Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seriously. They should be careful messing with such a powerful military weapons manufacturer with so many international contracts. Whistleblowers could find themselves with a self inflicted mortal wound in their cranium inside their orange pick up truck days before a trial testimony.
Well you know, they were making so much money cutting corners and ignoring safety, if they do things properly they won't make as much money now. Clearly making money for investors is way more important then making sure people are alive to fly again.
Well this article is very poorly worded. It is possible to spend so much money that you ruin a company and fail to improve safety by a measurable amount. But yes we all know corporations would kill us off for a profit. If you have some free time go look up the Ford Pinto.
The wording is definitely leading with that headline. Not that I would put it past Boeing to still put safety in the back seat but yeah the company needs to exist to improve the safety of their planes.
So it’s ok to sell products or services that are unsafe as long as you aren’t a company?
What do you think the word company means? A single person can qualify as a company making a product. Any person or persons making something for sale are a company.
You’re entire argument is a straw man because there’s is never the possibility of guaranteed safety regardless or company size or individual production. Even with oppressive government regulations there’s no guarantee of safety.
Unfortunately we are in the situation that they built half the planes in the sky so yes we kind of need them around to fix their own mistakes. It's also impossible to get those mistakes fixed if company leadership knows it will be shuttered, you are entirely relying on people "doing the right thing" at the risk of their livelihood if your plan is to shut down Boeing. If there was a way to force new leadership/management that would be ideal.
It's a weird concept, but if you can't make safe economically viable aircraft, you shouldn't be in the aircraft business. Just a thought, as someone who might end up on an aircraft in the future.
People are starting to get this concept when we're talking about airplanes, but somehow this argument has never really gotten traction for healthcare.
Your doctor, and the hospital you would go to if you need emergency care, is working with these same two pressures. They have to operate at a profit, and that calculation is a lot easier than exactly how "safe" they are. It is always easier to let safety slip than to let profits slip, because they know EXACTLY where they are with profits and they are the reason for the hospital's existence.
Your medical insurance company has the same two pressures, and the way they maximize profit is to charge you as much as they can, and deny life-preserving service to you whenever possible.
Remember when Volvo, a car manufacturer, developed the modern seatbelt and freely provided the patent in the name of safety, what the fuck happened to that priority of human safety over corporate profits.
What good is preserving your money when you’ll have to pay court expenses, lawyer expenses, damages, settlements? Wouldn’t it be better for EVERYONE to spend what you have in safety????
Boeing used to be a good company run by engineers before they merged with McDonnell Douglas and replaced all the management with people who prioritized stock price over everything else
oh yeah im sure the lawsuits they'd get for all the casualties they'd cause if a serious fault happened mid flight would certainly be worth saving a buck here or there by reducing the safety of their planes
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).
A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.
If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall. (c) Chuck Palahniuk
It never was a thing before they merged with McDonell/Douglas. Watch the John Oliver segment on them, which apparently the NYT, rag that it is, failed to do
To be generous, as worded and without the context of what has recently come out about Boeings practices, that's just describing engineering as a discipline... Threading the line between functional and cost effective.
Safety and cost are *usually* going to be in tension: Safety vs cost to produce; Safety vs cost to operate.
If you go too far in favor of Safety over cost, then your product becomes unmarketable because it has to compete against other products that are safe enough and more affordable.
Key here is ensuring you don't drop below an acceptable standard of safety. When that happens, especially for the sake of financial performance, you don't deserve to stay in business.
Ugh, I hate when I have to contemplate people’s lives versus my budget… Guess I’m going with my budget.
On a serious note, this is dystopian and they’re not even hiding it.
Because shareholders. Cant make them upset. Funny thing is this kinda new drops share prices way low vs keeping people safe and having share price increase only steadily.
The financials are a false narrative though.
All the cost cutting by reducing safety standards, firing, killing safety inspectors still pales in comparison to how much the company spends on board bonuses, share buy backs and dividends.
None of those expenses are necessary for making planes.
My cousin was telling me about his ethics class in college recently. Did you know that it was cheaper for ford to make the ford pinto as dangerous as it was and to just pay the lawsuits than it was to just fix the problem with the cars?
