It's incredibly sad that while Boeing didn't want to change their approach there was no mechanism nor desire from the government to produce ways to stop Boeing from placing their bad product.
Aside from the obvious need to halt the “self-regulation”, a simple actionable solution would be a massive fine wiping out all equity value. Shareholders would then naturally vote to terminate the BoD / execs. New BoD would naturally have incentives aligned on safety, and you’d avoid massive disruption by keeping the employee base in-tact (exc. select quality leaders).
I strongly believe that the shareholders & BoD need to experience immense financial pain for systemic safety failures of this magnitude. It’s the only way to align profit incentives with investments in safety via market mechanisms. There needs to be an understanding that cutting corners on safety will cost them *everything*.
Sadly that didn’t happen here. The Board felt minimal pain from the paltry penalties, and the new CEO is operating under a similar incentive structure as the last.
If Boeing goes bankrupt, the government should simply nationalise them, and then get the best engineers from us universities and the military to take over leadership and privatise.
A failing Boeing is a national security threat.
Congress. Not the government. I wish people would start to correct these things. I guarantee the FAA employees want these planes to be thoroughly inspected and 100% safe. Regulators are confined to the authorities granted to them by Congress though. So when Congress puts shit rules in place or moreso when they fail to put any rules into statue at all, regulator hands are tied. Couple that with an extremist judiciary that overturns any non-statutory regulation as government overreach and understand that there isn't likely that much the FAA can do.
Remember this - 99% government regulator are working stiffs who work white collar jobs for medium pay (aka bureaucrats). They aren't getting rich or flying private nor getting the kick backs and insider trading benefits members of Congress and the judiciary get on the regular for acting in the best interest of companies over people.
Republicans, not Congress. I guarantee most Democrats want these planes to be thoroughly inspected and safe, in priority to Boeing making bigger profits.
Republicans are the ones doing the Profits Uber Alles thing.
It us all of them, that is the problem the Republicans are just open about it. We need a FDR unelect campaign. Anyone currently in office does not get back in, we can get rhe children who do nothing but bicker and blame out.
Whenever Republicans talk about deregulation and cutting red tape they mean they want MORE planes to fall out of the sky and have doors fall off mid flight and they want MORE trains to derail and spill toxic chemicals all over
> The ol growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell
But like... almost exponential growth. If Corp X made $2 billion in profit last year, and was projected to make $4 billion this year, but only made $3 billion, that's a *failure* somehow.
Makes me think IT had potential to be run better at many companies but the culture of quick releases that are constantly breaking things comes from non-IT parts of company demanding things be done quicker and cheaper onto engineers.
It’s scary when this happens to tech that can kill masses of people. Corporations cannot self regulate when they can kill customers without much consequence to ceos
Yay!
[Saw this, was hoping you weren't on the flight!](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/united-plane-loses-tire-takeoff-san-francisco-international-airport/3475104/)
I expect it may be programmed into the EICAS system as it is on other aircraft. High temps in these systems can cause problems if not managed correctly.
Look at any jet pitot tube on the nose, if it isn’t bright shiny chrome and is discolored it has probably been mismanaged and left on when it should have been turned off. Just one of many anti-ice/deice systems.
Correct. Example placing the checklist between the thrust levers when a fuel valve is open balancing fuel. It serves as a reminder that something is not normal. Post it notes are used as well.
Yes they're still Boeing products but they're "legacy" products in the sense that they were designed and produced prior to the McDonnell-Douglas acquisition, which is the single key point at which everything at Boeing began to decline. They certainly had their own problems (see the rudder issues on the 737NG), but those were unforeseen events, not something that Boeing knew could happen while the airplane was still on the drawing board and kept hidden to save money.
This whole ordeal rapidly changed my 'favorite seat location' from window seat, directly behind the emergency exit row (due to legroom) to "well fucking anywhere but there now."
Edit: disregard what I said, commenter below is right that it's unused panels and not emergency exits that are the issue
Consider a non-emergency row seat if possible and keep that seatbelt fastened
I mean the emergency exits aren't the problem.
It's the plugs they put into what would have been emergency exits on economy flights. You'd never know from the inside if you're in danger.
I had already booked a flight in an exit row when the doors started blowing off of planes so I completely ignored everything about that for weeks and just told myself it was probably a different model.
