
Boeing CEO ousted as 737 Max crisis deepens - pseudolus
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-boeing-737-max-ceo/boeing-ceo-ousted-as-737-max-crisis-deepens-idUKKBN1YR1FP
======
jefe_
Boeing was still promising end of year FAA certification for 737 Max as
recently as early December. Around that time, they had a spokesperson on CNBC
who was asked directly how the outstanding steps (which indicated February at
the earliest) aligned with their end of year statements and the position was
essentially, 'we've been saying end of year and end of year could still
happen.'

When your brand is suffering a crisis of confidence, you don't rebuild it by
missing deadlines and dodging reality. The amount of hubris it takes to be so
flippant in these circumstances is indicative of a deeply flawed corporate
culture, and that falls at the feet of the CEO.

Also, how do you allow Starliner mission to occur without 100% confidence in
ability of mission to be executed flawlessly? There are certainly
complexities, but it almost seems like they passed the point when they could
have quietly bumped the launch, and ended up in a literal PR gamble.

~~~
cattlemansgold
The Starliner mission was a test. You wouldn't have 100% confidence that a
test would be executed flawlessly. The purpose of the test is to find flaws in
the system, and that's exactly what they did.

~~~
jonplackett
Reminds me of the news coverage of SpaceX’s first landing attempts, where they
crashed into the barge and exploded and everyone was like “it’s a failure, it
will never work”. Yeah but so much went right.

I think it’s just the (well deserved) media narrative Boeing is in now. When
you kill hundreds of people and then pretend it wasn’t your fault, you get
what’s coming to you.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
That negative messaging was driven by ULA in a desperate bid to close the door
on their new competitor. If they could kill off enough contracts, SpaceX might
have run out of runway before they established their business model.

~~~
jonplackett
There were lots of scientists and ‘experts’ on our TV in the UK. Do you think
they were part of that? That would be some impressive PRing.

~~~
mlyle
It's easy to be indirectly involved in something like that. Your PR finds
outside experts that agree with your world view, because journalists often ask
you where they can find independent validation of your claims.

Then when something like this happens, you can have your PR call up
journalists they know and suggest a name or two that is likely to say what
you'd hope for.

------
solatic
After both The Economist[1] and The New York Times [2] publicly undermined
faith in Dennis Muilenberg.

No question at this point that he needed to be replaced. The question is - why
didn't the board act sooner?

[1] [https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/boeings-
misplac...](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/boeings-misplaced-
strategy-on-the-737-max)

[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/business/boeing-dennis-
mu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/business/boeing-dennis-
muilenburg-737-max.html)

~~~
panarky
The NYT story in particular was hard-hitting and well sourced. Gotta wonder if
these stories influenced the board to act now.

It's a bad look, because Boeing is consistently way too late to recognize what
is obvious to those of us watching from home.

I continue to be astounded that our most senior leaders will not act in the
long-term best interest of the organizations they lead.

It's been 37 years since the Tylenol crisis, where seven people in Chicago
died after someone tampered with the pain reliever and contaminated it with
potassium cyanide.

Way back then, Johnson & Johnson did far more than they were required to do.
They pulled all Tylenol from all store shelves everywhere, and kept it off the
market until they completely redesigned the packaging. They took complete
responsibility. They over-communicated with regulators and with the public.
Their market share plunged from 35% to 8% and they took a huge financial hit.

But what was bad for J&J in the short term was fantastically positive in the
long term. Their brand recovered, stronger than ever, and they regained their
dominant market share.

But today, leaders across the public and private sectors rarely act with this
kind of understanding and foresight. Muilenburg downplayed the catastrophes,
blamed the pilots, pressured regulators, tried to find cheap shortcuts to fix
the problem, and made promises to suppliers and customers he couldn't keep.

So often what's best in the immediate term is worst for the long term. Why
can't today's leaders think a little bigger, and optimize for the long term
even if that has an immediate cost?

~~~
solatic
The Tylenol crisis is basically _the_ case study for how to handle a corporate
crisis. If you get an MBA without having come across it, you should ask for
your money back.

> Why can't today's leaders think a little bigger, and optimize for the long
> term even if that has an immediate cost?

I'm not sure it's so simple. At the head of the Boeing bureaucracy, Dennis
Muilenberg likely was being fed a diet of wrong and horrible information from
lower executives keen on deflecting blame so that they could keep their jobs.
He was ineffective because he accepted it and pushed it outward - to the board
and the wider public - rather than challenging it and getting to the bottom of
the crisis. Internally challenging the members of your organization during a
crisis is incredibly politically difficult to pull off and has little to do
with short-term vs. long-term perspectives. Of course, someone with his
experience and compensation, working at his level, should be able to pull it
off. He didn't.

~~~
remarkEon
>Dennis Muilenberg likely was being fed a diet of wrong and horrible
information from lower executives keen on deflecting blame so that they could
keep their jobs.

Your _job_ as CEO, or any leader of a large organization civilian or military,
is to ferret out when you're being fed loads of BS. It's frustrating because
Muilenberg was a engineer and started there as an intern in the 80s, so he at
least should have _some_ domain expertise in what the problems were. Perhaps
him being a "company man" in this case was a hindrance, or conflicted with the
new culture at Boeing that is, apparently, run by MBAs concerned with
quarterly profits. In either case, he needed to go as this failure happened on
his watch.

~~~
sgt101
>Your job as CEO, or any leader of a large organization civilian or military,
is to ferret out when you're being fed loads of BS.

I get where you are coming from, but I would reframe it as "Your job as a CEO
is to create a culture with integrity and transparency"

It is also pretty clear that a time of crisis is the time that your true
corporate culture manifests, it seems that the culture at Boeing is not long
on integrity or transparency.

------
rossdavidh
So, realistically, what will happen? Not what _should_ happen, but what will
actually happen? 1) the current board will continue 2) European (and other)
regulators will not be impressed 3) Boeing sales vs. Airbus will not return to
their previous levels for years, if ever; a goodly percentage of international
travel will be locked up for Airbus 4) Boeing will also face more competition
from SpaceX (and perhaps others) in the space industry 5) Boeing will start
the long, slow path that General Motors took from the late 70's to 2008.

It takes a long time for a company as big as Boeing to crater. But I feel like
in the last year, we've seen the start of the process.

~~~
emodendroket
I think they're going to become more dependent on defense business, which is
unlikely to go anywhere.

