Well put. Years ago a man named Al Neuharth who created USA today newspapers and thus changed the way all newspapers were produced once said you should never put the bean counters in charge because they don't know anything except crunching numbers and they fear risk.
@@deaffatalbruno I'd say they're definitely engineers first and if they have to save some pennies they know how to do it in a safe professional manner.
There’s a term for that. Penny smart, dollar stupid. Sadly all business leaders are credited with profits one quarter at a time. Cut corners now, hopefully the problems that will result from cost-cutting will fall on other leaders in the future. Sadly this is SOP for corporate businesses these days.
They were trying to increase profit for their shareholders, and they did - short-term. I guess the ones who benefitted most pulled out before it crashed - literally.
@@brian5o That's exactly why you need regulations in free market and not let Boeing certify itself like FAA did in the past. This is what happens if you just let the market do its thing.
Yeah I don't wanna fly on a 737 anymore now I know how poorly they are made. A320 is a great and safe plane which I am very happy being on and have been all over the world
Liable you mean? And that makes no sense. Liability is a civil issue, not criminal. They're separate. They can be found liable but not face criminal charges, which is what usually happens sadly.
@@FrozenDung Airbus has design issues that you don't want to know about. Boeing has tripped themselves, for sure. But their fundamental approach to commercial aerospace design is superior to Airbus.
@@Fpan87 Boeing the corporation is paying for that debt a lot. The max debacle cost them billions of dollars. And their next airplane design the door popping off will cost millions and settlements. And they’re no longer allowed to increase their production of airplanes, which is going to extend their backlog, possibly transferring sales to Airbus.
@@neilkurzman4907they will lose only if there is insider trading investigation. The real crooks have already profited and exited. And someone needs to be held accountable and prosecuted for all the loss of life.
This is factually incorrect. Boeing put up the cash for the so-called merger. Other than some military contracts McDonnel Douglas did not have anything that Boeing needed, especially wide body twin engine aircraft expertise which was clearly where the commercial airline industry was headed. Douglas management and board should not ave been given any senior positions at Boeing and they should never have brought in bean counting General Electric management either. GE's managers are more capable at running a conglomerate than an engineering focused enterprise.
What happened is that in the late '90's the board decided that the company didn't need to be a manufacturing company, it needed to be a profit generation company. It moved HQ away from Seattle, they removed engineers for management positions and replaced them with 'financial' people, they spun off parts of the manufacturing (Spirit is an example), and pushed everyone for profit-driven results as opposed to quality product results. Now we see people pointing these things out, when they were pointed out back when they happened. The financial leadership hollowed out a storied manufacturing company, and have finally found out that there is a limit to how far you can run a company for pure profit. The current CEO was not necessarily the issue, just like the previous one was not the issue. They only do what the board tells them.
You are correct to a certain degree. If you are in the "C suite" and the board tells you to do something that is inherently wrong, you should have the moral courage to say "No" and deal with the consequences. Unfortunately that is not the case. Just like in the Army we had to (have to) obey LAWFUL orders of those appointed over us. You cannot massacre innocent civilians and then claim "I was just following orders." Yes, I know that happens but when it does those who carry out the orders (usually) face the consequences.
That's because around the mid 1990's, business schools began to teach their students that the purpose of a corporation is (direct quote verbatim): "To raise shareholders value." Prior to that, the purpose of a corporation has always been: "To serve the needs of society for a profit." In other words, it's all about GREED since the 1990's. That is why America has been falling apart in every aspect.
Boeing management should have been criminaly prosecuted for the max crashes. Their decisions and short cuts murdred 346 people how they just got away with fines is a great injustice.
Most strange thing is that problems with quality leads to decrease in stock price which directly harms investors and customers. So penny savings are just stupid in such situations
6:09 - Boeing was in denial of MCAS issues since the first two crashes occurred outside the US in developing countries. Their response would have been 180 degrees different otherwise. Many things are wrong within the entire system. The FAA granted Boeing rights to self certify airworthiness of its aircraft since 2009 - what a joke, no doubt things are where they are now.
@@AnotherPointOfView944 yes, he comited suicide, because the found a letter, written of Boeing paper by hand... but not in his hand writing, so its been 100% suicide!
I anticipate the US government will investigate itself and find it did nothing wrong. Boeing is a defense contractor, so a government investigation into this is the case of Fox V Henhouse
@@mikewurlitzer5217 So what you’re trying to say is you don’t even know what DEI means. That’s pretty sad since all of the Boeing executives during this problem are mostly white males. Are they the diversity you’re talking about?
America sure is shaking in their boots now! What will they do when the world stops buying Boeing planes? They certainly aren't the media capital of the world, or the largest army in the world, nor do they have a dominance in electronics technology. Without Boeing, America will soon go out of business for sure!
3 things happened to Boeing: 1)They put profits ahead of Engineering. 2)They joined the wrong company Or allowed the wrong company to joined them. 3)The killed their wistleblower. 4)They dont have a Quality Department. Anything gets build without inspection at all. It will be sacary to fly any Boeing aircraft in the upcoming years...... Hope I did not miss anything.....
Interesting interview with the CEO of Ryan air that they are receiving new Max aircraft with parts missing and tools left in the plane ✈️ that was possibly the final straw for Boeings CEO
I worked for a firm which was actually larger than KODAK in their industry, never had a layoff in over 77 years, but went bankrupt in just 3 years after the 2 owners, 3 son's took over using their newly minted Harvard MBA degrees.. Just one more monumental failure from Harvard.
@@mikewurlitzer5217 When CEOs or the people on top say it is about our people and we need to invest in our people, don't trust them see their actions. Usually what I have noticed is those are the managers/CEOs who will be looking to outsource their own people and not pay their people what they are worth, causing all sorts of issues. Also those are usually the people who will not innovate and are just in it for the ride till their next gig.
@@mikewurlitzer5217 The biggest debacle for American business has been the Harvard Business School. It used to be "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Now it's "Profit over product."
@@mikewurlitzer5217 Failure from Harvard? How? I would say that was a failure on THEIR part, or their employers. It would be like hiring someone with a MBA to manufacture cars, it wouldn't be the person with the MBA's fault, it would be their employer.
They would not have grounded the ENTIRE Airbus fleet, if that's what you're saying. That's not how it works. They would've grounded the type that crashed until it was gotten to the bottom of.
That is forbidden by the DNC's propaganda machine at NBC and MSNBC. Without their lies, spin, BS AND the most dishonest tactic in all of Journalism: "LIES BY OMISSION" they can assure the public will never know what they do not know.
What planet do you live on? NBC loved DJT until the very day he announced he would run against Hillary. Then he became public enemy #1 and it was the non-stop lying about the Hillary campaign created and funded Trump/Russia hoax EVEN AFTER IT WAS PROVEN TO BE A Hillary campaign hoax. @@RealisticTimberwolvesFan
They touched on the recent decline in stock price without mentioning that a Boeing whistleblower was murdered. Seems like they left a pretty important piece of context out.
Right? The whole board is pressuring the management to cut corners in the name of Money. The CEO is just a mouthpeice/scapegoat at this point. The next guy is just going to do the same thing. Stop flying Boeing
Who do you think is going to charge them? And what are they going to charge them with? Business owners have caused accidents killing their workers, or innocent bystanders by their negligence or greed. And none of them have gone to jail. It’s just not something we do in America, it would be nice if we put a few executives in jail. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
6:28 Don’t give Boeing any credit for “owning up” to the problem, they didn’t have a choice! It had continued denying that there was any issues up until it was literally undeniable! Then, after “accidentally” killing the passengers and crew of the Ethiopian flight, they purposefully “sue cided” the whistleblower!
