Ralph Nader: Boeing has been mismanaged for years

Ralph Nader: Boeing has been mismanaged for years

 

 

 

 

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader joins CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" team to give his take on Boeing and why he says the company's governance is compromised.

46 thoughts on “Ralph Nader: Boeing has been mismanaged for years

  1. this is what happens when a company puts financial considerations at the forefront as opposed to the hard engineering task of producing a viable aircraft. same thing happened to the automobile companies years ago until faced with stiff competition from here and abroad, competition that does not exist in the civilian aircraft sector.

    1. The Max and Neo were built for the exact same financial reasons and at the request of the airlines themselves but MCAS was poorly designed although the concept is nowhere near as outrageous as people believe

  2. He’s 100% right. The Board and the worthless CEO need to go. They should faced criminal charges. Those people are greedy psychopath and sociopaths: don’t trust them with your lives or your loved ones. The only thing they care about is $$$.

    1. @Jim Woodard Both are complicit FAA for allowing self regulation. Boeing for taking advantage of being self regulated. Both should be under fire but that does not mean the CEO of Boeing should be let off the hook. That is, they were not fully transparent on the issues of mcas to the FAA. They were actively working on a patch before/after crashes. Let me put it another way. If this problem has risen from circumstances that Boeing could not foresee, then I would agree the FAA would have most of the blame. However, Boeing DID know of issues with mcas. The mcas patch proves this. As Boeing will learn with all the lawsuits that are currently in court and pending. They don’t have a leg to stand on.

    2. HiPlains1. this Could Not have happened prior to Barry Sotaro AKA Obama 2010 Restructure of the FAA…. Many had Little or NO Knolage of that Industry . all part of the Ruining America !!!

    3. @P P Latey The “crisis at Boeing” clearly didn’t start now, nor with the 737 MAX. Here, listen with horror how a supplier of structural parts for the 737 NG was was doing an alarmingly bad job, yet both Boeing *And the FAA*, failed to see anything wrong with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxxtzBTxGU&t=3s What is said at the end of the documentary is equally beyond belief: The statement of the FAA guy responsible for this, was compiled for him by Boeing lawyers.

    4. Greedy sleazy, capitalist worms! They need to be “out” of business! Time for some new, not yet corrupt, companies to take their place. Hopefully a worker co-op.

  3. CNBC should conduct more of such interviews. Raise scrutiny and accountability standards. That’s what good journalism is about. Thank you Nader! I have been reading about your great works in uni days like some 20 years ago. Great job.

  4. can’t understand that the same people of made this mess are the ones trying to fix it.. !! People in charge of designing and certification of the Max belong in Jail ..!!

    1. Its not going to make a difference who’s in charge – Boeing has painted itself into a corner. There is a lot of pain and disruption for America to be had yet. This is an enormous opportunity for Boeing’s competitors – just watch the Chinese take it with both hands and make a success of it.

    1. I presume you’re referring to the single sensor. The hardware design is a problem. Notwithstanding, even with a perfect hardware design, the software concept, architecture and design was problematic in itself.  

      I’ve worked in the aerospace industry, including writing inertial navigation software for the space shuttle way, way back. I have my DO178-C certification for real-time software systems design in airborne systems. I can assure you that the “design” (if you can call that abortion software design) was flawed from inception.

    2. @Daniël Mantione I disagree, the 737 of the 1960’s is definitely the 737 Max’ ancestor. You seem to oppose any additional electronics influence in the current designs, am I right?

      If you need to build a new aircraft system, it must include a newly devised or revised fly control system.

      That means in hindsight, the end user, i.e.the passengers, clearly have been in the unknowing what the risks were. That’s the tragedy which is measured in human life.

    3. @Marc Goozen Additional electronics itself is sort of fine, but as soon as additional electronics can make decisions on sterring the plane, you get into dangerous territory, because in a 737, the pilot is under assumption that he is in full control. As soon as the pilot is no longer in full control, you need to have clear rules of engagement what the computer is allowed to do and what not (such as the differenent “laws”in an airbus). The 1960s cockpit of the 737 that a modern 737 Max needs to replicate, prevents this, thus there is a fundamental problem here.

  5. I agree 100% with Ralph Nader, recall the aircraft and hold Boeing accountable to both the families of passengers and the pilots who’s jobs have been cut back. MCAS should not exist on an aircraft, if software is needed to keep the aircraft stable in flight, then crappy engineering is the problem. MCAS is nothing but a big band-aid to cover up slam dunking it out of the factory and into the hands of the airlines to keep up with Airbus. As we all can see, Airbus gave their engineers time to develop the NEO, and the a320 family has been a success. In this industry, stockholders and executive bonus checks are not the priority, safety is.

    1. Then watch him bailout boeing out with socialist money.When capitalism fails socialism is there to pay the debt.
      Without taxpayer bailouts the banks and boeing would be no more.

    2. @Charleston Pinto uh huh. I also understand the jaded individuals who hold President Trump as some sort of saviour. Pretty scarey stuff.

  6. When they moved their headquarter from Seattle to Chicago just to save $700 in tax incentives per year. That was the turning point.

    1. isn’t that most large corporations these days? there’s way too many levels of management for the boards to have any real idea of what’s going on beyond the numbers. and these board members just float from one large corp to another unscathed. a clueless class that thinks theyre special no doubt

    2. @Calum Tatum Boeing is even more crucial than retailers when it comes to trust. Big box retail is run by bean counters but the consequences aren’t nearly as deadly. Plenty of companies can sell goods, but only so many can build commercial airplanes. And similar issues occur with automobiles: those recalls have also been the result of mass killing due to corners being cut, and were also high profile deadly situations.

    3. @ecoRfan effectively those large corps perform a public function (core services as monopolies or duopolies) but run under private profit model. it’s no surprise they lead to public safety issues. Arguably if corps were run as not-for-profit this would eliminate perverse incentives to cut corners. Board and employee salaries could still be quite high but the savings would come from reinvesting any profit back into the business instead of landing in shareholder pockets

    1. Edward Adler I’ve always been a great fan of this company, I was saddened by this. Very surprised at such a errors.

    2. And when ever was Boeing a great company a good company will have a lot of old planes flying how many old plane does Boeing have flying that are the same age as the DC 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Home Privacy Policy Terms Of Use Anti Spam Policy Contact Us Affiliate Disclosure DMCA Earnings Disclaimer

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!On Social Media

Share This

Share this post with your friends!