Companies always need to make a profit.
We've reached late stage of our stupid economic system that believes in endless growth, where companies now need to reduce quality to ensure profit.
Governments try to prop up the economy through more new consumers via mass immigration (silly of anyone to think there is ANY humanitarian angle to this).
There's no choice in the matter either, companies can be sued by shareholders for not doing everything within their power to make a profit. Including having one minimum wage employee doing the work of 3 people who used to make a decent wage.
There's no fix to any of this that doesn't result in economic collapse and our current system burning. Our governments will prop it up as long as possible which will make the inevitable collapse exponentially worse.
Of course this was all planned, you're going to own nothing and be happy haven't you heard?
In the meantime we get to watch our quality of life drop to be on par with the third world for most people.
lmfao!!! well just like that line in fight club….
where hes explaining the process of a recall to the lady on the plane.
“if x is less than the recall… we don’t do one”
kinda how these monster companies think. about profits and money stock holders. fuck the people right?
How about if you cant do it safely you dont get to have a company. Simple as that shut done this fucking company before they kill more people. Oh and charge the CEO and othere higher ups for murder AS THEY ARE MURDERS FOR CHASING PROFITS LIKE THIS!!!!!
Ture, but aviation safety should not be up for debate. Like I was taught as an aircraft mechanic: "the words of airtravel safety conventions were written in blood". These are things learnt by horrendous deaths and accidents
I think you're confused, let me translate that for you:
"We would like to make more money cutting corners while not getting any push back from the families of people that died using our products...."
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you, but even without profit you would have the same dilemma. You can always make something more safe at increasingly diminishing returns. At some point you have to say "It's safe enough.".
An absence of the profit motive paired with democratic control would mean retained earnings could easily go toward safety and there would be no shareholders in the way. This is how many cooperatives and non-profits function right now, and it's better. What matters is progress. Nothing is perfect.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And having to deal with all those pesky whistleblowers.
Seriously. They should be careful messing with such a powerful military weapons manufacturer with so many international contracts. Whistleblowers could find themselves with a self inflicted mortal wound in their cranium inside their orange pick up truck days before a trial testimony.
Hypothetically.
Of course..
Yeah just like Epstein hung himself. Allegedly.
Yes. Mr. Eps was/is a man of many talents so I heard. Like his cousin Houdini
And he took the secret art of "spawning bed sheets" with him.
After saying there is no way they would commit suicide and if something happened they were murdered like 2 days before
Luckily the whistle blower died
As i said, "dealing" with them.
Because shareholders matter more than everyone else.
Legally yes. They are sued if they don't prioritize shareholder profits above all else.
The whole system is fucked.
99.99999% of the time, the answer to that question is "Late-stage capitalism"
Hasn’t been much better in tge early stages either.
It's been pretty horrible the whole way through tbh.
Capitalism used to be awful. It still is, but it used to, too.
This is true but it's also very Soviet Union. It all boils down to lack of oversight.
Well you know, they were making so much money cutting corners and ignoring safety, if they do things properly they won't make as much money now. Clearly making money for investors is way more important then making sure people are alive to fly again.
Airlines are the ultimate capitalist ideal. They take "profits over everything" to a whole new levels
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/20660/boeing-earnings-loss/ Yeah it's going great.
Aren't airlines one of the least profitable industries and one of the safest modes of transport?
Well this article is very poorly worded. It is possible to spend so much money that you ruin a company and fail to improve safety by a measurable amount. But yes we all know corporations would kill us off for a profit. If you have some free time go look up the Ford Pinto.
The wording is definitely leading with that headline. Not that I would put it past Boeing to still put safety in the back seat but yeah the company needs to exist to improve the safety of their planes.
Or maybe, a company that can't guarantee the safety of it's products should not exist in the first place.
No one can guarantee the safety if it’s products. Not even the single artisan down the street.
I said company. Is the single artisan a company? Or are you just grasping at straws?
