You could’ve used the B-1B Lancer or the F/A-18, F-15 or V-22 Osprey but you went tor the B-2? (It’s funny because it shows you put as much attention into the ad-read as we, the audience, do.)

**Boeing fanboys still saying sh!t about how great Boeing aircraft is** Wendover Productions mic-drops this video

hahaha man I swear after seeing jetlag, sams voice keeps popping up in all of my recommended informational videos! keep up the work!

You should also apologize for continuing to push the narrative that the Ethiopian and Indonesian crashes were Boeing's fault. Oh and you should also apologize for buying fake engagement.

3) You forgot to mention the disastrous and racist policies of DEI contributing to a smaller hiring pool, thus lowering your chances of hiring employees with the best qualifications in the market.

If it’s a Boeing, I’m not going!

Lol literally two weeks ago didn't want cancelled flights so we booked airbus

Instead of Max 9 I call it the Boeing Crash 9

​@@TheLordDraculawell done.

I though tit used it used to be "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"

Like how the U.S is a third world country with a Gucci belt.

This represents the United States in one sentence too

@@AwesomeHairo richest country in the world is third world, great take there.

@@captainmcsplash682contrary to popular belief, the united states didn’t ally with either the USSR or the United States during the cold war, making it indeed third world!

​@@npenplzdo you live in The United States or the united states? Which one is Boeing in?

It is possible he was a racist against DEI and didn't like working with Professional Black Americans..One thing ain't gonna change Black folk arein charge now and thay aint gon change

Learning from drug cartels sure is a winning move

You’d better hope Boeing doesn’t read that, a significant lawsuit might result.

​@@jamesgregory2918they won't pay attention to him lol 😂

@@jamesgregory2918or worse 😂

Guaranteed. Just before the major airline I worked for declared bankruptcy, a starry-eyed newhire explained she'd been told there were "two separate pots of money" - one for upper management, the other for workers in case of bankruptcy. 😂 We enlightened her as to how that was going to work.....exactly as it soon did.

its stupid how we would be willingly kill each other like this so we can run in an endless rat-race of materialisim to nowhere

Worse still, I'm pretty sure they got sweet bonuses for the whole debacle. Those people can only fall up.

Oh Def. The best C-suite has stem degrees and worked in the field of their industry. But instead they held onto a the C-suite of a failing company and copied their Hail Mary. This C suite is a failure and I wouldn't want more management consultants.

@@666Tomato666they actually fall down mentally but thinks they are falling up through the concept of money

Huh? More like communication failure I guess. Like the Biblical Babel in brief. They have the machines and no need for buying one. Manpower? Ask the land tax over the Hershey factories left idle back then as I remember a show for.

Bean counter 🤡’s

They'll tell you DEI is the "real" problem.

Former McKinsey & Company consultants who care nothing for the art of standards and the finesse of reliable engineering.

Yeah, they also put accountants at the top of Apple, Microsoft, and many other companies, and every single time they nearly crashed them. Put competent people at strategic posts, not fucking excel experts.

What's there not to love in late-stage capitalism?

Yes. And the consequences are always the same. Look at what happened to Apple and Microsoft. Kodak also took the same route, but failed to recover in-extremis.

The Boeing issue is blown completely out of proportion. Mainstream media and UKposts personalities are using this subject for clout. Wendover Productions or whoever this is doesn't know anything about aviation; Fox News/Cnn/MSNBC know nothing about aviation. There have been MANY other aircraft with this kind of media perception after having multiple accidents in a row. The 737 NG is a spectacular aircraft. The 777 and 787 have immaculate safety records, and are just as good as any Airbus.

Endemic to manufacturing and society in general .

Endemic to manufacturing and society in general .

Oh wait, you mean like KMart/Sears?

Live near alot of Boeing employees in the Seattle area, they usually blame the "Bean counters" brought in due to the McDonald Douglas merger.

Most corporate issues come from an over abundance of white collar well to do managers. It’s infuriating and it’s going to get people killed.

What did he think of the video?

So, has he finally watched it?

Sir, did you watch on the same topic by Real Engineering?

@Feather-yk8su Proof? Just because you would like something to be the explanation does not make it so. It instead boring old finances and economics that is the answer.

I grew up in Seattle, and had to watch Boeing move parts away slowly while also changing from a place friends were proud of their parents for working at to the place no one wanted to intern for during college.

@Feather-yk8su This is the management issues if you watched the goddamn video. Don't blame it on the lowest ranks or DEI like any goddamn conservatives.

@@tbraghavendran are you asking me? because i'm not a sir. hippie kansas GIRL ?? LOL

Protogen spitting fax

In fact, in the past, Boeing was described as "an association of engineers".

