Boeing 737 Max again, it would be nice if the windows [door plugs] stayed in!

[special_K]

I think in the 2000s most western capitalist democracies are about as capitalist democratic as the Soviet union was communist.

I'm confused by the popular association of capitalism and democracy. The relationship between myself and my employer is a capitalist one, they own everything I use for my job, and so claim ownership of everything I achieve or create while working my job. I can't vote on what we do with it, so there is clearly no democracy involved in this.

[Nominal Animal]

I'm confused by the popular association of capitalism and democracy.

Yep: capitalism is an economic system and does not tell anything about governance; democracy is a system of governance and completely independent of any economic systems.  It's like associating low-pitch sounds with hot, and high-pitch sounds with cold: might make sense in some particular context, but definitely not generally.  I think it is because of the prevailing simplifying polarization/tribalization ("we who agree=good, those who disagree=bad") muddying things up once again.

It really makes information-dense discussions difficult, if the intent is to understand rationally and analytically, and not just emotionally spar with others.  I fully understand Dave's position of stopping threads heading that way, because there just isn't enough actual information in such threads.  Just lots of emotions flying around.

I for one would love to discuss the bad details in good things and the good details in bad things, defend things I do not actually like, pick at things I do really like, but the times are such that it just won't work in public: some (often outsiders getting caught in a detail, instead of following the whole discussion) will always be overwhelmed with emotion or miss the nuances, and the discussion will derail.  The most informative and useful debates are those where the participants vehemently disagree, but actually listen, try to understand, and discuss instead of proselytize.  It is an art we have almost completely lost.

In that sense, it would be interesting to dig out exactly why the Boeing business strategy seems to make sense to the executives and shareholders.  I'm too analytical, too often look at historical examples, and have seen this same happen to too many companies before (and been blamed a "conspiracy theorist" when I've pointed it out myself, for example when I pointed out that Stephen Elop had always been a "status quo" CEO in the companies he worked at, never an "expander" or "developer" or "increasing competition" CEO, and would fail Nokia in the then-emerging cellphone race: I was clumped together with the "Microsoft agent" weirdos, as a "Linux nutjob" ), so I just cannot see things from that perspective myself at all.

[special_K]

I wouldn't even say democracy is "a" system of governance, more a method of making individual decisions as a group, which various systems of governance want to associate themselves with for regions of prestige. Actually practicing is kept to a minimum.

The dominant one even calls itself "representative democracy", and as far as I can tell, it's called that because the representatives enjoy democracy amongst themselves and the rest of us enjoy being dictated to.

Boeing's behavior? I think it's as simple as "we can probably get away with this and save a bunch of money", which then spiraled into panic when it turned out they couldn't actually get away with it. I don't expect rationality in any organization.

[CatalinaWOW]

I have subscribed to Aviation Week & Space Technology for over 50 years now.  That magazine reports regularly on business decisions and prospects and has much documentation on Boeing's actions.  Those wanting to understand the how's and why's of what they did would be well served by going through those archives.  While many of the decisions were debatable, there were often plausible reasons for the actions.

[jfiresto]

I have subscribed to Aviation Week & Space Technology for over 50 years now.  That magazine reports regularly on business decisions and prospects and has much documentation on Boeing's actions.  Those wanting to understand the how's and why's of what they did would be well served by going through those archives.  While many of the decisions were debatable, there were often plausible reasons for the actions.

I had a subscription to AW&ST in the early 1980s and quite enjoyed it. Is it still worth reading?

[CatalinaWOW]

I have subscribed to Aviation Week & Space Technology for over 50 years now.  That magazine reports regularly on business decisions and prospects and has much documentation on Boeing's actions.  Those wanting to understand the how's and why's of what they did would be well served by going through those archives.  While many of the decisions were debatable, there were often plausible reasons for the actions.

I had a subscription to AW&ST in the early 1980s and quite enjoyed it. Is it still worth reading?