The problem is, when manufacturing quality is good, QC inspections seem useless because they only ever write “no problems found”. So a CEO comes in, cuts inspections, ups profits, and investors love it. You can get away with it because, it takes time for bad QC to take effect and degrade overall quality. Years later, stuff starts breaking but the offending CEO is long gone with his golden parachute.
You can be profitable and deliver save aircrafts. Boeing did it for decades. Airbus still does it. But if you switch safety and long term profitability for short term, this is what happens.
It’s what people have been saying for years about everything: they don’t make ‘em how they used to. Whatever you could possibly think of like, new cars, houses, electronics, appliances, etc, are crap now. Nothing is built to last anymore.
I reject the notion that cars were better years ago. Easier to FIX, absolutely. But living in Western NY I cannot count the number of times a well maintained car failed me in rain, snow, cold weather [give me some of that global warming]. Fuel Injection has been a massive improvement along with various computer controls. They are just impossible for the "Shade Tree" mechanics to fix.
@@mikewurlitzer5217 I totally agree older cars were generally, easier to fix/maintain, and engineers weren’t heartless, because they were thoughtful in their design. Older cars got bad gas mileage because gasoline was bountiful I guess. It wasn’t the priority and everyone loved V8s in everything. The technology always existed to make carbureted cars fuel efficient, but it was never applied. Now some aftermarket carburetors get 40+ MPG. Carburetors also have no problem with ethanol fuel another big plus.
It's a management culture thing. Boeing has a long history of putting engineering and safety first. However, modern American management puts short term profit and stockholder value above all things. With the accountants in control - quality and safety are no longer as important as profit.
@@AnotherPointOfView944 Ironically I seem to recall they had to bring in American Construction Management to help finish the Channel Tunnel after it fell well behind schedule and budget overruns due to the ground conditions encountered during tunneling...
.You maybe right on all of those except unions. Once the socialists/communists gained control of Unions they have been a malignant cancer on industry. Yes they were ONCE needed but now they are killing industry just as fast as the myriad of all the alphabet agencies in government. In my 60 years in corporate American, only ONCE, during a mere 2 days, did I deal with stellar union people on an emergency construction project. Unions protect people who could not get a job pouring a coffee at Starbucks but now are even getting their commie fingers into that company
@@oofballz4328 the US was NEVER a meritocracy. Since the rich kept getting richer by exploiting poor folks labour we've always had handouts (GI bill, social security, welfare, home loans, etc.) So you made a moot point.
Corporate greed, an emphasis on shareholder value is to blame. Boeing is just a symptom of a much larger problem that’s led to concentration of wealth and a shrinking middle class.
Honda has started but so far, it has just been small executive aircraft. Hopefully they’ll take what they’ve learned and branch out to commercial aircraft.
Mitsubishi tried with their MRJ/SpaceJet program, but it eventually failed and the program was shut down. They would have faced incredible competition from Bombardier/Airbus I really don't think there's a single company or country out there that can challenge the Airbus and Boeing duopoly. Bombardier was the one that came closest with the CSeries, but they also ran out of money and were absorbed into Airbus, with that jet now being called the Airbus A220. Embraer isn't in a position to directly challenge Boeing or Airbus as they are struggling in the regional jet market with their E2 jets. I can't see them moving beyond the regional market and trying to challenge the A320/737 directly, let along with a larger widebody jet. COMAC in China hasn't even had their C919 jet certified by Western authorities, and they'll struggle to build out a robust, domestic supply chain with natively designed and built engines. They have they best chance of any nation/company out there, but it won't be easy, and it will take over a decade to become a decent threat. By then, Airbus and Boeing might be launching their next-gen aircraft, thus making the C919 obsolete. Russian industry is doomed as a result of the conflict. Few if any Western nations will want to support their commercial aviation sector, and they will struggle even more than the Chinese at developing a robust and independent domestic supply chain. Their Sukhoi Superjet was a decent attempt, but it ultimately failed due to the poor logistics chain that would have supported the jet outside of Russia and the CIS... and that was before the conflict. Other US and European companies like Lockheed and SAAB have also tried to sustain a commercial division and failed, turning to military applications instead. It's very likely that the likes of Northrop and BAe will avoid entering this market as well. Maybe South Kora through KAI could try to enter the market, but I doubt it. Developing a brand new airliner is INCREDIBLY expensive and resource intensive, and few countries have the resources, industry, labour, capital, and motivation to do so. They would also need to set up a global supply chain to support these aircraft. If Russia, Canada and Japan tried and failed, I don't see how any other country aside from China could succeed.
When Boeing and Southwest were negotiating the 737 MAX order, Boeing stated that they would give Southwest a discount of $1 million per plane if simulator training were required, given the cost of these simulators (a single full motion simulator can cost over $5 million). Given that Southwest has 280 737 MAXs on order, this could get costly. So Boeing treated MCAS as if it was not an important change downplaying any need for training. The plane has critical differences compared to previous versions of the 737s, and pilots should be trained for those scenarios.
The problem is they think they can cut corners and build cheap to make money. But they don't understand if people don't trust your planes they will refuse to go on them.
If you don't know by now what those words mean it is because you DON'T WANT To KNOW, and you will play Wack-0-Mole with anyone who tries to educate you.@@taoriq3632
Because Boeing put money before safety. The Max design is a knee jerk to try and catch up with Airbus and their A320 Neo. The MCAS system (which used a single sensor and had no redundancy) was installed as a fix to a problem Boeing created by fitting much bigger engines onto an old airframe. Worse still, Boeing weren't up front about the system during delivery. Even worse still, Boeing tried to blame the two airlines for 'pilot error'. RIP to all those who DIED because of Boeing greed. Boeing would be in Chapter 11 if either of those crashes had been a US carrier. What a dismal company Boeing has become. We can only hope that there aren't more MAX crashes. Shame on the Board. God bless Boeing victims
Idea: Once a week we need to have *a lottery* for Boeing where one of their employees has to fly on a domestic flight using one of their planes. _All_ employees need to be in the pool, and there's no getting out of it, merely delaying/deferring it for valid reasons. Any quality control issues would disappear _really quick._
The fact there’s so many contractors and sub contractors and contractors for those sub contractors. Hard to see how you keep strict quality control with all that.
I can't remember where I read this, but someone said that Boeing used to be an engineering company that made money, now it's a money making company that does some engineering on the side.
The problem goes deeper awhile back the government gave Boeing its own FAA Regulatory self-approval , in other words they have their own “FAA” people employed by Boeing.
Yes, the building that the FAA is in should be placed in jail. For whatever since that makes. You want to put somebody in jail talk to Congress they’re the ones who were told by law to allow Boeing more latitude. Don’t you remember saying the government is stupid and shouldn’t stand in the way of business innovating. Boeing decided innovating more money at the expensive safety, so maybe you should be in jail
The root of that problem is the elimination of the CAB, the Civil Aeronautics Board. The FAA was supposed to only REGULATE the airlines and aircraft builders. The CAB worried more about promoting air travel, keeping the companies financially healthy, etc.
I flew with 737Max once before the two big accident occurred, after that I avoided any Boeing airplanes. My favorite airplanes to fly now are A320s, A330s, A350s, and A380.