@@ohyeahbaby768 Modulo "Bill Boeinig was a bird watcher" which had a good influence on the whole show.

yea it’s kind of sad honestly. i can’t even say anything positive about boeing with being flooded with insults i seriously hope they can recover or atleast something comes up about boeing that will make the news, but in a positive way, rather than a negative

The McDonell Douglas merger is cited a lot as the beginning of the end of Boeing, but people miss the big picture of that merger: it turned Boeing into a monopoly. The merger didn't just alter Boeing's management structure and business practices by virtue of absorbing Douglas, it also meant that Boeing had no real competition anymore. They had rolled up their last competitor in civil aviation. Monopolies aren't subject to market discipline, so they do not have to perform or innovate. They can use their market dominance to simply extract more money out of people, often even as the monopoly becomes less efficient and degrades in quality over time. Before you try to say Airbus is a competitor, my answer to that is "not really." A few points: Number one: there are a gazillion different tax incentives, de facto subsidies, and loopholes for US airlines to use Boeing over Airbus. Boeing is a private company basically in name-only, and ever since becoming the US' "national champion" in civil aviation, Boeing basically just asks the feds for handouts, bailouts, exceptions, and special favors. And they get it. The DOJ dropped their criminal fraud charges against Boeing (related to the fraud Boeing perpetrated around the Max crashed) after CEO Dave Calhoun personally met wit Trump and his admin. The feds coddle Boeing becuase they're afraid, if you truly hurt Boeing, you're hurting the whole US Civil aviation industry. Airbus doesn't get anywhere close to this kind of special treatment from the feds. Boeing and Airbus spent like 20 years continually suing each other in international court over who was getting more "unfair" help from their respective governments. The court case basically ended in a draw, with a slight victory to Airbus, who proved Boeing was getting more help from taxpayers and the government than them. So US Airlines can't realistically switch to Airbus, if only for the loss in tax incentives, protectionism, and special treatment given to Boeing customers. The second point is that airlines would have to retrain workers, and radically alter their supply lines / maintenance programs, to switch to Airbus. They really, really don't want to do that, because it's such a pain. Operating hybrid fleets can be a pain, especially if you're used to a monopoly. The third point is that the waitlist for a new Airbus plane is like 8 or 10 years long. So airlines can't realistically switch over. They're stuck with Boeing. So the airlines (who are also highly consolidated, 4 companies make up over 85% of all flights) are Boeing's major customers, and they aren't really going to be able to discipline Boeing by going to another manufacturer. There is no other manufacturer, anymore. Boeing bought them. So the McDonnell Douglas merger is not just about McDonell's financialized approach and bad management. It's also about how Boeing became a monopoly. And as a monopoly, there is zero reason to waste time and energy innovating, or engineering a better product for less money. Your customers have to buy from you, and your suppliers have to sell to you, and there is no other option. People say McD culture is overly focused on profits, but I don't think that's true. If it was, how come Boeing is losing billions every year, and immolating before our eyes? If they truly were laser focused on profits... then wouldn't they fire all of the management, when they screw up and lose all this money? Rather, the culture at Boeing seems to be pretty relaxed about losing billions of dollars due to bad management. What I think the McD/Boeing culture is _really_ concerned with is _power_ . They want market power. If you're a monopoly, you want to maintain that position of power first, and ensure nothing rocks the boat to threaten your monopoly. Profits are kind of incidental to that. The last thing I'll say is that Boeing itself was created in the 1930s... when another monopoly was broken up. A company named United Aircraft was broken up into 3 smaller companies, and Boeing was one of them.

It seems everything goes to crap once it becomes all about shareholder value, regardless of what industry it is.

What was the turning point when shareholder value became more important than anything else in a company?

@@zacharyewell3835 Regan and Nixon's market reforms, they altered the laws and obligations around how companies and the markets functioned. It eventually shifted business culture in the US and things cascaded from there.

Exactly 👏

@@JohnDundas Nixon was far from a "free market" type; he actually imposed wage and price controls. But the sickness did start around that time, with Milton Friedman's 1970 essay in the _New York Times,_ ""A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits." (Or perhaps earlier; Friedman said in 1962, "...there is one and only one social responsibility of business-to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.") If the line of business happens to kill people or destroy the environment, apparently it's up to the shareholders to mitigate that, not the company.

I'm never ever getting on a boeing again. Never

​@@leefrancis007 So... I used to work at the North Carolina Spirit factory that makes parts for Airbus... Maybe look into trains for domestic travel...

There is a trick to staying employed but the only people that benefited from it were favored or good workers. What happens is Boeing would lay off by department. They send the employees they like to departments that have a shorter layoff list. This is how they weed out employees they'd rather not keep.

This is exactly why I never went to work for Boeing. I didn't want to get used to a cushy life, only to be laid off.

