I think the point is that "Internet experts" (derogatory) believe they are being knowledgeable and clever when they ascribe any and everything that goes wrong with a Boeing product to McDonnell Douglas.
I believe there's also an element of "MBA bad, engineer good" resentment of management at play.
But the real truth is much more nuanced, no matter how satisfying it is to drop pithy one-liners about the MD merger.
I worked at Boeing. The reason people attribute McDonnell Douglas is because it caused a fundamental shift in leadership expectations.
It was clear as day on the ground that something had switched, suddenly every conversation was about minimizing cost. Every meeting was about maximizing value. Efficiency above safety.
I cannot overemphasize that it really did fundamentally shift the language, the incentives, etc. I started having to prove I needed vms to two different business panels.
Sometimes you are right, the root cause is too simple, but I was there for this one. It really was that simple this time.
I like this: "MBA bad, engineer good". As a joke: If you ask an LLM trained on HN discussions to describe, in its best "cave man speak" how to HN views MBA vs engineer, you will get exactly this phrase.
It is also crazy to me that people speak as if Boeing is "falling apart", but managed to produce many successful models since the MD merger, including the amazing 787.
I believe there's also an element of "MBA bad, engineer good" resentment of management at play.
But the real truth is much more nuanced, no matter how satisfying it is to drop pithy one-liners about the MD merger.