April 20, 2021, © Leeham News: Despite some media suggestions that the Boeing Annual Shareholders’ Meeting would be a “showdown,” the event proved as LNA predicted: More of the same.
All 10 company nominees to the Board of Directors were elected or reelected. They were unopposed, so there was no room for a showdown on this score.
Dissident shareholder resolutions were voted down. Company resolutions were approved.
The only surprise came an hour before the meeting, when Boeing announced that Greg Smith, the CFO since 2011, will retire July 9. This wasn’t expected.
In the same announcement, the Board waived the mandatory retirement age of 65 for CEO David Calhoun. He turned 64 Sunday. The Board gave Calhoun until age 70 before he’d have to retire. There’s nothing to say he couldn’t before then. But this gives Calhoun more time to right the ship and set Boeing on a new path for the future. Calhoun’s one year Countdown now has up to six years.
Below are some initial reactions from Wall Street aerospace analysts about the two moves.
While Calhoun does not have a fixed term contract, the decision extends his mandatory retirement out to April 1,2028. We did not find the extension surprising, given the challenges Boeing has been working through since Calhoun became CEO at the beginning of 2020, related to both the pandemic and product issues in both commercial and defense businesses.
Second, Boeing announced that Greg Smith, EVP, Enterprise Operations and CFO, would retire from the company effective July 9 this year. The company said it is conducting a search for Smith’s successor but did not provide further details. Smith was appointed CFO in 2011, with this role later expanded to EVP of Finance, Enterprise Performance and Strategy, and more recently EVP of Enterprise Operations, Finance and Sustainability. He also served as the interim CEO immediately prior to Calhoun’s appointment to the role. We do not yet know the Board’s approach to this search –primarily if it will be both internal and external.
Our guess is that the retirement of CFO Greg Smith announced today may be related to the extension of CEO Dave Calhoun’s mandatory retirement by five years to 2028, blocking Smith’s potential to get the top slot. Because Mr. Smith is highly regarded, investors will be sensitive to the timing & choice of a new CFO.
Retirement of CFOs tend to be viewed with skepticism by investors who fear potential for “bad news.” However, we surmise that Greg Smith’s decision to leave was his own and doesn’t signal any likely “negative surprises.” Greg Smith has been in the CFO slot for 10 years and was promoted to head of enterprise operations, finance, and strategy a year ago.
He is well regarded and considered a strong leader. Hence, he likely is hopeful of becoming a CEO. Because Mr. Smith was respected as a strong CFO, investors will be sensitive to the timing and perception of his replacement. We assume that potential candidates for the role will include Akhil Johri, respected long time CFO at United Technologies, who left after the RTX merger and recently joined BA’s board.
Dave Calhoun intends to shepherd Boeing’s recovery. With up to six years to go as CEO, Calhoun seems intent on seeing through Boeing’s recovery from both COVID-19 and the 737 MAX crisis. This means he will likely preside over Boeing’s next product development decisions. Boeing’s need for a stronger competitor to the A321neo is oft-discussed, and press reports have talked of options the company may be exploring, including both single- and twin-aisle projects; however, the need to ramp MAX production, shore up the company’s financial condition, and gauge the air travel world that will emerge from COVID-19 are near-term issues that could push out any decision.
Further personnel changes possible. With the additional title of EVP, Enterprise Operations, Greg Smith is an operational CFO with a central role at the company who also presided over the Enterprise Process Councils meant to streamline and strengthen Boeing. We could therefore see more organizational changes around his departure on July 9.
I think many more employees would like to follow CFO Smith out the door but they do not have an equivalent golden emergency escape slide exit option. 6 more years of GE-bred “Boeing does not have a culture problem” Calhoun means that the beatings will continue until morale improves.
Boeing stock is currently down 4.75%…one of the biggest losers today on Wall Street.
I wonder why? 😜
The $64 question is Smith vs Calhoun not what the stock market did on one day.
They keep talking about righting the ship, the reality is right now its taken on a lot of water and can they pump it out and get it moving in the right direction and the speed it should?
What we have seen is the ongoing crisis of failure of quality control at BCA (the KC-46 not excluded) .
I continue to think Boeing should have bought or try to buy Embraer again just to get engineers that they have lost. Foolish thinking I know.
But no new aircraft is going to come without good engineering and the industrialization (building them) and Boeing is failing there terribly.