~~~
lainga
That's even less reassuring to me. I don't want North America's defence to
rest on some American version of the _Reichsfeuerzeug_ [], designed by an
incompetent but politically connected firm.

[]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177)

~~~
emodendroket
Well, too late. That's already the way it works.

------
PaulHoule
The big question for Boeing is how they will transition to a post-737 world.

Until now, Boeing's business plan is that they will be building a starship for
NASA in 2060, but you will still be stuck with a 737 on Southwest Airlines, a
A320 on Jetblue, and never know that aviation could be better.

The 737 throws off a lot of cash, but the single-aisle monoculture makes
flying miserable.

A 737 replacement will be expensive, take time to develop, and involve risk,
but the end product could be the resurrection of the Boeing brand. Since there
are so many 737-class airplanes flying, anyone who wants to see a better
flying experience or is concerned about environmental impacts of aviation such
as airport noise or carbon emissions would realize that a 737 replacement
could have a greater impact than the widebody planes where competitive
developments are happening.

You shouldn't have to fly international to benefit from 50 years of aviation
improvements.

~~~
doublement
> ...single-aisle monoculture makes flying miserable.

What is it that people expect when they say flying is miserable? I expect
safety, which is why I'll never get on a 737 MAX. Other than that, I just put
sandwiches and snacks in my pocket, fill my water bottle, and in X hours I'm
thousands of miles away. Air travel is actually pretty amazing.

~~~
fooster
I expect to be able to sit in my seat without having my knees crushed? How
about that for a start?

~~~
lokedhs
One option is to not fly american airlines (with a lower case a). The highest
rated US airline is 3 out of 5 stars on Skytrax.

As far as I understand, the reason for this is that foreign airlines are not
allowed to fly US domestic routes, and most US people don't fly international
which means they don't know that things could be better.

It also seems like people in the US to a greater extent than other countries
only cares about ticket price, which means that even if an airline wants to
improve their quality they can't use it to compete because customers will
simply not see them, since they sort by price on the travel site and pick the
first one on the list.

~~~
jolmg
> most people in the US only cares about ticket price, which means that even
> if an airline wants to improve their quality they can't use it to compete

With regards to quality, do airlines in other places generally provide more
bang for the buck or are they just generally more expensive than US flights to
provide for the higher quality?

~~~
lokedhs
To be honest, I don't know. It's hard to compare for the US domestic flights,
since you have to decide on comparable routes.

That said, flights throughout Asia at distances similar to US domestic flights
tend to be reasonably cheap.

I decided to make a comparison:

Fly Singapore Airlines from Singapore to Hong Kong. This will cost you 225 USD
in economy.

A domestic US flight of the same distance would be San Francisco to
Albuquerque on United Airlines. This flight will cost you 468 USD.

So it seems to me that Singapore Airlines is able to provide better quality at
much lower cost. Perhaps the US airlines simply don't have to be better
because there is no one that shows it can be done?

~~~
heelix
The routes and dates really matter. I can fly from MSP to TPA (about 2.1k,
about the same) for $28 USD. Now I wont argue Frontier airline is the same
quality as Delta or some of the other majors... but airfare prices are really
fungible.

~~~
ddoolin
I fly Frontier very regularly by quality choice and not by price. The fares
are great, but the only other people flying the routes are United (awful
awful) and Southwest (great but also pricey). More generally, I am not
impressed by any U.S. major, discounting Southwest if they are considered.
United, AA, and Delta (least) are pretty abysmal in their quality.

It's probably important to be specific when I say "quality." By that I'm
referring to ease of purchase, fair baggage prices, web/app UX, on/off-flight
customer service including pilot communication with passengers, and even
landings (as a pilot, I am absolutely judging beyond "did we get to the ground
safely or not"). Price and seating are secondary for me, although I certainly
understand why they are list-toppers for others.

~~~
sokoloff
I fly Delta a fair amount and (with status), Delta seems quite good to me.
With even the lowest level of status, there are no bag fees for anything
approaching typical luggage load. Their app is fine. Web ticketing seems good
to me. Domestically, I can almost always buy an economy ticket and get
upgraded to first. Even where I have to pay for it, the upgrades are
reasonably priced. During irregular ops (weather typically), they’ve always
gotten me there within 18 hours of scheduled. I agree SWA is also good and my
only experience recently on United was also good (but in business class
Mumbai->Newark, so atypical to say the least).

I suspect flying up front on any of the majors is fine. Economy experience is
driven by a race to the bottom price-wise, but if you want cheap travel, it’s
readily available. If you want comfortable travel, that’s also on offer.

~~~
heelix
I was Delta diamond for about a decade, so same deal...domestically, they
really treated you nicely.

I flew Frontier the first time this Spring - was helping ferry an open cockpit
biplane from Colorado to Illinois - and it was a stupid cheap one way fair. I
really can't think of a single perk Frontier did not try and up charge a fee
for. Boarding, luggage, carry on, seat assignment... I'm sure there were
others. Funny enough, the guy I was ferrying with also picked the cheapest
seats in the plane, so we ended up next to each other on the flight out. I was
fully prepared too wear the kevlar helmet on the flight rather than pay the
$60 carry on fee.

~~~
abawany
I like Frontier but I was stunned to learn that even after paying for all of
their upgrades to get seated in the front row, I would still have to pay extra
for water.

------
softwaredoug
Former Boeing employee here[1]: I remember when the company decided to do all
401k matching in Boeing stock in 2009. It seemed like a sketchy, borderline
unethical way to keep the stock price afloat.

All to say I’m happy to have transitioned all my 401k years ago!

[1] I worked in the defense industry. Nothing to do with planes: my company
was acquired by Boeing and operated relatively independently.

~~~
vkou
I love that idea for 401k matching. All the downsides of a pension [1],
combined with all the downsides of a 401k[2], with none of the upsides of
either!

[1] If your employer goes belly up after you retire, you are screwed.

[2] Because it's fixed contribution, as opposed to fixed payout, if you lived
longer than you planned, you are screwed.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
In fairness, issue two is probably better addressed at the national level --
something like what Social Security's original intention seemed to be: a
safety blanket for those who lived much longer than expected.

In 1935 when SS was enacted, life expectancy was 61.7 years. benefits didn't
kick in until the average person was dead by 3.3 years.

If this chart is accurate:
[http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/d3/pyramid/shift.html](http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/d3/pyramid/shift.html)
\-- it looks like in 1930 less than ~5% of the population was older than 65.

