#(and many airlines or plane manufacturers do have culture of safety) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

perfectirishgifts · 3 years

Text

Best And Worst Brands Of 2020: From TikTok, The NBA, The Home Depot And Chick-fil-A...To Quibi, Facebook And The CDC

New Post has been published on https://perfectirishgifts.com/best-and-worst-brands-of-2020-from-tiktok-the-nba-the-home-depot-and-chick-fil-a-to-quibi-facebook-and-the-cdc/

Best And Worst Brands Of 2020: From TikTok, The NBA, The Home Depot And Chick-fil-A...To Quibi, Facebook And The CDC

This year was unprecedented for so many reasons. For most of us, our heads haven’t stopped spinning since March. For brands, this was a year when many discovered if they really had a purpose that anchored their place in the world and if their actions and experiences backed up their words and promises.

Deciding on brand winners and losers is always a challenge, but this year, I had some of the fiercest debates yet with my 450 Prophet colleagues, as brand performance took on so many more dimensions in 2020.

A number of brands were debated. We discussed the impact that Kobe and LeBron had on the world, while also talking about the Tiger King as the first COVID-19 bingeable show. The team gave a lot of love to the early COVID-19 responders, including Unilever, 3M, P&G, KFC, Chipotle and Ford, while giving equal props to those that took an authentic, purpose-based stand on social justice, such as Nike, The North Face, REI, Ben & Jerry’s, Glossier and J&J. The brands that helped us get through lockdown and changed the way we think of delivered meals and goods, including DoorDash, GrubHub, UberEats, Instacart and, “newcomers” Target and Walmart all received a lot of votes. Similarly, the streamers got a lot of mentions, from Netflix to Hulu to Peacock and Apple TV, as did the connectors in Zoom, WebEx, Teams and the slowly dying Skype.

Our team engaged in some serious conversations about the differences in responses that Uncle Ben’s (now Ben’s Original) versus Aunt Jemima (we are still waiting) took or about how we will collectively sustain the incredible Black Lives Matter momentum. Finally, others wondered what shape Brand USA will take in 2021 and how we will be talking about Pfizer and Moderna a year from now.

So, while dozens stood out, these seven received our highest marks:

Chick-fil-A

Florida, Brooksville, Chick-fil-A, fast food chicken restaurant, drive thru line due to Pandemic.

While COVID-19 crushed the restaurant industry, Chick-fil-A’s immediate response and quick innovations explain why it’s become the world’s third largest and most beloved quick-service restaurant. It endeared itself to its growing number of fans by doubling down on drive-thru speed, including expanded lanes, “face-to-face ordering” and “order ahead pick up.” It is crushing it with their Chick-fil-A One app and enhanced delivery options, accelerating new innovations such as meal kits and their famous sauces in grocery stores…all while still bringing “my pleasure” southern hospitality to life every day to millions.

Clorox

Hand sanitizer and Clorox sanitizing wipes sit on a table at a polling station in Miami, Florida, … [] U.S., on Tuesday, March 17, 2020. Photographer: Jayme Gershen/Bloomberg

While this brand has long soared in our Prophet Brand Relevance Index® it took on an entirely new meaning in the virus-dominated universe of 2020. As consumers clamored for reliable ways to protect their families, the brand gracefully acknowledged supply-chain problems and shortages while becoming indispensable in our lives. With smart partnerships, like United Airlines and the Cleveland Clinic, it’s using its trustworthiness to increase sales and market share.

The Home Depot

TORONTO, April 3, 2020 — People line up with a social distance to enter a Home Depot store in … [] Toronto, Canada, April 3, 2020. (Photo by Zou Zheng/Xinhua via Getty) (Xinhua/Zou Zheng via Getty Images)

This year’s WFH trends helped propel the Home Depot’s business as “Doers Got More Done.” What helped drive and accelerate this is its investment, commitment and leadership. The Home Depot continues to lead the industry in inter-connected digital experiences and e-commerce, customer service, products and pricing. Its commitment to customer and employee safety (and giving back to the community) has been second to none in the retail industry, as has its commitment to professional customers.

TikTok

Photo Illustration by Mateusz Slodkowski/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

While TikTok was in the news for various reasons in 2020, its incredible timing met a moment when many needed ten seconds of relief from the real world. With over 100 million users in the U.S., TikTok has rapidly become part of our cultural lexicon. TikTok’s short-form viral videos, including its dance challenges and Ocean Spray “Dreams” video, took our minds off all things serious. From a niche player to mainstream media, this renegade has become so relevant that other platforms, like Instagram with its “Reels,” are racing to catch up.

The National Basketball Association

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLORIDA – AUGUST 27: The Black Lives Matter logo is seen on an empty court as all … [] NBA playoff games. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

In a year of so many sports disappointments, the league, individual teams and countless players have demonstrated the best reactions to both COVID-19 and Black Lives Matter. With its bubble, the NBA showed a thoughtful, empathic balance between athletic safety and happy fans. With its unapologetic embrace of racial-justice efforts, as expressed on each player’s jersey, it’s using its stage to change the hearts and minds of its strong fanbase.

Zoom

President Barack Obama “crashes” Zoom board meeting for the Greater Chicago Food Depository.

Love it. Hate it. It doesn’t matter. Triple-digit gains prove Zoom found new relevance in wildly diverse audiences, from COVID-19 stranded senior citizens to energetic preschoolers. If you didn’t know what a virtual background was or used the words “you’re on mute, Scott,” you certainly do now. With a ridiculous stock price and valuation, continuous new features and updates through Zapps (a suite of apps integrated into Zoom), as well as fun innovations like video filters, Zoom will continue to be an integral part of our lives for years to come.

Peloton

This workout-from-home brand started the year by offending an entire gender with its tone-deaf holiday ad. (Note to husbands: It’s inadvisable to tell your wife to work out more.) But as gyms around the world shut down, it understood that it had a unique opportunity to make family-room workouts an integral part of people’s health and wellness. With bikes, treadmills and increasingly appealing subscription offers (90 days free for all), Peloton hit on all cylinders in 2020.

And the brands that disappointed us the most:

Uncle Ben’s, Aunt Jemima and Land O’Lakes

LONDON: A customer’s hand taking a packet of Uncle Ben’s rice. The brand is to change the image of a … [] black farmer and could also be forced to change its name, as a reaction to a backlash over racial injustice.

While all of these storied brands announced they were making changes, it took a full-on social uprising for Mars Foods, PepsiCo and Land O’Lakes to address their decades-old history of racist brand imagery. All have done the right things in starting to address the issue. Uncle Ben has given way to Ben’s Original Rice, for example, and Land O’ Lakes has removed the Native American woman from its logo. But none have explained why it took them so long.

Boeing

The Boeing 737 MAX will take another key step in its comeback to commercial travel on December 2, … [] 2020 by attempting to reassure the public with a test flight by American Airlines conducted for the news media.

Even as the nearly two-year grounding of Boeing 737 Max comes to an end and the company moves to again sells its planes, we saw plenty to disappoint us. Not only did the safety oversights and mismanagement result in tragedies in 2018 and 2019, but it also cost as much as $25 billion. And now, it has to sell the canceled planes to airlines at steep discounts, a blow to shareholders and what was once one of the most admired names in U.S. manufacturing. COVID-19 is continuing Boeing’s misery, with global air travel falling 66 percent.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control

CDC Logo

In what should have been the least controversial voice in American public health, CDC leadership allowed politics to drag it away from its central aim. It bumbled COVID-19 testing. Early on, it offered vague and contradictory guidance on masks. And while it certainly isn’t entirely to blame for the epidemic of misinformation sweeping the U.S., it didn’t do enough to stop it.

Facebook

(Photo illustration by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Even in an industry rife with possible villains, Facebook still manages to wind up on the wrong side of history in just about everything. As a repeat offender from our 2018 list, Facebook’s role in misinformation regarding the pandemic, vaccinations and elections continued to make it harder and harder to trust the brand. Adding insult to injury, after dealing with a much deserved summer boycott, Facebook now faces a major lawsuit with the Federal Trade Commission (and 40 states) arguing it’s time to break this company up.

Quibi

People wearing masks walk past an advertisement for Quibi in a subway Station on October 22, 2020 in … [] New York City. On October 21st, Quibi’s founders announced it was shutting down its service after only six months of operation.

It could have sparked a content revolution. But Quibi, specializing in short-form content “chapters” of less than 10 minutes, failed spectacularly. In a world with fewer commuters, the idea just wasn’t compelling. Of the $1.75 billion it raised, it is returning just $350 million to investors. But we do think chief executive Meg Whitman deserves praise for pulling the plug at six months, instead of torturing both investors and the few viewers leveraging its platform.

What do you think of our list? Who would you add? Add your thoughts to the comments below.

Keep your eye out for Prophet‘s Brand Relevance Index – launching early 2021.

From CMO Network in Perfectirishgifts

1 note · View note

deniscollins · 4 years

Text

House Report Condemns Boeing and F.A.A. in 737 Max Disasters

What would you do if previous Boeing employees had identified five broad problems with the MAX’s plane's design, construction and certification. First, the race to compete with the European rival Airbus and its new A320neo led Boeing to make production goals and cost-cutting a higher priority than safety, the Democrats argued. Second, the company made deadly assumptions about software known as MCAS, which was blamed for sending the planes into nose dives. Third, Boeing withheld critical information from the F.A.A. Fourth, the agency’s practice of delegating oversight authority to Boeing employees left it in the dark. And finally, the F.A.A. management sided with Boeing and government experts? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

The two crashes that killed 346 people aboard Boeing’s 737 Max and led to the worldwide grounding of the plane were the “horrific culmination” of engineering flaws, mismanagement and a severe lack of federal oversight, the Democratic majority on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said in a report on Wednesday.

The report, which condemns both Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration for safety failures, concludes an 18-month investigation based on interviews with two dozen Boeing and agency employees and an estimated 600,000 pages of records. The report argues that Boeing emphasized profits over safety and that the agency granted the company too much sway over its own oversight.

“This is a tragedy that never should have happened,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, the committee chairman. “It could have been prevented, and we’re going to take steps in our legislation to see that it never happens again.”

Republicans on the committee, without issuing their own report, also called for safety improvements. But Representative Sam Graves of Missouri, the committee’s top Republican, said that while change was needed, congressional action should be based on expert recommendations, “not a partisan investigative report.”

The report was issued as the F.A.A. appeared close to lifting its March 2019 grounding order for the Max after evaluating data from test flights this summer and proposing changes to the jet. F.A.A. clearance could lead aviation authorities elsewhere to follow suit and allow the plane to fly again as soon as this winter.

Even as it strives to get the Max back into service, Boeing is contending with other challenges, including the deep downturn in air travel because of the coronavirus pandemic, and quality concerns about its 787 Dreamliner.

The congressional report on the Max identified five broad problems with the plane's design, construction and certification. First, the race to compete with the European rival Airbus and its new A320neo led Boeing to make production goals and cost-cutting a higher priority than safety, the Democrats argued. Second, the company made deadly assumptions about software known as MCAS, which was blamed for sending the planes into nose dives. Third, Boeing withheld critical information from the F.A.A. Fourth, the agency’s practice of delegating oversight authority to Boeing employees left it in the dark. And finally, the Democrats accused F.A.A. management of siding with Boeing and dismissing its own experts.

“These issues must be addressed by both Boeing and the F.A.A. in order to correct poor certification practices that have emerged, reassess key assumptions that affect safety and enhance transparency to enable more effective oversight,” the Democrats said in the report.

Editors’ Picks

How Kamala Harris’s Immigrant Parents Found a Home, and Each Other, in a Black Study Group

Chris Rock Tried to Warn Us

Back to School With Tan France

Continue reading the main story

The findings are largely in line with an abundance of information uncovered by federal investigators, news reporters and the committee’s preliminary work after the crashes in Indonesia in October 2018 and Ethiopia in March 2019.

Those crashes were caused in part by the MCAS system. Because the engines are larger and placed higher than those on the plane’s predecessor, they can cause the jet’s nose to push upward. MCAS was designed to push the nose back down. In both crashes, the software was activated by faulty sensors, sending the planes toward the ground as the pilots struggled to pull them back up.

The deaths could have been avoided if not for a series of safety lapses at Boeing and “grossly insufficient” oversight at the F.A.A., the Democrats argued. Internal communications at Boeing showed that several employees raised concerns about MCAS over the years, but their concerns were either dismissed or inadequately addressed, the House report said. It also accused Boeing of intentionally misleading the F.A.A., echoing a July report from the Transportation Department’s inspector general.

That report found that Boeing had failed to share critical information with regulators about important changes to MCAS and had been slow to share a formal safety risk assessment with the agency. The inspector general also said that Boeing had chosen to portray the MCAS software as a modification to an existing system rather than a new one, in part to ease the certification process, a decision that an authorized F.A.A. representative at the company agreed with, according to the congressional report.

Under federal law, the agency is allowed to delegate some oversight to manufacturers, but that practice backfired at Boeing, the congressional report found.

In 2012, for example, a Boeing test pilot took more than 10 seconds to reverse an MCAS activation, a response time that he later described as “catastrophic.” Boeing cited that finding several times over the years in internal documents, but the House report found no evidence that any of the four F.A.A. representatives at the company who knew of the finding ever passed it on to the agency. Sharing the information was not required, but the failure to do so was “inconceivable and inexcusable,” the report said.

F.A.A. management came in for severe criticism over its response to the crashes. In December, the report said, Ali Bahrami, the F.A.A.’s associate administrator for aviation safety, told committee staff members that he was unaware of an internal assessment produced after the first crash that had predicted 15 more over the lifetime of the Max fleet if MCAS was not fixed.

The report also said the agency was “inexplicably slow” in turning over records.

“The F.A.A. was actually more frustrating” than Boeing, Mr. DeFazio said on a call with reporters. “I’m not sure that we ever got all of the email chains we wanted. They claimed to have a very primitive old computer system.”

The report faulted Boeing for a lack of transparency, driven in part by a desire to play down the need for simulator training for pilots. Under a 2011 contract with Southwest Airlines, for example, Boeing had promised to discount each of the 200 planes in the airline’s order by $1 million if the F.A.A. required such simulator training for pilots moving from an earlier version of the aircraft, the 737NG, to the Max. That, the committee argued, created an incentive for Boeing to withhold critical safety information from the agency.