I’m a manufacturing engineer working for one of Boeing’s competitor. I truly believe the root cause of this problem is how the stock gets artificially inflated to give investors confidence. Money that should be invested in development and manufacturing gets invested in their own stock. Also, mangers and executives are incentivised through bonuses to save the company money through “lean activities”. Over and over, managers choose to make the company “leaner” by reducing headcount, retiring senior staff and design engineers, not investing enough in development and new technologies. This problem is not exclusive of Boeing, this is a practice adopted and executed for decades in corporate America.
The coordination between Boeing, the Federal government, national media, and the wider business community, in addressing this problem forcefully, is truly a sight to behold.
Technically if you sit at the back of planes your going to be relatively safe That is if you jump out in time Sure you will never walk again but you lived
I took almost 30+ Boeings since I was small and I have never felt anything wrong?? I'm flying another one next months and uhh what?? Anyways I'm excited because it's the 787 dreamliner I loove the windows :333
How about setting an action for the next CEO? The next CEO they hire they should put in their contract that the CEO cannot get any bonus and can be fired without repercussions right away if there is a Boeing Airplane Crash or an issue, that is determined to come from a safety issue or design from Boeing. Ensure the passengers who are flying your planes that you are taking this seriously and it is written and that you will make this a core part of your business. Don't just say it in words but in action. So not only is this next CEO having to adhere to Wall Street but ultimately to its passengers who are flying their planes and customers. Because if ultimately passengers don't want to fly your planes, then it will mean airlines will not buy your airplane and will sink the company anyhow. So again, don't just give us the talking points but make it so in black and white and in their contract!
I refuse to travel on a Boeing ever again. When I'm booking flights I first find out what plane's they use and if it's Boeing I move on to the next airline. Simple.
One correction: MCAS was not a new system developed for the Max; it was software Boeing already had on the shelf originally developed for a military aerial refueling tanker. They just made some updates to it and implemented that in the Max. And they even cheapened out on that by offering a 1 sensor version.
Correct MCAS was based on something they developed for a Military program however you are incorrect about it being based on one sensor. The problem is that it had a single point of failure problem i,e. if one AoA sensor was malfunctioning the system had no way to tell it was receiving incorrect data and pushed the nose down until the aircraft crashed. They cheapened it by fooling the airlines and the FAA that pilots did not need additional expensive simulator training on the Max and never bothered to let pilots know they had a crazy co-pilot buried in the software.
I recall this plane had a major design flaw that attributed to those two major crashes years ago. Their solution was to program the software to counterbalance the design problem so they didn't dive into the ground. This Boeing model should never have been allowed in the air again, but of course Greed led the way and here we are.
Muilenburg was an engineer, look how that turned out. It's not about bean counting, it's about SMART bean counting that isn't millions wise but billions foolish
@@outermarker5801he had an engineering degree but his positions were largely managerial. It isn’t about being an engineer but it’s about being someone who understands the world of mass manufacturing and specifically a deep knowledge of aerospace engineering, design and manufacturing. Pope is literally the least qualified person in that regard because her history of working at the company has all been on the financial side and that’s ignoring the fact that she literally worked for McDonnell Douglas before Boeing acquired them.
This, "Invasion of the bean counters " happened to GM in the 70's. They lost their superb engineering reputation taking shortcuts. Crappy products. Crappy labor relations. Loss of customer loyalty.
What's scary is that Alaska Airlines knew that particular Max had pressurized issues (3 times) days before and kept flying it. Instead of flying ETOP to Hawaii. Kept it flying over California....
Airlines are mandated to follow manufacturer's manuals/documentation for solving problems... Eventually contacting manufacturer if previous steps didn't solve it. Also they have lists of issues/problems which cause limitations to operations, and which cause grounding of the plane. Just can't see those lists including manufacturer making sloppy work on installing door plug related pressurization issues.
@@tuunaes Yes, I am aware there are lists of minimum equipment that must be in 100% operating condition before an aircraft is allowed to fly. The question I have is what exactly did Alaska Airlines do to troubleshoot the pressurization issues they were having with the aircraft? I'm sure they checked things like the outflow valves and the pressure bulkhead at the rear of the fuselage but did they check all door seals including the plug seal? If so they would probably have noticed the missing retaining bolts. Are you saying their mechanics can't think outside of some troubleshooting checklist Boeing may have published for pressurization issues?
John Oliver covered this story on Max in depth a couple weeks ago. Its a shame. But welcome to America where profits are more important than quality & human life. 🤦🏾♀️ It also is a shame that Boeing employees who BUILD the planes said they wouldn't even fly on them! 😳
Just like when anything that is working and management destroys It. It starts slowly and only inside the company. (1996 - 2005) Then a few months or years later, It starts to hit final consumer a little bit here and there. (2009 - 2017) Then, a few more months or years, failures appear everywhere and almost everytime. That is when we (general public) take notice. (2018 - current days).
I am due to be flying on 3 Max’s next month and I am so worried about it now. Do you think it’s safe to travel on at the moment? I am worried I’ll have to cancel my trip.
If Calhoun is holding on till the end of the year for an extra payday in stock, dump him NOW! The board should exercise a claw back of his past bonuses, leave him with his base pay. Mismanagement should not be rewarded.
Yes but unfortunately that is how their contracts are setup. If they really want to be serious why not put it in their contract that the next CEO should have 0 airplane crash due to an issue that is determined to be a safety issue by Boeing. If so then they cannot be rewarded any bonus and should be terminated without any repercussions. If they really mean business do that and establish that you will put safety first to ensure passengers.
Why do people fly? I don't fly. I haven't been on a commercial airplane since 1976. I was 11, I really didn't have a choice, and it didn't crash, it landed safely. I drive. I've been coast to coast and back, north and south, and all on the great American road.
Boeing's quality decline began when Boeing management became dominated by ex-McDonnell Douglass managers, moved management from Seattle to Chicago, and then Virginia.
@@gabrielquinones3343 I agree that Southwest is relatively cheap with the pricing. My wife and had a very bad flight from Vegas to St Louis on a MAX 8 shortly before they were grounded. One of the issues was turbulence but the main one was the plane kept pitching up then down for what seemed like 2 hours.
We know what happened. Corners were cut to increase profits. As always happens in big corporations of this kind eventually. It's just the nature of the beast.
People working in production probably knew about the problems before, but what happens when you try to tell your manager that something is wrong? No way, you have to follow the delivery schedule. This is what happens when bad news is avoided or even punished.
Resilience and quality focus is MASSIVELY profitable in the long-term, but extremely UNPROFITABLE in the short-term. Now take a random guess at what these MBA executives with zero engineering background prefer... I hope MBAs will be seen as a blight to industry and innovation going into the future. They have poisoned nearly every single company they have touched. It's the companies that value engineering, quality and resilience that have thrived during periods of instability like the pandemic, and are outpacing their profit-hungry competitors like Airbus has with Boeing.
Spinning off Spirit in pursuit of profit is a classic General Electric move. Jack Welch would not have done anything different if he were the CEO of Boeing.
I would guarantee that Boeing knows who worked on that door. My opinion, they are protecting that worker(s) but aren't revealing that information. But, considering the death of a key witness about to add more fuel to the fire for Boeing makes me suspicious of their every move. I don't trust any executive where big money is involved. It's a shame that this company has shifted their primary approach to their engineering and quality success. Their financial bottom line priority concerns of those individuals about "Quality Escapes"and sacrificing thousands of Boeing workers and the public. Never turn your production over to 'Bean Counters'. Cutting costs has it's foibles and problems especially from an engineering short circuits will get you no where. So Boeing, here you are!
