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

1235

Comments

  • jecornel
    jecornel Member Posts: 9,737
    YellowSnow said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    YellowSnow said:

    whlinder said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    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

    See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    True dat. Except for the discussion part.

    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.
    Why is this so difficult!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whlinder
    whlinder Member Posts: 5,379
    YellowSnow said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    YellowSnow said:

    whlinder said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    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

    See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    True dat. Except for the discussion part.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Kaepsknee
    Kaepsknee Member Posts: 14,919
    YellowSnow said:

    whlinder said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    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

    See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    Why is Boeing too important to fail?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,693 Founders Club
    PurpleThrobber said:

    YellowSnow said:

    whlinder said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    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

    See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    True dat. Except for the discussion part.

    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.
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,496 Standard Supporter
    YellowSnow said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    YellowSnow said:

    whlinder said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    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

    See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    True dat. Except for the discussion part.

    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.
    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.
    HondoFS
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 38,561 Standard Supporter
    YellowSnow said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    YellowSnow said:

    whlinder said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    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

    See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    True dat. Except for the discussion part.

    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.
    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.
    Bean counters are the bane of quality.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LebamDawg
    LebamDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,843 Swaye's Wigwam
    YellowSnow said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    YellowSnow said:

    whlinder said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    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

    See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    True dat. Except for the discussion part.

    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.
    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.
    I can confirm this -
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,496 Standard Supporter
    LebamDawg said:

    YellowSnow said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    YellowSnow said:

    whlinder said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    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

    See above. If they can't stop masturbating themselves, the big bad regulators will step in and chop off their collective C-level weenies.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    True dat. Except for the discussion part.

    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.
    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.
    I can confirm this -
    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.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter