Go to ground.news/mentournow to get worldwide coverage on Boeing, aviation safety and more! Subscribe through my link for 50% off unlimited access this month
But doing it in 5mm wet suit when windsurfing off of the British coast in February is very satisfying. It takes somewhat longer to creep down your thighs.
No mr. Mentour.... It goes like: Det är som att pissa i sängen, det värmer för stunden... When talking about a short term solution. "It's like pissing in the bed, it warms for the moment." Meaning its nice and warm at first but gets cold and sticky quite fast.
@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 You mean it worked quite well. Now, with imbecile greens determined to sink Germany to support nato rabid aggression on Russia (that started long before 2021) just to support fascist US proxy and genocide in Gaza/Liban a bit longer? Don't worry, with mass closures of German factories due to skyrocketing energy prices soon these workers will have to accept US like trash work conditions with zero voice on anything or see 90% of German industry bankrupting or moving elsewhere...
My old boss had a plaque above his door as you left his office . " The success of a business is because of its employees and not despite them " . Never forgotten.
My best mate wrote a poem. Without the people who row, the man at the bow, is just a man with a whip on a very quiet, stationary ship. It is a good poem.
Having worked for 3 fortune 100 companies, I can say the real reason for the corporate corruption to quality and greed is the bonus plans. They hire hungry MBAs and give them a barely living wage, with the promise of huge bonuses if they can cut costs. Without any limits on damages done from cost cutting. Like a carpenter building a chair, and a bean counter with an MBA removing one leg of the chair to save 25%. The bean counter makes a huge bonus from reducing costs by 25%, when the chairs fall over, and injury people, the management blames the carpenters for poor design and time management. The MBAs make two years of massive bonuses then move to another company, while boasting of how they streamlined production and cut cost 25% at the previous company.
There is a class of management with one aim; cut costs despite everything, look good on paper (CV), move on before the fan gets hit by you know what, rinse and repeat. Could be a CEO at a toothpaste factory, then move to a call centre, then a hotel chain, then a manufacturer of aircraft. They know nothing about the core business but have a one eyed aim... reduce costs to boost their share bonus and get out before the real impact of their greed is manifested. Oh for competent loyal managers with long term vision.
the cutting on expenses is the same as a relious person feels when eh saves another people from "evil" and both would boast and tell everyone how good he did - and Both are actually blind as hell and equally dispicl´kble
I have a friend who was a Boeing employee, his specialty was aircraft wheels & brakes. In the early 2000s, most of that division was called into a conference room three days before Christmas and told that they were fired effective immediately. Badges and IDs were pulled right there and they each had a security guard following them around. They were given 30 minutes to clean out their desks. Ask this guy what he thinks of Boeing and he'll give you an essay. On the upside, they're working for my division now with pay-raises. We got all their smart wheel, brake, and tire guys. Thanks, Boeing! Your decision to contract it out has worked brilliantly. They did it to save money. How did that work out? They were paying those guys $60/hour and decided that it made good fiscal sense to pay a company $400/hour/man for the same exact service. Well done!
It's against federal law to fire represented employees immediately, except for cause (and I've seen THAT happen). A 60-day WARN notice must be given first. Employess might be asked to leave immediately, but they'd get 60 days of full pay and benefits (not counting COBRA afterward).
@@Greatdome99 the fact that you think companies won't do something because it's illegal only outlines your lack of understanding of the world we live in. Especially American companies.
Maybe it's a way for CEO to pocketed a 400-60 = $340/hour/man different? The usual stuff, CEO of public company decided to outsourcing. Then create his/her own shell company to pick up the outsource job. Then charged the public company an exorbitant rate.
Those financial stunts sound as if Boeing was merely a large investment company that happens to have an airplane division which is increasingly annoying the board.
Every company in the US is an investment company or a law company that sometimes makes other stuff sadly. Look at Disney. Disney’s quality has gotten so bad that they’re scraping along on being possessive over IP. They’re a law firm that sometimes makes movies.
I work in a factory that does aluminum extrusions/makes primarily airplane parts and they told us in a meeting right after the strike ended that Boeing basically doesn't even expect to start producing planes again for 2-3 months while the striking employees get back to work and get re-certified to do stuff, all while their warehouse is full of our parts so basically all boeing orders for nov-dec were cancelled.
Yup, it will take a while for receiving everywhere in the company to dig out of all of the inventory that stacked up. Boeing seemed willing to do anything to save the company except make a deal to get back to delivering planes. Nobody who was doing the high level negotiating for Boeing had a clue about the situation on the ground. Idiots including everyone on the BOD.
@@applejuicejunkie316 Meanwhile my country has a social compact, where if you ask for pay rises, you may get chastised & be told you "must understand" you "don't deserve" a pay raise because you haven't been more productive, & a professor from Germany once wrote on our broadsheet agreeing with this. Think this social compact will meanwhile be rejected by protesters in the USA asking for a higher minimum wage
This American attitude towards cutting costs and increasing shareholder value is the exact reason so many Americans are driving Honda and Toyota. Those companies work with a philosophy of continuous improvement of quality, and profits will follow.
This is the root cause of Boeing’s problems. Managerial incompetence brought them to this state. I doubt they will be able to bring them out within 20 years. I just hope the new US government doesn’t fall into the trap of bailing them out, which i believe is the main focus of Ortberg’s mandate.
One irony is that Boeing kinda worships Toyota and has turned 'lean' into a mantra.. but really only the part about finding ways to cut costs with the rest being mostly ritual. It is like they saw a company doing something good, took that thing, and only implemented a combination of the worst parts and the language... but completely dropping the things that made it effective.
The Japanese market is highly conservative, unaccountable corporate governance and has traditionally not focused on increasing shareholder value. This is one of the major reasons for its economic stagnation over the past 30 years. In recent years, Japan has been actively working to increase investor protection through policy reforms and corporate governance improvements aimed at attracting investment. I think you're using a poor example as a potential alternative to Western capitalism. Like it or not, investor driven capitalism remains the most efficient system from a macro perspective.
@@frank7353pleasing the shareholders at the expense of quality and long term interest of company it is not the best system. Japan has companies that survived world wars and some are century older
@玄風-m9n There are three distinct Boeing iterations. The first is the Seattle based engineering firm that was legendary. The second is the Chicago phase where the government had MD buy Boeing using Boeings' own money. That's the financialisation and brand phase. Hard to say anything went well in this phase if you weigh the price of what little successes there were. Similar to NASA. The 3rd phase is the government owned subsidiary Virginia phase. They will do things at a very low standard and cost trillions before they are reformed. Hopefully. Maybe.
@@golanheights9000I think he is referring to the fact that you don't need to have lived in those years of Boeing glory to witness their succes, you can see that on some planes that are flying these days like the 747, older 737 and maybe even the 777, because that earlier succes can be seen throughout a longer period even though nowadays they aren't doing pretty well.
Companies seem to forget why their product is well loved and popular: the employees who made the product. That's where the rubber meets the road. Treat your employees fair, and you'll build a strong work ethic and loyalty. When you dump on them, then you get the mess you're in now.
The most successful companies disagree with you as does the Dow Jones. The companies who cater to these unions and employee demands cannot compete in this day and age. In fact, the successful companies disagree so much that they use employees overseas for near slave labor rates.
I have to say as an investor, I really hate when companies do stock buy backs. They are almost always a net value destroyer. Boeing is a perfect example. They effectively borrowed money because it was cheap at the time, to over-pay for their stock. Then when interest rates inevitably go back up, they are saddled with expensive debt, which then creates a drag on the stock for future shareholders. If I own stock in a company that announces a stock buy-back for any reason other than they can clearly define why their current price is substantially under-valued, I ride if for the short burst it provides and then unload the stock. If buying back stock is the best thing leadership can think of to spend money on to create value, that means that the company no longer has any future vision and leadership is now in the mode of extracting as much out now for current shareholders at the expense of future share holders.
Stocks have no value, only price. It is an interest free loan that never needs to be repaid. A worthless piece of paper that obligates the issuer to nothing, like a Federal Reserve Note. Buying back stock is the only ethical thing to do, however, done for manipulating purposes, is a disaster.
Yes. Most major companies do buybacks with borrowed credit with stockes as collateral. If the management does only this and neglects production and safety, they are turning a healthy company into a flimsy Ponzi scheme, pocketing billions in the process
On one hand, Boeing’s management is unwilling to pay their hardworking employees fairly, yet on the other hand, they granted a 45% salary increase to the CEO-a staggering $32.8 million to one individual. The company faces challenges, yet he receives this enormous raise. Shame on Boeing’s management!
Employees, suppliers, and customers. Beoing just can't get enough of waging war against everyone it interacts with. The only people it actually works with is the board (I would not even say the shareholders at this point)
That's the problem, too many are not planning for the long run. They are planning on quarter by quarter basis, because their bonuses are related to quarterly results.
@@CsendesMark Their wages are way beyond fair. Over 10 times what everyone else in the world makes. With globalization you are competing with the rest of the world for jobs. This is just greed by all parties.
The main problem is that executives are given bonuses bases on short term stock prices, so, surprise surprise, that's the only thing they care about. And if the company does badly in the long term they are simply replaced while taking home a juicy termination bonus.
I think that it's deeper, down to the sophomoric notion that a company's value is its stock price times the number of shares, which is ludicrous with even a moments reflection. If everyone sold, the first shareholder out might get that share price, then each successive seller will get less, until zero. The true value of the company is its long term ability, which in turn keeps new investors replacing old beyond the next few quarterly dividends. A similar issue is Net Present Value, based on future quarterly returns. Or at least, projected returns. Usually that's cast as dividends increasing exponentially into the future. But if the reality is several good quarters funded by asset stripping, followed by a company that can no longer keep the bolts on, the reality is far different. The notion needs to return that a company is its ability in its business, typically longer than a few quarters. And that management is about fostering a company's ability in its business. Profits come from useful ability. Or only briefly from asset stripping. China, for all its faults, seems to know that one needs to invest in order to eventually reap, such as in its car industry. And in aviation.
@@liam3284 The pricipal-agent theory actually describes axactly what is wrong. The executives (agents)do not act in the interest of the shareholders (the principal) but in their own, maximising their bonus. The problem is that the incentive system is wrong as the original commenter describes and that the sahreholders do not care. The latter point is the ipmortant one. Modern shareholders do not see themselves as co-owners of a business anymore, they just pull up the stop loss markers as long as the stock flies high and immediately sell when it crashes. The only was to fix this whole broken system is to introduce a transaction tax that locks stock owners into holding shares for a longer time (say 5 years) or pay a tax everytime they sell before that time limit. That would filter down to executives being given incentives to maximise long term success.
Curiously, Airbus is completely unionised and its workers are protected by powerful employee protection laws which American workers could only dream of. And, yet, Airbus is profitable, hasn't had any major safety or PR disasters, offers shareholder value and is able to attract any investment it needs.
@@666yaoz It is not just how much in the pay packet it is what you can do with it. If you need to put money aside for things that workers in civilised countries have normally you maybe no better off.
Well, no major safety disasters _lately_. The early A320 crashes are still used as one of the case studies for engineering students on "when human-computer interfaces kill". But yeah, I agree in principle.
Why is it so hard for corporate managements everywhere to understand the value of a happy and motivated workforce? Is it just because nobody's figured out a way of measuring it and getting it into a spreadsheet?
@Howiefm28496 I hear that take a lot and I think it's fundamentally flawed. If management's only job is to do what shareholders tell them to do, why are they even paid? That's monkey work. Sure, management has a duty to make profits for shareholders, but not necessarily to focus on short term gains. Plenty of businesses have models that explicitly involve other priorities, such as environmental or social considerations, alongside profit. Boeing had had steady sustainable success under their previous management with the "working together" maxim - was this betraying shareholders? Of course not. A management decision to maximise profits in the long term by keeping the workforce on side would be welcomed by many shareholders, and could attract shareholders who are interested in a long term investment or in investing in a company with an ethos they believe in. The problem is that because shareholders have a choice over what to invest in, and can move their investments rapidly, many potential wealthy shareholders (especially financial institutions) are in it for short term gains or dividends. Businesses then apply management incentives that are tied to the stock price in an attempt to attract these investors and drive up the on-paper value of the company, which then allows them to leverage that value for favourable loan terms and to invest in growth. But in an industry where a product can take over a decade to develop, that focus on the short term is manifestly inappropriate.
Look up the term "Golden Parachute". The executives can gamble/risk long term profitability, because they are focused on short term returns. It does not matter if the company is viable or not, they walk away with millions.
