I've always noticed that when a once great brand gets taken over by bean counters, that brand fades....a lot. Mercedes Benz, BMW, VW, Boeing, GM, etc etc.
@WilhelmEley Please read what the initial comment said, when the brand is taken over by bean counters, not necessarily headed by them. If as an engineer you can only do what the bean counters will let you do, you're effectively stuffed, just like Volvo.
@WilhelmEley the CEO is just the implementor of the boards and stockholders' will. The board is looking only for maximum ROI. GM was bankrupted by bean counters headed by a bean counter, Rick Wagoner. Mercedes and BMW were engineering firms that got taken over by "biodegradable plastic!" Idiots and "let's use plastic everywhere in the cooling system and inferior valve stem seals and engine bearings as a wearable maintenance item idiots. All for an example. All nickel and dime types at the head of high-end automobile manufacturers. Learn your history. The German brands were all headed by engineers during their fall from grace during the mid 1990's to early 2000's as far as quality and durability were concerned, but they were surrounded by cost cutters. Then there is VW, WHOA. And now Boeing. No one ever learns, no one cares, as long as their golden parachutes are guaranteed at the onset of their tenures. Why would they have any reason to care? Their mindsets are only ROI, and long term vision is next week, not the next decade. And, they all want results RTFN.
Boeing already had that star CEO. That was Alan Mulally. Instead they brought in McNerny. Since it's now McDonnell Douglas with the Boeing name, things will probably keep going this way. Really sad. Mr Barnett wasn't wrong, may he rest in peace.
I worked with, not for, Boeing in the early 2000's. The guys I worked with said at the time that the take over of McDonnell Douglas had actually ended up as MD taking over Boeing from the inside, and certainly a lot of the forms I was using had the MD reference on the bottom.
Mr. BARNETT, looking at the current environment and hearing interviews,, was most probably murdered. Too much loss of $$$, jobs, planes, FAA issues etc had to shut him down. Up to Law enforcement to determine who now. I had my tires flattened after a long 10 hr day, and when gent came out to examine/repair my tires, he informed me I was lucky they only took the air out as they also slit tires. I asked him how he knew this and he told me "lady, I make a trip out here every week at least as a car has generally been tampered with"; and that's when I noticed on my truck my mirrors had been nearly pulled off the sides. Other unmentionables happened as well. I and others can explain the various manners of being set up. Many ways to set up a person for failure then Mgmnt begins corrective action or 3 infractions, you're terminated. As counsel, I heard many many stories of being set up then terminated or laid off. Boeing will not turn around if this type of toxic culture continues. And I purposedly learned how to fly since I'm working around ac and space products. FOR CEO, there needs to be an acutely perspicatious individual who has a broad spectrum in aviation, rose up through the ranks to Sr. Systems Engineer, knowing all the 'ilities, stood out like Phil as young brilliant engineer, yet has the passion for planes and a highly persuasive high energy personality. I've met these seasoned engineers and Directors in 3 different aerospace corporations where I've worked. A bean counter will cause a mutiny. Don't do this.
Agree, the CEO and half the Boeing board need to be aviation engineers, and the COO needs to be a logistician or systems integration specialist to change the company focus. The CFO can be a finance or accountant. I would even go down the Germany practice of having representatives on the board from the shop floor.
_I would even go down the Germany practice of having representatives on the board from the shop floor._ This. They need people at the sharp end to have a voice.
And what is this "I'm stepping down--in 8 months" crap? Guess he wants to hang around and collect one more end-of-year bonus before he leaves. That in itself shows what a sh!t-show Boing is.
That’s the thing. If you come away from a talk with your boss thinking that he/she is incompetent, then start sending your resume out here and there. The company ends up with a Darwinian process in which its most competent people will find it the easiest to find another job.
@@frankteunissen6118 Here in Australia the most incompetent get promoted. Who do they hire as their deputy? The next most incompetent person of course. That process keeps repeating until the entire chain of command is filled with the nations most dullest and intellectually bankrupt candidates one can drag out of the bin. Our only saving grace is the demand for our dirt.
The problem isn't just Boeing's management, The FAA needs people with engineering savvy and safety priority. You can't just have bureaucrats over seeing bureaucrats.....Al Scott
Believe it or not but test engineers regardless of industry know more about the systems they test than the engineers. Probably the chief engineer is the only one that would know more.
Because I’m an engineer, what I’m going to say here may seem a bit surprising. But it shouldn’t be. There are plenty of engineers who are willing to compromise themselves for expedience, career advancement, and profit. Engineering expertise is not the top qualification for leadership in a company providing a product highly dependent on technical quality. The top qualification is honesty and courage to do what’s right. Under honest and courageous leadership, people at all levels below are empowered to make good decisions and act on principle.
Not all engineers are great leaders, but it helps understanding the technology you need to make safer. Plus I assume Boeing has far more engineers to pick a CEO from than accountants. So the odds of getting someone better, are better.
There's a very old adage that says: '...if you're in a hole, stop digging'! It seems that one component supplier that has no problem with their delivery schedules to Boeing is the one that supplies the shovels!
Notice that in the clip from Ryanair's CEO Michael O'Leary that he said NOTHING about safety. His focus was on eliminating delivery delays. Perhaps Ms. Pope can fix the delivery delays, but my bet is that the flying public cares more about overall airline safety than anything else.
I recently retired from 30 years after working in several positions of Tech Ops with a major carrier here in the US, the last of which was as a Senior Compliance Specialist, working as a liaison between the FAA and the airline. Todd, your statement "hits the nail on the head", as they saying goes. In all of my time in management at the carrier, I never had a single member of upper management ask if the aircraft was safe and ready to go. The only thing they wanted to know was, "How can we do this faster?"; "Why isn't the airplane at the gate?"; "Who can we crucify to place the blame on them?". As many planes in the air as they can possibly get. That was the bottom line.
@@ketomousketo3345 I try to avoid flying with Ryanair, full stop. And O'Leary is a numbers man; no interest in safety, comfort, service, etc.; but cabin staff are generally kind, thoughtful and helpful - a slight compensation for the senior management-driven attitude of "get 'em off, get 'em on double quick". Ryanair corporate culture is purely money-driven, but customer-facing staff are nowadays quite pleasant - even though they are only doing the job as a mere stepping-stone to a job with a good airline.
@@cremebrulee4759 Engineers are nerds who would never release a plane for delivery because their QC inspections would never end. Engineers would drive the company out of business. You need a business manager / executive who incorporates all of the various support functions in the decision making process. A veto from any one of them activates further investigation until it is resolved.
Going back in history, this sort of "happening" is not uncommon. When Rolls Royce Aero Engines went bust in 1971 it was essentially because there was no Engineering expertise at board level. At least they had the gumption to haul out of retirement Stanley Hooker, who said that he would come back only if he was made Director of Engineering with a seat on the board. Agreed, so he sorted out the RB211 for them.
Incompetent management has been the running joke for anyone who has worked at Boeing for the last 30 years. I can just see the posters going up all around the company touting safety and quality while nothing of substance gets done to address the systemic problems within the company. Promoting someone who has been part of that mess for 30 years (and has no engineering or industrial background) says volumes about how nothing is going to change. Investors should demand a complete overhaul of the board of directors. Nothing short of that will begin to address the problem.
Technology based businesses need technologically astute leadership. Finance based leadership is always short term in vision. Make your money now, get your parachute, and move on. Seen it a million times.