See how well you've been re-educated by the MSM and government schools filled with Marxist controlled Teacher's Unions? Government does not, and cannot bail out anyone. Only TAXPAYERS do that, but every lying MSM outlet or public school never tells that 100% verifiable truth.
Yes Boeing made a lot of serious missteps clearly and has been rightly criticized. But a significant factor in how the redesign was handled with the FAA was that airlines absolutely did not want to have to pay for additional pilot training for the 737 MAX. This led to fatal decisions being made about MCAS and downplaying it as a minor feature to correct some handling characteristics so that the MAX behaved the same as the -800. This may have never seen the light of day if the programming was done to safely rely on two sensors and allow MCAS to be easily and fully disabled, instead of relying on one sensor and not providing necessary training for how to disable it in the event of a sensor malfunction. How this passed FAA certification blows my mind
I'm ok flying most certified aircraft. My big worry is the quality of maintenance. Poor maintenance shows up as problems with one particular carrier. I'm thinking of United.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
This is what happens when you value the opinions of MBAs over engineers.
Well put. Years ago a man named Al Neuharth who created USA today newspapers and thus changed the way all newspapers were produced once said you should never put the bean counters in charge because they don't know anything except crunching numbers and they fear risk.
well stated
MBAs are the least useful people on the planet. Even the successful ones are parasites.
what about Engineers with MBAs ... ;-) ?
@@deaffatalbruno I'd say they're definitely engineers first and if they have to save some pennies they know how to do it in a safe professional manner.
Why the ceo still talking about pleasing the board? Try pleasing your engineers and customers. Lmao.
Cuz that's all that matters they worry about the stock price so they can get bigger bonuses
there's such things as business cares about their customers, not even hospitals...
exactly like is anything really going to change here?!
@@CadyCadwellI can confirm this i work in hospitals - theyve all become corporations now
The law demands they worry about the investors
So basically they lost millions trying to save pennies
There’s a term for that. Penny smart, dollar stupid.
Sadly all business leaders are credited with profits one quarter at a time.
Cut corners now, hopefully the problems that will result from cost-cutting will fall on other leaders in the future.
Sadly this is SOP for corporate businesses these days.
They were trying to increase profit for their shareholders, and they did - short-term. I guess the ones who benefitted most pulled out before it crashed - literally.
Spent dollars to save dimes...yes...
Saved pennies to divert $ into their pockets. What makes it worse is our government is being paid off.
@@brian5o That's exactly why you need regulations in free market and not let Boeing certify itself like FAA did in the past. This is what happens if you just let the market do its thing.
Its sickening that nobody at Boeing was held criminally libel for the max deaths
Our system is very intentionally designed from the ground up to protect the rich from the poor. This just makes it obvious
Yeah I don't wanna fly on a 737 anymore now I know how poorly they are made.
A320 is a great and safe plane which I am very happy being on and have been all over the world
Liable you mean? And that makes no sense. Liability is a civil issue, not criminal. They're separate. They can be found liable but not face criminal charges, which is what usually happens sadly.
@@FrozenDung Airbus has design issues that you don't want to know about. Boeing has tripped themselves, for sure. But their fundamental approach to commercial aerospace design is superior to Airbus.
@@jameshisself9324yeah so superior that it kills 300 people and a door blows off lol
There is a great line from the miniseries "Chernobyl" - “Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth, Sooner or later that debt is paid”.
What that great line doesn’t specify is who pays the debt, and it’s never the liar.
Where I once would fear the cost of truth, now I only ask: What is the cost of lies?
@@Fpan87
Boeing the corporation is paying for that debt a lot. The max debacle cost them billions of dollars. And their next airplane design the door popping off will cost millions and settlements. And they’re no longer allowed to increase their production of airplanes, which is going to extend their backlog, possibly transferring sales to Airbus.
@@neilkurzman4907they will lose only if there is insider trading investigation. The real crooks have already profited and exited. And someone needs to be held accountable and prosecuted for all the loss of life.
@@neilkurzman4907 Payback started with the 787. Costed several times over and overshot the deadlines.
Jeopardizing safety because of greed is just evil, especially airplane safety where small mistake can end up with hundreds of people killed
McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money. That's what happened.
Here's a dollar, buy me lunch?
Brought back the flying coffin
Yup
The question is: Why did Boeing let that happen?
This is factually incorrect. Boeing put up the cash for the so-called merger. Other than some military contracts McDonnel Douglas did not have anything that Boeing needed, especially wide body twin engine aircraft expertise which was clearly where the commercial airline industry was headed. Douglas management and board should not ave been given any senior positions at Boeing and they should never have brought in bean counting General Electric management either. GE's managers are more capable at running a conglomerate than an engineering focused enterprise.
What happened is that in the late '90's the board decided that the company didn't need to be a manufacturing company, it needed to be a profit generation company. It moved HQ away from Seattle, they removed engineers for management positions and replaced them with 'financial' people, they spun off parts of the manufacturing (Spirit is an example), and pushed everyone for profit-driven results as opposed to quality product results. Now we see people pointing these things out, when they were pointed out back when they happened.
The financial leadership hollowed out a storied manufacturing company, and have finally found out that there is a limit to how far you can run a company for pure profit. The current CEO was not necessarily the issue, just like the previous one was not the issue. They only do what the board tells them.
You are correct to a certain degree. If you are in the "C suite" and the board tells you to do something that is inherently wrong, you should have the moral courage to say "No" and deal with the consequences. Unfortunately that is not the case. Just like in the Army we had to (have to) obey LAWFUL orders of those appointed over us. You cannot massacre innocent civilians and then claim "I was just following orders." Yes, I know that happens but when it does those who carry out the orders (usually) face the consequences.
That's because around the mid 1990's, business schools began to teach their students that the purpose of a corporation is (direct quote verbatim):
"To raise shareholders value."
Prior to that, the purpose of a corporation has always been:
"To serve the needs of society for a profit."
In other words, it's all about GREED since the 1990's.
That is why America has been falling apart in every aspect.
@@andyhughes1776yeah, Boeing is no false at all. It just send about 300 people to heaven😊
What happened? We all know exactly what happened. GREED.
Promoting Diversity and Equity over Safety... That is what happened.. They lost their focus and went WOKE.
It's so funny to see far right people blame DEI and black pilots for the reason boeing is crap.
Well if you have a heavy engineer company leads by a bunch of economics, marketings and other non engineering guy.
This will happen
but think about how many lives we've saved through capitalism, everybody has housing.
@@LebronCCP Sure but through the exploitation of the poor
Boeing management should have been criminaly prosecuted for the max crashes. Their decisions and short cuts murdred 346 people how they just got away with fines is a great injustice.
Most strange thing is that problems with quality leads to decrease in stock price which directly harms investors and customers. So penny savings are just stupid in such situations
It give bonus to the bean counters... the MBAs.
By reducing cost...
Yes, but the CEO and shareholders have made their money. Now they step down and get another job.
Not to Wall-Street quarterly earnings call. They demand double digit profits every quarter.
It’s short term gains and avoiding costs
Like they can hide the incidents
6:09 - Boeing was in denial of MCAS issues since the first two crashes occurred outside the US in developing countries. Their response would have been 180 degrees different otherwise. Many things are wrong within the entire system. The FAA granted Boeing rights to self certify airworthiness of its aircraft since 2009 - what a joke, no doubt things are where they are now.
