Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Banks & airlines - will be in the bread line
Comments
-
-
Fuck the airlines
-
My patience has about run out. I'll be shifting to a war time footing soon. Let what happened to Pup serve as a warning @creepycougcreepycoug said:
-
With the rapidly developing situation concerning the spread of the coronavirus (Covid-19), many of our lives have been disrupted in unforeseen ways. Almost every aspect of our daily lives have been touched in some way, and I recognize that this an unprecedented time for all of us.
I hope that you and your families remain safe and healthy, and I wanted to reach out with updates on how we will be altering our office procedures here at Redacted in the coming weeks.
Rent
The most urgent, and primary concern for many of our tenants may be the upcoming rent payment due April 1st. We are aware that some may be experiencing reductions in hours or loss of employment. If you believe that you will experience difficulties in paying your rent, please contact our office as soon as possible to work out a possible payment arrangement.
We will do everything possible to work with you and our owners to come to an arrangement and establish a payment plan. While we cannot guarantee any modifications, the first step is to reach out and let us know of difficulties you may be facing.
If you expect delays in your rent payment, please contact
And out the door I went...... -
Fuck this stock buyback shit with a rusty cheese greater. Boeing went from the 707 to 747 in a little over a decade. And they can't figure out new a better replacement for the 737 vs just slapping some more efficient engines on the sucker? Fucking christ. Amazon doesn't seem to have a problem putting all the money back into the company.WilburHooksHands said:The airlines want $58B after they just spent $45B on stock buybacks instead of preparing for this again.
-
they had already done the more efficient engines - that was the 737NG, about 4 version of it. The Max was a lot of composites and more efficient engines. They obviously rushed it. Software geeks screwing up.YellowSnow said:
Fuck this stock buyback shit with a rusty cheese greater. Boeing went from the 707 to 747 in a little over a decade. And they can't figure out new a better replacement for the 737 vs just slapping some more efficient engines on the sucker? Fucking christ. Amazon doesn't seem to have a problem putting all the money back into the company.WilburHooksHands said:The airlines want $58B after they just spent $45B on stock buybacks instead of preparing for this again.
-
I just heard all police will stay home for two weeks to avoid the virus. Have some fun.MikeDamone said:
And fuck the police!salemcoog said:Fuck the airlines, Fuck the Banks and Fuck the Casino's and Fuck the authorities on this whole fake crisis. Bars and restaurant owners should all get together and say fuck you and open their doors. They can't and won't fine them all. And I'm sorry, If you have an existing condition or are old as fuck or abundance. THEN YOU STAY THE FUCK HOME and we'll bring you groceries.
-
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy. -
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy. -
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B.
-
I know the 787 is an amazing leap forward in efficiency, so it's not like Boeing can't innovate anymore. But fuck, the Lazy B went from 707 to 747 in just a little over a decade. Some companies just need to be geared towards making kick ass shit for both the commercial aviation as well as defense sectors not worry so much about quarterly earnings calls. Let the enginerds make kick ass planes and tell the bean counters to fuck off.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B. -
Why is this so difficult!!YellowSnow said:
I know the 787 is an amazing leap forward in efficiency, so it's not like Boeing can't innovate anymore. But fuck, the Lazy B went from 707 to 747 in just a little over a decade. Some companies just need to be geared towards making kick ass shit for both the commercial aviation as well as defense sectors not worry so much about quarterly earnings calls. Let the enginerds make kick ass planes and tell the bean counters to fuck off.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B. -
Per Wiki the 787 was launched as a program in April 2004 and made its maiden flight in 2009 which was a year later than planned.YellowSnow said:
I know the 787 is an amazing leap forward in efficiency, so it's not like Boeing can't innovate anymore. But fuck, the Lazy B went from 707 to 747 in just a little over a decade. Some companies just need to be geared towards making kick ass shit for both the commercial aviation as well as defense sectors not worry so much about quarterly earnings calls. Let the enginerds make kick ass planes and tell the bean counters to fuck off.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B.
Boeing has had no new product launches since then. They've tweaked the 787 to extend it, of course the MAX program but that's still reusing the 737, and are enhancing the 777, but we're at 16 years since Boeing launched a truly new product. That's very little innovation in that time frame. (It's not like Airbus has innovated much since the A380; the A350 is a new platform at least so there is some innovation there)
If they get bailed out they need to innovate on a clean sheet program and be led by engineers, not accountants. -
Why is Boeing too important to fail?YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy. -
salemcoog said:
Why is Boeing too important to fail?YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
-
A piliot fren once told me that at Boeing it used to be the engineers designed the plan and told the CPA's how much it would cost. Now the CPA's tell the engineers how much the plane can cost and go off that.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B.
