Are they going with a doubly inapprpriate golden parachute?

No, of course not.

"A" golden parachute, oh no there will be several as well as a quadrupedally stuffed pension scheme and a generous allowance because we all know how difficult it is adjusting after a long period of employment when you only have a few hundred million dollars to fall back on.

If the parachute was made by Boeing then likely not.

[1] embarrassing public disclosures re corporate culture

[2] sack some people

[3] hire some new people from the same corporate culture

[4] carry on as before.

The sad thing though is that somewhere along this path the stock price commonly rockets.

"CEO Dave Calhoun will be stepping down from his role at the end of this year"

So good old dave gets another 9 months of his no doubt mind boggling salary. He should be fired immediately with no renumeration along with the rest of the C suite.

Every single day he's employed brings him about 60K$...

https://www1.salary.com/BOEING-CO-Executive-Salaries.html

OK, so they press the eject button on those three exec roles, but having created a problem by putting bean counting ahead of safety, who do the put in as new CEO? Yep, the bean counter who was made up to COO.

Why is it that McBoeing won't understand despite repeated embarrassments it's about engineering, you idiots . I agree any big business needs a C-suite that does have skilled, competent bean counters, but when your business is engineering, you need engineers to run it.

CEO and Chairman going simultaneously would suggest that it's time to get the kitchen sink out.

I think they would do best to look externally. Because they are absolutely desperate for credibility. Inertia can keep their customers for a bit longer. Airbus simply can't make planes fast enough to take any more of their customers. But if people keep asking, Airbus can expand still further with the promise of covering their next change of fleet. Ryanair, with an all Boeing fleet, already have their own QA inspectors embedded at Boeing factories. That's not a good look. I'm guessing they won't be the only ones. But also those guys will be reporting back to their HQs. There may come a point when they're saying things are still getting worse, not better - and airlines may feel they've no option but to start to change. They can run old fleets for longer, while they wait.

But a CEO and Chairman who stay for a year, can try to get all the troubles out into the public domain in one horrible mess of revelations now - their credibility being already destroyed. So-called "kitchen sinking". Rather than saddling their new hire with having to do all that slowly, over their first couple of years in office, thus making the bad credibility last longer. That's assuming the Boeing board recognise the gravity of the situation, even now.

The old Hemingway quote applies, a character is asked how he went bankrupt, "Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly." You can be "too big to fail" for quite a long time. Right up until the point when you're not.

Boeing are too big to fail, in terms of financially, employment, and defence. They know that there's no way the US government would allow the company to collapse.

I did originally think the misguided move of HQ to Arlington was to get nearer to the FAA and NTSB, but I was wrong, it was of course simply to get nice and near to the Capitol, and all the gladhandlers and influence pedlars who can be bought under America's version of democracy.

Too big to fail lasts until it becomes too big to prop up.

Boeing are too big to fail, in terms of financially, employment, and defence. They know that there's no way the US government would allow the company to collapse.

Certainly Boeing aren't in immediate danger. There's literally no alternative. There are 2 manufacturers of large passenger jets. And both have full order-books.

But the US government don't totally control this process. They can keep giving money to Boeing for military aircraft. But at a certain point that cross-subsidisation no longer helps the civilian side of the company, if they get a reputation for being dangerous.

But worse, it won't take many more scandals for global safety regulation to start to break down. If other countries stop trusting the FAA's safety certification - because Boeing keep getting away with it, then they might refuse to certify new Boeing aircraft. At which point, we're in a whole new ballgame. It'll take a lot for that to happen, but it's not just Boeing's credibility on the line, it's the FAA's and the NTSB's. If they're sacrificed further, to save Boeing, then I think things become increasingly unpredictable. China might decide to refuse to certify new Boeing aircraft, just to create political and trade mischief. Or maybe there'll be a big accident in Europe, and political pressure forces the EASA to act in some way the US don't want them to. This could spark a new outbreak of the old Boeing / Airbus trade-war, which might prop up US sales of Boeing - except if US airlines are scared they can only use them on internal flights.

I don't think this'll happen. I think Beoing will at least improve things a bit, and airlines are going to be a lot more cautious inspecting their new Boeing planes. But I'd say it's a risk now.

"I think they would do best to look externally. Because they are absolutely desperate for credibility. Inertia can keep their customers for a bit longer"

Indeed, and I think that they ought to start recruiting senior executives from the likes of Airbus and Embraer.

>Indeed, and I think that they ought to start recruiting senior executives from the likes of Airbus and Embraer.

They tried to buy Embraer to get some cheap non-union younger dynamic engineers but it got shot down by the monopy authorities

"Ryanair ... already have their own QA inspectors embedded at Boeing factories."

QU inspection of aircraft is probably a chargeable extra on the ticket.

If you want to leave Boeing, the door is always open

If they are properly apologetic the plane will land before they are kicked out.

If I were employed there then I would probably make a bolt for the door.

So it was the Alaskan Airlines blowout that was the watershed moment? Not the 737Max crashes? I suppose they didn't count as they were somewhere foreign, almost entirely out of USian consciousness.

I get the feeling that, as far as Boeing's PR dept are concerned, the "watershed moment" is in a constant state of quantum superposition, with the wave-form re-collapsing every time they have to put out a statement.

Currently, the door plug incident is the watershed moment. Right up until the next incident happens, then that will be the watershed moment.

Didn't he replace the last CEO after the MAX crashes?

He's getting fired to be seen to be doing something about the door plug

At this point you could just wire 'send press release firing the CEO' into the black box

I wonder if we will ever get a definitive answer on the death of Boeing whistle-blower John Barnett

https://www.newsweek.com/john-barnett-boeing-whistleblower-predicted-death-scandal-1879548

It seems that it's already all covered up.

John Oliver's show on 3/3/24 was all about this and was very interesting, despite Boeing essentially taking over McDonnell-Douglas (who were in dire straits because of their own similar issues with failures, even though it was called a merger) the McDonnell-Douglas culture has apparently taken over Boeing and the bean counters have won out over the engineers.