Its kinda sad that the "cushy life" is a reasonable place to live and healthcare. That being said, Boeing definitely could've and should've been more stable..

Do you think that comment is non-fiction?

@@bunk95 Can you be more specific?

👍👏

False. The 737 is ancient and the only reason they stuck to the platform was pure for "cost savings".

​@@ChrisParayno On the other hand, the 737 platform is also... well proven. It's possible a new design would have been even more of a disaster...

Also a lot of companies don't want a new airplane so they need to train their pilots. If this wasn't an issue MCAS wouldn't exist.

yea thats crazy to think - but its probable the accountants would have overlooked some other fundamental, single point of failure mode, as well.

"Bind not the mouths of the kine that tread the grain"

I was a supply chain manager for a company that primarily supplied the airline industry. We strategically transitioned our business (over the course of 7-8 years) into other industries and quit working with airlines altogether. Profit margins were so low you couldn't make any money, and then add unethical behavior to extort not only money but design and engineering from us with no compensation...yeah, bye. Find another sucker, airline is a race to the bottom. When i left our sales were nearly half, but our profit was 3x.

@@screw_it_why_notWhen Congress will not let your company die, you can act unbelievably recklessly

@@OtisFlintI hear it’s the same with automotive OEMs like Ford and Chevy. They’ll bankrupt a supplier who thought they had a gravy contract with the Big 3.

Yeah@@OtisFlint I saw that too, the Tier 2 would be told they need to place engineers on-site to support their product. I learned fast that being an on-site engineer stalls your career - you're away from your employer & out of the loop.

That’s why you don’t put engineers in charge, they get fleeced

Double whammy. Doublecross. Catch 22. It's like "The sadder you are, the more you drink. The more you drink, the sadder you become." Cheers & mabuhay, from my end--the Philippines!

Yep. Allowing unsafe new planes to fly. DC-10 to 737 Max

@@someperson3883 Ironically, at this point the 737 max has had more design incidents than the dc-10

​@@SenorBigDong69you put engineers in charge otherwise you get technical issues like Douglas/Boeing have now. But you make sure that the CFO, corporate legal, and at least one shareholder-rep director are business-finance focused.

Listen : Apple, Microsoft, and many other companies at some point tried to put an accountant at the top of the chain. EVERY SINGLE TIME, they nearly drowned the company (which honestly requires a lot of work seeing how much inertia these have). If you want your tech company to be successful, you don’t need the spreadsheet guy taking decisions, you need the tech guy taking decisions based on what the client is looking for. Good tech sells itself. Just let the fucking competent people run the business.

Exactly. I also knew Wendover would get it wrong. Blaming projects or timing ... and not culture. Though your comment is the exception in this video's comments, in other aircraft oriented channels like Blanco Lirio ... it's the consensus of actual experts; people who previously worked at Boeing and left in sadness over the trajectory. The real tragedy is that Boeing is nearly an exact metaphor to the nation; our financialized economy that uses auto attendants to spare 3s interactions with a human as a cost-savings initiative. A gov that invites corruption via lobbying, constantly legislating interferences into our lives in the name of the environment, but allows Apple and others to deliberately make computers difficult to repair. In which the MSM flagrantly lies to us on behalf of one party of the gov. Implores us to _"TRUST THE SCIENCE"_ ... (an utterly anti-scientific phrase) likely bc Big Pharma or the Gov told them to, when many in the gov are invested IN Big Pharma. Science doesn't demand your faith; but invites skepticism. Anyone remotely ensconced in the philosophy of science (the greatest democratization of knowledge) should've recognized that as to be so wrong as to be deserving of a name brand title as a fallacy. A nation of "experts" that's livid bc they can't imprison or bankrupt Tucker Carlson, someone who may make mistakes but isn't controlled at least -- for interviewing someone?? Yet, it was in Ukraine (our client state) where the US citizen, Gonzalo Lira, died in custody for thought crime. Our culture promotes an hostility to new information and debate. The incentives are corrupted. And the pressures companies and gov used to face are manipulated for the worst reasons. What makes this all so scary ... is that Boeing is a symptom and metaphor for our entire culture. $34-Trillion debt ... a president whose DOJ says he lacks the cognitive faculties to face criminal culpability. And it's NOT EVEN NEWS! In the immortal words of Walter Sobcek: _HAS THE WHOLE DAMNED WORLD GONE CRAZY!?? Mark it zero!_

Not mentioned in this video but Boeing had been caught skipping required inspections across it's product lines, proving it's a systemic problem pushed from above but it's being entirely ignored by the media. For example, their space capsule gets two inspections from different people to verify the parachute is attached to the capsule. Neither inspection happened because it wasn't attached when they opened it after entry, it slammed into the ground. They have had cases of inspections not happening for years. If they cared they wouldn't still be skipping them. They skipped them for passenger planes from try different incidents, military cargo planes, and likely with that door plug given it was missing bolts. They have also made atrocious designs and software, made requiring them to scrap it and start over with direct NASA oversight. I don't get why anyone hires Boeing for anything anymore. I'd say is only a matter of time before they kill people but they have already done that.