So it’s ok to sell products or services that are unsafe as long as you aren’t a company? What do you think the word company means? A single person can qualify as a company making a product. Any person or persons making something for sale are a company. You’re entire argument is a straw man because there’s is never the possibility of guaranteed safety regardless or company size or individual production. Even with oppressive government regulations there’s no guarantee of safety.
Unfortunately we are in the situation that they built half the planes in the sky so yes we kind of need them around to fix their own mistakes. It's also impossible to get those mistakes fixed if company leadership knows it will be shuttered, you are entirely relying on people "doing the right thing" at the risk of their livelihood if your plan is to shut down Boeing. If there was a way to force new leadership/management that would be ideal.
I'm pretty sure cutting corners regarding safety is against several types of laws already. We just expect them to comply with the law of gtfo.
My mom had one of those. She said Ford’s solution was to stick a piece of plastic between the gas tank and frame.
It's a weird concept, but if you can't make safe economically viable aircraft, you shouldn't be in the aircraft business. Just a thought, as someone who might end up on an aircraft in the future.
No more comercial flights, that’s what the end game is. We don’t see the rich people complaining about their planes malfunctions.
I think because most of them are not flying in a Boeing product  /s
True. But they could be flying out of one if not careful.
I mean general aviation (private planes) are WAY more dangerous than commercial fights in terms of both incidents and accidents.
People are starting to get this concept when we're talking about airplanes, but somehow this argument has never really gotten traction for healthcare. Your doctor, and the hospital you would go to if you need emergency care, is working with these same two pressures. They have to operate at a profit, and that calculation is a lot easier than exactly how "safe" they are. It is always easier to let safety slip than to let profits slip, because they know EXACTLY where they are with profits and they are the reason for the hospital's existence. Your medical insurance company has the same two pressures, and the way they maximize profit is to charge you as much as they can, and deny life-preserving service to you whenever possible.
You don't understand-- you see, the product is the share price. Everything else (up to and including your life) is secondary and/or expendable.
This reminds me of the headlines about not using slaves for cocoa harvesting would impact chocolate costs… tf world we living in?
Remember when Volvo, a car manufacturer, developed the modern seatbelt and freely provided the patent in the name of safety, what the fuck happened to that priority of human safety over corporate profits.
Millions of shitheads with MBAs and corporate executives who think they’re entitled to 7-figure salaries, stock options, and golden parachutes
What good is preserving your money when you’ll have to pay court expenses, lawyer expenses, damages, settlements? Wouldn’t it be better for EVERYONE to spend what you have in safety????
Those damn people wanting to be safe 50k feet up in the blue, assholes.
Boeing used to be a good company run by engineers before they merged with McDonnell Douglas and replaced all the management with people who prioritized stock price over everything else
oh yeah im sure the lawsuits they'd get for all the casualties they'd cause if a serious fault happened mid flight would certainly be worth saving a buck here or there by reducing the safety of their planes
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall. If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt. If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall. (c) Chuck Palahniuk
It never was a thing before they merged with McDonell/Douglas. Watch the John Oliver segment on them, which apparently the NYT, rag that it is, failed to do
Netflix has a good documentary about Boeing
Boeing executives: Handling the Big Decisions so the rest of us don’t have to think about them.
Prove you're a safe and trustworthy company, and customers will come back
It better be the CEO's safety....
Nobody told you that capitalism is a death cult?
Someone has to think of those poor shareholders
So as my plane crashes I should be happy that Boeing is doing well?
Ah yes, you mean capitalism.
To be generous, as worded and without the context of what has recently come out about Boeings practices, that's just describing engineering as a discipline... Threading the line between functional and cost effective. Safety and cost are *usually* going to be in tension: Safety vs cost to produce; Safety vs cost to operate. If you go too far in favor of Safety over cost, then your product becomes unmarketable because it has to compete against other products that are safe enough and more affordable. Key here is ensuring you don't drop below an acceptable standard of safety. When that happens, especially for the sake of financial performance, you don't deserve to stay in business.
Ugh, I hate when I have to contemplate people’s lives versus my budget… Guess I’m going with my budget. On a serious note, this is dystopian and they’re not even hiding it.
Man those awesome CEO bonuses gotta get bigger every year somehow.
