Ryanair’s CEO has some advice for Boeing, and it flies in the face of a lot of the analysis blaming the company’s woes on its shift to a cost-cutting, stock dividend-oriented business. “The best CEOs and owners are the accountants, the people who do the boring, repetitive, day-to-day delivery, and that’s what you need,” Michael O’Leary, a former KPMG accountant, told Bloomberg on Wednesday. “They already design great aircraft—you’ve got to make them, but you’ve got to make them on-time and within budget, and that needs accountants.”
To those who think the company should return to its engineering roots, he said engineers get bogged down in detail and lack the clarity of vision of the money folks. He even offered an analogy to illustrate his point. “It’s like, never put a pilot in charge of an airline,” he said. “They want to buy new shiny toys.” O’Leary, who has led Ryanair for 30 years, said he’s seeing signs of promise as the company goes through a leadership transition from outgoing CEO Dave Calhoun, an accountant, to heir apparent and current COO Stephanie Pope (accountant and MBA). “She’s focused now on getting the head down in Seattle, getting the aircraft delivered,” he said. “We’re seeing optimistic signs.”
MOL is a sharp guy there’s no denying it but there’s just as much blarney behind it I think. Yes, you need to keep your ducks in a row but they need to fly and not be lame ducks. Bring in the boys and girls who build and fly the stuff, listen to them and then find a bean counter who isn’t blindsided by share value and dividends. There was mention of a 6 month turnaround but that may be a tad optimistic. Let the professionals do their job with qualified oversight and the rest will follow.
I completely agree. I was thinking the same thing. We actually need fewer bean counters.
Easy to say, but I’m gonna guess that the number of bean counters who directed a subcontractor to do sub-par work is about zero.
I know many brilliant engineers; most of them would fail at running a large corporation. And by “most”, I mean all.
Maybe, but I’ve seen bean counters run a company into the ground trying to cut costs with no idea what it takes to manufacture a product.
It will take someone with an eye for costs as well as an understanding of engineering, manufacturing, and who can withstand a barrage of complaints from Wall Street. Likely not easily found today.
Unbelievable. This is just stunning. The cannibal’s are now chasing themselves. No worries. This all is just transitory.🤦♂️
What they NEED is another Howard Hughes or Clarence “Kelly” Johnson. What they do NOT need is another Boss Babe who doesn’t know which end of an airplane goes first.
Exactly. I think Mr. O’Leary is falsely trying to compare the manufacturing of aircraft with the production of dog food dispensers as seen on his beloved shark tank.
J.R. … you’re confusing Michael O’Leary of RyanAir with Kevin O’Leary of Shark Tank fame …
Thanks Larry.
What they need is Elon Musk to buy Boeing and turn it into a Tesla or SpaceX.
Or just “X”?
Name change…. PlaneX
Having recently seen a CyberTruck up close and had a chance to witness how bad the fit & finish is… no thanks.
Don’t discount Stephanie Pope. She has done extremely well in all the areas she has overseen, and she didn’t bring a bean counter approach to the business. As the saying goes, don’t judge a book by its cover.
If she knows how to delegate to people who understand the issues and can act effectively on same, and surrounds herself with people who care about more than the bottom line, she would be in a position to do a good job. Time will tell.
What you need is a person who understands both ends of the business and is willing to listen to both ends. You need to listen to the people on the ground floor. You also need to listen to the shareholders. A good product, or, service must come first before profit. Profit always follows when the later is achieved. Any uneven balance of favoring profit over product is a recipe for disaster. It’s the physics of business. You cant cheat it in the long term.
Wait a doggone minute. Companies have distinct CEO, CFO and COO positions/functions for a reason. Simplistically interpreting MOL’s comment, Boeing would be combining two of those positions. Just yesterday, I read an article which blamed Boeing’s woes on stock buybacks and ‘shareholder value’ based actions worth $60B. We’re dealing with airplanes here — requiring 100% safety ergo perfection when the machines are designed, built and delivered — so how is being run by a financial guru gonna make things better?
