astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

the point I was trying to make is a simple one, Boeing needs to return to being a technology firm, not a financial firm. Don't care if the CEO is actually an engineer or not, he should have the mindset of an engineer.

In a mature industry the trade of the CEO matters little and imho no company depends on one person, the company needs a good leadership team which works together well and not one lone leader.

I don't agree with your characterisation of the role of the CEO at all.
Cultural transformation starts and ends with the CEO
It's his job to align an effective leadership around him and steer it in the right direction.

A good CEO will have a good team, with a bad team there is no good CEO. The only important job a CEO has it too build a good team to run the company. And that job is so important that he does not have to be a specialist in any operating field and should be forced to concern himself with details.

Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

sadiqutp wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

But why does it matter? Do you have some kind of hatred for the guy? He's gone, why isn't that good enough?

Simple answer? Curiosity about how much money he will receive as compensation for early termination of contract
Complicated answer? if he was fired (have you read the board members' statement?), for what reason? and would there be any further changes of personnel and protocols to enhance the safety of Boeing's product?
Seems like reasonable questions, don't you think?

Happens rarely, but here I agree with TTT: why does it matter?
Curiosity about is package? Why? Envy? As if 58 million or a hundred would matter for the success of the company.
And all your other questions, apart from why he resigned, which should be obvious for anybody but the blindest, actually have no connection to Mr. Muilenberg.

TC957 wrote:

Seems like not only in the UK then do ousted CEO's of big companies get rewarded for failure then.

It's a good gig, pretty much globally, the higher up you are the more you get paid to just go away. Whether you are fired, or "asked to resign", or "seeking time to reflect with family", etc... If there is / was misconduct, Boeing needs to weigh the pursuit of that against what could come out publicly from such an event.

Ufsatp wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

It isn't about Chicago! It's a beautiful area where they are, If you like downtown areas. (I actually don't though I was within Spitting distance of both Boeing and United when I got off the Metra Rail train at Union Station) Boeing's problems are NOT in where they ARE! Just Who they thought they Were!!

It is exactly about Chicago. A sign of unlimited arrogance of a management that is not interested in the daily running of a company, but only in watching the stock market.
The business is in Seattle. the management is two time zones away. They do not get the pulse of the company. It is hardly a wonder that important information just passes them by.

You can not compare it with United, who by definition do not operate in one place.

They have a rather large factory in the South Carolina. Chicago is in between both.

But what proportion of Boeing is based in Charleston vs the Seattle area? How many planes are produced in Charleston, seven a month?

Let's be clear, the only reason Boeing has a facility in South Carolina is as leverage against the unions in Seattle.

aden23 wrote:

Great news, now let the criminal proceedings begin! Hopefully we can see Muilenberg behind bars by next Christmas.

If you think Boeing's CEO will ever see jail over the MAX, you're delusional and I want some of what you're taking and/or drinking..

seahawk wrote:

A good CEO will have a good team, with a bad team there is no good CEO. The only important job a CEO has it too build a good team to run the company. And that job is so important that he does not have to be a specialist in any operating field and should be forced to concern himself with details.
Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

yes
yes
and yes

but to be fair one must add that they laid him a big big easter egg with the MAX project from the beginning

even with the actual information of December 2019 ... this was a mission, nearly impossible ...

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Redsand187 wrote:

Truthfully, the last thing Boeing needs is an engineer in the CEO role. Not to say a finance guy is any better. You need a strong charismatic visionary leading the company, not some socially awkward dweeb that can do calculus in his sleep.

A good CEO/Leader does nothing tangible that adds value to a company, it is their X-factor that brings it all together so the sum is greater than the parts. Tesla isn't worth more than GM and Ford... almost combined, because Elon knows how to design a good car. Tesla is worth what it's worth because Elon is able to take a very small team and position them to do great things. If you replaced Elon with Nikola Tesla himself, Tesla would not be the company it is today.

Who that guy is in aerospace??? I don't know and I doubt it's a GE accountant, but there is nothing to say that the next great CEO needs a certain set of hard skills.

