> Then the projects become more complex, there's less quick wins, and cycles get longer.
The problem with Boeing is mostly a business side one, not an engineering problem. Boeing invested in buy backs instead of creating good products, and that has been its philosophy for a while.
"Since the start of the jet age, Boeing had been less a business and more, as writer Jerry Useem put it in Fortune in 2000, “an association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines.”
"Everything seemed to be changing—the leadership, the culture, even the headquarters, with a move from Seattle to Chicago in 2001."
"Many employees struggled to adjust, or resented what they saw as a changing of the guard, where investors took priority over passengers."
Yes, I agree. But the whole business area has also changed and matured. B737 is 56 years old, but A320 is 38 years so not very new anymore. Certification takes very long nowadays, for any company. So the financialization might not have happened in a vacuum or because of some villain, but motivated by the situation that there was less money to be made with engineering anymore.
The problem with Boeing is mostly a business side one, not an engineering problem. Boeing invested in buy backs instead of creating good products, and that has been its philosophy for a while.
Interesting read: https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg...
"Since the start of the jet age, Boeing had been less a business and more, as writer Jerry Useem put it in Fortune in 2000, “an association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines.”
"Everything seemed to be changing—the leadership, the culture, even the headquarters, with a move from Seattle to Chicago in 2001."
"Many employees struggled to adjust, or resented what they saw as a changing of the guard, where investors took priority over passengers."