Agreed. Become CEO of the toothbrush factory, cut costs, reduce staff, cause numerous problems, leave early with a big payout and then become the boss of the computer chip factory. Rinse and repeat leaving devastation in your wake but hey, you're rich and those employees, well they got a redundancy package so what's the problem.
Boeing seems to like to promote people that are within the squalid realm of imagination-challenged bottom-line managers (ie: Harvard MBA types) rather than being visionaries.
Putting a bean counter uncharge at any level will ruin any company. The telecommunications company I worked for had managers who didn't know the difference between a ground and short. Not even basic electrical knowledge. They would ask and rephrase stupid questions trying to get the answer they wanted instead of addressing a technical problem with a real solution. This is why we have 3rd world communications in many rural locations across the nation. All rooted in executive greed.
How ALL old corporations go. Banks, Pension Funds, etc with ZERO engineering knowledge but eventually BUY enough stock to get a board position get in charge. Original members with clout who may not be engineers but want LONG TERM viablility eventually all die leaving the finance guys in charge due to inheritance laws etc.
I can tell you exactly how that happened. Mcdonnell Douglas was in trouble and going bankrupt because they were run by bean counters. Boeing acquired them, and instead of Boeing taking over MD, Mcdonnell Douglas literally took over Boeing and took every engineer out of all leadership positions. This is not something that I suspect happened, this is an actual historical fact of what happened. Just Google Mcdonnel Douglas taking over Boeing. There are good articles on it and people in the airline industry couldn't believe it when it happened. They've been on a downhill trajectory ever since. Clearly they have no intention of changing this, I'm not sure why.
Those on the factory floor ARE part and parcel of the decision process. At least in Germany. Under German law, large companies are required to have employee representation on their board of directors. In companies with more than 2,000 employees, employee representatives typically make up HALF of the board. And we're talking representation from the factory floor.
In murrica that is called communism and reflects badly on the stock price. Wall Street needs those sweet coins; milking Boeing until it dies, then move on to the next target.
I agree, representatives from factory floor need to be on board. As a former trustee of The Boeing Company ECF, we had representatives of factory floor to VP.
They replace the Pest with Cholera! NOTHING will change! They definitely have to find a Superstar engineer, or they will fail. So sorry for Airbus. Dave Calhoun was the best CEO they ever had
10:22 ...the A320neo is not just a re-engine version of the A320 family. Besides the cabin upgrade (with better pressurization), since the A320 was already a fly-by-wire aircraft, it was easy to dynamically cope with the change in the engines and power, but also easy to upgrade the flight computers and systems. That is why they had to be re-certified for the A320neo. That wasn't the case with the 737 Max which is still the oldest tech available from Boeing.
Unless the 'profits over people and safety' culture at Boeing changes, which is extremely unlikely now, it won't matter who the CEO is... I'm a retired airline pilot who saw the drastic changes away from safety culture especially after 9/11. The credit for any safety still left in the industry goes to my fellow pilots who face more and more difficult challenges in the industry now.
Calhoun: 'We can't keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. We gotta do something different!' Underling: 'Seems like the problems are mostly engineering, how about we appoint an engineer to fix them?' Calhoun: 'Tried that. Last time I spent a couple of hours at Renton, I ditched the suit, dressed down like the engineers and harangued them about quality. Did no good!' Stunned silence from the flabbergasted underling. Calhoun: 'I know! We'll appoint Stephanie, she definitely looks different from the rest of the jokers. That'll be ... different!' Underling: 'Mick from Ryanair on the line. Wants to know when he's getting his "fecking" planes. A moment, I'll google "fecking", I think it must be Irish for 'max'." Calhoun: 'Don't bother. Tell him it's sorted and transfer him to Stephanie. And fire up my HondaJet, I'm going fishing!'
Boeing is on the same track as they were before, Pope is another financial person and that's not what Boeing needs, actually the furthest thing from what they need! It is becoming very evident that maybe they should be replacing the Board of Directors too!
Zero experience red flag why isn't that they can not have experience but still get the job but they demand for us to have experience in any field we go into
@@RLTtizME gyane always practice and learn on the 'shopfloor" so to speak...Particularly in the case of Boeing, I would love to know how many C-suite chaps are qualified technicians/engineers/pilots, to take decisions on matters pertaining to airline and passenger safety...
Honestly its really disappointing to see a once great American company go down the S--t chute. They have a chance bring meaningful change to restore confidence (at least on the surface) I better stop writing or I may have a bad accident ! @@roykliffen9674
Suggestion for the CEO role: Headhunt an experienced Exec with strong engineering background from a company whose planes do not fall off the sky in swarms; Airbus maybe?
@@joeg5414 ok, it might be an exaggeration per se, but they are not exactly leaving the factory floor with all its components fastened down tightly either.
Yes, that would be smart. There are most likely highly skilled people at Airbus who do not get promoted to C-suit based on who they know and don't know. Pick someone exceptional. The rumours within Airbus will tell who.
I vote for Lund worked with her on 747 and Pat on the 767 Lund and Pat would always be on the floor checking things out and asking questions even to lowly mech. that is the way to run a company
Engineers? Are you kidding? Look, I’m an engineer! I don’t want to have people get sucked out of airplanes. So I’m not qualified because if I behave as an engineer today, I won’t MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE tomorrow. (Now, isn’t that what got Boeing in trouble in the first place?)
You don't necessarily need a CEO that has Aviation or engineering experience, what you need is a CEO that cares about safety, quality and people's lives. One that deeply cares to ensure that every single quality issue is resolved, right down to the smallest detail, instead of swept under the rug in order to increase profits. Quality, safety, and a stellar reputation is what makes a company great, which in turn, will drive up stock price and profits in the long run. Unfortunately since the McDonald Douglas merger this is the complete opposite. Quality and safety have given way to make a quick buck.
@vadermike7772 Whatever you say if true but it not reflected in the Executive pay scheme. It is two component, the majority is getting production high and getting planes to customers. The other component is the production one. Increase safety at site and no accidents on factory floor and minor these like DEI. This portion was actually reduced when the Executive revised their pay check. There is NO performance indicator on the safety of Boeing jets delivered to customers.
There isn't any accounting firm that has an engineer without additional accounting qualifications, there also shouldn't be any manufacturer of precision safety critical products without engineering qualifications.. Professional engineering bodies should be investigating Boeing with violation of engineering ethics to manufacture plants that fall out of the sky. which is a criminal liability.
While it might be best to have an engineer in the lead position, it's actually more important that the head be someone willing to put the right people in the right positions and let them do their work without interference. Any good finance person understands that profit is inextricably linked to quality so will make that a priority. That being said, I do personally feel that they would do best to have an engineer, but it still needs to the RIGHT engineer.
Exactly. As an engineer myself, I expect my CEO to have the technical chops to ask the right questions and to know when he’s being BSed. And while in general these qualities are possessed by those with a technical degree, it’s not a guarantee. I’ve worked for PEs who couldn’t manage a lemonade stand, while on the other hand I’ve worked for finance guys who “got it” and earned my respect. Not to mention, dealing with the fine details is my job as a staff engineer, not the CEO’s, as is me being able to succinctly and clearly communicate technical issues and decide what level of detail to present up the chain. If I can’t communicate the urgency or essence of an issue, that’s on me.
Calhoun might have been an engineer, but clearly if he forgot about the role of redundancy in the reliability of aerospace vehicles, he was a BAD engineer.