Too many are ignorant of the fact that a design is not a built aircraft, it has to be converted into building it, two different field and areas.
The good engineers are in the T1 and 2 suppliers as well.
Its overlooked but the B21 contract with Northrop Grumman ( funny how the fighter builders are now the de facto bomber builders) includes Spirit of Wichita as a major supplier. The B2 contract had Boeing as a supplier to Northrop. Boeing which includes North American the B-1 builder teamed with Lockheed with their own design and lost ( another Muilenberg legacy).
My take is Boeing is keeping its core competency in wing design and production and the rest can be designed to Boeings requirements ( properly this time) by the major suppliers who have to make it.
Embraer does its planes this way as well, so having the 80% owned JV was just to grab market share to counter Airbus not some illusory design office full of talented engineers
Broadly, on the making stuff side (ie ignoring the core competencies in sales etc), wings would be one of two, the other being the whole systems integration / process design / whatnot part (the game change part for the next model from Boeing).
It mostly went to Japanese companies like Mitsubishi. See E. Fingleton below:
“systems integrator”, puh. No, you have to still know how to Build Stuff in order to to do that..
“duke said ..” My take is Boeing is keeping its core competency in wing design and production and the rest can be designed to Boeings requirements ( properly this time) ..”
Boeing core comptency on wings took a severe hit in the late 90’s due to the MDC buyout – the Golden Handshake ( 9000 plus locals jumped ship in 1995 ) and thus was founded Aviation Partners, the BBJ winglets and follow- ons.
I don’t care what the financial idiots say, what does Leeham assess?
The big news really is Smith leaving though that is part of Calhoun staying.
So Smith lost the power struggle.
What Wall Street terms a strong leader has to be viewed as, sucks up to Wall Street vs the good of the company (Costco vs Wall street in other words as Costco paid its staff well and Wall Street thinks they should rip them off and throw the support onto the community)
Boeing will try to launch a new aircraft.
Sadly, under Calhoun we see that he has not a clue as to how to actually run a company that makes high tech products and what is required.
Best of both worlds for Calhoun, look what I did! Just because it went sour is not my fault (it was Mullenbergs fault!)
When two bean counters collide something has to give!
Smith was the one in charge of ‘strategy’ and the one preventing ‘irrational exuberance’ on the business case for the NMA.
Could be his exit signals the business case is now ‘box ticked’
A very good observation and I totally agree. I think Smith was the one big rock standing firmly in the way of the NMA and although NMA is a very bad idea all around (even according to chairman-C), it may be that Boeing simply doesn’t have an alternative and must lunch the NMA to signal to the street that a change is coming to their product strategy (yes, we get it). In reality, the only thing that will be accomplished by this would be kicking the can a few more years down the road and pilling in more debt. With a terrible weakness exposed in their single-aisle lineup (both its core and the upper end), it makes no sense to risk it all and go after a product with doubtful maturity and prospects, that would be marginal at best. All of this is assuming no new bloody drama will unfold between now and then (more on the MAX, 787, or the 777X? All seem possible). That being said, a bad business case has never ever managed to stop a project at Boeing, either during the reign of the big M or chairman C, I see no reason for this trend to change.
I have seen some ref to that on Leeham but I don’t know the board workings in that kind of detail to say for sure.
What we do know is Smith is gone after he lost a battle.
How much good this does Boeing? Calhoun is as complicit or more so than anyone on the board and nothing is getting better under his watch.
To credit him with MAX return when that was going to happen anyway is ridiculous.
All we need to hear is the grounding debacle on the MAX and its the same problems that got them into a disaster in the first place.
If he can’t stop that garbage he can’t begin to deal with a new aircraft program that is not a full on disaster.
“Muilenburg, in his public role as CEO on earnings calls, investor conferences and interviews, always is cagey about the NMA program. He says the business case has yet to be closed, there is still customer input being received, etc.
Privately, I’ve heard for months that Muilenburg wants to do the program and it is Greg Smith, CFO of The Boeing Co. and EVP of Enterprise Performance & Strategy, who remains skeptical of the business case.
Last December, Muilenburg and Smith told Seth Seifman of JP Morgan the NMA must stand on its own business case and not be dependent upon aftermarket contracts with Boeing Global Services.”
These 2 MNA stories are now from behind paywall
(part 1 was just an indro)
The money shot
“Only 35% of the 787-8’s flights are more than 5,000 miles, according to an LNC analysis.”
