Back to Squawk list
  • 61

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Resigns; David Calhoun Named President and CEO

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has resigned. The company has named David Calhoun president and CEO, and Lawrence Kellner will become chairman of the board, Bloomberg News reports ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

canuck44 29
The MAX is really just the mot obvious of their problems, but they have problems with their military contract, they have no 757 replacement on drawing boards, they have no competition with the A-220 program and there are quality issues on the 787.

Really they have manufacturing issues, design failurres and they suffer from policy mistakes. It will take more than rearranging the proverbial deck chairs.
Greg S 2
"...It will take more than rearranging the proverbial deck chairs."

How about rotating the bald tires? Will that work ;)
Steve Cutchen 0
"...It will take more than rearranging the proverbial deck chairs."

"How about rotating the bald tires? Will that work ;)"

Swapping the blown fuses?
They've had issues from as long as the 767's hayday, I believe, but, I'd rather fly an Airbus over a Boeing.
pilotjag 10
NY Times says he was fired...
He was told to resign so he can keep all his bonuses and stock options.
Jim Davis 1
racerxx 12
About damn time. Even though things can get very shaky now. Hoping for a better 2020
But the MSN article showed he resigned.
Greg S 2
Yes, he was allowed to resign instead of being fired. If he didn't resign he was going to be fired.
Calhoun is a finance guy - the problems will continue to persist at Boeing. There basically is no change in management.
Greg S 0
You can't fire the owners of the company.
James Willich 2
GE doesn't own Boeing. They have infected the upper management, but they don't own the place.
Greg S 2
The Board of Directors, including the Chairman, represents the owners.
Steve Kramer 1
Poorly represent the owners...
Frank Harvey 12
Am I correct in interpreting their CVs that both Calhoun and Kellner have more of a Financial background than an Engineering one ?
Philip Lanum 4
This has been the way things are done, ever since Boeing and McDuck Merged. (Read McDuck took over) When Condit and Mulally out of the way, Stonecipher and his ilk took over and drove Boeing down the toilet just like they did McDuck. No engineers in upper-upper management, only GE warm over beancounters.
Matt West 11
That is how I read it. Essentially, they’re placing more bean counters in control who will, I’m sure, continue to place profit before quality.

That said, sometimes just new blood is enough to refresh a corporates focus, much as the military replaces commanders every two or so years for new ideas.

The new CEO has a lot of mess to clear up besides the Max issues. The KC46 issue needs to be fixed ASAP, along with lingering concerns about the 787 quality.

As one of our nations foremost organizations we can’t afford for them to fail. And, less anyone bash me for allegiance to Boeing, I’m a fan of Airbus’ products too.
Frank Harvey 25
Hi Matt

Thanks for the response.

The possibility that these are "bean counters" is how I read this move.

As an outsider to Boeing I don't have direct personal observations to go on but from various reports there appears to be a sloppiness in several areas of Boeing's organization. This physical sloppiness is sometimes associated with an enterprise in which "bean counters" put profit above all else.

No proud engineer leaves tools and trash in a finished product. People I worked with would check their tool bag and we would sweep up at the end of the shift. We'd be ashamed if one of our team left his trash behind. The stores clerks used to check that all the issued company tools were returned. So no tools, no trash left behind.

There have been reports that there was knowledge within Boeing the MCAS system was flawed as early as November 2017 but that Boeing would address the flaws in the next update of the software. However even after the second crash there does not appear to have been any urgency within Boeing to do so. (And it doesn't even seem to be just a software issue). A proud company would have started working on a fix once they identified there was a problem. If they were actually working on a fix Boeing should have immediately publicised they were working on this, especially the single AOA input, particularly since the AOA was immediately considered implicated after the first crash. Instead there seems to have been hubris. The attitude seemed to be that it was a foreign operator/pilot/mechanic not anything to do with Boeing itself that was completely at fault.

So far I haven't seen much concern about the ISS supply capsule failure. Instead representatives in the news reports seem to almost be boastful about the fact that it managed to land in one piece. They minimize the fact that the mission failed. The Russians have been successfully landing manned capsules since the 1950s. So there's nothing to be proud about Boeing managing to do it seventy years later. One report implied "only" a timer failed but everything else "worked perfectly". Max 737s also seem to work perfectly unless the port AOA indicator breaks. A truly proud representative would have been ashamed that something as mundane as a "timer" would have let down everything else.