Let's see if I've got it right here. Their new corporate philosophy is to upgrade or somehow "improve" old, tried aircraft rather than taking the time and expense to develop new ones. If we follow this "logic" to its ultimate end, we'll see a revised DC-3 with two really powerful jet engines stuck on the wings pointing almost straight up, along with an MCAS that nobody knows about hidden under the pilot's seat. Should be fun to watch.
Well they have done pretty well with the array of aircraft produced in the last couple of decadea. Gaslight alert. Perhaps you should apply that to your septic tank pumping business.
Let's get something straight: There is a HUGE difference between an aero staff analyst (Phil Condit, Alan Mullaly) and a DESIGN engineer. Aero engineers NEVER are on the factory floor because all they do is, uh, analyze and test. Boeing has never had a hardware engineer in charge, one who frequents the factory and flight line to fix things first-hand. If not a design engineer, I'd choose a factory guy, one whose been in the trenches, not on a computer upstairs.
Exactly. Boeing used to be a manufacturing company with SOME capabilities in aero design...same with skunkworks. Building the thing is way more difficult than designing it. Building the thing that builds 1000 copies of that thing is 100x harder. This is why Kelly Johnson kept his engineer's 25 m from the factory floor. The first class brain power needed to be used to solve the real world problems that killed scalability in real time.
Leaders within any organization assemble, direct, and hold to account team members for mission outcomes. If the overall mission is to enhance quality and safety, you may have those reflected in the product. If the mission is to serve profit first, then neither quality, safety, nor profit will be long-lasting.
I think the goverment should Sue Boeing airlines by billions Of dollars for putting the public in danger. Every one At the top who was in charge Of Boeing airlines should be Sued and put arrested and Put in jail for life.
Yeah It's INSANE Boeing went with a DEI accountant when they should ban any person without an engineering degree to even ENTER the c suite. Am shorting them to zero.
The Problem with Boeing was not in the Finance Dept. It IS in the ENGINEERING AND QUALITY DEPT. Replacing the CEO for another business suit WILL NOT solve the problem....I am suprised....In conclusion, Finance, accountants and sales employees should not superseed Engineers Positions if a company is destined to do well in Engineering and Quality.
Great video Maximus,I worked for Sundstrand Aerospace for twenty years their real bread and butter was made in DOD contracts not the commercial end.The same thing holds true for Boeing,the commercial aircraft building probable takes a back seat to the all inportant DOD contracts,just my thoughs!!!
My daughter flies for Ryan so I am biased , However.... Why is Airbus where it is? ?: The Current Airbus CEO is Guillaume Faury. ...Wiki:.... Guillaume Faury Studied at Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique; Guillaume Faury was President of Groupement Industries Françaises de l’Aéronautique et du Spatial; Guillaume Faury Was Chief Engineer Eurocopter; ; Guillaume Faury Was President of AirBus Commercial; And so on, and so on. Any Comments about engineers up top?
The head of the team does not matter as much as the structure of the team ,Spreading out manufacturing from where it is put together is trouble ,Doing things for quarterly share is wrong ,long term means quality product first priority .Having union involvement in production is important part of good work force ,
All the good engineers left or were fired/laid off. They were deemed too expensive. That's why they are having the problems we see now. It's going to get worse for Boeing, unfortunately.
The problem is the Boeing board don't understand Boeing. They need to wind back the clock to the pre-McDD merger, when they actually designed new planes from scratch, instead of re-using old designs, and when they built everything themselves to a high standard of quality. You want quality at the moment, sounds like they need a quality inspector to inspect every single thing they do in manufacturing and assembly. And no one saying - that'll do, when plainly it won't do.
I learned a long time ago that I’m not good at assembling furniture from IKEA, Wayfair, wherever and that’s why my projects get outsourced to those who know what they’re doing. Costs more, but the results are worth it. I guess Boeing has not learned that. They should recruit a CEO from Embraer, Airbus, or Bombardier. On paper, Lund looks like she would be the best internal candidate by far. Is it insanity or is it stupidity to, in this case, do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?
Boeing Boeing Boeing. They just don’t get it. Ms Pope might be excellent in a supporting role but bean-counters should be disqualified from the CEO position.
How about another white guy? No? A black guy? Nope? A women who identifies as a man who identifies as a woman? Nope? An old woman of any race who has gone through the change? Please elaborate.
It would only be insanity if they wanted a different outcome. C Suite got rich, the board got rich, all they are interested in is riding out the bad PR, then they want more of the same. Also do not forget.. an engineer is not a panacea in this case. All the engineers who make it to the exec level have the 'right mindset', meaning they will produce the same results as a bean counter.
Let's not forget she's untrained in Total quality mgt, total productivity management, etc....supply chain management, continuity of operations planning ....
@@RLTtizME the continuity of operation planning is required under the sarbanes-oxley act...... Federal law for over twenty years. Required for any SEC regulated corporations, department of defense contractors going back to the 1950's and all local, state, federal and special district entities....... I won't go into the rest because I'm clearly not speaking your language.
@@jeffalvich9434 Do you wear a tie to bed at night along with your Men's Warehouse Suit? Such commitment to the insipidness and conformity of the modern business person today. This is YT comments Monsieur. It is interesting that you chose this forum to impress...quite telling I would say.
The main problem with Boeing compared to Airbus is simply the difference in American and European business culture. In America, the business culture basically dictates that profit and shareholders are more important than anything else. Airbus use the European business culture of being prepared to move slower and accept a lower all over profit as long as the quality is there because at the end of the day, it's the stability and quality that make customers trust your product.
And putting engineers in top executive positions thinking this would work is almost as stupid from the standpoint that they don't have any engineers who have any experience in successful C- level management positions so there for they have no one with any experience internally who should be in any of those top executive level positions......
MDC Douglas sucessfully built KC10s along side the commercial DC-10s. We also built the C-17s which had more than a few DC-10 carry-over parts. But scrutinize against the KC45 / 767, or VC25 fiascos. The BA production systems blew up while the DAC systems delivered. Is the P-8 program profitable?
The calculation done by CEOs is to tie huge bonuses to stock prices, then count how much they personally profit by cutting future development & quality and use the money for company stock buybacks instead. CEO gets millions, the Wall Street Hedge fund manager invested in Boeing gets millions for a good year. But the company’s future is the victim
I worked for a medium-sized company which worked best in the years when its director, a (former) engineer, and its vice-director, an accountant, were at war with each other. The director was a cunning businessman always looking for new opportunities, but he was also to fast and loose and too reckless in taking on risks, a tendency the vice-director checked with an iron focus on financial prudence. The two would often have shouting matches across the lobby (leading to frequent turnover in the job of secretary) but the end result was a company that was very profitable for several years. Things started to work less well when both retired a few years from each other.
Yep....been there, done it and got the sweatshirt. The balance of risk and opportunity needs both types and a finance person is never going to push the boundaries but will certainly keep the risk-taker in check.
True to the US reality of the fire sector …. Financial Capitalism , gutting the US economy as a parasite . Watch out for the stock aquisitions, bonuses , and share buy/ backs . What a shame.
With Space, Starliner has been delayed again. They did ultimately successfully dock with the ISS on Test 2 despite some issues so they are now looking a the first crewed mission.