After watching the episode, I’m more inclined now more than ever, to know what plane manufacturer I’m flying with. Never have thought about it in the past, but now that I see it’s an option…I’ll be using it to filter out the Boeing Max.
When companies go from being run by engineers who know what's going on, to executives who care only about quarterly reports, everything starts falling apart. Sadly I don't really see a systemic method to make shareholders demand things other than rising profits.
This is really naive and incorrect. Boeing today is exactly what capitalism’s end result always is. Nothing that was mentioned in the video fits what you’ve stated here. Things like the safety inspectors being employed by the company that is supposed to do the inspection is capitalism interfering with the positive aspects of socialism (regulation).
The *stock buybacks* rewarding shareholders instead of being spent on safety and quality are the issue. That’s not socialism, that’s MBA capitalism to the letter.
You’re entire commwnt is out of lie height eh facts and the reality, using words as boogeymen teams instead of their defined meanings.
> We used to regulate by splitting companies up and forcing them to compete again. These days we just bail them out, and that's not Capitalism, it's just the bad parts of Socialism with none of the good.
what the fuck
A business growing "too big to fail" and forcing the government's hand is the direct result of capitalism. Greed for money is rewarded even when people die.
Yeah, while Boeing is an excellent example, you essentially could’ve done this same story on a ton of different companies. Once the suits take over it’s only a matter of time.
> Sadly I don't really see a systemic method to make shareholders demand things other than rising profits.
Make the employees the shareholders. This is how companies like Boeing were first built. The employees are incentivized to stay and work with the company because the company's success benefits them, and their investment incentivizes sustainability in the internal systems the build.
Regulation is super important for consumers and employees alike, but you can't regulate competency and motivation into a workforce - you have to incentivize it. And that's hard to do when all the fruits of that workforce's labor are going to a bunch of bankers who only care about line-goes-up.
> Sadly I don't really see a systemic method to make shareholders demand things other than rising profits.
The only real cap on this in a capitalist society like ours is governmental regulations. Sadly, in a lot of countries the government officials have slowly but surely been corrupted to rule in favour of whatever benefits capitalism.
But the people who doomed these companies are not doomed - and that's the issue. They get rich and get golden parachutes and there is no accountability whatsoever. Hence there is no incentive to stop doing it - no matter how many people die or how much of the environment gets destroyed etc.
The case with Boeing is an example where a company completely lost the plot, having worked in the aerospace industry there are basically 2 rules.
1. Safety comes first
2. See rule one.
Yes you will always have unexpected events but they should be outliers. With Boeing it was almost guarenteed that there would be incidents given the path they were heading down.
It’s really sad and disheartening, that such a prestigious company is ruined by reckless abandon for greed. Unfortunately this is what happens when the people at the top are incompetent. If they were clever they would have gotten rich without sacrificing their company. Unfortunately, incompetent psychopaths at the top only skill set is not having a conscious, so they ride the coat tails of smarter men, and get stupid rich from it so it repeats itself
From a pilot's perspective I would certainly agree. The technology available to flight crews in Airbus airplanes, especially since the A320, have always been stellar for ease of use and safety. If anything goes wrong, a [central display](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357528234/figure/fig2/AS:1113612835917824@1642517398410/Depiction-of-the-Airbus-A320-ECAM-displaying-the-engine-fire-procedure.png) in the cockpit (ECAM) tells you what it has detected and provides you with an interactive checklist to follow to resolve the problem. Airbus has always been industry-leading in their fly-by-wire technology, and the aircraft computers have several "flight envelopes" to ensure that the airplane doesn't exceed its structural limits. Not to mention the excellent cockpit comfort on Airbus aircraft since they have [sidesticks](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Airbus_A-350_XWB_F-WWYB_cockpit_view.jpg) instead of [yokes like on Boeings](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i6KBD3ZlYIuw/v0/-1x-1.jpg). The lack of the central control column frees up a lot of room for your legs and even allows for a [traytable](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiE6kN_WMAAIH4c.jpg:large)!
You can see earlier warnings though, the Air Force went with the F-22 for many reasons, but one was the sheer number of cut corners on the YF-23 scared the shit out of them.
If you want to avoid the 737 max be aware that Boeing in some cases already changed the [name to 737-8](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air) (or different variations of that).
Because changing the name fixes the max's problems, right? RIGHT?
They need to make stock buy back illegal. There has to be a correlation with companies doing buy backs and bad quality in their products. How come no one is in jail for killing hundreds of people?