Agreed though Boeing at that time we're the dominate snakes and Douglas had already been overthrown by McAir St. Louis. Scott Hamilton seems to be unaware of how Douglas Aircraft Co. Was killed off. Fly DC jets! Strongest airframes in the business!
Do you think the merger was an intentional stunt to take Boeing down? I mean our government operates this way at times maybe it isn’t too far fetched??
I agree that Boeing has treated workers in a dispectful and even abusive manner over the past couple of decades. I think that's very short sighted on their part.
A few years ago I worked with a guy whose previous job was painting planes at Boeing, said it was a horrible work environment. Anyone involved in building aircraft, whatever the role, is doing a serious and important job and should be treated with respect and compensated fairly...
I heard about an acronym from a military analyst youtuber by the name of Perun that really sums up a lot of issues in certain military circles that I think also applies to Boeing in this case: C.I.C.I (Corruption, Incompetence, Complacency, Inertia). In Boeings case its this: their leaders money grubbing attitude led them to wild cost cutting measures to benefit their bottom line and that of their shareholders (while its not technically corrupt, it does demonstrate similar results). This lead to incompetence, where the ones in control either did not care or did not know (or perhaps both) the results of their actions and its damaging effects would have on them long term and instead focused on the short term effects. They looked directly down at their feet as they continued marching forward with their plans, come hell or high water. This lead to Complacency. as they satisfied their continual short term objective, They willfully ignored any signs of problems and instead pushed forward to satisfy their goal of exponential profit. They were comfortable and complacent with the results and did not adjust or fix problems. If they saw a problem they made "adjustments" to divert that problem off into the indefinite future that they couldn't even acknowledge existed. Now they are in the final stage, inertia: where everything is spiraling out of control and events have taken on a tremendous momentum of their own. As issues continue to arise the effects of actions and perception continued to compound on each other. They aren't just problem solving immediate problems anymore: they're fighting to stop the inertia of their actions and the perception of them like a runaway train that can simply keep getting heavier and faster with each problem adding to it, no matter how small. The train's growing weight, speed and momentum are simply so great that they might no longer have the resources to stop or even divert it anymore. Their inertia is carrying them straight towards an immovable object that will abruptly bring about disaster. A perfect demonstration of Corruption, Incompetence, Complacency, Inertia.
There is a real contrast between Airbus and Boeing. Airbus do not care to upset their production, their workers or their customers. They know that if they focus on doing a good steady job on every aircraft then salaries, promotions, pensions, working conditions will steadily improve. Airbus is playing a long game where Boeing tries again to again to make a quick score but it is a losing strategy.
If Airbus can do more than just well in a political environment where it is compelled to pay a minimum wage, guarantee minimum holiday allowances (1 month in the UK), observe statutory redundancy regulations (i.e. not kicking people out on the drop of a hat), and where their employees don't have to rely on the company for health insurance (because healthcare is guaranteed at point of delivery), what on EARTH does Boeing think it's doing? It won't be long before the only way they can keep going is to turn out cr@p planes which fall apart in the air because they've been built by school-leavers. Oh, hang on...
@@Badgersj The Chinese are going to eat them for lunch once they figure out how to make turbines that dont crack. Once they figure out the regional jet market in their home market its going to be a blood bath for both boeing and Airbus. But boeing is the most likely to get crushed first.
@@hungrybraineater2 Don't know, I think the immediate danger to Boeing is that tariffs on chinese stuff - which all of us consume in one way or another - is going to send their costs through the roof. Airbus won't be constrained from using Chinese widgets in the same way so will be able to beat Boeing on prices in the short term. If Airbus is penalised by Trump for using Chinese stuff then they'll at least have state support to fall back on. If they have to downsize their workers will get compensation, won't lose their healthcare etc etc. so won't take to the streets and riot. Will Trump do the same for Boeing without being guilty of "socialism"? We live in interesting times, unfortunately!
@@Badgersj I think Trump will put Tariffs on Airbus just simply because of its french roots. I think Trump will resort to Russian style crony capitalism socialism similar to Russia and if push comes to shove i think he will quasi nationalize it by letting Elon Musk merge it with spaceX. The free market capitalists who really believe in market forces are just not a political force anymore. Big picture is the Americans are moving away from the management model Boeing used to a more personalized model that you would see in a tech startup.
@@AndrewBlucher Pretty well everywhere in the developed world outside the US. Putting retirement income and health care funding in the hands of employers was always a disaster - it is just a fact that financing (not necessarily provision) of these is much more securely done by the state.
@@randomuser-xc2wrYou poor diddums. And did the CEO and CFO take pension cuts as well? I imagine not. So the slash and burn barbarians get rewarded, and the actual producers get punished? Sounds like the good ol’ American tradition of (wage) slavery to me!
@@randomuser-xc2wrAnd you don’t even have to reach down to Lenin for a sub-text: it’s actually about putting food on the table for your family, a primary, visceral concern, not an ideological one.
When it comes to cutting costs, there is always only one solution in the USA: reduce personnel costs, no matter how. Strangely enough, the fact that the board may be making huge mistakes and still raking in incredible annual salaries plus bonuses in the 3-digit million range never comes up. If their pension plan is cancelled, it won't matter to them. But it's extremely painful for the employees and workers with lower salaries. The next problem is what type of person makes a career and ends up at the top. Not the best and those who want the best for the company, but those who want power and can sell themselves well. If the company is lucky, they are also good at the same time. Well... Boeing is a prime example of the above.
@@nickjw88 AND here I had thought that Calhoun, being trained as an accountant would have had well-honed risk management chops. Isn't risk management key to good accounting?
The most ruthless and cutthroat middle to upper level management (knicknamed "thrusting rams" in industry parlance) generally have little to no concern for the "workers". They instigate rapid change and cutbacks, essentially "shit" over anyone in their path, create disaster and misery behind them, lie on their CV's and move onto a bigger and better paying job after 2-3 years, sprouting erroneous claims about the purported benefits they provided to the previous company. Like a tornado they leave devastation in their wake. These narcissistic truth benders just get away with this destruction and ruin, meanwhile, lining their pockets, creating their contacts and building their CVs. I work at a Medical Research Institute and saw the former Manager of Ethics, Integrity and Grants accomplish all of the above, while using the Institute's money to travel, attended and present at Ethics conferences internationally for his "personal company" using Institute money.
Not wild at all. What do you think they and the airlines did with all that subsidy money they got in 2020? Support the employees like it was supposed to?
Worked at the Everett factory from 1988-2013. Spent 17 years of that building the 747 in wing body join. 8 years in AOG. Four strikes while I worked there. The strike in 2008 was a mess. Being with AOG at the time it happened we had finally been asked or allowed to help out with the 787 program. It was a wreck compared to the other side of the house where the metal airframes were built. So we settled the strike and on our first day back at work I needed to go from the 787 line to the machine shop to get a cutter ground down. That is going from the southeast side of the factory to the northwest corner, it is not a short walk. I measured it with google maps and it is roughly 2,888 feet. Just over half a mile each way. There were hundreds of bicycles in the factory when we went out on strike and they were gone when we came back. i asked the manager where the bikes were and he told me they were all scrapped. He said with a note of glee and a smile. So I told him he could add at least a day to every job he handed me, multiplied by everyone else that he sees walking down the main aisles in large numbers. They were pissed off so they decided to fuck guys like me over by paying me 43.00 an hour to walk a 5K and make everything I needed to do my job as difficult as possible. From assinine decisions like scrapping bicycles to needing a managers signature to get a fucking single rivet from stores. When I left there they had already painted lines on the floor that you were supposed to follow to move yourself from your toolbox to the aircraft. Get an overhead view of the factory and draw your route with an etch-a-sketch. 90° turns. No longer could I approach the main landing gear from a line of sight path, that's way to simple for these jokers. I had to zig zag like a fucking idiot to satisfy some jackass that had an axe to grind with someone and he was gonna make sure we all suffered maximum stupid on a daily basis. it infected everything that you or me or anyone else had to do in there. Problem was that the people running the company down on the floor made it cumbersome and more micro managed which only accomplished one thing - besides pissing as many people off as possible.. It cost more to do everything. They created jobs for people that they didn't need. Like the person sitting on his ass at a table at the end of the white line that I had to stop and interact with as I neared the entry point of the aircraft work area. Telling him why i needed to go into the "work zone". It was called the barge. What shop? AOG. Working on? The aircraft. Okay.. sign in here.. Yeah.. you have to work there to understand the many levels of stupid shit that goes on in there. I can't recall a single day that I enjoyed working there. 25 years of talking myself out of breaking someones jaw. Miserable place.
Regarding the stock buybacks. They are not just used to keep the stock price up for the benefit of the company--the company does not benefit as long as thee stock price does not fall enough to make them takeover bait. the real story is that companies use VERY generous stock options as the main component of executive pay, and they buy back shares to not dilute the stock with all those extra shares. They are really financially stripping the company in order to pay immense amounts to themselves. The financial guys from McDonnell Douglas mismanaged Boeing in almost every conceivable way--they corrupted the basic business, trashed employee relations, and undermined its capital base through massively rewarding themselves.
@@vsiegelit’s basically referring to waste, yellow snow is piss. Both human and dog piss. So basically they’re saying you’re stupid- cos usually nobody has to warn you about doing something incredibly visible and idiotic
I honestly think the 777 was Boeings final spark of glory . It was the last new model that they designed from a quality first perspective, last one designed in house, and last one to use their original motto as the design philosophy. And last plane to make a major positive mark on the Avation industry .(the Dreamliner doesn’t count )Everything went down after the 757 was discontinued , and MD was acquired .Theres a reason they are allready scapping 787s and MAXs while 34 year old 777s are still flying .
Boeing nearly scrapped all of the early 20 787. Boeing back then even sold the first 777 to a costumer. The 757 was loved by the pilots but it was an expensive aircraft to make. The decision to discontinue the 757 was right. It was wrong nothing followed in that category by Boeing and Airbus offered the A321XLR.
@@MHalblaub the 757 would have been perfect competition for at least the 321xlr , maybe the other NEO a320s if they just made re-engined variant. Another mistake that Boeing made was that they never really upgraded the 737 airframe which is why that had to put the dreaded MCAS on the maxes.
Everywhere in the developed world except in the US, the employers paying for a pension fund is compulsory by law. It is illegal to employ anyone at any job without paying for their health insurance and pension. It is amazing to me that in the 21st century people still have to go on strike to demand such basic things.
They didn't lose their pension. They lost their defined-benefit pensions but still had the 401k, which is a defined-contribution pension. Defined-benefit pensions are something that most companies moved away from in the 80s in western economies, so plenty of people don't even know what one is. I'm kind of amazed they managed to hold on to one until the 2010s. Shows what a good union can do for you.
Obama mandated health insurance for all employees working more than 30 hours a week (down from 40). Now no lower end job allows anyone to work more than 29 hours. This had a profound effect driving everyone into poverty. You cannot mandate insurance and expect $5,000 per year, times 200 million workforce to magically appear.
My country (SIngapore), instead of having pensions, forces local workers (incuding PRs) with monthly salary of >=S$500 (~US$370) to have a savings account for their retirement, funded by a 20% cut from your monthly salary. The employer will also chip in a sum equivalent to 13% of your salary into the account, which besides being reserved for your retirement can also be used to partially fund healthcare services. Some of my countrymen have thus worried though that employers may favour hiring foreigners over locals as they don't have to pay that extra 13% to the former (but I've heard of some employers who still pay that 13% anyway but as regular take-home pay). There's also been a debate over whether PRs who move back to their birth country upon retirement & take out all funds from that savings account are committing an act tantamount to treason
Employers pay to social security fund which all workers start getting between 65 and 67 (depends on year you were born). What is being talked about is company pension plan.
Outsourcing is really at the core of a lot of Boeing's problems. Not just at the airplane level (as we've seen with Spirit), but also on the space side. Most of the issues with the Dreamliner have been coming from the Rocketdyne components. But Boeing has the ultimate responsibility of the project as they are the integrator. Having direct control over design and fabrication was their strength in the past. Managing multiple subcontractors is much more difficult, particularly when the quality of the final product is paramount.
And to sustain such strategy, QA is paramount for success. So Boeing is sharing risk without some safeguards from within and outside. So a disaster to happen
@ I’ve thought that too, but Boeing mesmerizes me every time. Something much bigger is about to happen and thankfully FAA is stricter about certification. And, the management isn’t committed to solve management problems and scheduling all problems after
I work for Boeing Future of Flight, which does the factory tours in Everett. While it sucked being furloughed for weeks I'm still on the workers' side and holding out hope that this episode changes the corporate culture... but I doubt it.