Defense side hasn’t had quality issues like the commercial side. F-18, drones and trainer jets have been successful out of St Louis but probably depend on commercial dollars to support
Not just a CEO causes the problems. The CEO my not even own a screwdriver and knows nothing about what makes a plane fly. There are engineers, machinists, assembly staff, inspectors, test pilots etc involved making a plane safe or not. Plenty of places for failures and self preservation on the job.
This is the result of many years of management not listening to the engineers and the factory workers. It's the old story that there's never enough time to do it right the first time, but always enough time to do it over. That direction comes from the executives. Yes, it's still a business, and one can't contribute to be a business if you don't have the product people want to buy, or it's to expensive. It's hard to balance these competing concerns.
News Flash, FAA did not EXIST in "approving" aircraft until the 1980's, by which time Air flight had already become hundreds of times safer than ANY other form of transportation WITHOUT the FAA!!! First plane they "certified" was the 777. You could argue that the only thing the FAA has done is create the MAX disaster to begin with due to their certification stupidity of new engines on the plane and not allowing slight changes to flight controls.
I am not sure if it is an engineer to guide Boeing. A company as Boeing is, has SHAREHOLDERS, but more importantly it has STAKEHOLDERS. To conduct, direct a company is the art of balancing the expectations and results between all its stakeholders. It is clear that in Boeing in the last two (and even more) decades that the company only favored one of its Stakeholders: the shareholders. And in a clear detriment of the others, namely Clients/Customers, Employees, Suppliers, Communities where the company operates. Design and development, quality, safety, talent management, client/customer management, suppliers relations, community relations are part of the processes and operations of the company. These are not costs to be trimmed or cut. Shareholders aren't the company. They aren't even the most important part of the company. Hence, it doesn't imply that the best leader for Boeing has to be an engineer or a bean counter. The right one has to be able to recognize, understand, provide and lead that balancing act between all company parts.
out of 13 member board they have 1 pilot and 1 executive with aviation experience - they need more than half of their board with aviation experience which must include pilots and engineers. First task of any new CEO should be to erase all the harm mcdonnell douglas culture did to Boeing.
Want a CEO, hire an Emu ! An Emu can be goofy, they can dance, and they leave eggs to the care of the guys, and best of all, Emu can't and don't Fly which is best for aircraft that shouldn't due to safety issues of failed manufacturing.
Of course O'Leary of Ryanair will welcome Pope as he is an accountant and not an engineer. Not that O'Leary needs to be an engineer to run an airline whereas Boeing is not an airline.
The problem is the Boeing board does not understand the business they are in.
Oh they know exactly what business they are in. We are the ones that are confused as everything is asset stripped in the west.
"We don't make planes, we make profits." The same grubby philosophy that ran GM into bankruptcy
@@tech9803 Profit almost implies the process is repeatable.
Ohhhh yes they do. These choices are no accident.
Writing themselves big checks
A “bean counter” instead of an engineer? Bad choice IMO 🤦♂️.
That's what started this debacle in the first place.
I've always noticed that when a once great brand gets taken over by bean counters, that brand fades....a lot. Mercedes Benz, BMW, VW, Boeing, GM, etc etc.
Apple? 🤔👼
@@karpabla what few Apple products I have seem to work well. They are older, however.
Porsche; HP, headed up by a woman based on DEI, that ended up well; GE; Ford; British Leyland; IBM; Kodak, the list goes on......
@WilhelmEley Please read what the initial comment said, when the brand is taken over by bean counters, not necessarily headed by them. If as an engineer you can only do what the bean counters will let you do, you're effectively stuffed, just like Volvo.
@WilhelmEley the CEO is just the implementor of the boards and stockholders' will. The board is looking only for maximum ROI. GM was bankrupted by bean counters headed by a bean counter, Rick Wagoner. Mercedes and BMW were engineering firms that got taken over by "biodegradable plastic!" Idiots and "let's use plastic everywhere in the cooling system and inferior valve stem seals and engine bearings as a wearable maintenance item idiots. All for an example. All nickel and dime types at the head of high-end automobile manufacturers. Learn your history. The German brands were all headed by engineers during their fall from grace during the mid 1990's to early 2000's as far as quality and durability were concerned, but they were surrounded by cost cutters. Then there is VW, WHOA.
And now Boeing. No one ever learns, no one cares, as long as their golden parachutes are guaranteed at the onset of their tenures. Why would they have any reason to care?
Their mindsets are only ROI, and long term vision is next week, not the next decade. And, they all want results RTFN.
Boeing already had that star CEO. That was Alan Mulally. Instead they brought in McNerny.
Since it's now McDonnell Douglas with the Boeing name, things will probably keep going this way.
Really sad.
Mr Barnett wasn't wrong, may he rest in peace.
I once heard the McDonnell Douglas / Boeing merger as McDonnell Douglas taking over Boeing, and getting Boeing to pay for it.
Funny seeing as McDonnell Douglas was plagued with similar issues. The 737 Max is basically the new DC-10.
I worked with, not for, Boeing in the early 2000's. The guys I worked with said at the time that the take over of McDonnell Douglas had actually ended up as MD taking over Boeing from the inside, and certainly a lot of the forms I was using had the MD reference on the bottom.
@@almac2598This is absolutely true. There are articles online about this very thing and that is totally what happened.
Mr. BARNETT, looking at the current environment and hearing interviews,, was most probably murdered. Too much loss of $$$, jobs, planes, FAA issues etc had to shut him down. Up to Law enforcement to determine who now. I had my tires flattened after a long 10 hr day, and when gent came out to examine/repair my tires, he informed me I was lucky they only took the air out as they also slit tires. I asked him how he knew this and he told me "lady, I make a trip out here every week at least as a car has generally been tampered with"; and that's when I noticed on my truck my mirrors had been nearly pulled off the sides. Other unmentionables happened as well.
I and others can explain the various manners of being set up. Many ways to set up a person for failure then Mgmnt begins corrective action or 3 infractions, you're terminated.
As counsel, I heard many many stories of being set up then terminated or laid off.
Boeing will not turn around if this type of toxic culture continues.
And I purposedly learned how to fly since I'm working around ac and space products.
FOR CEO,
there needs to be an acutely perspicatious individual who has a broad spectrum in aviation, rose up through the ranks to Sr. Systems Engineer, knowing all the 'ilities, stood out like Phil as young brilliant engineer, yet has the passion for planes and a highly persuasive high energy personality.
I've met these seasoned engineers and Directors in 3 different aerospace corporations where I've worked.
A bean counter will cause a mutiny.
Don't do this.
Agree, the CEO and half the Boeing board need to be aviation engineers, and the COO needs to be a logistician or systems integration specialist to change the company focus. The CFO can be a finance or accountant. I would even go down the Germany practice of having representatives on the board from the shop floor.
_I would even go down the Germany practice of having representatives on the board from the shop floor._
This. They need people at the sharp end to have a voice.
Completely agree. That’s the only way to bring back quality over profit.
@@magran17 Quality will result in profit!
Engineers will have no respect for people like this.
And what is this "I'm stepping down--in 8 months" crap? Guess he wants to hang around and collect one more end-of-year bonus before he leaves. That in itself shows what a sh!t-show Boing is.
That’s the thing. If you come away from a talk with your boss thinking that he/she is incompetent, then start sending your resume out here and there. The company ends up with a Darwinian process in which its most competent people will find it the easiest to find another job.
