8 ms·

Article title jumps the gun. Union members still need to vote on whether to accept the deal Wednesday. > The union announced the deal Saturday morning, saying,

by cyost 2y ago

Article title jumps the gun. Union members still need to vote on whether to accept the deal Wednesday. > The union announced the deal Saturday morning, saying, “it warrants presenting to the members and is worthy of your consideration.” > The union plans to vote on the deal on Wednesday. Nearly 95% of workers voted to reject the last tentative deal, which the union’s leaders recommended.

Dalewyn 2y ago
I hope the workers reject and continue the strike, forcing Boeing into bankruptcy will be a very good thing for the country even if it leaves investors and banks unhappy.
- Arainach 2y ago
  How is forcing one of its largest employers, one of its largest manufacturers, and leaving the commercial airliner market dominated by foreign companies good for the country?
  - interactivecode 2y ago
    Free market, it will open up a lot of opportunities for new companies
    - chasil 2y ago
      It is incredibly expensive to develop large airliners. As I understand it, the only peer companies that do so are Airbus, COMAC, and Embraer (Edit: Bombardier ended with the A220). Which one of these should replace Boeing?
      - loeg 2y ago
        There is also Bombardier. But none except Airbus makes planes in the same class as Boeing.
        bobthepanda 2y ago
        Airbus purchased the Bombardier program
        loeg 2y ago
        Ah, thanks.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        COMAC will succeed. Embraer is sort of boxed in and made the bad decision under Lula of making a deal with China that includes local manufacturing and technology transfers. They’re segmenting the market between them. Bombardier got killed by Boeing’s games with them and yes the remnants are the A220.
        chasil 2y ago
        COMAC just had its first order from the Americas: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/brazilian-airline-seeks-buy-planes-chinas-comac-2024-09-26/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/brazilian... Four planes.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Airbus of the ones listed. However, Northrop Grumman could also buy out Boeing's large aircraft bits and (re)enter the commercial airliner market. I doubt Lockheed Martin would be interested, they're into smaller aircraft these days.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      There is no free market for something like this. You need so much capital and there are better places to invest. Venture won’t do it. Government would have to and they simply have no understanding or appetite for funding startups for such spaces. Yes we could do so much better than Boeing but it’s more likely the government will repeatedly bail them out than do something about this.
      - interactivecode 2y ago
        So perhaps the free market doesn’t really exist. Only various sized barriers to entry
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Because Boeing is too big to fail and will be parted out by the US government if management does not get it together. Management and equity will be wiped out, the manufacturing infra and workers will not. The demand for the product will still exist (civilian and military aircraft, space vehicles, etc), but the economic configuration will be forced to change by bringing the system to failure. Based on all available evidence, Boeing is failing because of its management (since the McDonnell Douglas deal), its board, and its shareholders not pressuring for sufficient change. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/daily-memo-boeings-breakup-not-if-how-when https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/d...
    - Arainach 2y ago
      Can you point to a bankruptcy where what you described (management wiped out, manufacturing infrastructure not) actually happened and didn't fail within 5 years?
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        The reorg of GM by the Obama administration does not tick all the boxes [1], but is the most recent example that would come to mind of government support via BK management and recapitalization. The administration did this to save jobs and the manufacturing supply chain [2]. Capital is made up, management is fungible, manufacturing supply chains and systems are the hard part (which is why, after incredibly aggressive financialization, Boeing is having to acquire Spirit AeroSystems, which had previously been spun out for cost savings...which went to management comp and shareholders). If you are optimizing for a specific outcome, it is important to understand the malleability and limits of the components that make the whole. Even Elon recognized this during Model 3 production hell [3]. I suppose we must always learn the hard way for the lesson to be of value. If management is the problem (and it is very clear Boeing management is the problem), it must be replaced so that the people who do the actual building can build. This is no different than the tech culture of "employ great people and get out of their way." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor... [2] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/economy/jobs/rescuing-the-american-auto-industry https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/economy/jobs/rescuing-t... [3] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/984882630947753984 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/984882630947753984 ("Yes, excessive automation at Tesla was a mistake. To be precise, my mistake. Humans are underrated.")
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    The economical benefits were already laid out by another commenter, so I will lay out the cultural benefits. Namely, seeing an American darling like Boeing go under could finally destroy the idea of American Exceptionalism(tm). Like it or not, the country as a whole is stagnant and losing its grip on the title of Superpower with fierce competition from China. America was great and it can be great again, but we will continue to fall into irrelevance if we can't first accept that we aren't the same America that won World War II, took mankind to the Moon, and created the internet. Boeing going under could finally force Americans to accept our current place in the world.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Realistically they’ll get bailed out. In other words, taxpayers will subsidize the failures of the company and the deals struck by unions. Ideally we would instead fund more competitors from an early stage.

by cyost 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

I hope the workers reject and continue the strike, forcing Boeing into bankruptcy will be a very good thing for the country even if it leaves investors and banks unhappy.