I was just out there a few weeks ago. The size of the facility is incredible... we just drove around it and the empty parking lots was quite telling. Does Boeing own the Museum of Flight too? It's next to Boeing Field and has a lot of Boeing buildings around it.
@@JustherefortheLOLZ boeing does not own the museum of flight, i believe it is a non-profit, but boeing does work closely with them and is one of the major corporate sponsors
Why? I have mediocre education, and my 3rd company put me in a pickup truck in my early 20s and paid me $116,000/yr to operate rural gathering oil pipelines. This was in 2014-16. Almost a decade ago.
I am a retired physicist who spent a lot of time working with cutting-edge computing companies, and I watched the second biggest company, DEC, simply disappear. It had been run by engineers and had products that customers wanted. Then, the accountants took over and made the interfaces proprietary, which made DEC's products much less interesting. They also failed to produce competitive workstations. I have other examples. It was very frustrating to see the money men saw through the branch on which they were sitting. The situation with Boeing, though, is worse because they have a disaffected work force producing aircraft on which the lives of hundreds of passengers depend. And we have seen the results.
it would have also been great if Avro Canada translated from being completely invested in the Avro Arrow to a more civilian aircraft focus... perhaps had our government done that, we might have a triopoly today (Avro, Boeing, Airbus)
And not them only. They managed to kill other country's ones too with illegal practices! Check out Olivetti and how IBM strangled them... Especially check out what Mr Olivetti himself was trying to do to his employees: schools for the children, hospitals, a real European of 2nd millennium way of work, but back in the '70s ...
Jack Walsh, the GE exec which cut 'costs,' introduced a 90 day pay delay, even for the local pizza shops which supplied food for the Erie PA engine plant meetings! Soon, no food supplier could be found for that plant's needs! Can you blame them, not getting paid for three months?!
It should be noted that Labor accounts for ~2% of the price-tag of a Boeing jet. 2 cents on the dollar for the workers who put it together. Meanwhile bloated Exec salaries continue unabated.
Boeing hasn't turned an actual profit for 30+ years. Their stock price and dividend history reflects this fact. They suck for investors. They cannot figure out how to make money.
All of corporate America has the same problem. The Boeing CEO has a college degree in economics and worked at a candy company before getting a job at Boeing. He played golf and went to parties and kissed butt and now he is CEO and he knows just as much as I do about building, designing and flying an airplane NOTHING !!!
He has a degree in Mechanical Engineering and has never worked for a candy company. He worked for Collins Aerospace before Boeing. Your post is literally a load of made up garbage.
If it's done within a certain limit, maybe. But the debt of a company and future investments have to be taken care of first. Not only Boeing failed to do so.
They're one of the biggest issues with the modern economy that's been rigged to focus on corporate profits and shareholder returns over _everything_ else. Unfortunately, as long as Congress can openly engage in insider trading, nothing will ever be done about that...or any of the other economic issues people face.
The purpose of a company stock is to raise money cheaply which is used to build the company. After the stock has been issued, it's a burden on the company, lots of filings, so it would make sense to buyback the stock with the company profits and eventually take the company back into private ownership. Whilst a company's stock is being traded, generally by people with no interest in the company, a low stock price makes the company vulnerable to being taken over, often by someone who takes out a loan to buy the company, and then transfers the loan to the company, (e.g. Elon Musk and Twitter), often forcing the company into bankruptcy; that should be illegal.
Maybe I left too soon? (April 2019). I was burned out and tired of no raises and no promotions. Management tore up my promotion applications, and during performance reviews said I was doing a fantastic job - but I wouldn't be getting a raise because of my hard work.
I retired from 3M four years ago. McNernery was our CEO starting in 2002/and his six sigma push destroyed the innovation culture which was the key to success ( check out stock prices). And then he moved to Boeing CEO where he accomplished the same. Once great companies with a strong engineering/ innovation culture were destroyed by marketing/ finance CEO’s. So sad.
I always like to hear your perspective on the workers rights on USA, Peter. Being from a country where the worker's rights is seen in a very different view, you bring some balance to this discussion.
In a technical and safety sensitive business that depends on employees always choosing to do the right thing, it's just psychotic to treat them dismissively
As a former Douglas turned Boeing employee it was a tough road. The last regime of Md D management strictly focused on short term profits and profits, did help me buy a house so there is that. The focus on financials over technical prowess was distressing. During Covid I got laid off along with a lot of other higher seniority employees. I think that Bain drain hurt them
The biggest point of contention with Labor has always been health care coverage. Boeing's unions have among the best health care coverage in the country due to its strong unions. These premium health care plans essentially subsidize the health care system for those without insurance and with lower quality insurance. I don't understand why Boeing's management doesn't call for universal healthcare in the United States. The US has the most expensive health care in the world at 17% of GDP, whereas Europe is around 12% of GDP. That is a big difference which gets factored into the cost of every airplane. Getting a handle on healthcare costs would calm union relations and help US competitiveness.
Their big investors are probably investors in health insurance companies so they would not like that - Wall Street has no concern for actual humans, and they can get away with that because the county has been gaslighted into believing their bullshit for so long.
Heh. I am old enough to remember when things like socialized medicine was something american business groups were clamoring for in order to make the US more competitive. Both the republicans and democrats were in favor of it, but after a couple decades of lobbying (and astroturf) from the health care industry, it became a 'culture war' front, with the GoP switching to 'single payer system is communism and the democrats will prioritize brown people over your white grandma who will DIE!'
@@jkberner That is a “can of worms”. Realistically it is unlikely that the “status quo corporate system” in the US would ever allow this to happen due to the medical industry’s self interest of making sure it will never happen so as to maximize profits. The “profit maximizers” have too much control over the governmental rule making process and there does not seem to be a way of changing this.
Honestly, most companies in the US do not want Universal Healthcare even though it would save them a ton of money. The reason is control of workers. As long as your health insurance is tied to your employer, it is a lot harder to just up and leave a job. In other words, it is another way to take advantage of workers and treat them like crap.
Until we start rewarding long-term stability over short-term profits, US businesses are going to continue failing the way Boeing is. We have witnessed hundreds of iconic companies fold or get sold into oblivion thanks to "Wall Street". There isn't any reason a business can't make a profit, but it can't come at the expense of safety and product quality if you want that business to last.
@@maurvir3197 I wonder if that is something that is actually attainable in the US in a general sense? The “wish” that US companies could be allowed to forgo “pressure for short term profits” seems to something that has been hoped for many decades but almost never materializes. It seems like the whole system strongly discourages that and is not going to change.
It falls on the shareholders. Unfortunately, outside of shareholder meetings, there isn’t really a union to stand up to the company. Shares going up, great, long term stability. If the company decides on sabotaging themselves for short term profit but doesn’t have a long term plan, either the company has to straighten up, or the shareholders pull their investments.
In an ideal world, we would be revisiting why a stock market even exists. It was created centuries ago to serve a specific purpose.. but kinda like copyright it is now having almost the exact opposite effect it was intended to have. It exists because laws were put on the book to create it, and it can be made to stop existing the same way.
@ But how many shareholders / funds have enough “economic visibility” into any particular company to make reasonable decisions? Even the “professionals” have difficulties.
What’s the alternative? Chinese type state financed companies? Russian type oligarchs? Capitalism succeeds for a reason and far more efficient from a macro perspective.
With goodwill between the US and Europe also at an all-time low, I would also not be surprised if Airbus grows more bold in their attitude towards Boeing in the coming years.
Richard Branson is quoted as saying, “Customer do not come first. Employees come first. If you take care of your employees, they will take care of the customers”
All that money spent on buying back shares is what you get when management's bonuses depend on share price instead of creating great products. They could have developed a fantastic successor to the 737 with all those billions of dollars.
I had no idea Boeing was cannibalizing its own workforce for that long. The company could've survived its mistakes with the MAX if it wasn't also destroying every shred of stability it had at the same time.
Disagree, the mistake with the MAX was not the problem, the problem was the philosophy (sic) that allowed the MAX to fail. That is a systemic problem wrought by finance people who never had to get started with a paper-run.
If Boeing ever goes bankrupt, it’s not because Airbus outsells or produces better plane. It would be from that Boeing self destructs and implode from within. The fact that Boeing CEO said “…. we're better off doing less and doing it better”, that’s an encouraging thing to hear. It gives a slight hope for Boeing’s futures. I just hope Boeing gets better.
Sadly I do have to wonder if this really is the end for Boeing. We saw it happen to Douglas, and it seems Boeing caught it too. I’m giving it a few more years and they’ll be gone.
The thing I have always believed is that the U.S. government wanted MDC to merge with Boeing in order to defacto subsidize Boeing during slow times in commercial aircraft with military programs. MDC was the largest defense contractor at the time of the merger. It is well known that Airbus gets subsidized by European counties. Airbus complained about the merger at the time. MDC got eliminated for the Joint Strike Fighter (later F-35). It was the biggest defense contract in U.S. history. I think it was done to force MDC to merge with Boeing. Just a theory.
The Titanic unsinkable thing and the sinking is the mistake that killed the white star line. Boeing just committed this very same mistake with the 737 max.
@ It is just such an awkward time to embark on a $20,000,000,000 decade long development program with so many huge unknowns. And now with Trump promising to dismantle Biden’s environmental policies, where does that leave future SAF and hydrogen production projects? The rules were just getting finalized by the Treasury Department and implemented by the IRS with regard to these issues. The energy industry is just now evaluating if their “proposed projects” make economic sense within this new framework. Now it is very probable that Trump will change things enough that a new reevaluation process will occur due to the “new economic realities”. Uncertainty does a lot to push timelines out and in this case it does have implications for new aircraft / engine development programs. So unless the EU can “force the issue” about environmental rules, this lack of consistency is bad.
And they’re cancelling the 767 due to emissions. Unlike the 737, the 76 can easily take new engines. The GeNx, or the Trent come to mind. Perhaps they don’t want to push too far into the 787 territory, but first, the cargo industry is well tailored to the 767 already, like the 75 which again Boeing ignored, and secondly, and primarily, they’ve also forgotten to make a 787 freighter.
@ Would a re-engined 767 be competitive against an Airbus contemporary? Would it not be a very niche product? Does Boeing have the resources at this time to execute?
@suki4410 well, yes and no. When big companies fail the damage can be colossal. Entire regional economies destroyed, thousands thrown onto welfare. And that's, not to mention Boeing's defence contracts and impact that might have. This is why Obama rescued GM - not for GM's sake, but for the staff, the suppliers, customers and so on. However. It has to be on the proviso that there are constructive changes and improvements. You can't just bung a cheque and allow the company to keep doing what it is.
GM should have never been saved and Boeing should not either. Poor use of our Tax Dollars. Hopefully Trump and Elon will not let this happen on their watch!
I remember some 4 years ago when so-called experts said Airbus is finished and will never again cross the $100 stock price threshold because Boeing is just too competitive good thing I didn't listen
I was laid off last week as a direct result of the Boeing strike. I don’t work for Boeing but they’re one of our main customers. The forecast of Boeing orders across the next year are less than 50% of our manufacturing capacity. It’s looking bleak.
Sorry to hear that. I know what it is like. Hopefully you get an opening that gives you a good long term stable career. I hope this doesn't come across as glib but "as one door closes, another opens". All the best for the future.
Absolutely. Being laid off isn’t so bad. I see it as a huge opportunity and the catalyst for positive change. I’m just sad how they escort you out of the building without getting to say goodbye to all the people you met along the way. Thanks for your support and I’m enjoying my unexpected vacation.
It's not the MBA's. They do what management tells them to do. As a former boss so interestingly put it when we talked about responsibility... "you are a gun but you can't aim or shoot on your own. Management points you in a direction and pulls the trigger". I am an MBA BTW- but from the last century when profit was important but so was quality and long term company growth. A large part of shareholder concerns was long term stability and quality.
“More with less” is a slogan I want to hear from Walmart, NOT from the people building planes. Support unions. They don’t just improve the lives of workers, but improve the safety for customers as well. They’re one of the only things stopping unfettered corporate greed these days.
"Can Boeing fail" and "is Boeing in immediate danger of failing" aren't the same question. The answer to the first is obviously "yes", even if the answer to the second is likely "no".
Of course it was Tim Clark who said what everybody was thinking. That man pulls zero punches. If I never have to hear "shareholder value" again, it will be too soon. When a company focuses on that instead of the people buying their products/services, that's when there's a problem.