If this chart is accurate:
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS?locat...](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS?locations=US)
\-- it looks like ~15% of the population is currently older than 65.

~~~
refurb
life expectancy in 1935 was severely dragged down by infant mortality.

What was the life expectancy at age 18? At retirement age?

If you made it past childhood, you were pretty likely to die far later than 61
years.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
That's why I also looked at the percentage of people that were older than 65.
It's 3x higher now.

------
pizlonator
So I read somewhere than Muilenburg was the only engineer in the Boeing C
suite. There were no pilots in the C suite. And this was part of the problem.

The new CEO has a degree in accounting. I bet he’ll do great.

~~~
munk-a
At some point we (society at large) are going to realize these fluffy c-level
people are toxic and remove value from companies - then, ideally, we'll move
back to a default of promoting internally.

~~~
cowmoo728
Skilled leaders make a big difference in organizations, and they have skills
that engineers don't (always) have. A leader that discounts the advice of his
engineers is doomed to failure, but an engineer promoted to leadership that
doesn't know how to people manage and steer the ship will also fail.

It seems that some of these fluffy C-level people are actually good at their
jobs, but we haven't found how to reliably distinguish them from the fluffy
C-level people that slash and burn everything and juice the stock price with
buybacks and financial engineering, then ride it out until a catastrophe
happens.

~~~
munk-a
There are absolutely some great leaders out there in executive positions, but
there are also a lot of rich kids that step directly into C-level roles and
really have no business being there.

One of my requirements when taking on a job (and I work in smaller companies)
is having a sit down with the executive and making sure they know what they're
doing - after googling them and making sure they aren't just the child of some
famous person. Being in a c-level position and having a famous relative is a
bad sign for the company.

------
cyberferret
I just transited Alice Springs airport on my way to Melbourne yesterday. I
noticed that the new 'boneyard' in the desert next to the airport had a bunch
of brand new Singaporean SilkAir 737-MAX8's parked there in 'mothball'
condition [0].

One of my first thoughts was: "Who is paying for that?" \- the transport cost
and decommissioning of those aircraft, the loss of revenue, the leasing of
alternative aircraft to replace them, etc.? Short answer is that I am pretty
sure SilkAir will be suing Boeing for all costs, as would most other operators
of the 737-MAX. I don't see Boeing's commercial aircraft division surviving
something like this.

[0] -
[https://twitter.com/dsabar/status/1208901556097044480](https://twitter.com/dsabar/status/1208901556097044480)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> Chairman David Calhoun, a former General Electric executive who has been on
> the Boeing board since 2009, will take over as CEO and president, effective
> from Jan. 13, Boeing said.

Given that Jack Welch popularized this cost cutting and financial shenanigans
at the expense of engineering, and they are making a former General Electric
executive the CEO, I do not have high hopes that Boeing has learned its
lesson.

------
yason
The only credible way from here is to:

\- remove the hack that is MCAS for the purpose of being able to piggyback on
the old 737 type certificate;

\- start the process of type-certifying 737-MAX as the individual design that
it is without MCAS instead of trying to make it behave like the old 737 just
to keep things on the cheap side;

\- and offer free type certification for existing 737 pilots to obtain their
certification for the un-augmented 737-MAX.

Even if they fixed MCAS bugs and added a couple of redundant angle of attack
sensors the public won't trust the hack. And even if the public doesn't know
to care, airlines will.

~~~
gomijacogeo
Not quite. I don't think you all realize how stupendously expensive certifying
a new type is. Boeing and the airlines wouldn't be prepared to absorb the
extra costs just to have a slightly more efficient 737 at the other end of it.

\- MCAS needs to die. I doubt I could have written a subsystem that tries
harder to kill you if I tried. Everything about that hack is grossly negligent
and possibly criminal.

\- Both AoA sensors need to go to both computers.

\- All planes get AoA indicators.

\- All planes get pitch trim indicators.

\- Any kind of MCAS2 should just be an alarm rather than moving control
surfaces on its own. If the Max8 diverges too quickly for a human to handle,
then Boeing is (and should be) well and truly fucked.

\- Regulatory agencies need to have a streamlined 'subtype' certification that
recognizes when 99% of the plane is the same and only review the differences.
All this MCAS bullshit was to sneak in under a too-strict type certification
system in the first place.

~~~
CydeWeys
It needs three AoA sensors, like Airbus planes have. Two isn't enough for such
a safety-critical system. When one malfunctions, you still need to know what
the correct value is.

~~~
konspence
Three AoA sensors is still not enough to generate a confident consensus to
allow an autopilot system capable of crashing the plane to function

On Lufthansa 1829, two of the three AOA sensors on an A321 erroneously agreed,
causing a system similar to MCAS to kick in[1]

The sensors can fail due to being frozen, or also be damaged by birds
traveling in flocks

[1] Third bullet point under the A321 heading:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family#A321)

~~~
gomijacogeo
The thing is 1829 didn't crash, the pilots got an alert, figured out the
problem, took manual control, and flew the plane. Defense in layers.

It would be ideal to use different technologies for the AoA sensors to help
minimize common-mode failures. Integration and crosschecking against other
systems (IMU, radar altimiter, DGPS, an open-loop model of the plane based on
engine settings and control surface positions, etc) could give the pilots and
flight envelope protection systems a better understanding of their situation.
Also, the signature of a failed/frozen vane-type AoA sensor is pretty obvious
and I'm surprised the software doesn't take that into account.

Good writeup on LH-1829:
[http://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074](http://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074)

------
Rafuino
If/when the 737 MAX comes back into service, I'm honestly going to actively
avoid flying on it if at all possible. I doubt I'm alone in this.

~~~
Tepix
I will fly on it. It will have gotten more scrutiny than other planes.

~~~
Jamwinner
Yup, every pilot I know, even if they will never fly one, now knows what to
do. None of them express any reservation other than the way flight control
software is headed.

~~~
Androider
The FAA just did a simulator test and more than half of the pilots failed to
follow the intended procedures in case of failure. These pilots were
specifically trained on the 737, and know they're participating in a trial. I
think I'll stay clear!

[https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/pilot-procedure-
co...](https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/pilot-procedure-confusion-
adds-new-complication-to-737-max-return/)

------
geddy
Wonder how many hundreds of millions he'll get as a "safety parachute". Lord
only knows he was probably barely making ends meet and his kids wouldn't have
Christmas without it!

