Boeing Plans to Cut 17,000 Jobs - 10% of Its Workforce (msn.com) 84
"Boeing said Friday it will cull 10 percent of its workforce — roughly 17,000 jobs," reports the Washington Post, "as the aviation giant grapples with mounting losses and manufacturing disruptions amid a machinists strike that has dragged into a fifth week."
Executives, managers and production employees will be affected by the cuts, chief executive Kelly Ortberg informed employees Friday in a memo. Boeing will also delay the launch of its 777X plane until 2026 due to ongoing challenges, Ortberg wrote... The layoffs add to the pain at Boeing, where a stalemate between the company's largest employee union dovetails with ongoing legal troubles and safety woes. The strike has halted production of some of the company's best-selling jets, further adding to its financial troubles. In the past five years, Boeing has lost more than $25 billion...
"Our business is in a difficult position, and it is hard to overstate the challenges we face together," Ortberg said in the memo. "The state of our business and our future recovery require tough actions...." Now at risk of a downgrade to its credit rating as its circumstances worsen, Boeing has taken other steps to reduce expenses, including imposing a hiring freeze and eliminating unnecessary travel.
"The strike by Boeing machinists is costing the company roughly $1 billion a month, according to estimates from S&P Global..."
"Our business is in a difficult position, and it is hard to overstate the challenges we face together," Ortberg said in the memo. "The state of our business and our future recovery require tough actions...." Now at risk of a downgrade to its credit rating as its circumstances worsen, Boeing has taken other steps to reduce expenses, including imposing a hiring freeze and eliminating unnecessary travel.
"The strike by Boeing machinists is costing the company roughly $1 billion a month, according to estimates from S&P Global..."
going bankrupt (Score:3)
Re: going bankrupt (Score:1)
Re: going bankrupt (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: going bankrupt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: going bankrupt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poster got the year wrong but close. The point stands. I could've bought AAPL in 99/00 but thought they'd go out of business. No risky, no reward.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing you are absolutely right (Score:3)
I don't think it's going to happen right away and it may never happen but it's definitely something to watch out for. And Intel really needs good r&d to keep up and their slashing costs for short-term gains.
Re:going bankrupt (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't wait for Boeing's fall from greatness to be used as the Case study in how MBA's suck any value out of a company and run it into the ground.. Getting supper tired of the constant focus on short term profits screwing over the long term outlook and destroying the worker's lives.
Re: going bankrupt (Score:3)
Fuck em. Let them eat their own shit. Don't help them out, do not overcompensate for them. Let them clean up their own mess. They may have to take more than one company down though. It is always someone else's fault.
Count me cynical.
Re: going bankrupt (Score:2)
Re: going bankrupt (Score:2)
Re: going bankrupt (Score:2)
So, where's Warren Buffett right now?
His claim to fame is to acquire companies, have them put together a long term operating plan and let them work to that without the quarterly Wall Street whining.
Re: going bankrupt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He has enough influence to dictate term to a company.
Anyone who can arrange a buy-out and take a company private has that. What Buffett has is the sense to assemble a good team and then let them run a company without freaking out over quarterly reports.
Re: (Score:3)
it's never in a companies best interest to go public with stock .. this is just one of the many reasons why
Re: going bankrupt (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait for Boeing's fall from greatness to be used as the Case study in how MBA's suck any value out of a company and run it into the ground.. Getting supper tired of the constant focus on short term profits screwing over the long term outlook and destroying the worker's lives.
While Boeing is deservedly being pilloried for their MBA/Accountant caused disaster, it turns out that Airbus, while seemingly golden and trouble free, has just as many issues, and has killed their share of humans. Very often shitty software, but other reasons as well.
We just don't see as much of it because their country doesn't air their dirty laundry like the USA does.
Re: (Score:2)
"what about" is'ms doesn't have a place in reality checks - just means both have issues, not a justification for having them.
Re: (Score:2)
"what about" is'ms doesn't have a place in reality checks - just means both have issues, not a justification for having them.
Whataboutisms? I had no idea that mentioning that airplane companies could only mention Boeing. The point i fyou missed it is that we can put Boeing out of business, have a good old fashioned crucifixion of all management, and dump all their product into th Marianas trench, and planes will still fall out of the sky.
Thanks for setting me straight. I shall only comment on Boeing from now on. Let's try it!
Fucking Boeing is the cancer of the industry - they need put out of business now before they kill more
Re: (Score:1)
not trying to "set you straight" but you did try to imply i wasn't aware of air bus's failings. so pick a path.
if you want to debate Airbus vs. Boeing lets go - your brought up the safety record - also not the topic i was talking about ..
So what do you want to discuss/cross compare between them?
Re: (Score:2)
we can put Boeing out of business, have a good old fashioned crucifixion of all management, and dump all their product into th Marianas trench, and planes will still fall out of the sky.