Sure, who says that all engineers are socially awkward dweeb that can do calculus in his sleep? What I obviously meant was a CEO which recognizes that Boeing is a technology-driven firm, innovation-driven and thus needs to allocate the money there and needs to listen to engineers and not just to the finance guys. Aviation is a business that needs to take into account the next 25 years, not just the next quarterly results. If I were the CEO of Boeing, I would take the HQ back to Seattle, just to send a very strong message who is important to me. WIll that solve anything? No, not on the short term, but I believe it will solve something in the long term, at least it will take the HQ out of its bubble which seems to be only financial driven and led to this disaster.
A while ago I posted a thread with the question if something is wrong with Boeing's safety culture. And that's the core of things, that is the culture shift which needs to take place, technology-driven first, revenue will come later. Take the pride back into the country, proud to be of the products leaving the floor.

Engineers suck as high level management and I am saying this as an engineer. At that level your job is to manage people not design things and your job is to deliver a vision and not find solutions on how to reach those visions.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to put all engineers in one bucket. Personalities and capabilities are not determined by your degree. There are plenty of charismatic leaders who started as engineers and many, many MBAs that are overly technical nerds.

mjoelnir wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

TyroneShoes wrote:

Should have never moved to Chicago. Something about that city...

It isn't about Chicago! It's a beautiful area where they are, If you like downtown areas. (I actually don't though I was within Spitting distance of both Boeing and United when I got off the Metra Rail train at Union Station) Boeing's problems are NOT in where they ARE! Just Who they thought they Were!!

It is exactly about Chicago. A sign of unlimited arrogance of a management that is not interested in the daily running of a company, but only in watching the stock market.
The business is in Seattle. the management is two time zones away. They do not get the pulse of the company. It is hardly a wonder that important information just passes them by.

You can not compare it with United, who by definition do not operate in one place.

Boeing is more than the 7-series programs built in Seattle. There is a large defense business around the country, services based in Dallas, and soon Embraer. The entire point of moving HQ to Chicago was to find neutral ground that did not favor one of the individual businesses.

Most of the comments on this thread ignore the fact that most operating decisions on airplane programs are made by BCA. The Boeing CEO and board launched MAX and received updates. But until the first incident, I doubt they made another consequential decision.

But hey, Dennis is a good fall guy.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

aden23 wrote:

Great news, now let the criminal proceedings begin! Hopefully we can see Muilenberg behind bars by next Christmas.

If you think Boeing's CEO will ever see jail over the MAX, you're delusional and I want some of what you're taking and/or drinking..

It may be true, but that would be proof that something's broken out there. Of course he deserves prison time
I'm glad that the former CEO of Orange (France Telecom) was just convicted to 1 year of prison for harassment. I would think that deliberately selling flying coffins would cost more.

Ufsatp wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

It isn't about Chicago! It's a beautiful area where they are, If you like downtown areas. (I actually don't though I was within Spitting distance of both Boeing and United when I got off the Metra Rail train at Union Station) Boeing's problems are NOT in where they ARE! Just Who they thought they Were!!

It is exactly about Chicago. A sign of unlimited arrogance of a management that is not interested in the daily running of a company, but only in watching the stock market.
The business is in Seattle. the management is two time zones away. They do not get the pulse of the company. It is hardly a wonder that important information just passes them by.

You can not compare it with United, who by definition do not operate in one place.

They have a rather large factory in the South Carolina. Chicago is in between both.

Chicago is quite a bit away from being between both. You could say it is a long way away from both operations.
Not that the South Carolina site could use some supervision.

Furthermore the site in South Carolina is production only, while in Seattle, beside production, is everything else, but management, like development and design.

There is some development at Charleston as well.

sxf24 wrote:

Boeing is more than the 7-series programs built in Seattle. There is a large defense business around the country, services based in Dallas, and soon Embraer. The entire point of moving HQ to Chicago was to find neutral ground that did not favor one of the individual businesses.

Most of the comments on this thread ignore the fact that most operating decisions on airplane programs are made by BCA. The Boeing CEO and board launched MAX and received updates. But until the first incident, I doubt they made another consequential decision.

But hey, Dennis is a good fall guy.

I agree with all of the above.

A narrative has taken hold around Boeing moving to Chicago.