-
HondoFSYellowSnow said:
A piliot fren once told me that at Boeing it used to be the engineers designed the plan and told the CPA's how much it would cost. Now the CPA's tell the engineers how much the plane can cost and go off that.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B. -
Bean counters are the bane of quality.YellowSnow said:
A piliot fren once told me that at Boeing it used to be the engineers designed the plan and told the CPA's how much it would cost. Now the CPA's tell the engineers how much the plane can cost and go off that.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B. -
I can confirm this -YellowSnow said:
A piliot fren once told me that at Boeing it used to be the engineers designed the plan and told the CPA's how much it would cost. Now the CPA's tell the engineers how much the plane can cost and go off that.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B.
bean counters and engineers are, or were, in equal numbers. Programs run meetings 1) for scheduling 2) manpower 3) costs. The meetings are held in that order. After the schedule meeting everyone falls behind for lack of manpower. Can't hire anyone after the manpower meeting - no money. Cost estimates meetings allows manpower to increase but 3 months late. Another schedule meeting and now everyone is on OT for 3 months catching up. Another Cost analyses and OT is cut and sometimes manpower.
Just do that for 3- 5 years and bingo an airplane rolls out.
What is even funnier is when a program builds up - all the other groups let the folks they have been trying to get rid of go to the new program. So when all the manpower is there and available - it is staffed by 60% of the people you would never hire. -
This is pretty well how all government agencies work at the local, state and federal level.LebamDawg said:
I can confirm this -YellowSnow said:
A piliot fren once told me that at Boeing it used to be the engineers designed the plan and told the CPA's how much it would cost. Now the CPA's tell the engineers how much the plane can cost and go off that.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B.
bean counters and engineers are, or were, in equal numbers. Programs run meetings 1) for scheduling 2) manpower 3) costs. The meetings are held in that order. After the schedule meeting everyone falls behind for lack of manpower. Can't hire anyone after the manpower meeting - no money. Cost estimates meetings allows manpower to increase but 3 months late. Another schedule meeting and now everyone is on OT for 3 months catching up. Another Cost analyses and OT is cut and sometimes manpower.
Just do that for 3- 5 years and bingo an airplane rolls out.
What is even funnier is when a program builds up - all the other groups let the folks they have been trying to get rid of go to the new program. So when all the manpower is there and available - it is staffed by 60% of the people you would never hire.
-
Just look at appleLebamDawg said:
I can confirm this -YellowSnow said:
A piliot fren once told me that at Boeing it used to be the engineers designed the plan and told the CPA's how much it would cost. Now the CPA's tell the engineers how much the plane can cost and go off that.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B.
bean counters and engineers are, or were, in equal numbers. Programs run meetings 1) for scheduling 2) manpower 3) costs. The meetings are held in that order. After the schedule meeting everyone falls behind for lack of manpower. Can't hire anyone after the manpower meeting - no money. Cost estimates meetings allows manpower to increase but 3 months late. Another schedule meeting and now everyone is on OT for 3 months catching up. Another Cost analyses and OT is cut and sometimes manpower.
Just do that for 3- 5 years and bingo an airplane rolls out.
What is even funnier is when a program builds up - all the other groups let the folks they have been trying to get rid of go to the new program. So when all the manpower is there and available - it is staffed by 60% of the people you would never hire.
Jobs thought the app store wouldn't exist and the web was the future
Fuck apple -
It has been more than one man's expressed opinion that what compromised the great General Electric Company, one of, if not THE, greatest American company, was that the bean counters started driving decisions and the innovators lost their voice. I believe it. Company culture is everything.whlinder said:
Per Wiki the 787 was launched as a program in April 2004 and made its maiden flight in 2009 which was a year later than planned.YellowSnow said:
I know the 787 is an amazing leap forward in efficiency, so it's not like Boeing can't innovate anymore. But fuck, the Lazy B went from 707 to 747 in just a little over a decade. Some companies just need to be geared towards making kick ass shit for both the commercial aviation as well as defense sectors not worry so much about quarterly earnings calls. Let the enginerds make kick ass planes and tell the bean counters to fuck off.PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B.
Boeing has had no new product launches since then. They've tweaked the 787 to extend it, of course the MAX program but that's still reusing the 737, and are enhancing the 777, but we're at 16 years since Boeing launched a truly new product. That's very little innovation in that time frame. (It's not like Airbus has innovated much since the A380; the A350 is a new platform at least so there is some innovation there)
If they get bailed out they need to innovate on a clean sheet program and be led by engineers, not accountants. -
You mean like at Blue Origin and SpaceX?PurpleThrobber said:
True dat. Except for the discussion part.YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to enter into a public/private partnership whereby the gubmint deploys some of its rocket scientists (NASA brainiacs) to regain the edge Boeing used to maintain.
Maybe Mad Dog Mattis is available to come in and run the Lazy B.
Boeing's problems started with Phil Condit. He was a terrible CEO who led them down their current path. They could have changed course after Phildo but fucked up again when they failed to elevate Mulally. The last truly great aircraft program there was the 777, which was a lot more Mulally than Condit. It was done right with Boeing leading the technical charge and outsourcing primarily the manufacture of non-key elements, most of the fuselage for example. The 787 is primarily an outsourced aircraft on both the development and manufacturing sides that has been riddled with major problems, extreme launch delays and extreme cost over runs. The 737 Max fiascos speak for themselves. The internal emails "designed by clowns ... supervised by monkeys" are probably closer to the truth than not. It too has had significant problems, the likes of which Boeing has not seen before in fielded aircraft. The plain and simple truth is their commercial unit has survived because they've had just one competitor. Getting their ass handed to them should be a wake up call. A government handout, which is no doubt coming, will not help in the long run, at least not without the right people at the top driving change at every level. -
Because they are the primary supplier for a ton of military shit, etc. They are vital to national security.salemcoog said:
Why is Boeing too important to fail?YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy. -
MD snickers at that.BleachedAnusDawg said:
Because they are the primary supplier for a ton of military shit, etc. They are vital to national security.salemcoog said:
Why is Boeing too important to fail?YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy. -
So does Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, L3Harris, Raytheon .....,salemcoog said:
MD snickers at that.BleachedAnusDawg said:
Because they are the primary supplier for a ton of military shit, etc. They are vital to national security.salemcoog said:
Why is Boeing too important to fail?YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy.
-
I do like me some Skunk Works.Southerndawg said:
So does Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, L3Harris, Raytheon .....,salemcoog said:
MD snickers at that.BleachedAnusDawg said:
Because they are the primary supplier for a ton of military shit, etc. They are vital to national security.salemcoog said:
Why is Boeing too important to fail?YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy. -
trigger alert for @RoadDawg55 pleaseYellowSnow said:salemcoog said:
Why is Boeing too important to fail?YellowSnow said:
Boeing is too important to fail. It’s not even up for discussion.whlinder said:
The CEO is a UW graduate school grad and the President is on the board at the Foster School of Business. Alaska also spent the lowest percentage of their Free Cash Flow in the past decade on share buybacks of the major US airlines.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll tip the cap to Alaska Air, announced yesterday their top 2 C's are taking no salary. Maybe there's some goodies hidden somewhere, but the PR move is good.PurpleThrobber said:
See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.RaceBannon said:Greed is going to win regardless but in the unintended consequence category was the populist move to "limit" CEO salaries in the 90's.
So they shifted compensation to stock options thus joining the mythical shareholders in demanding quarterly profit over long term health..
It is now a perfect storm of doing everything for the daily stock price and nothing for the health of the company, which can be broken up and sold off anyway
I have some thoughts about airlines, where they are pretty essential companies, but need to be reigned in on certain behavior. Existing shareholders need to take it on the chin first.
Boeing on the other hand, focusing on the commercial aircraft division, I have no idea what to do with that one. That's a mess. Should never have let McDonnell Douglas take over and run them in to the ground.
But now that we're here, the new reality is:
-previous projections for airline passenger growth are out the window and there is now a massive surplus of perfectly suitable aircraft
-Oil is cheap so all the benefit of new aircraft, which is greater fuel efficiency, is gone
There is basically no point in building new passenger aircraft right now. However, building airplanes is complicated. China has been trying to copy it for years and has been unable to, or at least to make one which is economically viable. We'd be screwed in 5 to 20 years as a country if we lost BCA's ability to build planes. The intrinsic knowledge isn't replaceable. So bailing Boeing out to the degree that we as a country keep the ability to design and manufacture aircraft is something I believe is critical to America's place in the world's economy. -
Didn’t read the article but if you crater the airline stock by the bailouts like Mark Cuban says should happen , you aren’t just hurting the airlines. Tons of random people invest in them. They should pay the price for the airlines fucking up? The money charged per seat should have been enough to help these airlines thru these rainy days.