Definitely not as good as it was, but still has quite a bit of good content.  Matters what your interests are.  The current focus is heavily on air transport.  There is less depth on space and other aviation field than there used to be.  It is expensive so it isn't an obvious value choice.  Maybe you can find a library, which is where I got my introduction to the magazine.

[SiliconWizard]

I'm confused by the popular association of capitalism and democracy.

Yep: capitalism is an economic system and does not tell anything about governance; democracy is a system of governance and completely independent of any economic systems.  It's like associating low-pitch sounds with hot, and high-pitch sounds with cold: might make sense in some particular context, but definitely not generally.  I think it is because of the prevailing simplifying polarization/tribalization ("we who agree=good, those who disagree=bad") muddying things up once again.

For sure it's oversimplification. I guess the idea is that only a democratic regime can really host a "free market" economic regime, due to the hard requirement of enough individual and private freedom to make it work.
Capitalism and free market are two slightly different things though, that are most often conflated. Likewise, the amount of "economic freedom" we get in a typical modern democracy can also be questionable.

In that sense, it would be interesting to dig out exactly why the Boeing business strategy seems to make sense to the executives and shareholders.  I'm too analytical, too often look at historical examples, and have seen this same happen to too many companies before (and been blamed a "conspiracy theorist" when I've pointed it out myself, for example when I pointed out that Stephen Elop had always been a "status quo" CEO in the companies he worked at, never an "expander" or "developer" or "increasing competition" CEO, and would fail Nokia in the then-emerging cellphone race: I was clumped together with the "Microsoft agent" weirdos, as a "Linux nutjob" ), so I just cannot see things from that perspective myself at all.

I think it's hard to make sense of it if we look at this from a purely traditional business point of view: a company has to make good products in order to grow and keep its customers happy, and so will put the focus on making this happen. That was HP or even Boeing, for instance, a few decades ago.

Things have changed. Finance rules over "business" now, and as long as you're "big enough", you become "too big to fail", whatever decisions you make - that very concept is the opposite of a "free market", so that when we claim that our western democracies promote free market, it's a pile of BS. Just a thought.

[schmitt trigger]

I wonder what kind of chain of events would need to happen for a analysis like to get taken seriously by business people.

But this happens so rarely that it is not a deterrent at all. We know of Elizabeth Holmes, and a couple of Volkswagen managers went to jail in the US. But i can't think of any other high profile cases.

A company which I worked for, Tyco, its CEO Dennis Kozlowski was jailed for securities fraud.
Tyco would acquire companies left and right, and “extract value” from them.
Massive layoffs and serious crunch time for the remaining employees.

[tooki]

…
"He presented www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing]essentially an economics paper,[/url] delivered with a trademark deadpan humor. {"Out-sourced Profits - The Cornerstone of Successful Subcontracting" Boeing Paper MDC 00K0096}
…
edit: fixed url

That link is still very broken.

Unfortunately it seems the forum software cannot handle the legacy.www… in the address and re-borks it, despite the preview working. (Edit: Wow, it even applies that algorithm inside code tags!!! )

www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing/]https://legacy.[url=http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing/]www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing/[/url]

Code: [Select]

https://legacy.[url=http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing/]www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing/[/url]
Here’s the URL, riddled with hidden tags to make it possible to at least display in the post as plain text: https://legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing/

Here’s an alternative host: https://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2014130646.pdf

I’ve also attached the PDF.

[tooki]

One of the advantages of the western economic system is its ability to discard failed approaches.  Not necessarily quickly.  Or painlessly.  But the evidence suggests that it is on average faster and more painless than the planned economic systems or assigning all power to a king or emperor.   Boeing may get discarded.

Tell that to the families who have lost loved ones on each and everyone of the Boeing failures.. that evidence suggests that their pain is "painless"..

CatalinaWOW didn’t say it was painless. They wrote (emphasis mine) “NOT … quickly … or painlessly”.

[krish2487]

One of the advantages of the western economic system is its ability to discard failed approaches.  Not necessarily quickly.  Or painlessly.  But the evidence suggests that it is on average faster and more painless than the planned economic systems or assigning all power to a king or emperor.   Boeing may get discarded.