There was a lot of Boeing that did not operate out of Seattle before the McDD merger due to its need to service many industries and due to the Rockwell and Hughes acquisitions, and after the McDD merger happened there were even more sites (STL, Long Beach, Etc) that became a part of Boeing. If you want to see them, go to https://craft.co/boeing/locations and it may be helpful to click the "United States" box to focus on the US.

The CEO of the time, Phil Condit, decided keeping HQ in Seattle was not optimal for many reasons. Chicago was picked because it was "a location central to our operating units, customers and the financial community -- but separate from our existing operations" ( ref: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/on-thi ... 827067193/ ). I'd add Seattle wasn't optimal if you needed to lobby the government. So the idea was have one central location that was not a traditional Boeing power base yet made it easy to commute by air to the others, as the CEO and C suite executives need to do.

The narrative formed because the Seattle area folks were butt hurt because they felt they lost prestige and control over the company, but the reality was that it was no longer a Seattle-centric business. Whether Boeing should have remained a smaller, Seattle area company focused on commercial airliners is obviously a topic for debate, but the fact is that it changed after the Rockwell, Hughes and McDD acquisitions and once those acquisitions happened there was no putting the genie back in to the bottle. The theory was that by adding all these defense oriented business they would be more independent of the ups and downs of the commercial airliner business, and I think the current crisis shows that the defense and space sides of the businesses are helping to carry the stumbling commercial side.

For those of you wanting an engineer as CEO, be careful for what you wish for:

(Condit) was born in Berkeley, California, and became an aviation enthusiast at an early age, earning his pilot's certificate at age 18. He earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley in 1963, a master's degree in aeronautical engineering from Princeton University in 1965, a Master's in Management from the Sloan Fellows program of the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1975, and a Ph.D. in engineering from the Tokyo University of Science[2] .

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_M._Condit

So Condit, the guy who decided to merge with McDD and decided to move the headquarters to Chicago, was not just an engineer, but was a Ph. D. level engineer who held patents on aspects of the Boeing SST, not to mention a pilot and an aviation enthusiast from a young age. Add that to Muilenberg whose recent performance was not up to snuff, and it's not clear to me that starting out as an engineer prepares one to become CEO very well at all.

I agree a lot of the decisions about MAX came out of BCA located in Seattle. I also think it probably was a good idea to move the corporate level people to Chicago so Seattle didn't dominate corporate level decisions. But I also think once the JT crash happened, it should have been obvious to DM that he had to go hands-on, or at the very least get one of his right hand men independent of BCA management to represent him in Seattle. It should have been obvious that such a high level deadly crash was a high profile event that was going to impact the whole company. As I wrote earlier, he did screw up even earlier in the time line by looking at the IMs and deciding they were a legal issue rather than a safety issue. And his performance before Congress was dreadful. So, yeah, fall guy, but he deserved to fall, he was not earning his fat pay packet.

seahawk wrote:

Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates would/will disagree with you.

Kessje said Trump “understands a few things about aviation.” Do you mean like how to go out of business in 3 years with the Trump shuttle?

It's a pretty short list of U.S. major CEOs that have lost their jobs at the direction of a U.S. President or Cabinet official. Here's two, the only ones that come to mind in the last three decades: https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/ ... est-020625 Note that the U.S. government was deep as a lender or guarantor of debt for both firms at the time - a situation which does not apply to Boeing.

Trump can't do much to help Boeing's Commercial Aviation business short of telling the FAA to approve MAX's return to the air, and even he isn't stupid enough to do that.

It's the French declaring that yogurt is a strategic national asset that sets the baseline for inanity. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/291 ... lenge.html

Boeing doesn't need to be saved. It needs to demonstrate to relevant, objective regulators that MAX mods and pilot training make it safe to fly.

AeroVega wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates would/will disagree with you.

Steve Jobs was not an engineer. He was a business, marketing and ideas guy, with a lot of industrial designer thrown in to the mix. He dabbled in electronics as a youngster and had jobs as a technician but wasn't what most people think of as an engineer. Woz did all the heavy lifting in the early Apple days. Wiith regard to technology Jobs rode Woz's coat tails.

AeroVega wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates would/will disagree with you.

Neither of them had a career as an engineer.

