Are you making an assumption that pilot trainers employed by an overseas company will be worse? Why?
Because that's how the incentives align. The goal is to cut costs, the cost of outsourced training pilots + the margin of the outsourced contractor will need to be lower than the cost of in-house training pilots.
Also because that's how pretty much all of outsourcing goes, it doesn't take a seer to realise that what's happened essentially every time is going to happen again. Even less so considering Boeing's recent history of cutting costs at the expense of safety and reliability.
Hiring me in the UK is cheaper than hiring someone else in Silicon Valley. I don't think that necessarily means I'm any worse a programmer, does it?
I've explained that there are no incentives for the quality being the same, only for costs to be lower. Which has essentially always resulted in quality dropping. Including in Boeing's own recent history.
> It's possible costs will be lower due to better efficiency and hiring in different markets, not due to worse pilots.
It's also possible that you start shooting solid gold out your ass.
> Hiring me in the UK is cheaper than hiring someone else in Silicon Valley. I don't think that necessarily means I'm any worse a programmer, does it?
If the goal is solely to hire a cheaper developer, it's not you they'll be going to.
If you’re just speculating that it’s technically still possible, then how is that valuable discussion? As OP said, it’s also technically possible to crap gold. So what?
Perhaps the pilots union wanted $400k a year for each pilot, but their market value was only $200K a year?
The firm has every incentive to do this (including hiring cheap programmers who would have difficulty remaining employed directly on their abilities) and I’ve seen this happen more than rarely. There are good and terrible programmers everywhere in the world, yet I can’t ever recall the “new programmer on your account” being excellent; I don’t think that’s by chance.
The “outsourcing” of critical functions concerns me way more than the “off-shoring” does.
Whether or not this new outsourcing will go the same way is unknown. But based upon their demonstrated results from the last decade... it's not hopeful.
"According to union officials, CCL’s ownership structure is a company within a nest of shell companies"
Yep ... it must be the scenery.
Company outside the US? Likely a dodgy company.
Pilots potentially not American? Likely dodgy pilots.
What do you think the US does so differently to everyone else that means outsourcing the work will be worse quality?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c...
I emphasize I only offer it as a source of examples of bad airmanship recognized abroad. I still patently reject his conclusions of ultimate fault for the 737 MAX crashes.
Given the choice between having the internal Boeing trainers mentioned in the article, or potentially delegating it to a contracted pilot with said deficient airmanship, without the context I personally have into the industry from extensive hobbyist research, I couldn't fault someone for being wary. Especially given experiences with outsourcing in other verticals.
It's just not a move that makes sense in the current business world either unless I'm woefully out of date. Training pilots on proper aircraft operating technique should be part of Boeing's core competency. Since you really can't separate a highly technical product like an airliner from the dissemination of the skills and knowledge to use it.
To be frank I think Boeing management is trying to pilot the company into a smoking crater. If I had voting rights capable of moving anything, I'd be looking at votes of no confidence across the management echelon.
But ask yourself how many times quality has gone up after outsourcing critical operations to a group of shell companies based in a low regulation polity.
Also ask yourself why a safety and reputation critical company seems to have a corporate structure indistinguishable from one used to dodge legal liability in tax evasion cases.
How many leading aerospace companies do you think are based out of the Isle of Man? It does not even have a major airport.
I don't think they're doing the work on the Isle of Mann - that's just where the company happens to be registered.
When handing over the responsibility of training pilots to some entity inside another entity, like layers of an onion, it means you outsourced it into a black hole of regulation and competence. That structure is made to specifically obscure what these "cost saving" measures actually imply.
When we're talking about this kind of critical activities you want them happening somewhere where you can actually hold people accountable. Somewhere with visibility, transparency, and working judicial and legislature.
And where would that be?
If the USA's (or wherever) justice system can be bamboozled by off shoring liability, that's indicative the system is broken and / or the necessary treaties are intentionally absent / weak.
Did the article say Boeing is outsourcing pilot training to Pakistan?