Boeing admits 787 strategy flawed

Big John writes:

Why?

Because the places where things are made are being chosen to please potential
customers rather than as a function of technical competence and excellence.
You end up with substandard components from some Third-World dump in exchange
for a few extra contracts. You sell more planes, but they are less safe.

Have you any evidence to support the contention Boeng has compromised
safety by outsourcing?

On Nov 9, 6:47 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Big John writes:
Why?

Because the places where things are made are being chosen to please potential
customers rather than as a function of technical competence and excellence.
You end up with substandard components from some Third-World dump in exchange
for a few extra contracts. You sell more planes, but they are less safe.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Big John writes:

Why?

Because the places where things are made are being chosen to please
potential customers rather than as a function of technical competence
and excellence. You end up with substandard components from some
Third-World dump in exchange for a few extra contracts. You sell more
planes, but they are less safe.


Wrong again, fjukktard


Bertie

Tina writes:

Have you any evidence to support the contention Boeng has compromised
safety by outsourcing?

No, but given the extremely poor record of outsourcing for political ends, I
fear the evidence may not be long in coming.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Tina writes:

Have you any evidence to support the contention Boeng has compromised
safety by outsourcing?

No, but given the extremely poor record of outsourcing for political
ends, I fear the evidence may not be long in coming.


Comparing manufactue of rubber ducks to aircraft parts?

You are an idiot.


Bertie

So once again you make statements with no factual support. I wonder,
do you on purpose do that? It seems unlikely your error or mistatement
rate is so high rate is as high as it is by chance.

On Nov 9, 10:58 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Tina writes:
Have you any evidence to support the contention Boeng has compromised
safety by outsourcing?

No, but given the extremely poor record of outsourcing for political ends, I
fear the evidence may not be long in coming.

On Nov 7, 8:05 am, wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:26 am, GB wrote:



wrote in news:1194410084.411339.86030
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

I'm doing nothing of the sort, neither whining nor complaining.

OK, maybe those words mean something different where you come
from. What do you call "whining and complaining" in your parts?

I don't work for Boeing anymore, and am only offering observations
on what is going on there.

So, I was right on that point.

You are offering up nothing but a bunch of psychobabble pablum that
you are regurgitating from the lame management classes that you took.

An interesting interpretation, but not an accurate one.

The "who moved my cheese" crap is just a poor way of trying to soft
sell layoffs and job cuts rather than just being honest with people.

Ah, I see, you must be American. I shall in future, for the benefit
of you and your ilk, raise my right hand in the air when I am being
facetious, sarcastic, ironic or otherwise taking the ****. I hope
that makes it easier for you.

The problem with the latest crop of US management is that they are a
bunch of imagination deficient clones of the paradigm du jour that is
being peddled in college business schools.

No, that's absolutely not the case. In fact, we spend a lot of time
in manglement school looking at the "latest crop of US management",
observing what a bunch of useless fvcktards they are, and figuring out
how to send our *next* batch of graduates out to clean up the messes
the current twits have made.

If you really want a
dynamic workforce, you need to learn how to truly motivate people and
stop treating them like expenses that need to be controlled, which
seems to be the current philosophy.

That's what was taught in manglement school twenty years ago, yes.
Things have moved on just a little bit since then. Now we teach our
students how to truly motivate people rather than treating them like
expenses that need to be controlled.

I find it particularly interesting that you assume that the things
that sixty and seventy year old people with no formal business education
are doing what we teach in manglement school now. The real problem, I
guess, with being as uninformed as you clearly are is that you end up
making a right goose of yourself, running about with your foot in your
mouth all the time.

Managers tend to be way overpaid
for what they do, while individual contributors who make things happen
are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the corporate pie.

I recognise that, it's bitterness. Common amongst people who can't
cope with change.

One of the latest favorite corporate fads is to use forced ranking so
that you always have a bottom dwelling person in the rankings who will
lose their job unless they "improve", regardless of how well they
actually are doing their job.

You know, you should take a very close look at the employment contracts
you've signed. If you keep making statements like this, one ex employer
or another is going to wise up to the time machine you've got in your
basement and they're going to demand you hand it over.

Its all relative to their peers, and
the difference can be slight (HP, GE, etc). Often it becomes
impossible for them to improve their status, so they get shoved out
the door and the corporation winds up wasting money on recruiting a
replacement, workforce training, etc. etc. This technique creates an
environment of political maneuvering, backbiting, and discourages team
efforts.

More uninformed bull****. Maybe this is how things really work in
America. Maybe this is why we spend so much time using American
businesses as examples of what not to do.

I suppose they have been teaching this gem of a management
technique in school lately as well; the Jack Welch school of
management.

