>Your counterargument is there are memes that say Boeing is TBTF, Q.E.D.?
I wasn't making any counterargument.
I can 100% agree with you that TBTF was originally associated with the banking industry but simultaneously show that this isn't the meaning that others are using for Boeing. This seems like an obvious fact from a neutral viewpoint of seeing how language usage evolves (e.g. see the google examples) so not sure why stating it is controversial.
> this isn't the meaning that others are using for Boeing
But that’s why it’s wrong. TBTF only works because financial institutions are built on confidence. You can’t reboot them through bankruptcy.
Boeing can be put into bankruptcy to facilitate reörganisation without causing ripple effects. (Like GM and Chrysler were.) TBTF as a general-purpose meme fundamentally doesn’t work.
As someone who is starting to work on a defense product, I can tell you that defense products are also built on confidence a lot more than you think. You have to make a lot of claims that your users can't test, so they rely on things like being able to audit your code and testing processes and/or your reputation. You also have to be able to make promises that your products and support (or something compatible) are going to be around for 10+ years.
Boeing has already lost some of this trust with the issues in the consumer aviation sector, but the space and defense side of Boeing is still going strong. A bankruptcy could risk Boeing's space and defense lines.
One big fault here is with Boeing's board. Boards are supposed to control the short-term greed of executives and protect stock value. Boeing's board should do a prophylactic firing of the C-suite (replace the CEO with someone who will fire the rest), putting the engineers back in charge, but I doubt they will do that.
Yes, all commerce involves confidence. The difference with banks is both sides of their balance sheet are not only entirely confidence based, they’re leveraged to the hilt on it.
Boeing can lose and re-gain confidence. (Albeit, at great risk.) A bank can’t; if it ever loses it, even momentarily, it fails. That is a dynamic that has increased as our world grew more interconnected, a dynamic we failed to fully appreciate until ‘08.
> bankruptcy could risk Boeing's space and defense lines
How? Worst case, guarantee BDS’s obligations as part of the bankruptcy.
Put another way: does restructuring threaten their defence line more than the status quo? I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s a valid question. (I’m familiar with their space lone and am halfway to writing it off.)
> big fault here is with Boeing's board
Totally agree. They seem clueless, more afraid of the bark than the bite.
> Yes, all commerce involves confidence. The difference with banks is both sides of their balance sheet are not only entirely confidence based, they’re leveraged to the hilt on it.
I'll give you that defense is not in the same league as banking if you'll give me that defense is not in the same league as SaaS (even enterprise/F500 SaaS). By the way, defense companies do get a lot of leverage based on their federal contracting lines. It's 2024, a bank can get you leverage on a ham sandwich, and companies are usually pretty big users of it (they are encouraged to be).
> Put another way: does restructuring threaten their defence line more than the status quo? I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s a valid question. (I’m familiar with their space lone and am halfway to writing it off.)
Yes. Defense contracts in general cannot be awarded to firms in bankruptcy or that have been in bankruptcy in the last 5-10 years. That is because financial solvency threatens acquisition timelines, and in a bankruptcy, anything can happen.
That's a rule, not a law, and I am not sure about how exceptions are made. And existing contracts will be fine, but new contracts will just not be awarded.
>Boeing has already lost some of this trust with the issues in the consumer aviation sector, but the space and defense side of Boeing is still going strong.
Going so strong that:
* The USAF really hates Boeing for pulling some Serious Legal Assfuckery(tm) to drop Airbus for the tanker program, only to then fail to provide tankers that can pump gas.
* They've failed to secure all but one fighter program sale, and that was only because Lockheed Martin (F-35) succeeded so hard they couldn't succeed any harder.
* They were laughed out of the bomber program, especially after the tanker failures.
* They keep crashing V-21 Ospreys, their most recent episode resulting in nationwide groundings in the US and Japan that were only recently cleared.
* The Starliner is increasingly looking unfit for human occupation.
The only reason Boeing is relevant in space and defense anymore is sheer inertia.
I wasn't making any counterargument.
I can 100% agree with you that TBTF was originally associated with the banking industry but simultaneously show that this isn't the meaning that others are using for Boeing. This seems like an obvious fact from a neutral viewpoint of seeing how language usage evolves (e.g. see the google examples) so not sure why stating it is controversial.