@@frankteunissen6118 Here in Australia the most incompetent get promoted. Who do they hire as their deputy? The next most incompetent person of course. That process keeps repeating until the entire chain of command is filled with the nations most dullest and intellectually bankrupt candidates one can drag out of the bin. Our only saving grace is the demand for our dirt.
@WilhelmEley
I agree with that.
New CEO Stephanie Pope-Boeing, Unfortunately Nothing At Boeing Will Change Just Bigger Disasters ruclips.net/video/y5m7tsawG2Y/видео.html
Boeing is still not listening. In fact they're getting worse. Tim Clark at Emerites is, as usual, spot on with his analysis.
It's insane. Do they think they're going to receive the confidence of the airlines? The effect will be the exact opposite.
Tim Clark is spot on, pity he's not at the reins of Boeing, he wouldn't accept any bull shit Accountant in a ENGINEERING co.
The problem isn't just Boeing's management, The FAA needs people with engineering savvy and safety priority. You can't just have bureaucrats over seeing bureaucrats.....Al Scott
FAA should have just hired all the disgruntled former Boeing safety inspectors.
The FAA is one of the few regulatory organisations I trust.
As a 737 captain for a major airline I couldn’t agree more ! Too many MBAs and bean counters !
And Airbus CEO is a qualified and enthusiastic pilot and flight test engineer. Go figure.
Believe it or not but test engineers regardless of industry know more about the systems they test than the engineers. Probably the chief engineer is the only one that would know more.
That is the choice usually done by those who actually use their brains
it shows air bus are state of the art
Airbus has issues as well.they are not as clean as people think. Rock on max.fine bird
Give us an example, with proof of course.
Because I’m an engineer, what I’m going to say here may seem a bit surprising. But it shouldn’t be. There are plenty of engineers who are willing to compromise themselves for expedience, career advancement, and profit.
Engineering expertise is not the top qualification for leadership in a company providing a product highly dependent on technical quality.
The top qualification is honesty and courage to do what’s right.
Under honest and courageous leadership, people at all levels below are empowered to make good decisions and act on principle.
Spot on.
Agree. The assumption that an engineer that has a moral compass would ever be allowed to get to that position of power is terribly naive.
Not all engineers are great leaders, but it helps understanding the technology you need to make safer. Plus I assume Boeing has far more engineers to pick a CEO from than accountants. So the odds of getting someone better, are better.
There's a very old adage that says: '...if you're in a hole, stop digging'! It seems that one component supplier that has no problem with their delivery schedules to Boeing is the one that supplies the shovels!
Ha ha ha !! Kinda reminds me of that passage from Patton, the movie. "Like shoveling shit in Louisiana"
Notice that in the clip from Ryanair's CEO Michael O'Leary that he said NOTHING about safety. His focus was on eliminating delivery delays. Perhaps Ms. Pope can fix the delivery delays, but my bet is that the flying public cares more about overall airline safety than anything else.
Exactly. I will try to avoid flying with Ryanair if the Max are delivered. I prefer an old 737 than a new Max...
@@ketomousketo3345 you might as well avoid any airline with the max. but why should you
I recently retired from 30 years after working in several positions of Tech Ops with a major carrier here in the US, the last of which was as a Senior Compliance Specialist, working as a liaison between the FAA and the airline.
Todd, your statement "hits the nail on the head", as they saying goes. In all of my time in management at the carrier, I never had a single member of upper management ask if the aircraft was safe and ready to go. The only thing they wanted to know was, "How can we do this faster?"; "Why isn't the airplane at the gate?"; "Who can we crucify to place the blame on them?".
As many planes in the air as they can possibly get. That was the bottom line.
Why would someone avoid airlines with Boeing planes?
Try to get documentation from Boeing about some door plug work.
Easy answer.
@@ketomousketo3345
I try to avoid flying with Ryanair, full stop.
And O'Leary is a numbers man;
no interest in safety, comfort, service, etc.;
but cabin staff are generally kind, thoughtful and helpful
- a slight compensation for the senior management-driven attitude of "get 'em off, get 'em on double quick".
Ryanair corporate culture is purely money-driven,
but customer-facing staff are nowadays quite pleasant
- even though they are only doing the job as a mere stepping-stone to a job with a good airline.
This woman is Dave Calhoun’s revenge against the Boeing board. Well done Dave, she’s all set to fail in a big, bug way.
How to ruin a company???? Put a bean counter in charge
AMEN!
An old joke from corporate days... 'At the end of the battle, accountants are the people who go around and bayonet all the wounded'!
Put an engineer in charge...and demise becomes a race.
That's what the problem has been. This is their chance to fix it, and they are choosing not to put an engineer in charge.
@@cremebrulee4759 Engineers are nerds who would never release a plane for delivery because their QC inspections would never end. Engineers would drive the company out of business. You need a business manager / executive who incorporates all of the various support functions in the decision making process. A veto from any one of them activates further investigation until it is resolved.
Going back in history, this sort of "happening" is not uncommon. When Rolls Royce Aero Engines went bust in 1971 it was essentially because there was no Engineering expertise at board level. At least they had the gumption to haul out of retirement Stanley Hooker, who said that he would come back only if he was made Director of Engineering with a seat on the board. Agreed, so he sorted out the RB211 for them.
Incompetent management has been the running joke for anyone who has worked at Boeing for the last 30 years. I can just see the posters going up all around the company touting safety and quality while nothing of substance gets done to address the systemic problems within the company. Promoting someone who has been part of that mess for 30 years (and has no engineering or industrial background) says volumes about how nothing is going to change. Investors should demand a complete overhaul of the board of directors. Nothing short of that will begin to address the problem.
Omg. Like the last message said “ here we go again “ makes me not want to fly on a Boeing plane more.
Technology based businesses need technologically astute leadership. Finance based leadership is always short term in vision. Make your money now, get your parachute, and move on. Seen it a million times.
Agreed. Become CEO of the toothbrush factory, cut costs, reduce staff, cause numerous problems, leave early with a big payout and then become the boss of the computer chip factory. Rinse and repeat leaving devastation in your wake but hey, you're rich and those employees, well they got a redundancy package so what's the problem.
Boeing seems to like to promote people that are within the squalid realm of imagination-challenged bottom-line managers (ie: Harvard MBA types) rather than being visionaries.
GE's toxic destroyers
Putting a bean counter uncharge at any level will ruin any company. The telecommunications company I worked for had managers who didn't know the difference between a ground and short. Not even basic electrical knowledge. They would ask and rephrase stupid questions trying to get the answer they wanted instead of addressing a technical problem with a real solution. This is why we have 3rd world communications in many rural locations across the nation. All rooted in executive greed.
Sack the entire board, weed the beancounters out
The problem is anyone with money can be on the board and have no clue what the businesses entails.
Here we go again. She probably knows less about engineering than the bloke who knows more about it than anyone else. Right Elmo?
She has a background in Accounting and Finance. Nothing to see here.
🤡 show
At this stage I think she knows more... and that doesn't say much.
How dare you criticize a wahman!
She wouldn't know a nut plate or a B-nut from a bowl of rotten fruit.
“…I have leftover bolts too.” Hysterical. Made a dreary day brighter.
How the heck did bean counters get in charge of BA anyway? Been down hill ever since. Accountants getting rich, people dying!
How ALL old corporations go. Banks, Pension Funds, etc with ZERO engineering knowledge but eventually BUY enough stock to get a board position get in charge. Original members with clout who may not be engineers but want LONG TERM viablility eventually all die leaving the finance guys in charge due to inheritance laws etc.