As you said, Boeing is a critically important organization, especially to the military. It can't afford to accept sloppiness, the hubris of "well everything else worked", "its only foreigners, not us" and "its OK to leave tools and trash in the workspace at the end of a shift".

Hopefully the new executives can get the workforce to recognize this.

Philip Lanum 4
The capsule issue was a Boeing software sync problem. The clock on the capsule was not able - or mistakenly - did not sync with the clock on the booster.

Boeing software strikes again. Pretty pathetic that they do not know how to sync a clock.
Matt West 1
Frank, I appreciate your excellent and detailed response. I agree completely with your points and appreciate the opportunity to hear them.

Best wishes, and Merry Christmas!

Absolutely !!!
James Willich 6
Meh. Calhoun is a finance guy from GE. The cancerous GE infection at Boeing continues...
Frank Harvey 14
And look what has happened to GE stock value. You rip the guts out of a competent, experienced engineering company with cost cutting after cost cutting, cheapen and destroy the workforce but increase the profits, walk away with tens of millions and a million dollar a year pension, and watch the company fold when the results of your elimination of the morale and experience starts to show up in the final product.
Mike Laird 5
I agree - too many corporate leaders focus on "shareholder value" instead of what actually creates that value, which is satisfied customers and dedicated employees. If you treat your customers only as a source of revenue, and your employees only as a cost center, you may maximize profit for a year or two, perhaps longer with a product like aircraft with such a long pipeline from development to production. But eventually, your incorrect focus will shine through in shoddy workmanship, lack of innovation, and disgruntled customers. That will kill the shareholder value you were supposedly focused on.
alex hidveghy 3
I believe it was the entrepreneur and airline CEO Sir Richard Branson who once wrote That it takes years to build a company’s reputation but only hours to totally destroy it. Do bean counters ever read books like this, personal stories of success and how to overcome adversity with case studies? I’d
Ike to bet no.
Anyone who bets "Yes" is likely named Pollyanna.
jcw1953 5
A person as CEO of Boeing with no aviation background , is like hiring an electrician to run a bakery.
ian mcdonell 13
Only surprise is how long it took
Walt Stoufer 8
Too "many nose in the air" MBA types chasing cost control while relying on third tier capability engineers job shopping under contract offshore.
jcw1953 4
I take full responsibility but not the blame. Let me explain the difference. Those who are to blame loose their jobs, those who are responsible do not.
(Satire only)
I find it hard to believe that corporate structure allows for top level executives to receive the exorbitant amount in wages and benefits granted to them. Its no wonder at all to conceive how and why the ambitious over paid, corporate zealots at Boeing couldn't care less about their products quality. Like many other corporations they have obviously attempted to eliminate the waste then cut the cost of manufacturing a high quality aircraft from the wrong end of the corporate structure.
Ron Becker 7
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10
ThePumpkin 3
Bingo! Says it all.
Does anybody know anything about the size of the golden parachute?
That’s what The Guardian has on this:

Still, Muilenburg, 55, is in line to receive $26.5m in cash and stock as part of his exit package.

His payout could reach as high as $58.5m, depending on how it is structured, according to an SEC filing, including a pension of $807,000 annually and Boeing stock worth another $13.3m.
Ric Wernicke 6
He was paid 23 Million last year. Doubt he need a golden parachute. I doubt he will collect the $413/wk unemployment either.
Isn’t a automatic golden parachute built in the contracts for people in his position?
airuphere 2
Can be but lost of CEOs take their parachute or pensions upfront and mange it them selves - adding it to their salary. As they know, as we should, that keeping a pension fund alive for the next 100 years isn’t likely, cash out while you can ;)
Tom Bruce 1
think he got $37 million?? what I heard
Ray Rousseau 5
KARMA, Boing has not pass the eye of the storm yet.
Greg77FA 3
Way overdue. The Board was asleep at the wheel on this one, and it will cost the company severely. Unfortunately, its always the lower man on the totem pole who will suffer at the incompetence at the top.
alex hidveghy 1
Yes, sounds like he was trying to put lipstick on a pig and not addressing the real problems Boeing had! That’s why he had to go. Enough is enough.
My apologies for 3 comments, There are over 1300 E series Embraer jets in service, verses 100 plus c-series in service and 400 odd orders, they will never catch up to Embraer - before something new come along. Boeing clearly screwed up years before the max, by not making a smaller 57 to cover the awful 37, 900 and eventual 37-10. Pilots hate them and passengers endure them, on the other side of this, Airbus single aisle aircraft are all more comfortable at every seat.
Chris B 3
CNBC says he was fired.
sgillies 3
There was really no choice here, its about time Mr Muilenburg was removed. I believe David Calhoun is an former GE engines division president. I am hopeful with his Pedigree he has real potential, Six Sigma LEAN and EHS background that will being the right attitudes to the manufacturing process and the understanding that the time to act is now.