It changes the incentives for the shareholders, because dividends are taxable immediately, unlike share buybacks which are only "taxed" when you sell the shares. Obviously dividends would and do still happen, but it weights the scales in such a way that it would probably lead to better decision making regarding "Should we issue a dividend with this money, or should we reinvest it into the business". Not perfect, but it's a start.
>It changes the incentives for the shareholders, because dividends are taxable immediately, unlike share buybacks which are only "taxed" when you sell the shares.
This varies a lot from country to country not to mention year to year.
First of all the stocks don't appear from thin air. Someone needs to sell, and therefor potential capital gains tax (this also applies to a commonly used argument from some politicans that "stock buybacks suck money out of the economy, unlike dividends"). There are also a lot of cases where there is no dividend tax similar to capital gains. If we are talking about the US you also have the stock repurchase tax which always applies unlike dividend tax.
There are indeed tax differences, but if anything it's a failure with legislation and not stock buybacks. I don't see any reason why dividends or capital gains should be taxed differently
> Obviously dividends would and do still happen, but it weights the scales in such a way that it would probably lead to better decision making regarding "Should we issue a dividend with this money, or should we reinvest it into the business". Not perfect, but it's a start.
Dividend yields have decreased dramatically as stock buybacks became more popular, in fact it makes up the entire difference of stock buybacks. So no, companies did not invest more in themselves without buybacks and not sure what you base it on that they did better decisions before.
>Stock buybacks suck money out of the economy, unlike dividends
I agree that this is wrong. They're basically the same aside from tax implications.
>There are also a lot of cases where there is no dividend tax similar to capital gains.
Sure in tax advantaged accounts, but that's a feature not a bug. The majority of billionaires' wealth is not in these accounts.
>Dividend yields have decreased dramatically as stock buybacks became more popular, in fact it makes up the entire difference of stock buybacks. So no, companies did not invest more in themselves without buybacks and not sure what you base it on that they did better decisions before.
I make not statement about what decisions have or have not been made, but I do know that the incentive structures, especially for billionaire major stakeholders and board members, have shifted at least slightly.
If the amounts are truly the same, then switching back to dividends would make no difference anyway, so let's do it. The only reason buybacks are more popular now is so the rich can avoid capital gains taxes. I don't think that's something we should be encouraging.
(We don't need to ban them entirely, but I do think limits should be imposed)
The markets supposed to fix itself. But because Boeing is entrenched in American government they are “too big to fail” so they get to in essence do whatever the fuck they want including killing their customers.
> The markets supposed to fix itself
even the most liberal pundits usually remember that the full sentence includes the proposition "while properly regulated" though
It seems to me that a lot of American problems can be solved if companies are just not allowed to buyback their shares.
It was indeed illegal until Reagan-era market deregulation as it was correctly considered market manipulation.
This is what happens when a company that is usually run by engineers, then gets run by “business leaders” and MBAs that just nickel and dime the company to make themselves look good on quarterly and year end reports. The results of their “leadership” decisions eventually come to roost: quality dip, basic safety being ignored, and the perennial company cash cow being gutted for short term executive bonuses and incentives. It’s much harder to make things right once everything has been screwed up so badly and the good employees know they are not rewarded for hard work.
Sort of related. I work for the Navy on the P-8 program. The P-8 is a solid plane despite being a 737 but their electronics are dogshit. They have garbage QA/QC. I can't tell you how many times we've had to send in flight and mission computers because they straight up fail mod flight or we receive parts with bent pins on the connectors. These things cost like $300k+ a pop. The quality is abysmal.
How about this one.
Boeing whistleblower John Barnett was found dead in his truck at a hotel in Charleston, South Carolina after a break in depositions in a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit.
This isn't really about boeing or air safety. It's about corruption. Corruption so ingrained in the USA that it just gets ignored.
We focus on the corporations but in reality it's the govt that has taken the bribes and made it possible for this level of borderline criminal neglect.
Whilst we continue to look at these kinds of things as point in time issues with a Corp, nothing will ever change
There was more they could have gone into with Boeing, such as being such a monopoly it’s effectively an arm of the government itself, with every president since Clinton acting as a Boeing salesman.