Condit was an engineer and aviation enthusiast by heart, but many of his decisions are criticised today. And if one is honest the move of the HQ to Chicago was a typical engineer´s decision. It made sense if you look at facts only - central location - neutral position - great connections to all other locations... great idea!

Sadly it did not consider the soft factors, it removed the HQ from the core of the company, where the products were made. It creates a trench between the HQ and the "actual working" parts of the company and it takes away the necessary direct contacts between the accountants and the engineers.

seahawk wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates would/will disagree with you.

Neither of them had a career as an engineer.

Condit was an engineer and aviation enthusiast by heart, but many of his decisions are criticised today. And if one is honest the move of the HQ to Chicago was a typical engineer´s decision. It made sense if you look at facts only - central location - neutral position - great connections to all other locations... great idea!

Sadly it did not consider the soft factors, it removed the HQ from the core of the company, where the products were made. It creates a trench between the HQ and the "actual working" parts of the company and it takes away the necessary direct contacts between the accountants and the engineers.

Steve Jobs was more a visionary guru type.

Elon Musk does engineering. He has been very hands on, designing and engineering both SpaceX rockets and Tesla vehicles. He still does that today. But not many know that.

BIll Gates did software engineering. He designed and programmed Windows and other software. But of course, that was decades ago.

Bill Gates dropped out of college because he knew waiting to graduate would make him too late to do what he wanted to do.

seahawk wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates would/will disagree with you.

Neither of them had a career as an engineer.

Your claim was that engineers are not the best persons for the CEO job because they tend to love details. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk were/are known to be obsessed with details. Bill Gates was an engineer pur sang. None of them has a reputation of being a good people manager. What they have in common is that they were/are driven, stubborn visionaries.

Lootess wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

Bring it's [sic] corporate offices back to Seattle....

Why?

Fan boys want Boeing corporate back in Seattle, when it's just fine being in The Loop in Chicago.

So they are literally a few miles away from the production lines. Closer to the action, and able to spend more time watching what needs fixed.

AeroVega wrote:

seahawk wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates would/will disagree with you.

Neither of them had a career as an engineer.

Your claim was that engineers are not the best persons for the CEO job because they tend to love details. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk were/are known to be obsessed with details. Bill Gates was an engineer pur sang. None of them has a reputation of being a good people manager. What they have in common is that they were/are driven, stubborn visionaries.

Yes, but Boeing is no longer a start-up.

scbriml wrote:

Ufsatp wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

It is exactly about Chicago. A sign of unlimited arrogance of a management that is not interested in the daily running of a company, but only in watching the stock market.
The business is in Seattle. the management is two time zones away. They do not get the pulse of the company. It is hardly a wonder that important information just passes them by.

You can not compare it with United, who by definition do not operate in one place.

They have a rather large factory in the South Carolina. Chicago is in between both.

But what proportion of Boeing is based in Charleston vs the Seattle area? How many planes are produced in Charleston, seven a month?

Let's be clear, the only reason Boeing has a facility in South Carolina is as leverage against the unions in Seattle.

I think people forget that the employment at Boeing is very Spread out. When headquarters was moved, Missouri in Kansas were more significant employment centers. St Louis is still number 2

Employees by state in order

• Washington
• Missouri
• California
• South Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• Arizona
• Texas
• Oklahoma
• Alabama

Ufsatp wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

It isn't about Chicago! It's a beautiful area where they are, If you like downtown areas. (I actually don't though I was within Spitting distance of both Boeing and United when I got off the Metra Rail train at Union Station) Boeing's problems are NOT in where they ARE! Just Who they thought they Were!!

It is exactly about Chicago. A sign of unlimited arrogance of a management that is not interested in the daily running of a company, but only in watching the stock market.
The business is in Seattle. the management is two time zones away. They do not get the pulse of the company. It is hardly a wonder that important information just passes them by.

You can not compare it with United, who by definition do not operate in one place.

They have a rather large factory in the South Carolina. Chicago is in between both.

Thats not why they moved. After all they have factories at STL as well. It was a prestige move and noted by an exec that it was better to not be in a city with the factories. I assume that meant "we can hid easier during strikes."

mjoelnir wrote:

Ufsatp wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

It is exactly about Chicago. A sign of unlimited arrogance of a management that is not interested in the daily running of a company, but only in watching the stock market.
The business is in Seattle. the management is two time zones away. They do not get the pulse of the company. It is hardly a wonder that important information just passes them by.