At my school a guy from Boeing actually came and talked about an internship that they did and how they needed trade workers suck as machinists, trying to convince people to go to Washington to work for them. When the door fell off, they actually canceled the internship for that year, and after hearing about what Boeing has done in the past, im kinda glad I didn’t sign up.
Having been a union mechanic at an airline, I remember we got a much better contract. A few years later, management forced the company into bankruptcy. The creditors robbed the pension plan. The Jet shop and a lot of shops that reworked components are no longer there. Most of that work is now in other countries including Mexico and Hong Kong. The United states isn’t competitively priced for really anything so getting a great raise in the short term might end up costing a lot more down the road
“Take care of your employees and they will take care of your business.” - Richard Branson It’s safe to say McNerney pissed on Boeing and its employees.
I used to love Boeing as a child. When I graduated with a 1st in Engineering I applied for a job with them. They refused because I was from Australia. But they said "We are an equal opportunities employer". Still, I persevered. And persevered. But nothing happened. This was in 1979. Slowly I realized that dream was dead. And I realized that Boeing would not be a good company to work for. I cant get excited about Boeing anymore.
Three Flying Fortresses were shot down within the area I now live @@MarinCipollina Many of the crew are buried at Margraten. Thanks to your uncle, and to all the others, for their service and sacrifices. Happy Veterans Day.
@@thetruthbehindplanes American servicemen buried at Margraten (8300 graves) will never be forgotten. Every single grave has been adopted by local families, who hand over the duty from generation to generation. There is a waiting list of people who want to adopt a grave.
"If you find yourself outside and it is cold, you can always piss your pants to warm up but it won't stay warm for very long" That is a great saying aha!
I applied to Boeing back in 1997 - and was warned by someone who lived in that part of Washington that Boeing was famous for hiring engineers for a project (I'm a software engineer) - and then dumping them when the project was over. When I got an offer, it was for less than what I had said was my minimum salary (I didn't take the job). So Boeing's mistreatment has been institutionalized for close to 30 years now.
After 30 years of service in aircraft as an engineer, what I understood is that no organization, company, especially an airline, can function properly and constructively if the relationship with the employees is not a family relationship with understanding and a collective effort to succeed.
I am from and live in North Charleston SC and we appreciate Boeing doing business here. As long as they don’t build the Max or anything spacecraft here…
Boeing company culture changed when they merged with McDonnell Douglass. They used to pride themselves on quality in every aspect of production, from design to fabrication to quality control. The result of quality and people first got them the reputation they richly deserved, but also got them noticed by the sharks at McDonnell Douglass. When the merger happened, they kept the Boeing name because Boeing had earned the better reputation, but they got rid of the management that was responsible for that great reputation and replaced them with management that cared about nothing but making huge profits for stockholders. The end result are stories about doors blowing out and astronauts being stranded in space.
@@MentourNow I see a playlist with 5 items, are the first three the ones you are talking about, or are they separate videos not in a playlist? I will start with the playlist, thank you!
There actually was a saying in those days - "The ideal airliner would be conceived by Lockheed, built by Boeing and marketed by McDonnell-Douglas". Says it all really.
In at least one sense they have already failed. They have moved from being the world's no. 1 aircraft manufacturer to being a pretty poor second. Even if everything went their way, in a perfect world, it will take *at the very least* a decade, and more likely two, before they could be in a position to challenge for the top spot.
Just wanted to add context for your next video hopefully. The union wanted 40 percent but the workers wanted 61 percent (price of inflation from 2008) Workers had 0 of thier demands met during the final contract. Health care cost will increase from 23.50 to over 70 dollars a pay check. Max out rate is still 6 years. Every 6 month progression step is still 50 cents. lesser demands werent met but those few were the big ones. After accepting this contract i still make less then the mcdonalds workers across the street, with the raise, and ive been at the company for 3 years. Our union folded for so little and its depressing honestly.
Great video but you missed the point that share buy back schemes inflate the stock price and so greatly increase the value of the executive's stock options. Suggest you take a look at Boeing executives variable comp.
They can pump money into some company only for so long. Look at Boeing & Lockheed space launch company... they were milking government until someone else came and now they are to die - it's only a matter of time.
Fail - maybe not entirely. But with the coming trade wars, I think Boeing will lose a lot of its international market share. It will have to downsize considerably.
As a software guy I was really worried when Airbus went completely fly by wire. As Petter has explained, it lacks pilot feedback. But it has shown itself to be relatively reliable. Relative to Boeing that is. And Boeing is at war with it's workforce. How does that produce a product that I can rely on? The evidence shows that I cannot. If its Boeing I ain't going. Its a matter of life or death.
Large non-FBW aircraft have a lot of artificial feel anyway, Airbus FBW just lacks a fully manual reversion mode. The philosophy is to show the plane what you'd like to do & it'll do it safely, I guess... that's fine for almost every scenario you can think of.
As an Aircraft Industry Professional living in Wichita for 46 years I can tell you with certainty that Boeing selling the facility here to Spirit Aerosystems was a huge mistake. Many of their problems started after that transaction and have snowballed ever since. If Boeing is to survive they need to look at the past and get back to where they were.
I don't really understand how anyone thinks treating your workforce like sht will make a company more successful. A company needs motivated and skillfull workers in order for it to survive and thrive. Workers on the other hand needs the company in order to survive and make a living, it is always a two way street.
Another reason for distributing 787 production all over the place was they thought it would make the plane more competitive in countries that shared production. Presumably, Boeing didn’t know the problems the Germans experienced in 1944 when they built advanced U-Boats that way and had all sorts of problems when they tried to assemble the pieces.
Actually Boeing borrowed this strategy from Airbus, just taking it a lot further. Airbus has always had its planes built in many different countries of Europe and the sub-assemblies sent to Toulouse for final assembly. But they didn't notice that Airbus rarely took the lowest bidder contractor and always kept extraordinarily tight control of them - in most cases if you win a major contract with Airbus you become just a branch of them.
To be honest, i always instinctively check the type of plane before booking a flight and i have not flown with a Boeing since the quality control problems started.
19:11 senior management not wearing ANY PPE on the factory floor, with neck ties and loose-fitting unbuttoned jackets! - clear demo of Boeings toxic attitude to CRM of their workforce. Don't do what we do - do as we tell you!
Go to ground.news/mentournow to get worldwide coverage on Boeing, aviation safety and more! Subscribe through my link for 50% off unlimited access this month
But doing it in 5mm wet suit when windsurfing off of the British coast in February is very satisfying. It takes somewhat longer to creep down your thighs.
No mr. Mentour.... It goes like: Det är som att pissa i sängen, det värmer för stunden...
When talking about a short term solution. "It's like pissing in the bed, it warms for the moment." Meaning its nice and warm at first but gets cold and sticky quite fast.
FYI, seems I have been unsubscribed! Been subbed for years and watch all your content, very strange...
In Germany every company above a certain size must have a union official as a permanent member of the board of directors by law.
It works quite well.
@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 You mean it worked quite well. Now, with imbecile greens determined to sink Germany to support nato rabid aggression on Russia (that started long before 2021) just to support fascist US proxy and genocide in Gaza/Liban a bit longer? Don't worry, with mass closures of German factories due to skyrocketing energy prices soon these workers will have to accept US like trash work conditions with zero voice on anything or see 90% of German industry bankrupting or moving elsewhere...
My old boss had a plaque above his door as you left his office . " The success of a business is because of its employees and not despite them " . Never forgotten.
My best mate wrote a poem.
Without the people who row,
the man at the bow,
is just a man with a whip
on a very quiet,
stationary ship.
It is a good poem.
That is golden!
@@BongoBaggins😂 that tickled me far too much.
smart person.
@derektaylor2941 You'd probably be surprised at how morale improves. Give it a go.
Having worked for 3 fortune 100 companies, I can say the real reason for the corporate corruption to quality and greed is the bonus plans. They hire hungry MBAs and give them a barely living wage, with the promise of huge bonuses if they can cut costs. Without any limits on damages done from cost cutting. Like a carpenter building a chair, and a bean counter with an MBA removing one leg of the chair to save 25%. The bean counter makes a huge bonus from reducing costs by 25%, when the chairs fall over, and injury people, the management blames the carpenters for poor design and time management. The MBAs make two years of massive bonuses then move to another company, while boasting of how they streamlined production and cut cost 25% at the previous company.
There is a class of management with one aim; cut costs despite everything, look good on paper (CV), move on before the fan gets hit by you know what, rinse and repeat. Could be a CEO at a toothpaste factory, then move to a call centre, then a hotel chain, then a manufacturer of aircraft. They know nothing about the core business but have a one eyed aim... reduce costs to boost their share bonus and get out before the real impact of their greed is manifested. Oh for competent loyal managers with long term vision.
No the problem is more primitive. Too many MBAs in the first place.
Reminder that you can get an MBA in 6 months. And it doesn't really teach you anything deep either.
the cutting on expenses is the same as a relious person feels when eh saves another people from "evil" and both would boast and tell everyone how good he did - and Both are actually blind as hell and equally dispicl´kble
And that's when the lawyers come in
I have a friend who was a Boeing employee, his specialty was aircraft wheels & brakes. In the early 2000s, most of that division was called into a conference room three days before Christmas and told that they were fired effective immediately. Badges and IDs were pulled right there and they each had a security guard following them around. They were given 30 minutes to clean out their desks. Ask this guy what he thinks of Boeing and he'll give you an essay.
On the upside, they're working for my division now with pay-raises. We got all their smart wheel, brake, and tire guys. Thanks, Boeing! Your decision to contract it out has worked brilliantly. They did it to save money. How did that work out? They were paying those guys $60/hour and decided that it made good fiscal sense to pay a company $400/hour/man for the same exact service. Well done!
It's against federal law to fire represented employees immediately, except for cause (and I've seen THAT happen). A 60-day WARN notice must be given first. Employess might be asked to leave immediately, but they'd get 60 days of full pay and benefits (not counting COBRA afterward).
@@Greatdome99que bien, podría habérselo dicho al amigo del que escribió eso hace 20 años.
@@Greatdome99 the fact that you think companies won't do something because it's illegal only outlines your lack of understanding of the world we live in. Especially American companies.
Maybe it's a way for CEO to pocketed a 400-60 = $340/hour/man different? The usual stuff, CEO of public company decided to outsourcing. Then create his/her own shell company to pick up the outsource job. Then charged the public company an exorbitant rate.
@@Greatdome99 except that there is a loophole. WARN notices are not required if the layoff is caused by unforeseen business circumstances.
Those financial stunts sound as if Boeing was merely a large investment company that happens to have an airplane division which is increasingly annoying the board.
Every company in the US is an investment company or a law company that sometimes makes other stuff sadly. Look at Disney. Disney’s quality has gotten so bad that they’re scraping along on being possessive over IP. They’re a law firm that sometimes makes movies.
@@yamato6114 Disney has always been possessive over IP, they literally lobbied for most of the copyright extensions for decades.
GM
@@Taladar2003 Yeah there's a reason why the "Copyright Extension Act" is commonly referred to as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act"
@@Taladar2003And it’s coming back to bite them now
I work in a factory that does aluminum extrusions/makes primarily airplane parts and they told us in a meeting right after the strike ended that Boeing basically doesn't even expect to start producing planes again for 2-3 months while the striking employees get back to work and get re-certified to do stuff, all while their warehouse is full of our parts so basically all boeing orders for nov-dec were cancelled.
Yup, it will take a while for receiving everywhere in the company to dig out of all of the inventory that stacked up. Boeing seemed willing to do anything to save the company except make a deal to get back to delivering planes. Nobody who was doing the high level negotiating for Boeing had a clue about the situation on the ground. Idiots including everyone on the BOD.
Oh well, pay your employees and you won't have strikes.
@@applejuicejunkie316 Meanwhile my country has a social compact, where if you ask for pay rises, you may get chastised & be told you "must understand" you "don't deserve" a pay raise because you haven't been more productive, & a professor from Germany once wrote on our broadsheet agreeing with this. Think this social compact will meanwhile be rejected by protesters in the USA asking for a higher minimum wage
This American attitude towards cutting costs and increasing shareholder value is the exact reason so many Americans are driving Honda and Toyota. Those companies work with a philosophy of continuous improvement of quality, and profits will follow.
This is the root cause of Boeing’s problems. Managerial incompetence brought them to this state. I doubt they will be able to bring them out within 20 years. I just hope the new US government doesn’t fall into the trap of bailing them out, which i believe is the main focus of Ortberg’s mandate.