Not for long. About the time management at these companies started getting crucified for decisions that killed people, the remaining management would finally have the incentive needed to shift their focus to quality instead of short term profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Far more likely that they'd all take their golden parachutes and find more profitable ventures than focusing on quality. The short term profits mindset will be very difficult to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
Take your conspiracy theories and go somewhere else, like to qanon.
Re: (Score:2)
Take your conspiracy theories and go somewhere else, like to qanon.
What a strange thing to say to a person who will provide citations to make you look foolish, or at least a very incompetent troll. There are many more incidents than I provide, mainly because I fear you ight not be able to process them well, but just in case smarter people wish to see a tiny bit of what I provide...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] - Software problem. America West Airlines Flight 2747, an Airbus A320-232 registered as N655AW, experienced a loss of cowling on the left engine during takeo
Re: (Score:2)
Two of your examples are 24 and 34:years ago. Only the gear failures are relevant. No one died. Recent Boeing issues resulted in hundreds of deaths. That's why Boeing failures are so newsworthy.
Oh - I see. There are a lot more examples, I just don't feel the need to do the research for people that claim I am Q-anon. Do the research yourself, dunklefalke. And remember that apparently older accidents don't count, amirite?
Re: (Score:3)
If you allow MBAs to run your company, you get Boeing.
If you prohibit MBAs from running your company, you get OpenAI.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess Boing is a case of its own.
There aren't any useless managers (Score:2)
So you'll find a bunch of people who have manager in their title but they're doing line work instead of managing employees.
The only useless managers left are in the upper management whose job is to hire the strike breaker
Re: There aren't any useless managers (Score:2)
Management is a place to put the fuck-ups [wikipedia.org].
They do that to regular employees now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you give them the title, but not the actual job.
Boeing calls these "individual contributors". Managers in name. But we're not really going to give you anyone to push around.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need actual managers for that, you can just use line workers and stick them with the job in exchange for a very small raise.
That's rational, but it's not what is happening. Instead managers are incentivized to hire useless people below themselves, to inflate their own importance.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies haven't had those since the '90s.
Ok so you haven't worked since the 90s.
Re:going bankrupt (Score:5, Interesting)
If that happens, the Federal Government should do the same thing it did to GM after GM went bankrupt. It organized a new company which bought up all the parts of GM which were critical to the national economy, including the "General Motors" name, all its brands, even the stock ticker symbol. The old company that *was* GM was renamed "Motors Liquidation Company", which became a trust which used the revenue from asset sales to settle with creditors.
From the outside it looked like GM simply carried on, but unburdened by debt and with a management team that for once didn't have its head up its ass. Taxpayers shelled out 19.4 billion dollars and received 21 billion dollars in return. Secured creditors of old GM were paid in full, as were employees. Pensions and retiree health benefits were preserved. Unsecured creditors got about a quarter of their claims paid off. The only people who lost everything where the stockholders.
The old management lost their jobs, although CEO Rick Wagoner quickly landed a gig on the board of Boeing, where he had a role providing strategic leadership for Boeing in the face of changes in the aerospace industry. That's a bit of a cheap shot joke because experts' assessment of Wagoners performance at GM weren't entirely negative; he was in a very difficult situation. But his role at Boeing is ironic because one of the criticisms of his GM tenure was a lack of strategic vision and indecisiveness in the face of change.
Re: going bankrupt (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why have big goverment step in when there are existing federal bankruptcy procedures already in place?
I don't believe that bankruptcy courts are authorized to loan out billions of dollars.
Re: going bankrupt (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
In the GM case because there was a major public interest involved, and also the sheer size of the company. Yes, the structures were there to handle it by other means, but they were not conceived of to handle a company which directly and directly amounted to 1% of the US economy in 2008, 3-4% if you count vendors dependent upon it.
Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile I'm sure those actually making the decisions for the company (and are therefore responsible for Boeing's rescent misfortunes) are still living quite comfortably, financially speaking.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/b... [cbsnews.com] for the money Dennis Muilenberg pocked after he got fired as CEO.
The rot at Boeing starts with the BOARD OF DIRECTORS. It will take years to clean out the ranks of managers who have grown up in the "profit is everything" culture that started with the merger (leveraged takeover by) McDonnell-Douglas. "Flying Blind" remains a good but terribly depressing read: https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod... [amazon.com]
Ortberg deserves a chance to make the change Boeing desperately needs,
Re: (Score:2)
It will take years to clean out the ranks of managers who have grown up in the "profit is everything" culture that started with the merger (leveraged takeover by) McDonnell-Douglas.
Ironic that the "profit is everything" model ends up eliminating profit.
A lot of the shine is off of MBA's and their Accountants, it is to be hoped that people come to understand that left to their own unrestrained devices, they end up destroying the companies they work for.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:4)
That is going to require some degree of regulatory action because as was just laid out the people behind these decisions don't suffer any consqeuquences so obviously we have an area of misaligned incentives.
Every bad decision at Boeing came from a person, like pointed out Dennis Muilenberg, he suffers really no consequences. Even if he wanted to keep working does anyone have any doubt whatsoever he could easily slot himself into the board or C class of another company?
