cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

IMHO, Boeing DESERVES its currently bad reputation as they clearly tried to cut corners and save money over providing safety. The video mentioned here just proves that without a shadow of a doubt. Boeing WAS a good company and could become so once again, but they must make safety priority one! Sure, there's far fewer deaths in the air than while driving, but even one death which could have been avoided by better engineering and better production methods is one too many. Current management needs to be ejected.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

I understand that this was when the 'cost cutting' came about.

olddutch Loc: Beloit, Wisconsin

As a young man in 1960 I applied for a job at United Airlines as a A&E mechanic. And at that time I had to take a test, I believe they called a Staynine test . It was some kind of a psychological test. And it was quite lengthy. If they are still giving these kind of tests I would think that they would more than covered any problems with hiring practices…

fantom Loc: Colorado

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

It's true that the corporate culture did change about then. It was driven, not by personalities as outside observers like to write about, but by the growing cut-throat competition from Airbus. Airbus was receiving tens of billions in illegal sweetheart government subsidies to develop its family of new planes. And those subsidies didn't have to be paid off in the way Boeing's private sector borrowings did, so Airbus was able to buy its way into the global marketplace by selling its planes below what it actually cost to build them.

Before that time, Boeing was able to make a relatively small but steady profit, but it was not enough to continue attracting the capital investment needed to operate. So, Boeing had to find ways to both cut costs (i.e., operate more efficiently) in order to both compete with Airbus prices and make the investment reward high enough to attract sufficient private capital to stay in business. Boeing changed in order to survive, and it has to continue minding its finances to match Airbus prices. Companies that don't adapt to the market conditions, fail. A classic example is Sears Roebuck, once the world's largest retailer, but now in bankruptcy.

BTW, the huge intercontinental Airbus A380, which European governments helped develop via massive subsidies, is no longer made. Only 251 of them sold against a market forecast of more than 1,200. Its subsidies were never recouped. What changed was that the world market moved away from the hub and spoke model, for which the A380 was developed, to a point-to-point model in which airlines could fly directly to the passenger's intended destination without intermediate stops to change planes. Boeing saw that coming so it cancelled its project to build an A380 competitor and focused on the new 787 series (developed at a cost of $32 Billion), of which more than 1,100 have now been delivered and another 800 plus are on order.

fantom Loc: Colorado

Could appear so.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Maybe news over fantasy?

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

If you believe that one death is one too many, you should devote your rage against all the manufacturers of automobiles and motorcycles. Put them all out of business! That should solve the problem!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The BIGGEST difference is that those vehicle accidents are mostly operator error where Boeing's trouble is self inflicted due to abject failure which should not be allowed to happened. Accidents can and will occur, it's when they can be easily avoided by paying attention to safety that they become unacceptable. I did not suggest shutting them down; however more scrutiny from actual FAA employees along with a complete cleanout of upper management, would be a big help to getting back to their previous reputation. Best of luck & stay out of the MAX airplanes.

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

You make distinctions without a difference. That's irrational.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

No question Airbus and the potential move by American Airlines to Airbus caused Boeing to retrofit the existing 737 with larger, more fuel efficient engines, rather than design a new aircraft, a change that could cause the aircraft to pitch up in some situations, and which the now infamous MCAS system was designed to counteract. Unfortunately, since it was designed to work in the background, pilots of many airlines were not trained on it’s operation, and unlike other flight control systems which employed redundancy, the MCAS relied on a single sensor, resulting (as I understand it) in the two 737Max crashes and in the end, caused the grounding and non-delivery of new 737Max aircraft and a huge monetary and reputational loss to Boeing

So, in actuality, it was competitive pressure that caused Boeing to retrofit larger engines to an existing aircraft rather than design a new one and compensate for the altered flight characteristics in SW. It really is always about quarterly sales/profit numbers first and foremost, but the non redundant design of the MCAS system and the lack of pilot training were design and training failures.

SteveFranz Loc: Durham, NC

SteveFranz Loc: Durham, NC

How about this alternative view of reality: Boeing took a tested, reliable, airframe and upgraded it with newer, more efficient engines. (rather than trying to design a new airframe for those engines.)

BebuLamar

Yes Boeing tried to get around the problem due to the time constraint that caused the problem. Something shouldn't be done in the first place even if no accident will happen.

Canonuser Loc: UK and South Africa

The 2022 documentary film, ‘Downfall - The case against Boeing’ is worth watching. It pulls no punches as it describes the declining performance of Boeing, especially after the McDonald Douglas merger.