Boeing is not up against another manufacturer, they are up against the EU government backed manufacturer who can absorb giant mistakes like the A380- and just keep right on going. Instead of capturing a real opportunity, Boeing is on its heals. Gods Speed Mr Calhoun- get in there and fight.
Tim Segulin 6
Airbus may be backed by the EU but Boeing makes big money as a prime US military contractor. They'll be fine. They just need to sort themselves out.
patrick baker 1
expansionsit minded airlines are clearly at fault when they order numbers of airliners without a plan for pilots or mechanics in sufficient numbers and of adequate quality. Any body taking bets the MAx will not enter service even in 2020? could be.... between the airworthiness of the Max and the reemergence of FAA masculinity, it is possible .
Greg S 0
There's an outside chance the MAX will simply be found not airworthy. The most likely bad news for Boeing is that it's approved with the MCAS changes but it requires unique training, an existing 737 type rating is not enough.

I assume if you rip the new engines off the plane and replace them with CFM56s then you have a 737NG? Anybody confirm?
covering the CRJ700 thru Airbus 318
Justthefacs 1
Book keepers in charge. Save your way to disaster. In breeding in the C Suite will destroy a company. 757 basic design was tailor made for the 737 Max. Higher clearance like the Airbus. Lack of competition leads to sloppy management.
Bryan Morgan 1
Just disable the Mcas and put the air craft back in the air. Damn what a bunch of idiots
Boeing has gotten to large they are no longer the leader they once were it has been all about share price ,they have forgotten how they were successful " building the best in the world "
they own the market share in the A-220 range with 80% of Embraer

Boeing Brasil–Commercial is a proposed joint venture between Boeing and Embraer to design, build, and sell commercial airliners worldwide. The partnership was established on February 26, 2019, after Boeing agreed to purchase an 80% stake in Embraer's commercial ... Boeing will control the new company, managed from Brazil and reporting to ...
boughbw 2
While Embraer had been eating Bombardier's lunch for a couple decades now, the A220 changed all that. Integration with the rest of Airbus' fleet in selling the line gives Airbus a huge advantage in hawking the A220. Airlines that fly that A32X are now more likely to buy the A220 rather than anything Airbus offers as it helps pilots transition from regional carriers to mainline as their careers advance. In turn, that makes the A320 more attractive still than the 737 in mixed fleets (see: American, Delta, United).

Boeing has its work cut-out for it. Too bad they cancelled the 717 - another iteration of that incredible jet would have killed Bombardier and pre-empted the need to buy Embraer. Just as a new iteration of the 757 would have pre-empted the long-range A321.

It sounds like the NMA Boeing is planning is being held up by serious issues with designing an engine to perform as needed for the system to work. Perhaps now is not the time to push the envelope on engineering -- keep it simple and deliver a product that surpasses the A321 with existing technologies and move beyond the MAX fiasco. It should be something that at the very least serves as a Plan B for what happens if the MAX encounters more issues.
boughbw 1
There is an error (usually I get at least two): "than anything Airbus" should be "than anything Boeing" ... apologies for any confusion I may have caused.
charlie lange 1
William Boeing, Bill Allen, and Tex Johnson are spinning out of control in their graves...
patrick baker -1
don't put bloomberg articles up when what happens is a cut-off of access due to too many views. If bloomberg wants to have the class of readers that populate this web site, then they ought to stop the silliness and grant access to every article from their service. bad policy from bloomberg
It's a good strategy. Journalists who do really good work have to put bread on the table at the end of the day. Ad blocking is a serious problem for major sites.
Miguel Otero 0
The reality is BOEING wants to move their entire operations OUT of the USA northwest aka Washington for many reasons including Obama interference back in 2011. Boeing bitterness is more political than ingenuity.
Ric Wernicke -3
Maybe now they can move HQ back to Washington and walk through the factory to make sure they are following rule #1. Build the Airplane.