As James Wills and raytoews point out — above — what Boeing needs is a CEO with vision and leadership skills and the ‘moxy’ to pull it all together … NOT a slick politician being paid big bucks while delivering little of value other than sitting at the front of the train. Referencing Elon IS a great idea IMHO. Look at what the guy has done since parlaying the $100M he made in 2002 selling PayPal. That’s just 22 years ago! Today, he’s worth ~$175B while founding SpaceX, Tesla and even — maybe — squandering $26B on X. That’s 1750 times larger net worth! He made money but more importantly, founded two + major Companies in the process. I’m not espousing he buy Boeing BUT … merely suggesting that is the type of person Boeing needs leading it right now. Leadership ability is a very indefinite and hard to define personal skill that some people have and most don’t.
Even when I was in the USAF and working w/ all the major contractor companies, Boeing had issues. And that was a long time ago. It hasn’t gotten better … it’s gotten worse as time moved forward. One or two problems are normal; Boeing seems to be falling on its ‘sword’ at every turn lately. I know nothing of Stephanie Pope but that probably means she’s NOT the right person to do anything but guide things while Boeing looks for that ‘magic’ person who will lead Boeing out of the proverbial wilderness. I wish them luck.
I’ve seen far more accountants get “bogged down in the details” than engineers. Leadership isn’t defined by academic degree, it’s defined by clarity of vision for the organization as a whole and the ability to keep everyone in the organization focused on achieving that goal.
Oh yes, a CEO who is another woke bean counter with zero experience designing, engineering, manufacturing, flying or operating aircraft. That will surely be the solution. No wonder that most aviation innovation comes from the homebuilt arena, smart people who make and fly their own aircraft.
If you want anyone to take you seriously, drop the “woke” bullshit. You clearly don’t know what that dogwhistle term means and how stupid it makes you look.
While I’m here, aircraft manufacturers don’t look toward homebuilding for innovation.
Agree.
Ummm…. If promoting someone who holds no pilot’s license or a degree in aerospace engineering or manufacturing as the COO of Boeing isn’t a woke maneuver in order to check a few DEI boxes, then what is it?
As for your comment “aircraft manufacturers don’t look toward homebuilding for innovation”. Please try sharing this narrow-minded opinion with Dale and Alan Klapmeier or Lance Neibauer and wait for laughs.
Cheers and Happy Flying.
Exactly, Mr. Kent Misegades.
Boeing needs leadership, not more bean counters. They also need a new board of directors.
They absolutely need a new BOD. Swapping in another CFO/CEO who will be governed by the same BOD is not going to fix things.
The list of companies that have been flown into the ground by accountants is long and storied.
“They already design great aircraft—you’ve got to make them, but you’ve got to make them on-time and within budget, and that needs accountants.”
Says an accountant, who apparently knows nothing about engineering. “Fast, Cheap, Good; pick 2”, and he picks “Fast and Cheap”.
Several weeks ago I deemed it illegal to use the term “bean counters” when referencing Boeing and their ongoing difficulties. Spell check will help you if you don’t know how to spell accountant. “Bean counters” needs to go in the same garbage bin with “last call”, “any traffic in the area please advise”, “any landing you can……….”, etc. Help me Obi-Wan!
Sorry … Russ didn’t go away and place you in charge, Robert. Further, “bean counter” IS a popular euphemism:
Bean Counter: “A disparaging term for an accountant, or anyone excessively concerned with statistical records or accounts.”
Yes, someone with a CFO background or preferably an engineering background as James Wells suggested above.
Anyone see the John Oliver’s explanation of Boeing on Youtube?
Youtube: https://youtu.be/Q8oCilY4szc?si=g3LEqTdrpwXNwexw
The demise of a technology company is pretty much guaranteed when the accountants start calling all the shots.
Boeing needs more accountants like Custer needed more Indians.
Exactly.