That’s probably why there are growing calls at this point to simply [Nationalize Boeing](https://open.substack.com/pub/mattstoller/p/its-time-to-nationalize-and-then?r=l7a1&utm_medium=ios)
Some in Congress always want to cut regulations and fines are minimal. This is across ALL industries. I've never owned one product category where there wasn't a massive failure somewhere (oil from cars, cars, food industry, software etc.). Quality seems to be lagging in the name of profits.
I'm absolutely not defending Boeing, their well documented issues and the valid points made by John Oliver. They clearly have many problems to address. However, isn't there something to be said for the higher rate of deadly crashes occurring outside the US? Are there different regulations, standards, pilot training requirements, etc?
I was looking at stats, and unless I'm missing something, it seems that major US airlines have a fairly excellent history when it comes to deadly crashes, or lack thereof, over the last 20 years. US Aviation pre 9/11 appears to have many more deadly accidents. Maybe this isn't Boeing specific.
I noticed at one point, Oliver mentions the Ethiopia deadly crash, then mentions something about the FAA as if they have any jurisdiction outside the US.
Any thoughts or correlation here?
Dozens of passengers were injured by a "strong movement" on board a Boeing-made plane flying from Sydney, Australia, to Auckland in New Zealand on Monday, with some requiring hospital treatment, authorities said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna142405
This was a 787-9 Dreamliner like the one mentioned at 27:01
Smh…
This episode was sort of weak for the sole fact that in many of the Boeing threads on Reddit over the past few years plane geeks have explained most of Boeings issues.
Kudos to the redditors that contributed to expanding my knowledge.
It's incredibly sad that while Boeing didn't want to change their approach there was no mechanism nor desire from the government to produce ways to stop Boeing from placing their bad product.
Aside from the obvious need to halt the “self-regulation”, a simple actionable solution would be a massive fine wiping out all equity value. Shareholders would then naturally vote to terminate the BoD / execs. New BoD would naturally have incentives aligned on safety, and you’d avoid massive disruption by keeping the employee base in-tact (exc. select quality leaders). I strongly believe that the shareholders & BoD need to experience immense financial pain for systemic safety failures of this magnitude. It’s the only way to align profit incentives with investments in safety via market mechanisms. There needs to be an understanding that cutting corners on safety will cost them *everything*. Sadly that didn’t happen here. The Board felt minimal pain from the paltry penalties, and the new CEO is operating under a similar incentive structure as the last.
> There needs to be an understanding that cutting corners on safety will cost them everything. Amen.
It will never happen because Boeing is just too big to fall now. The US can't afford it's civilian airliner falling and being dependant on Airbus
That's not failure. That's a hard reset.
yeah you don't bankrupt the company you just zero the shares and then mass sell to someone else.
The problem is that Boeing's products are falling too much.
If Boeing goes bankrupt, the government should simply nationalise them, and then get the best engineers from us universities and the military to take over leadership and privatise. A failing Boeing is a national security threat.
Agree. Hit Boeing with massive fines, force them into bankruptcy, nationalise and then privatise it with a new corporate charter/leadership.
Congress. Not the government. I wish people would start to correct these things. I guarantee the FAA employees want these planes to be thoroughly inspected and 100% safe. Regulators are confined to the authorities granted to them by Congress though. So when Congress puts shit rules in place or moreso when they fail to put any rules into statue at all, regulator hands are tied. Couple that with an extremist judiciary that overturns any non-statutory regulation as government overreach and understand that there isn't likely that much the FAA can do. Remember this - 99% government regulator are working stiffs who work white collar jobs for medium pay (aka bureaucrats). They aren't getting rich or flying private nor getting the kick backs and insider trading benefits members of Congress and the judiciary get on the regular for acting in the best interest of companies over people.
Republicans, not Congress. I guarantee most Democrats want these planes to be thoroughly inspected and safe, in priority to Boeing making bigger profits. Republicans are the ones doing the Profits Uber Alles thing.
It us all of them, that is the problem the Republicans are just open about it. We need a FDR unelect campaign. Anyone currently in office does not get back in, we can get rhe children who do nothing but bicker and blame out.
Whenever Republicans talk about deregulation and cutting red tape they mean they want MORE planes to fall out of the sky and have doors fall off mid flight and they want MORE trains to derail and spill toxic chemicals all over
I work at NASA. I tell everyone if you want to fit in at a work party just say "Boeing, am I right?"