They got whistleblower killed!
Technically there is no evidence, but I'd be willing to bet $100 that it 99.99% likely happened for sure.
Neither Epstein nor John Barnett killed themselves.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle I'll take that bet
He got suicided
yeah, Boeing killed him
They also need to open an investigation into that whistle blower's "suicide" when he wasn't done testifying about all of the safety issues.
They have.
@@AnotherPointOfView944 yes, he comited suicide, because the found a letter, written of Boeing paper by hand...
but not in his hand writing,
so its been 100% suicide!
I anticipate the US government will investigate itself and find it did nothing wrong. Boeing is a defense contractor, so a government investigation into this is the case of Fox V Henhouse
OBVIOUSLY..PROFIT OVER SAFETY!!!
The American way!! USA!! USA!! USA!! 🇺🇸
@@geneene8it's the lobbying way. No citizen asked for rampant lobbying like this.
They act as if they won't ever ride an Airplane themself
Executives will be flying private haha
Actually the company prioritized Diversity and Equity over safety. They went woke and lost their way..
Airbus is an ENGINEERING company ran by an ENGINEER.
Boeing is an ENGINEERING company ran by a BEAN COUNTER
And DEI crazies at Blackrock, Vanguard.
the head of Airbus speaks a minimum of 2 languages...
the Boeing boss only money!
The famous slogan ever heard -
Designed by clowns, supervised by monkeys.......😅😂😅
@@mikewurlitzer5217
So what you’re trying to say is you don’t even know what DEI means. That’s pretty sad since all of the Boeing executives during this problem are mostly white males. Are they the diversity you’re talking about?
@@mikewurlitzer5217 Airbus is socialist. Hope your brain doesn't explode upon hearing this.
If America don't hold Boeing accountable then rest if the world will by not buying anymore Boeing planes. It will sink America reputation.
America need not to worry about its reputation when they practice gunboat diplomacy
@@robw6954 We're gonna need a bigger gunboat!
America sure is shaking in their boots now! What will they do when the world stops buying Boeing planes? They certainly aren't the media capital of the world, or the largest army in the world, nor do they have a dominance in electronics technology. Without Boeing, America will soon go out of business for sure!
@@robw6954so true.
"Our planes crashing? Who cares, buy it or we'll demo you."
Trump already ruined it. He’s all about profits over safety
An aircraft engineer needs to be the CEO to bring back the engineering based company aspect of it
In a perfect world.
The love of money is indeed the root of all evil
Or, to be more accurate, the root of all kinds of evil.
@@davidfrischknecht8261yup. Don’t ask God for help.. better repent and confess first
A symptom, not the root. The root is mental illness.
Normal capitalism
@@badbad-cat expect they lost money. This is not capitalism.
3 things happened to Boeing:
1)They put profits ahead of Engineering.
2)They joined the wrong company Or allowed the wrong company to joined them.
3)The killed their wistleblower.
4)They dont have a Quality Department. Anything gets build without inspection at all. It will be sacary to fly any Boeing aircraft in the upcoming years......
Hope I did not miss anything.....
That's 4 things
Missed only felony murder of two plane loads of people.
Interesting interview with the CEO of Ryan air that they are receiving new Max aircraft with parts missing and tools left in the plane ✈️ that was possibly the final straw for Boeings CEO
And the stupid phukn FAA regulators let boring self certify the Max pos
When you hire MBA employees over engineers this is the result
I worked for a firm which was actually larger than KODAK in their industry, never had a layoff in over 77 years, but went bankrupt in just 3 years after the 2 owners, 3 son's took over using their newly minted Harvard MBA degrees.. Just one more monumental failure from Harvard.
@@mikewurlitzer5217 When CEOs or the people on top say it is about our people and we need to invest in our people, don't trust them see their actions. Usually what I have noticed is those are the managers/CEOs who will be looking to outsource their own people and not pay their people what they are worth, causing all sorts of issues. Also those are usually the people who will not innovate and are just in it for the ride till their next gig.
@@mikewurlitzer5217 The biggest debacle for American business has been the Harvard Business School. It used to be "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Now it's "Profit over product."
@@mikewurlitzer5217 Failure from Harvard? How? I would say that was a failure on THEIR part, or their employers. It would be like hiring someone with a MBA to manufacture cars, it wouldn't be the person with the MBA's fault, it would be their employer.
If it was a MBA engineer like in AMD, why not.
If these incidents had happened on Airbus planes then I am sure the FAA would have quickly banned all Airbuses from US airspace.
They would not have grounded the ENTIRE Airbus fleet, if that's what you're saying. That's not how it works. They would've grounded the type that crashed until it was gotten to the bottom of.
It took them so much complaining and coping until the US finally start grounding max. Lol.
If it is Boeing I ain't going.
The older birds are fine. The new ones are crap.
The older birds really aren't fine. Boeing had so many crashes through the 40s-90s@@guill90
Lol you still absolutely will
@@DrewDipsy So were all other plane makers. In fact, 737NG, 767 and 777 have excellent safety record, especially 737NG
@charlesfries flight finders now let you filter by maker. I only flight on airbus nowadays
CNBC, this is an excellent piece of journalism. No bias, no spin, no BS. You should do more of this.
That is forbidden by the DNC's propaganda machine at NBC and MSNBC. Without their lies, spin, BS AND the most dishonest tactic in all of Journalism: "LIES BY OMISSION" they can assure the public will never know what they do not know.
There is a bias they left out whistleblower murder.
CNBC and NBC in general are usually pretty good.
What planet do you live on? NBC loved DJT until the very day he announced he would run against Hillary. Then he became public enemy #1 and it was the non-stop lying about the Hillary campaign created and funded Trump/Russia hoax EVEN AFTER IT WAS PROVEN TO BE A Hillary campaign hoax. @@RealisticTimberwolvesFan
They touched on the recent decline in stock price without mentioning that a Boeing whistleblower was murdered. Seems like they left a pretty important piece of context out.
The executives "stepping down" are just dodging responsibility! It executives are not charged nothing will ever change!!
Right? The whole board is pressuring the management to cut corners in the name of Money. The CEO is just a mouthpeice/scapegoat at this point. The next guy is just going to do the same thing. Stop flying Boeing
I think they’re skydiving enthusiasts because you can guarantee they’re jumping out of Boeing with golden parachutes.
@@brian5othem and their great great grandchildren will get golden parachutes from ill gotten gains.
@@brian5o It's the joke I came here to make, and I'm glad someone did! Unlike their customers boeing execs get a golden parachute to glide down on
Who do you think is going to charge them? And what are they going to charge them with? Business owners have caused accidents killing their workers, or innocent bystanders by their negligence or greed. And none of them have gone to jail. It’s just not something we do in America, it would be nice if we put a few executives in jail. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
6:28 Don’t give Boeing any credit for “owning up” to the problem, they didn’t have a choice! It had continued denying that there was any issues up until it was literally undeniable!
Then, after “accidentally” killing the passengers and crew of the Ethiopian flight, they purposefully “sue cided” the whistleblower!
This.
Exactly it’s their company they must own up to it
If It's Boeing, I'm Not Going.™
@@Plutogalaxy anyway, relevant comment
Yeah this is a DEGENERATE comment now
The problem is, when manufacturing quality is good, QC inspections seem useless because they only ever write “no problems found”. So a CEO comes in, cuts inspections, ups profits, and investors love it. You can get away with it because, it takes time for bad QC to take effect and degrade overall quality.
