I guess Dennis learn the hard way what happens if you fall behind on your payments to the New York Times.
Joking aside, I remember you commenting on the risks associated with Boeing's "hard line" and whether it would be successful or not.
I guess we have the answer to that question now, and its "not" - as many of us have believed from the outset.
I was playing the role of jester because many a true word is spoken in jest.
My underlying message was that IMO the NYT did a LOT of damage to Dennis's reputation in the article it dropped last week.
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.
Not too long ago the Boeing Board stripped away DM's Chairman title and gave it to Calhoun, and told DM he had to focus on getting MAX back in service. Shortly thereafter the FAA Administrator called DM out for using timelines to pressure the FAA and for not providing complete ready to review packages. Then the NYT article publicly chronicles the entire crisis including this fracture in the Boeing-FAA relationship, then DM is made to walk the plank. Seems to me pretty much cause and effect.
I don't see how the same person, Calhoun, can be taken at face value if he goes from saying "From the vantage point of our board, Dennis has done everything right from the beginning" to saying "Under the Company's new leadership, Boeing will operate with a renewed commitment to full transparency, including effective and proactive communication with the FAA, other global regulators and its customers" in his (now former) role as Chairman of the BoD. If you believe one was sincere, you can't believe the other is sincere. DM didn't change, the board's attitude towards DM changed.
This is why I think this is really about DM himself rather than the leopard called Boeing changing its spots and going "open kimono" with the FAA. Note above they used the words "renewed commitment to full transparency" rather than "a new level of increased transparency". They aren't signaling they lack transparency, they are just saying it'll get a renewed commitment, a face lift rather than a heart transplant.
Personally I think the relationship will improve because of the change to a new CEO and there will be more openness but I don't see a fundamental shift coming. I think this is a minor reset in the relationship as opposed to a fundamental change.
Why? Patrick KY of EASA just said a few days ago that he thought EASA would re-certify MAX by end of February so I don't think the grounding is as far from ending as many suggest. I just don't see Ky making up such a statement or doing some dissembling. I think he has been pretty forthright about what EASA needs, and for him to say end of February is likely I believe it's going to be that, or not very far off of that.
I doubt Boeing's board thinks they need to make fundamental changes up and down the company, I think they felt they needed a different guy in the CEO's chair.
Of course, I could be reading this incorrectly, time will tell. I guess the key will be if in a short period of time Boeing drops news of some undisclosed fundamental problem (be it technical or non-technical) like some here suspect is coming. If it happens soon it'll make it easy to blame it all on Dennis, so he'll be dumped not for overall bad job performance but for not disclosing this specific thing. On the other hand if we trundle on till late Feb and the path to RTS becomes clear then my read is more likely to be the correct one.