You can not compare it with United, who by definition do not operate in one place.

They have a rather large factory in the South Carolina. Chicago is in between both.

Chicago is quite a bit away from being between both. You could say it is a long way away from both operations.
Not that the South Carolina site could use some supervision.

Furthermore the site in South Carolina is production only, while in Seattle, beside production, is everything else, but management, like development and design.

You completely ignore Boeing's defense business.

F9Animal wrote:

Lootess wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

Why?

Fan boys want Boeing corporate back in Seattle, when it's just fine being in The Loop in Chicago.

So they are literally a few miles away from the production lines. Closer to the action, and able to spend more time watching what needs fixed.

That would not have helped avoid the MCAS 1.0 fubar one bit.

In fact you can argue having the CEO closer by would put even more pressure on people to focus on the dollars and cents.

BCA is still headquartered in Seattle. Boeing is more than just BCA. It's a very strange narrative to fixate on.

zoom321 wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Curious to know what is Boeing game plane to get their house on order. The 737MAX line is shutdown, NG production has ended, 77X mass production can't start, 77X test aircraft has not offically flown and tested. Their next paycheck are now solely on 767 and 787, and of course other support services and subsidiary income, but still what is their game plan?

Easy, ask for a bailout from the taxpayers as all too big to fail do.

Or maybe a loan that they don't have to pay back unless the program is a success.

9Patch wrote:

zoom321 wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Curious to know what is Boeing game plane to get their house on order. The 737MAX line is shutdown, NG production has ended, 77X mass production can't start, 77X test aircraft has not offically flown and tested. Their next paycheck are now solely on 767 and 787, and of course other support services and subsidiary income, but still what is their game plan?

Easy, ask for a bailout from the taxpayers as all too big to fail do.

Or maybe a loan that they don't have to pay back unless the program is a success.

And one whose terms can be renegotiated once the program is a success.

F9Animal wrote:

Lootess wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

Why?

Fan boys want Boeing corporate back in Seattle, when it's just fine being in The Loop in Chicago.

So they are literally a few miles away from the production lines. Closer to the action, and able to spend more time watching what needs fixed.

Boeing is more than Commercial Airplanes, and they broken up the company to have division CEOs in that process. In-case you forgotten the Starliner failure is on Boeing's 2500 associates in Florida.

sxf24 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, who says that all engineers are socially awkward dweeb that can do calculus in his sleep? What I obviously meant was a CEO which recognizes that Boeing is a technology-driven firm, innovation-driven and thus needs to allocate the money there and needs to listen to engineers and not just to the finance guys. Aviation is a business that needs to take into account the next 25 years, not just the next quarterly results. If I were the CEO of Boeing, I would take the HQ back to Seattle, just to send a very strong message who is important to me. WIll that solve anything? No, not on the short term, but I believe it will solve something in the long term, at least it will take the HQ out of its bubble which seems to be only financial driven and led to this disaster.
A while ago I posted a thread with the question if something is wrong with Boeing's safety culture. And that's the core of things, that is the culture shift which needs to take place, technology-driven first, revenue will come later. Take the pride back into the country, proud to be of the products leaving the floor.

Engineers suck as high level management and I am saying this as an engineer. At that level your job is to manage people not design things and your job is to deliver a vision and not find solutions on how to reach those visions.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to put all engineers in one bucket. Personalities and capabilities are not determined by your degree. There are plenty of charismatic leaders who started as engineers and many, many MBAs that are overly technical nerds.

mjoelnir wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

It isn't about Chicago! It's a beautiful area where they are, If you like downtown areas. (I actually don't though I was within Spitting distance of both Boeing and United when I got off the Metra Rail train at Union Station) Boeing's problems are NOT in where they ARE! Just Who they thought they Were!!

It is exactly about Chicago. A sign of unlimited arrogance of a management that is not interested in the daily running of a company, but only in watching the stock market.
The business is in Seattle. the management is two time zones away. They do not get the pulse of the company. It is hardly a wonder that important information just passes them by.

