reduces the likelihood of success.

Perhaps we should all look at only the person's qualifications without regard for the superficial.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Boeing's failings are quality of management related, not quality of engineering related.
 
Half Fast said:
Certainly. But accepting less qualified candidates to satisfy the "woketude" reduces the likelihood of success.

Perhaps we should all look at only the person's qualifications without regard for the superficial.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that Boeing's problems are from "woketude" ? Engineers need to pass their classes to get a degree, and so have minimum qualifications. I agree that Boeing has unqualified managers, but doubt it is because of "woketude". Also, don't confuse a company's marketing with what they actually do. You're a fool if you don't take their marketing with lots of salt. The last time I was in Chicago, UAL had a bunch of signs around the airport showing their upcoming supersonic jet and how they will switch to biofuels.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Do you have any evidence that Boeing's problems are from "woketude" ? Engineers need to pass their classes to get a degree, and so have minimum qualifications. I agree that Boeing has unqualified managers, but doubt it is because of "woketude". Also, don't confuse a company's marketing with what they actually do. You're a fool if you don't take their marketing with lots of salt. The last time I was in Chicago, UAL had a bunch of signs around the airport showing their upcoming supersonic jet and how they will switch to biofuels.
Click to expand...


See what I wrote in post #28.

Boeing's managers have also passed classes and earned degrees, yet you agree that they have unqualified managers, so your argument about engineers passing classes is moot.

Engineers with "minimum qualifications" do challenging work poorly. I've seen engineers who could only be given very simple assignments, or who had to be given assignments within a very narrow scope. I did my best to hire engineers with superior qualifications and most of the time I was successful.

But Boeing's problem largely stems, IMHO, from an organization that placed program managers in authority over the engineering staff. This allowed profit concerns to override engineers' safety concerns. At my company, engineering went through a separate management chain all the way to the company's CTO. Only at the CEO did the two converge, and God help everyone if a disagreement between program management and engineering ever made it that far up.
 
Half Fast said:
See what I wrote in post #28.

Boeing's managers have also passed classes and earned degrees, yet you agree that they have unqualified managers, so your argument about engineers passing classes is moot.
Click to expand...
No, because the unqualified managers come from any group of people.

Half Fast said:
Engineers with "minimum qualifications" do challenging work poorly. I've seen engineers who could only be given very simple assignments, or who had to be given assignments within a very narrow scope. I did my best to hire engineers with superior qualifications and most of the time I was successful.
Click to expand...
And you hired from all groups based on qualifications, so you were "woke", although you don't see yourself that way. The word is nothing more than a trigger or a dog whistle.

Half Fast said:
But Boeing's problem largely stems, IMHO, from an organization that placed program managers in authority over the engineering staff. This allowed profit concerns to override engineers' safety concerns. At my company, engineering went through a separate management chain all the way to the company's CTO. Only at the CEO did the two converge, and God help everyone if a disagreement between program management and engineering ever made it that far up.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and as you said in post 28, had nothing to do with "woketude".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top