One irony is that Boeing kinda worships Toyota and has turned 'lean' into a mantra.. but really only the part about finding ways to cut costs with the rest being mostly ritual. It is like they saw a company doing something good, took that thing, and only implemented a combination of the worst parts and the language... but completely dropping the things that made it effective.
The Japanese market is highly conservative, unaccountable corporate governance and has traditionally not focused on increasing shareholder value. This is one of the major reasons for its economic stagnation over the past 30 years. In recent years, Japan has been actively working to increase investor protection through policy reforms and corporate governance improvements aimed at attracting investment. I think you're using a poor example as a potential alternative to Western capitalism. Like it or not, investor driven capitalism remains the most efficient system from a macro perspective.
@@frank7353pleasing the shareholders at the expense of quality and long term interest of company it is not the best system. Japan has companies that survived world wars and some are century older
@@frank7353 "investor driven capitalism remains the most efficient system from a macro perspective"
I would like some of what you're smoking.
This is where unmitigated corporate greed can take a legendary corporation.
It hasn't been legendary for generations. I think you are nostalgic for the brand.
@@golanheights9000Boeing basically launched the jet age with 707 and build the first commercial widebody. I don't think legendary is an exaggeration.
@玄風-m9n There are three distinct Boeing iterations. The first is the Seattle based engineering firm that was legendary. The second is the Chicago phase where the government had MD buy Boeing using Boeings' own money. That's the financialisation and brand phase. Hard to say anything went well in this phase if you weigh the price of what little successes there were. Similar to NASA. The 3rd phase is the government owned subsidiary Virginia phase. They will do things at a very low standard and cost trillions before they are reformed. Hopefully. Maybe.
Real
@@golanheights9000I think he is referring to the fact that you don't need to have lived in those years of Boeing glory to witness their succes, you can see that on some planes that are flying these days like the 747, older 737 and maybe even the 777, because that earlier succes can be seen throughout a longer period even though nowadays they aren't doing pretty well.
Companies seem to forget why their product is well loved and popular: the employees who made the product. That's where the rubber meets the road. Treat your employees fair, and you'll build a strong work ethic and loyalty. When you dump on them, then you get the mess you're in now.
Exactly.
Modern business only cares about the next investor report
The most successful companies disagree with you as does the Dow Jones. The companies who cater to these unions and employee demands cannot compete in this day and age. In fact, the successful companies disagree so much that they use employees overseas for near slave labor rates.
The saying is “take care of your employees, and they will take care of you customers”
@@liam3284 they want a product that works, continues to work, and will have service and replacement parts for years down the lane.
I have to say as an investor, I really hate when companies do stock buy backs. They are almost always a net value destroyer. Boeing is a perfect example. They effectively borrowed money because it was cheap at the time, to over-pay for their stock. Then when interest rates inevitably go back up, they are saddled with expensive debt, which then creates a drag on the stock for future shareholders. If I own stock in a company that announces a stock buy-back for any reason other than they can clearly define why their current price is substantially under-valued, I ride if for the short burst it provides and then unload the stock.
If buying back stock is the best thing leadership can think of to spend money on to create value, that means that the company no longer has any future vision and leadership is now in the mode of extracting as much out now for current shareholders at the expense of future share holders.
can i ask about dividend from your perspective?
well said.
Stocks have no value, only price. It is an interest free loan that never needs to be repaid. A worthless piece of paper that obligates the issuer to nothing, like a Federal Reserve Note. Buying back stock is the only ethical thing to do, however, done for manipulating purposes, is a disaster.
I think your Reith. That was the original Idee beheind Share holder value.
Yes. Most major companies do buybacks with borrowed credit with stockes as collateral. If the management does only this and neglects production and safety, they are turning a healthy company into a flimsy Ponzi scheme, pocketing billions in the process
On one hand, Boeing’s management is unwilling to pay their hardworking employees fairly, yet on the other hand, they granted a 45% salary increase to the CEO-a staggering $32.8 million to one individual. The company faces challenges, yet he receives this enormous raise. Shame on Boeing’s management!
DEI always works that way, funny that.
@@churblefurbles stupid people cling to simple and wrong explanations of things like DEI
As usual, this 'fish stinks from the head'!
@@churblefurbles What are you even talking about dude…
@@churblefurbles What does this even mean
Waging a war against of your own employees isn't smart on the long run?
Who could thought that?????
Waging a war against your employer is also a problem.
@@jamesengland7461 Sure, mate, those workers wanted a fair wage for world-class production. And they got the finger...
Employees, suppliers, and customers. Beoing just can't get enough of waging war against everyone it interacts with. The only people it actually works with is the board (I would not even say the shareholders at this point)
That's the problem, too many are not planning for the long run. They are planning on quarter by quarter basis, because their bonuses are related to quarterly results.
@@CsendesMark Their wages are way beyond fair. Over 10 times what everyone else in the world makes. With globalization you are competing with the rest of the world for jobs. This is just greed by all parties.
"More with less" says everything.
More with less get you far less.
Who ever thought that was a good slogan when relating it to civil aviation construction?
The slogan quite frankly reads like a joke
"More with less" sounds like a Soviet era slogan
more incidents with less safety
makes sense it you put it that way
The main problem is that executives are given bonuses bases on short term stock prices, so, surprise surprise, that's the only thing they care about. And if the company does badly in the long term they are simply replaced while taking home a juicy termination bonus.
Win win 🤑as they laugh at the little people. 🤮
And yet almost no one seems to mention this.
I think that it's deeper, down to the sophomoric notion that a company's value is its stock price times the number of shares, which is ludicrous with even a moments reflection. If everyone sold, the first shareholder out might get that share price, then each successive seller will get less, until zero. The true value of the company is its long term ability, which in turn keeps new investors replacing old beyond the next few quarterly dividends.
A similar issue is Net Present Value, based on future quarterly returns. Or at least, projected returns. Usually that's cast as dividends increasing exponentially into the future. But if the reality is several good quarters funded by asset stripping, followed by a company that can no longer keep the bolts on, the reality is far different.
The notion needs to return that a company is its ability in its business, typically longer than a few quarters. And that management is about fostering a company's ability in its business. Profits come from useful ability. Or only briefly from asset stripping.
China, for all its faults, seems to know that one needs to invest in order to eventually reap, such as in its car industry. And in aviation.
Indeed, they should be payed higher pensions if the company prospers till they retire.
@@liam3284 The pricipal-agent theory actually describes axactly what is wrong. The executives (agents)do not act in the interest of the shareholders (the principal) but in their own, maximising their bonus.
The problem is that the incentive system is wrong as the original commenter describes and that the sahreholders do not care. The latter point is the ipmortant one. Modern shareholders do not see themselves as co-owners of a business anymore, they just pull up the stop loss markers as long as the stock flies high and immediately sell when it crashes.
The only was to fix this whole broken system is to introduce a transaction tax that locks stock owners into holding shares for a longer time (say 5 years) or pay a tax everytime they sell before that time limit. That would filter down to executives being given incentives to maximise long term success.
Curiously, Airbus is completely unionised and its workers are protected by powerful employee protection laws which American workers could only dream of. And, yet, Airbus is profitable, hasn't had any major safety or PR disasters, offers shareholder value and is able to attract any investment it needs.
What? Boeing workers don’t get 5 weeks paid vacation, unlimited sick days, long paid maternity and paternity leaves and free healthcare? I’m shocked 😂
Yes, but boeing pays like 50% more....
Actually, Airbus has had some design issues with their airplanes in the past. But nothing like Boeing in the present
@@666yaoz It is not just how much in the pay packet it is what you can do with it. If you need to put money aside for things that workers in civilised countries have normally you maybe no better off.
Well, no major safety disasters _lately_. The early A320 crashes are still used as one of the case studies for engineering students on "when human-computer interfaces kill". But yeah, I agree in principle.
Why is it so hard for corporate managements everywhere to understand the value of a happy and motivated workforce? Is it just because nobody's figured out a way of measuring it and getting it into a spreadsheet?
They do understand however they work for big stockholders so must do whatever they are directed to do.
@Howiefm28496 I hear that take a lot and I think it's fundamentally flawed. If management's only job is to do what shareholders tell them to do, why are they even paid? That's monkey work. Sure, management has a duty to make profits for shareholders, but not necessarily to focus on short term gains. Plenty of businesses have models that explicitly involve other priorities, such as environmental or social considerations, alongside profit. Boeing had had steady sustainable success under their previous management with the "working together" maxim - was this betraying shareholders? Of course not. A management decision to maximise profits in the long term by keeping the workforce on side would be welcomed by many shareholders, and could attract shareholders who are interested in a long term investment or in investing in a company with an ethos they believe in.
The problem is that because shareholders have a choice over what to invest in, and can move their investments rapidly, many potential wealthy shareholders (especially financial institutions) are in it for short term gains or dividends. Businesses then apply management incentives that are tied to the stock price in an attempt to attract these investors and drive up the on-paper value of the company, which then allows them to leverage that value for favourable loan terms and to invest in growth. But in an industry where a product can take over a decade to develop, that focus on the short term is manifestly inappropriate.
Because it works long term - and they are evaluated and paid for short term gains.
Look up the term "Golden Parachute". The executives can gamble/risk long term profitability, because they are focused on short term returns. It does not matter if the company is viable or not, they walk away with millions.
Because there are no rules or laws to stop this
The merger with the snakes at MDD was the worst decision Boeing ever made.
Agreed though Boeing at that time we're the dominate snakes and Douglas had already been overthrown by McAir St. Louis. Scott Hamilton seems to be unaware of how Douglas Aircraft Co. Was killed off. Fly DC jets! Strongest airframes in the business!
How so? The shareholders at the time made a lot of money! What other criteria *is* there???
/s
Muilenburg was a Boeing lifer. He was the one who mismanaged the MCAS problem.
Dassault Aviation and AirBus : Make BAGUETTE Great Again 🥖
Do you think the merger was an intentional stunt to take Boeing down? I mean our government operates this way at times maybe it isn’t too far fetched??
I agree that Boeing has treated workers in a dispectful and even abusive manner over the past couple of decades. I think that's very short sighted on their part.
I agree.
A few years ago I worked with a guy whose previous job was painting planes at Boeing, said it was a horrible work environment. Anyone involved in building aircraft, whatever the role, is doing a serious and important job and should be treated with respect and compensated fairly...
Also, the flying public. That is how I lost respect for Boeing and will NEVER die on a Boeing.
@@rustyjeep2469 Every worker in every sector in every country should be treated with respect and compensated fairly.
@@dewyakana1543 same don't trust them
I heard about an acronym from a military analyst youtuber by the name of Perun that really sums up a lot of issues in certain military circles that I think also applies to Boeing in this case: C.I.C.I (Corruption, Incompetence, Complacency, Inertia). In Boeings case its this:
their leaders money grubbing attitude led them to wild cost cutting measures to benefit their bottom line and that of their shareholders (while its not technically corrupt, it does demonstrate similar results).
This lead to incompetence, where the ones in control either did not care or did not know (or perhaps both) the results of their actions and its damaging effects would have on them long term and instead focused on the short term effects. They looked directly down at their feet as they continued marching forward with their plans, come hell or high water.
This lead to Complacency. as they satisfied their continual short term objective, They willfully ignored any signs of problems and instead pushed forward to satisfy their goal of exponential profit. They were comfortable and complacent with the results and did not adjust or fix problems. If they saw a problem they made "adjustments" to divert that problem off into the indefinite future that they couldn't even acknowledge existed.
Now they are in the final stage, inertia: where everything is spiraling out of control and events have taken on a tremendous momentum of their own. As issues continue to arise the effects of actions and perception continued to compound on each other. They aren't just problem solving immediate problems anymore: they're fighting to stop the inertia of their actions and the perception of them like a runaway train that can simply keep getting heavier and faster with each problem adding to it, no matter how small. The train's growing weight, speed and momentum are simply so great that they might no longer have the resources to stop or even divert it anymore. Their inertia is carrying them straight towards an immovable object that will abruptly bring about disaster.
A perfect demonstration of Corruption, Incompetence, Complacency, Inertia.
And that is why stocks and public ownership should be banned
The funny part is that in Slavic languages liner "лайнер" means a 💩head
Sounds like humans' situation in a warming planet
I love it when Perun gets mentioned in rando comments.
Perun is awesome!
There is a real contrast between Airbus and Boeing. Airbus do not care to upset their production, their workers or their customers. They know that if they focus on doing a good steady job on every aircraft then salaries, promotions, pensions, working conditions will steadily improve. Airbus is playing a long game where Boeing tries again to again to make a quick score but it is a losing strategy.