“What we do know is Smith is gone after he lost a battle. ”
Your evidence is?
Plausibility does not create fact.
I think TW has it pretty much right on all counts.. I’d only
add “blame China and Russia for Boing’s self-inflicted
I think TW has it pretty much right on all counts.. I’d only
add “blame China and Russia” for Boing’s self-inflicted
A repeat of the “lost decade”??
What lost decade , its extremely busy for Boeing and they achieved record sales and profits
737 Max ( with flaws)
777X almost ready
Every one knows the ‘business you are in’, paper airplanes around a cubicle farm and I can guess what city – but wont say
I see a lot of sales and cost.
I don’t see real profits.
I see a wide range of cosmetic financial moves
to hide the cost aspect.
No matter how much it’s explained, some people just can’t (or won’t) see the difference between sales and earnings.
The company has $64B in debt, and only $25B in cash. The MAX order book is shrinking at an alarming rate. Recent margins on the MAX are paper thin. The 777X has been pushed out to 2024/2025.
But, no cause for concern…all is well 🙂
Record sales and profits? Oh you mean ten years ago when the kool aid was free
To get back to the present
What sales ?
They made money on their offices or empty bits of land?
They made money on the Max? recent post re cert sales the planes were sold at a profit you think?
On the 787? Read the expert – Dhierin Bechai:
“During the first quarter of 2020 Boeing has decreased the accounting block from 1,600 to 1,500 units, which negatively affected block margins. Boeing has 495 units left to recoup the balance of $16.8B. Boeing still needs 11 sales to reach the 1,500 aircraft, which is the size of the accounting quantity.
With the 506 aircraft that are yet to be delivered, Boeing needs to recoup $33.3 million per airframe on average on top of the average program margin to totally zero out the balance. Given that Boeing currently generates profits of ~15.7 million per rolled out airframe, the road toward zeroing out the deferred balance remains difficult. Looking at the latest reported declines in the deferred production balance it almost seems that there’s no chance Boeing will be able to zero the balance within the accounting quantity, but we still have to wait for a better indicator and that is when the delivery flow revives.”
That cat’s cradle of a non combat plane costs BA how much per delivery?
BA is a zombie
The accounting block increases in size over time and as more sales are made.
737 is still using an accounting block , you dont seem to know that, the 747 uses one and when the last one is rolled out its closed and all the accounting is finalised.
When is the 787 final roll out happening ? Add that to your long list of ‘dont knows’
If you wish for information on BA’s mis use of the accounting block read DB
Of course this (acc bloc) is used generally at BA – it would be hard to imagine the use of two different accounting systems
The problem with the accounting block is not only obscurity, it allows more easily for extensive fraud, as previously BA has been found guilty of
However the main problems is that BA can not use it profitably – their use is to hide losses : past that point they do not know how to balance their books, or when they will be forced to acknowledge the production balance on the 787 program
BA’s problem is not that third parties can not understand their accounting – their problems is that BA does not understand BA’s accounting
The insidious thing with the Account Block tools is that unforeseen outlay can as easily as the planned outlay be pushed into the Deferred Cost basket.
This hides mismatch between planning and reality.
( and essentially contravenes the tenet of sane bookkeeping ) At the 787 time Boeing had created a big heap of Elephant dodo but bookkeeping numbers did not reflect that at all.
Smith, 54, retires.
Calhoun, 64, stays for six more years.
So let me get this right Iran will be buying Boeing aircraft (good for Boeing) but the US restricts globally available commercial aircraft technology going to China and Russia?
Nope, US restricts US technology from going to Russian/China to a degree (what is not stolen)
In fact France sells vision equipment to Russia of their tanks (that tend to hover on the NATO border) as well as trying to build Helicopter Carriers for Russia.
But France visions equipment has no US content or IP so away they go.
Its called shooting yourself and your allies and citizens in the foot.
Helicopter carriers for Russia…that was ages ago , they were sold to Egypt and the thermal vision thing goes back even further. The new tank arrays with a ‘french microbolometer’ is just Ukrainian sourced misinformation.
Boeing jets have Russian titanium…..
The aviation industry — including Boeing — still has a very steep uphill climb.
It looks as if LNA’s misery list will have (many) more entrants.
BBC: “US to advise against travel to 80% of countries”
Here’s a nice Reuters analysis of Smith’s departure:
“Boeing shares dive 4% after CFO’s shock retirement, CEO extended”
Boys @TW @DoU, just hold your breath a bit longer.
