https://www.space.com/boeing-ceo-muilenburg-resigns.html
https://www.space.com/boeing-ceo-muilenburg-resigns.html
So what is it, resigns or was fired?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg
"He was CEO from July 2015 until December 23, 2019, when he was fired after the aftermath of the two crashes of the 737 MAX"
"Boeing Fires C.E.O. Dennis Muilenburg"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/business/Boeing-ceo-muilenburg.html
Boeing's press release stated that, "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."
The CEOs of today's large corporations are selected and hired by the Boards in the same manner and for the same reason as the actors are selected and assigned for the John McClane role in the "Die Hard X" movie. The job of the Board is to communicate towards the Markets the new John McClane will save the World, thus all the Markets will react positively. Such a role costs and the CEO's contract reflects that.
The CEOs of today's large corporations are selected and hired by the Boards in the same manner and for the same reason as the actors are selected and assigned for the John McClane role in the "Die Hard X" movie. The job of the Board is to communicate towards the Markets the new John McClane will save the World, thus all the Markets will react positively. Such a role costs and the CEO's contract reflects that.
No one serves jail time, that is the main point of what the fuss all about.
Imagining that Boeing is a Chinese company, and Dennis is a Chinese citizen working in China ...
The CEOs of today's large corporations are selected and hired by the Boards in the same manner and for the same reason as the actors are selected and assigned for the John McClane role in the "Die Hard X" movie. The job of the Board is to communicate towards the Markets the new John McClane will save the World, thus all the Markets will react positively. Such a role costs and the CEO's contract reflects that.
He probably left with a big fat package on top of his 30mil a year salary.but the emotional pain...
Don't forget that CEO's have much higher rates of psychopathy than general public. Whether this is the case here is unknown, but it's fairly likely they are just fine despite being a part of killing people by negligence. If this wasn't the case, he would have likely left ages ago, or not taken the task at all.
If workers had been cut out of a share of profits that productivity gains provided since the beginning of the industrial revolution there would never have been an industrial revolution because the buying power of the middle class would not have risen and the volume of production would never have increased.
QuoteIf workers had been cut out of a share of profits that productivity gains provided since the beginning of the industrial revolution there would never have been an industrial revolution because the buying power of the middle class would not have risen and the volume of production would never have increased.An example is Brit colonization of India. For some 60 years under British colonialism, India traded at a surplus but ended with a financial deficit. India benefited from law and order and culture and technology. But most of their profits were enjoyed by Britain. Not that certain individuals in India didn't profit, massively. (Not all that different from how Saudi Arabia enriches certain individuals in America in order for this club to massively profit at the expense of America's economy. The average Saudi citizen is a baller, but without this arrangement, Iran would come and take their lunch box).
There is actually nothing wrong with this system. It's how society advances. Slavery and/or disaparity in income is necessary. We don't have a better way. It doesn't exist. Communism is the same thing, only the ruling class will inevitably need to use excessive force and restrictions of freedom to maintain this order. In communism, you are born to the ruling class like nobility, and you sit in a room deciding what your peasants do and how to punish them. In capitalism, whoever has the money has the responsibility to protect their own and their peasants interests (and these people have the ability to lose all this money, too).
If your country shares better and is happy, it's not for long. Cuz the country that does not will have a bigger club and will take that tribute that your country was not collecting from its people to use for such things. The idea is for the wealthy to have its best interests aligned better with the peasants. Like a big protection racquet.
I think US is far from the worst to its peasants, and is one of the the least racist first world countries, IMO. Not that it's great, but there's lots worse.
People might look at Switzerland and say it's a peaceful country. The history behind that is that Swiss have strong geographical defenses and were historically very successful mercenaries. The regional European powers mutually agreed to leave Switzerland alone, otherwise if Switzerland takes a side, the other power would have to get their merc from somewhere else.
Sorry to get so far off topic.
1.... Why didnt the pilots put the plane into manual mode and land it at the nearest airport after they started having significant problems?
2...What exactly was the fault with the angle of attack sensor?
3...Regarding software failure systems in passenger aircraft...how many other ones are unknown to pilots other than EMACs used in 737 MAX?...ie, is this the first time in aviation history that a software system instigated a fault that caused death and the pilots never even knew about the particular software system and it characteristics? (ie like they never knew about EMACs in the 737 MAX)
Nope, not even close to the first time. The Airbus A400M military aircraft took off with no calibration data loaded into the engine computers. This caused all 4 engines to shut off in the air, causing a crash. It seems the engine computers should have been programmed to do something rational, such as not even start, or not allow the engines to be advanced beyond ground idle.
I doubt these are the only cases.
These are easily damaged when moving air bridges and trucks around the aircraft. Apparently, the replacement sensor was improperly installed at the wrong angle, even though the bolt holes are designed to prevent this. One sensor apparently indictaed something like 40 degrees nose-up as soon as the aircraft started moving. Due to the airlines not wanting to permit ANY additional training for pilots moving to the Max, the flight control computers were set up to use ONLY ONE sensor at a time, depending on which FCC was the master. So, even though the aircraft had two sensors, it only looked at one or the other. There was no "alpha disagree" warning, even though the info was available to the computers. The reason was "that would require a change to the flight manual" which the airlines did not want.
IIRC the 2nd AOE sensor is actually an option, that not all airlines had opted for.
^Yeah, this seems like a bad thing.
Swapping flight computers/sensors every other flight seems sorta like using a plane with 200 live onboard as a computer/sensor tester. This only increases the chance of having a failure, and it reduces the MTF for the computer and the sensor.