Years later, stuff starts breaking but the offending CEO is long gone with his golden parachute.
stock bros always mess everything up. when companies primary goal is to please investors this happens.
The ultimate irony is that Boeing only focusing on investors is what hurt Boeing investors.
Careful guys, we all know what happens to people that talk bad about Boeing.
If the employees tell you they won't fly the bird why would you as a customer ?
If it's Boeing, I ain't going.
I'd rather take an Airbus, a train or a boat.
If it's Boeing, heads will be rolling
Even a 757?
@@titan9259 airbus has better safety they rarely had crashes
@@aganbraganca4156 Depends on the model.
@@aganbraganca4156some models have a bad crash history than others
They are on extreme back orders
An airplane manufacturer shouldn't be on the stock market. You shouldn't care about maximizing profits there. It was just pure greed.
Why not? It’s a business afterall
Because airline companies are treated like utilities. If they mess up, the government will save them.
You can be profitable and deliver save aircrafts. Boeing did it for decades. Airbus still does it.
But if you switch safety and long term profitability for short term, this is what happens.
Airbus is a public company. Top 3 shareholders: French government, Germany government, Spanish government
It should be state-owned.
“Boeing needs to become a better company” that’s very strong language coming from Southwest airlines 💀
It’s what people have been saying for years about everything: they don’t make ‘em how they used to. Whatever you could possibly think of like, new cars, houses, electronics, appliances, etc, are crap now. Nothing is built to last anymore.
Facts
@@CarpeDiem13x the key is to not be in an overly developed capitalist society
I reject the notion that cars were better years ago. Easier to FIX, absolutely. But living in Western NY I cannot count the number of times a well maintained car failed me in rain, snow, cold weather [give me some of that global warming]. Fuel Injection has been a massive improvement along with various computer controls. They are just impossible for the "Shade Tree" mechanics to fix.
my Samsung washing machine is 20 years old!
@@mikewurlitzer5217 I totally agree older cars were generally, easier to fix/maintain, and engineers weren’t heartless, because they were thoughtful in their design. Older cars got bad gas mileage because gasoline was bountiful I guess. It wasn’t the priority and everyone loved V8s in everything. The technology always existed to make carbureted cars fuel efficient, but it was never applied. Now some aftermarket carburetors get 40+ MPG. Carburetors also have no problem with ethanol fuel another big plus.
It's a management culture thing. Boeing has a long history of putting engineering and safety first. However, modern American management puts short term profit and stockholder value above all things. With the accountants in control - quality and safety are no longer as important as profit.
It's what they teach at MBA schools.
In the West, investors have a mindset of getting returns on investments relatively quickly (
@@AnotherPointOfView944 Ironically I seem to recall they had to bring in American Construction Management to help finish the Channel Tunnel after it fell well behind schedule and budget overruns due to the ground conditions encountered during tunneling...
I can answer that: Corporate greed, overworked and understaffed employees, finger pointing, and good ole fashioned union busting!
.You maybe right on all of those except unions. Once the socialists/communists gained control of Unions they have been a malignant cancer on industry. Yes they were ONCE needed but now they are killing industry just as fast as the myriad of all the alphabet agencies in government. In my 60 years in corporate American, only ONCE, during a mere 2 days, did I deal with stellar union people on an emergency construction project. Unions protect people who could not get a job pouring a coffee at Starbucks but now are even getting their commie fingers into that company
Unqualified employees is another one
@@oofballz4328 no thank you. The above mentioned is just fine!
@@lauren6509 yeah cuz you have a hard time accepting the fact that we’re no longer a meritocracy, which is what I’m disappointed about as well
@@oofballz4328 the US was NEVER a meritocracy. Since the rich kept getting richer by exploiting poor folks labour we've always had handouts (GI bill, social security, welfare, home loans, etc.) So you made a moot point.
Corporate greed, an emphasis on shareholder value is to blame. Boeing is just a symptom of a much larger problem that’s led to concentration of wealth and a shrinking middle class.
It seems like this may be classic example of how America is fading away like their senses.
Boeing managers officially preferred to fire the messenger. They blackballed and harassed managers who actually reported quality issues.
japan really needed to make airplanes!
Apparently American corporations can’t seem to solve such issues.
Honda has started but so far, it has just been small executive aircraft. Hopefully they’ll take what they’ve learned and branch out to commercial aircraft.
Mitsubishi tried with their MRJ/SpaceJet program, but it eventually failed and the program was shut down. They would have faced incredible competition from Bombardier/Airbus
I really don't think there's a single company or country out there that can challenge the Airbus and Boeing duopoly. Bombardier was the one that came closest with the CSeries, but they also ran out of money and were absorbed into Airbus, with that jet now being called the Airbus A220.
Embraer isn't in a position to directly challenge Boeing or Airbus as they are struggling in the regional jet market with their E2 jets. I can't see them moving beyond the regional market and trying to challenge the A320/737 directly, let along with a larger widebody jet.
COMAC in China hasn't even had their C919 jet certified by Western authorities, and they'll struggle to build out a robust, domestic supply chain with natively designed and built engines. They have they best chance of any nation/company out there, but it won't be easy, and it will take over a decade to become a decent threat. By then, Airbus and Boeing might be launching their next-gen aircraft, thus making the C919 obsolete.
Russian industry is doomed as a result of the conflict. Few if any Western nations will want to support their commercial aviation sector, and they will struggle even more than the Chinese at developing a robust and independent domestic supply chain. Their Sukhoi Superjet was a decent attempt, but it ultimately failed due to the poor logistics chain that would have supported the jet outside of Russia and the CIS... and that was before the conflict.
Other US and European companies like Lockheed and SAAB have also tried to sustain a commercial division and failed, turning to military applications instead. It's very likely that the likes of Northrop and BAe will avoid entering this market as well.
Maybe South Kora through KAI could try to enter the market, but I doubt it. Developing a brand new airliner is INCREDIBLY expensive and resource intensive, and few countries have the resources, industry, labour, capital, and motivation to do so. They would also need to set up a global supply chain to support these aircraft. If Russia, Canada and Japan tried and failed, I don't see how any other country aside from China could succeed.
@@AirShark95 At first you don't succeed, dust yourself off and try again
Toyota Airlines.
When Boeing and Southwest were negotiating the 737 MAX order, Boeing stated that they would give Southwest a discount of $1 million per plane if simulator training were required, given the cost of these simulators (a single full motion simulator can cost over $5 million). Given that Southwest has 280 737 MAXs on order, this could get costly. So Boeing treated MCAS as if it was not an important change downplaying any need for training. The plane has critical differences compared to previous versions of the 737s, and pilots should be trained for those scenarios.
You mean if simulator training were not required?
The problem is they think they can cut corners and build cheap to make money. But they don't understand if people don't trust your planes they will refuse to go on them.
Boeing just needs to stop cutting corners , and do the proper job .
One word. GREED
Diversify and Equity became the major goal of upper management.. When it used to be Safety. Was not greed, it was becoming a WOKE company.
@@northyland1157define those two word you just wrote the DEI and Woke
If you don't know by now what those words mean it is because you DON'T WANT To KNOW, and you will play Wack-0-Mole with anyone who tries to educate you.@@taoriq3632
They started declining before you ever heard of "woke".
