Boeing 737 MAX family NEWS ONLY

So, habemus pope-am ? Hopefully she will move mountains... she will need it. Sounds like a better Deal than Stan or the former CEO who was to Callhous...
 
Let's wait and see what happens Archibald, the next few months will be very interesting to see what happens when she fully takes over.
 
www.flightglobal.com

Boeing chief Calhoun to leave at end-2024 as Deal departs Commercial Airplanes

Boeing has implemented a broad management shake up that will see chief executive David Calhoun leave the company at the end of 2024 and that includes the immediate retirement of Boeing Commercial Airplanes boss Stan Deal. Stepanie Pope is now leading that division
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

In addition to Pope taking over as head of BCAG, and Calhoun going at the end of the year, the Boeing Chairman Larry Kellner is replaced immediately by Steve Mollenkopf, who has been on the board since 2020 and is ex Chairman and COO of Qualcomm, having apparently worked his way up the corporate tree there from starting as an engineer. Which is a fairly reassuring background.

Note that Pope has only been in her now previous job for a couple of months, which rather shows how much Boeing is having to make things up as it goes along.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If she's thinking like she was as a QA person, many heads will roll indeed.
Click to expand...
“and has a bachelor's degree in accounting from Southwest Missouri State University and a Master of Business Administration from Lindenwood University.”
——
 
Yeah. A Bachelor and a MBA...
That would probably not bode well if she hadn't scored her 30 years at Boeing as she remarkably did.
I would probably be more inclined to think that someone with an engineering degree at Caltech would sound better given the circumstances but 30 years in the field is nothing to pass upon.
 
If academical degrees are the thing to judge a person's suitability for a function in corporate governance, I would much prefer somebody with a degree in Business Administration than one with a degree in engineering. And no, I certainly don't want anyone with just an MBA tinkering on a nuclear reactor.

Everyone to their own trade.
 
Arjen said:
If academical degrees are the thing to judge a person's suitability for a function in corporate governance, I would much prefer somebody with a degree in Business Administration than one with a degree in engineering. And no, I certainly don't want anyone with just an MBA tinkering on a nuclear reactor.

Everyone to their own trade.
Click to expand...
Wait, you mean to tell me that "MBA" is an actual degree and not just something out of an eighties Oliver Stone movie, like, something you get from a university (other than trump university, that is)? I always thought of them as a metaphor for the telephone cleaners from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?! I still fondly remember the one and only economics 101 lesson I attended for a potential elective as a starry eyed fledgling aerospace engineering student at my alma mater Universität Stuttgart, where the lecturer blithely started by stating "Gentlemen (it was a simpler time back then in the last millennium on another continent), if any politician tells you he will do X to stimulate the economy, do not for for him (again, simpler times), because he is either a fool or a liar" (although over the decades I have come to the conclusion that this is NOT a binary choice - both [false] alternatives can unsurprisingly be true at the same time). As an aerospace engineer myself, I have long since come to the conclusion that engineers *really* should be in charge of everything - we are the universal tool (and I use that term advisedly) of the galaxy. I would proudly call that particular governance model an engineerocracy (technocracy would really leave way too much space for trade school types - no offense intended, and scientists are just way too nerdy - let's face it). But then again, maybe we should just advertise ourselves as Spacebees...
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
If academical degrees are the thing to judge a person's suitability for a function in corporate governance, I would much prefer somebody with a degree in Business Administration than one with a degree in engineering. And no, I certainly don't want anyone with just an MBA tinkering on a nuclear reactor.

Everyone to their own trade.
Click to expand...
Will see how Boeing's fare upon the reference in the category:

en.m.wikipedia.org

Gwynne Shotwell - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
martinbayer said:
we are the universal tool
Click to expand...
I have faced enough strife with socially inept people, some of whom were quite accomplished engineers, to wish for a mediator/facilitator of some kind. The talent for mediating/facilitating cooperation can be natural, but in most cases, needs honing. An education in engineering is not aimed at honing such qualities.

To some extent, B.A. is that. Not guaranteed to deliver, but if any degree is to be used as a yardstick for managing a company, a degree in engineering is not it.
You might have a look at sociology to resolve in-company trouble.
 
Arjen said:
I have faced enough strife with socially inept people, some of whom were quite accomplished engineers, to wish for a mediator/facilitator of some kind. The talent for mediating/facilitating cooperation can be natural, but in most cases, needs honing. An education in engineering is not aimed at honing such qualities.