Arainach 2y ago
How is forcing one of its largest employers, one of its largest manufacturers, and leaving the commercial airliner market dominated by foreign companies good for the country?
- interactivecode 2y ago
  Free market, it will open up a lot of opportunities for new companies
  - chasil 2y ago
    It is incredibly expensive to develop large airliners. As I understand it, the only peer companies that do so are Airbus, COMAC, and Embraer (Edit: Bombardier ended with the A220). Which one of these should replace Boeing?
    - loeg 2y ago
      There is also Bombardier. But none except Airbus makes planes in the same class as Boeing.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        Airbus purchased the Bombardier program
        loeg 2y ago
        Ah, thanks.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      COMAC will succeed. Embraer is sort of boxed in and made the bad decision under Lula of making a deal with China that includes local manufacturing and technology transfers. They’re segmenting the market between them. Bombardier got killed by Boeing’s games with them and yes the remnants are the A220.
      - chasil 2y ago
        COMAC just had its first order from the Americas: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/brazilian-airline-seeks-buy-planes-chinas-comac-2024-09-26/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/brazilian... Four planes.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Airbus of the ones listed. However, Northrop Grumman could also buy out Boeing's large aircraft bits and (re)enter the commercial airliner market. I doubt Lockheed Martin would be interested, they're into smaller aircraft these days.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    There is no free market for something like this. You need so much capital and there are better places to invest. Venture won’t do it. Government would have to and they simply have no understanding or appetite for funding startups for such spaces. Yes we could do so much better than Boeing but it’s more likely the government will repeatedly bail them out than do something about this.
    - interactivecode 2y ago
      So perhaps the free market doesn’t really exist. Only various sized barriers to entry
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Because Boeing is too big to fail and will be parted out by the US government if management does not get it together. Management and equity will be wiped out, the manufacturing infra and workers will not. The demand for the product will still exist (civilian and military aircraft, space vehicles, etc), but the economic configuration will be forced to change by bringing the system to failure. Based on all available evidence, Boeing is failing because of its management (since the McDonnell Douglas deal), its board, and its shareholders not pressuring for sufficient change. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/daily-memo-boeings-breakup-not-if-how-when https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/d...
  - Arainach 2y ago
    Can you point to a bankruptcy where what you described (management wiped out, manufacturing infrastructure not) actually happened and didn't fail within 5 years?
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      The reorg of GM by the Obama administration does not tick all the boxes [1], but is the most recent example that would come to mind of government support via BK management and recapitalization. The administration did this to save jobs and the manufacturing supply chain [2]. Capital is made up, management is fungible, manufacturing supply chains and systems are the hard part (which is why, after incredibly aggressive financialization, Boeing is having to acquire Spirit AeroSystems, which had previously been spun out for cost savings...which went to management comp and shareholders). If you are optimizing for a specific outcome, it is important to understand the malleability and limits of the components that make the whole. Even Elon recognized this during Model 3 production hell [3]. I suppose we must always learn the hard way for the lesson to be of value. If management is the problem (and it is very clear Boeing management is the problem), it must be replaced so that the people who do the actual building can build. This is no different than the tech culture of "employ great people and get out of their way." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor... [2] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/economy/jobs/rescuing-the-american-auto-industry https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/economy/jobs/rescuing-t... [3] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/984882630947753984 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/984882630947753984 ("Yes, excessive automation at Tesla was a mistake. To be precise, my mistake. Humans are underrated.")
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  The economical benefits were already laid out by another commenter, so I will lay out the cultural benefits. Namely, seeing an American darling like Boeing go under could finally destroy the idea of American Exceptionalism(tm). Like it or not, the country as a whole is stagnant and losing its grip on the title of Superpower with fierce competition from China. America was great and it can be great again, but we will continue to fall into irrelevance if we can't first accept that we aren't the same America that won World War II, took mankind to the Moon, and created the internet. Boeing going under could finally force Americans to accept our current place in the world.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Realistically they’ll get bailed out. In other words, taxpayers will subsidize the failures of the company and the deals struck by unions. Ideally we would instead fund more competitors from an early stage.