Boeing should push operators to provide more training in 3 axis sims and not only to learn to fly the airplane, but to work as a team in the cockpit. Pilots also need more experience. They should specify in the manual that pilots need 3,000 hours in large aircraft to qualify to sit in the right seat, and an additional 3,000 hours in the right seat to qualify for the left seat. I have spoken.
Frank Harvey 6
Hi Ric,

Where does an average financially-solvent 737 operator anywhere in the world find starting FOs with 3,000 hours in "large" a/c, let alone 6,000 hours minimum for Captains ? Apart from in the military, and the very wealthy, how can an average person accumulate 3,000 right seat hours in "large" a/c before they can be hired as an FO ?
airuphere 4
Not 3000 but more than 250 and 800 in Ethiopian and Lions case.
alex hidveghy 3
What you propose is impractical for almost any airline. I know because I’ve been there and know a thing or two about experience and hiring trends in both the US and overseas.
Mike Dryden 1
That’s ultimately counterproductive to the manufacturers, so they won’t do it. They could easily mandate minimum standards before sale. But that costs money in auditing and lost sales to those who don’t measure up. Corruption is rife in some parts (and probably more than we might like to think), so relying on regulators isn’t reliable, and that doesn’t count the regulators that have had their funding steadily rolled back to the point of ineffectiveness.

The others have addressed the practicality of finding flight crews with enough experience to keep the routes crewed. I’m guessing it would put downward pressure on regional crews as they’d be forced to stay longer before moving to the mainlines. That probably won’t help the industry as a whole.
alex hidveghy 3
In many countries outside the US, that’s not how they hire at all. They do not have a ready made flow through from regional to mainline or legacy carriers. They take a much wider perspective of ex-military, self-funded-0, ab initio , air taxi and LCC pilots. Plus rigorous hiring interviews. Many don’t get in until their third or fourth attempts!
Also, you don’t need buddies on the inside to vouch for you. All comers are treated equally but to the same high standard. Note, I’m not referring specifically to African or Asian airlines but E.U. ones. That being said, Ethiopian is probably the best African airline in terms of training, routes and prestige. And they have many foreign contract pilots flying for them, including American ones.....
Mike Dryden 1
Agreed. I was tailoring my post to an American-centric audience, which the OP appears to be.
They could easily mandate minimum standards before sale...

What is your plan for the used market? And leased leased airplanes?
ADXbear 0
I see little faith in a new finger in the dike.. the dam is leaking everywhere.. its all be said below..
In the end the U. S. government will bail Boing out. Taking care of corporations is top priority here.
alex hidveghy 1
Yes, boing, boing, gone.....
Philip Lanum 1
Except that Boeing's main production plants are in Washington State. One of the blue states that the current administration is trying to kill off industrialization in. Boeing will not be bailed out because Lockheed, Northrup Grumman and even Airbus have facilities in states (other than California) to manufacture airframes. Pretty soon, only Airbus will be left in the commercial airframe business in the west.
Boeing better update the MAX's MCAS or else, I will never fly again in my life.
bill chastain 0
i almost died in a BA airbus 320 uncommanded roll which caused a loss of control (flat spin) at 13,000 AGL departing from syria. thankfully, the aircraft self-corrected at ~1200 ft and didn't breakup. a few months later, one actually crashed near abu dhabi, same scenario. i understand the software has much improved since then.
bill chastain 2
january '99 was when this incident took place....i'm not giving anyone a "pass", after all airbus has always had problems including the paris airshow when a320 crashed killing everyone PIC, anytime flight controls are under the command of "others", bad things can happen in unexpected scenarios...take the case of the airbus 350 rio-to-paris, a tragedy of human-factors! i can only imagine what the pilots of the two MAX aircraft must have been thinking with unexpected trim going in and not knowing why or how to disable...those boeing-in-charge, including former CEO, who allowed the MAX to be fielded with such a built-in obstacle to safety should be tried for negligent homicide.
bill chastain 1
why did you delete my follow-up comment?


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.