If Airbus can do more than just well in a political environment where it is compelled to pay a minimum wage, guarantee minimum holiday allowances (1 month in the UK), observe statutory redundancy regulations (i.e. not kicking people out on the drop of a hat), and where their employees don't have to rely on the company for health insurance (because healthcare is guaranteed at point of delivery), what on EARTH does Boeing think it's doing? It won't be long before the only way they can keep going is to turn out cr@p planes which fall apart in the air because they've been built by school-leavers. Oh, hang on...
@@Badgersj The Chinese are going to eat them for lunch once they figure out how to make turbines that dont crack. Once they figure out the regional jet market in their home market its going to be a blood bath for both boeing and Airbus. But boeing is the most likely to get crushed first.
@@hungrybraineater2 Don't know, I think the immediate danger to Boeing is that tariffs on chinese stuff - which all of us consume in one way or another - is going to send their costs through the roof. Airbus won't be constrained from using Chinese widgets in the same way so will be able to beat Boeing on prices in the short term. If Airbus is penalised by Trump for using Chinese stuff then they'll at least have state support to fall back on. If they have to downsize their workers will get compensation, won't lose their healthcare etc etc. so won't take to the streets and riot. Will Trump do the same for Boeing without being guilty of "socialism"? We live in interesting times, unfortunately!
@@Badgersj I think Trump will put Tariffs on Airbus just simply because of its french roots. I think Trump will resort to Russian style crony capitalism socialism similar to Russia and if push comes to shove i think he will quasi nationalize it by letting Elon Musk merge it with spaceX. The free market capitalists who really believe in market forces are just not a political force anymore. Big picture is the Americans are moving away from the management model Boeing used to a more personalized model that you would see in a tech startup.
starting of negotiations for 35% increase after giving your CEO a 45% raise was a great start.
The CEO was just hired.
@@neilkurzman4907 which one? 3 years 3 CEOs. bad juju there.
@@neilkurzman4907 No, the previous one...
38 percent and threatened to accept or he'll move the 737 to another state. 50+ percent of workers sadly folded.
That you can lose your pension as the whim of a company is beyond my comprehension. Thankfully we don't have this crap here.
Where?
@@AndrewBlucher Pretty well everywhere in the developed world outside the US. Putting retirement income and health care funding in the hands of employers was always a disaster - it is just a fact that financing (not necessarily provision) of these is much more securely done by the state.
@@AndrewBlucher
in the civilized world!
@@randomuser-xc2wrYou poor diddums. And did the CEO and CFO take pension cuts as well? I imagine not. So the slash and burn barbarians get rewarded, and the actual producers get punished? Sounds like the good ol’ American tradition of (wage) slavery to me!
@@randomuser-xc2wrAnd you don’t even have to reach down to Lenin for a sub-text: it’s actually about putting food on the table for your family, a primary, visceral concern, not an ideological one.
When it comes to cutting costs, there is always only one solution in the USA: reduce personnel costs, no matter how. Strangely enough, the fact that the board may be making huge mistakes and still raking in incredible annual salaries plus bonuses in the 3-digit million range never comes up. If their pension plan is cancelled, it won't matter to them. But it's extremely painful for the employees and workers with lower salaries.
The next problem is what type of person makes a career and ends up at the top. Not the best and those who want the best for the company, but those who want power and can sell themselves well. If the company is lucky, they are also good at the same time. Well...
Boeing is a prime example of the above.
The most ruthless rise to the top in corporate culture.
The most valuable resource any company has, is it's employees!
Preferably happy employees!
@@nickjw88 AND here I had thought that Calhoun, being trained as an accountant would have had well-honed risk management chops. Isn't risk management key to good accounting?
AirBus : Slava 🥖Geroyam🥐
The most ruthless and cutthroat middle to upper level management (knicknamed "thrusting rams" in industry parlance) generally have little to no concern for the "workers". They instigate rapid change and cutbacks, essentially "shit" over anyone in their path, create disaster and misery behind them, lie on their CV's and move onto a bigger and better paying job after 2-3 years, sprouting erroneous claims about the purported benefits they provided to the previous company.
Like a tornado they leave devastation in their wake. These narcissistic truth benders just get away with this destruction and ruin, meanwhile, lining their pockets, creating their contacts and building their CVs.
I work at a Medical Research Institute and saw the former Manager of Ethics, Integrity and Grants accomplish all of the above, while using the Institute's money to travel, attended and present at Ethics conferences internationally for his "personal company" using Institute money.
It's wild to see how much they spent on stock buybacks rather than product development.
I expect it is even more crazy to see how much they are will to pay for non quality instead of development.
@@andreaspoppewhat did they pay ?
The graphic left out billions more in stock buybacks from 1997 to 2010.
I think we all already know who they really care about.
Not wild at all. What do you think they and the airlines did with all that subsidy money they got in 2020? Support the employees like it was supposed to?
Worked at the Everett factory from 1988-2013. Spent 17 years of that building the 747 in wing body join. 8 years in AOG. Four strikes while I worked there. The strike in 2008 was a mess. Being with AOG at the time it happened we had finally been asked or allowed to help out with the 787 program. It was a wreck compared to the other side of the house where the metal airframes were built.
So we settled the strike and on our first day back at work I needed to go from the 787 line to the machine shop to get a cutter ground down. That is going from the southeast side of the factory to the northwest corner, it is not a short walk. I measured it with google maps and it is roughly 2,888 feet. Just over half a mile each way. There were hundreds of bicycles in the factory when we went out on strike and they were gone when we came back. i asked the manager where the bikes were and he told me they were all scrapped. He said with a note of glee and a smile. So I told him he could add at least a day to every job he handed me, multiplied by everyone else that he sees walking down the main aisles in large numbers.
They were pissed off so they decided to fuck guys like me over by paying me 43.00 an hour to walk a 5K and make everything I needed to do my job as difficult as possible. From assinine decisions like scrapping bicycles to needing a managers signature to get a fucking single rivet from stores.
When I left there they had already painted lines on the floor that you were supposed to follow to move yourself from your toolbox to the aircraft. Get an overhead view of the factory and draw your route with an etch-a-sketch. 90° turns. No longer could I approach the main landing gear from a line of sight path, that's way to simple for these jokers. I had to zig zag like a fucking idiot to satisfy some jackass that had an axe to grind with someone and he was gonna make sure we all suffered maximum stupid on a daily basis. it infected everything that you or me or anyone else had to do in there.
Problem was that the people running the company down on the floor made it cumbersome and more micro managed which only accomplished one thing - besides pissing as many people off as possible.. It cost more to do everything. They created jobs for people that they didn't need. Like the person sitting on his ass at a table at the end of the white line that I had to stop and interact with as I neared the entry point of the aircraft work area. Telling him why i needed to go into the "work zone". It was called the barge.
What shop?
AOG.
Working on?
The aircraft.
Okay.. sign in here..
Yeah.. you have to work there to understand the many levels of stupid shit that goes on in there. I can't recall a single day that I enjoyed working there. 25 years of talking myself out of breaking someones jaw. Miserable place.
747 is apex America, thank you.
Regarding the stock buybacks. They are not just used to keep the stock price up for the benefit of the company--the company does not benefit as long as thee stock price does not fall enough to make them takeover bait. the real story is that companies use VERY generous stock options as the main component of executive pay, and they buy back shares to not dilute the stock with all those extra shares. They are really financially stripping the company in order to pay immense amounts to themselves.
The financial guys from McDonnell Douglas mismanaged Boeing in almost every conceivable way--they corrupted the basic business, trashed employee relations, and undermined its capital base through massively rewarding themselves.
I love the Swedish expression you mention at the beginning…. There’s another one that makes me laugh… “don’t eat yellow snow!”
Ahh!... Frank Zappa! Love it!...
Does the yellow snow have some metaphorical meaning?
@@vsiegel Yes. It's where the huskies go....
@@vsiegel Don't eat the yellow snow where huskies go ...
@@vsiegelit’s basically referring to waste, yellow snow is piss. Both human and dog piss. So basically they’re saying you’re stupid- cos usually nobody has to warn you about doing something incredibly visible and idiotic
The analogy of a frostbitten Boeing pissing it's oversize clown pants just creased me up 😂😂😂
Sorry! 😂
@MentourNow 😂😂😂😂😂
👍🏽
The problem with Boeing pissing it's pants is trickle down economics.
@@MentourNow Da nada... we good.
@@MentourNow no, you're not! 😂
I honestly think the 777 was Boeings final spark of glory . It was the last new model that they designed from a quality first perspective, last one designed in house, and last one to use their original motto as the design philosophy. And last plane to make a major positive mark on the Avation industry .(the Dreamliner doesn’t count )Everything went down after the 757 was discontinued , and MD was acquired .Theres a reason they are allready scapping 787s and MAXs while 34 year old 777s are still flying .
Boeing nearly scrapped all of the early 20 787. Boeing back then even sold the first 777 to a costumer.
The 757 was loved by the pilots but it was an expensive aircraft to make. The decision to discontinue the 757 was right. It was wrong nothing followed in that category by Boeing and Airbus offered the A321XLR.
@@MHalblaub the 757 would have been perfect competition for at least the 321xlr , maybe the other NEO a320s if they just made re-engined variant. Another mistake that Boeing made was that they never really upgraded the 737 airframe which is why that had to put the dreaded MCAS on the maxes.
Haven't heard a single 737 MAX get scrapped. Several of the earlier 787-8s scrapped, yes.
@ yeah but they have been grounded multiple times .
787 is horrible to fly in when they put 9-across seatings in a fuselage that's smaller than a A330
1990s: "Working Together"
2000s: "More with less."
2020s: "Less with less."
2030s: "No more."
Everywhere in the developed world except in the US, the employers paying for a pension fund is compulsory by law. It is illegal to employ anyone at any job without paying for their health insurance and pension. It is amazing to me that in the 21st century people still have to go on strike to demand such basic things.
Well there’s also a reason why your country isn’t competitive… pros and cons.
They didn't lose their pension. They lost their defined-benefit pensions but still had the 401k, which is a defined-contribution pension. Defined-benefit pensions are something that most companies moved away from in the 80s in western economies, so plenty of people don't even know what one is. I'm kind of amazed they managed to hold on to one until the 2010s. Shows what a good union can do for you.
Obama mandated health insurance for all employees working more than 30 hours a week (down from 40). Now no lower end job allows anyone to work more than 29 hours.
This had a profound effect driving everyone into poverty.
You cannot mandate insurance and expect $5,000 per year, times 200 million workforce to magically appear.
My country (SIngapore), instead of having pensions, forces local workers (incuding PRs) with monthly salary of >=S$500 (~US$370) to have a savings account for their retirement, funded by a 20% cut from your monthly salary. The employer will also chip in a sum equivalent to 13% of your salary into the account, which besides being reserved for your retirement can also be used to partially fund healthcare services. Some of my countrymen have thus worried though that employers may favour hiring foreigners over locals as they don't have to pay that extra 13% to the former (but I've heard of some employers who still pay that 13% anyway but as regular take-home pay). There's also been a debate over whether PRs who move back to their birth country upon retirement & take out all funds from that savings account are committing an act tantamount to treason
Employers pay to social security fund which all workers start getting between 65 and 67 (depends on year you were born). What is being talked about is company pension plan.
Outsourcing is really at the core of a lot of Boeing's problems. Not just at the airplane level (as we've seen with Spirit), but also on the space side. Most of the issues with the Dreamliner have been coming from the Rocketdyne components. But Boeing has the ultimate responsibility of the project as they are the integrator. Having direct control over design and fabrication was their strength in the past. Managing multiple subcontractors is much more difficult, particularly when the quality of the final product is paramount.
Very true but cost cutting 😅
Boeing also did it to share risk in programs with their suppliers..
And to sustain such strategy, QA is paramount for success. So Boeing is sharing risk without some safeguards from within and outside. So a disaster to happen
@@victortaveira8271 disaster already happened with 737MAX debacle
@ I’ve thought that too, but Boeing mesmerizes me every time. Something much bigger is about to happen and thankfully FAA is stricter about certification. And, the management isn’t committed to solve management problems and scheduling all problems after
Many, including me, knew that moving the HQ to Chicago was a death wish by Boeing.
Me too John, I was devastated. Glad they got the future work in Wa. but they should have demanded that Corporate offices be moved to South Carolina.
Well the HQ is in Arlington, VA now to be a short commute for lobbying DC.
I work for Boeing Future of Flight, which does the factory tours in Everett. While it sucked being furloughed for weeks I'm still on the workers' side and holding out hope that this episode changes the corporate culture... but I doubt it.
are those positions also unionized or is that just the machinists?