This is what happens when you value money over safety
Because Boeing put money before safety. The Max design is a knee jerk to try and catch up with Airbus and their A320 Neo. The MCAS system (which used a single sensor and had no redundancy) was installed as a fix to a problem Boeing created by fitting much bigger engines onto an old airframe. Worse still, Boeing weren't up front about the system during delivery. Even worse still, Boeing tried to blame the two airlines for 'pilot error'. RIP to all those who DIED because of Boeing greed. Boeing would be in Chapter 11 if either of those crashes had been a US carrier. What a dismal company Boeing has become. We can only hope that there aren't more MAX crashes. Shame on the Board. God bless Boeing victims
Idea: Once a week we need to have *a lottery* for Boeing where one of their employees has to fly on a domestic flight using one of their planes. _All_ employees need to be in the pool, and there's no getting out of it, merely delaying/deferring it for valid reasons. Any quality control issues would disappear _really quick._
Boeing's CEO and board should be mandated to be aboard test flights of all planes coming out of factory door... Without parachute.
Incorrect. CEO, upper MGMT and board of directors only fly on the Max
The fact there’s so many contractors and sub contractors and contractors for those sub contractors. Hard to see how you keep strict quality control with all that.
Maybe they should ask Airbus how they do it?
They would refuse to accept what Airbus tells them.
I can't remember where I read this, but someone said that Boeing used to be an engineering company that made money, now it's a money making company that does some engineering on the side.
those in the FAA should also be jailed
Why stop there?
Can you name any government agency that is corrupt to the core?
The problem goes deeper awhile back the government gave Boeing its own FAA Regulatory self-approval , in other words they have their own “FAA” people employed by Boeing.
Yes, the building that the FAA is in should be placed in jail. For whatever since that makes. You want to put somebody in jail talk to Congress they’re the ones who were told by law to allow Boeing more latitude.
Don’t you remember saying the government is stupid and shouldn’t stand in the way of business innovating. Boeing decided innovating more money at the expensive safety, so maybe you should be in jail
The root of that problem is the elimination of the CAB, the Civil Aeronautics Board. The FAA was supposed to only REGULATE the airlines and aircraft builders. The CAB worried more about promoting air travel, keeping the companies financially healthy, etc.
I flew with 737Max once before the two big accident occurred, after that I avoided any Boeing airplanes. My favorite airplanes to fly now are A320s, A330s, A350s, and A380.
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going.
I won't be flying Boeing, I'm rather flying Airbus, Embraer or by train domestically or ship internationally.
Why exactly?
@JayJayAviation maybe because he does not want to die...just saying
@@HellStr82 seems extremely contradictory
@@HellStr82i've flown so many and I'm not really dead ??
In hindsight, Boeing should probably have gone through this kind of assessment when there were issues with the 787 rollout.
I’m a manufacturing engineer working for one of Boeing’s competitor. I truly believe the root cause of this problem is how the stock gets artificially inflated to give investors confidence. Money that should be invested in development and manufacturing gets invested in their own stock. Also, mangers and executives are incentivised through bonuses to save the company money through “lean activities”. Over and over, managers choose to make the company “leaner” by reducing headcount, retiring senior staff and design engineers, not investing enough in development and new technologies. This problem is not exclusive of Boeing, this is a practice adopted and executed for decades in corporate America.
that's crazy that a company doing such a bad job still sells planes like nothing happened still succeeding being a leading seller of planes.
The coordination between Boeing, the Federal government, national media, and the wider business community, in addressing this problem forcefully, is truly a sight to behold.
"I have commited myself to the board" What about the victims or future lives that travel on their death machines? 🤬🤬🤬
Technically if you sit at the back of planes your going to be relatively safe
That is if you jump out in time
Sure you will never walk again but you lived
Just sit in the back your totality fine
Bro where are my texts going
As an European I keep my fingers crossed for both Boeing and Airbus. Hope the issues concerning Boeing’s safety will be overcome soon.
Took a flight on Tuesday morning. Thankfully I made it because it was an Airbus.
I took almost 30+ Boeings since I was small and I have never felt anything wrong?? I'm flying another one next months and uhh what?? Anyways I'm excited because it's the 787 dreamliner I loove the windows :333
How about setting an action for the next CEO? The next CEO they hire they should put in their contract that the CEO cannot get any bonus and can be fired without repercussions right away if there is a Boeing Airplane Crash or an issue, that is determined to come from a safety issue or design from Boeing. Ensure the passengers who are flying your planes that you are taking this seriously and it is written and that you will make this a core part of your business. Don't just say it in words but in action. So not only is this next CEO having to adhere to Wall Street but ultimately to its passengers who are flying their planes and customers.
Because if ultimately passengers don't want to fly your planes, then it will mean airlines will not buy your airplane and will sink the company anyhow. So again, don't just give us the talking points but make it so in black and white and in their contract!
CEOs like Scott Kirby need to be held accountable as well. Why has United been so slack in their maintenance of their aircraft?
What a well-produced feature. Well researched and hits spot-on with the explanation to the current Boeing crises.
I refuse to travel on a Boeing ever again. When I'm booking flights I first find out what plane's they use and if it's Boeing I move on to the next airline. Simple.
One correction: MCAS was not a new system developed for the Max; it was software Boeing already had on the shelf originally developed for a military aerial refueling tanker. They just made some updates to it and implemented that in the Max. And they even cheapened out on that by offering a 1 sensor version.
Correct MCAS was based on something they developed for a Military program however you are incorrect about it being based on one sensor. The problem is that it had a single point of failure problem i,e. if one AoA sensor was malfunctioning the system had no way to tell it was receiving incorrect data and pushed the nose down until the aircraft crashed. They cheapened it by fooling the airlines and the FAA that pilots did not need additional expensive simulator training on the Max and never bothered to let pilots know they had a crazy co-pilot buried in the software.
Because they're ✂️ cutting corners and making Garbage 🗑
Airbus has made mistakes as has every big company over the years. It’s going to be interesting to see how Boeing goes from here
Boeing top management forgetting they’re building plane. When you cut corner to maximize profit people die. Passenger and whistleblower.
The problem is quality. Employees are being rushed and management over looks defects.
I recall this plane had a major design flaw that attributed to those two major crashes years ago. Their solution was to program the software to counterbalance the design problem so they didn't dive into the ground.
This Boeing model should never have been allowed in the air again, but of course Greed led the way and here we are.
Talking about the Max model here.
MCAS was already made for the 767 tanker but boeing chose to modify it and put it in the 737 minus 1 sensor.
Stephanie Pope is another bean-counter, not an engineer. Good choice.
Muilenburg was an engineer, look how that turned out.
It's not about bean counting, it's about SMART bean counting that isn't millions wise but billions foolish
@@outermarker5801 she was handpicked by previous CEO ro maintain status quo? It highly probable.
@@outermarker5801he had an engineering degree but his positions were largely managerial. It isn’t about being an engineer but it’s about being someone who understands the world of mass manufacturing and specifically a deep knowledge of aerospace engineering, design and manufacturing. Pope is literally the least qualified person in that regard because her history of working at the company has all been on the financial side and that’s ignoring the fact that she literally worked for McDonnell Douglas before Boeing acquired them.
Mullenburg likely inherited the drive and focus for profits from McNerney - a General Electric/Jack Welch acolyte.
This, "Invasion of the bean counters " happened to GM in the 70's. They lost their superb engineering reputation taking shortcuts.