When I was in college many years ago one of the things I learned was no matter what class I was in, the professor always claimed that his field was the most important. My conclusion was that the person who best mastered all of them and then gained the wisdom to know which was the best guidance in the current time and situation was the one most likely to succeed. I would call such people generalists, and those more narrowly inclined to be specialists. Stephanie Pope may or may not be one of those people, and any person from any discipline may also be. I hope Boeing can find such a person before it is too late. The current board would surely not have allowed Boeing to bet the company on the B-17 or the 747. Can anyone explain to me why the company didn’t just start up the 757 line again instead of trying to turn the 737 into something it was not?
Southwest Airlines.
Very good point.
Until they get the folks actually building the aircraft (q.v. IAM) to buy into the culture necessary to put them together per the drawings and follow the processes, it won’t matter how many Board members are swapped out. Yes, there are schedules and budgets that have to be monitored, but the best folks doing that ALWAYS built in some fudge factors for the inevitable delivery challenges. Engineers do that too with their margins of safety and redundancy. Give the assembly line the guidance and motivation to do what’s right while holding them accountable. Then get out of their way and see what great things happen.
Nothing against Ms Pope but, this is coming from another bean counter who tried to get the FAA to approve putting passengers in a stand up position in the cabin so he could get more passengers onboard. All he seems to be concerned with is how many passengers he can get onboard, comfort and safety be damned. Until a new board of directors is elected/selected nothing will change at Boeing. All it would take is for the FAA to refuse to certify any more planes off the production line then maybe Boeing will get off its backside and make the needed changes.
Just another cupcake…
An accountant is fine, but far too many of the accounants are of the bean counting “knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing” variety. If an accountant is to run Boeing well, they also must undestand value, not just cost.
To everyone here still reading … I found THE best article defining what happened at Boeing and — obviously — what it’ll take to repair things. I didn’t realize that so many recent heads of Boeing came up via GE, either. It opines that one word could define their decline … “outsourcing.”
Spend the time to read:
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/boeing-corporate-america-manufacturing/678137/
Accountants should absolutely be part of the team. In charge?
Maybe not. Read “The Reckoning” by Halberstam. Ford, and others, did not fare well with Bean counters at the helm.
Don’t fear the accountants, fear the MBAs. That includes engineers and accountants with MBAs. I worked 35 years as an engineer in R&D. Accountants would listen to well reasoned arguments, the MBAs – never. I’m sure there are some great MBAs, I was just never lucky enough to work with any.
I saw a great computer company, founded by very smart engineers/inventors , ruined by bean counters who focused on books and not the product. The world of computers went small while this company went ever larger in machine size and speed. Poof! Maker of the fastest machines from 1965 to late 1980s was divided up into separate companies, of which none remain to my knowledge. I used all of their products, 1967 to 1995 and was an application software supplier to them and some of their customers.
WRT Boeing: A quality product flows from attention to detail in design and manufacturing, not attention to accounting. Boeing bean counters in the “C” suites are reported to have emphasized quantity and quality suffered. Want more income ? Sell more product, don’t cut corners. The MAX MCAS was reportedly there due to a sales pitch that said “no retraining” required to fly the MAX. How did that work out ? I understand Spirit Aerosystems was pushed to make hulls quicker, and quality suffered- witness bad rivet-driving the leading to the door plug fiasco, which Spirit personnel were supposed to fix – but at least 3 parties should have noticed that the retaining bolts were missing: those who were to install them, those who were to inspect same, those who reinstalled the interior panels over the plug. Sounds like a bad case of “not my job”.
Picture Boeing’s reorganization as a nutcracker, focused on cracking open the top walnut (upper management) while completely ignoring the bottom one (production line workers). Both walnuts, however, desperately need a good squeeze.
Absolutely not ma’am! That’s what they have now and they are a mess! While a business degree is necessary, anyone who is an executive, even HR, should have an engineering degree and worked as an engineer before going into business.
This should also be a requirement for the board of directors.
Aerospace is HARD and pure business majors are clueless as to the issues!
O’Leary is trolling again…