I can tell you exactly how that happened. Mcdonnell Douglas was in trouble and going bankrupt because they were run by bean counters. Boeing acquired them, and instead of Boeing taking over MD, Mcdonnell Douglas literally took over Boeing and took every engineer out of all leadership positions.
This is not something that I suspect happened, this is an actual historical fact of what happened. Just Google Mcdonnel Douglas taking over Boeing. There are good articles on it and people in the airline industry couldn't believe it when it happened. They've been on a downhill trajectory ever since. Clearly they have no intention of changing this, I'm not sure why.
Those on the factory floor ARE part and parcel of the decision process. At least in Germany. Under German law, large companies are required to have employee representation on their board of directors. In companies with more than 2,000 employees, employee representatives typically make up HALF of the board. And we're talking representation from the factory floor.
In murrica that is called communism and reflects badly on the stock price. Wall Street needs those sweet coins; milking Boeing until it dies, then move on to the next target.
I agree, representatives from factory floor need to be on board. As a former trustee of The Boeing Company ECF, we had representatives of factory floor to VP.
They're really not because the suggestions that they pose mostly do not get implemented....
@@Uxoriously WOW! You were?
Sure helped at Volkswagen 😂😂😂
They replace the Pest with Cholera! NOTHING will change!
They definitely have to find a Superstar engineer, or they will fail.
So sorry for Airbus. Dave Calhoun was the best CEO they ever had
Putting an MD manager incharge of anything will lead to compromised safety. They need to fire anyone who came from MD right away and move the HQ.
10:22 ...the A320neo is not just a re-engine version of the A320 family. Besides the cabin upgrade (with better pressurization), since the A320 was already a fly-by-wire aircraft, it was easy to dynamically cope with the change in the engines and power, but also easy to upgrade the flight computers and systems. That is why they had to be re-certified for the A320neo.
That wasn't the case with the 737 Max which is still the oldest tech available from Boeing.
Unless the 'profits over people and safety' culture at Boeing changes, which is extremely unlikely now, it won't matter who the CEO is...
I'm a retired airline pilot who saw the drastic changes away from safety culture especially after 9/11.
The credit for any safety still left in the industry goes to my fellow pilots who face more and more difficult challenges in the industry now.
You have my heartfelt sympathy.
What Boeing needs is someone who is not so viciously anti-union, and anti anything that affects the bottom line.
Calhoun: 'We can't keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. We gotta do something different!'
Underling: 'Seems like the problems are mostly engineering, how about we appoint an engineer to fix them?'
Calhoun: 'Tried that. Last time I spent a couple of hours at Renton, I ditched the suit, dressed down like the engineers and harangued them about quality. Did no good!'
Stunned silence from the flabbergasted underling.
Calhoun: 'I know! We'll appoint Stephanie, she definitely looks different from the rest of the jokers. That'll be ... different!'
Underling: 'Mick from Ryanair on the line. Wants to know when he's getting his "fecking" planes. A moment, I'll google "fecking", I think it must be Irish for 'max'."
Calhoun: 'Don't bother. Tell him it's sorted and transfer him to Stephanie. And fire up my HondaJet, I'm going fishing!'
Never underestimate the stubbornness of bean counters.
Boeing is on the same track as they were before, Pope is another financial person and that's not what Boeing needs, actually the furthest thing from what they need! It is becoming very evident that maybe they should be replacing the Board of Directors too!
Zero experience red flag why isn't that they can not have experience but still get the job but they demand for us to have experience in any field we go into
Uh, has female plumbing and is in finance so board, none of whom have ANY engineering knowledge loves her
Shows you who is actually doing work
Simple point: which one the lunatics on the board have ever "piloted" an aircraft? Forget engineering...
Which one has ever pounded rivers?
How many male gynecologists have ever had a baby or a yeast infection. So there.
@@RLTtizME gyane always practice and learn on the 'shopfloor" so to speak...Particularly in the case of Boeing, I would love to know how many C-suite chaps are qualified technicians/engineers/pilots, to take decisions on matters pertaining to airline and passenger safety...
I have a Labrador retriever that is willing to give it a try !
Probably a better Candidate
Honestly its really disappointing to see a once great American company go down the S--t chute. They have a chance bring meaningful change to restore confidence (at least on the surface) I better stop writing or I may have a bad accident ! @@roykliffen9674
This lady was without a doubt part of Boeing’s problems. No way she will be part of a much needed solution…
How so and how would you know?
Suggestion for the CEO role: Headhunt an experienced Exec with strong engineering background from a company whose planes do not fall off the sky in swarms; Airbus maybe?
Douglas maybe.
Falling out of the sky in swarms? WtF are you talking about? They aren't falling out of the sky.
@@joeg5414 ok, it might be an exaggeration per se, but they are not exactly leaving the factory floor with all its components fastened down tightly either.
@@panoshountis1516 you could say that to airbus. you dont know whats coming out of FAL
Yes, that would be smart. There are most likely highly skilled people at Airbus who do not get promoted to C-suit based on who they know and don't know. Pick someone exceptional. The rumours within Airbus will tell who.
The Boeing board needs someone with the balls to say "fug off you idiot" when stupid ideas are floated. Accountants never see spending less as stupid.
I vote for Lund worked with her on 747 and Pat on the 767 Lund and Pat would always be on the floor checking things out and asking questions even to lowly mech. that is the way to run a company
Engineers? Are you kidding? Look, I’m an engineer! I don’t want to have people get sucked out of airplanes. So I’m not qualified because if I behave as an engineer today, I won’t MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE tomorrow. (Now, isn’t that what got Boeing in trouble in the first place?)
They don’t understand that they don’t understand…
You don't necessarily need a CEO that has Aviation or engineering experience, what you need is a CEO that cares about safety, quality and people's lives. One that deeply cares to ensure that every single quality issue is resolved, right down to the smallest detail, instead of swept under the rug in order to increase profits. Quality, safety, and a stellar reputation is what makes a company great, which in turn, will drive up stock price and profits in the long run. Unfortunately since the McDonald Douglas merger this is the complete opposite. Quality and safety have given way to make a quick buck.
@vadermike7772 Whatever you say if true but it not reflected in the Executive pay scheme. It is two component, the majority is getting production high and getting planes to customers. The other component is the production one. Increase safety at site and no accidents on factory floor and minor these like DEI. This portion was actually reduced when the Executive revised their pay check. There is NO performance indicator on the safety of Boeing jets delivered to customers.
There isn't any accounting firm that has an engineer without additional accounting qualifications, there also shouldn't be any manufacturer of precision safety critical products without engineering qualifications.. Professional engineering bodies should be investigating Boeing with violation of engineering ethics to manufacture plants that fall out of the sky. which is a criminal liability.
Ryan air needs deliveries. No mention of safety. Interesting.
Ryanair INSURES the aircraft against l crashes causing them losses. The passengers don't cost him money when they stop functioning.
They are not mutually exclusive although you seem to want them to be.
While it might be best to have an engineer in the lead position, it's actually more important that the head be someone willing to put the right people in the right positions and let them do their work without interference. Any good finance person understands that profit is inextricably linked to quality so will make that a priority. That being said, I do personally feel that they would do best to have an engineer, but it still needs to the RIGHT engineer.