“This report lays bare the lie that Boeing cares about safety or the hundreds of lives they have ruined,” said Yalena Lopez-Lewis, whose husband, Army Capt. Antoine Lewis, died in the Ethiopian Airlines crash. “Boeing cut corners, lied to regulators, and simply considers this the cost of doing business.”

Democrats declined to provide details of prospective legislation, but said they were working on bipartisan reforms that could be passed before the end of the year.

“We are working closely with Republicans in the hope of coming to an agreement on a reform proposal in the very near future,” Representative Rick Larsen of Washington, the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, told reporters.

In a statement, Boeing said it had learned lessons from the crashes and had started to act on the recommendations of experts and government authorities.

“Boeing cooperated fully and extensively with the committee’s inquiry since it began in early 2019,” the company said. “We have been hard at work strengthening our safety culture and rebuilding trust with our customers, regulators and the flying public.”

The revised Max design has received extensive review, the company said, arguing that once the plane is ready to fly again, “it will be one of the most thoroughly scrutinized aircraft in history.”

The F.A.A. said in a statement that it would work with the committee to carry out any recommended changes and was already making some of its own.

“These initiatives are focused on advancing overall aviation safety by improving our organization, processes and culture,” it said.

Last month, the agency announced plans to require a number of design changes to the Max before it can fly again, including updating MCAS and rerouting some internal wiring. The proposed rule is open for public comment until next week. Barring major obstacles, the agency could lift its grounding order on the plane in the weeks or months to come, allowing Boeing to prepare the planes to fly as soon as this winter.

While hundreds of orders for the jet have been canceled, several thousand remain. In some cases, customers cannot break contracts or are otherwise deeply entwined with Boeing. Many also still want to add the Max to their fleet. A new plane can last a generation and typically requires little maintenance in the first few years of use. The Max promises substantial fuel savings, too, which can add up over several decades.

Still, Boeing warned in January that the grounding would cost more than $18 billion. And that was before the severe downturn in travel caused by the pandemic. Last month, Boeing said it would expand the 10 percent cut to its work force announced in April. And the company said last week that deliveries of its 787 Dreamliner, a large twin-aisle jet used for long-distance flights, had been slowed by new quality concerns.

Under federal law, the agency is allowed to delegate some oversight to manufacturers, but that practice backfired at Boeing, the congressional report found.

The report also said the agency was “inexplicably slow” in turning over records.

Democrats declined to provide details of prospective legislation, but said they were working on bipartisan reforms that could be passed before the end of the year.

In a statement, Boeing said it had learned lessons from the crashes and had started to act on the recommendations of experts and government authorities.

The revised Max design has received extensive review, the company said, arguing that once the plane is ready to fly again, “it will be one of the most thoroughly scrutinized aircraft in history.”

The F.A.A. said in a statement that it would work with the committee to carry out any recommended changes and was already making some of its own.

“These initiatives are focused on advancing overall aviation safety by improving our organization, processes and culture,” it said.

#Boeing

0 notes

bigyack-com · 4 years

Text

‘I Honestly Don’t Trust Many People at Boeing’: A Broken Culture Exposed

Boeing’s troubles run deep. The 737 Max, its newest and most important jet, has been grounded since March after two deadly crashes killed 346 people. The cascading crisis has disrupted the global aviation industry, cost the company billions of dollars and led to the ouster of its chief executive.Yet the steady drip of bad news and embarrassing revelations — culminating in Thursday’s release of 117 pages of damning internal communications — has revealed something more disturbing than one poorly designed plane. The very culture at Boeing appears to be broken, with some senior employees having little regard for regulators, customers and even co-workers. Perhaps most tellingly, the documents show Boeing employees repeatedly questioning the competence of their own colleagues, and the quality of the company’s engineering. “This is a joke,” a Boeing employee, referring to the 737 Max, said to a colleague in 2016. “This airplane is ridiculous.” Another employee wrote: “I honestly don’t trust many people at Boeing.” Boeing is the largest manufacturing exporter in the United States, and its fate can sway the national economy. It employs more than 130,000 people, in all 50 states, and supports a network of thousands of suppliers. And the dysfunction at the heart of one of America’s most important companies, as illustrated by the new messages, still has the power to shock. “We’ve all seen this movie before, in places like Enron,” Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the pilot who safely landed a plane on the Hudson River in 2009, said in an interview. “It’s not surprising that before a crisis, there are indications of real deep problems that have their roots in leadership.” Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants union, said the messages revealed a “sick” culture at Boeing, noting that “the trust level was already in the toilet.”The internal communications, which were provided to congressional investigators and cover a five-year period before the crashes in late 2018 and early 2019, show Boeing employees cavalierly dismissing the Federal Aviation Administration, which certified the Max as safe to fly. Ahead of a 2016 meeting to discuss training requirements for the plane, a Boeing employee described regulators as “dogs watching TV.” Another time, a Boeing employee wrote: “There is no confidence that the F.A.A. is understanding what they are accepting (or rejecting).”Airlines, which pay about $100 million apiece for the Max, were derided as incompetent, their questions unreasonable. When discussing whether pilots at an Indonesian airline connected to Lion Air, which operated the first Max that crashed, might need simulator training before flying the Max, a Boeing employee said it was “because of their own stupidity” and called the airline “idiots.”“This is confirmation that the problems go beyond Muilenburg,” said Michael Stumo, whose daughter Samya was killed in the second Max crash, referring to Dennis A. Muilenburg, the chief executive who was dismissed last month. “This is deeply flawed, long-term cultural erosion.” On Friday morning, Greg Smith, Boeing’s interim chief executive, wrote an email to employees expressing contrition for the messages and imploring the company to change. “These documents do not represent the best of Boeing,” Mr. Smith said in the email, which was obtained by The New York Times. “The tone and language of the messages are inappropriate, particularly when used in discussion of such important matters, and they do not reflect who we are as a company or the culture we’ve created.”Mr. Smith noted that the messages involved a relatively small number of employees, and said the company had confidence in the Max. The company declined to comment on Friday beyond Mr. Smith’s email.For generations, Boeing represented the pinnacle of American engineering. It helped win World War II, land men on the moon, build Air Force One and make commercial air travel ubiquitous, even glamorous. But the newly released messages portray a company that appears to have lost its way. Once relentlessly focused on safety and engineering, Boeing employees are shown obsessing over the bottom line. Though Boeing is one of the American government’s biggest contractors, the F.A.A. was viewed as a roadblock to commercial goals that would “impede progress” when it tried to “get in the way.”At times, Boeing employees expressed reservations about the safety of their planes.“Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn’t,” one said to a colleague in 2018, before the first crash. While the most insensitive comments appear to have been made by a few employees, the messages reveal a coordinated effort among Boeing employees to persuade the F.A.A. that the Max did not need simulator training, a significant financial boon for the company. Boeing employees congratulated one another for using “Jedi mind tricks” to convince regulators that minimal training was needed on the Max. In an email from 2016 celebrating the agency’s preliminary decision not to require simulator training on the Max, the plane’s chief technical pilot, Mark Forkner, said the news “culminates more than three years of tireless and collaborative efforts across many business units.” Last year, other damaging internal communications involving Mr. Forkner were released.In an exchange with Mr. Forkner in 2014, an employee who was developing the computer-based training for the Max suggested providing more guidance in the pilot manual for how to handle certain emergencies. (The plane featured a new software system later found to have played a role in both crashes.)Mr. Forkner told the employee that the company couldn’t add that information because it might lead regulators to require more extensive training for pilots. “We need to sell this as a very intuitive basic pilot skill,” Mr. Forkner wrote. “I fear that skill is not very intuitive any more with the younger pilots and those who have become too reliant on automation,” the employee responded. “Probably true, but it’s the box we’re painted into,” Mr. Forkner said, citing the desire to keep training to a minimum. “A bad excuse, but what I’m being pressured into complying with.”After fighting so hard to avoid simulator training, Boeing reversed itself this week and recommended that all pilots have the training before flying the Max. Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that it would cost the company $5 billion, though Boeing said it was too soon to know the true figure.“Had they done the right thing upfront, they might have had slightly higher costs upfront, but they would have saved billions in the long term,” Mr. Sullenberger said. “But that’s hard to do in this world run by Wall Street.”Stan Sorscher, a former Boeing engineer who then worked with a union representing company engineers, said priorities had shifted over the past two decades, with profits mattering more than quality. “Engineers normally just don’t talk that way,” Mr. Sorscher said of the messages. “It’s not the company I knew.”Boeing and the F.A.A. said on Thursday that the new messages, damning as they are, did not reveal any new safety concerns about the Max. Regulators may approve the Max to return to service in the coming months, and the plane could be flying commercially by the summer.Yet Boeing’s problems are hardly over. The messages are likely to further undermine public confidence in the company and the Max. Today, according to Boeing’s own research, 40 percent of travelers are unwilling to fly on the plane. There is no timetable for the return of the Max, costs are mounting, and shares in the company have fallen 22 percent since the second crash, including a 2 percent drop on Friday. After last month’s announcement that Boeing would temporarily shut down production of the Max, suppliers are hurting, too. On Friday, Spirit AeroSystems, which makes the fuselage for the plane, said it would lay off around 2,800 employees. With a new chief executive, David Calhoun, taking over on Monday, Boeing is trying to turn a corner. The company promoted its transparency in releasing the messages and its decision to recommend simulator training as examples of a new culture. On Friday, Boeing said Mr. Calhoun would receive a $7 million bonus if he got the Max safely flying again. (Mr. Muilenburg is leaving with $62.2 million in stock and pension awards.) But in the words of Boeing’s own employees, the culture is entrenched. As recently as mid-2018, colleagues were lamenting the state of their company in pained emails to one another.“I don’t know how to fix these things … it’s systemic,” one employee wrote to another in an email about the 737 Max. “Sometimes you have to let big things fail so that everyone can identify a problem … maybe that’s what needs to happen rather than continuing to scrape by.”Natalie Kitroeff contributed reporting. Read the full article

0 notes

newstechreviews · 4 years

Link

Sweeping failures by Boeing engineers, deception by the company and significant errors in government oversight led to the two fatal crashes of the 737 Max, congressional investigators have concluded.

A 245-page report issued Wednesday provides the most scathing account so far of the miscalculations that led to 346 deaths, the grounding of Boeing’s best-selling jet and billions of dollars in losses for the manufacturing giant.

“The Max crashes were not the result of a singular failure, technical mistake or mismanaged event,” the report by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said. “They were the horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing’s engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing’s management and grossly insufficient oversight by the” Federal Aviation Administration.

The report — the result of five investigative hearings, a review of about 600,000 pages of documents, interviews with top Boeing and FAA officials and information provided by whistle-blowers — makes the case for broad changes in the FAA’s oversight of the aircraft industry.

It offers a more searing version of events than the sometimes technical language in previous crash reports and investigations, including one conducted by the Transportation Department’s Inspector General.

The conclusions were drawn by the majority staff under committee Chairman Peter DeFazio. The report cites five main reasons for the crashes:

Pressures to update the 737’s design swiftly and inexpensively

Faulty assumptions about the design and performance of pilots

What the report called a “culture of concealment” by Boeing

Inherent conflicts of interest in the system that deputizes Boeing employees to act on behalf of the government

The company’s sway over top FAA managers

DeFazio said he found it “mind boggling” that Boeing and FAA officials concluded, according to the report, that the plane’s design had complied with regulations in spite of the crashes.

“The problem is it was complaint and not safe — and people died,” he said. “Obviously, the system is inadequate.”

Lawmakers are drafting legislation designed to reform how the FAA oversees companies such as Boeing and reviews aircraft designs. The Senate Commerce Committee plans to vote on a bipartisan bill on Wednesday. DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, hasn’t yet unveiled his legislation.

Republican leaders on the House committee took issue with the report’s findings, saying they represented partisan overreach that went beyond what other reviews have found.

“Expert recommendations have already led to changes and reforms, with more to come,” said a joint statement from Sam Graves of Missouri and Garret Graves of Louisiana. “These recommendations — not a partisan investigative report — should serve as the basis for Congressional action.”

Boeing said in a statement it had cooperated with the committee’s investigation and had taken steps at the company to improve safety.

“We have learned many hard lessons as a company from the accidents of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Flight 302, and from the mistakes we have made,” the company said. “Change is always hard and requires daily commitment, but we as a company are dedicated to doing the work.”

The FAA said in a statement late Tuesday night that it was committed to working with the committee to make improvements. “We are already undertaking important initiatives based on what we have learned from our own internal reviews as well as independent reviews of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents,” the agency said in the statement.

But tensions between the committee staff and the FAA were clearly evident. Ali Bahrami, who oversees safety at the agency, came under repeated criticism in the report for what the committee called his lack of awareness of issues surrounding the Max and the accidents. The committee staffers declined to provide him with questions before the Dec. 5 interview, which made it difficult for him to recall documents and events, an FAA counsel warned at the start of the interview, according to a transcript.

While DeFazio and other lawmakers haven’t called for a permanent grounding of the jet, the father of a woman who died in the Ethiopia crash said the report raised questions about the plane’s return to service.

“The FAA should immediately halt the recertification process for the 737 Max in light of this report,” said Michael Stumo, father of Samya Stumo. He accused Boeing and the FAA of withholding information from the families of victims in an emailed statement.

The 737 Max was grounded March 13, 2019, three days after the second crash involving a safety feature on the plane that malfunctioned and repeatedly sent the planes into a dive toward the ground.

Boeing and regulators had approved the design under the assumption that flight crews could recognize and override a malfunction of the system within a few seconds. Even though the system could have been disabled by flipping two cockpit switches, pilots on a Lion Air flight departing from Jakarta on Oct. 29, 2018, and an Ethiopian Airlines plane leaving Addis Ababa on March 10, 2019, became confused, lost control and crashed.

The feature, known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, was designed to make the Max feel exactly the same to pilots as the earlier family of 737s known as the Next Generation. However, the system was triggered erroneously by a single sensor that failed in both crashes and it continued to push the nose down repeatedly.