BA would continue to priorities paying down its debt, it’s official.
After fixing its B/S, BA wants to restore its dividend … and shares buy back?? FSA, NMA have to wait quite awhile.
Not sure if I should laugh or cry.
“He had to”. Really, he could have quit sooner.
As the cost cutting is a part if not the cause of all the problems, good riddance (not that he was not assisted nobly by Calhoun)
I love the part about cost cutting setting Boeing up for success. Its done a fantastic job so far, lets do more of it (much like the 20% layoffs saved us 2 billion, if we do 140% then it will sake us 10 billion)
I need a good solid wall to beat my head against. Sadly they don’t make Battleship Armor anymore.
>I love the part about cost cutting setting Boeing up for success. Its done a fantastic job so far, lets do more of it (much like the 20% layoffs saved us 2 billion, if we do 140% then it will sake us 10 billion) <
Yep. "We'll close up shop Entirely, for 100% cost-savings!"
Super-cool US MBA-think..
"We don't need no stinkin' knowledgable, seasoned
workforce.. outsourcing™ is way better, and cooler, too.."
Boing mcLeadership: “we’re gonna run this Baby right into the ground..” [again]
no thinkin’ involved, but IBG/YBG.
Smith had to go for this company to make progress. Stock buybacks, bleeding of suppliers etc that was smith strategy through and through. This exit I will gladly take as good news
It had been clear for some time that Calhoun would likely be offered an extension on retirement. I’m sure as he said, he wants to see the recent crises through. It’s a good move, and if the Smith retirement is related, that’s unfortunate as he too has done a good job. Given that he is only 54, he could still have succeeded Calhoun, if that was his wish.
What “crises” (plural) are you referring to?
You always told us that everything was rosy at Boeing, remember?
– The MAX was just a misinterpreted masterpiece, which was victim of unfair PR after screwups by foreign pilots.
– The open heart surgery on the Dreamliner was totally overblown, since the problem only related to “a few tenths of an inch”.
– The 777X was a shining beacon for the future…orders would pour in.
– The KC-46 would soon be fixed and shiny, and was doing “limited ops”.
– Boeing finances were just fine.
Have you had a “burning bush moment” during your banishment to the Sin Bin?
It’s up to Scott Hamilton to deal with this kind of post. He asked me for suggestions on how to deal with them and I gave several. His choice thereafter.
The crises are as well reported in the news, 737 MAX and COVID impact on the industry.
Yes, everyone else here is very well aware that the crises are being reported in the news. In fact, it’s hard to find a single aviation or financial news site that doesn’t wipe the floor with the situation at Boeing.
The point was that, up until very recently, you didn’t see any crisis at Boeing at all, other than CoViD. So there’s a natural curiosity as to what changed your attitude in the meantime.
Never said that there were not crises with 737 MAX and COVID. The lesser issues with 787 deliveries, 777X, and KC-46, were not on the same scale.
787 deliveries have resumed and will continue, 777X test flights continue toward certification, and the KC-46 is performing limited duties and will likely be upgraded to a communications node as it enters full service.
Boeing has substantial debt but also substantial revenue, which is an issue as per the above, but not a crisis. At least in the minds of most investors and observers.
All your statements since the lifting of your suspension have been incorrect
‘Boeing has substantial debt but also substantial revenue’
List BA revenues please and support your assertions of fact with links to reliable sources – most market reports and ratings (Fitch at BBB-) as well as informed experts such as Dhierin Bechai state that BA has a cash crisis
Mounting debts and debt repayments, sales weak with no profit margin or likely to be sold at a loss, no new sources of revenue on the horizon
Large parts of the world market closed to the Max – multiple unresolved issues ditto ongoing problems ever increasing at 787
Plus – the non combat DoD plane losing money no end in sight
Your sweeping statements are empty assertions unfounded in reality
Gerrard White raised this point in a comment to another article — thanks!
Reuters (and others): “U.S. watchdog will review FAA decision to unground Boeing 737 MAX”
Very good that this is happening, but disconcerting that it’s necessary at all.
The MAX was just recently ungrounded…and yet it’s once again plagued by multiple issues (fuel system processors (AD), widespread grounding issues in the cockpit (groundings), and two separate issues with stabilizer motors). It seems that the FAA was so concentrated on MCAS that it forgot about the rest of the plane…
These are all examples of Boeing reviewing, finding, self-reporting, and addressing issues in the manufacturing process. All relatively minor and all addressed quickly. None of which significantly impact the resumption of MAX aircraft service.
