Reply With Quote
Boeing used to be run by engineers, now private equity bros calibrate safety with maximal profitability.
Boeing needs to get its act together. Its reputation has taken a beating the past few years.
Boeing used to be run by engineers, now private equity bros calibrate safety with maximal profitability.
Something is obviously wrong, but private equity isn't running Boeing. It's publicly traded.
ceo is a private equity bro
doesnt matter who the shareholders are, it matters who the decision makers are
CEO used to work in private equity. I thought he meant people actively working for private equity that were primarily funding the company.
it's tricky when you're balancing profitability against the safety of your customers
& MSM, with the gov't's rapt assistance in reserve (this time) is on Boeing's side. Just the way the cookie crumbled this time, Winester.it's tricky when you're balancing profitability against the safety of your customers
Outsourcing sacrificed expertise to profitability, with predictable results for safety and transparency.
Why Is Boeing Such a Crappy Company? - LA ProgressiveAs my friend Harold Meyerson wrote last month in the American Prospect, Boeing’s quality-control problems transcend the leadership team. They first became apparent in 2001, when a Boeing engineer warned against the company’s decision to outsource key parts of the aircraft it assembled.
But Wall Street wanted Boeing to outsource rather than continue producing parts in-house with Boeing’s experienced and unionized workforce. Outsourcing was cheaper. The new crop of Boeing executives came to their posts from the financial side of the industry rather than from careers in production and were quick to respond to the Street’s demands.
In 2005, Boeing sold its Wichita plant to a private equity firm that slashed costs before unloading the plant to Spirit AeroSystems, which has become notorious for its deficient quality inspection practices. Boeing objected to what it said were Spirit’s high costs and inability to meet deadlines. As the workers on the shop floor and their union repeatedly noted, this led to rushed production and deficient oversight.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, a union representative from the International Association of Machinists wrote to union leaders that Boeing’s workers had “great quality and safety concerns,” but their concerns were routinely ignored by senior management.
Boeing’s major global compe or in producing commercial aircraft is Europe’s Airbus. Airbus’s largest shareholders are mainly politically accountable governments that must pay heed to such public concerns as air safety. (Airbus’s four largest shareholders, in order, are the government of France, the government of Germany, the Capital Research and Management Company, and the government of Spain.)
Boeing’s major investors, by contrast, are entirely in it for the profits. (Its four largest shareholders, in order, are The Vanguard Group, Vanguard Group subfiler, Newport Trust Company, and State Street Corporation (a bank and asset manager.)
And because Airbus is a merger of German, French, and Spanish companies, Airbus’s production facilities are centered in nations where workers historically and currently have more power than their U.S. counterparts. Forty-six thousand of Airbus’s roughly 130,000 employees work in the company’s German factories, where workers, by law, routinely discuss production and safety issues with managers in works councils.
In the U.S., the Machinists union workers do have voice and power by American standards but lack mechanisms like works councils through which management must take at least some heed of their concerns.
In other words, Airbus’s clear leadership over Boeing in matters of flight safety stems largely from differences in ownership and worker power—that is, from the European model of mitigating laissez-faire capitalism with a measure of public and worker power, in contrast with the American model of subjecting corporate policy almost entirely to the demands of investment bankers.
Which, if you track the value of Boeing’s stock, hasn’t worked out that well for those investment bankers, either.
Just how outsourced is Boeing’s production? Almost two weeks after the Alaska Airlines blow-out, it was revealed that the door plug that blew out of the Alaska Airlines plane wasn’t actually produced in Wichita. It was produced in Malaysia, where workers’ concerns about speed of production and quality oversight are apt to have even less impact on their managers than in the United States.
The fact that the Malaysian production of the door plug didn’t come to light until 12 days after the blow-out suggests just how profoundly outsourcing can obscure the public visibility required for corporate accountability.
Just cut to it, Winester...how does State sponsored CNN judge Boeing? That'll tell us precisely where this Boeing situation is going. Off the top of your Polish in' head, fart-face, I surmise State sponsored CNN thinks Boeing is the cat's pj's.
lol @ the DEI dogwhistle
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