Crappy products. Crappy labor relations. Loss of customer loyalty.
What's scary is that Alaska Airlines knew that particular Max had pressurized issues (3 times) days before and kept flying it. Instead of flying ETOP to Hawaii. Kept it flying over California....
Alaska Airlines should be sued for negligence.
Airlines are mandated to follow manufacturer's manuals/documentation for solving problems... Eventually contacting manufacturer if previous steps didn't solve it.
Also they have lists of issues/problems which cause limitations to operations, and which cause grounding of the plane.
Just can't see those lists including manufacturer making sloppy work on installing door plug related pressurization issues.
@@tuunaes Yes, I am aware there are lists of minimum equipment that must be in 100% operating condition before an aircraft is allowed to fly. The question I have is what exactly did Alaska Airlines do to troubleshoot the pressurization issues they were having with the aircraft? I'm sure they checked things like the outflow valves and the pressure bulkhead at the rear of the fuselage but did they check all door seals including the plug seal? If so they would probably have noticed the missing retaining bolts. Are you saying their mechanics can't think outside of some troubleshooting checklist Boeing may have published for pressurization issues?
Somebody tell that CEO to sitdown and shut up
John Oliver covered this story on Max in depth a couple weeks ago. Its a shame. But welcome to America where profits are more important than quality & human life. 🤦🏾♀️ It also is a shame that Boeing employees who BUILD the planes said they wouldn't even fly on them! 😳
Just like when anything that is working and management destroys It. It starts slowly and only inside the company. (1996 - 2005)
Then a few months or years later, It starts to hit final consumer a little bit here and there. (2009 - 2017)
Then, a few more months or years, failures appear everywhere and almost everytime. That is when we (general public) take notice. (2018 - current days).
I am due to be flying on 3 Max’s next month and I am so worried about it now. Do you think it’s safe to travel on at the moment? I am worried I’ll have to cancel my trip.
Just keep your seatbelt on
If Calhoun is holding on till the end of the year for an extra payday in stock, dump him NOW! The board should exercise a claw back of his past bonuses, leave him with his base pay. Mismanagement should not be rewarded.
Yes but unfortunately that is how their contracts are setup. If they really want to be serious why not put it in their contract that the next CEO should have 0 airplane crash due to an issue that is determined to be a safety issue by Boeing. If so then they cannot be rewarded any bonus and should be terminated without any repercussions. If they really mean business do that and establish that you will put safety first to ensure passengers.
Why do people fly? I don't fly. I haven't been on a commercial airplane since 1976. I was 11, I really didn't have a choice, and it didn't crash, it landed safely. I drive. I've been coast to coast and back, north and south, and all on the great American road.
Boeing's quality decline began when Boeing management became dominated by ex-McDonnell Douglass managers, moved management from Seattle to Chicago, and then Virginia.
Yes we watched the video too
@@rzkrdn8650 4Q2
@@rzkrdn8650 You can't punctuate an English sentence.
@@rzkrdn8650
If you don't like reading;
Then don't.
@@rzkrdn8650 Seven years, 5 subscribers: take the hint.
As Gordon Gekko said: Greed is good, greed is right, greed works.
I refuse to fly Southwest bc of the Max 8
I still fly them they are really cheap and despite their max fleet
They usually fly without baby issues
There’s barley a crash from southwest
I still fly southwest no matter thsoe 737s
@@gabrielquinones3343 I agree that Southwest is relatively cheap with the pricing. My wife and had a very bad flight from Vegas to St Louis on a MAX 8 shortly before they were grounded. One of the issues was turbulence but the main one was the plane kept pitching up then down for what seemed like 2 hours.
I have worked many manufacturing jobs. I was always told safety,quality then productivity. Easier said than done obviously.
We know what happened. Corners were cut to increase profits. As always happens in big corporations of this kind eventually. It's just the nature of the beast.
People working in production probably knew about the problems before, but what happens when you try to tell your manager that something is wrong? No way, you have to follow the delivery schedule. This is what happens when bad news is avoided or even punished.
Resilience and quality focus is MASSIVELY profitable in the long-term, but extremely UNPROFITABLE in the short-term. Now take a random guess at what these MBA executives with zero engineering background prefer...
I hope MBAs will be seen as a blight to industry and innovation going into the future. They have poisoned nearly every single company they have touched. It's the companies that value engineering, quality and resilience that have thrived during periods of instability like the pandemic, and are outpacing their profit-hungry competitors like Airbus has with Boeing.
Good news: it's a self limiting trend.
Bad news: probably more people will die before things change.
Question is what happen to FAA?
It's ironic how Spirit Aerosystems was a part of Boeing, spun off, and now 25% of its profit comes from Airbus
Yahh, but not at the former Boeing facilities taken over by Spirit..
Spinning off Spirit in pursuit of profit is a classic General Electric move. Jack Welch would not have done anything different if he were the CEO of Boeing.
@@ACPilot This is such an important point to make. Other Spirit facilities are not as bad as the old boeing one
Just from this incident alone, the company should have been sued and dissolved.
Lockheed should enter the commercial airplane market again lol
min 4 billion dollar for an extra long range widebody
L-1011 tried, but failed
I would guarantee that Boeing knows who worked on that door. My opinion, they are protecting that worker(s) but aren't revealing that information. But, considering the death of a key witness about to add more fuel to the fire for Boeing makes me suspicious of their every move. I don't trust any executive where big money is involved.
It's a shame that this company has shifted their primary approach to their engineering and quality success. Their financial bottom line priority concerns of those individuals about "Quality Escapes"and sacrificing thousands of Boeing workers and the public.
Never turn your production over to 'Bean Counters'. Cutting costs has it's foibles and problems especially from an engineering short circuits will get you no where. So Boeing, here you are!
don’t worry, the government will bail em all out, all of the time.
By government, you mean the American people
See how well you've been re-educated by the MSM and government schools filled with Marxist controlled Teacher's Unions? Government does not, and cannot bail out anyone. Only TAXPAYERS do that, but every lying MSM outlet or public school never tells that 100% verifiable truth.
The why is clear. At Boeing they saw a profit and they cheated the FAA and the users. Put them in jail.
Most of us passengers have a choice not to fly in these dodgy planes but I guess a lot of the aircrew don't have that luxury.
Yes Boeing made a lot of serious missteps clearly and has been rightly criticized. But a significant factor in how the redesign was handled with the FAA was that airlines absolutely did not want to have to pay for additional pilot training for the 737 MAX. This led to fatal decisions being made about MCAS and downplaying it as a minor feature to correct some handling characteristics so that the MAX behaved the same as the -800. This may have never seen the light of day if the programming was done to safely rely on two sensors and allow MCAS to be easily and fully disabled, instead of relying on one sensor and not providing necessary training for how to disable it in the event of a sensor malfunction. How this passed FAA certification blows my mind
McDonnell Douglass, that's what happened
This is not only Boeing but its across of many industries. This toxic wallstreet mindset of short term profit above all even safety is the problem.
Anyone in IT knows what happens when you out source to contractors.
Hire Indians and wait for planes to start falling lol
What
I'm ok flying most certified aircraft. My big worry is the quality of maintenance. Poor maintenance shows up as problems with one particular carrier. I'm thinking of United.
Corporate greed, political bribery “lobbying”, and corruption. That’s what happened
I gotta fly next week. I guess I’ll pay attention to the safety briefing this time and write my will