You can not compare it with United, who by definition do not operate in one place.

Boeing is more than the 7-series programs built in Seattle. There is a large defense business around the country, services based in Dallas, and soon Embraer. The entire point of moving HQ to Chicago was to find neutral ground that did not favor one of the individual businesses.

Most of the comments on this thread ignore the fact that most operating decisions on airplane programs are made by BCA. The Boeing CEO and board launched MAX and received updates. But until the first incident, I doubt they made another consequential decision.

But hey, Dennis is a good fall guy.

When companies move their offices to a city that has no divisions operating there. It is to keep the executive away from the other workers. Just the same as the Cable company that set up their office & sales center in Phoenix a few years back with zero customer operations in Phoenix. It keeps customers and employees away from the office.

rbavfan wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Engineers suck as high level management and I am saying this as an engineer. At that level your job is to manage people not design things and your job is to deliver a vision and not find solutions on how to reach those visions.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to put all engineers in one bucket. Personalities and capabilities are not determined by your degree. There are plenty of charismatic leaders who started as engineers and many, many MBAs that are overly technical nerds.

mjoelnir wrote:

It is exactly about Chicago. A sign of unlimited arrogance of a management that is not interested in the daily running of a company, but only in watching the stock market.
The business is in Seattle. the management is two time zones away. They do not get the pulse of the company. It is hardly a wonder that important information just passes them by.

You can not compare it with United, who by definition do not operate in one place.

Boeing is more than the 7-series programs built in Seattle. There is a large defense business around the country, services based in Dallas, and soon Embraer. The entire point of moving HQ to Chicago was to find neutral ground that did not favor one of the individual businesses.

Most of the comments on this thread ignore the fact that most operating decisions on airplane programs are made by BCA. The Boeing CEO and board launched MAX and received updates. But until the first incident, I doubt they made another consequential decision.

But hey, Dennis is a good fall guy.

When companies move their offices to a city that has no divisions operating there. It is to keep the executive away from the other workers. Just the same as the Cable company that set up their office & sales center in Phoenix a few years back with zero customer operations in Phoenix. It keeps customers and employees away from the office.

CEO Ray Conner at BCA got the 787 back online more so than CEO Jim McNerney. He was the executive that matters, and he also worked his way up through Boeing from a machinist.

seahawk wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Neither of them had a career as an engineer.

Your claim was that engineers are not the best persons for the CEO job because they tend to love details. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk were/are known to be obsessed with details. Bill Gates was an engineer pur sang. None of them has a reputation of being a good people manager. What they have in common is that they were/are driven, stubborn visionaries.

Yes, but Boeing is no longer a start-up.

I see . Following your logic, what is it, a start-down?

The FT has a profile on Calhoun. His tenure could be short-lived i.e. 3 years.

Calhoun gives Boeing a fresh face, but not that fresh
https://www.ft.com/content/457dfcf2-25d ... 3f0ec7e134

"At a company with a retirement age of 65, the 62-year-old Mr Calhoun also faces questions about how long he will serve as CEO.

According to Rob Stallard, aerospace analyst at Vertical Partners, “he is likely to have a relatively short tour of duty at Boeing, with his priorities being getting the 737 Max back into service without further aggravation, and starting the process of finding a new CEO and senior management team that can potentially get Boeing back on track."

Dutchy wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

When companies move their offices to a city that has no divisions operating there. It is to keep the executive away from the other workers. Just the same as the Cable company that set up their office & sales center in Phoenix a few years back with zero customer operations in Phoenix. It keeps customers and employees away from the office.

Sounds like you think that is a good thing, am I right? I think it is a bad thing because, obviously, the office was not connected to the workers and that caused a lot of problems, or at least contributed to it.

A lot of people don't understand how Boeing works nowadays, each division has their own CEO that is local to the business unit.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes runs their own ship in Seattle, and has their own CEO, which is Stanley Deal whom replaced McAllister in October, they are based in Seattle, not Chicago. Look back at the 787, it was more of Jim Albaugh, CEO of BCA that was the face of the delays more so than Boeing CEO Jim McNerney.

If anything, CEO Muilenberg probably got fired because the Starliner failure last Friday in BDS was the final straw.

Revelation wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates would/will disagree with you.