The IG will be reviewing the complete FAA decision chain for the corrective process:
“The inspector general’s office added its objective is to evaluate FAA’s processes and procedures for grounding aircraft and implementing corrective actions.”
20% of the entire delivered MAX fleet is on the ground due to multiple electrical issues, and you describe that as “relatively minor”?
United Airlines announced yesterday that the electrical grounding fastener fix was relatively easy and would be performed quickly. As stated, it won’t have a significant impact on the overall MAX return to service. The aircraft grounding was a precautionary measure, which reflects an emphasis on safety.
It is a Boeing issue.
Those are invariably minor
though on occasion they are overblown in the press
or other hateful unAmerican voices.
BA still haven’t found a solution, day 12 and counting.
How many times Muilenburg promised B737 MAX RTS next month or next quarter??
Once again your statements are incorrect
The plethora of lackaday common faults found in a newly re certified plane is indeed grounds for concern – if not all planes would be recalled all the time – tell me this is not the case
This just is the latest and on top of the list for FAA of safety directives for 2021 , theres 6 alone for the date 20th April
‘The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that a welding quality issue has been identified in the gimbal joint of the air bleed duct located at each wing-to-pylon interface…
There seems to be a lot of hot air from an orchestrated few on this blog, the FAA should look into it!
Of course there are advisories and ADs for all sorts of issues in lots of different models on a weekly basis. But you might find the following checklist helpful. Let’s take the A350 issue that you cite as a specific example:
– Has the issue led to a grounding of 20% of the delivered fleet of this model? — NOPE
– Has this model just come off of history’s longest grounding, with a reputational stain of being the second most lethal aircraft in recent aviation history (after Concorde)? — NOPE
– Was/is Airbus going around touting this model as “the most scrutinized airplane in history”? — NOPE
– Has this issue with the A350 reached the aviation press — or, even more striking, the mainstream press worldwide? — NOPE
It’s natural that all this (justified and well-earned) bad publicity for BA is causing ire for those who have heavy BA stakes in their pension schemes, but pretending that it’s all “hot air” isn’t going to improve that situation. One is reminded of a certain politician who had a habit of using the label “fake news” for anything that didn’t suit him. The same person regularly accused the press of conspiring against him. There’s a disturbing similarity here.
The thing to note is that apparently
B products have been defective here and there
for a long time.
The thing that changed is that scrutinizing non B eyes
now are a force to recon with.
Boeing these days finding their own issues on more or less shortish notice would afaics indicate that these were known issues all along .. but ignored!
Thus it is definitely not a commendable achievement but rather a damning scenario.
‘Perfectly fine for the IG to review’
It can not be ‘fine’ that the IG should spend it’s time reviewing the FAA or the other regulatory authorities on a daily/weekly/regular basis
That the IG has once again to review the FAA is another sign of how irregular inefficient and potentially corrupt behaviour has distorted this administration and has produced the deathplane formerly know as Max
The actions of ‘150!) regulators in other countries is of no concern nor of any relevance to the IG
Once again you confuse and confound all issues in an attempt to draw an obscure screen over what is, once again, a dangerous situation for US aviation
The fact that BA and US aviation in general is in such disrepair and crisis is due to the mindset you express – not only incapable of building efficient planes, but wallowing in the fact
– many other countries (read Asia) dislike the planes, dislike the company, but above all dislike the pretensions of those publicists who would seek to persuade them that all is well all is for the best
This hypocrisy has driven the current crisis to disaster
Perfectly fine for the IG to review FAA actions. Given that those actions also have been reviewed and endorsed by EASA and more than 150 other regulators around the world, it’s likely that the IG will largely concur.
Oh dear, are you under the illusion that the MAX has been ungrounded by “more than 150 regulators around the world?”
Time for a reality check 😉
As of two weeks ago, 160 of the 195 global regulators had recertified the MAX. A few more since then.
Watch it – such posts require references
Where does this information come from – cite sources
Is there such a thing as strike four?
Actually, the number is 169 of the 195 countries.
Clearly- according to those numbers- the MAX is the most-scrutinized, and safest™, commercial passenger aircraft ever, ever, ever. If you disagree, you get a nice free trip to Guantanamo [only metaphorically, of course- of course!].
