Opinion article that author's thesis states stock buybacks and poor leadership led to the breaking of Boeing.

[BMWTurboDzl]

That is, like, what, 4th whistleblower in the last few months? I just hope whole FBI building is on this.

Maybe. I guess not everyone has the constitution to become a WB.

 

[ZZman]

As far as I am concerned they shouldn't allow stock buybacks.

 

[GON]

As far as I am concerned they shouldn't allow stock buybacks.

I would add to your list the following ". they shouldn't allow buybacks as long as the American citizen is involuntarily guarantees the success of the equity markets".

 

[edyvw]

I would add to your list the following ". they shouldn't allow buybacks as long as the American citizen is involuntarily guarantees the success of the equity markets".

When markets crashed in 2007/08, Madoff and some poor dude are only one who ended up in prison. In these cases, DOJ should not go into deal making where companies are on the hook and people who made decisions usually walk away with healthy paycheck. Dennis Muilenburg, after those MAX crashes, horrible PR that would be done better by high school graduate, walked away with 60+ million.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

... And funny, the CEO of Boeing, who works from home quite a bit and has a full size Boeing private jet pick him up at home if he decides to go to the office...

It's counter-intuitive to think that if a Boeing plane crashes the company would do better, but in one case I think it would be so.

 

[Brons2]

Not to long ago Boeing was the envy of the commercial aviation world. Great forward thinking like developing the composite 78x to increase point to point routes, rather than a massive 380 that was designed for hub flights.

Article states Boeing fell and fell hard due to stock buybacks and incompetent leadership. I think many of the author's observations can be applied to many US corporations today, that were at the top of their game just a few decades ago.

(edit - Mod; video link removed)

I like the 787 from a passenger experience standpoint but would not hold it up as a paragon of Boeing's best engineering. The development costs were way, way higher than originally forecast, I have heard north of $32B. The rollout was a disaster, they basically rolled out an empty shell on 7/8/7, it was a dog and pony show. Then the plane was delayed after that something like 3 or 4 years. The wing broke too early in the original failure test, the design had to be modified. Much of the early planes had tons of "traveled work" meaning the subcontractors didn't finish their work before the subassembly was shipped to Boeing. At one point there were dozens of planes parked outside KPAE and KBFI waiting for rework. Most of the early ones below line #40 or so are not any more efficient than the prior generation planes because they are way, way overweight. And there continues to be production problems to this day, so much of it is "built" by subcontractors and Boeing just snaps it all together. But they can't be counted on to even do that, there have been a lot of issues at the North Charleston plant, very public and embarrasing for Boeing. One customer found a ladder ** yes a ladder ** in the tailplane of a brand new 787 that Boeing "forgot" to take out.

Do I feel safe flying them? Yes, due to airline MX doing a better job maintaining them than Boeing did building them.

 

[edyvw]

Maybe, just maybe, Boeing board could look elsewhere for some wisdom:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cost...jj8KZX7Ayh5pzzMc6XDbC8OOwi4qfUQ5Yak3IdI37ISt_