zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. tonyar+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-05-27 03:33:34
Not significantly no, it was much more focused on the McDonnell-Douglas reverse acquisition. To summarize: McDonnell-Douglas was failing and bought Boeing with Boeing’s own stock (technically Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas with Boeing stock but in practice McDonnell management assumed control). MD’s executives were Jack Welch protégés and did the same thing to Boeing that happened to GE.
replies(3): >>p_l+Xu >>Animal+1l1 >>Barbin+no3
2. p_l+Xu[view] [source] 2025-05-27 10:50:05
>>tonyar+(OP)
The part that story always stays silent is that Boeing then-CEO was big fan of Welch-ism apparently and oversaw major changes that caused long-term issues

... while new people (albeit not execs) from McDonnell-Douglas were publishing internal memos about how MD has experience on why the actions taken by Boeing (not MD!) CEO will cause problems.

3. Animal+1l1[view] [source] 2025-05-27 17:19:20
>>tonyar+(OP)
So, if MD was failing, who thought it would be a good idea to let the MD execs take over Boeing? Was the board asleep?
replies(1): >>kelsey+Ss2
◧◩
4. kelsey+Ss2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-05-28 06:30:48
>>Animal+1l1
Corporate boards in practice have a long history of being controlled more by management, than the other way around.
5. Barbin+no3[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:06:05
>>tonyar+(OP)
That’s too bad. Very interesting—thank you!
[go to top]