Exactly. As an engineer myself, I expect my CEO to have the technical chops to ask the right questions and to know when he’s being BSed. And while in general these qualities are possessed by those with a technical degree, it’s not a guarantee. I’ve worked for PEs who couldn’t manage a lemonade stand, while on the other hand I’ve worked for finance guys who “got it” and earned my respect.
Not to mention, dealing with the fine details is my job as a staff engineer, not the CEO’s, as is me being able to succinctly and clearly communicate technical issues and decide what level of detail to present up the chain. If I can’t communicate the urgency or essence of an issue, that’s on me.
Boeing is finished. They decided to put a DEI hire bean counter in charge. What could go wrong?
so is airbus
You are getting verklempt.
She is obviously a quota appointment.
The only qualification she needed was female, and in that she is eminently qualified.
You would say the same thing for anyone they appointed.
@@RLTtizME She is not an aerospace engineer. Furthermore she is not an accountant from manufacturing. Clearly a quota appointment!!!
@@RLTtizME Idiot!!
@@greenpedal370 Who isn't?
@@RLTtizME Would I now?
Calhoun might have been an engineer, but clearly if he forgot about the role of redundancy in the reliability of aerospace vehicles, he was a BAD engineer.
The managerial class will never give up power. Since Harvard etc created them they don't let subject matter experts to rise to the top anymore.
Let's see if I've got it right here. Their new corporate philosophy is to upgrade or somehow "improve" old, tried aircraft rather than taking the time and expense to develop new ones. If we follow this "logic" to its ultimate end, we'll see a revised DC-3 with two really powerful jet engines stuck on the wings pointing almost straight up, along with an MCAS that nobody knows about hidden under the pilot's seat. Should be fun to watch.
Well they have done pretty well with the array of aircraft produced in the last couple of decadea. Gaslight alert. Perhaps you should apply that to your septic tank pumping business.
The 737-Max changed all of that. I didn't know boeing had a septic tank pumping business....
@@fredferd965 That apparently was the only trade you could master. Sounds like you were canned. A bitter failed old fart.
Let's get something straight: There is a HUGE difference between an aero staff analyst (Phil Condit, Alan Mullaly) and a DESIGN engineer. Aero engineers NEVER are on the factory floor because all they do is, uh, analyze and test. Boeing has never had a hardware engineer in charge, one who frequents the factory and flight line to fix things first-hand. If not a design engineer, I'd choose a factory guy, one whose been in the trenches, not on a computer upstairs.
Exactly. Boeing used to be a manufacturing company with SOME capabilities in aero design...same with skunkworks. Building the thing is way more difficult than designing it. Building the thing that builds 1000 copies of that thing is 100x harder. This is why Kelly Johnson kept his engineer's 25 m from the factory floor. The first class brain power needed to be used to solve the real world problems that killed scalability in real time.
Leaders within any organization assemble, direct, and hold to account team members for mission outcomes.
If the overall mission is to enhance quality and safety, you may have those reflected in the product.
If the mission is to serve profit first, then neither quality, safety, nor profit will be long-lasting.
I think the goverment should
Sue Boeing airlines by billions
Of dollars for putting the public in danger. Every one
At the top who was in charge
Of Boeing airlines should be
Sued and put arrested and
Put in jail for life.
Goody, print more billions. The definition of insanity 😢
Yeah It's INSANE Boeing went with a DEI accountant when they should ban any person without an engineering degree to even ENTER the c suite. Am shorting them to zero.
Like Israel, Boeing has it's suckers attached directly to the Treasury.
I already did 😅
Thank you
The Problem with Boeing was not in the Finance Dept. It IS in the ENGINEERING AND QUALITY DEPT. Replacing the CEO for another business suit WILL NOT solve the problem....I am suprised....In conclusion, Finance, accountants and sales employees should not superseed Engineers Positions if a company is destined to do well in Engineering and Quality.
Great video Maximus,I worked for Sundstrand Aerospace for twenty years their real bread and butter was made in DOD contracts not the commercial end.The same thing holds true for Boeing,the commercial aircraft building probable takes a back seat to the all inportant DOD contracts,just my thoughs!!!
Yeah...KC-46... could not even make a 767 fly right for the Military...
Engineers are honest people. That wouldn’t work for Boeing Board.
My daughter flies for Ryan so I am biased , However....
Why is Airbus where it is? ?:
The Current Airbus CEO is Guillaume Faury.
...Wiki:....
Guillaume Faury Studied at Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique;
Guillaume Faury was President of Groupement Industries Françaises de l’Aéronautique et du Spatial;
Guillaume Faury Was Chief Engineer Eurocopter; ;
Guillaume Faury Was President of AirBus Commercial;
And so on, and so on.
Any Comments about engineers up top?
All I got from Michael, it’s all about him and Ryan air and meeting his delivery schedule. This will do nothing to improve the safety of Boeing
Pat Shanahan... Currently CEO of Spirit Aerospace. Boeing bred Engineer.
At current pace, Pat Shanahan stands to make more money (and have less headaches) staying with Spirit...
@@jpazinhoIf Boeing acquires ...Pat Shanahan and the BOD's at Spirit will be out of a job.
How did that work out then.....?
Shanahan has a well-earned reputation as a problem fixer.
@@arisaka9963Yes, and he is the finest Sr. Executive I have ever met, and he cares about the people who build the product; no ego here.
The head of the team does not matter as much as the structure of the team ,Spreading out manufacturing from where it is put together is trouble ,Doing things for quarterly share is wrong ,long term means quality product first priority .Having union involvement in production is important part of good work force ,
Morals. What is sorely needed is morals. I love airplanes but I'm glad I don't fly anymore.
All the good engineers left or were fired/laid off. They were deemed too expensive. That's why they are having the problems we see now. It's going to get worse for Boeing, unfortunately.
Way too much outsourcing. 1% of any plane is actually built in Boeing facilities, 😢
The problem is the Boeing board don't understand Boeing. They need to wind back the clock to the pre-McDD merger, when they actually designed new planes from scratch, instead of re-using old designs, and when they built everything themselves to a high standard of quality. You want quality at the moment, sounds like they need a quality inspector to inspect every single thing they do in manufacturing and assembly. And no one saying - that'll do, when plainly it won't do.
I learned a long time ago that I’m not good at assembling furniture from IKEA, Wayfair, wherever and that’s why my projects get outsourced to those who know what they’re doing. Costs more, but the results are worth it. I guess Boeing has not learned that. They should recruit a CEO from Embraer, Airbus, or Bombardier. On paper, Lund looks like she would be the best internal candidate by far. Is it insanity or is it stupidity to, in this case, do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?
i was thinking the same about lund. she must not be in the swell kids club...
They all clueless now they want engineers back at the top but they was cool with getting rid of them back in 98
Harvard MBA mentality, only thing MBAs care is cut staff, cut staff . . . That school did and do a lot of harm to engineering industries.
oh, yea. It was too expensive to keep the knowledge and it wasn't transferred.
Boeing Boeing Boeing. They just don’t get it. Ms Pope might be excellent in a supporting role but bean-counters should be disqualified from the CEO position.
Never allow any finance type to run any industrial company or any other than a financial institution!
Catherine Pope is an ESG quota play. Aviation industry is rife with this thinking
How about another white guy? No? A black guy? Nope? A women who identifies as a man who identifies as a woman? Nope? An old woman of any race who has gone through the change? Please elaborate.
