• downpunxx@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    thalidomide sales took a real header once too. people normally will choose to spend their money on things which will benefit them, and tend not to spend money on the things which will kill them and hurt their business.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Yeah, yeah, but the executives that took the various decisions that made Boeing what it is now are even more millionaire than when they started at Boeing and will not see the inside of a jail cell, ever.

    So we can all rest easy knowing that those we are constantly told are the most important people who deserve to be paid so much because of being risk takers and wealth creators, will be just fine, as if a few “nobody” whistleblowers had to be taken out, well, that’s a price the trully important risk taking wealth creators were willing to pay.

    • Traegert@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      I was watching this Korean show, they made a whole huge deal about a corporation stealing 5 billion won from the public. I literally burst out laughing when I googled the conversion and it’s 3.5 mil USD, big corporations here steal that amount in a quarter second just by breathing yet in Korea it’s apparently an amount worthy of its own entire show. US is such a fucked oligarchy.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        Assuming the show reflects corporate values and isn’t just propaganda like US police shows are intended to make the Korean public (and anyone watching from outside of Korea) think that that’s how that would be treated.

        From what I understand, South Korea’s economy is dominated by a small number of mega corps (like Samsung) that try to do pretty much everything.

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    Even if they gave them away for free, no one would take them for commercial use. Not sure who would be surprised at this ‘news’

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      I mean, they totally would. Do you think the fine folks at American airlines have moral compasses that are orders of magnitude greater than boeing’s?

        • djsoren19@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          They have been. The problem is twofold; Airbuses are limited in the U.S., and airlines have increased the rates on those tickets because I guess a working airplane is now considered a premium.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        Same company that has the Starliner with leaks staying at the ISS. Not a good look.

        Marketing department is going to be working overtime.

        The brand new 737 Boeing Goeing. Cheaper than all others on the market with a 15 year warranty. Gauareteed to keep you Goeing. For fucks sake, we’re Boeing.

        This is a whole new remodeled version of our Max that had various issues that concerned our buyers, now. We’ve added an onboard AI that will detect which items to advertise to customers based off past sales and gender/sex/age/height/and weight. Up your sales numbers guaranteed to increase from the info we scrape off the Internet or buy from Google directly. Built in auto serve tray so the hosts don’t need to find the orders, they are auto placed on a exiting conveyor that feeds right onto the cart you roll up!

        These beauties are all thrown in for free when you invest in your future that’s Goeing places.

        *Doors may become from nowhere, wheels may fall off, leaks may occur, but your profits will skyrocket. Landings not guaranteed.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    Don’t they make a shitload of weapons though? They could probably never make another commercial airliner again and still do just fine.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    I also haven’t bought one.

    This shows that there must be actual problems with their aircraft though because airlines are not going to care about public attitude, due to the company’s politics. But if they are genuinely unsafe vehicles or have the potential to be unsafe vehicles, then they’ll stay away.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      If public attitude ever got significant enough that they couldn’t fill a certain model of plane they would definitely stop buying them, that said I’m not sure we’re at that point.

      • skulblaka@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        Every person I know who has flown in the last six months has inquired about the manufacturer of their plane before boarding

      • callouscomic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        Flight booking websites literally added these plane models so you could filter out specific planes to avoid those flights because of these stories.

  • egeres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    Interestingly enough, even if it would make sense that boeing is now fully focusing on improving quality, it also makes sense to me that airbus must be ensuring and pushing a lot of quality upgrades as well, it would be perfect marketing for them if no mistakes whatsoever happened on airbus’s planes

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      And if they didn’t develop the culture of sweeping safety issues under the rug at all levels, they won’t have much trouble keeping ahead because I’m sure that even at the height of Boeing’s safety ignoring, I bet most of the communication still looked like they took safety seriously. Just those in the know realized that they could make themselves look better by faking it and their management wouldn’t care. I’ve gotta assume that some number of them will think the current safety culture overhaul is really trying to send a message of “just be smarter about ignoring safety, don’t let it get to the point where doors fall off mid-flight and we need to kill some whistleblowers”.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    Could it be a purposeful effort by foreign entities to discredit and dilute american corporate giants reputations by placing sympathetic people into positions that would bring that about?

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      People downvote you, but that could well be true.

      Then still the right course of action would be very different from supporting and bailing out etc the contaminated organization.

      And then one can also think about other organizations possibly contaminated.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      why would boeing need help damaging its reputation? It seems to be doing a great job of that on its own.

      • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        So you dont think the people running things could be put there by any actions of a foreign nature? For instance a hiring manager, hr executive, or someone in a similar role?

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          I think its more if you look at what they did and the problems they’re having all came after a merger with McDonnel Douglas and seem to be a typical case of corporate “fire people for reporting bad numbers” aka “kill the messenger” along with lots of outsourcing. Which results in numbers go up but at the cost of QA/QC.

          This is all standard reaganomics and like nearly every other company that went down this road while selling real physical products they’re now reaping the fruits they’ve sown for over 20 years.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    The 737 Max is a garbage product they crashed and burned with their MCAS woes. They should give up the iconic product line and go all in on selling the safer 777 as its replacement. Yes, its built for a greater range, but the 777 hasn’t been fucked with in terms of fail-deadly systems yet, and its the safest plane Boeing has in its fleet.

    If they do nothing, Airbus will get enough orders to expand its factories and blow through its backlog.

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Or in an even darker timeline Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon will open a commercial division, I guess at least the shit will work