I was just out there a few weeks ago. The size of the facility is incredible... we just drove around it and the empty parking lots was quite telling. Does Boeing own the Museum of Flight too? It's next to Boeing Field and has a lot of Boeing buildings around it.
Loved the tour we took years ago
@@JustherefortheLOLZ boeing does not own the museum of flight, i believe it is a non-profit, but boeing does work closely with them and is one of the major corporate sponsors
Is it true that boeing is going to pay you back?
Every time I hear about the abysmal working conditions in the US, I'm so happy I live in a civilised country.
Why?
I have mediocre education, and my 3rd company put me in a pickup truck in my early 20s and paid me $116,000/yr to operate rural gathering oil pipelines. This was in 2014-16. Almost a decade ago.
I am a retired physicist who spent a lot of time working with cutting-edge computing companies, and I watched the second biggest company, DEC, simply disappear. It had been run by engineers and had products that customers wanted. Then, the accountants took over and made the interfaces proprietary, which made DEC's products much less interesting. They also failed to produce competitive workstations. I have other examples. It was very frustrating to see the money men saw through the branch on which they were sitting. The situation with Boeing, though, is worse because they have a disaffected work force producing aircraft on which the lives of hundreds of passengers depend. And we have seen the results.
For a benefit of everyone, it would be great if they recovered and provide safe and quality products and services.
Absolutely
@@MentourNowstill the jack Welch type of management won’t ever work for engineering company.
it would have also been great if Avro Canada translated from being completely invested in the Avro Arrow to a more civilian aircraft focus... perhaps had our government done that, we might have a triopoly today (Avro, Boeing, Airbus)
Not if Boing continues to take advantage of their employees to do so.
Unfortunately, given the political landscape now in the US, the quality will only go down and employees will suffer.
The US had G&E, Boeing, various computer companies who all failed. Greed killed these companies.
We can see Intel failing in front of our very own eyes.
And not them only. They managed to kill other country's ones too with illegal practices! Check out Olivetti and how IBM strangled them... Especially check out what Mr Olivetti himself was trying to do to his employees: schools for the children, hospitals, a real European of 2nd millennium way of work, but back in the '70s ...
Jack Walsh, the GE exec which cut 'costs,' introduced a 90 day pay delay, even for the local pizza shops which supplied food for the Erie PA engine plant meetings! Soon, no food supplier could be found for that plant's needs! Can you blame them, not getting paid for three months?!
@DouglasJenkins jack Welsh destroyed corporate America and had a terrible effect around the world. Far from a role model
Also china is starting with Aircraft manufacturing. I think they in 30 years time will have a large market share. Lower wages and no unions.
It should be noted that Labor accounts for ~2% of the price-tag of a Boeing jet.
2 cents on the dollar for the workers who put it together.
Meanwhile bloated Exec salaries continue unabated.
Boeing hasn't turned an actual profit for 30+ years. Their stock price and dividend history reflects this fact. They suck for investors. They cannot figure out how to make money.
All of corporate America has the same problem. The Boeing CEO has a college degree in economics and worked at a candy company before getting a job at Boeing. He played golf and went to parties and kissed butt and now he is CEO and he knows just as much as I do about building, designing and flying an airplane NOTHING !!!
He has a degree in Mechanical Engineering and has never worked for a candy company. He worked for Collins Aerospace before Boeing. Your post is literally a load of made up garbage.
Where did you come up with that ridiculous job description. I don’t think it describes any Boeing CEOs.
@@Djamonjahe got the intel from truth social.
@@DjamonjaThank you!
Piss off your workers and piss off your customers. Is that what they've been teaching the suits in business schools?
But Enshittification has worked so well for other companies! Boeing is just envious it didn't work for them.
In this case they’re downright killing their customers.
@slohmann1572 I stand corrected! 😜
I worked for GE for 40 years and the exact same thing happened to GE.
Over a decade at HP, watched their ship fly into a mountain-side on a clear day despite ample warning; the parallels at Boeing astounding.
Unions will do that to a company spend more time bitching about the job then doing the damn thing
Jack the Ripper Welch !
@@Etty-c5bhe and his apprentices has destroyed some great US companies, GE, Boeing, 3M……
I think stock buy backs should be considered stock manipulation, and illegal.
It WAS illegal until RONZO
If it's done within a certain limit, maybe. But the debt of a company and future investments have to be taken care of first. Not only Boeing failed to do so.
They're one of the biggest issues with the modern economy that's been rigged to focus on corporate profits and shareholder returns over _everything_ else. Unfortunately, as long as Congress can openly engage in insider trading, nothing will ever be done about that...or any of the other economic issues people face.
The purpose of a company stock is to raise money cheaply which is used to build the company. After the stock has been issued, it's a burden on the company, lots of filings, so it would make sense to buyback the stock with the company profits and eventually take the company back into private ownership.
Whilst a company's stock is being traded, generally by people with no interest in the company, a low stock price makes the company vulnerable to being taken over, often by someone who takes out a loan to buy the company, and then transfers the loan to the company, (e.g. Elon Musk and Twitter), often forcing the company into bankruptcy; that should be illegal.
What about the federal government hiding spending and printing money ect. I think an audit of the fed should be first thing Trump does.
Maybe I left too soon? (April 2019). I was burned out and tired of no raises and no promotions. Management tore up my promotion applications, and during performance reviews said I was doing a fantastic job - but I wouldn't be getting a raise because of my hard work.
Ditto. I've pulled their fat out of the fire on a couple of cases and not a penny in reward. The atmosphere is depressing, you aren't missing much.
Companies need to stop treating workers as liabilities and start thinking about them as assets.
Companies hate dealing with workers, that's why trillions are invested in AI and robotics.
@ That’s just a negative mindset. AI and robots don’t invent. This is why organisations need to treat their employees better
I retired from 3M four years ago. McNernery was our CEO starting in 2002/and his six sigma push destroyed the innovation culture which was the key to success ( check out stock prices). And then he moved to Boeing CEO where he accomplished the same. Once great companies with a strong engineering/ innovation culture were destroyed by marketing/ finance CEO’s. So sad.
Something about the slogan "More with Less," just sounds duplicitous.
It's just a different way of saying "maximize exploitation"
The only time I see that line as a potentially good thing is regarding fuel efficiency.
More profit with less safety… nothing duplicitous about that as I see it 😅
@Howiefm28496 😂😆😂
I always like to hear your perspective on the workers rights on USA, Peter.
Being from a country where the worker's rights is seen in a very different view, you bring some balance to this discussion.
In a technical and safety sensitive business that depends on employees always choosing to do the right thing, it's just psychotic to treat them dismissively
As a former Douglas turned Boeing employee it was a tough road. The last regime of Md D management strictly focused on short term profits and profits, did help me buy a house so there is that.
The focus on financials over technical prowess was distressing.
During Covid I got laid off along with a lot of other higher seniority employees. I think that Bain drain hurt them
Thanks!
The biggest point of contention with Labor has always been health care coverage. Boeing's unions have among the best health care coverage in the country due to its strong unions. These premium health care plans essentially subsidize the health care system for those without insurance and with lower quality insurance. I don't understand why Boeing's management doesn't call for universal healthcare in the United States. The US has the most expensive health care in the world at 17% of GDP, whereas Europe is around 12% of GDP. That is a big difference which gets factored into the cost of every airplane. Getting a handle on healthcare costs would calm union relations and help US competitiveness.
Their big investors are probably investors in health insurance companies so they would not like that - Wall Street has no concern for actual humans, and they can get away with that because the county has been gaslighted into believing their bullshit for so long.
Heh. I am old enough to remember when things like socialized medicine was something american business groups were clamoring for in order to make the US more competitive. Both the republicans and democrats were in favor of it, but after a couple decades of lobbying (and astroturf) from the health care industry, it became a 'culture war' front, with the GoP switching to 'single payer system is communism and the democrats will prioritize brown people over your white grandma who will DIE!'
@@jkberner
That is a “can of worms”. Realistically it is unlikely that the “status quo corporate system” in the US would ever allow this to happen due to the medical industry’s self interest of making sure it will never happen so as to maximize profits. The “profit maximizers” have too much control over the governmental rule making process and there does not seem to be a way of changing this.
Honestly, most companies in the US do not want Universal Healthcare even though it would save them a ton of money. The reason is control of workers. As long as your health insurance is tied to your employer, it is a lot harder to just up and leave a job. In other words, it is another way to take advantage of workers and treat them like crap.
@@williamepps9519 And the government wants to take over healthcare for the same reason control of the people.
Until we start rewarding long-term stability over short-term profits, US businesses are going to continue failing the way Boeing is. We have witnessed hundreds of iconic companies fold or get sold into oblivion thanks to "Wall Street". There isn't any reason a business can't make a profit, but it can't come at the expense of safety and product quality if you want that business to last.
@@maurvir3197
I wonder if that is something that is actually attainable in the US in a general sense? The “wish” that US companies could be allowed to forgo “pressure for short term profits” seems to something that has been hoped for many decades but almost never materializes. It seems like the whole system strongly discourages that and is not going to change.
It falls on the shareholders. Unfortunately, outside of shareholder meetings, there isn’t really a union to stand up to the company. Shares going up, great, long term stability. If the company decides on sabotaging themselves for short term profit but doesn’t have a long term plan, either the company has to straighten up, or the shareholders pull their investments.
In an ideal world, we would be revisiting why a stock market even exists. It was created centuries ago to serve a specific purpose.. but kinda like copyright it is now having almost the exact opposite effect it was intended to have. It exists because laws were put on the book to create it, and it can be made to stop existing the same way.
@
But how many shareholders / funds have enough “economic visibility” into any particular company to make reasonable decisions? Even the “professionals” have difficulties.
What’s the alternative? Chinese type state financed companies? Russian type oligarchs? Capitalism succeeds for a reason and far more efficient from a macro perspective.
With goodwill between the US and Europe also at an all-time low, I would also not be surprised if Airbus grows more bold in their attitude towards Boeing in the coming years.
US is now on it's own.
Only gonna get worse under new administration. Goodbye NATO 😢
Richard Branson is quoted as saying, “Customer do not come first. Employees come first. If you take care of your employees, they will take care of the customers”
All that money spent on buying back shares is what you get when management's bonuses depend on share price instead of creating great products. They could have developed a fantastic successor to the 737 with all those billions of dollars.
Can't believe the 787 was 20 years ago.
@@randomuser-xc2wr can’t believe the 777X is ten years old and still not fly
Dave Calhoun pissed in Boeings pants leaving Kelly Ortberg to deal with the stink later.....
In that metaphor it isn’t stinky trousers that is the worry…
I had no idea Boeing was cannibalizing its own workforce for that long.
The company could've survived its mistakes with the MAX if it wasn't also destroying every shred of stability it had at the same time.
Disagree, the mistake with the MAX was not the problem, the problem was the philosophy (sic) that allowed the MAX to fail. That is a systemic problem wrought by finance people who never had to get started with a paper-run.
Boeing hasn't had a new idea in over a generation
If Boeing ever goes bankrupt, it’s not because Airbus outsells or produces better plane. It would be from that Boeing self destructs and implode from within. The fact that Boeing CEO said “…. we're better off doing less and doing it better”, that’s an encouraging thing to hear. It gives a slight hope for Boeing’s futures. I just hope Boeing gets better.
Sadly I do have to wonder if this really is the end for Boeing. We saw it happen to Douglas, and it seems Boeing caught it too. I’m giving it a few more years and they’ll be gone.
The thing I have always believed is that the U.S. government wanted MDC to merge with Boeing in order to defacto subsidize Boeing during slow times in commercial aircraft with military programs. MDC was the largest defense contractor at the time of the merger. It is well known that Airbus gets subsidized by European counties. Airbus complained about the merger at the time. MDC got eliminated for the Joint Strike Fighter (later F-35). It was the biggest defense contract in U.S. history. I think it was done to force MDC to merge with Boeing. Just a theory.
The Titanic unsinkable thing and the sinking is the mistake that killed the white star line. Boeing just committed this very same mistake with the 737 max.
14:24 “The launch of a 737 replacement in the next 4 years!” Probably a zero chance of that happening for a lot of reasons.
Ordinarily I would agree. I hope Boeing's new management proves us wrong.
Oldtimers usually get a high price, but only very few are traded.
😉
@
It is just such an awkward time to embark on a $20,000,000,000 decade long development program with so many huge unknowns. And now with Trump promising to dismantle Biden’s environmental policies, where does that leave future SAF and hydrogen production projects?