The FAA has tentatively approved multiple design changes to prevent such an accident in the future and the plane could be certified to resume operations in the fall.

The House report identifies numerous instances in which it alleges the company should have known that MCAS was potentially dangerous.

For example, a Boeing test pilot during the early development of the plane in 2012 took more than 10 seconds to respond to an erroneous MCAS activation, a condition the pilot concluded could be “catastrophic,” the report said.

“The reaction time was long,” one Boeing employee told another in an email on Nov. 1, 2012, which was viewed by Bloomberg. The unidentified employee asked whether the rating of the system’s risks should be raised, which may have prompted a more thorough safety review.

Those concerns “were not properly addressed” and the company “did not inform the FAA,” the report said.

Boeing ultimately concluded that flight crews would react far swifter to an MCAS failure, typically within four seconds.

The report also said the responses by Boeing and the FAA to the first accident — warnings to pilots issued in early November 2018 — weren’t adequate to prevent a second crash.

“Both Boeing and the FAA gambled with the public’s safety in the aftermath of the Lion Air crash, resulting in the death of 157 more individuals on Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, less than five months later,” the report said.

The guidance on how to avoid an accident during an MCAS failure detailed the symptoms pilots would see and reminded crews how to shut it off. The committee criticized Boeing and the FAA for not mentioning the system’s name.

FAA officials have said they debated whether to include MCAS in the directive, but opted not to because it wasn’t mentioned in pilot flight manuals. Boeing within days sent additional guidance to airlines on MCAS and how it worked. Details on MCAS were also widely reported in the news media and internal airline documents obtained by Bloomberg show that it had been explained to Ethiopian Airlines pilots before their crash.

‘Undue Pressure’

A key finding involves a long-standing practice — which was expanded by Congress several times — to deputize Boeing employees to act in behalf of FAA while reviewing aircraft designs.

According to a 2016 survey obtained by the committee, 39% of Boeing’s Authorized Representatives, senior engineers who conducted reviews for FAA, at times perceived “undue pressure” on them from management.

One such senior engineer knew that Boeing was delivering Maxes to customers without a required alert in 2017 and 2018, yet didn’t notify FAA, the report said. The lack of such an alert was cited by Indonesian investigators as a factor in the Lion Air crash.

Both House and Senate legislation is expected to seek reforms of the so-called delegation system, which the report said is riddled with “inherent conflicts of interest.”

Boeing opted almost a decade ago to update the 737 to compete against a similar redesign of the Airbus SE A320 family. It faced intense pressure to ensure that — just as Airbus promised — pilots transferring from earlier 737 models didn’t need expensive additional simulator training.

Simulator Training

The company had agreed to pay Southwest Airlines Co. $1 million per aircraft if Max pilots had to train in the simulator before transitioning to the new plane, which could have cost it between $200 million to $400 million.

The push to avoid simulator training led to multiple poor decisions by Boeing, the committee alleged. The manufacturer rejected adding a sophisticated safety system that might have helped in the accidents at least in part because it would have required additional training.

The company also deemphasized MCAS to the FAA as a result. In a 2013 company document, Boeing said it would describe MCAS to the FAA as an add-on to an existing system. “If we emphasize MCAS is a new function there may be a greater certification and training impact,” the memo said.

The broad failure to fully explain MCAS was a critical issue because the system was made more powerful midway through its development, but many within the FAA didn’t know and the agency delegated the final safety approvals to the company, the report found.

“The combination of these problems doomed the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flights,” the report said.

#Blogger

0 notes

businessliveme · 4 years

Text

Boeing CEO slammed over $23 million pay, asked to resign

(Bloomberg) –Boeing Co. President Dennis Muilenburg testifies before House lawmakers Wednesday, the day after being peppered with tough question in the Senate during his first appearance before lawmakers since a pair of the planemaker’s 737 Max jets crashed, killing 346 people.

In both crashes, faulty data from one of two angle-of-attack sensors, which measure the pitch of the plane against the oncoming stream of air, caused a flight control system called MCAS to drive down the jet’s nose, which pilots struggled to counteract before ultimately entering a fatal dive.

Muilenburg faced the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio, who’s overseen a months-long investigation into the certification of the Boeing 737 Max.

Here are the key developments:

Hearing Ends With Victim’s Kin Urging CEO to Quit (3:52 p.m.)

The mother of a young woman killed in the Ethiopian Airlines crash confronted Muilenburg after the hearing in front of a phalanx of reporters and cameras, demanding that he step down from the company.

Nadia Milleron, mother of Samya Rose Stumo, 24, said she and other family members were struck by the Boeing executive’s repeated references in testimony to his upbringing on a farm in Iowa.

“The whole group said, ‘Go back to the farm, go back to Iowa,’’’ she told him. “You’re not the person anymore to solve the problem.’’

Read: Four Seconds to Respond? Faulty Assumptions Led to 737 Disasters

“I respect that, I really do,’’ Muilenburg responded as aides stood by. “What I learned from my father in Iowa is when things happen on your watch, you have to own them and you have to take responsibility.’’

— Courtney Rozen, Alan Levin

Document Shows Max Feature Didn’t Follow Specs (3:32 p.m.)

A June 2018 Boeing document, unveiled at the hearing by Representative Greg Stanton, an Arizona Democrat, detailed internal design requirements for MCAS, including one specifying that “MCAS shall not interfere with dive recovery.”

In the two crashes, the planes dove steeply after pilots struggled with MCAS failures.

“Boeing did not even follow its own design requirements when it created this MCAS system and put it on the Max,” Stanton said.

The document is one of many showing what Indonesian investigators concluded Friday: that the planemaker assumed pilots would quickly respond to such a failure but their actual actions showed those assumptions weren’t realistic.

Asked by Stanton whether MCAS affected the dive recovery on the doomed Lion Air flight, Hamilton said “it caused the airplane to go into a dive that the crews were not able to recover from” after the pilots didn’t respond as Boeing assumed they would.

The document also said: “MCAS shall not have any objectionable interaction with the piloting of the airplane.”

— By Alan Levin, Ryan Beene

Max’s MCAS Getting What Air Force Had From Start (2:39 p.m.)

Michigan Republican Representative Paul Mitchell asked why the 737 Max’s version of MCAS had key differences from a midair refueling tanker Boeing supplies to the U.S. Air Force. He pointed out that the Pentagon required that the KC-46 tanker’s MCAS system activate only once, when the civilian application could — and did — fire repeatedly, he said.

“Why the difference? What motivated that?” the lawmaker said.

John Hamilton, chief engineer of Boeing Commercial Airplane division, cited specifications set by the Air Force. Muilenburg said the tanker’s MCAS system was designed for different flight scenarios than the 737 Max’s version.

— By Ryan Beene

CEO Slammed Over $23 Million Pay, Asked to Resign (1:17 p.m.)

Representative Stephen Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat, blasted Muilenburg for failing to take a cut in pay after the 737 Max crashes, the first time he’s been publicly quizzed about why he didn’t forgo pay after the crashes.

The Boeing Co. CEO received $23.4 million last year, a sum that includes a $13 million bonus. His total compensation rose 27% from a year earlier.

Muilenburg said that he hasn’t offered to resign, and that it’s up to the company’s board to decide whether to dock his pay.

“These two accidents happened on my watch. I feel responsible to see this through,” Muilenburg said. Earlier in the hearing, Muilenburg spoke about his humble upbringing in Iowa and the beginning of his career at the company as an intern.

Nadia Milleron, mother of 24-year-old Ethiopian Airlines crash victim Samya Rose Stumo, said outside the hearing room that she was outraged that Muilenburg received a bonus in 2018.

Read: Boeing Grilled, Asked `How Did This Happen?’

“He is not the human being to be doing this job, and neither is his board,” Milleron said.

— By Courtney Rozen, Julie Johnsson, Alan Levin

Muilenburg Grilled on 737 Production Meltdown (12:12 p.m.)

Muilenburg was grilled by Representative Albio Sires, a Democrat from New Jersey, on a production meltdown last year caused by a shortage of parts as suppliers fell behind a new, record manufacturing pace at which 737 jets were built.

Sires read from a June 2018 email a senior manager who led a final assembly team at Boeing’s plant south of Seattle sent to Scott Campbell, who was vice-president and general manager of the 737 program at the time.

The Boeing manager warned that schedule pressure and fatigue are “creating a culture where employees are either deliberately or unconsciously circumventing established processes.” He added: “And for the first time in my life, I’m sorry to say that I’m hesitant about putting my family on a Boeing airplane.”

The factory issues raised by the employee weren’t related to MCAS.

Muilenburg said he’d read the concerns of the manager, who has since retired. The company took action to address the out-of-schedule work, including adding quality checkpoints, he said. The manufacturing pace for the 737 was trimmed 19% to a 42-jet monthly pace after the Max was grounded globally.

— By Julie Johnsson

CEO ‘Will Never Forget’ Hearing Victims’ Stories (11:54 a.m.)

In an emotional exchange, Muilenburg described a private meeting Tuesday with the victims’ loved ones — many of whom have attended the hearings displaying large pictures of their smiling children, siblings and spouses.

“We wanted to listen and each of the families told us the stories of the lives that were lost and those were heart breaking,” said Muilenburg, his voice breaking with emotion. “I’ll never forget that.”

Michael Stumo, whose daughter died in the Ethiopian Airlines crash, told reporters Tuesday after the session that, “It was very emotional.”

“But he was there, he heard, and he expressed his sorrow appropriately, and expressed a desire to change the culture of the company to make it better,” Stumo said.

— By Alan Levin, Courtney Rozen

CEO Acknowledges 737 Design Shortcomings (11:30 a.m.)

Muilenburg offered his most candid public assessment of the company’s shortcomings in designing a system implicated in two 737 Max crashes, after insisting for months that engineers followed the manufacturer’s and Federal Aviation Administration processes.

He said the company erred when it made a cockpit alert to inform pilots of disagreements between the 737 Max’s two angle-of-attack sensors available on only some of the jets instead of all, saying “we got that wrong up front.”

Read: Dubai Slams Boeing Over Its Handling of 737 Max Grounding

He also cited the original architecture of MCAS, which the company redesigned to incorporate readings from both angle-of-attack sensors instead of one on the original design. Thirdly, he said the company needs to improve communication and documentation.

But Muilenburg declined to name specific employees at Boeing or its 900-company supply chain who contributed to the botched design. “Mr. Chairman, my company and company alone is responsible,” he said. “I am accountable and my company is accountable.”

“We can and must do better,” Muilenburg said.

— Julie Johnsson, Ryan Beene

Lawmaker Confronts CEO With Internal Documents (10:53 a.m.)

DeFazio displayed slides of internal Boeing documents and emails — some never before seen publicly — raising questions about the development of MCAS, the flight control system linked to both crashes.

In both fatal crashes, faulty data from one of two angle-of-attack sensors, which measure the pitch of the plane against the oncoming stream of air, caused the MCAS to drive down the jet’s nose, which pilots struggled to counteract before ultimately entering a fatal dive.

In one document from 2015 a Boeing employee questioned the decision to permit MCAS to be triggered by only one of the two sensors mounted on the jet’s nose. Boeing has since redesigned MCAS to prevent a repeat of such a failure, in part by incorporating readings from both angle-of-attack sensors.

“I guess the question is, why wasn’t it that way from day one?” DeFazio said.

Another document from 2018 examined Boeing’s assumptions about how quickly pilots would respond to an MCAS malfunction.

Muilenburg concedes Boeing made three mistakes on MCAS: designing it to activate with a single sensor, omitting it from pilot training and under-estimating how long pilots would take to respond when the system kicked on.

“We made some mistakes. We discovered some things we didn’t do right. We own that. We are responsible for our planes,” Muilenburg said. “If we knew then what we know now we would have done it differently.”

— be Ryan Beene, Julie Johnsson

Day Two Opens with CEO Response to New Allegations (10:03 a.m.)

As he was arriving for the hearing, Muilenburg told reporters that the safety concerns that prompted a manager to urge the company to pause the 737 Max assembly line were unrelated to the two fatal crashes by the jet.

The issue was related to “concerns about production line safety as we were moving to production rate changes,” Muilenburg said.

The comment came in response to assertions made Tuesday by DeFazio that a Boeing manager urged a superior to halt the 737 Max assembly line over safety concerns, one of a number of new allegations stemming from an investigation began by the panel days after the second 737 Max crash last March.

“We now know of at least one case where a Boeing manager implored the then-vice president and general manager of the 737 program to shut down the 737 Max production line because of safety concerns, several months before the Lion Air crash in October 2018,” DeFazio wrote in prepared remarks for the hearing.

Key Events:

Muilenburg’s testimony on Tuesday came one year from the day when a Lion Air 737 Max plunged into the Java Sea, killing all 189 people on board. The appearances are the first public questioning of a senior Boeing leader by lawmakers since the crash and a subsequent one by an Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max in March, which killed all 157 people on board that led to the worldwide grounding of the company’s top-selling and most profitable passenger jet.

Uncertainty over when the 737 Max family of jets will fly again is rippling through the airline industry and Boeing’s finances. The U.S. manufacturer’s bill is $9.2 billion and rising, as it faces questions about the plane’s development and its own transparency. Boeing is aiming for a return to service later this year but some airlines have pulled Max flights through next year.

Both Democratic and Republican Senators alike grilled Muilenburg on Tuesday, especially on whether Boeing had too much sway in certifying the 737 Max through a longstanding program at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration that deputizes company employees to issue safety approvals on the agency’s behalf.

Muilenburg defended that program during the hearing and refused to publicly endorse any specific reforms when pressed by Senate lawmakers

A report released Friday by Indonesian investigators highlighted the role of designees in approving the 737 Max design, including what investigators have flagged as a key vulnerability in the jet’s flight controls that malfunctioned during the fatal crashes.

–With assistance from Courtney Rozen, Ryan Beene, Alan Levin and Julie Johnsson.

The post Boeing CEO slammed over $23 million pay, asked to resign appeared first on Businessliveme.com.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2BYm7Aw via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

pullcarol0-blog · 5 years

Text

Boeing Doubles Down on 737 Max, Rejects Need for Simulator Training

Boeing is breaking the rules of crisis management and making what may well prove to be a bad “bet the company” wager.