~~~
zvphy
From this comment on Reddit [1]:

> He opted out of his bonuses for 2019 and 2020 a few months ago. Looking at
> the Boeing 2019 shareholder voting information [2], he had a base pay of
> $1.7 million in 2018, and his retirement package seems to have totaled about
> $32.4 million. Tack another $6.6 million on if the board treats this as a
> layoff instead of a retirement. He may also be eligible for another $807,018
> per year in retirement pay. See pp. 46-48 for details.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/eelg8h/breaking_boei...](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/eelg8h/breaking_boeing_ceo_fired/fbujw21/)
[2]
[https://s2.q4cdn.com/661678649/files/doc_financials/annual/2...](https://s2.q4cdn.com/661678649/files/doc_financials/annual/2019/Boeing-2019-Notice-
of-Annual-Meeting-and-Proxy_Statement.pdf)

------
IMTDb
So in order to "restore confidence in the company" they put the finance guy in
charge. I feel safer already.

~~~
vntx
So they put the type of guys who like to cut costs at the expense of
everything else, including safety measures in charge? I feel safer too!

~~~
spease
Is it reasonable to think they may have done this because they expect to
declare bankruptcy and go through restructuring?

~~~
DreamScatter
Boeing 737 is only a small portion of their total business, don't think they
bankrupt.

------
acomjean
I doesn't matter. Aircraft is a dualopily right now, and I don't see anything
changing that (Airbus/Boeing).

If I recall Boeing asks the US to tariff Bombardiers aircraft (300%?)[1] that
pushed a potential competitor (Bombardier) to work with Airbus (The Airbus 220
is a Bombardier design).

edit: Added: [1] [https://www.businessinsider.com/boeings-trade-dispute-
canada...](https://www.businessinsider.com/boeings-trade-dispute-canada-
bombardier-airbus-alabama-winner-2019-1)

[1][https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/analy...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/analysts-pan-boeing-strategy-in-pushing-for-tariffs-on-canadas-
smaller-jet/)

I worked in defense as a boeing sub. Boeing was the prime on radars and all
manner of defense contracts that will keep them afloat (defense industry is
another not very competetive one..).

~~~
rossdavidh
Afloat, yes. But I don't think Boeing is at all guaranteed at getting
international business, at least not on the scale they did before, if they
don't do some brutal but effective restructuring of their corporate culture.
They could easily end up shut out of international airliner business
indefinitely, if they keep screwing up in the way they have been so far.

------
bingtop
Somehow the investor class has managed to convince the rest of the world that
losing a CEO job is a “punishment” and that the public should be satisfied
with this sacrifice. It’s like the ancient kings murdering a slave child in a
ceremony to appease the “gods” for the outcomes of bad leadership or bad
weather.

~~~
hodgesrm
Muilenberg was raked over the coals in the media--and rightly so--before being
publicly fired. His name is pretty much mud at this point. So yes, I think he
was punished amply.

~~~
ferzul
Will he need to work another day in his life?

------
Waterluvian
> Senior industry source called the wording of Boeing’s statement “brutal”.

Anyone have a link to this statement?

~~~
brohee
I would guess it's the following:
[https://investors.boeing.com/investors/investor-
news/press-r...](https://investors.boeing.com/investors/investor-news/press-
release-details/2019/Boeing-Announces-Leadership-Changes/default.aspx)

"The Board of Directors decided that a change in leadership was necessary to
restore confidence in the Company moving forward as it works to repair
relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders. " is
quite brutal indeed, more something I'd expect from commentary.

~~~
happytoexplain
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or if this is actually "brutal" in
this context (a context I have no experience with)?

~~~
jacquesm
Given that the normal standard is that 'x' has decided to spend more time with
his family and is given a very nice golden parachute (pun definitely not
intended nor applicable) this is indeed quite brutal. That doesn't rule out he
will get lots of money for severance but it isn't going to come with a smile
and a handshake.

~~~
sokoloff
If you pay me tens of millions of dollars to leave, you’re welcome to frown
and talk crap about me all you like as you do it.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Are you an IC? It’s different for us... we are measured by our ability to get
a job done.

Management doesn’t get anything “done”. Their job is to faithfully represent
the interests of the managers above them. Maintaining good terms with their
superiors is their only actual job. Everything else can be going to shit and
as long as their superior feels they are faithfully representing their will,
then that lower level manager is in good standing. In fact being in an inferno
of chaos and still continuing to represent the interests of your superior,
over the cries of the ICs, that is truly star-level manager performance.

As a side note, this is why managers don’t have employment protections (right
to organize, etc). Their job is not to work, but to represent the company. In
an important way they are not producing labor.

For someone like that, it’s actually crucial to leave on good terms.
Especially the closer you get to the billionaire class, the circles get
smaller and smaller, and it’s your ability to maintain good feelings with
other people in that class that determines your ability to get future work.

So, the company can be failing... that’s fine. It’s important to management
personnel that they leave with a kind word, because otherwise it meant they
stopped doing their one job.

~~~
sokoloff
I’m in management (ex-IC, though).

Prior Boeing CEO’s severance package seemed like ~$12M plus over $3M/yr for
life. With that level of severance, I don’t need a good recommendation for my
next job as there won’t be one...

------
FabHK
Wow:

> Over the past decade Boeing has skimped on research, development and capital
> spending, investing only 7% of its sales on average, compared with around
> 10% at Airbus.

(From the article in The Economist:
[https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/boeings-
misplac...](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/boeings-misplaced-
strategy-on-the-737-max) )

~~~
dis-sys
this is what you do when you have to deliver short term results to please your
share holders every quarter.

------
devit
Why isn't it enough to retrofit all past and future models with enough
hardware redundancy and create a properly written MCAS software?

Wasn't the design sound, except for the lack of hardware sensor redundancy and
naively written software?

Why do they need to stop production and so on?

~~~
CydeWeys
Because these changes are going to require a new type certification, which
defeats the entire point of just making a better 737 in the first place. It
will no longer be nearly as appealing to airlines. They might actually be
better off just axing the MAX entirely and continuing to produce the 737 NG,
and then work on a clean sheet 737 replacement that doesn't suffer from all
the compromises inherent in the MAX.

~~~
mikepurvis
What does that mean for all the Max units currently out there and grounded,
though? Obviously there's going to be a huge and drawn-out lawsuit over this,
but it seems like at the end of the day, the airlines involved will still end
up having to train their pilots on those planes in order to get them back in
the air, and at that point, they might as well have a bunch more of them
anyway.