The rules were just getting finalized by the Treasury Department and implemented by the IRS with regard to these issues. The energy industry is just now evaluating if their “proposed projects” make economic sense within this new framework. Now it is very probable that Trump will change things enough that a new reevaluation process will occur due to the “new economic realities”. Uncertainty does a lot to push timelines out and in this case it does have implications for new aircraft / engine development programs. So unless the EU can “force the issue” about environmental rules, this lack of consistency is bad.
And they’re cancelling the 767 due to emissions. Unlike the 737, the 76 can easily take new engines. The GeNx, or the Trent come to mind. Perhaps they don’t want to push too far into the 787 territory, but first, the cargo industry is well tailored to the 767 already, like the 75 which again Boeing ignored, and secondly, and primarily, they’ve also forgotten to make a 787 freighter.
@
Would a re-engined 767 be competitive against an Airbus contemporary? Would it not be a very niche product? Does Boeing have the resources at this time to execute?
Another reason Boeing wont go bust is the US Gov would definitely step in to prevent that. Like GM.
This would make no sense. Throwing good money after bad money.
@suki4410 well, yes and no. When big companies fail the damage can be colossal. Entire regional economies destroyed, thousands thrown onto welfare. And that's, not to mention Boeing's defence contracts and impact that might have. This is why Obama rescued GM - not for GM's sake, but for the staff, the suppliers, customers and so on.
However. It has to be on the proviso that there are constructive changes and improvements. You can't just bung a cheque and allow the company to keep doing what it is.
@@Rapscallion2009 Sounds solid to me. I agree.
GM should have never been saved and Boeing should not either.
Poor use of our Tax Dollars. Hopefully Trump and Elon will not let this happen on their watch!
They are opening the door for COMAC.
COMAC got a long way to go before they catch up the Boeing. Their plane is an old design and their production rate is very low
@@neilkurzman4907 not to mention still waiting on FAA and EASA certifications. But it will be nice to see the duopoly busted
11:02 When Petter says "Remember this, it's going to become important soon", I know something is about to go very wrong 😬
I remember some 4 years ago when so-called experts said Airbus is finished and will never again cross the $100 stock price threshold because Boeing is just too competitive
good thing I didn't listen
Hype train idiocy is never a good thing. Smart people move away from that, on time.
I was laid off last week as a direct result of the Boeing strike.
I don’t work for Boeing but they’re one of our main customers. The forecast of Boeing orders across the next year are less than 50% of our manufacturing capacity.
It’s looking bleak.
Sorry to hear that. I know what it is like. Hopefully you get an opening that gives you a good long term stable career. I hope this doesn't come across as glib but "as one door closes, another opens". All the best for the future.
Absolutely. Being laid off isn’t so bad. I see it as a huge opportunity and the catalyst for positive change. I’m just sad how they escort you out of the building without getting to say goodbye to all the people you met along the way.
Thanks for your support and I’m enjoying my unexpected vacation.
Keep your engineers in management. Fire all your MBAs.
There's no need to go from one extreme to the opposite extreme.
@@MentourNow that's an extreme statement!
Btw, I'm starting my career in a 73 too, at 39!
@@MentourNownot so extreme to me. If I had to pick one degree that did the most harm to people and nature, it'd be MBA. Screw them bean counters.
It's not the MBA's. They do what management tells them to do. As a former boss so interestingly put it when we talked about responsibility... "you are a gun but you can't aim or shoot on your own. Management points you in a direction and pulls the trigger". I am an MBA BTW- but from the last century when profit was important but so was quality and long term company growth. A large part of shareholder concerns was long term stability and quality.
Muilenburg was an engineer.
“More with less” is a slogan I want to hear from Walmart, NOT from the people building planes.
Support unions. They don’t just improve the lives of workers, but improve the safety for customers as well. They’re one of the only things stopping unfettered corporate greed these days.
"Can Boeing fail" and "is Boeing in immediate danger of failing" aren't the same question. The answer to the first is obviously "yes", even if the answer to the second is likely "no".
I also missed any mention of how much Pentagon actually depends on Boeing and to what lengths the US government will go to keep them alive 🤔
Of course it was Tim Clark who said what everybody was thinking. That man pulls zero punches.
If I never have to hear "shareholder value" again, it will be too soon. When a company focuses on that instead of the people buying their products/services, that's when there's a problem.
I’m surprised that the average lifespan of greedy, selfish, short sighted, morally corrupt CEOs is as long as it is.
All of those traits result in money flowing to the other board members, so as long as they are doing their 'true work', they stay in office.
Well, it's because half the country worships these idiots like there some kind of deity.
Sometimes we make them presidents
At my school a guy from Boeing actually came and talked about an internship that they did and how they needed trade workers suck as machinists, trying to convince people to go to Washington to work for them. When the door fell off, they actually canceled the internship for that year, and after hearing about what Boeing has done in the past, im kinda glad I didn’t sign up.
Having been a union mechanic at an airline, I remember we got a much better contract. A few years later, management forced the company into bankruptcy. The creditors robbed the pension plan. The Jet shop and a lot of shops that reworked components are no longer there. Most of that work is now in other countries including Mexico and Hong Kong. The United states isn’t competitively priced for really anything so getting a great raise in the short term might end up costing a lot more down the road
You didn't mention Boeing's space capsule mishaps. This seems quite relevant to Boeing's future.
He did mention it
“Take care of your employees and they will take care of your business.” - Richard Branson
It’s safe to say McNerney pissed on Boeing and its employees.
I used to love Boeing as a child. When I graduated with a 1st in Engineering I applied for a job with them. They refused because I was from Australia. But they said "We are an equal opportunities employer". Still, I persevered. And persevered. But nothing happened. This was in 1979. Slowly I realized that dream was dead.
And I realized that Boeing would not be a good company to work for. I cant get excited about Boeing anymore.
“Equal opportunity employer” does not apply to foreign nationals. Only American women and minorities.
Equal Opportunity Employer is just a sticker that Boeing put on its sleeve in order to qualify for more governmental contracts.
@@Geordie504 Thanks for clarifying, for 40 years ago.
@@Geordie504you sure on the bit about minorities?
Businesses generally function better when their employees don't hate them.
I really enjoyed this analysis. I think it helps that you are a pilot - as a result, I think you give a balanced assessment of what is happening.
Boeing built the B-17. To have non-working stockholders destroy the company is outrageous and heartbreaking.
My uncle was a B-17 pilot. He and his crew were shot down over Germany while running a sortie mission. He's buried in France.
Three Flying Fortresses were shot down within the area I now live @@MarinCipollina Many of the crew are buried at Margraten. Thanks to your uncle, and to all the others, for their service and sacrifices.
Happy Veterans Day.
lest we forget
@@thetruthbehindplanes American servicemen buried at Margraten (8300 graves) will never be forgotten. Every single grave has been adopted by local families, who hand over the duty from generation to generation. There is a waiting list of people who want to adopt a grave.
"If you find yourself outside and it is cold, you can always piss your pants to warm up but it won't stay warm for very long"
That is a great saying aha!
I applied to Boeing back in 1997 - and was warned by someone who lived in that part of Washington that Boeing was famous for hiring engineers for a project (I'm a software engineer) - and then dumping them when the project was over. When I got an offer, it was for less than what I had said was my minimum salary (I didn't take the job). So Boeing's mistreatment has been institutionalized for close to 30 years now.
After 30 years of service in aircraft as an engineer, what I understood is that no organization, company, especially an airline, can function properly and constructively if the relationship with the employees is not a family relationship with understanding and a collective effort to succeed.
I am from and live in North Charleston SC and we appreciate Boeing doing business here. As long as they don’t build the Max or anything spacecraft here…
Boeing company culture changed when they merged with McDonnell Douglass. They used to pride themselves on quality in every aspect of production, from design to fabrication to quality control. The result of quality and people first got them the reputation they richly deserved, but also got them noticed by the sharks at McDonnell Douglass. When the merger happened, they kept the Boeing name because Boeing had earned the better reputation, but they got rid of the management that was responsible for that great reputation and replaced them with management that cared about nothing but making huge profits for stockholders. The end result are stories about doors blowing out and astronauts being stranded in space.
I have a three-part series on exactly this topic.
@@MentourNow I see a playlist with 5 items, are the first three the ones you are talking about, or are they separate videos not in a playlist? I will start with the playlist, thank you!
There actually was a saying in those days - "The ideal airliner would be conceived by Lockheed, built by Boeing and marketed by McDonnell-Douglas". Says it all really.
The definition of "too big to fail".
I should probably do a video on why I disagree with that...
Profit is for the share holders, bills are to be payed by the people.
@@MentourNow Please!
In at least one sense they have already failed.
They have moved from being the world's no. 1 aircraft manufacturer to being a pretty poor second.
Even if everything went their way, in a perfect world, it will take *at the very least* a decade, and more likely two, before they could be in a position to challenge for the top spot.
Turns out if you try hard enough, you can fail. Don’t matter how big you are.
Just wanted to add context for your next video hopefully. The union wanted 40 percent but the workers wanted 61 percent (price of inflation from 2008) Workers had 0 of thier demands met during the final contract. Health care cost will increase from 23.50 to over 70 dollars a pay check. Max out rate is still 6 years. Every 6 month progression step is still 50 cents. lesser demands werent met but those few were the big ones. After accepting this contract i still make less then the mcdonalds workers across the street, with the raise, and ive been at the company for 3 years. Our union folded for so little and its depressing honestly.
I'll remember next time I'm stuck out in the cold!!!!! Loved your presentations for a couple years now. All the best! "The JJ" SW Pennsylvania, USA.
Great video but you missed the point that share buy back schemes inflate the stock price and so greatly increase the value of the executive's stock options. Suggest you take a look at Boeing executives variable comp.
The US government would never allow Boeing to fail.
the military branch maybe
... well, I have a feeling that Trump would try to solve the issue... but not in the employees favor, far from it...
They can pump money into some company only for so long. Look at Boeing & Lockheed space launch company... they were milking government until someone else came and now they are to die - it's only a matter of time.
Fail - maybe not entirely. But with the coming trade wars, I think Boeing will lose a lot of its international market share. It will have to downsize considerably.
You cannot "promise" a thing that depends on factors beyond your control.
You could say: This is the goal.
As a software guy I was really worried when Airbus went completely fly by wire. As Petter has explained, it lacks pilot feedback. But it has shown itself to be relatively reliable. Relative to Boeing that is.
And Boeing is at war with it's workforce. How does that produce a product that I can rely on? The evidence shows that I cannot.
If its Boeing I ain't going.
Its a matter of life or death.
Large non-FBW aircraft have a lot of artificial feel anyway, Airbus FBW just lacks a fully manual reversion mode. The philosophy is to show the plane what you'd like to do & it'll do it safely, I guess... that's fine for almost every scenario you can think of.
Somebody get Petter a bodyboard. Great vids. Keep up the good work!
As a Swede I really appreciate this video showing how important it is with a collaboration between the company and their workers. Brilliant!
As an Aircraft Industry Professional living in Wichita for 46 years I can tell you with certainty that Boeing selling the facility here to Spirit Aerosystems was a huge mistake. Many of their problems started after that transaction and have snowballed ever since. If Boeing is to survive they need to look at the past and get back to where they were.
I don't really understand how anyone thinks treating your workforce like sht will make a company more successful. A company needs motivated and skillfull workers in order for it to survive and thrive. Workers on the other hand needs the company in order to survive and make a living, it is always a two way street.
These people think they can hire FOB indian labor to replace their uncooperative American workforce and nothing will change.
What keeps the workers in SC from unionizing?
Anti union laws in South Carolina which is a “right to exploit” state.
So called "open shop" state
Another reason for distributing 787 production all over the place was they thought it would make the plane more competitive in countries that shared production.
Presumably, Boeing didn’t know the problems the Germans experienced in 1944 when they built advanced U-Boats that way and had all sorts of problems when they tried to assemble the pieces.
Actually Boeing borrowed this strategy from Airbus, just taking it a lot further. Airbus has always had its planes built in many different countries of Europe and the sub-assemblies sent to Toulouse for final assembly. But they didn't notice that Airbus rarely took the lowest bidder contractor and always kept extraordinarily tight control of them - in most cases if you win a major contract with Airbus you become just a branch of them.
To be honest, i always instinctively check the type of plane before booking a flight and i have not flown with a Boeing since the quality control problems started.
19:11 senior management not wearing ANY PPE on the factory floor, with neck ties and loose-fitting unbuttoned jackets! - clear demo of Boeings toxic attitude to CRM of their workforce. Don't do what we do - do as we tell you!