The gold standard, as most readers know well, is Johnson & Johnson’s response to 1982 tampering with its product, Tylenol. Seven people died in Chicago due to Tylenol containers having been put on the shelves with cyanide pills inside. A few more people died in what were believed to have been copycat incidents.

Tylenol was Johnson & Johnson’s most important product and then the nation’s leading OTC painkiller. Johnson & Johnson immediate issued warnings, telling consumers not to use any Tylenol until the company had ascertained how big the tampering problem was. It recalled all Tylenol nationwide, cooperated with the police, and set up an 800 number for consumers.

Johnson & Johnson re-introduced Tylenol with triple-safety packing that has become an industry norm. Even though its market share plunged during the crisis, it rebounded to an even higher level a year later.

As one account of the Johnson & Johnson crisis response stressed, the company put safety first:

Johnson & Johnson chairman, James Burke, reacted to the negative media coverage by forming a seven-member strategy team. The team’s strategy guidance from Burke was first, “How do we protect the people?” and second “How do we save this product?”

It isn’t hard to infer that this is not how Boeing is setting its priorities. It is important to recognize that the global grounding of the 737 Max is the result of trying to compensate for questionable, profit-driven engineering choices by adding a safety feature (the MCAS software system) and then going cheap on that, in terms of selling planes not kitted out fully and acting as if it was perfectly fine to install software that could take control of the plane and barely tell pilots about it. Two paragraphs more than 700 pages into a manual does not qualify as anything approaching adequate disclosure.

Boeing is taking steps that look designed to be adequate, when given the damage done to the 737 Max and its brand generally, this isn’t adequate. No one has any reason to give Boeing the benefit of the doubt. The scale of this failure is so large that it’s called the adequacy of FAA certifications into question. Until this fiasco, aviation regulators deferred to the judgment of regulator in the country where the manufacturer was headquartered. But with China embarrassing the FAA by (correctly) being the first to ground the 737 Max, foreign regulators will make their own checks of Boeing’s 737 Max fixes….and that practice may continue with other US-origin planes unless Boeing and the FAA both look to have learned a big lesson. So far, Boeing’s behavior says not.

One does not have to do much in the way of review to see that Boeing has lost the plot.

Boeing compromised on sound engineering with the 737 Max. Recall the origins of the problem: Boeing was at risk of losing big orders to a more fuel-efficient Airbus model. Rather than sacrifice market share, Boeing put more fuel-efficeint, larger engines on the existing 737 frames. The placement of the engine created a new safety risk, that under some circumstances, the plane could “nose up” at such a steep angle as to put it in a stall. The solution was to install software called MCAS which would force the nose down if the “angle of attack” became too acute.

Before getting to today’s updates, experts have deemed the 737 Max design to be unsound. For The word “kludge” keeps coming up when pilots and engineers discuss Boeing’s 737 Max, from Quartz:

Again and again, in discussions of what has gone wrong with Boeing’s 737 Max planein two deadly crashes within five months, an unusual word keeps coming up: kludge.

Merriam-Webster defines kludge—sometimes spelled kluge—as “a haphazard or makeshift solution to a problem and especially to a computer or programmingproblem.” Oxford defines it as, in computing, “A machine, system, or program that has been badly put together, especially a clumsy but temporarily effective solution to a particular fault or problem.”…

In the case of the 737 Max, it’s the combination of how two separate problems interacted—a plane whose design introduced aerodynamics issues and what now appears to have been a poorly designed anti-stall system—that seems to be drawing many to turn to Granholm’s term. The problems were compoundedin many ways, including by the fact that pilots were not told of or trained for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) before the Lion Air crash, which killed all 189 on board.

“My concern is that Boeing may have developed the MCAS software as a profit-driven kludge to mitigate the Max 8’s degraded flight characteristics due to the engine relocation required to maintain ground clearance,” commented Philip Wheelock on a New York Times story about the plane’s certification process this week. “Not convinced that software is an acceptable solution for an older design that has been pushed to its inherent aeronautical design limits.”

“Indeed, it seems the 737 MAX was a kludge to an existing design, and that MCAS was a kludge on top of that,” said a commenter on Hackaday.

Lambert found more damning takes, which he featured in Water Cooler yesterday. First from the Seattle Times:

Boeing has long embraced the power of redundancy to protect its jets and their passengers from a range of potential disruptions, from electrical faults to lightning strikes. The company typically uses two or even three separate components as fail-safes for crucial tasks to reduce the possibility of a disastrous failure. So even some of the people who have worked on Boeing’s new 737 MAX airplane were baffled to learn that the company had designed an automated safety system that abandoned the principles of component redundancy, ultimately entrusting the automated decision-making to just one sensor — a type of sensor that was known to fail. Boeing’s rival, Airbus, has typically depended on three such sensors. “A single point of failure is an absolute no-no,” said one former Boeing engineer who worked on the MAX, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the program in an interview with The Seattle Times. “That is just a huge system engineering oversight. To just have missed it, I can’t imagine how.”

And the second, from software developer Greg Travis…who happens also to be a pilot and aircraft owner:

That no one who wrote the MCAS software for the 737 MAX seems to have even raised the issue of using multiple inputs, including the opposite angle of attack sensor, in the computer’s determination of an impending stall is mind-blowing. As a lifetime member of the software development fraternity, I don’t know what toxic combination of inexperience, hubris, or lack of cultural understanding led to this. But I do know that it’s indicative of a much deeper and much more troubling problem. The people who wrote the code for the original MCAS system were obviously terribly far out of their league and did not know it. How can we possibly think they can implement a software fix, much less give us any comfort whatsoever that the rest of the flight management software, which is ultimately in ultimate control of the aircraft, has any fidelity at all?

Ouch.

And we’re giving short shrift to how Boeing compounded the problem, for instance, by making it an upcharge to have the 737 Max have a light showing that its angle of attack sensors disagreed (the planes did have two, but bizarrely, only one would be giving data to the MCAS system on any day), or hiding the fact that there was a new safety automated safety system in two paragraphs after page 700 in the flight manual. As Wall Street Journal reader Erich Greenbaum said in comments on an older article, How Boeing’s 737 MAX Failed:

No – this isn’t about “planes that fly by themselves.” It’s about an airplane manufacturer that put engines on an airframe they weren’t designed for, having to add a flight control override to guard against said airplane’s new tendency to nose up, and then adding insult to injury by driving that system with a single sensor when two are available. Oh – and charging airlines extra for the privilege of their pilots being told when one of those sensors is providing bad data.

The 737 Max has gotten a bad name…not just for itself but also for the airlines that were big buyers. Southwest had taken the most 737 Max deliveries, and American was second. I happened to be looking at American for flights last night. This is what I got when I went to aa.com:

I came back to the page later to make sure I hadn’t hit the 737 Max message randomly, by loading the page just when that image came up in a cycle….and that doesn’t appear to be the case. I landed on the 737 Max splash a second time.

This result suggests that American has gotten so many customer queries about the 737 Max that it felt it had to make providing information about it a priority. If you click through, the next page explains how all 737 Max planes have been grounded, that American is using other equipment to fly on routes previously scheduled for those planes, but it has still had to cancel 90 flights a day.

Evidence is mounting that the MCAS system was responsible for the Ethopian Air crash in addition to the Lion Air tragedy. From the Wall Street Journal this evening:

Officials investigating the fatal crash of a Boeing Co. BA 0.06% 737 MAX in Ethiopia have reached a preliminary conclusion that a suspect flight-control feature automatically activated before the plane nose-dived into the ground, according to people briefed on the matter, the first findings based on data retrieved from the flight’s black boxes.

The emerging consensus among investigators, one of these people said, was relayed during a high-level briefing at the Federal Aviation Administration on Thursday, and is the strongest indication yet that the same automated system, called MCAS, misfired in both the Ethiopian Airlines flight earlier this month and a Lion Air flight in Indonesia, which crashed less than five months earlier. The two crashes claimed 346 lives.

Boeing is doubling down on its mistakes. The lesson of the Tylenol poisoning is that if a company has a safety problem, even if it isn’t its fault, it needs to do everything it can to rectify the defects and protect customers. If there is any doubt, the company needs to err of the side of safety.

Here, unlike with Johnson & Johnson, the failings that led to 737 Max groundings all originated with Boeing. Yet rather than own the problems and go overboard on fixing them to restore confidence in the plane and in Boeing, Boeing is acting as if all it has to put in place are merely adequate measures.

Reuters, which has a bias towards understatement, has an atypically pointed farming Boeing’s refusal to recommend pilot simulator training for the MCAS:

Boeing Co said it will submit by the end of this week a training package that 737 MAX pilots are required to take before a worldwide ban can be lifted, proposing as it did before two deadly crashes that those pilots do not need time on flight simulators to safely operate the aircraft.

In making that assessment, the world’s largest planemaker is doubling down on a strategy it promoted to American Airlines Group Inc and other customers years ago. Boeing told airlines their pilots could switch from the older 737NG to the new MAX without costly flight simulator training and without compromising on safety, three former Boeing employees said.

Specifically, the Wall Street Journal reported that Southwest, which is the biggest buyer of the 737 Max, got Boeing to agree to a financial penalty if the new plane required additional simulator training:

The company had promised Southwest Airlines Co. , the plane’s biggest customer, to keep pilot training to a minimum so the new jet could seamlessly slot into the carrier’s fleet of older 737s, according to regulators and industry officials.

[Former Boeing engineer Mr. [Rick] Ludtke [who worked on 737 MAX cockpit features] recalled midlevel managers telling subordinates that Boeing had committed to pay the airline $1 million per plane if its design ended up requiring pilots to spend additional simulator time. “We had never, ever seen commitments like that before,” he said.

I’ve never flown Southwest and now I will make sure never to use them.

I hope the pilots in our readership speak up, but as a mere mortal, I’ve very uncomfortable with pilots being put in a position of overriding a system in emergency conditions when they haven’t even test driven it. When I learn software, reading a manual is useless save for learning what the program’s capabilities are. In order to be able to use it, I have to spend time with it, hands on. Computer professionals tell me the same thing. It doesn’t seem likely that pilots are all that different.

In other words, Boeing’s refusal to recommend simulator training looks to be influenced by avoiding triggering a $31 million penalty payment to Southwest. This is an insane back-assward sense of priorities. Boeing had over $10 billion in profits in 2018. A $31 million payment isn’t material and would almost certainly be lower after tax.

Boeing does not seem to comprehend that it is gambling with its future. What if international flight regulators use the Max 737 as a bloody flag and refuse to accept FAA certifications of Boeing planes, or US origin equipment generally? Do you think for a nanosecond that the European and Chinese regulators wouldn’t use disregarding the FAA as a way to advance their interests? Europe would clearly give preference to Airbus, and the Chinese could use Boeing to punish the US for going after Huawei.

Boeing’s comeuppance is long overdue. The company’s decision to break its union, outsource, and move to Chicago as a device for shedding seasoned employees was a clear statement of its plan to compromise engineering in the name of profit. Something like the Max 737 train wreck was bound to happen.

This entry was posted in Banana republic, Free markets and their discontents, Moral hazard, Regulations and regulators, Risk and risk management, Technology and innovation on March 29, 2019 by Yves Smith.

Post navigation

← Poll: Michelle Obama Would Be Frontrunner in 2020 If She Ran Brexit: Mayday →

Source: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/03/boeing-doubles-down-on-737-max-rejects-need-for-simulator-training.html

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

unixcommerce · 5 years

Text

Apply These 10 Customer Service Strategies from Top Brands

Product reliability and quality have become near-commodities in our world. The challenge then, for a business, is to find another way to differentiate yourself. And one of the best ways to truly engage customers is to connect with them via superior customer service.

Today, let’s look at a variety of companies whose have succeeded by doing precisely this. These companies have made their mark in the marketplace with their exceptional customer experience and extraordinary customer service.

Examples of Good Customer Service

1) Nordstrom — Be Willing to Say “Yes!” Every Time

Staying in business for over 100 years is extremely rare. Thriving in business for over 100 years — in a brutally competitive field — is even more so. Seattle-based Nordstrom has managed to pull this off. Year after year.

For example, Nordstrom is so customer-focused that it once refunded a customer for a tire purchase even though the company, of course, has never sold tires. You can always tell that the entire staff is committed to getting you a “yes” to anything you request.

Furthermore, as a retailing icon, Nordstrom has avoided the temptation to rest on its laurels. Instead, it has pursued up-to-the-minute technological improvements in its customer experience.

These are mainly in evidence at its new flagship store in Manhattan. Here virtual reality helps you get the perfect fit and fabric choice. Your new suit order is then sent off to Italy for manufacturing. The store handles returns right at the front door with an instant barcoded process for total customer convenience.

The big idea: Be ready to say “yes” to your customers, regardless of the request. With this approach, not only will you care for your customers, they’ll care for you as well.

2) Drybar — You Can’t Replace a Unique Customer Experience

Drybar is the coast-to-coast “blowout bar” phenomenon that has expanded quickly to nearly 100 locations from co-founder, Alli Webb’s basement. (Not to mention their bestselling line of hair dryers and hair care products carried at Sephora.)

The Drybar concept could quickly become a commodity and give in to knockoff operators. On the contrary, it might be a task to sway their fiercely loyal client base that loves a $40 hair wash and blowout.

Their secret? Fantastic customer experience at every single touchpoint. From the efficient booking process to the dozens of details that define a Drybar location — romantic comedies on flat screens and custom-designed chairs — every aspect of the experience has received special attention.

“The experience is everything,” says Drybar co-founder Michael Landau, who started the business alongside his sister, Alli Webb. “If it weren’t for the experience we create, we would be another place styling women’s hair. What we’re selling at Drybar is an experience. For 45 minutes, you get to relax and be pampered. Drink a mimosa and indulge in the guilty pleasure of the latest chick flick or celebrity magazine while someone washes and brushes your hair.”

The big idea: No matter what you’re selling, you can turn it into more than a commodity. Focus on every single touchpoint in the customer journey.

3) Danny Meyer’s Union Square — Making Your Customers Feel Special Never Gets Old

Danny Meyer is a wildly successful New York restaurateur, whose approach is based heavily on creating a real sense of hospitality. While not a chef himself, his many successful restaurants — including Gramercy Tavern, Union Square Café, and now, globally, Shake Shack — have the distinctive Meyer touch.