All my Boeing engineer friends jumped over to airbus due to that. I guess this is what happens when you become TOO big to fail and able to skip mandatory inspections in order to meet your numbers. What’s funny is that this all happens to US companies far more often whereas with Japanese companies quality and control is prioritize over profits. Just because Japan can do it better and more efficient, doesn’t mean the US can do it. Boeings reputation is down the drain and they need to gain trust back which is difficult because a plane accident where people die is usually blown all over media vs let’s say car accidents due to manufacturing errors which happens way more

When an airplane engineering focused company becomes a financial focused company planes start falling from the sky.

As an engineer and an mba, I agree with this message. You can definitely optimize for the wrong thing if you don't know what you're doing.

That and the HR people. They changed their hiring practices from the most qualified to the most "equitable".

The previous CEO (Muilenburg) literally only had degrees in engineering, but that certainly didn't seem to be particularly helpful.

​@@Unb3arablePaingenuinely what are you talking about? Is this a dogwhistle for rightwing DEI fearmongering? If so, this video makes it explicitly clear that the failure was in management, which is stuffed with white men, not in engineering or pilots.

@@Unb3arablePaindon’t be afraid to say it, it’s the DEI action at play, they’re hiring a bunch of ppl who have zero knowledge on engineering simply to meet a stupid agenda. And they bragged about it too

The 747-400 was the last great Boeing aircraft sad to see what happened to this company

@@mihirgohel2820you mean 777?

​@@mihirgohel2820you must be a fake avgeek because Boeing has other successful planes WAY after the 747 like the 757, 767, 777, 787. You are only saying the 747-400 was the last best Boeing plane because of your bias due to having no aviation knowledge. In fact, the 777, 767 and 757 are WAY safer than the 747

@@UnitedAirlinesDC10 correct I’m not a avgeek, BUT you’ve never been on a PanAm 747-200 I came to America on that plane it was my first look at the “American Dream” But no plane can beat the feeling of going a 747 especially the upper deck hence why I think it was the last great Boeing plane now airlines just cram seats in so each of those planes feel the same

⁠@@UnitedAirlinesDC10okay budd, I thought it was pretty obvious that it was his opinion. no need to do all that

They can recover if they decide to. Calhoun needs to go.

That took me a while

I’d be surprised if as many as half actually work on their products… most probably manage… manage managers, manage processes… manage not adding value!

Buuuuuuurn!

In Flying Blind by Peter Robison that quote is attributed to former CEO T. Wilson

The "Lazy B'.

Only in America

That is very common in aviation. From large manufacturing to airlines to pilot medicals.

Same with large trucking companies. Self train, self certify. If you want to drive for yourself or a small outfit, you have to get schooling and then past driving tests at a state license place. But if the company is big enough, you can just do it in house.

Well, Boeing owns the FAA so even if they did regulate, it would effectively be self regulation. FAA fails a Boeing inspection? Boeing just calls their senator or sends the CEO to the white house for a chat.

So does Transport Canada with Bombardier and EASA with Airbus. The key difference I think is more to the fact that the FAA did not make sure the authorized approvers inside Boeing were able to work and take decisions based solely on their competencies and not under management pressure. If one of the authorized approvers in Canada or Europe is under pressure to approve something he doesn't think should be, rest assured that TC or EASA will get involved.

Same from a hydraulics side of it

Yes. You want as much colocation as is practical. These are tightly coupled engineering problems that demand short, bidirectional flows of information throughout a right-sized organization.

Same on the software engineering side: the company I’ve seen that did the best work the fastest worked in close proximity like you describe. Designers, regulation experts, technical writers, programmers and customer support collaborated constantly. Most of the companies I’ve worked for try to create assembly lines for software to increase efficiency. They run into the same problem you describe where not seeing the big picture causes a slew of mistakes and misunderstandings. That one company with phenomenal collaboration built way better software and did it faster than anywhere else I’ve worked. Not by a little, either! We could launch new features in days instead of weeks and they wowed customers instead of confusing them.

All of the engineering work is just pretty CAD files if you cheap out on the manufacturing. Fracturing from their own suppliers for cheaper parts was really dumb

@@ericwillis7127 Yes, that way companies can leverage the synergies of various stake holders by empowering them in their core competencies. This key take away is a game changer that moves the needle on projects and should be a core value of these types of organizations.