Any thoughts on the apparently twenty-six countries that haven’t gone along with the program; and any thoughts on why a fair number of MAXes are *currently re-grounded* despite the previous near-two years of intense scrutiny?
Do you have a source for such information?
How many of those like India and Vietnam allow flyover only?? 😱
More like 1.5 foreign regulators, isn’t it?
Once again – your post is in correct to facts
Given your enforced absence due to your lack of respect for facts it would be doubly necessary for you to make sure that your statements are correct : to commence another consistent pattern of distortion of the facts and dismissal of concern is more than reprehensible
150 regulators ? Get a grip
Absence was not enforced, so far as I am aware. Scott suppressed several of my posts that pointed out the attacks that were taking place, as well as misinformation that was presented, as well as proof of the true information. At that point it was useless to continue.
I visited here today only to express support for the news of Dave Calhoun’s deferred retirement, knowing it would be similarly attacked, but still worth stating. Nothing has really changed here, nor did I really expect it would. Still endlessly predicting and hoping for the demise of Boeing. So I’ll leave you to it.
Scott told us several weeks ago that “Rob is on suspension”.
Perhaps you should take it up with him?
This may be the only verifiable statement you have made-
“I visited here today only to express support for the news of Dave Calhoun’s deferred retirement, knowing it would be similarly attacked, but still worth stating. Nothing has really changed here, nor did I really expect it would. Still endlessly predicting and hoping for the demise of Boeing. So I’ll leave you to it.”
If this is intended to be true – please confirm by failing to post
Chairman for Life is grateful for your support
You guys and your orchestrated litany of lies will be coming for a fall… all pretty obvious what you are doing.
Young ‘Pedro’ got mightily exercised over the question of Chinese airline bailouts the other day, cant suggest the Leninst party state airlines arent ever successful.
Wild accusations and conspiracy theories are not useful
All these lies and their guys – your language is teenagery
Time to shoot the messenger when you can’t dispute with facts!
> Absence was not enforced, so far as I am aware. Scott suppressed several of my posts <
Almost like that one commenter thinks it deserves
special treatment.. interesting. 😉
“”Given that those actions also have been reviewed and endorsed by EASA and more than 150 other regulators””
My God, the FAA never checked all cert documents, even with knowledge that Boeing tricked their self cert documents. If FAA never checked, how could EASA or any other have checked the certs.
What’s going on here is slaughter in the making, FAA is just waiting for the next MAX crash, same as they were waiting for ET302.
More bad publicity for Boeing:
– India (18% of the world’s population) will allow the MAX to traverse its airspace, but won’t allow it to land or take off.
“According to industry experts, Indian authorities are making sure the aircraft is safe to travel. “The 737Max along with Boeing will need to win back credibility and confidence with airlines, the regulator, pilots, flight attendants and engineers, and most importantly, the travelling public. US Congressional investigations into Boeing and the 737 Max has revealed Boeing belittling India and the DGCA. So it would clearly have to do a lot more for India to budge,” said Mark D Martin, Founder & CEO, Martin Consulting.”
– The exasperated Tim Clark is turning to the press yet again to air his grievances over the delayed 777X:
Tim Clark, from the above interview:
“Boeing build very good aeroplanes. They design very good aeroplanes I don’t want to cast any doubt on that at all. It’s simply how they are built and under what conditions they are now going to be built, what new quality control regulatory requirements are coming in. That is slowing the whole process.”
I really detest Tim Clark.
He was the one that declared RR had magically produced an engine (derivative) that gained 7% fuel efficiency and ordered them for Emirates
I had hoped to see the last of him, but like a bad penny he keeps hanging around. At least we have not heard from Leahy for some time.
Thanks for this!
“US Congressional investigations into Boeing and the 737 Max has revealed Boeing belittling India and the DGCA.”
BA really is the world’s stupidest company – their publicists without peer
First blame the yellow third world pilots in Asia, then the brown third world pilots in Africa, now the brown people of India
Ah – there’s always the Klondike run, plus they have one or two airplanes in North Dakota..maybe?
That quote immediately caught my attention.
I wonder what the “belittling” entailed? Does anyone here have any more info on this?