He only selects new employees based on what he calls the “hospitality quotient.” This includes six personality attributes — optimistic warmth, intelligence, work ethic, empathy, self-awareness, and integrity.

Another true mark of the Meyer touch includes personal recognition when a guest walks in the door. Meyer calls it ‘‘the number one reason guests cite for wanting to return.” Nothing escapes his attention or the attention of his talented staff!

The big idea: The human aspect of the customer experience is irreplaceable. Make sure your customers feel recognized and, in turn, they’ll give your company the recognition it deserves.

4) Virgin Atlantic Airlines — What Matters Most is How You Treat Your Unhappy Customers

It’s impossible to please every customer every time. But customer service statistics show what you do when a customer is unhappy can make all the difference. Virgin Brands are spectacular at using complaints as opportunities to bond more closely with the customer in question.

“A complaint is a chance to turn a customer into a lifelong friend,” says Richard Branson. “At Virgin, we think that if we address a complaint well, and even involve the customer in the solution, it brings customers closer to our brand.”

In a famous episode, a customer in first class (which Virgin Atlantic adorably calls Upper Class) encountered what sounds like a genuinely dreadful Indian-themed meal on an intercontinental flight. The letter he wrote (accompanied by stomach-turning photos) to Branson was both funny and disturbing.

The passenger described one item on his tray as a “miscellaneous central cuboid of beige matter.” This passenger later explains elsewhere that “the potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird.”

The most significant part of the story isn’t the letter, though, it’s how Branson responded. Branson invited the passenger to help Virgin overhaul its menu, and ultimately to be on the board of the airline’s culinary council.

The big idea: A complaint is indeed a gift. If you can win over your upset customers, your business success will know no bounds.

5) Zappos — Empower Your Employees to Wow Your Customers

Can you imagine a leading e-commerce company whose core principle is “to live and deliver WOW”? Zappos is exactly that company. A fully-owned subsidiary of Amazon, Zappos grew to be a leader in online shoe and apparel sales through an obsessive devotion to the customer.

The company is willing to spend any amount of time on the phone to serve and to bond with a customer. Even up to a world record 10 hours and 29 minutes made famous on late-night TV by Jimmy Fallon! And employees will make every effort — and also spend company money — to do whatever it takes to please and “wow” customers.

Including flying to a customer’s home to return jewelry that had accidentally been shipped to the company, as recounted by Rob Siefker, the senior director of the contact center at Zappos:

Not too long ago, two of our customers — a newly married couple — were packing up their belongings to move to a new home. In the rush of the move, the husband packed his wife’s jewelry inside one of her purses and then kept the purse inside what he thought was a spare Zappos box.

[Once the wife figured out what had happened and why her jewelry was missing], The rep she reached out to at Zappos decided to reroute the box directly to his desk. Fearing for the safety of the valuables in transit, he purchased a plane ticket so he could hand-deliver the package himself. When he and the jewelry arrived, the grateful couple invited him in for dinner. They’re now customers for life, as you can imagine.

The big idea: Strive to wow — to surprise and delight — every customer. And involve and empower your employees in doing this every day.

6) Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers — Invest in Your Customer Service Culture

Freddy’s has grown to over 280 locations across 31 states U.S. while sporting a retro vibe and some delicious burgers. (Yes, steakburgers are hamburgers by another name. They’re good, thanks to a pounded-flat preparation on the grill!)

Also, they have great Chicago-style hot dogs. And, they have a wild assortment of custard-based desserts. But the customer service truly distinguishes Freddy’s as well, with always-cheery employees behind the counter.

Freddy’s invests well beyond industry norm in customer service training and uses innovative methods for this as well. They have a mix of in-person training with brief but effective digital-based training (dubbed “Freducation”).

They also encourage employees to rise through the ranks. Recently, a group of employees who started as cooks and cashiers at an old company-owned location in Wichita worked themselves into management positions. They then went on to be successful operators of not one but two franchises, with more potentially on the way.

The big idea: A culture of customer service can enliven even the fastest-paced of business concepts. Grooming current employees as future leaders gives more opportunity for everyone to shine.

7) Safelite Autoglass — Customer Service is a Team Sport (Technology, Training, and Personnel)

In the face of macro trends that aren’t always ideal for anyone in the auto industry, Safelite Autoglass has grown, quarter after quarter, through a focus on improving the customer experience.

Part of this is through hiring. Nobody is hired to work at Safelite today who don’t make it through a profile. This is developed in-house with the assistance of a profiling company called Predictive Index, showing an affinity for working with customers.

Customer experience improvement has also been accomplished through training, both event-based and daily. The latter being what Safelite calls its “daily huddle” where customer service principles are discussed, once a day, throughout the company.

Third, Safelite has developed a unique approach to review and parse customer feedback received on surveys. Rather than concentrating on scores received, Safelite pays more attention to the nuggets that may be contained in the “verbatims.”

One of the themes discovered here recently was that it’s not just the length of the window that matters in terms of technician arrival. It’s also knowing that they’re on the way and that they’re in the neighborhood.

Now, using an app-based approach akin to Uber, customers can find out exactly that and be ready precisely for the technician’s arrival.

The big idea: Customer experience improvement should be a multi-pronged effort. There are technology, personnel, and training aspects to consider. Work on all of these different angles, and the results can be spectacular.

8) USAA — Treat Your Employees as Your First Customers

USAA, a Fortune 500 company which operates in insurance, banking, and financial services, is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Its campus there, holding 19,000 of its 34,000 total employees, is nearly the size of Pentagon.

USAA is regularly rated at the top of its various industries for customer satisfaction. One of their secrets is their unique approach to propelling customer-focused innovation.

The culture of innovation here is so strong that a security guard working at USAA managed to author (in addition to his “regular job,”) twenty-five fully realized patents for his company. These patents, each designed to improve a portion of the customer experience are just a few of the 10,000 ideas submitted by employees each year, of which over 900 have received U.S. patents.

The first thing that’s necessary to propel customer service innovation is a mindset. The mindset at USAA is ideal: every USAA employee is also a customer. Employees are encouraged to be on the lookout for how to improve the experience of customers — in other words, themselves.

Beyond this, USAA harvests ideas through its “Always On Ideas Platform,” a portal that’s available to all employees. There are additional ways for employee innovators to participate, including what USAA calls challenges, competitions, and hackathons. USAA also offers various training sessions to encourage and distill innovation, including a particularly ambitious partnership with the University of Texas at Austin.

The big idea: Providing the best customer service and the most polished customer experience depends on customer-focused innovation. To get there requires a mindset of “being the customer,” plus channels/portals to harvest innovation, plus training for innovation.

9) Umpqua Bank — A Crowded, Unglamorous Industry is Your Chance to Stand Out with Customer Service

Primarily located in California and the Pacific Northwest, Umpqua proudly and cheekily refers to itself as “the world’s greatest bank.” Umpqua empowers employees to help customers in any way they can, using their creativity and the resources of the bank.

For example, a new trainee fixed a jam-up at the drive-through line by using her car cables to jumpstart a senior man’s car. She didn’t have to ask permission to do this, and she was celebrated for her action.

Umpqua employees also undergo Ritz-Carlton-led customer service training refreshers on a regular basis.

The big idea: Even if you’re in an unglamorous industry where many of the other players are seen as commodities by customers, there are always efforts you can make in customer service and the customer experience to stand out in the crowd.

10) Starbucks — Don’t Just Smile Hard, Create Strong Customer Service Standards

The mantra, which you’ll repeatedly hear if you spend some time with Starbucks, is “Make It Right.” This means that anything that has gone wrong, in a customer’s eyes, they are willing to fix without dispute. But it also represents a commitment at Starbucks to always be improving the customer experience.

Areas of improvement at Starbucks, for example, include their wildly successful mobile app. Some of these customer service standards can be quite elaborate. When you order a caramel macchiato at Starbucks, it has a precise pattern of caramel sauce: a lattice of seven vertical and horizontal lines with two full circles around it.

This standard provides more than visual consistency; it also ensures a small amount of caramel sauce in almost every sip. It’s true regardless of which Starbucks location you’re in when you take those sugar-laced sips.

And those wooden stir sticks? They source it from a specific variety of birch tree that company testing has shown won’t interact with the flavor of a coffee drink.

The big idea: Great customer service is more than smiling hard. It also depends on having standards that govern portions of the customer experience throughout the customer journey. Get these right, and you’re a long way toward pleasing your customers — not just once but over and over.

So, What do All These Companies Have in Common?

While components of “good” customer service may differ across industries and companies, good customer service has the following key attributes:

Availability of user-friendly FAQs and self-help content.

Prompt response to customer queries, complaints, or requests.

Easy access to customer care/support representatives via an omnichannel approach (online, email, SMS, chat, social media, video call, mobile, etc.).

Personalized solutions based on each customer’s situation or context.

Widespread practice of active listening and empathy in solution design.

Strong sense of accountability, including a full willingness to admit, apologize, and compensate for bad service/product errors.

Smart use of relevant technologies such as CRM, data analytics, AI, and machine learning in support of customer care.

Ability to nurture and grow relationships through sustained multi-channel engagement, feedback, and recommendations.

Seamless alignment with an overall customer experience strategy.

Authentic, motivated, and highly trained customer service professionals.

Every business that plans to stay relevant and competitive in its industry needs to have a strong and effective customer service organization. That’s because the link between customer service and key performance indicators such as customer retention, customer satisfaction, upsell/cross-sell rates, and revenue has long been established.

Lessons from 4 Popular Customer Service Blunders

1) FCK KFC

Due to supply chain issues, hundreds of KFC outlets in the UK were forced to close in early 2018 because they had no chicken to serve patrons. What!? To manage irate customers who then had to get their meals from other food chains, KFC published a public apology across many print media channels.

The apology used the company’s visual branding but tweaked its famous three-letter acronym into “FCK” to reflect the gravity of what just happened. Because it tickled customers’ funny bones, the apology was a hit and patrons eventually forgave the popular food chain.

To do: Creative humor sometimes works. When the customer issue is not overly serious, infusing humor to an official apology can turn things around.

2) Plane of Pain

In April 2017, social media ignited after United Airlines forcibly removed a passenger from his seat. The controversial and violent episode resulted literally in spilled blood — the passenger’s.

Because the public apology from the airline company’s CEO lacked any hint of either remorse or empathy, the backlash was massive, and the public cried for blood. The market concurred: UA’s parent company bled nearly a billion dollars in market value as investors fled for the exit. It took heroic efforts at crisis management to bring this down to just around $250 million.

To do: Demonstrate empathy — especially after a tragic event. Well-informed, well-connected, and well-equipped modern customers control the conversation. Give them the slightest excuse, and they’ll easily ditch your brand for another, all the while broadcasting their experience online.

3) Accounts and Apologies: Faking it at Fargo

Virtually forcing employees to create fake customer accounts is, well, dishonest. What’s more disenchanting is the way Wells Fargo handled the scandal. After creating 3.5 million banking and credit card accounts without customers’ approval over four years, Wells Fargo not only failed to articulate a sincere apology but even appeared to condone the fraud by not holding executives accountable. After a series of missteps, the scandal finally forced the CEO to resign.

To do: You’re not sorry if your actions say otherwise. Just paying lip service to customer care won’t get you very far. When a serious incident happens, you have to demonstrate that you are solving the problem with long-term strategic solutions, and not just temporarily placating your angry customers.

4) Battery Burnout

In 2016, a popular Samsung phone model — Galaxy Note 7 — became an internet meme because its faulty battery tended to burn or explode. The company turned the PR nightmare by holding itself accountable, recalling millions of units to ensure customer safety, and implementing stronger quality control measures from then on.

The brand initially suffered a sales contraction, but its genuine countermeasures eventually paid off — it increased its market valuation and its brand regained the trust and love of millions.

To do: Old school values will remain hot forever. So, be honest and hold yourself accountable when something bad happens in your turf. Show genuine concern for customers even if doing so will cost you dearly. (The Note 7 recall cost Samsung at least $5.3 billion).

Tactical Tips to Upgrade Your Customer Service Strategy

Businesses can — and should — leverage their customer service infrastructure as a competitive advantage. Here are some tactical tips that can help you achieve that.

Help transition your organization towards a customer-centric mindset if it hasn’t done so yet.

Build a clearer and deeper understanding of your customer personas as well as the unique journeys these personas commonly undertake. With markets, technologies, and consumer behavior in constant flux, efforts to understand an audience also need to be fluid and adaptive.

Improve average response and issue resolution times.

Simplify but personalize the delivery of customer service.

Make plans for the long term — because, for smart businesses, every customer is for life.

Think of customer service as the reactive part of the more comprehensive field of customer experience (CX).

Empower customer service staff and the rest of your frontline employees to motivate and enable them to deliver excellent customer service at all times.

Move toward an omnichannel framework to meet customers halfway.

Feedback is your friend. Get it as often and as unobtrusively as you can.

Use technology to orchestrate more meaningful or effective engagements. Phone calls remain relevant, but some customers may demand one-to-one videos, GIFs, and other content formats.

Provide a wide range of options but offer powerful recommendation and filtering engines to help customers decide faster and better.

Keep valued customers in the loop when it comes to new product or service features, even inviting some of them to participate in beta launches.

Set a reasonable customer service budget that can absorb minor expenses (simple birthday gifts, loyalty rewards, etc.) aimed at keeping customer satisfaction and engagement levels high.

Where is Your Customer Service Strategy Headed?

Customer service plays an important role in attracting, retaining, and nurturing customers. It supports revenue generation, loyalty programs, and referral campaigns. Along with product features and overall customer experience, customer service is a primary tool for keeping customers engaged and satisfied.

As numerous pieces of research have suggested, customer service will also be the key area where brands will fiercely compete in the near future.

Republished by permission. Original here.