Tell that to the families who have lost loved ones on each and everyone of the Boeing failures.. that evidence suggests that their pain is "painless"..

CatalinaWOW didn’t say it was painless. They wrote (emphasis mine) “NOT … quickly … or painlessly”.

I was referring to the latter part "But the evidence suggests that it is on average faster and more painless than the planned economic systems..."
My point was that the so called advantage of the western economic system is really the ability to reduce people and the human factor to numbers and statistics.. That the systems tends to dehumanize everything by making it "clinical" , "statistical"and "removing human biases" or whatever.. and thus justifies prioritizing making money over anything else.. Its the very name.... "western economic system".. its really stating the obvious isnt it.. that the goal is to make money.. thus embodying Goodhart's law isnt it..

[paulca]

When I hear the term "capitalist democracy" I think about the distribution of resources in society.

"Idealistically" a CD does not regulator, control or decided what the "people" make for the "people".  Who makes what for who and when and at what price is "self regulated" by each individuals "Greed" pitted against their counterparts greed in the transaction.  (Supply and demand)

It puts one of the worst human qualities and pits it against itself.

"Idealistic" things tend not to work in reality so reality is a lot more complicated and there are dozens of caveats ... and more being added each decade.

Tying back to context.... if Boeing's quality falls, then eventually so will the price they can ask for and get.  Eventually they will be selling planes for less than cost.  What happens then is NOT going to be capitalist.  "Too big to fail" mechanics will kick in.  "Too big to fail" bailouts are a socialism/communist mechanism to nationalise key infra for the "good of the people", although they tend to wiggle and worm their way around that with "market" instrument involvements etc.

[krish2487]

It puts one of the worst human qualities and pits it against itself.

Couldnt have put it better myself.. but you said it yourself in the previous sentence.. Supply and demand.. in this case, manufacturers who can make airplanes.. It is still a monopoly (for either Boeing or Airbus)  and thus they are getting away with whatever nonsense they have been doing so far without accountability or oversight.

[tom66]

Except Airbus has many, many fewer safety issues, since the company doesn't have such a broken culture.  The biggest problem Airbus has is that they try to crush the competition (see Bombadier C-Series).  I wonder if they will try pulling the same trick with Embraer who are slated to introduce an A320 competitor.

[krish2487]

Except Airbus has many, many fewer safety issues, since the company doesn't have such a broken culture.  The biggest problem Airbus has is that they try to crush the competition (see Bombadier C-Series).  I wonder if they will try pulling the same trick with Embraer who are slated to introduce an A320 competitor.

The point still stands... crushing competition will just solidify their position as a monopoly.. and lets not forget.. Boeing started the same way.. safety first.. but devolved into this bloodsucking greedy corporation.. whats to say Airbus wont go the same way ??

I guess what I m saying is that Boeing did not start with a broken, rotten culture.. On the contrary, it started with excellence and safety in mind... somewhere down the road.. profits took priority over safety..

[paulca]

In theory defence is easier than offense.

All Airbus need to do is retain their quality and their price.  Capitalism will take care of the next bit.  Boeing continuing to lose sales.

When governments intervene to save the 100,000 jobs or whatever... who knows.  It will likely be Trump that does it.  So really, NOBODY knows.  If you want answers and opinions that might matter, go spend a day with a ward of dementia suffers and ask them.

It would make America Great Again if...  Trump banned all US airlines from operating Airbus.  Popcorn.

[krish2487]

When governments intervene to save the 100,000 jobs or whatever... who knows.  It will likely be Trump that does it.  So really, NOBODY knows.  If you want answers and opinions that might matter, go spend a day with a ward of dementia suffers and ask them.

It would make America Great Again if...  Trump banned all US airlines from operating Airbus.  Popcorn.