And if they're doing the new-plane certification and training anyway, the MCAS
no longer has any point and could perhaps just be turned off?

Edit: Perhaps not— this comment asserts that the handling of the airframe sans
MCAS is non-compliant with FAA requirements:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21864584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21864584)

~~~
tw04
I would assume a buyback as part of the write-down. I'm not sure any airline
wants to be one of the handful of "lucky" ones that have the only MAX's in the
air. Sounds like a great way to lose customers.

~~~
mikepurvis
What a nightmare. Will the 387 delivered planes* be retrofitted somehow, or
are they really just scrap at this point? Is there precedent for a recall of
this magnitude in commercial aerospace?

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries)

~~~
CydeWeys
I wonder if they can put the NG engines on them and use them that way, or is
the airframe itself different enough to not make that possible.

------
ilamont
_It was typical behavior for Mr. Muilenburg, an introverted engineer who
prefers Diet Mountain Dew to alcohol, but it left other executives baffled._

Wasn't it Boeing's supposed MBA-led culture that got it into this mess?

------
CydeWeys
Maybe the next CEO will actually try to fix things, seeing as how his job will
likely depend on it. Fuck up like Muilenburg did and you're out too. It seems
like the incentives may be correct now to focus on the right things rather
than just cut costs as much as possible. Hopefully!

~~~
rectang
Why on earth would the next CEO be incentivized to do anything other than
wring all the money out of the company that they can? The punishments for
failure are insignificant. They get to keep millions and millions of dollars
even if they wreck the company.

~~~
brink
Some people do get a sense of pride and fulfillment out of doing a good job
that money can't provide.

~~~
rectang
We're talking about _incentives_. Sky-high executive compensation packages
don't encourage people to do a better job — they insulate them from failure,
thereby _disincentivizing_ them and encouraging them to go down the path of
short-termism.

~~~
Xixi
Insulating CEOs and executive from failure is a good way to push them to take
more risks, if that's what the board/shareholders want.

The issue with the 737MAX is that Boeing was too risk-averse: they should have
made a brand new plane, but went with what they thought was the low-risk route
with the 737 re-engine. The 787 disastrous development ($36B of deferred
production costs I think) was certainly a huge cause of this.

~~~
somurzakov
it is unbelievable that the was MAX considered a low-risk in terms of selling
planes, but ended up huge risk in technical perspective.

if they just stuck to evaluating technical risk first, and only then the risk
of selling the plane - perhaps that route would have led them to developing a
new completely plane.

------
droithomme
Is the CEO being replaced with a competent aerospace engineer who has spent a
career focused on safety and excellent design and testing?

 _> David Calhoun will take over as CEO and president_

Ah this is the penny pinching accountant who was involved in the decision to
try to avoid recertification to avoid training costs, and with a history of
pulling similar stunts at GE which also lead to _their_ troubles.

So, the worst possible man for the job was selected.

------
ceejayoz
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-
dreamline...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-
production-problems.html)

> Safety lapses at the North Charleston plant have drawn the scrutiny of
> airlines and regulators. Qatar Airways stopped accepting planes from the
> factory after manufacturing mishaps damaged jets and delayed deliveries.

> Less than a month after the crash of the second 737 Max jet, Boeing called
> North Charleston employees to an urgent meeting. The company had a problem:
> Customers were finding random objects in new planes.

Turns out trying to squash the unions by moving to a different state helps
show why the unions existed...

> Managers were also urged to not hire unionized employees from the Boeing
> factory in Everett, where the Dreamliner is also made, according to two
> former employees.

~~~
dmix
It’s funny how people treats unions as panaceas to all problems.

It’s strange to present them as some sort of solution in this case, where
there was widespread engineering and management cultural issues, and would
therefore somehow have prevented major air disasters.

Workers rights and forcing higher wages might be great for the working poor
and it might actually make economic sense in certain niche industries where
protectionism can prevent the companies entire business being eaten by
Chinese/global ones without the myriad of rules and restrictions that unions
being - rules that go well, well beyond wages. But it is not some grand
solution to high level engineering problems caused by stupid cost saving
priorities made by C-class executives and other weakness in quality down the
line.

Further, non-union companies are more often the default these days, and tons
of these companies are producing high quality American engineering and
manufacturing products.

Even in the romanticized history of US labor only a minority of working
Americans were ever in unions even during the hayday when it actually made
sense to have unions (when America had tons of factories and manufacturing but
little global competition and plenty of protectionism to artificially keep
them alive).

~~~
jacquesm
Unions still make sense today. Without them labor conditions would likely go
down quickly. There is plenty wrong with unions but to dispel the need for
them without giving careful thought to their good sides is throwing out the
baby with the bathwater.

~~~
dmix
There are a lot of good unions can do but I think they went way too far in
their demands over the decades of their existence (like making it super hard
to fire delinquent workers and hyper specialization where one guy does one
job, and refuses to wear multiple hats like any modern business requires,
because his union requires him only to do that one job).

It’s not like unions are bad or evil, this sort of scope creep and
beaurucratic self destruction is common in countless organizations.

If unions were reformed, or we could get some form of union-lite where it
really was just about wages and sane working hours/conditions then I’d be much
more in support of them.

It’s just the disconnect between what it sounds like on paper (great for the
working poor!) and what they actually do in practice with the myriad of
negative side effects which heavily contributed to massive inefficiencies and
making America (and other countries) less competitive... it’s just difficult
to square the two.

~~~
jacquesm
That's not the reason why they continue to exist. They continue to exist
because if they didn't the whole thing would slide backwards in a hurry and
then we'd have to start all over again. I've seen a lot of union based
excesses and there are tons of horror stories. With all those taken into
account the situation is still far to be preferred over what you'd get without
unions. Witness the kind of pushback IT companies give against unionization
and you have to wonder what they're so afraid of, a level playing field
definitely benefits the employees and collective bargaining rights is one of
the greater goods to come out of the 20th century.

You will lose that at your peril. In a way the whole gig-economy is trying to
do an end-run around any kind of social safety net, and looked at from that
angle it will likely end bad to very bad for the participants, even if from
their present day perspective it looks like a great deal.

------
jacquesm
I'm surprised he held on this long. The showdown with the FAA was not the
smartest tactical move.

