I suppose no link is necessary: it is in the french press, so it should be easy to find in the US... Just one to proves it: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/23/business/boeing-dennis-muilenburg/index.html Rgds
Top 'o the news alrighty! 67 different versions of the same 30-second talking-head piece As more than one commenter said: "....there! All fixed now!" Ignoring the other 19 layers below the CEO.......
That will never change. Its the new American business model. Probably the new world wide business model. Next quarterly statement is all that matters. Maybe they can find a way to outsource production to China or Mexico. Thats what everyone else does.
and that is before you even get to someone with an engineering job description. The number of VP's at Boeing (Commercial) is mind-boggling.
So the stock surges upon the news of his resignation. The passengers in the two crashes are still dead, Moses Lake, Boeing Field and every other nook and cranny are full of finished 737's, they're FINALLY stopping production of the 737's until the mess is straightened out, the CEO resigns and the stock surges. Am I missing something about stocks? Maybe this is why I'm a simpleton and just have money in real estate.The ripple effects of this disaster are affecting companies far and wide. One would think the FAA getting these planes recertified would be a top priority. Well maybe by summer, How HARD is it to do a little software change, and maybe have more than one sensor that can cause a plane to crash.
I think it's a bit more complex than that.......but still.....times' a wastin' while everyone dithers about whose fault it is/who will pay for it.....I wouldn't be buying more/any stock just yet... (.....is that a bailout I see lurking in the not so distant mist of the future......>)
I read he was fired, not resigned. I also read of the possibility that he is eligible for a $34M 'severance' package/golden parachute.
The recertification is a messy international political situation. The FAA is scared of its own shadow and has to look super diligent to all the other aviation certification authorities (some that may want to see the FAA knocked down a few pegs) as well a bunch of know nothing politicians that want to score posturing points. Have each of these groups set a standard that is beyond any common sense? A real point to be decided is what to do about the pilot training. Some want simulator sessions for all pilots while Boeing wants it as just computer based for the changes. This is complicated that there are few MAX simulators to run all the pilots through. The really big issue that no one wants to address is under trained pilots around the world. What airline, what government, what aviation authority wants to actually admit that they have people in the cockpit that are not sufficiently competent pilots? Beyond all that, when the recertification is achieved and the aircraft start to be delivered, the FAA has rescinded Being's authority to do the acceptance sign offs so they can deliver the aircraft to the airlines. Not sure the FAA has figured out how they, with their internal group of people, are going to work down the 400 aircraft backlog. Especially since the FAA people will be scared of their own shadow even greater than on a normal day.
A. In other words....Situation normal. B. Try as hard as they might Stanley Tools has yet to produce a screwdriver you can't poke yourself in the eye with. Hard to imagine they'll ever really successfully make a human/airliner interface that allows safe operation by your typical moron. They might make it good enough to make most of the public feel warm and fuzzy about.
Actually, what Boeing is scared to death of is if the regulators, particularly the international ones, starting looking closely at the certification of the 737NG. Some of the issues which have been uncovered go way back.
That may be true but I am more afraid that the Public and politicians carry some idea that the FAA is the home of "the best and the brightest". There might be a few of them but the FAA is filled with far more that were not good enough to thrive in the private sector and like the security of a large government organization where performance means little and it is virtually impossible to get thrown out of. As for the international regulations - this may be EASA's chance to compensate for their inferiority complex and for the Chinese to assert themselves.
One sacrificial lamb down. I don't see this as any change at boeing, just playing the same game. Whats needed is significant board changes, engineers nearer the top and some real leadership. 40% of those surveyed by boeing said they wouldn't fly a max. They'll rename it and people will not be wiser. However cobbling together an old plane so you don't have to develop an new one and can then show better stock numbers is where it all comes apart. Beancounters should be support staff not those in the drivers seat. Untill there is significant leadership change at boeing they will continue to decline in fits and starts. Les face it the Ge alum have already destroyed their mother company and others along the way, and they're still running Boeing. Day 1 Constitute new Boeing board, heavily influenced by old guard and engineers. Day 2 would be laying out a definitive plan for max back in the air. Day 3 sorting out other programs. Day 4. studies on best replacement aircraft. day 5 move headquarters back to production base. Etc Etc.
Just what I have been saying. Clean out the board of directors and replace it with people who understand aircraft design (ENGINEERS) and production and get rid of the GE light bulb "experts". Bring the book keeping operation back to the Production Company in Seattle so that it can learn what it takes to build airplanes instead of numbers. Reinstitute the mentality of personal pride and quality in one's job from the very top to the janitors so that this returns the characteristic that once defined the Boeing Company. Tighten up all operations and return all employees to the constant expectation of strict personal accountability. Establish clear and concise objectives that state exactly what you intend to do, how you intend to do it, and how you will demonstrate that your objective has been met. Set up a system of transparent two way communications with your employees and most of all, with the customer. Build a superior product AGAIN that won't need the phony work-arounds and cost cutting moves that cripple all of the above.
An accountant (Muilenburg had bs in Aerospace Engineering and masters in Aeronautics and Astronautics), crucially with better political ties.
The Board did not design the system. The Board did not convince the principal and chief engineer to sign off on the system. The Board did not write the SSA or FMEA. The Board did not make engineers compromise any values to create and implement the system. There is a lot of room to blame the engineers on this one.
True, but who (tacitly at least) left the operating room for those poor decisions? At any rate, a more robust board would send an explicit message to everyone, from *lowly* engineer right up the line to the CEO.....
System Safety Analysis and Failure Modes Effects Analysis for those not familiar. Apparently not quite 10e-6 probability.