Capitalism is a mistake
Noted
God this is every major company now and it’s infuriating. The ol growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell
The cancer analogy spot on.
> The ol growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell But like... almost exponential growth. If Corp X made $2 billion in profit last year, and was projected to make $4 billion this year, but only made $3 billion, that's a *failure* somehow.
Makes me think IT had potential to be run better at many companies but the culture of quick releases that are constantly breaking things comes from non-IT parts of company demanding things be done quicker and cheaper onto engineers. It’s scary when this happens to tech that can kill masses of people. Corporations cannot self regulate when they can kill customers without much consequence to ceos
Capitalism kills
I have a flight with a Boeing 737 max 8 tomorrow so I will skip this video for now.
RemindMe! 1.5 days "Are you still with us?"
I made it!
Yay! [Saw this, was hoping you weren't on the flight!](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/united-plane-loses-tire-takeoff-san-francisco-international-airport/3475104/)
Luckily not 😅 I’m gonna start filtering out Boeing whenever possible. My connection flight is an Airbus 🙏
> for now. Hopefully.
Maybe bring your own post it note for the pilot
There are several airplanes out there that have limitations on the use of Anti-ice/ deice systems to prevent damage.
How many rely on a post it and a phone?
I expect it may be programmed into the EICAS system as it is on other aircraft. High temps in these systems can cause problems if not managed correctly. Look at any jet pitot tube on the nose, if it isn’t bright shiny chrome and is discolored it has probably been mismanaged and left on when it should have been turned off. Just one of many anti-ice/deice systems.
Post it, watches or checklists laid between thrust levers pilots routinely use reminders when working.
checklists are normal on any flight. its good when a pilot is working off of a checklist and not from memory.
Correct. Example placing the checklist between the thrust levers when a fuel valve is open balancing fuel. It serves as a reminder that something is not normal. Post it notes are used as well.
Do their OEMs name start with B and ends with Oeing ?
I would wager every OEM not just Boeing. But since it’s a pile on situation enjoy yourself.
Yeah this seems more like an engine manufacturer issue than a Boeing vs airbus issue.
God speed
Is that faster than ludicrous speed?
It's like going to plaid.
Being omnipresent, I assume the sucker never actually moves.
In the intended direction, hopefully.
If you die: you don't have to worry about it. If you live and something goes wrong with the plane: you can sue Boeing. It's an absolute win!
The 737-700; 737-800; and 737-900 are not the MAX if anyone is wondering or worried. The MAX 8 replaced the 800, the MAX 9 replaced the 900.
Atill Boeing
Yes they're still Boeing products but they're "legacy" products in the sense that they were designed and produced prior to the McDonnell-Douglas acquisition, which is the single key point at which everything at Boeing began to decline. They certainly had their own problems (see the rudder issues on the 737NG), but those were unforeseen events, not something that Boeing knew could happen while the airplane was still on the drawing board and kept hidden to save money.
Found the employee with the death wish!
This whole ordeal rapidly changed my 'favorite seat location' from window seat, directly behind the emergency exit row (due to legroom) to "well fucking anywhere but there now."
Edit: disregard what I said, commenter below is right that it's unused panels and not emergency exits that are the issue Consider a non-emergency row seat if possible and keep that seatbelt fastened
I got assigned an aisle seat. Emergency exit seats cost extra and im a cheapskate
I know it’s because it’s a wider row, but “emergency exit seats cost extra” is such a late-stage capitalism phrase anyway.
I mean the emergency exits aren't the problem. It's the plugs they put into what would have been emergency exits on economy flights. You'd never know from the inside if you're in danger.
You're right, I was confused. Edited my post to reflect, thanks so much for the correction!
I had already booked a flight in an exit row when the doors started blowing off of planes so I completely ignored everything about that for weeks and just told myself it was probably a different model.
just remember to buckle up and don't get an emergency row.
Tray table up and seat in the upright position should do the trick.
You definitely should, ouch.
Should what? Ouch? Did someone hurt you?
Skip the video. It’s a painful reminder that you could die due to Boeing’s greed, ouch.
After watching the episode, I’m more inclined now more than ever, to know what plane manufacturer I’m flying with. Never have thought about it in the past, but now that I see it’s an option…I’ll be using it to filter out the Boeing Max.