Image: Depositphotos.com

This article, “Apply These 10 Customer Service Strategies from Top Brands” was first published on Small Business Trends

https://smallbiztrends.com/

The post Apply These 10 Customer Service Strategies from Top Brands appeared first on Unix Commerce.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2EVUoCP via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

argaia-peixes · 6 years

Text

Liv Travel Locations For Couples

Taking a step into the great big world of traveling for the very first time might feel a tad bit scary, but by keeping the helpful tips listed below in mind, you will soon find yourself traveling like those more experienced travelers, who go on many trips, every year. Calling a family or friend when you leave and arrive on a trip isn't just for kids. It is a good way to put them at ease, and also to make sure that if something goes wrong on your trip, someone will know about it quicker. If you have not called by a certain time, and they cannot reach you, this person will be able to take appropriate actions to find you or find out what happened.

youtube

If your cellphone will not cover long distance from the place you intend to travel to, it might be a smart idea to invest in a phone card before leaving. A phone card will make calls much less expensive and ensure that you don't accidentally make any expensive long distance calls. Before booking a hotel for your trip, check with the Better Business Bureau. Checking with them first, can save you a lot of time and money. It will ensure that you do not waste your time checking into a poor hotel. A poor hotel experience can ruin any vacation or business trip. Only pack things that are necessary. The less you bring with you, the less you have to lose or get stolen. Try not to carry on too many shoes as these can be a burden. Don't spend your money in local cheap gift shops. Find out what your travel location is famous for, and invest in a quality item or two. While, gift shops may be more affordable, they build on the idea that tourists don't know what they're buying and take advantage of it. You are usually sold items that are poorly manufactured and are sure to fall apart once you get home. To avoid being swindled by locals, invest in something of quality. Traveling is a great way to educate your family. Even developing countries can be perfectly safe if you plan carefully for safety, and it's an awesome learning experience for your children. Spending time abroad is a great way to build an understanding of, and tolerance for, other cultures. In you're on a cruise and you start to experience seasickness, have the room service bring you some green apples and crackers. Both of these are great for soothing your stomach and can sometime be better than medications. And they're also tasty and won't leave you with a foul taste in your mouth like some seasickness meds. If you qualify, use an international "discount" card. Teachers, students and youths, all qualify for international identification cards and these cards have special benefits. The cost is small, but if you can find the right places to use them, the fee is negligible. Get them for your children, to get special offers. When buying airline tickets, purchase them as far in advance as possible. Two months in advance is when the cheapest flights are available through the airlines. If you know you are traveling for the holidays, it is especially important to buy your airline tickets as early as you can to get the cheapest tickets. Before leaving home, do some research on the sightseeing locations you plan on visiting. Make note of attraction hours, days they are closed, and whether you need to get a ticket beforehand. For example, it is very frustrating to get to a much-anticipated art museum, only to find that they are closed every Tuesday. If you're a novice flyer and you find yourself about to board an airplane, bring some gum and a music player. When the plane is taking off and landing, slip your headphones on and chew some gum. The music will keep you calm and relaxed while the gum will prevent your ears from popping. One of the best souvenirs you can bring home from your travels is a journal. Document your treks to far off lands. This gives you not only something to do, but a great gift to share with your friends and family when you get home. You will find it an invaluable way to relive your journeys. To make the most of your travel budget, as well as your home budget, avoid taking it all with you. Taking too much money on a trip can quickly affect how the six months after the trip will go. Do not forget that you will have to return to the real world. Consider using E-tracking when it is available on a travel site. This feature keeps you updated with the lowest-priced traveling options. It also emails you when the flights you like have dropped in price. Before you pack, it is wise to make a checklist. This helps so that once you put away each item, you can check it off the list and not have to worry if you forgot something. It will also help the packing process go quicker, leaving time to do other last minute things. One of the most important things that a person forgets about when traveling is their health. There are items you can bring with you that can prevent a cold or other illness including aspirin, hand sanitizers, and vitamins. These are all small items that can easily fit in a carry on bag or purse. If you have diabetes and are traveling, plan ahead. Get a doctor's note explaining that you have diabetes or wear a medical alert bracelet. Take enough insulin with you and even some extra, if possible. Pack snacks, such as juices, peanut butter and sugar cubes or packets, for emergencies. Dress in comfortable and loose clothing and shoes. Now that you have read the suggestions offered in the above article, you should be more at ease when it comes to traveling. You learned what to do, and now you can apply it. Are you feeling confident and prepared for the adventures ahead?

Liv travel locations for couples

0 notes

nancygduarteus · 6 years

Text

How Trust Shapes Nations' Safety Rules

When I moved to China nearly two years ago, one of the first things I bought was a bicycle. I live on a university campus, where everyone rides, and the bike was cheap: $17 for an ancient Five Rams cruiser, with a lively color scheme of teal and rust. I used to cycle to work when I lived in New York, dodging tourists and threading in between delivery trucks. But the moment I pulled out onto a street in China, it became clear that this was going to be a different experience.

In New York, the key to road safety is predictability. Make eye contact with drivers, so they can see your intentions. Use hand signals when you want to turn. Avoid sudden, erratic movements—if drivers can see where you’re going, they’ll be less likely to hit you. The first time I use a hand signal in China, angling my arm leftward to show a truck driver I am about to turn in front of him, he looks to see what I’m pointing at, while accelerating. Every time I make eye contact, other cyclists and drivers barrel right on through, instead of letting me pass in front of them. Eventually I adapt to a new reality, learn the new rules, and I discover that they are as simple in China as in the United States. Actually, there’s only one rule: Ignore everyone.

When I am out on my bike, I am responsible for the area immediately around me, maybe 12 inches in every direction. The rest of the road is not my problem. I do not make eye contact with other bicyclists or motorists hurtling toward me, unless they are in my 12 inches. By not looking at them, I am making it their problem to not hit me, which of course they don’t. The drivers do the same thing. We are an army of high-speed somnambulists, purposefully behaving as though we are the only ones on the road.

It feels ridiculously dangerous, riding around those first few months—also, no one, me included, is wearing a helmet, although my excuse is that I haven’t been able to find a bicycle shop that sells them. But it becomes more and more evident that this is a normal, accepted level of risk here. Once, during a typhoon, I look out of a swimming taxi window and see ten cyclists casually skimming through the ankle-deep runoff, impervious, as if disposable ponchos were armor.

It’s easy to feel as if safety has a universal definition. Freedom from want, freedom from fear—aren’t those what everyone means when they think of safety? Perhaps, but the routes through the world to that state of being are circuitous and varied. Smoke alarms, for instance, have been required in every American bedroom since 1993. We rarely think about them, except to grouse when they go off while we’re cooking. France, however, only began requiring residential smoke alarms in 2015. Switzerland, rated the safest country in the world in 2015 by one consumer-research firm, has not mandated them at all. There is not a simple, one-way progression from a state of nature to a state of safety. Even within nations, there are fundamental divisions about how we want to deal with risk.

* * *

Deciding what dangers to avoid sounds like a supremely rational process, on the face of it. You calculate the risk of an event (house fire, bicycle crash), the probability of the bad outcome (death), multiply them together, and get a number that tells you how likely the worst-case scenario is. Then you decide how you might defend against it. Get a smoke alarm. Wear a helmet.

The truth is, though, that at this point a number of things come between us and a rational decision. Over the last half century, researchers have uncovered systematic biases built into how we decide. These heuristics usually bring us to a good-enough solution swiftly, which may be one reason they’ve stuck around. But sometimes they generate peculiar errors.

We judge how likely something is, for instance, by how recently we’ve seen it happen. The psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky call this the availability heuristic. On the one hand, it can generate a patina of reassurance that blinds us to real dangers. We regularly put our lives in the hands of doctors, whose image in our minds is of benevolence and healing. However, recent research has suggested that medical error may be the third-most common cause of death in the United States—in part, it seems, because while medicine is indeed capable of wonderful things, preventable human errors are not as well controlled as they are in fields like nuclear power.

The availability heuristic can also lead us to worry about things that almost never happen, just because we can imagine them so vividly. Less than one fatal shark attack has occurred per year in the United States over the last 50 years. Airlines have focused nearly superhuman attention on making flying one of the safest things you can do, and pilots often joke that the most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport. Still, plane crashes are some of the most visible and damning of dangers, body parts and luggage shredded and scattered across the ground in a bizarre parody of arrival, and shark attacks are re-created and broadcast regularly, always available to our memory. Fear of both is pervasive. The availability heuristic might have been useful when humans only saw things happening in their physical vicinity: If you saw an attack, or an accident, you might be next. But we are now geographically and temporally separate from much of what we witness.

These and other mental shortcuts can complicate the process of deciding which dangers actually matter, and accounting for them—the grand human task of colonizing the future, as risk scholar Arwen Mohun, author of Risk: Negotiating Safety in American Society, puts it. Still, if deciding on the specifics is difficult, then the history of danger—the domestic variety, the kind that can strike you down in your daily life, on your bicycle on the way to the grocery store—reveals a growing expectation that we should protect one another through the tools of society.

* * *

On my bicycle, for many months, I manage to avoid any clear evidence of danger. I whisk along under the colossal banyan trees that line the campus roads. I mount a basket above the Five Rams’ front wheel and screw to the handlebars a length of metal piping to hold my open umbrella when I ride through typhoons. It is amazing how disaster continues to avoid me. I’ve gone my whole life believing it is around the corner, ready to leap the moment you let your guard down. The other shoe is resolutely not dropping.

My bike gets me places faster. I can go grocery shopping and ride home with apples bouncing in the basket while I studiously avoid looking at anyone else on the road. I am still not wearing a helmet. I’m getting something out of this risk, too—the freedom of leaping on my bike without thinking, the joy of the wind in my hair. Maybe the world is not as dangerous as it seems. (Some psychologists hypothesize that humans have a personal-risk budget: When we make ourselves safe in one way, we allow ourselves more risk in another. Buy a safe car, drive it faster. Go skydiving, pack an extra parachute.)

Still, as the months pass, it becomes clear that while I may have the freedom to behave like a maniac on the road, there are other downsides to this local culture of risk. It’s no secret that the air quality in China leaves something to be desired. Nearly every day, the load of particulate matter in the air outside my house exceeds the healthy maximum set by the World Health Organization. Inside, like many anxious foreigners, I’ve rigged a set of air cleaners. In every room they whirr, fans pushing air through HEPA filters that accumulate a thick gray shag of particles: the invisible made grotesquely visible. I never turn them off. Some seasons, for days at a time, I don’t leave the house without a pollution mask, its soft white muzzle expanding and contracting as I breathe.

There is also the matter of food safety—avoiding foods with contaminants, whether solvents or bacteria. In China a number of serious scandals have made people wary of food; in one, melamine was mixed into baby formula to disguise the watering down of milk and boost profits, sickening hundreds of thousands. At customs and immigration in the Hong Kong train station, big placards warn travelers returning to the mainland that they can take only two cans of baby formula per person. In one recent 12-month period, 5,000 people were arrested for smuggling baby formula into the mainland from Hong Kong, where safety is more stringent.

In the United States, similar events about a hundred years ago led to institutions that keep us safe today. Upton Sinclair’s description of wildly unsanitary meatpacking plants provoked the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, listing foods and medicines that could not be adulterated. The act wasn’t perfect, and more scandals provoked change. In 1937 in the United States, children died screaming in pain after their parents gave them a cough syrup that turned out to contain diethylene glycol, added by the manufacturer to dissolve the syrup’s active ingredients. It wasn’t even illegal: The syrup, invented after the 1906 Act, was not on the list of regulated medicines. More than 100 people died, and the more rigorous Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act was passed in the aftermath, in 1938.

Incidents of this kind have fallen precipitously in the last 20 years, though the few that still occur are well publicized, says the sociologist John Lang. In general, we are justified in handing off the responsibility for making sure our food is not poisonous to other people. “For me as a sociologist, it’s what happened starting in the Industrial Revolution when we decided to split up who does what job,” Lang says. “So it’s no longer my family growing my food, and harvesting my food, and preparing my food.” In return, we are supposed to be the best we can be at whatever profession our freedom allows us.

But the minute others start to fall down on the job of safety, we decide we need to take it on ourselves. And that is exhausting. By the end of my first year in China, I feel as if I am a one-person FDA. I buy all my food from a Costco-style grocer an hour away by bus that claims to use a hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) protocol for food safety, which in the United States is required for many food companies. It still isn’t easy. After a text-message feud with a delivery service I use to spare myself the bus ride to the store—over the absence of the bar-code tracking sticker that provides information on the origins of the eggs—I’m frustrated and surprised at myself. This is what it has come to. This is my life.

I describe my experience bicycling, and filtering air, and buying food, to Lynette Shaw, a sociologist at the University of Michigan who studies how we decide what is valuable. She laughs. It sounds like a situation with low social capital, she says. What’s missing is trust.

* * *

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development defines social capital as “the links, shared values, and understandings in society that enable individuals and groups to trust each other and so work together.” The 1916 paper in which the phrase “social capital” first appears presents it even more simply: “goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit.”

This is the idea that you and the members of your community are more or less on the same page—that you agree on the rules and that they matter. The sociologist Robert Putnam and colleagues, who helped bring the concept of social capital to prominence in the late 20th century, compared the regional governments of northern and southern Italy in the book Making Democracy Work. They found that the governments that functioned best—adopted budgets on time, made loans to farms, answered their mail promptly—were those of the northern areas that had historically been ruled by their inhabitants. In the south, Norman rulers had imposed order from above in true autocratic fashion in the Middle Ages: To question orders from the nobility was sacrilege, and rules were inflicted, rather than instated. In the modern era, these areas were far less orderly.

History may have shaped the regions’ modern allocations of social capital. “Collective life in the civic regions is eased by the expectation that others will probably follow the rules. Knowing that others will, you are more likely to go along, too, thus fulfilling their expectations,” Putnam writes. “The least civic regions are the most subject to the ancient plague of political corruption. They are the home of the Mafia and its regional variants.” It’s every man for himself (and those close to him) and against outsiders—you can’t trust the government to do what’s best, so you come up with your own ways around, more often than not based on a profound mistrust of others.

This unlocks, for me, the story of the rules of the road in my new home. People cut me off because they do not trust me to let them by when it’s their turn. To signal one’s intent is to ask to be taken advantage of. In societies with low trust, there isn’t much incentive to, for instance, abide by clean-air laws, or follow regulation to make food safer. People do not trust that others will do it. And in both cases, it’s cheaper not to.