Steve Jobs was not an engineer. He was a business, marketing and ideas guy, with a lot of industrial designer thrown in to the mix. He dabbled in electronics as a youngster and had jobs as a technician but wasn't what most people think of as an engineer. Woz did all the heavy lifting in the early Apple days. Wiith regard to technology Jobs rode Woz's coat tails.

True That

F9Animal wrote:

Lootess wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

Why?

Fan boys want Boeing corporate back in Seattle, when it's just fine being in The Loop in Chicago.

So they are literally a few miles away from the production lines. Closer to the action, and able to spend more time watching what needs fixed.

Then why were they not watching what needed to be fixed after the first crash! Because they were trying to blame the airline & the pilots for their faulty design choices.

We could note that since Boeing moved headquarters to Chicago not much has gone well with Boeing commercial except for stock prices. And further note that correlation does not equal causation. But some of us suspect more than a little causation in the mix.

n7371f wrote:

This is very simple...

More GE at Boeing long term is bad. Just look at track record of Harry & Jim.

Short term, David might work to calm everything down.

But this company needs to rid itself of the GE/McD influence. Badly.

The sad thing is, I don't think there are any real Boeing leaders left. Everyone that is there still have drunk the koolaid. Changing the toxic culture at Boeing isn't going to be as easy as getting rid of the corporate bean counters. Everyone in the leadership pipeline at Boeing has been through indoctrination designed by those corporate bean counters.

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, who says that all engineers are socially awkward dweeb that can do calculus in his sleep? What I obviously meant was a CEO which recognizes that Boeing is a technology-driven firm, innovation-driven and thus needs to allocate the money there and needs to listen to engineers and not just to the finance guys. Aviation is a business that needs to take into account the next 25 years, not just the next quarterly results. If I were the CEO of Boeing, I would take the HQ back to Seattle, just to send a very strong message who is important to me. WIll that solve anything? No, not on the short term, but I believe it will solve something in the long term, at least it will take the HQ out of its bubble which seems to be only financial driven and led to this disaster.
A while ago I posted a thread with the question if something is wrong with Boeing's safety culture. And that's the core of things, that is the culture shift which needs to take place, technology-driven first, revenue will come later. Take the pride back into the country, proud to be of the products leaving the floor.

To be fair, I don't think many MBA's are any better equipped to be a CEO, and I'd personally get along better with the socially awkward dweeb that can do calculus in their sleep.

Taking into account the next 25 years, or even more should be a priority for a business that sells airplanes... However, Boeing is no longer a business that sells airplanes. They are a business that sells stock, and just so happens to build and sell some airplanes. They aren't the only ones guilty of this, it's the whole corporate culture that has taken over modern business. This is how the race to the bottom started. (At least Boeing has beat airbus in that race )

No one cares about building a good product anymore, and frankly, most people aren't willing to pay for a good product either

AeroVega wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho engineers tend to love details, therefore they are not the best persons for the job.

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and Bill Gates would/will disagree with you.

Jobs wasn't an engineer and relied on others to make his visions come true.
Musk has a degree in econ and made his money in financial services.
Gates studied law before dropping out of school.

Even though, they are all super techy. But:
All obsessed over details and had tumultuous past with their Board of Directors.
All are well-known assholes who abused their staff.
Jobs was fired as CEO of Apple.
Gates stepped down as CEO of Microsoft in 2000 and let Balmer take over.
Musk got kicked off his BoD.

The greatest CEO's in history all have that X-factor. If an engineer has it, so be it, but I doubt that engineer is at Boeing because they would have never lasted or put up with the BS. There is much chance that Bob the shoeshiner has the skills needed to be a great CEO as an engineer, or a mailman, or receptionist. CEOs don't need a trade.

aden23 wrote:

Great news, now let the criminal proceedings begin! Hopefully we can see Muilenberg behind bars by next Christmas.

What do you have against Muilenberg?

sebolino wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

aden23 wrote:

Great news, now let the criminal proceedings begin! Hopefully we can see Muilenberg behind bars by next Christmas.

If you think Boeing's CEO will ever see jail over the MAX, you're delusional and I want some of what you're taking and/or drinking..