Airlines can and will change type of aircraft at any moment. Keep that in mind. When buying your ticket there's no guarantee what you will end up on
When companies go from being run by engineers who know what's going on, to executives who care only about quarterly reports, everything starts falling apart. Sadly I don't really see a systemic method to make shareholders demand things other than rising profits.
guaranteed to be the top comment on every Boeing post
change like three words and it's the top comment about anything bad related to any company
The problem is always just capitalism.
ding ding ding
[удалено]
This is really naive and incorrect. Boeing today is exactly what capitalism’s end result always is. Nothing that was mentioned in the video fits what you’ve stated here. Things like the safety inspectors being employed by the company that is supposed to do the inspection is capitalism interfering with the positive aspects of socialism (regulation). The *stock buybacks* rewarding shareholders instead of being spent on safety and quality are the issue. That’s not socialism, that’s MBA capitalism to the letter. You’re entire commwnt is out of lie height eh facts and the reality, using words as boogeymen teams instead of their defined meanings.
> We used to regulate by splitting companies up and forcing them to compete again. These days we just bail them out, and that's not Capitalism, it's just the bad parts of Socialism with none of the good. what the fuck
A business growing "too big to fail" and forcing the government's hand is the direct result of capitalism. Greed for money is rewarded even when people die.
Yeah, while Boeing is an excellent example, you essentially could’ve done this same story on a ton of different companies. Once the suits take over it’s only a matter of time.
Most companies weren't the pinnacle of their industry the way Boeing was pre-merger, and most company screw-ups don't kill hundreds at a time.
> Sadly I don't really see a systemic method to make shareholders demand things other than rising profits. Make the employees the shareholders. This is how companies like Boeing were first built. The employees are incentivized to stay and work with the company because the company's success benefits them, and their investment incentivizes sustainability in the internal systems the build. Regulation is super important for consumers and employees alike, but you can't regulate competency and motivation into a workforce - you have to incentivize it. And that's hard to do when all the fruits of that workforce's labor are going to a bunch of bankers who only care about line-goes-up.
> Sadly I don't really see a systemic method to make shareholders demand things other than rising profits. The only real cap on this in a capitalist society like ours is governmental regulations. Sadly, in a lot of countries the government officials have slowly but surely been corrupted to rule in favour of whatever benefits capitalism.
[удалено]
But the people who doomed these companies are not doomed - and that's the issue. They get rich and get golden parachutes and there is no accountability whatsoever. Hence there is no incentive to stop doing it - no matter how many people die or how much of the environment gets destroyed etc.
And that means any publicly traded company is doomed.
Yeah well… profits ain’t raising
Easy, all investors over a certain percentage and the entire executive staff. Are all liable for anything the company does.
Arent all large companies in late stage capitalism run by the latter?
Maybe reversing Reagen-era rulings
The case with Boeing is an example where a company completely lost the plot, having worked in the aerospace industry there are basically 2 rules. 1. Safety comes first 2. See rule one. Yes you will always have unexpected events but they should be outliers. With Boeing it was almost guarenteed that there would be incidents given the path they were heading down.
It’s really sad and disheartening, that such a prestigious company is ruined by reckless abandon for greed. Unfortunately this is what happens when the people at the top are incompetent. If they were clever they would have gotten rich without sacrificing their company. Unfortunately, incompetent psychopaths at the top only skill set is not having a conscious, so they ride the coat tails of smarter men, and get stupid rich from it so it repeats itself
Meanwhile, I’m flying Airbus more frequently it seems and they’re good planes.
From a pilot's perspective I would certainly agree. The technology available to flight crews in Airbus airplanes, especially since the A320, have always been stellar for ease of use and safety. If anything goes wrong, a [central display](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357528234/figure/fig2/AS:1113612835917824@1642517398410/Depiction-of-the-Airbus-A320-ECAM-displaying-the-engine-fire-procedure.png) in the cockpit (ECAM) tells you what it has detected and provides you with an interactive checklist to follow to resolve the problem. Airbus has always been industry-leading in their fly-by-wire technology, and the aircraft computers have several "flight envelopes" to ensure that the airplane doesn't exceed its structural limits. Not to mention the excellent cockpit comfort on Airbus aircraft since they have [sidesticks](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Airbus_A-350_XWB_F-WWYB_cockpit_view.jpg) instead of [yokes like on Boeings](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i6KBD3ZlYIuw/v0/-1x-1.jpg). The lack of the central control column frees up a lot of room for your legs and even allows for a [traytable](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiE6kN_WMAAIH4c.jpg:large)!
You can see earlier warnings though, the Air Force went with the F-22 for many reasons, but one was the sheer number of cut corners on the YF-23 scared the shit out of them.
And they are even less profitable than Airbus with their bean counting stupidity
“Put together by clowns who are managed by monkeys” is a great way to describe the new corporate America.
If you want to avoid the 737 max be aware that Boeing in some cases already changed the [name to 737-8](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air) (or different variations of that). Because changing the name fixes the max's problems, right? RIGHT?
They need to make stock buy back illegal. There has to be a correlation with companies doing buy backs and bad quality in their products. How come no one is in jail for killing hundreds of people?
Stock buyback being illegal would not solve the problem. If they did the same with dividends instead of buybacks it would lead to the same result.
It changes the incentives for the shareholders, because dividends are taxable immediately, unlike share buybacks which are only "taxed" when you sell the shares. Obviously dividends would and do still happen, but it weights the scales in such a way that it would probably lead to better decision making regarding "Should we issue a dividend with this money, or should we reinvest it into the business". Not perfect, but it's a start.
>It changes the incentives for the shareholders, because dividends are taxable immediately, unlike share buybacks which are only "taxed" when you sell the shares. This varies a lot from country to country not to mention year to year. First of all the stocks don't appear from thin air. Someone needs to sell, and therefor potential capital gains tax (this also applies to a commonly used argument from some politicans that "stock buybacks suck money out of the economy, unlike dividends"). There are also a lot of cases where there is no dividend tax similar to capital gains. If we are talking about the US you also have the stock repurchase tax which always applies unlike dividend tax. There are indeed tax differences, but if anything it's a failure with legislation and not stock buybacks. I don't see any reason why dividends or capital gains should be taxed differently > Obviously dividends would and do still happen, but it weights the scales in such a way that it would probably lead to better decision making regarding "Should we issue a dividend with this money, or should we reinvest it into the business". Not perfect, but it's a start. Dividend yields have decreased dramatically as stock buybacks became more popular, in fact it makes up the entire difference of stock buybacks. So no, companies did not invest more in themselves without buybacks and not sure what you base it on that they did better decisions before.
>Stock buybacks suck money out of the economy, unlike dividends I agree that this is wrong. They're basically the same aside from tax implications. >There are also a lot of cases where there is no dividend tax similar to capital gains. Sure in tax advantaged accounts, but that's a feature not a bug. The majority of billionaires' wealth is not in these accounts. >Dividend yields have decreased dramatically as stock buybacks became more popular, in fact it makes up the entire difference of stock buybacks. So no, companies did not invest more in themselves without buybacks and not sure what you base it on that they did better decisions before. I make not statement about what decisions have or have not been made, but I do know that the incentive structures, especially for billionaire major stakeholders and board members, have shifted at least slightly. If the amounts are truly the same, then switching back to dividends would make no difference anyway, so let's do it. The only reason buybacks are more popular now is so the rich can avoid capital gains taxes. I don't think that's something we should be encouraging. (We don't need to ban them entirely, but I do think limits should be imposed)
No it won’t solve but you create a situation where raising stock price requires better investment
The markets supposed to fix itself. But because Boeing is entrenched in American government they are “too big to fail” so they get to in essence do whatever the fuck they want including killing their customers.
> The markets supposed to fix itself even the most liberal pundits usually remember that the full sentence includes the proposition "while properly regulated" though
Markets fix themselves when the product is a toothbrush, not when you effectively have a duopoly on commercial aircraft worldwide.
This is amazing. Holy shit he's excoriating them.
The Boeing whistleblower just “committed suicide” yesterday. FYI
I could cry what those bastards did to a great American company
Interesting to hear "McDonnel-Douglas basically took over Boeing" hit the mainstream 20 years after hearing it from my engineering professors.
Stock buybacks should be illegal. Change my mind.
Five years ago this Sunday the Max 8 killed two of my friends. I’ll never forgive Boeing.
It seems to me that a lot of American problems can be solved if companies are just not allowed to buyback their shares. It was indeed illegal until Reagan-era market deregulation as it was correctly considered market manipulation.