To be clear that statement was made by the Boeing Technical Pilots responsible for checking out the 737MAX simulators who disagreed with how to implement a function on the autopilot.

Peaceful Monke would never crash a plane.

​@@I_SuperHiro_IOr fly one either.

It's almost like monopolies create a toxic environment for competition and quality huh?

Monkey. Exactly

This is exactly how many companies go. Xerox is famous for it. Because they made good copiers, designed by their engineering department, that in turn creates demand for ink. But a really stupid accountant would think that the sales force for ink and copiers are what makes money..when really, it's the engineers making a good product. A company that is focussed on selling a good product who suddenly starts promotion of sales and MBA people is on the road to ruin. But the last ten years will be profitable...until it implodes.

It’s painful to see companies lose sight of this. If a company can provide a valuable product or service then there’s room to figure out a business model to support it. If a company is unable to provide value then there’s no business model that can fix it (in the long-run, imperfect competition can sustain such companies in the short-run).

No. Not at all. Boeing still makes top-of the-line aircraft. The 737 NG is perfectly safe, and the 777 and 787 have immaculate safety records. Tell me you don't know about aviation without telling me.

Line must always go up

@@graysonwilliams4826 Just because they've build good planes doesn't excuse the sh*tshow that are the 737max and 777x programs. It must be hard, but it's OK to admit that a company isn't perfect.

Ding. Boeing risks people reacting to the word "Max" the way they did the words "DC-10" in the Late 1970s.

Someone did a good video on this. Boeing bought McDonald Douglas, and then moved the Boeing HQ to the Chicago HQ of McDonald Douglas and fired redundant Boeing management and kept the MD management that was known for the cost cutting the killed MD. Essential a more detailed breakdown of what this wendover video was talking about.

@@kpetro1675 Yep, Boeing bought MD out and MD ate Boeing from the inside. Talk about idiotic.

"But just THINK of all the MONEY we'll save!" Speaking of money: it's been said that "McD bought Boeing with Boeing's money"...

As a former Boeing Employee, the saying around the watercooler is that "MD bought Boeing with Boeing money". After the "merger" MD leadership took over and they are running the company into the ground like they did MD.

Exactly 😂

So every single company that's ever been for sale has been put up for sale because of poor management? It's also stupid to assume because a company is up for sale it's a sinking ship, but why should anyone expect better from bubbly dick cheese?

You're assuming that who gets fired is a matter of competency and effectiveness. Corporate management is office politics. Nothing more, nothing less. You can be completely incompetent at your job, but if you're good at playing office politics, you still succeed.

​@@FNLNFNLNyou still succed until the company kills hundreds of people

@@BobBobson Your missing the point of the original comment I think his intent was to state that if you purchase a company that was previously very profitable and has now been run into the ground fire those in charge because they caused the decline.

"That's a BINGO!" "Naaa it's just 'Bingo'..."

...and greed

And to go woke

And otherwise be forced to make a clean sheet plane that leads airlines into bankruptcy and monopolizes some markets?

Practically every public company is like it. The results are just most visible for those that crash planes. It's a cultural issue of greedy capitalists run amok.

@@vcool It is, more accurately, a case of SPECIFIC greedy, inconsiderate individuals running amok. Not the system itself. There are certainly examples of companies that are still profitable but NOT a public safety hazard.

But papa elon the billionnaire told me to blame minorities!

Companies are required by law to act solely in the interest of their shareholders, even when doing so can cause injury, death, or other horrific mishaps to their customers and the world. Henry Ford v Dodge Brothers

@@HelloNotMe9999 And yet these specific greedy inconsiderate individuals seem to keep getting into these positions of power, no matter what the industry is. Bumping into a friend at the supermarket is a coincidence, consistent and repeated mismanagement from the C-Suite in the name of maximizing profits at the cost of quality is not.

Well, don't put the people in charge of a company that just failed in charge of your working company. McDonald did succeed at making investors temporarily happy, so I guess breaking Boeing can be considered a success by that metric too

And don’t pay them $62M after failing at their job, too. Take money from such folks as their lobbying and industry ties are income enough for them.

​@@lomiification i think the original sentiment is correct. i have yet to see an MBA improve an engineering company for anyone but maybe shareholders. not the customers, not the talent.

Dennis, the previous CEO of Boeing, had a bachelors and masters in engineering. He started of at the company as an engineering intern. Didn’t seem to help did it?

But that's the American way now

I mean, the twin God's have an elder god, which is extraction. Extract as much as you can, Tell people that it will eventually be their turn, and have their turn be when there's nothing left to extract. It's happened since the first strikes in ancient Egypt.

The Air Current is amazing and I'm glad they're getting their deserved recognition.

17:15

And when Boeing is being sold off for parts those same MBA's will be on the other side buying them. They don't care, it's just numbers to them.