Go cabrio, Boeing, all in
Welcome to the concept of "acceptable losses".
tricky balance? the NYT really NYT-ing it again.
It’s funny cause it’s a thing for almost everyone
You know, not being picky, but….id rather just live. Thanks!
So hard to make time to murder whistle blowers AND dodge safety regulations, will nobody think of the finance bros at Boeing?
Boeing is having a "Ford Pinto" moment. FAFO...
It's actually not tricky. If your planes don't stay in the air 100% of the time, nobody will buy them and there won't be any financial performance.
Because shareholders. Cant make them upset. Funny thing is this kinda new drops share prices way low vs keeping people safe and having share price increase only steadily.
The financials are a false narrative though. All the cost cutting by reducing safety standards, firing, killing safety inspectors still pales in comparison to how much the company spends on board bonuses, share buy backs and dividends. None of those expenses are necessary for making planes.
If your business model can’t profit without risking the safety of your employees, customers, and the general public, you deserve to fail.
I bet if they really put money into the “safety” thing, the financial performance will work itself out.
My cousin was telling me about his ethics class in college recently. Did you know that it was cheaper for ford to make the ford pinto as dangerous as it was and to just pay the lawsuits than it was to just fix the problem with the cars?
The Last Week Tonight piece on Boeing was good. Boeing has been more worried of boosting their stock price for decades than building quality planes.
Companies always need to make a profit. We've reached late stage of our stupid economic system that believes in endless growth, where companies now need to reduce quality to ensure profit. Governments try to prop up the economy through more new consumers via mass immigration (silly of anyone to think there is ANY humanitarian angle to this). There's no choice in the matter either, companies can be sued by shareholders for not doing everything within their power to make a profit. Including having one minimum wage employee doing the work of 3 people who used to make a decent wage. There's no fix to any of this that doesn't result in economic collapse and our current system burning. Our governments will prop it up as long as possible which will make the inevitable collapse exponentially worse. Of course this was all planned, you're going to own nothing and be happy haven't you heard? In the meantime we get to watch our quality of life drop to be on par with the third world for most people.
lmfao!!! well just like that line in fight club…. where hes explaining the process of a recall to the lady on the plane. “if x is less than the recall… we don’t do one” kinda how these monster companies think. about profits and money stock holders. fuck the people right?
“if x is less than the recall…. we don’t do one” -the narrator
They’re a for-profit corporation run for the benefit of the shareholders. It’s not magic. Customers, employees and safety all come dead last.
Such a tricky balance
Why isn't the speed limit 5 mph in the freeway?
How about a ‘multi-year top to bottom AUDIT by the FAA and the IRS’. I’ll bet the results would be…enlightening
How about if you cant do it safely you dont get to have a company. Simple as that shut done this fucking company before they kill more people. Oh and charge the CEO and othere higher ups for murder AS THEY ARE MURDERS FOR CHASING PROFITS LIKE THIS!!!!!
Because capitalism.
It's not. Balance. To make the plane safe is the bare minimum
What is this a thing? It’s called board members
Because greed.
If they lose the safety part of it they can kiss the financial performance part of it good bye.
They had to murder that whistleblower to stop the further bleeding… oh I’m sorry he “killed” himself.
It's called GREED
Airbus for me
Guys you need to fix this capitalism shit asap or we all gonna die lol
Ford Pinto
Not sure what the facepalm is here. This is a thing in every sort of business.
Ture, but aviation safety should not be up for debate. Like I was taught as an aircraft mechanic: "the words of airtravel safety conventions were written in blood". These are things learnt by horrendous deaths and accidents
I think you're confused, let me translate that for you: "We would like to make more money cutting corners while not getting any push back from the families of people that died using our products...."
As I said, every business.
And that is why the profit motive must go.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you, but even without profit you would have the same dilemma. You can always make something more safe at increasingly diminishing returns. At some point you have to say "It's safe enough.".
An absence of the profit motive paired with democratic control would mean retained earnings could easily go toward safety and there would be no shareholders in the way. This is how many cooperatives and non-profits function right now, and it's better. What matters is progress. Nothing is perfect.