They need to get back to the engineering mindset. This is why I think CEO bonuses on things like EPS are BS. It should be tied to things like engineering, safety, etc.
It should be something that must be returned if there’s a severe fuckup within five years or something. Also they shouldn’t be getting bonuses, they are already massively overpaid.
For most CEO, Bonuses and stock options are the bulk of their pay.
I have no issues with either or even their pay, but I have no issues with regulations around it since they are public companies. I do have issues with a product that should be safe with any bonus tied to profitability. It should be tied to safety.
It doesn’t matter if the CEO was an engineer or not in a previous life. The job of a CEO doesn’t change and he did exactly what he was supposed to do: made shortsighted decisions that maximised profit and took the fall for it when the short-sightedness of those decisions blew up in their faces.
That doesn’t change what I said. He did exactly what all boards expect their CEOs to do nowadays. No board of directors expects their CEO to have actual product knowledge.
It’s some weird rant that Isn’t relevant or accurate. The comment was they need to hire an engineer. That’s what Boeing use to do. That’s what many successful companies do that make products.
Nothing but a scapegoat if they replace him with another accountant instead of an engineer.
They need to get back to the engineering mindset. This is why I think CEO bonuses on things like EPS are BS. It should be tied to things like engineering, safety, etc.
It should be something that must be returned if there’s a severe fuckup within five years or something. Also they shouldn’t be getting bonuses, they are already massively overpaid.
For most CEO, Bonuses and stock options are the bulk of their pay.
I have no issues with either or even their pay, but I have no issues with regulations around it since they are public companies. I do have issues with a product that should be safe with any bonus tied to profitability. It should be tied to safety.
I think they’re more in a “hire a hit man to kill whistleblowers” mindset. Not the sort to suddenly turn about and become engineering do-gooders.
It doesn’t matter if the CEO was an engineer or not in a previous life. The job of a CEO doesn’t change and he did exactly what he was supposed to do: made shortsighted decisions that maximised profit and took the fall for it when the short-sightedness of those decisions blew up in their faces.
Until the merger, Boeing was engineer-driven. They were well known for safety first and design over cost.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/business/boeing-history-of-problems/index.html
There are hundreds of articles on this topic and you rant without knowing the topic.
That doesn’t change what I said. He did exactly what all boards expect their CEOs to do nowadays. No board of directors expects their CEO to have actual product knowledge.
That isn’t true at all. Intel has a history of it, Boeing, Tesla, etc.
Many companies have a history of having a CEO who has product knowledge.
Tesla 🤣
I’m not talking about history. I’m talking about the climate of capitalism in America right now
It’s some weird rant that Isn’t relevant or accurate. The comment was they need to hire an engineer. That’s what Boeing use to do. That’s what many successful companies do that make products.