But even within a society, Shaw says, different groups can have vastly different expectations, and nowhere is that clearer than in the political spectrum. Progressives feel that the single most important thing—the moral purpose of a government—is the prevention of harm. Conservatives also care about preventing harm, but they draw the line around a smaller number of people, and they emphasize the importance of personal agency. Which is more dangerous, the mistakes of private individuals or companies, or the mistakes of the government? Which is more dangerous, a terrorist, or a gun in the hand of a private citizen? A government that can see all our secrets or one that flies blind? A border that admits everyone or one that admits no one?

* * *

On the evening of November 8 in the United States, I am on a bus in China. I have just been to the American clinic to get a flu shot. I interrupt the ever-present dialogue of risk—Do I trust the Chinese vaccine manufacturer? Was it properly refrigerated? Will I experience side effects?—and check my phone. At this point I am not really surprised by the results of the election. All I feel is the dull clang as the gate slams closed on one version of reality and we progress, one minute after another, into a new and unknown future.

In the weeks that follow, I realize that many of the things I took for granted about my own country are not as simple as they seem. America, the mirror I held up against my new home in a daily attempt to diagnose the things that bewilder and frustrate me, now seems like an alien place. All bets are off, all expectations thrown to the wind. As I strap on my pollution mask against the particulates from the factories and coal-burning power plants, pumping out picture books and zippers, pumping out money and carbon, I wonder whether, in coming to China, I have stepped into America’s future, not its past.

Most people do not realize just how deeply their expectations run, nor how profoundly they believe that they are universal. It is existentially shattering to find that this is not the case. These divisions about what we want our government to do have always been there, but they have led us to a peculiar place. “Human beings have been trying to figure out how to get control over the future probably since they’ve developed a sense of time,” says Mohun, the historian of risk. With regulation, with control, we have been able to reach ahead and pluck our fate from the hands of chance—with trade-offs that make some people uneasy. “The question now is whether the trade-offs are worth it to people who have power,” Mohun continues. “The regulatory state is really under question.” For want of trust, something valuable was lost, I hear over and over again in my head. The benefits of civilization are un-reapable by isolated individuals.

Several mornings in a row in late January, deep in thought, I pass a man piloting a backhoe at high speed down the main road of campus, a dozen garbage bags mounded in the scoop, a jury-rigged garbage truck. I feel a swell of desperate fondness for my country, where this would probably not be tolerated, and for this other one, on the other side of the world, where people forge ahead in the most unpredictable circumstances. On my bike, I smile at him. He, on his roaring yellow steed, breaks into a ridiculous grin.

We are all bicycling in China now. The week of the inauguration, I buy a helmet.

This post originally appeared in the Virginia Quarterly Review.

from Health News And Updates https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/safety-regulation-psychology/544439/?utm_source=feed

0 notes

ionecoffman · 6 years

Text

How Trust Shapes Nations' Safety Rules

* * *

We judge how likely something is, for instance, by how recently we’ve seen it happen. The psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky call this the availability heuristic. On the one hand, it can generate a patina of reassurance that blinds us to real dangers. We regularly put our lives in the hands of doctors, whose image in our minds is of benevolence and healing. However, recent research has suggested that medical error may be the third most common cause of death in the United States—in part, it seems, because while medicine is indeed capable of wonderful things, preventable human errors are not as well controlled as they are in fields like nuclear power.

* * *

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development defines social capital as “the links, shared values and understandings in society that enable individuals and groups to trust each other and so work together.” The 1916 paper in which the phrase “social capital” first appears presents it even more simply: “goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit.”

* * *

We are all bicycling in China now. The week of the inauguration, I buy a helmet.

This post originally appeared in the Virginia Quarterly Review.

Article source here:The Atlantic

0 notes

alienation2016-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on Alienation

New Post has been published on https://alienation.biz/industrial-shelving-systems-used-by-a-variety-of-industries/

Industrial Shelving Systems Used By A Variety of Industries

Industrial shelving is not only for massive warehouses. It is common to find roll-out shelving systems in a large form of industries which include aerospace, industrial manufacturing, automobile manufacturing, scientific laboratories, packaged items production, oil and gas production and the military. Driven by a want to increase operational performance and decrease costs through area savings, those industries and plenty of more rely on business shelving structures.

The aerospace enterprise is predicated on high exceptional business shelving structures to keep huge and heavy engine components. Specialized roll-out also plays a key role in shielding crucial avionics because they can be customized to encompass extra protections for touchy components. Security is vital when coping with plane parts so many airline suppliers use commercially that function 12 gauge metal aspects, again and doorways and locking mechanisms for added protection.

Industrial production groups use commercially to maximize storage and security of substances. Industrial roll-out shelving racks offer ease of use and ergonomic get admission to all items on a shelf. Many corporations select custom designed units to maximize precious plant area. Racks can be designed with load capacities as much as 40,000 pounds in keeping with shelf for maximum flexibility. Companies additionally admire the automatic protection interlock feature hooked up on better systems which prevent more than one shelf from being rolled out concurrently.

In the automotive enterprise, foremost car organizations and part producers use a large number of shelving structures. Shelving systems are used for device cribs, paintings cells, assembly traces and of path fashionable storage. Businesses on this automobile enterprise personalize shelf sizes and cradling with a view to maximize storage area and greater importantly speed of meeting. Whether running a vintage plant or a new facility, custom is encouraged to drive maximum production efficiency and employee protection.

Medical laboratories frequently make use of roll-out to beautify their operations. Many specify custom tops and shelf decks which are essential to function in the clinical, disposable and implantable device markets. Surfaces designed for excessive warmness, chemical compounds, and clean room environments are available with custom roll-out shelving racks and shelves. Roll-out shelving racks are best for quick and clean access to the device and completed goods. The medical enterprise also utilizes lockable for safety and manipulate.

Many packaged items manufacturing agencies locate that business roll-out is excellent for system and tooling storage near production lines. Just like different industries, those production corporations usually personalize rack systems to maximize available space and decrease manufacturing change over the years. Roll-out shelving shelves come geared up with sides, a back, and lockable doorways for system protection.

The army uses roll-out shelving for storing and managing munitions as well as another device. Several branches specify structures with built in fork carry pockets so whole racks can speedy be relocated and even transported into theaters of operation. The navy additionally makes use of for fabric dealing with and upkeep techniques. Everyone from the Air Force to the Navy is predicated on industrial shelving solutions.

In remaining, you can easily see the popularity and necessity of commercial roll-out shelving for a myriad of industries. Increasing performance, riding fee discounts via space savings and improving employee ergonomics are essential in competing effectively in the modern-day worldwide financial system and are made viable thru commercial shelving structures. Many industries past those noted in this article rely on business roll-out shelving to enhance their operational efficiency and therefore maximize earnings.

Changing Industry Is Difficult But Not Impossible

With a recession in complete swing, many applicants are searching for to trade industries. This is specifically authentic if most of your revel in is in an industry that has been hard hit by the recession. Some examples are the loan, economic or manufacturing industries. As a government recruiter, I often teach applicants at the first-class approaches to head about changing industries. It is feasible, however, it also takes making plans and endurance. Two matters lacking in many candidates.

Making an industry change in this economic system is difficult unless you have got one of those jobs in which the skills required are not industry precise. That approach your abilities and training are without difficulty transferable to any other industry. The difficulty you have to triumph over is that your opposition to an opening will likely encompass people with giant revel in within the enterprise your need to transport to. Most agencies will examine those with industry revel in first. Companies constantly opt for a person with direct enterprise experience over those without it. There are precise positions in which industry enjoy is essential. For example income positions. Knowing the clients and having contacts is truely an advantage. On the alternative hand different capabilities, accounting, human assets and customer support are frequently transferable among industries. So I advise taking a while to become aware of what are your transferable abilities and how will they be of advantage within the new enterprise.

The first-rate way to make an industry exchange is through networking. You want to construct relationships with humans in the industry. To do that don’t forget attending professional associations, joining networking organizations inside the industry your choice to move to, attend exchange suggests or conferences, and begin connecting with humans for your local region. As they get to recognize you they’ll be able to determine how your strengths, outdoor their industry, can apply to the issues they need to be solved of their corporation. In this situation going thru recruiters or filing resumes through ads are long pictures.

There are a few barriers you have to reflect on consideration on overcoming when converting industries, assuming your capabilities are effortlessly transferable. The first one is reimbursement. Chances are you’re greater value within the enterprise you return from than a few unrelated enterprise. So the extent of reimbursement will possibly be much less in a brand new enterprise than what you have been making. Secondly, the position will likely be at a decreased level. If you had been a supervisor for your industry, you could now not qualify as a manager inside the new industry. Finally, some additional training and education may be required.

Making an industry trade takes planning. It isn’t some thing that occurs all of an unexpected because you’re unemployed. In fact, after you are unemployed it perhaps too past due to start considering an enterprise alternate.

Global Fashion Industry: How Does Geography Play A Role?

‘ It is a completely thrilling enterprise if you reflect on consideration on it. Much of it nonetheless remains arcane for the common guy, and trends that emerge and are eventually changed never certainly feel like a massive deal to a maximum of us. However, if your appearance back, you might be able to appreciate the trade that this has bought approximately to the human race. In reality, higher knowledge the worldwide fashion enterprise might make you appreciate how important this particular industry is. There are plenty of things that cross into molding this industry, a number of which might be mentioned below.

Local atmosphere

Depending on how the nearby surroundings might be, that is too tends to take the same image. Hence, if there may be some kind of a political imbroglio going in u . S ., it’s miles bound to affect this just as tons. The Even way of life performs a huge role here, and the resulting fashion might be closely motivated by means of the dressmaker’s culture and heritage. As one may witness in fashion industries round the sector, a number of the creations are a right away result of the cultural impact of that particular region. This is a commonplace phenomenon determined in the global industry.

Economic Conditions

It is the give up of the day, is but every other enterprise. Hence, it follows that money makes a big presence in this enterprise and the lack of which, will virtually affect the enterprise. High profile designers are constantly searching out for rising and profitable markets. If they do not discover it inside the area they are in, they may be guaranteed to look for it someplace else. This is some thing vital that regularly adjustments the seat of strength in the global style industry. A metropolis that is probably taken into consideration as the recent seat nowadays might at once lose face tomorrow if the economy can not preserve up with the enterprise.

External Influences

In this enterprise, not anything is taken into consideration to be a “copy”. Designs and styles tend to be inspired, and no longer copied immediately. Hence, with the worldwide fashion enterprise, the reality that outdoor styles and designs are bound to persuade much less critical fashion industry magazines can not be overlooked. This is an industry that flourishes to stay acquainted with differences. External affects are a regular incidence and can’t be disregarded. People are bound to try to exchange the way things are, however finally, the exceptional style can be that of the extra effective enterprise.

Thus, it is easy to without a doubt anticipate the worldwide fashion enterprise to be more of a united enterprise. Much of the factors that affect the global enterprise are usually those that emerge from familiar industries. These are the matters which might be really worth noticing for and basically dictate how the industry tends to be. Not simplest does this enterprise trade often, it truly is a requirement that it trades as often as possible. This is some thing that needs to be taken into consideration while studying from a global perspective. Overall, this is absolutely going to intrigue any character that desires to analyze extra about it.

0 notes

isbmanswersheet-blog · 7 years

Text

Why has the Lexus model been very successful in the U.S. but has not been marketed in Japan (Suggestion Review the frequenc

Assignment Solutions, Case study Answer sheets

Project Report and Thesis contact

[email protected]

www.mbacasestudyanswers.com

ARAVIND – 09901366442 – 09902787224

Principles and Practice of Management

Case Studies

CASE STUDY (20 Marks)

Two of the leading manufacturers of high end mobile phones, Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) and Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM), had entered into an agreement in February 2008, whereby the two companies had agreed not to poach each other's employees. In September 2008, Motorola sued RIM and claimed for damages accusing the latter of poaching 40 of its employees in Florida. In December, RIM countersued Motorola accusing the company of illegally preventing it from hiring employees who had been fired from Motorola though the original agreement between the two companies had expired in August 2008. While experts are still divided on whether talent poaching is ethical, there has been a steep increase in employee poaching lawsuits across all sectors as employers are concerned with protecting their trade secrets . In December 2008, Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM) sued Motorola Inc. (Motorola) for, what it called, illegally preventing it from hiring employees that Motorola had laid off. According to RIM, the two companies had entered into an agreement in February 2008 on not hiring each other's employees or the newly separated ex employees. When Motorola announced layoffs in large numbers, RIM, attempted to hire and gain some engineers at a lower cost. RIM considered that the agreement had expired in August 2008 and prayed to the Chicago court for damages. RIM contended that despite the agreement having expired, Motorola had unlawfully extended the contract and prevented RIM from offering jobs to the fired Motorola employees.

Answer the following question.

Q1. Give an overview of the case.

Q2. Discuss talent poaching and give reasons why talent poaching is illegal

CASE STUDY (20 Marks)

In August 2008, WalMart Stores announced that its profit rose 17 percent in the second quarter and that it is raising its full year forecast. In a challenging economy, the world’s largest retailer benefited from low prices and its moves to cut costs. WalMart’s President and Chief Executive Lee Scott said that, "While inflation and higher fuel costs are pressuring suppliers, retailers and customers worldwide, we’re confident that WalMart is well positioned for this economy.” Chief Financial Officer Tom Schoewe attributed the better second quarter profits to tighter inventory controls, which led to fewer markdowns on merchandise. One of WalMart’s goals – which it successfully met – was keeping inventory growth at half the rate of its sales growth which it successfully met. In contrast, sales at department stores and specialty retailers were lagging behind. What is the key to such good results? WalMart overhauled its strategy. Instead of announcing any price increases to cope with the tough economy, the company slashed its expansion plans. It refocused on lower prices, improved the mix of merchandise offered, cleaned up its stores and provided friendlier and faster customer service. But there is more to WalMart’s success over the years than just tighter inventory controls and lower prices. WalMart is truly a great company. A strong organizational culture is the foundation for making a good company a great one. The secret to WalMart’s success has long been attributed to its strong culture. Analysts like Jim Collins believe that WalMart had the kind of ‘cultlike’ culture that is shared by all great companies. WalMart employees are referred to as ‘Walmartians’ which is a sign of a unique culture shared by them. This culture is responsible for a company of this magnitude to be able to sustain its entrepreneurial spirit decade after decade. Since its early days, WalMart achieved remarkable growth rates and was the first trillion dollar company in the world. In 1999, WalMart became the largest private employer in the US with 1,140,000 Associates. But with amazing success also came criticism. WalMart was sued many times and even held the record for being sued the maximum at onetime. Its practices and culture were held responsible for killing small local retailers. It was also criticized for gender based discrimination, its overtime policies and using sweatshop products.