It may be true, but that would be proof that something's broken out there. Of course he deserves prison time
I'm glad that the former CEO of Orange (France Telecom) was just convicted to 1 year of prison for harassment. I would think that deliberately selling flying coffins would cost more.

This is 'Merica, white-collar/white men don't get put in prison.

Further upthread there were a lot of posts arguing whether DM was fired or whether he resigned.

I think we are in agreement that he was asked to leave and he agreed, and resigned.

Playing devil's advocate here - what if he'd said, "No thank you. I'd like to stay on as CEO."
- what would have been/will be the implications if he'd done so?

Just curious.

Read this few minutes ago..... Boeing Co. Is in CCU now.... In dire need a fresh leadership team. Every program from commercial divisions to defense is plagued with problems.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/05/boein ... ince-1996/

889091 wrote:

Further upthread there were a lot of posts arguing whether DM was fired or whether he resigned.

I think we are in agreement that he was asked to leave and he agreed, and resigned.

Playing devil's advocate here - what if he'd said, "No thank you. I'd like to stay on as CEO."
- what would have been/will be the implications if he'd done so?

Just curious.

He would have been fired if he hadnt agreed to walk

As it is it sounds better for both him and Boeing that he resigned and he must have got a payoff he was happy with to do so

juliuswong wrote:

Read this few minutes ago..... Boeing Co. Is in CCU now.... In dire need a fresh leadership team. Every program from commercial divisions to defense is plagued with problems.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/05/boein ... ince-1996/

Boeing have become a monster. EVERYTHING they do driven by keeping shareholders happy and profit.

There was a business leader in the past (forget who) that came in and focussed on safety of his employees as his number one priority. (They were in an industry with lots of industrial injuries). The funny thing was business success also followed as good habits led to success elsewhere.

A new CEO at Boeing who focussed on safety of passengers etc ahead of other targets may just be the way forward for Boeing. I'm not convinced an internal appointment was the answer. So much has gone wrong inside this once great organisation. It needs a fresh approach.

Ertro wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Just last month Calhoun said "From the vantage point of our board, Dennis has done everything right from the beginning" (ref: https://www.nbcumv.com/news/cnbc-exclus ... eau-today- ). I don't thing a person goes from viewed as doing everything right to being asked to resign in such a short period without something triggering the change. I think the trigger was the breakdown of the relationship between FAA and Boeing, and I think the NYT piece described it in such a vivid and public way that it was an embarrassment to the Boeing BoD, and that tipped their hand and sealed DM's fate.

The NYT did a long slow roll through pretty much every mistake DM has done since the JT crash, including his embarrassing Congressional testimony that The Economist described as "an ugly mixture of remorse, evasion and swagger", along with his falling out with the FAA Administrator. It also pointed out that his style, that of an introverted bicycling athlete who prefers Diet Mountain Dew to scotch whiskey, just does not mesh well with fellow CEOs. In short, he isn't very well liked by his peers. The NYT is one of a handful of media outlets US CEOs and other elites must tune in to and they do take note of. My take on this article was that it made DM into a social outcast and an embarrassment to the Boeing BoD members.

Wow. Everything is just media's fault. One article has so much power.

Wouldn't much more probable reason why board changed their mind about the CEO would be IF for example would have happened so that at early november CEO was at board meeting telling the whole board optimistic stories how FAA is on track to unground the plane in mid-December and let's keep manufacturing the planes at full speed. Everything is going to the plan, just trust me. etc.. etc...

And when the situation materially changed in a monumental way a month later that changed how the board sees the CEO telling the stories how everything is fine.

If the board would have known already in early november the situation where we are now they would have had an obligation to do something because of it. Since they did not do those things therefore we know that they didn't know it and the new monumental change in material situation came as a surprise to them now just before the firing.

This doesn't sound like something of a reason to fire the CEO for?

The thing that sounds the oddest in this whole situation is looking back and thinking it is crazy that a company's best selling product has been taken off the shelves by a regulator for 8 months and the CEO has not met face to face with the head of the regulator until (ok in fairness he started in August) December - 4 months into his FAA tenure?!?! I'd be there once a week for face to face meetings if it would be allowed - listening, understanding, and making the required moves to get my product back on the shelf.