The first statement is exactly what will happen... Boeing is "too big to fail" or in this case "too big to let fail".. bailouts... and handouts.. golden handcuffs for the top executives... and the company continues limping till the next such cluster of accidents / events happen...
The second.. while Trump is stupid enough to do that.. I suspect he has a few smart people in his team who will prevent him from doing that... Free market economy and all that... besides.. he would be hurting those American airlines already having Airbus planes in their fleet, not airbus immediately.. meh.. who knows.. maybe he is stupid enough to make such a move... 

[CatalinaWOW]

Except Airbus has many, many fewer safety issues, since the company doesn't have such a broken culture.  The biggest problem Airbus has is that they try to crush the competition (see Bombadier C-Series).  I wonder if they will try pulling the same trick with Embraer who are slated to introduce an A320 competitor.

Doesn't currently have such a broken culture.  Whether it could withstand being the only viable Western large aircraft manufacturer is unknown.

[tggzzz]

International shipping.

Ordered nearly £1000 worth of stuff on the 1st of December.

Tracking showed it arrive in the UK just over a week later.

Then the courier returned it to sender with no reason or explaination given.

Contacted seller.  "Let me look into that."

Nothing.

Contacted seller again for update.  "We are still waiting for it to come back, let me check on that."

Nothing for another week.

"Here is a different plan.  Send me a new product.  You can wait for the return on your own time and your own cost.  Your issues with your shippers is not my concern.  I will open a paypal dispute for full refund if I do not receive goods for my transaction within 60days of date of purchase."

Lets see what their next move is now.

And the relevance to B737s is?

[Analog Kid]

Either

• order was supposed to ship on a 737 cargo plane, or
• misplaced post

I vote for #2.
(referring to a mispost that has since been deleted)

[abeyer]

Doesn't currently have such a broken culture.  Whether it could withstand being the only viable Western large aircraft manufacturer is unknown.

Is that even a realistic scenario, though? I think the US (and to a lesser degree some allies) is too dependent on the military production side of Boeing's business to let it fail, and it's not clear that it would be possible/cost efficient to maintain that without the commercial business also... I suspect that it would become another "too big to fail" debacle of the government keeping them going no matter what.

[krish2487]

Either

• order was supposed to ship on a 737 cargo plane, or
• misplaced post

I vote for #2.

or.. option #3..
He ordered a 737 cargo plane and it didnt arrive.. 
I am really rooting for option # 3..

[CatalinaWOW]

Doesn't currently have such a broken culture.  Whether it could withstand being the only viable Western large aircraft manufacturer is unknown.

Is that even a realistic scenario, though? I think the US (and to a lesser degree some allies) is too dependent on the military production side of Boeing's business to let it fail, and it's not clear that it would be possible/cost efficient to maintain that without the commercial business also... I suspect that it would become another "too big to fail" debacle of the government keeping them going no matter what.

If the theory is that Boings culture is too broken to produce airplanes safe to operate then no amount of government aide will keep them in the marketplace.

But my comment doesn't really depend on Boeing leaving the market.  I know of no reason that Airbus should be immune to the same kind type of corporate malaise that Boeing is suffering. Might present itself in different ways but large organizations tend to go bad over time.

[paulca]

And the relevance to B737s is?

It was a miss post, wrong thread.  Sorry.  I deleted it.

[floobydust]

I dislike economists and find them theorists full of bullshit. EE's came up with Spice and models, whereas economists spew endless theory and bullshit. The only dial they have is "interest rates" lol.

One of the advantages of the western economic system is its ability to discard failed approaches.  Not necessarily quickly.  Or painlessly.  But the evidence suggests that it is on average faster and more painless than the planned economic systems or assigning all power to a king or emperor.   Boeing may get discarded.

When you have only two suppliers literally company A and company B, it's not an "efficient market". It's two competing monopolies.
Airbus is way ahead of Boeing who has few deliveries and nothing to compete with A350 and maybe the A321 as well.
Collapse in orders and manufacturing aside, Boeing needs new planes which they cannot afford to develop nor have the engineering capability to do so.
The slope is -ve but we see this time and time again with Wall Street's greed.
I'm not sure if it's corporate governance or just how we have let corporations loose that is causing them to metastasize.