Outsourcing Cost Boeing Billions (2019)

Capitalism, incentives, and safety

• Many argue the root cause is “dumb”/short‑term capitalism: profit and cost‑cutting prioritized over engineering quality and safety.
• Debate over shareholder responsibility: some blame shareholders and the financial system; others note most shareholders have little direct control and blame executives’ short‑term incentives (pay packages, stock price focus).
• Non‑voting shares and “quality‑first” companies are discussed as possible but rare alternatives.

Responsibility for the 737 MAX failures

• Several commenters stress that management decisions, not individual $9/hr developers, killed hundreds of passengers.
• Others say engineers share some responsibility, especially senior ones, for not challenging unsafe requirements, while still emphasizing systemic QA and process failures.

Outsourcing, $9/hr rates, and quality

• Strong skepticism that low‑cost outsourcing saves money in complex, safety‑critical domains; cited downsides: lower quality, accumulated bugs, reputation damage, and misaligned incentives.
• Some note $9/hr can be a good local wage; what’s “shameful” is using very cheap labor for high‑stakes work, not the absolute number.
• Others argue pay is mostly driven by supply/demand; moral judgments about “shameful” pay are contested.

Professionalization and certification

• Multiple comments support professional licensing or certification for safety‑critical software (aviation, space, finance), distinct from casual or low‑risk software.
• Concern that broad “software professionalism” would be overreach; focus should be on high‑impact domains.

MCAS, design vs implementation

• Several say MCAS issues stemmed from system design and requirements (single AOA sensor, optional safety indicators, inadequate training) rather than coding bugs.
• One commenter notes an article stating MCAS itself was not outsourced; the $9/hr engineers reportedly worked on display and test software, making the outsourcing–crash link unclear.
• Others emphasize the deeper cultural shift at the company from “engineering firm” to “run like a business,” with cost and schedule overriding safety.

Offshoring, culture, and communication

• Discussion of offshoring economics: quality engineers in Eastern Europe/India are not as cheap as many assume; top talent is mobile and may not join “cost‑center” roles.
• Cultural and communication gaps, time zones, and lack of domain knowledge are cited as major risks; “the hard part is communication, not typing code.”
• Some responses push back, arguing that even if offshore teams operate at lower effectiveness, the cost savings can still be attractive, though this may not hold in safety‑critical contexts.