------
salawat
This really doesn't "fix" anything.

Mullenberg has been strongly criticized in part because he never accepted the
buck stopping with him, didn't clean house, and acted as a mouthpiece, while
saying nothing.

What people expect from Boeing is a gesture of humanity; an acceptance of
culpability. An admission that something went wrong, and a genuine gesture of
contrition and change.

The company culture needs a wholesale change, which means a hell of a lot more
than the CEO need to be on their way out. Until you can rid Boeing of the
taint of financial commoditization as a first order objective, Boeing is still
going to suffer from a crisis of faith.

No one , or at least I don't, want to fly on a product of the "Boeing
Corporation, stock ticker whatever". I want to fly on an aircraft made by the
most committed people in the world to the challenge of designing and
manufacturing the absolute best, most pilotable, most safe to be on, and most
efficient/performant aerospace hardware in the world, all working under one
group (if we take the over consolidation as a necessity in this day and age;
I'm not personally sold on it). An engineering marvel built on human
aspiration, commitment to good and safe work, and with profitability as an
objective, but not an overriding principle. There needs to be a commitment to
the nature of the endeavor as a physical struggle against the forces of Nature
first and foremost, and an implicit understanding that the economic affairs of
men must come secondary to the fulfillment of the requisite solution to the
physical problems of aircraft making.

I know it's probably just a fiction in all likelyhood to expect all that. Some
naive fantasy that I'm sure anyone whose run a business is shaking their head
at. I'm not even sure I can wholeheartedly accept my own prioritization given
the endless nature of the daily struggle with the balance sheet that is life,
and the expectations placed on a publically traded company.

Alas, we have to accept that Boeing, and I think to a greater extent, any
corporation should not be treated as primarily financial abstractions. We
don't (or shouldn't be) running businesses just to make money. We should be
out to solve physical problems first, with profitability keeping us from going
overboard on the expenditure.

Sorry if this seems ranty. I always thought these ideas were a given; but the
last few years have been real eye openers in terms of making clear that they
are by no means universal, or at least universally applied.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The first step of what you're asking for is replacing the CEO, which they just
did. Hopefully the rest will follow.

------
allen3
This seemed like a likely outcome when he was stripped of his chairman role,
the board needed a sacrificial lamb and he was it. Given the nytimes article
yesterday the board deciding to cut ties during the week of Christmas is very
telling. Muilenburg was not the CEO during the 737 MAX initial approval and
served as the president for the defense side of Boeing, he was dealt a bad
hand. However, the ensuring crisis showed he was not a crisis manager and had
difficulties navigating the PR crisis that followed. But, the take home from
all of this is that the brand took a big hit to its reputation.

------
enraged_camel
Well, someone had to be thrown to the wolves, although by all accounts the
current CEO did not have the skills to deal with a crisis of this magnitude,
and even made things worse.

------
richardzyx
This outcome reminds me of an internal memo from my current company, written
after a visit to Boeing and Amazon for lessons on digital transformation. An
interesting insight was drawn stating that a sharp contract between the two
companies was everyone at Boeing loved their CEO and talked about how great he
was, while most at Amazon showed various degrees of fear and/or dissent
towards Bezos.

------
philshem
November 2019 New Yorker piece about what went wrong at Boeing

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-case-
again...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-case-against-
boeing)

tl;dr engineers vs. accountants

~~~
MaupitiBlue
BS! Which of these was done by the accountants?

1\. Drive MCAS with only one AOA sensor.

2\. Don't tell MCAS to look for (or even think about) bad AOA data or AOA
disagreements.

3\. Don't actually bother to tell pilots that they don't have AOA disagree
warning lights.

4\. Don't bother to tell pilots that MCAS exists at all.

5\. Don't test MCAS subsystem to see what it actually does with bad AOA data.

6\. Give MCAS a ridiculous amount of control authority, operating cumulatively
over repeated applications to exceed what the pilot can manually override.

7\. Change how the trim stab switch has been wired since 1966 and not tell
pilots.

It’s not the accounts or union stewards that should be facing criminal
charges, it’s the engineers. At a minimum, any PEs should be yanked.

~~~
codehalo
Your #2 implies multiple sensors (see #1). My understanding is that one AOA is
default, and you could purchase additional sensors (I read somewhere that
Southwest did).

Sounds like the typical stupid idea suggested by a marketer or accountant that
engineers beg and plead not to do.

Frankly, the whole thing reeks of profit at the expense of engineering,
safety, and security.

~~~
MaupitiBlue
So a Professional Engineer, who would understand the implications of a single
AOA sensor much better than an accountant, signed off on the design anyway?

It sounds like we need to find out who that person was and arrest them.

~~~
codehalo
Well, engineers and scientists are known for bowing to the wills and whims of
management. They build the devices, and let the salespeople and management
peddle the product as they see fit. Car manufacturers would make wheels
optional if the could get away with it.

------
ThinkBeat
Something I have been wondering about since this all started.

Where did all the airplanes now being leased to fill the holes left by taking
the 738Max8 out of the shedules come from?

It is amazing to me that there was that much available capacity?

Are those airplanes in general older and possibly less safe?

~~~
gomijacogeo
Older, yes. Generally not less safe (and certainly safer than the Max8 right
now). Usually more expensive - less fuel-efficient engines, maybe up against
C/D maintenance checks, maybe less efficient cabin layout, etc.

~~~
ThinkBeat
but what do all these airplanes do most of the time?

I would think right now a lot more airlines and leasing than usual. (I could
be wrong).

that would mean that a lot of the airplanes are standing still most of the
time. (I realize they would rotate, so a single plane was not being unsued for
very long)