It would have worked out had the MBAs listened to the engineers and strengthened the Supplier Management organization. After working at Boeing for 35 years and being on 5 new airplane programs, I can attest that the biggest problem lies in the Supplier Management & Procurement organizations. Too focused on cost, not focused on technical capability. Isolated from engineering. Unwilling to solve problems when a change in plan is required. For example, when I worked with Fuji Heavy Industry engineers they said that they knew the exact cost of every bracket and clip that they designed in Subaru automobiles, but had no idea of the cost when designing parts for Boeing. The 787 Partner business model would have worked had Boeing made one change--Boeing should have paid for the engineering and released all drawings/datasets on Boeing paper. Boeing lost track of how partners were doing in meeting their scheduled releases.

@@shikharagrawal59 That's not what I was trying to say. Boeing was an engineering company, that was it's sole reason for existing. Once there were no more engineers in the top management layers they lost sight of this fact. That's when things started going downhill for them. You see this with many other engineering focused companies, they almost always end up worse off in the long run if their CEO doesn't come from an engineering background. For companies that aren't as engineering focused, having the company be run by MBAs can be perfectly fine, like McDonald's for example.

@@Helyanweh Okay, I understand now.

Came here to say this

Guess I won’t be going to nebula lol :v

I caught that mistake too

As bad as Boeings QA issues 😅

Oh thank God someone already said it

The goofy thing is, no one's gonna buy your airplanes once your cheap practices create lethal flaws like cabins that pop open mid-flight. It's profits-chasing only for the shortest term.

With the Boeing / Airbus duopoly, they really don't have to improve

@@nafnaf0 Airbus doesn't seem to suffer from safety issues. I'm not aware of recent Airbus accidents. I'm sure Airbus would be more than happy to turn duopoly into a monopoly

​@@nafnaf0Though they're nowhere near as big, Embraer have been picking up sales from all this too.

Its always a travesty when the engineering majors in an engineering company take second priority over the business majors. And usually, it leads to deaths. Business majors do not know how to cut corners without making things dangerous.

As someone who lives in Utah, I see Northrup Grumman all over the place, it was just up the road from my highschool. Too bad I'm a pacifist.

Boeing is also what their fuselages do when MCAS has a flashback to its past life as a WWII kamikaze pilot.

Lol

🤣🤣🤣

​​@@Julian-qt6xj"Esperantistoj Kontraŭfaŝismo"... so yes, but also speaks Esperanto.

Boeing almost deffinatley had him assassinated

For decades Boeing has been one of the largest defense contractors, in a huge array of areas. Ironically that has become less profitable as DOD is essentially doing to that industry what Boeing was doing to its contractors.

Boeing was already a military company since the beginning (P-26 peashooter,B-17,B-29,B-52, and now with the merging of McDonnell Douglas it also produces F-15,F/A-18 and together with Lockheed Martin they make the F22)

I remember the first move well because I used to drive by Boeing's corporate office whenever I went to Seatac. They claimed it was because they're a worldwide company and they needed a central and diverse corporate location.

NPR did a story on this with a Boeing whistleblower who was a high ranking manager and this was his conclusion as well

Modern Boeing shafted Chicago after all the $$$ invested to support the move. Sure makes the Boeing lobbyists commute easier from Arlington, VA. If they keep this up, Boeing might move HQ to a tax-sheltered, non-extradition location.

Very interesting, have no idea how belief works here, what's the surplus money involved or tucked away. Was it worker confidential to ask.

​@@janremoto4849 it's quite simple in a way. Those people were the only people that knew how a certain job works. When they where inhouse Boeing who already has it's own back office (HR, and what not) Dit not have to cover that cost above the initial hire. If said people are spun off to there own company. they still are the only peope that know how to do that job. they now can turn to Boeing and demand a better pay. (plus Boeing as a customer also needs to pay for there back office) Boeing can refuse but then has no people to do that vital part. and those people could then walk over to Airbus and offer there expertise. If they are vital enough Airbus might just cover there exclusivity fee to Boeing. spinning of divisions in to there own companies only really works if for both parties there are enough others to pick and choose. Airspace does not have that.

almost like vertical integration was good!

Were they white people?

Those MBA bean counters from McDonnell Douglas are actually the SMART ONES to convince Boeing engineers to buy them with their own money. They're so powerful with their lips 👀

The merger happened 27 years ago. When a literal generation has grown up to adulthood in the timespan it is time to put something like the McDonnell Douglas-excuse to sleep.

Interaction bait?

@@linecraftman3907 I don't think so, Sam doesn't seem like the guy to intentionally insert an error like that

@@linecraftman3907probably just a slight mistake

@@linecraftman3907 Dammit, you're probably right, and I fell for it.