To some extent, B.A. is that. Not guaranteed to deliver, but if any degree is to be used as a yardstick for managing a company, a degree in engineering is not it.
You might have a look at sociology to resolve in-company trouble.
Click to expand...
My one big caveat is that engineers are typically driven by a desire to develop a new or better product or capability, while MBAs are in my experience purely driven by enriching themselves. YMMV, of course.
 
My eldest brother has a Doctorate in Business Administration. He's not driven thusly.
 
Ultimately, most people driven to management are socially adept. Not necessarily the nicest people.
Possibly a higher percentage of sociopaths than in other strata of society.
 
You're really not increasing my respect for business administration/management as a profession...
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
Ultimately, most people driven to management are socially adept. Not necessarily the nicest people.
Possibly a higher percentage of sociopaths than in other strata of society.
Click to expand...
I am really, honestly puzzled by your perceptions/definitions of socially adept vs. socially inept, especially since you appear to consider sociopaths being socially adept? Do you really consider a scheming manipulator being "socially adept"? I still hugely prefer straightforward cantankerous hard science experts over (anti)social climbers with a fake smile and a knife behind their back.
 
There is friendly, and then there is socially adept - adept as in being able to navigate through society, achieving what you aim for. A person can be both, like my current boss. Making enemies along the way may not hinder you to achieve your aims in the short run, but is likely to bite you in the ass if you hang around for too long. I prefer to deal with people who don't need to think of the long run to be friendly.

As an employee, and as a shareholder, I would prefer managers who will consider the long run anyway.
 
Last edited:
Finally, there are the unfortunate situations where personnel is kept in line by one or more of the following
- physical violence
- psychological violence or gaslighting
- economical duress
- legal duress

As recent history shows, these strategies can be very successful.
 
As we all know, Boeing Commercial Airplanes is all screwed up and has been for around the past 10 years or so and getting worse. If you want to gain and increase shareholder value, focus on creating high quality, safe and robust products, like Boeing used to do but seems they have forgot how to. I know for a fact that Boeing was and has been putting new grads from college into director-level positions and probably the closest some of these new grads been in proximity with an airplane was on a vacation flight. Our US aerospace industry used to promote from within which was also the method to retain and grow outstanding people, to retain and pass on their experience to the next gen.

You need a good business type-CEO to run the "overall" corporation but also, do not put bean counters in charge of engineering as an example, put the right people, with the right backgrounds to lead the right disciplines. I also wanted to add this, we have over-processed ourselves to death in this industry, we are getting to the point where we will be delivering process documentation and intent instead of aircraft to the customers, I don't think reams of paper fly well, but they "intended" to build and delivery an aircraft....
 
I believe a read of this thread and other Boeing threads you’ll find there have been many references to how “the troubles” began when engineering was replaced with accountants and MBAs.

My cut and paste of the recent executive placement education background was to point out, for me anyway, that I remain skeptical Boeing understands their situation.
 
Everyone here is rather missing the obvious question, who cares how qualified the CEO is? They sit at the apex with grand strategy visions and policy decisions while there is multitudes of layers of management between them and shopfloor. By the time the lofty strategy and policy reaches that level its all distorted out of shape anyway.
 
Completely independant from the person, if a company wants a different culture somebody from outside the Boeing microcosmos would have been the logical choice.
 
Hood said:
Everyone here is rather missing the obvious question, who cares how qualified the CEO is?
Click to expand...
I think I would settle for a talented CEO. Although that would still leave, as you note, unreformed 'multitudes of layers of management' to be taken care of :(
 
DWG said:
Note that Pope has only been in her now previous job for a couple of months, which rather shows how much Boeing is having to make things up as it goes along.
Click to expand...

It occurred to me that moving from COO of Boeing to CEO of Boeing Commercial Aircraft is technically a demotion, but a google turns up that Pope will retain the Boeing COO title, but be "100% concentrated on BCA".

Which raises the question of whether the plan is for her to retain head of BCA long term, particularly as she's one of the favoured candidates to replace Calhoun.

We could well be looking at her only holding the job for nine months, because either she gets the Boeing CEO position, or she doesn't and leaves Boeing, much as Alan Mullaly left Boeing to run Ford when McNerney won out in the hunt to replace the sacked Harry Stonecipher.
 
The consensus from my interviews is that a newcomer is probably preferable, simply because it’s so hard to tell if a Boeing manager who says the all right things is a real change agent. Boeing desperately needs a hard slap in the face to transform a mindset that's strayed from the obsession with quality that made the planemaker great to a focus on speed and profits. Someone who didn't grow up in the failed culture, who doesn't have friends in the company, is probably a better choice to bring radical reform.
Click to expand...

finance.yahoo.com

Boeing needs a CEO with very rare traits, insiders say—but the two best candidates are unlikely to take the job

Customers and aerospace insiders tell Fortune what Boeing’s board must look for in a new CEO—and why it’s such a hard position to fill.
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
 
Seriously. Boeing planes are crashing because DEI and ESG. Same bullshit by Elon Musk.

