Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Air Canada cancels 11 737 Max orders
Air Canada says it has cancelled orders for 11 Boeing 737 Max aircraft as it reassess its needs in the wake of the troubled aircraft’s year-long grounding. (www.flightglobal.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
They also cancelled options for the 787
I had read , from a CNN article , that once Boeing misses the delivery date of an AirLines order , by one year , the Airline can cancel that aircraft order , with-out financial penalty . Now that the Boeing has made aircraft for delivery , but haven't been able to deliver them since the Grounding on March 13th, 2019 , other airlines that have similar agreements may start to routinely cancel their orders as well . I would be interested to see how this shakes out .........Penny for your thoughts on this ........DGR
Good, hopefully more cancel. This is what happens when you make shareholders more of a priority than safety of the aircraft. Shame on you, Boeing.
Such a sad story. Putting shareholders ahead of safety was a huge blunder that Boeing will never recover from. Too bad as Boeing used to be known for good aircraft.
I might be missing something in the whole "Boeing put shareholders first, so people die" logic. Does putting shareholders first automatically mean safety corners are cut? Safety is a component of the financial value of a company - a BIG one, especially with an aircraft manufacturer. Every publicly held company operates to maximize shareholder value. Cutting corners on safety will harm shareholder value. Boeing did not put shareholders ahead of safety because the two factors are interchangeably linked. Do you really not understand this, or is the "shareholder ahead of safety" sloganeering just too easy to spout versus actually thinking about how this all works?
I'm sure that Boeing did a risk assessment before making the decisions they made regarding the 737 Max. The problem with risk assessments is that they are usually used to backup a management decision. I know this because I have managed risk assessments and been a team member on a number of risk assessments. One might be surprised to know that the people on the risk assessment team often have no experience in what they are assessing. I have seen this happen because management did not want to pay the extra cost to bring in experts. The other thing about risk assessments is that the level and severity of risk is a random number pulled out of thin air by members of the team. That's not easy for those who are not experts. The severity might be high, but the deciding factor in a risk assessment is often the very slim chance that the severe results will actually take place. It was not only Boeing that did a risk assessment; but the FAA and Transport Canada would have also done risk assessments before delegating the authority to Boeing to make the decisions they made with the 737 Max. The FAA and Transport Canada delegated this authority to save money. Inspectors are experts in their field and don't come cheap. Boeing said that the pilots did not need additional training because they wanted to sell airplanes and make more money. They also made other numerous bad decisions with this aircraft. The bottom line is that about 350 people lost their lives because the FAA, Transport Canada, and Boeing put money ahead of safety. They gambled and about 350 people lost their lives.
Safety and company/shareholder value are both important aspects to running a successful business, and I would agree that there is a direct relationship between the two. However, there were several instances during the 737Max's life, from RTDE to airline operation, that raised red flags. Each time, Boeing had a choice between keeping a positive safety/shareholder balance, or taking a short cut to maximize profits. As most of us have seen and read, Boeing chose the latter. The end result caused hundreds of lives and grounding of the aircraft.
N9341c...I do understand this, unfortunately all too well. From Wall Street to the left seat, I'm well seasoned in both. While you're welcome to your opinion, your snarky comments have no use here.
N9341c...I do understand this, unfortunately all too well. From Wall Street to the left seat, I'm well seasoned in both. While you're welcome to your opinion, your snarky comments have no use here.
The thing you're missing in that logic is the timeframe. If compensation is stock based and you are always looking at the next business quarter, you aren't prioritizing long-term shareholder value. And history bears this out - look at the parachutes that failed CEOs take with them, without so much as an apology.