​@@phytonso9877mistakes happen

I first read the above as "...high-end kittens," and wow was I excited. Still, Wendover could totally do a high-end kitten video.

First you have to let go of the illusion of fine dining cooks learning a lot of money. It could not be further from the truth.

Nice comment gimp

A good analogy. I don't really go to Walmart anymore because I can't trust the products, making it more trouble than it's worth. They prioritize _cost_ over _value._

they ended up doing a lot of the work internally because everything was so screwed up. they had to re-baseline the program 6-7 times (at least).

And nothing fit together

​​@@tango_uniformthat should have been so obvious to Boeing

nothing new....same in airbus. it is just the way to make these planes.

Almost all manufacturing is done this way.

the system works as designed. and just like a boeing plane. it's a flawed design

Nothing says you love the design of the plane better than getting the designer wrong

I WAS LOOKING FOR THIS COMMENT

Thank you! I had to go “wtf” and rewind when he said that. Thought I missed something.

Genuinely not sure how you can something like that so insanely wrong. Also find it insane how he can say he’s a fan of the B-2 and then say the cost per airframe being 2 billion was due to research costs and not mentioning that the research costs had to be distributed over only 21 planes instead of the original intended procurement amount leading to the insane cost per unit prices.

This! Investor capital is the powder keg of economics, turning growth and value fundamentals into gambling.

I was part of the 5k layoffs at Tmobile. I could have stayed if I moved but I couldn’t with family. Anyways: laying off 5k people and then posting record profits and a new stock dividend for investors. For companies nowadays, the customers are now the products, and the investors are now the customers.

​@thepebblesexplore83 bro if they fired you and made record profits I've got bad news for you 😂.

​@@chazzbranigaan9354yeah money is worth more than safety.

Its wealth inequality, thats whats doing it. There simply isnt enough money in the working classes anymore to sustain their growth, so they stopped looking to us as customers and started looking to their rich shareholders instead. What they are finding out, is that SHAREHOLDERS DONT BUY 777s. This is common in every industry every company out there. Theyve sucked us all dry, so the new vogue is selling hats to the headless. I am in this industry. This affects me. But i will be laughing my face off as these ***************** get their just desserts.

Procter and Gamble must have used the same consulting firm ; basically screw your suppliers to up the share price without investing a dime 😂. Short term gain , long term loses . Who cares .? I got my consultant fees and flew away ( but not on new Boeing)

Or "Partnering for Survival". Either reject the contract and close your business, or take the horrible deal and hope for the best.

Don't forget all the Government bailouts.

There is Airbus.

@@sophiaherschel56760 years ago there were a dozen companies that sold commercial aircraft. They all got eaten up by Boeing or decided to stop selling commercial aircraft.

@@sophiaherschel567 That’s not true market competition though. Having 2 massive conglomerates battling it out is still considered a monopoly. You need like 10-12 different companies battling for market share to truly fix all these problems. Saying “there’s Airbus” is like saying “there’s Apple” when your three choices of computer operating systems are Microsoft, Linux, and Apple. That’s not really good competition.

There's no competition because their money has BOUGHT out the competition, also any federal oversight.

At some point, it would be easier to just bring those people in-house.

We could have used your expertise on 787 Program.

@@djinn666 But having more union labor on the books is about the last thing they want, and on paper it looks like a terrible idea. Personally I would be more like Tesla and just try to vertically and horizontally integrate everything, but do it better than anyone else. Suppliers are always a fundamental disadvantage. The reluctance to use to do things in house, shows a lack of faith in the company's ability itself. That is an indicator that internal processes need reform.

It is simple. You pay for what you get. If Boeing can’t make the part profitably, the supplier is unlikely to able to do it. Cut the price, the supplier will cut corners to meet the price to survive. Low quality part will be most expensive part for Boeing.

// "As a procurement and supply chain professional, I found this video really fascinating. It depicts at its best WHY you should have sustainable and fair relationships with your suppliers, and not just blindly exploit bargaining power." In our current model of capitalism, the rules of the road incentivize companies to look for ANYWHERE they can cut corners and ANYONE they can exploit to theoretically have higher rates of profit every quarter. That inevitably leads to behavior that is self-defeating and a complete failure of the prisoner's dilemma. So, yeah...... logically companies shouldn't just blindly exploit bargaining power, but the rules of the game dictate that this is exactly what the c-suite MUST do in order to keep their jobs. They must act short-sightedly even though they know it's bad in the long term. Our systems are broken. Our economy incentivizes some messed up shit and people keep acting like it's a few bad apples. 1.) Game companies to release monetization schemes called games that consumers increasingly don't own, but rather purchase a license that lasts as long as the current incarnation of the company. Games are released as incomplete buggy messes because of all the corners cut during production. 2.) Food companies put non-food ingredients into food, like cardboard and the like, to save money and cut costs on production. 3.) Movie/TV studios cut corners on production, slashing production costs by refusing to pay for good talent or give them enough time to do their jobs properly. (Mini-writers' rooms and SFX grindset, anyone?) So we get shitty special effects and increasingly poorly written stories. They try and patch the problem with marketing campaigns that portray angry fans as racist or sexist, etc. We don't call it a few bad apples if baseball players try to score runs. Sooner or later we have to acknowledge that the game of capitalism has changed. It's no longer an efficient way of organizing an economy. It brought us to the modern age but holy hell it needs a makeover.