It would only be insanity if they wanted a different outcome. C Suite got rich, the board got rich, all they are interested in is riding out the bad PR, then they want more of the same.
Also do not forget.. an engineer is not a panacea in this case. All the engineers who make it to the exec level have the 'right mindset', meaning they will produce the same results as a bean counter.
They need a change at UAL, too.
DEI to the MAX!!!!!!!!!!!
I bet you gloated after posting that...like to the MAX.
4:55 If even INVESTMENT FIRMS say that Boeing's CEO MUST be an Engineer ... that shows how low Boeing has fallen ...
Pope is terminal in her new role....widely agreed upon by aviation experts that you don't talk to.
Let's not forget she's untrained in Total quality mgt, total productivity management, etc....supply chain management, continuity of operations planning ....
Nobody is. Bizo babble.
@@RLTtizME the continuity of operation planning is required under the sarbanes-oxley act...... Federal law for over twenty years. Required for any SEC regulated corporations, department of defense contractors going back to the 1950's and all local, state, federal and special district entities....... I won't go into the rest because I'm clearly not speaking your language.
@@jeffalvich9434 Do you wear a tie to bed at night along with your Men's Warehouse Suit? Such commitment to the insipidness and conformity of the modern business person today. This is YT comments Monsieur. It is interesting that you chose this forum to impress...quite telling I would say.
The main problem with Boeing compared to Airbus is simply the difference in American and European business culture.
In America, the business culture basically dictates that profit and shareholders are more important than anything else.
Airbus use the European business culture of being prepared to move slower and accept a lower all over profit as long as the quality is there because at the end of the day, it's the stability and quality that make customers trust your product.
Personally I will avoid new Boeing planes for future travel: at least until the management seems to understand the problems and solutions.
You do that. Take a Cessna next time to the other side of the world.
The only thing for us to do now is to sit and wait for Boeing's disappearance. Meanwhile, let's go out our way to avoid flying Boeing.
And putting engineers in top executive positions thinking this would work is almost as stupid from the standpoint that they don't have any engineers who have any experience in successful C- level management positions so there for they have no one with any experience internally who should be in any of those top executive level positions......
MDC Douglas sucessfully built KC10s along side the commercial DC-10s. We also built the C-17s which had more than a few DC-10 carry-over parts. But scrutinize against the KC45 / 767, or VC25 fiascos. The BA production systems blew up while the DAC systems delivered. Is the P-8 program profitable?
Unfortunately ANY company that trades on Wall Street will only hire the best bean counters. To hell with doing the RIGHT thing.
Hedge fund managers tend to be looking for a high rate of return which means a quick buck by cutting QA and the future
The calculation done by CEOs is to tie huge bonuses to stock prices, then count how much they personally profit by cutting future development & quality and use the money for company stock buybacks instead. CEO gets millions, the Wall Street Hedge fund manager invested in Boeing gets millions for a good year. But the company’s future is the victim
I built over a dozen model airplanes when I was kid, I think im qualified to be the new CEO. 😊
Howard Hughes is my choice.
Hughes in his current state of physical "fitness" would at least not make bad decisions.
Engineers don’t need to be in charge. But they need to be listened to along with a company-wide culture open to criticism.
I work at a large aero company now. You can give advice on what could be done better but nothing changes there.
I worked for a medium-sized company which worked best in the years when its director, a (former) engineer, and its vice-director, an accountant, were at war with each other. The director was a cunning businessman always looking for new opportunities, but he was also to fast and loose and too reckless in taking on risks, a tendency the vice-director checked with an iron focus on financial prudence. The two would often have shouting matches across the lobby (leading to frequent turnover in the job of secretary) but the end result was a company that was very profitable for several years. Things started to work less well when both retired a few years from each other.
Yep....been there, done it and got the sweatshirt. The balance of risk and opportunity needs both types and a finance person is never going to push the boundaries but will certainly keep the risk-taker in check.
True to the US reality of the fire sector …. Financial Capitalism , gutting the US economy as a parasite . Watch out for the stock aquisitions, bonuses , and share buy/ backs . What a shame.
If they bring in Elon, will the name change to Xoeing (formerly Boeing) or maybe BoeingX? 😂😂
Boeing has three business units. Commercial Airplanes; Defense, Space, and Security; and Global Services. Is only the Commercial Airplane unit FUBAR?
Is there not big problems with the design of the next Air Force One?
With Space, Starliner has been delayed again. They did ultimately successfully dock with the ISS on Test 2 despite some issues so they are now looking a the first crewed mission.
Defense side hasn’t had quality issues like the commercial side. F-18, drones and trainer jets have been successful out of St Louis but probably depend on commercial dollars to support
Military branch also doing worth sht.
Never give unions a seat on the board.
Not just a CEO causes the problems. The CEO my not even own a screwdriver and knows nothing about what makes a plane fly. There are engineers, machinists, assembly staff, inspectors, test pilots etc involved making a plane safe or not. Plenty of places for failures and self preservation on the job.
This is the result of many years of management not listening to the engineers and the factory workers. It's the old story that there's never enough time to do it right the first time, but always enough time to do it over. That direction comes from the executives. Yes, it's still a business, and one can't contribute to be a business if you don't have the product people want to buy, or it's to expensive. It's hard to balance these competing concerns.
Sure seems like the FAA is left out of a lot of discussions. It is the agency in charge, regulator and the agency that approves everything.
News Flash, FAA did not EXIST in "approving" aircraft until the 1980's, by which time Air flight had already become hundreds of times safer than ANY other form of transportation WITHOUT the FAA!!! First plane they "certified" was the 777. You could argue that the only thing the FAA has done is create the MAX disaster to begin with due to their certification stupidity of new engines on the plane and not allowing slight changes to flight controls.
The government is not going to save anyone.
I am not sure if it is an engineer to guide Boeing.
A company as Boeing is, has SHAREHOLDERS, but more importantly it has STAKEHOLDERS. To conduct, direct a company is the art of balancing the expectations and results between all its stakeholders.
It is clear that in Boeing in the last two (and even more) decades that the company only favored one of its Stakeholders: the shareholders. And in a clear detriment of the others, namely Clients/Customers, Employees, Suppliers, Communities where the company operates.
Design and development, quality, safety, talent management, client/customer management, suppliers relations, community relations are part of the processes and operations of the company. These are not costs to be trimmed or cut.
Shareholders aren't the company. They aren't even the most important part of the company.
Hence, it doesn't imply that the best leader for Boeing has to be an engineer or a bean counter.
The right one has to be able to recognize, understand, provide and lead that balancing act between all company parts.
It’s Boeing so i’m still not going…
out of 13 member board they have 1 pilot and 1 executive with aviation experience - they need more than half of their board with aviation experience which must include pilots and engineers. First task of any new CEO should be to erase all the harm mcdonnell douglas culture did to Boeing.
From bean counters, to DEI bean counters. I’m sure not going to be buying any Boeing stock anytime soon.
Want a CEO, hire an Emu ! An Emu can be goofy, they can dance, and they leave eggs to the care of the guys, and best of all, Emu can't and don't Fly which is best for aircraft that shouldn't due to safety issues of failed manufacturing.
Of course O'Leary of Ryanair will welcome Pope as he is an accountant and not an engineer. Not that O'Leary needs to be an engineer to run an airline whereas Boeing is not an airline.
O'Leary will say anything to get his planes - especially if he can knock a few dollars of the invoice.