Answer the following question.

Q1. What does the reference of WalMart employees as ‘Wlalmartians’ indicate?

Q2. Discuss why WalMart was criticized and often sued.

Q3. Give the reasons for great success of WalMart, the retailer company.

Q4. Debate the importance of organizational culture in making the company great.

CASE STUDY (20 Marks)

Safety of aero planes has been a major issue with airlines. The human life in itself is priceless and any accident evens a minor one is a setback to the accountability and reputation of the airline. Apart from this loss, accidents destroy assets worth in crores of rupees including aircrafts, crew and pilots. The magnitude of an air accident is large and thus all the airlines have to constantly maintain and improve upon safety standards. One critical factor in these accidents is human error. The fact about accidents is that majority of them occur at taking off or landing or within ten minutes of any start or end of journey. These operations are done by pilots and administered by the ground control authorities, thus the human factor becomes important. Considering this, International Airways, a private airline, has recently taken up the issues at major level. The top management has decided to compare and study the best available monitoring systems and adopt the one which is most suitable for their process. The top management decided that one of the actions taken in this direction will be to provide the best training to their pilots and crew. It decided to approach one of the best and most advanced airlines. Eska which is a multinational leader in equipment and quality to train their employees. The deal was finalized and a team of twelve senior trainers and pilots came to International Airways. After initial introductions, twenty pilots and twelve senior crew managers were to start their training under these foreign trainers. The top management also took keen interest in their system developed in house and training schedules. Generally the people at International Airways have been very positive about this training. The Group Chief training Anil has served many national and international airlines and is considered an icon in the industry. He had cultural differences in the company and its counterpart, Eska. He also felt that the cultural difference is even more apparent in the area of development and training. The trainers have a task oriented style and very upright about it. During training, the trainers used the class room teaching and flight simulators to achieve maximum benefits. The group of trainees for around ten days was fully captivated by the teaching style and the techniques displayed. The concept advocated strongly by the trainers were the ones they never encouraged for in their company. The trainers on the other hand emphasized that the ultimate aim to the pilot and the crew is to avoid a crisis.

Answer the following question.

Q1. What is the case all about? Give brief.

Q2. Compare the cultural aspects of the International Airways with those of their trainers.

Global Car Industry (20 Marks)

How the Lexus Was Born and Continued Its Success in the United States, but will Lexus Succeed in Japan? One of the best examples of global competition is in the car industry. As the Japanese gained market share in America, U.S. car makers required the Japanese to self impose quotas on cars exported to the United States. This encouraged Japanese firms not only to establish their plants in the United States but also to build bigger and more luxurious cars to compete against the higher priced U.S. cars and the expensive European cars such as the Mercedes and the BMW. One such Japanese car is the Lexus, by Toyota. This car is aimed at customers who would like to buy a Mercedes or BMW but cannot afford either. With a sticker price of $35,000, the Lexus is substantially less expensive than comparable European imports. In 1983, Toyota set out to develop the best car in the world measured against the Mercedes and the BMW. The aim was to produce a quiet, comfortable, and safe car that could travel at 150 miles per hour and still avoid the gas guzzler tax imposed on cars getting less than 22.5 miles per gallon. This seemed to be an idea of conflicting goals: cars being fast seemed irreconcilable with cars being at the same time fuel efficient. To meet these conflicting goals, each subsystem of the car had to be carefully scrutinized, improved whenever possible, and integrated with the total design. The first version of the 32valve V8 engine did not meet the fuel economy requirement. The engineers applied a problem solving technique called "thoroughgoing countermeasures at the source." This means an attempt to improve every component until the design objectives are achieved. Not only the engine but also the transmission and other parts underwent close scrutiny to make the car meet U.S. fuel requirements. Toyota's approach to achieving quality is different from that of German car manufacturers. The latter use relatively labor intensive production processes. In contrast, Toyota's advanced manufacturing technology aims at high quality through automation requiring only a fraction of the work force used by German car makers.Indeed, this strategy, if successful, may be the secret weapon to gain market share in the luxury car market.

Answer the following question.

Q1. Prepare a profile of the potential buyer of the Lexus.

Q2. What should Mercedes and BMW do to counteract the Japanese threat in the United States and Europe?

Q3. Why has the Lexus model been very successful in the U.S. but has not been marketed in Japan? (Suggestion: Review the frequency of repair records of luxury cars. Also talk to Lexus dealers or Lexus owners).

Q4. Do you think Lexus will succeed in Japan? Why or why not?

Assignment Solutions, Case study Answer sheets

Project Report and Thesis contact

[email protected]

www.mbacasestudyanswers.com

ARAVIND – 09901366442 – 09902787224

and��]

0 notes

bxboy52 · 7 years

Text

Welcome back.

“When you blame, you open up a world of excuses, because as long as you’re looking outside, you miss the opportunity to look inside, and you continue to suffer.” ― Donna Quesada, Buddha in the Classroom: Zen Wisdom to Inspire Teachers

Well folks, a lot has happened since last month. It seems that the cost of a safety program is just too much for American businesses to bare as they believe it cuts into their ability to compete in the market place as well as profits and bonuses. Then those damn EPA laws also have kept many a CEO, COO and other top executives from maxing profit goals and has forced them to live in a lesser luxury life style. I am very glad to see that the sight of worker’s amputated limbs and other extremities, their blood, guts and corpses has not interfered with these execs ability to operate at all. What is even more exciting and hypocritical, is that the U.S. Government is actively protecting me from those illegal bad hombres and other assorted terrorist groups but seem to have no problem if the company I work for tries to kill me. I have always believed in American manufacturing and ingenuity and to buy American first, the quality and workmanship meant something. But there is NO reason what so ever that makes it O.K. to sacrifice American workers by exposing them to hazards that have been proven to be needlessly dangerous and can be mitigated except under the delusional belief the money saved not protecting human life, our air, land and water will go to hire and expand the business when we all know it’s not going into the pockets of the hard working employees who do the day to day tasks but into the pockets of executives who sit behind a desk all day and only think, how can I make more money?

Which leads me to this observation made over the last few years. The more computerized, internet savvy, social media conscience or cloudy we get, companies are losing the human touch and forgetting what customer service is really all about. It’s not just about resolving problems that arise during or after the sale but ensuring that the entire customer experience is a seamless, smooth event. This is not the fault of those on the front lines like customer service people, manufacturing workers, distribution drivers or pilots or clerks or other workers but is a result of the lack of planning and foresight by their leadership. It should be no surprise about the incident that occurred on a United Airlines flight in Chicago when a passenger was pulverized and dragged off a plane for the simple crime of just wanting to get home. It was just a matter of time. Even though no crime was committed and the flight wasn’t over booked, the Airline decided it was perfectly fine to displace people by offering an arbitrary set fee for their inconvenience and disruption to their lives due to the airlines incompetence in planning. What do you mean you won’t take the fee? Everybody takes the fee! Your life is inconsequential to us, you’re just a commodity we move.

Thats where leadership has failed the most and not just in the airline industry. Instead of putting efforts into reviewing procedures and policies to improving the customer experience they’ve been looking through green tinted $$ signs and focused on finding ways to make even more money, with less staff and equipment while keeping the status quo in tact, because we don’t need to improve, we’re perfect. So, again, how can we make more money? What is the next thing we can attach a fee too where the trade off will be worth it? Will the number of customers we lose be offset by the money we make for charging for luggage? We know how that worked out. To avoid the fee people carry on as much as possible to the point that overhead space is a luxury. The irony here is when the airline knows a flight is overbooked and overhead will fill up, they wind up checking in your carry on for free.

Then our friends at Well Fargo decided to enhance the customer experience by opening accounts for customers even though those customers never wanted, asked for or in some cases didn’t even know they had these accounts. Did the workers begin this practice? NO! Again it was the corrupt, greedy leadership that had run out of ethical ideas to bring in more money, so they found other ways to justify the means. Over 5000 workers were fired for this, even though they were told by their bosses, wink wink, nudge nudge, it was fine. By firing a handful of execs does not change the culture either. Just as Fox News. It however sends the message, if you do something to bring in more money, just please don’t get caught.

The eroding of the customer experience can also be found in many retail establishments as well as they try to do more with less staffing to save money. Now in my local supermarket you can find workers with large carts going around the aisles. I’m not totally sure what they’re doing but it could be price and code checking on food items which is a good thing but they are so intent on getting their work done they are always in the way. Mindlessly blocking aisles or a product you need to get too. On top of this, add the vendors coming in to set up displays or restock soda, potato chips, bread and other assorted items who are not being supervised by Supermarket staff and who knows what the supermarket’s policy is or if it’s been explained to the vendors but the other day a potato chip guy was setting up and stocking a display at one end of an aisle, blocking access and then a soda guy on the other end restocking. A person trying to make a purchase could not get through without having to ask one of them to move which gets you a dirty look for being so bold to interrupt them from their busy schedule as they forget YOU’RE THE CUSTOMER!!

Let’s face it, leadership is not always right and especially when it comes to safety or ethical behavior you have every right to question it. If the company ignores your concerns then it is time to either quit and find another job with a company that appreciates you or stand up and fight. The choice is yours but when authority is not questioned that’s when the true atrocities come about. Never keep quiet about safety for the life you save may be your own.

STAND DOWN FOR SAFETY

Companies Behaving Badly-Customer Service? Welcome back. “When you blame, you open up a world of excuses, because as long as you're looking outside, you miss the opportunity to look inside, and you continue to suffer.” ― Donna Quesada, Buddha in the Classroom: Zen Wisdom to Inspire Teachers…

#accident prevention #Leadership #workplace safety

0 notes

thenontakenname-blog · 7 years

Text

“So tonight, get ready to fly, cuz we’re gonna live it all up in the sky”

“Why wouldn’t I found my own airline”? said no MBA student ever (or perhaps he/she did say so, but didn’t survive to tell us that). The reason is not that MBA students do not drink enough Red-Bulls and therefore lack wings, but rather that the aviation industry is one of the toughest industries out there.

Tough competition leading to tremendous costs in order to satisfy the customer, volatile oil prices, heavy assets, low ROE’s, scarce aircraft manufacturers, and the fact that flights are always on the radar as it come to terror, all these are making this industry look like Homer Simpson in a Jacuzzi: Not sexy! Singapore Airlines, which apparently shares the same initials as the creator of the world famous Chandelier, SIA, was able to gain market-share by changing the rules of the game. Ever since SIA was founded, it saw itself as a company that provides an experience rather than a company that takes passengers from point A to point B (that is in case the passengers are lucky, as many airlines take some passengers from point A to point C due to technical issues, while others could throw clients out of the plane before leaving point A, as sources from United Airlines recently revealed). It is hard to differentiate yourself in such a market. So the question is, how did SIA accomplish that? How did SIA go from thinking about its strategy (providing experience) into implementing it? First, it leveraged the low labor costs in Singapore back in the 70′s and 80′s, a fact that made such costs only 16% of SIA’ s total costs compared with an average 35% of other airlines. Secondly, SIA strategically maintained a young fleet by being “early adaptors” of new aircraft, leading to significant discounts from manufacturers. In addition, SIA’s salvage value on such aircraft was relatively big, as it sold these aircraft 5-6 years upon purchasing them. These facts are quite nice, but not too “sexy”. Operations and logistics are nice, but branding, oh branding, is what makes operations sexy. SIA used branding to really differentiate itself. No, it did not put an add with a young girl dancing as the SIA we all know did in her music videos, but rather it leveraged the image of the mysterious Singapore Girl that it created. SIA’s entire marketing strategy was based on using a Singapore Girl who intrigued clients about the far east. Although most of SIA’s clients did not fly to the far east, they were probably intrigued by that culture and wanted to experience it while flying. In addition, SIA leveraged that figure to represent the Far East as an exotic, charming, warm culture, with a special orientation toward service. And indeed, only female flight attendance worked in front of the passengers during SIA’s flights, while male attendants were usually tasked with work that does not relate to interacting with the clients. In addition, SIA highly invested in training its staff to do its best to serve and assist the clients, far beyond the competing airlines. It also invested in the appearance and prestige it gave to its employees, by teaching them how to dress up elegantly, put the “right” make-up, and so on. SIA even trained its flight attendants about wines and food that was served on board.

SIA is definitely not the only airline that leveraged its ethnicity or country for marketing purposes. EL-AL, Israel’s main carrier, have been using the slogan “it’s not just an airline, it’s Israel” for a long time, and it also highlights the Israeli flag, which is a crucial part of the design of its aircraft. This way EL-AL is able to attract many Israeli customers, that fly with it due to the kosher food, the Israeli “experience” it provides to the Israeli passengers, and the security and safety of its aircraft (If you have ever flown with EL-AL you might think differently about the security “experience”, but that’s an issue for a different post).

Virgin America is another example of an airline that is consistent with its brand while distinguishing itself from competitors in order to attract certain clients. Virgin America was founded by the British Virgin Group, which is highly related to music and entertainment. The company leveraged that image recently by creating an original safety video. This video actually made my spouse want to fly with Virgin America badly. In addition, Virgin’ s America Check-in experience is much more colorful and vivid than other airlines’ check-in, including trendy music and easy-going energetic agents. Thus, the company literally “plays” on its image in order to attract a certain type of customers who tend to be more trendy, active, and easy-going.

youtube

To sum up, some airlines do great work in creating, maintaining, and leveraging a certain image. Being consistent with such image allows such airlines to differentiate themselves from others. Now we just have to wait and see whether United keeps on violently dragging passengers across its cabin, or perhaps United might decide to oddly change its image...

#2017mitsloanbrandingB MITSloan MIT Branding