We've seen it time and time again, once you are in the rich-guy exec club you don't get kicked out unless you don't have money anymore, your dumb decisions were everyone elses fault right? If it was your fault the market would have taken your money so therefore de-facto it is not your fault. Those are the rules they get to play by. This goes for the board and major shareholders as well.
They're not going to correct the perverse incentives they created and perpetuate.
Re: Meanwhile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile I'm sure those actually making the decisions for the company (and are therefore responsible for Boeing's rescent misfortunes) are still living quite comfortably, financially speaking.
... not just financially speaking, being complete psychopaths they are living comfortably in all possible ways.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet all the non-retired McDonnell-Douglas employees remain in their jobs and continue to fuck the whole thing up. It's almost like revenge for being bought out... who really took over who?
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting/disturbing thing is that many of the bad managers at Boeing were not legacy McD. Dennis Muilenberg was legacy Boeing, but was turned to the Dark Side by people like Stonebraker and the profit-focused culture they instituted. And that's why the BoD should be replaced. See https://www.boeing.com/company... [boeing.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Stonecipher, not Stonebraker. Sorry! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We all know this we never do anything about it (Score:2)
But if a girl with blue hair gives us a c on our homework assignment in college we carry that with ourselves for the rest of our lives...
I think the problem is human beings aren't designed for this giant global economy. It's very difficult to think in terms of anything at that scale.
I realized years ago dog eat dog capitalism doesn't work but it took me
Re: We all know this we never do anything about it (Score:2)
This is a fundamental flaw of socialism. Nobody is able to adequately direct all economic activity. Boeing got too big to manage.
Financial Engineering On Display (Score:5, Insightful)
Boeing has largely replaced their aircraft engineers with financial engineers, who excel at extracting wealth and expelling talent.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny-not-funny but I thought the story had much more potential for humor.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny-not-funny but I thought the story had much more potential for humor.
Yeah, we need a "Funsightful" tag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, to dare to dream of substantial improvements of Slashdot. "To dream the impossible dream..."
Me? I think the moderation should be multidimensional and logarithmic and reflected in a multidimensional version of karma. But I also think it would take money to move in such a direction and Slashdot lacks any viable financial model, so "We can't get there from here."
I've actually had some new thoughts on the old CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) idea. My basic idea was that the focus should be on project managemen
Re: Financial Engineering On Display (Score:3)
Should be more like 90%. (Score:3)
Boeing now run by bean counters (Score:2)
Since they acquired McDonnell Douglas, they've gone from an engineering company to one run by worthless MBAs. That's when their quality problems started.
The company they bought essentially took over Boeing and concentrated on nothing but profits. That's why it's a mess now.
It's dead, Jim. (Score:2)
And it's never coming back.
You are witnessing a financial implosion (Score:2)
Once this top of chopping occurs, there's no stopping it. It will continue until the company goes bankrupt or is bought out be private equity, or another company like Airbus.
Boeing hasn't been going for a while now. It needs a root and branch layoff and replacement of C-level upper management as soon as possible in order to stand a chance of surviving.
Give the workers what they want (Score:4, Insightful)
Give the people that BUILD your planes what they want. Give them better money, more time off, better safety procedures and the ability to stop the line if they notice that something is broken. Let the machinists and engineers and everyone that ever TOUCHES a plane in its construction have everything they need.
Fire everyone in marketing, get rid of the middle managers, cut every executive's pay 95%, and see how that goes.
The problem with these dummies at these huge corporations is they forget that everything is BUILT by someone. LABOUR is the only thing that makes them money. It's not their fancy talk, the marketing department, none of that. Marketing can sell a product that works, but they can't pitch something that falls out of the sky. Hire them back when you have a product worth selling.
There's no magic to this. If you remember that the people that design and build the planes are the important people and your job as an executive is just to make sure they can do their jobs, then you'll build great products that people want to buy.
Otherwise eat shit, Boeing. Be consigned to the dust-heap of history and exist mainly as an object lesson in how useless executives really are.
IBM? (Score:3)
Sorry not sorry (Score:2)
Having worked for one of two small companies in a big industry 95% controlled by two very large companies, trying to get initial qualifications through Boeing R&T, supply chain, engineering, and quality, I'll say flat out I hope MOST of the "professionals" that I worked with are in that 10%. Especially the R&T side... their arrogance was matched only by their ignorance. I got so tired of hearing "because that's the way we've always done it". God forbid they actually study whether it's effective o
Depends on what cuts. (Score:2)
Cuts to the floor are a bad idea. They should be hiring there, to reduce the stress and pace of work of individuals, because that will boost confidence in quality, and that's the only way Boeing can survive.
It's a false saving to cut workers, as that'll just cause complaints to rise, leading to an increase in bad publicity and an increased risk of a major mistake, which would be disastrous.
If they're cutting managers, that would be a lot better, but very late in the day. It may be too late. They would have
Cutting jobs, payback for strike.... (Score:2)
Stock Prices detached from reality (Score:2)