You ought to spend less time believing what you read in airport
bookshops too. That's a road to nowhere if I've ever seen one.

No, I'm just glad that I'm an engineer who actually contributes real
goods to the betterment of society,

Ahhh, an engineer with a closed mind. A card carrying member of
the TWU too, I'll bet. That explains a lot!

(I particularly like the bit where you assume that I am not an
engineer!)

and not some parasitic management
type who thinks that they have all the answers and love to lecture on
the crap that they were spoon fed in their "management school".

Actually, *this* is one of the things that we *do* teach in manglement
school: people who can't think outside the box, people who are unable
to consider that there might be more than one true way, people who
are unprepared to play nice with others... those folks are a cancer and
they must go.

Maybe that's why you're not at Boeing any more? Maybe that's why you're
still 'just' an engineer. Maybe you should have paid a little more
attention during the four compulsory business/management units that you
did in your engineering degree? You know there's a reason we make you
do those classes that you perceive as "irrelevant": so you can learn
how the other half works and work with them 'cos if you spend the rest
of your career fighting them, it's gonna be a short career.

Lets see you solve a multi-variable differential equation. No?

I particularly like the bit where you assume that I am not an engineer!

Stick with cheese then...

That one really did sail *right* over your head, didn't it.

One of my very best undergraduate students this semester is an engineer
(well, he will be one soon) doing the compulsory business/management
bits of his engineering degree. He sits up the front of my manglement
classes and makes reasoned contributions on all sorts of "bull****"
like personality and "irrelevant" corporate cultures and "useless"
practices like recognising that different types of people are
motivated in different ways and "crap" like dismantling deep corporate
hierarchies to remove layers of management and get the people who do
the work closer to the people who make the decisions. He's better at
it than most of the pure business students. He'll become an excellent
engineer, and his with ability to keep an open mind and to look at
situations from multiple points of view and act appropriately will make
him eminently promotable. You should keep an eye out for him, he's
likely to end up being your boss pretty quickly.

Best of luck with those multi-variable differential equations. The
world around you has changed, but the equations are still the same
as you rote-learned in 'college'. It's your closed mind that's holding
you back.

GB
--
.sig

LOL! Man, you really think you really must have a weak ego to feel
the need to post a message like that on usenet proclaiming your
superiority, to make erroneous assumptions about who you are talking
to, and to try to criticize based on zero information. You are WAY
off the mark.

The fact that you are touting "who moved my cheese" tells me you don't
really grasp what management is all about.

I have wasted enough time on you, that much is clear.

All anyone needs to know about the lame, patronizing book called "Who
Moved My Cheese":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/DD171846.DTL

"GB" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:1194447919.609818.169120
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
LOL! Man, you really think you really must have a weak ego to feel
the need to post a message like that on usenet proclaiming your
superiority, to make erroneous assumptions about who you are talking
to, and to try to criticize based on zero information. You are WAY
off the mark.

LOL! Man, you really think you really must have a weak ego to feel
the need to post a message like that on usenet proclaiming your
superiority, to make erroneous assumptions about who you are talking
to, and to try to criticize based on zero information. You are WAY
off the mark.

LOL! Man - no matter what you two clowns think, I have a ****ing awesome ego
and I can categorically state that I am far superior in every way
imaginable. I am so ****ing good that I *can* criticise based on no
information, and always end up being correct in my criticism.
Both of you a WAY off the mark.

And one other thing - *I* moved the ****ing cheese. Get over it.
:-)

--
Kwyj.

On 8 Nov, 21:12, "John Ewing" none@needed wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

news
The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
limited
supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the
real
problem.

I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
made".

Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits will
naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little formal education
and zero management training - the "born" category.

There are no traits that separate out 'leaders' from the rest. Of
course those in high up positions and some recruitment people like to
think there are in order that they can select who they like best
(usually some who happens to be just like them..!)

It is mostly luck and who gets the breaks right place and time.
There's a large pool of unexceptional mediocrity to draw from. And
the higher upt you go, the more you end up like a symbolic figure-
head: mostly all you have to do is not say the wrong thing. Yet
people like George Bush somehow slip through the net..




John

wrote:
On 8 Nov, 21:12, "John Ewing" none@needed wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

news
The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
limited
supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the
real
problem.
I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
made".

Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits will
naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little formal education
and zero management training - the "born" category.

There are no traits that separate out 'leaders' from the rest. Of
course those in high up positions and some recruitment people like to
think there are in order that they can select who they like best
(usually some who happens to be just like them..!)

I disagree. People are born with some very distinct personality traits
that are apparent very early. Some traits are more appropriate for
leaders than are others. I believe that some are more suited to
leadership roles due to inherent personality characteristics, but I also
believe that much can be learned over time.

Matt