Whoever usually leases them are they out of luck now?

~~~
gomijacogeo
As I understand it, a little bit of everything was done to make up for the
shortfall:

1\. Spare capacity was used. This makes scheduling tighter and maintenance
costs go up.

2\. New routes and extra flights that were going to be added to the schedule,
weren't.

3\. Planes that likely would have gotten parked rather than go through another
C/D check instead got the overhaul and are still flying.

4\. Carriers that were trying to consolidate types, still fly whatever they
were trying to get rid of (or have brought them back into service).

5\. Carriers leased planes and probably brought some parked planes back
online.

Airlines were lucky in that there weren't that many Max8's in service yet
(which also speaks to how unsafe they were to rack up 2 crashes so early), so
the grounding didn't eliminate that much capacity as delay planned growth and
retirement of airframes.

There is also more spare capacity than you might expect because the fleets are
sized for peak operations - thanksgiving, christmas, etc. The rest of the
year, the extra capacity allows them to get by with fewer active maintenance
people (peak demand vs average demand).

Similarly, there are probably more parked planes than you expect. Again, they
are usually up against a C/D check and that check will only get done if it
looks like that airframe can earn back the couple $million that the overhaul
would cost. The engines usually stay in general circulation and again, smooth
out the peak/average maintenance demand.

------
bitxbit
I understand why Muilenburg is getting criticized here but this move should
have happened a year ago. This is the Board’s failing to understand the dire
nature of the situation. They got blinded by BA’s unbelievable rise with the
investment community since 2016.

------
petilon
How did Airbus avoid the problem Boeing ran into?

As I understand, Boeing wanted to use larger engines because larger, hotter
engines burn less fuel. But increasing the diameter of the engine ordinarily
means raising the wing in order to accommodate it but that would make the
plane incompatible with existing infrastructure (such as jet bridges) at
airports. For that reason Boeing positioned the engine forward on the wing
instead of raising the wing.

Don't newer Airbus planes also have larger engines? How did they maintain
compatibility with existing airport infrastructure while accommodating a
larger engine?

~~~
AnssiH
Boeing 737 was designed to operate with minimal ground facilities and
therefore it has low ground clearance for easier access.

Airbus A320 has a much higher ground clearance.

~~~
petilon
In hindsight, should Boeing have increased the Max's ground clearance before
fitting it with a large engine? I read that Boeing did not want to do this
because that would have meant that the Max would not be compatible with
existing airport infra. But if competitor Airbus already has a larger ground
clearance then surely Boeing would be no worse off?

~~~
AnssiH
I don't think airport infra was the reason, unless maybe they wanted to
preserve the low clearance for operating to airports without proper
facilities?

One reason was probably that it is technically difficult to fit larger gear as
they would not fit in the 737 wheel wells. Or something related to increased
height...

But in fact it seems the nose gear was actually lengthened somewhat for MAX,
but I guess that was not enough. The MAX 10 will also have longer main gear -
it will be telescoping so it fits into existing wheel wells. (per
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX))

------
vermontdevil
The replacement is no better. A GE stooge. Boeing has become GE part deux.

------
cable2600
Mike Crawford warned about software engineering to the Boeing CEO and everyone
else they just ignored Mike. Mike Crawford was a software engineer and
software contractor who wrote an essay on airline software engineering and
safety checks as part of quality control. Mike is now dead, by his own hand,
got a critical illness that could not be treated or afford to be treated.

------
cmurf
The reasons in the article for the firing, aren't persuasive. The regulatory
capture problems predate Muilenburg, and are systemic in the board of
directors who like that capture, and so do its shareholders. They don't
actually care about trust, if anything they're frustrated by the regulatory
capture not working as expeditiously as it once was.

------
InTheArena
This writing has been on the wall since Alan Mulally was skipped over after
Stonecipher was forced out. He went and rescued Ford, and he's 74, but a fast
move to start shoring up things would be to name him chairman of Boeing, and
start the process of a real leadership change.

------
Ill_ban_myself
Started as an intern at Boeing in 1985. 34 year career down in flames. Ouch.

~~~
dylan604
Going down in flames is a lot less dramatic when you have a nice golden
parachute to ease the crash.

~~~
huy-nguyen
Plot twist: the parachute runs MCAS.

------
JetBen
I'm really glad to see that there is at least some type of corporate
accountability going on for so many people dying. This probably should have
happened sooner.

~~~
oska
Quoting from the Code of Hammurabi (Ancient Babylon):

> If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly,
> and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder
> shall be put to death.

There's real accountability for you. Corporate accountability these days is a
sick joke.

~~~
Rebelgecko
The Code of Hammurabi also had different punishments for the same crime
depending on the wealth/social status of the victim. Some things don't really
change.

------
StreamBright
What a harsh action. What is next? Decrease his bonus for the year when
several hundred people died because of the actions of the company he is
leading?

------
kundiis
Its interesting how this works! After all the damage, all Boeing can do is
fire a few people. This time it is CEO! Who is accountable going forward?

------
ReptileMan
To understand how pissed off and desperate boeing are - he didn't take time
off to spend more time with his family. No face saving for him.

------
CodeSheikh
Why don't they just kill the 737 MAX program and start on another aircraft? As
a consumer it will build confidence and trust in me.

~~~
_ph_
Because it will take on the order of 10 years. What are the 737 customers
going to fly in the mean time? Keeping old airplanes flying longer isn't
exactly increasing security either. And there is no indication so far, that a
737 MAX with a fixed MCAS isn't safe.

Don't get me wrong: I think Boeing should have created a true 737 successor
long ago and should do ASAP. But until it is done, there is a need for a
current 737. And certainly, you don't want them to cut corners when developing
the 737 successor...

~~~
masklinn
> And there is no indication so far, that a 737 MAX with a fixed MCAS isn't
> safe.

At this point, that plane has no goodwill whatsoever left to it. The onus is
on it proving that it's safe, not on its critics proving it's unsafe, because
the only sensible assumption is that it's not safe and that Boeing does not
and ill not self-regulate (big duh).

> I think Boeing should have created a true 737 successor long ago and should
> do ASAP

They announced that back in 2014, and probably several times beforehand.

Issue is demand has seen Boeing push the 737 into 757 territory (years after
the 757 got cancelled), it's not that they haven't created a 737 successor
it's that their customers don't _want_ a 737 successor, they want 737s so they
can just buy the frames and put existing crew on the new plane without
retraining.

That's what the 737 MAX is about, and why it's broken. It's the 4th generation
of 737 (original, Classic, Next Generation) and the frame can't take it
anymore, but 737s is what e.g. Southwest want, because that's literally the
only thing they fly.

~~~
growlist
It's more about terror of the A320 isn't it?

------
annoyingnoob
I have sense that government contracts are going to get more expensive for the
government. A slow bleed bailout.

------
mensetmanusman
Instead of punishing the current CEO, they should slash previous leadership’s
ownership by 30%

------
jonnypotty
Watched an aljazira documentary about falling standards at a Boeing factory a
couple of years ago and been waiting to see if something like this would
happen. Now they're gonna sacrifice a lamb, keep same corporate struture and
philosophy, keep on making billions, remember to appologise even more next
time.