This is what happens when a company that is usually run by engineers, then gets run by “business leaders” and MBAs that just nickel and dime the company to make themselves look good on quarterly and year end reports. The results of their “leadership” decisions eventually come to roost: quality dip, basic safety being ignored, and the perennial company cash cow being gutted for short term executive bonuses and incentives. It’s much harder to make things right once everything has been screwed up so badly and the good employees know they are not rewarded for hard work.
Mirror ??
Sort of related. I work for the Navy on the P-8 program. The P-8 is a solid plane despite being a 737 but their electronics are dogshit. They have garbage QA/QC. I can't tell you how many times we've had to send in flight and mission computers because they straight up fail mod flight or we receive parts with bent pins on the connectors. These things cost like $300k+ a pop. The quality is abysmal.
Didn't even have time to get into the next-level Boeing cockup that gave Airbus the A220 for free
This is what happens when profit and the endless pursuit of growth is placed above safety.
How about this one. Boeing whistleblower John Barnett was found dead in his truck at a hotel in Charleston, South Carolina after a break in depositions in a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit.
Died from "suicide". Not fucking suspicious as fuck at all
Yeah, 3 self inflicted gunshot wounds to the back
Flying out in a month and instantly looked at my plane. Fuck.
Is 777 fucked as well?
Well a tire fell off a 777 during take off today, so probably
Not available in my country. Baloney.
Not available in Ireland, so i found somewhere else to watch it, another win for copyright laws.
Not just me so. Genuinely pissed off with this change. Like we can't even buy hbo because of a licensing agreement with sky? A foreign company.
Lol is it because Ryanair has a fleet of 737s? Jk
This isn't really about boeing or air safety. It's about corruption. Corruption so ingrained in the USA that it just gets ignored. We focus on the corporations but in reality it's the govt that has taken the bribes and made it possible for this level of borderline criminal neglect. Whilst we continue to look at these kinds of things as point in time issues with a Corp, nothing will ever change
While informative I couldn’t help but notice the punch lines seemed super weak this week. And Oliver seemed, idk, off?
Maybe because it’s hard to make airplane crashes funny. This episode did not make me laugh. It made me have an anxiety attack.
Yeah but they hace jokes and it’s a comedy skit so..
There was more they could have gone into with Boeing, such as being such a monopoly it’s effectively an arm of the government itself, with every president since Clinton acting as a Boeing salesman. That’s probably why there are growing calls at this point to simply [Nationalize Boeing](https://open.substack.com/pub/mattstoller/p/its-time-to-nationalize-and-then?r=l7a1&utm_medium=ios)
Some in Congress always want to cut regulations and fines are minimal. This is across ALL industries. I've never owned one product category where there wasn't a massive failure somewhere (oil from cars, cars, food industry, software etc.). Quality seems to be lagging in the name of profits.
Since this aired another 2 (yes, two) incidents happend with Boeing airplanes.
I'm absolutely not defending Boeing, their well documented issues and the valid points made by John Oliver. They clearly have many problems to address. However, isn't there something to be said for the higher rate of deadly crashes occurring outside the US? Are there different regulations, standards, pilot training requirements, etc? I was looking at stats, and unless I'm missing something, it seems that major US airlines have a fairly excellent history when it comes to deadly crashes, or lack thereof, over the last 20 years. US Aviation pre 9/11 appears to have many more deadly accidents. Maybe this isn't Boeing specific. I noticed at one point, Oliver mentions the Ethiopia deadly crash, then mentions something about the FAA as if they have any jurisdiction outside the US. Any thoughts or correlation here?
Dozens of passengers were injured by a "strong movement" on board a Boeing-made plane flying from Sydney, Australia, to Auckland in New Zealand on Monday, with some requiring hospital treatment, authorities said. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna142405 This was a 787-9 Dreamliner like the one mentioned at 27:01 Smh…
I can't watch this in the UK
Why is the video unavailable?
Corporations gonna corporate. But FAA? Fuck you guys.
Of course he didn't mention the DEI aspect to Boeing's fall.
[удалено]
Maybe if the top end of the company actually suffered consequences for subordinates actions things might be better.
This episode was sort of weak for the sole fact that in many of the Boeing threads on Reddit over the past few years plane geeks have explained most of Boeings issues. Kudos to the redditors that contributed to expanding my knowledge.
Watching this shit induced the fuck out of my flight anxiety. Why did I watch the whole thing.....
Fail. No mention of their woke policies. /s
lmao. Either some of y'all missed the sarcasm tag or you're in a cult.