Well…I hope you are not inviting me to speculate, but…
Martin Consulting would know- I’ll ask them
BA Bad News Week/Decade Continues
Dhierin Bechai, reliable decipher of complex BA accounting systems, reports
« « My view that Boeing dealt with the most recent issues in a decisive way remains. I also do believe that the fixes should be easy and operational impact is minimal. However, in the framework of regaining trust it’s unfortunate to see that the problems did spread, the regulators seem to have been too reactive once again and the way Boeing has made the Boeing 737 MAX part of the incentive also makes for a quick judgment that the MAX might have been rushed back to service.
While Boeing did the right thing in my view, Boeing nor the regulators are scoring points when we take the created perception that the aircraft might still have been put in service too early or the regulator audit of the Boeing 737 MAX was not sufficient into consideration. I believe the regulators, meaning the FAA, EASA and Transport Canada, are losing more face here than Boeing.
According to this report the laziness and corruption is ‘systemic’ (everyone knows to check the electrics let alone after the safest plane in history 20 month grounding fine toothcomb you can trust us even the bureaucrats might have thought of checking the electrics)
– although DB might have mentioned the IG investigation
“Dhierin Bechai, reliable decipher of complex BA accounting systems”
So he decides he knows about airplane safety systems as well?
The funny part is some give him any credibility outside Boeings accounting . Go figure
Moderate your tone – flippant derision amplifies foolishness
Please Read DB’s report
DB is not commenting on the technical nature of the systematic safety failures at BA – he is assessing the impact such failures have on perception, market perception and public perception
DB’s expertise is to unravel BA’s accounting, this is performed from and for the market, commercial and investor : he is frequent in his emphasis that the complexity and obscurity of their accounting does BA harm
This report forwards a parallel with the recent safety failures : one might add that BA ‘s culture of secrecy, of refusal to lay out and operate clearly defined procedures, is the cause of all current problems
Which secrecies also result in corporate paranoia and a misguided notion of superiority to commercial legal and administrative processes, a fondness for engineering tricksteries – a mindset similar to the one on display in your comments
Reform is in the air du temps
Lina Kahn is up for Commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission
It is possible that her position and understanding of the root causes of the inefficiences of US infrastructure, in particular with regards to airtravel, may lead to reform
Of relevance is this report from 2012 which pinpoints with accuracy many wearily familiar distortions and corruptions semi concealed subsidies enduring profiteering
Forgotten paper airliners:
Just for grins I point to long-forgotten airplane ideas that never got far even on paper:
A new airplane design to replace the 747, but larger.
(Apparently the project was also termed Boeing 763-246C, reminding me of the subterfuge name 367-80 which had no resemblance to the model 367 airliner, most people know it as the Dash80 jetliner prototype.)
Boeing went through several iterations of modifying the original 747, eventually culminating in the 747-8.
Double decker, four engines
The Original DC-8
Short-medium range, unusual counter-rotating pusher propellors on the tail turned by Allison V-12 engines in lower forward fuselage – bizarre long driveshafts but lower drag. Airlines preferred conventional twins from Convair and Martin.
DC-7C with Tyne turboprops, the engines on the Canadair CL-44 variant of the Bristol Brittannia, Vickers Vanguard, and Short Belfast.
At Pacific Western we dreamed of Tynes on Hercules C-130s as more powerful, perhaps unhappy with Allison T56 design.
(I had a rare opportunity to see inside a Belfast, which was like a bloated Herc, when it came to YVR to pick up a Supermarine Stranraer in front of PW’s hanger to take it to a museum in the UK. Big flight deck, perhaps 20 seats on a mezzanine deck behind that. Only 10 built.)
Logical, I thought at the time. Airbus must have been happy that Douglas did not proceed.
Years later Boeing produced the 767 twin for transcon and beyond.
My memory is very faded, but that would be a logical configuration.
(Lockheed did shorten the L-1011 to the -500 for long range but kept three engines. I favoured that to replace 707-320Cs.
There was also a notion of a quad version, two engines aft and two underwing.)
Some tri-to-twin notions plus the DC-12 and some oddballs covered in https://www.flightglobal.com/clipped-wings/64577.article#:~:text=The%20DC%2D10%20Twin%20had,in%2Dservice%20target%20of%201975.&text=The%20concept%20of%20a%20twinjet,it%20off%20the%20drawing%20board.
Pontificators might take the foregoing as a lesson – paper airplanes are common. (Even aircraft that were produced went through several iterations until the final one – the Belfast for example. Like a process of exploration.)