~~~
ogre_codes
I'm not so sure about the "Making Billions" bit. They are going to have to
either do a massive 11 figure write down or spread out their losses on the Max
over the next 10+ years. Either one is a pretty bitter pill to swallow.

I'm betting we'll see a huge write down when the new CEO takes over, that way
they can push as much blame as possible on the old regime and move forward
with a clean-ish slate.

~~~
formercoder
This is a pretty standard new CEO move. Big impairment, net income goes way
down, next few years look a lot better. Meanwhile cash flow doesn’t change.

~~~
jimclegg
How does cash flow not change when you have to scrap the whole lot of 737Max
orders?

~~~
formercoder
I meant the impairment itself does not impact cash flow (setting aside taxes,
can’t comment there). See Verizon Oath write down. Of course this can happen
to already distressed firms who are experiencing cash flow issues. It’s just a
way of making things appear “even worse” in your books without materially
impacting your day to day business.

------
nickpinkston
About fucking time!

You don't get to preside over 346 deaths and get to keep your job. Sorry...

------
cryptozeus
Right in time for new ceo to explore opportunities with space force of gov.

------
denimnerd42
these comments seem woefully out of touch with the situation compared to
/r/space. This guy seems to have made some mistakes but they are painting him
in a much better light over there.

------
danielovichdk
I am not flying Boeing again.

Simple as that.

------
twobat
Anyone that knows better: why is the share price for BA 2.75% up?

------
kunkurus
Fully deserved. His testimony before the congress was a joke.

------
Trias11
Ousted?

Any details of the golden parachute that came with it?

------
Marsymars
> Chairman David Calhoun will take over as CEO and president, effective Jan.
> 13, the company said, adding that a change in leadership was necessary to
> restore confidence in the company.

If they wanted to restore my confidence, they’d have picked an engineer, not
an accountant.

~~~
chrisseaton
Someone like Dennis Muilenburg then?

If the last one was an engineer, why would another engineer restore your
confidence any more?

~~~
linuxftw
An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement, not all engineers
are equal capable (or capable at all).

~~~
chrisseaton
> An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement

But why?

Is their problem an engineering one?

Or a culture, leadership and values ones?

Everyone's saying that they put profit before safety. That's a financial
decision that they need to address not an engineering one!

~~~
linuxftw
You have to be an engineer to understand safety. We're talking about world-
leading aerospace engineering, not producing some SaaS product. You need
someone that understand the technology involved better than anyone else in the
industry.

~~~
chrisseaton
> You have to be an engineer to understand safety.

You're just restating the same thing without any actual arguments. _Why_ do
you need to be an engineer to understand safety? I don't know what magic
training or experience do you think engineers get that nobody else does? And
as I've already said, it looks to me that Boeing's chronic problems are
_leadership_ not _technical_. Get a _leader_ in.

~~~
linuxftw
You have to be an engineer to understand safety. It should be abundantly clear
what is meant by this. They're building aircraft. What do accountants know
about building aircraft? Nothing, nothing at all. How can the buck stop with
them? It can't. It has to stop somewhere lower, with an engineer, that
understands safety. Unfortunately, a non-engineer won't know if their engineer
underlings are A) Qualified or B) Competent.

~~~
chrisseaton
You don’t need to be able to do your subordinates’ jobs in order to be able to
lead or manage them or to take responsibility. In a big company like Boeing
you _can’t_ possibly know the job of all your subordinates so your elitism is
never going to work.

How do you think for example the President of the United States effectively
line manages people as diverse as defence and national parks without
simultaneously being a soldier and a geographer? How do you think he judges
qualification and competence of these people in globally significant safety
jobs and how does he manage the buck stopping with him?

------
rehman
*busted.

------
pseudolus
The story of the ouster to inevitably be followed by the story of the massive
compensation package he'll receive.

~~~
philshem
They already rewarded him after the first crash, not to say they won’t again.

> On December 17th, less than two months after the Lion Air crash, Boeing’s
> board of directors approved a twenty-per-cent increase in the company
> dividend and a twenty-billion-dollar stock-repurchase program, allowing
> Muilenburg, who had replaced McNerney as C.E.O. in 2015, to carry out even
> larger buybacks than in previous years. The board also awarded Muilenburg a
> thirteen-million-dollar bonus.

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-case-
again...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-case-against-
boeing?verso=true)

~~~
mihaaly
People sometime reason that the big compensations (salary, bonus) are for
recognizing the responsibility the position entails.

Then I try to remain calm: what responsibilities they really take?! The
consequences hit those remain, they should be compensated instead. Plus the
salary given in vain taken back. Then we still listen about the damages
caused!

They take it because they can. If they cared they wouldn't feel right taking
so big portion of the profit generated by the teamwork of so many.

------
papito
Most business in the United States is done despite of management, not because
of it.

The executives lie and BS through all of it, and the soldiers on the ground
kill themselves to get things done.

~~~
wpietri
I've lately been reading about the notion of "managerialism". The book
Confronting Managerialism defines it as "What occurs when a special group,
called management, ensconces itself systemically in an organization and
deprives owners and employees of their decision-making power (including
distribution of emoluments) and justifies that takeover on the grounds of the
managing group's education and exclusive possession of the codified bodies of
knowledge and know-how necessary to the efficient running of the
organization."

It's a really interesting concept to me, because it's been the dominant
business culture my whole life in the US, so it's sort of like a fish
discovering water. But once I started looking at business philosophy and
history, I realized that there are a lot of other ways to do things. Toyota's
example, of course: the managerialism of the big 3 let Toyota go from Japan's
post-war decimation to the biggest carmaker on the planet.

I still don't feel like I have a great grip on the alternatives, and
especially how to practice those alternatives when managerialism is the norm.
But I definitely aim to find out. At least once, I want work at a place that
really has its shit together. That gets things done well on purpose.

~~~
api
An interesting thing about managetialism is that it's basically what made the
USSR fail. The MBA is our exact equivalent of the Soviet "apparatchik." We
postured ourselves as the opposite of the USSR but in reality US business
culture aped a lot of its bureaucratic structure. I've called it Soviet
capitalism for some time now.

~~~
LaserToy
So, I’m not the only person who sees the similarity. I was born in USSR and
later moved to USA. Some (many) approaches to management in some very famous
and rich companies constantly remind me of Soviet’s approach to management. It
does not mean it is bad, but USSR fell apart...