self-inspections are still going on all through the supply chain.. Nothing wrong with the theory of: "everyone is responsible for their own work", but almost no one invests in the training and support to do it right, because the whole point of having people inspect their own work as they go instead of following up with dedicated inspections is TO SAVE TIME and MONEY 💰. Add to that some workers are NOT completely honest and completely honorable and completely willing to sacrifice their schedules and reputations, and ALWAYS willing to bring every mistake to the attention of others at all times, and you have a recipe for disasters. - - a former supplier inspector

I started working at Boeing Spokane in 1991 which was sold off to Triumph Aerospace in 2003. The Spokane plant was finally closed in June 2023. During my employment there I worked up to an FAI inspector. We watched the company start handing out red inspection bugs like candy to self inspect. They also came up with a skip lot scheme were you clicked a counter and if a certain number came up you inspected the part. What ever could go wrong I ask? 🤷‍♂️

That mindset blew up two space shuttles for NASA.

_"...I left in 2018 so I don't know if this is still going on..."_ Nope! It's become clear that "self inspection" doesn't work well at all, so there's no point in having it. Thus, no more of that. Now they just don't inspect at all.

I fear for Wendover because of their failure to even mention the physical and metaphysical disadvantages of this foolish move.

Teil that Airbus...

People who only think about money are always surprised that they aren't the only people on earth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was nothing unusual or weird going on with Airbus at the time.

@@user-bi7xd8ry5pwhat are you talking about? Airbus was making the A380 jumbo flop.

Yet still doing better than Boeing at the same time. It's not the type of Boeing win it sounds like that they can create a huge loss of an aircraft and still keep up with competition. Imagine if they HADN'T wasted that time and money on the A380.@@TheBooban

@@OfficialSamuelC they can keep up with the competition because Boeing is so incompetent.

@TheBooban That was a mistake on where the market was heading. There wasn't that much drama in the actual design of the plane.

The funny thing is Airbus’ stock price has done better than Boeing’s

It’s called enshittification

@@lionofistanmusic7311dankpods enjoyer spotted

Short term stock value an bonusses versus long term financial viability i guess.

​@@level10peonin the long run, yes. In the short term, Boeing did better... Only to fall out of the sky right after. Which is what the current stock market wants, because the objective is "line go up fast and forever", which is impossible, and thus it fails every time. Just look at tech companies: forced to fire massive amounts of people just to return the right sized profit (if you fire someone, the money you would have paid that someone goes into the company bank account instead -not really but simplified yes). One would say "capitalism", but I'd rather say "stock market, Reagan capitalism".

And also similar in that a lot of the former Gibson factories, like their legendary Kalamazoo plant, have gone independent and are still making top quality instruments. It's arguable as to whether or not Fender still makes the best Stratocaster or Jaguar, but it's undeniable at this point that Gibson does not make even one of the top 10 best Les Pauls or SGs you can buy. Not really my circus though; I'm a bassist who prefers Ibanez. None of Gibson's basses have ever had much penetration into the market, at least not the point of becoming industry standards like the Fender Precision and Jazz, the Music Man Stingray, or the super high end brands like Fodera and Alembic.

It's mind blowing how far Gibson has fallen. For most of their instruments, the level of quality is below Squier, but the price is often several times over. I personally own an Epiphone, and having handled & played both the "nicer" Gibson equivalent, and the competition, it's not even close. Gibson is shit, but for half the price, Epiphone is also just as shit. There's zero innovation, zero QC, and zero desire to put out anything that at all improves on what came before. Again, it's not a preference thing. If you don't care about having the most modern materials and technology, just buy an old Gibson, or an old Epiphone. Don't pay more for the same old thing built worse. Otherwise? Get a Fender. Or an Ibanez. Or a Yamaha. Or an Eastwood. Or a Music Man. Or literally anything else.

Lol. You mention aviation and Gibson guitars, and I can't stop thinking about one specific case are the two intersected

A crappy electric guitar could kill someone if it electrocuted them.

@@Croz89 Ah, no, the voltage & current that goes back up the cord is negligible unless it is faulty amplifier. A guitar lead is just a microphone input into the amplifier...