This forum deserves better than hateful conservative crap.

en.wikipedia.org

Christopher Rufo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Insider: Status games rule every boardroom in the country. The DEI narrative is a very real thing, and, at Boeing, DEI got tied to the status game. It is the thing you embrace if you want to get ahead. It became a means to power.

DEI is the drop you put in the bucket, and the whole bucket changes. It is anti-excellence, because it is ill-defined, but it became part of the culture and was tied to compensation. Every HR email is: “Inclusion makes us better.” This kind of politicization of HR is a real problem in all companies.

If you look at the bumper stickers at the factories in Renton or Everett, it’s a lot of conservative people who like building things—and conservative people do not like politics at work.

The radicalization of HR doesn’t hurt tech businesses like it hurts manufacturing businesses. At Google, they’re making a large profit margin and pursuing very progressive hiring policies. Because they are paying 30 percent or 40 percent more than the competition in salary, they are able to get the top 5 percent of whatever racial group they want. They can afford, in a sense, to pay the “DEI tax” and still find top people.

But this can be catastrophic in lower-margin or legacy companies. You are playing musical chairs, and if you do the same things that Google is doing, you are going to end up with the bottom 20 percent of the preferred population.

Rufo: What else does the public not understand about what is happening at Boeing?

Insider: Boeing is just a symptom of a much bigger problem: the failure of our elites. The purpose of the company is now “broad stakeholder value,” including DEI and ESG. This was then embraced as a means to power, which further separated the workforce from the company. And it is ripping our society apart.
Click to expand...
 
Boeing has paid Alaska an initial $160m in compensation for the plug panel blowout which covers the loss of revenue from that particular plane and the wider grounding of the MAX for three weeks. The initial pay out excludes further damages still to be calculated such as reputation, compensation to passengers or other expenses.
 
WatcherZero said:
Boeing has paid Alaska an initial $160m in compensation for the plug panel blowout which covers the loss of revenue from that particular plane and the wider grounding of the MAX for three weeks. The initial pay out excludes further damages still to be calculated such as reputation, compensation to passengers or other expenses.
Click to expand...
This may be a non-native-speaker thing, but that sentence makes it sound like Boeing WILL NOT PAY any further damages, which I doubt is the case.

One of those weird times where "exclude" does not mean the same thing as "does not include"
 
Exclude means to intentionally not include, i.e. through a conscious decision rather than due to an accidental omission. It also means the contractual agreement of both parties to limit the scope of an agreement.

In this case it means Boeing are making a deposit payment on their financial compensation as a sign of goodwill covering that which can be easily agreed and calculated (for instance there will already an agreed formula for working out liability due to product defect and fleet grounding and what costs arising from that the manufacturers warranty will cover). The final compensation value Boeing will owe Alaska will take months if not years to be tabulated as it will depend on the outcome of court cases, appeals and the accident investigation. At the present moment this exact value is unknown.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
Exclude means to intentionally not include, i.e. through a conscious decision rather due to accidental omission. Or it also means the contractual agreement of both parties to limit the scope of an agreement.

In this case it means Boeing are making a deposit payment on their financial compensation as a sign of goodwill covering that which can be easily agreed and calculated (for instance there will already an agreed formula for working out liability due to product defect and fleet grounding and what costs arising from that the manufacturers warranty will cover). The final compensation value Boeing will owe Alaska will take months if not years to be tabulated as it will depend on the outcome of court cases, appeals and the accident investigation. At the present moment this exact value is unknown.
Click to expand...
Right, but when you're talking about payment agreements for damages, to say that it excludes something means that there will NEVER be further damages paid.

It's weird.
 
Say you had a builders quote or a quote from a mechanic it will usually say 'parts and labour excluding tax', it doesnt mean that tax isnt due it just means its not included in the amount you are being quoted as for example if you are a tradesman or a business you will often be able to recoup the VAT. You often might have a restaurant menu where it says prices 'exclude service charge' as they will add a % to your bill at the end to cover tips or an extra % charge for being a large group.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right, but when you're talking about payment agreements for damages, to say that it excludes something means that there will NEVER be further damages paid.

It's weird.
Click to expand...
I am a non-native English speaker and legal layperson myself, but I honestly think that you're over-interpreting "excludes" to mean the same as "precludes", which in my best current understanding is not the intent. To me the statement simply means that the initial payment does not yet include any other potential damages that are still to be determined.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom