Production Problems at Boeing Factory Prompt Regulators to Review Lapses (bangkokpost.com) 63
Long-time Slashdot reader phalse phace writes: The FAA has begun looking into quality-control problems at Boeing for their wide-body jet Dreamliner that go back almost a decade.
The Wall Street Journal reports that "the plane maker has told U.S. aviation regulators that it produced certain parts at its South Carolina facilities that failed to meet its own design and manufacturing standards, according to an Aug. 31 internal Federal Aviation Administration memo." (Non-paywalled source here.)
The Journal reports:
As a result of "nonconforming" sections of the rear fuselage, or body of the plane, that fell short of engineering standards, according to the memo and these people, a high-level FAA review is considering mandating enhanced or accelerated inspections that could cover hundreds of jets.
The memo, a routine update or summary of safety issues pending in the FAA's Seattle office that oversees Boeing design and manufacturing issues, says such a safety directive could cover as many as about 900 of the roughly 1,000 Dreamliners delivered since 2011.
The Wall Street Journal reports that "the plane maker has told U.S. aviation regulators that it produced certain parts at its South Carolina facilities that failed to meet its own design and manufacturing standards, according to an Aug. 31 internal Federal Aviation Administration memo." (Non-paywalled source here.)
The Journal reports:
As a result of "nonconforming" sections of the rear fuselage, or body of the plane, that fell short of engineering standards, according to the memo and these people, a high-level FAA review is considering mandating enhanced or accelerated inspections that could cover hundreds of jets.
The memo, a routine update or summary of safety issues pending in the FAA's Seattle office that oversees Boeing design and manufacturing issues, says such a safety directive could cover as many as about 900 of the roughly 1,000 Dreamliners delivered since 2011.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I modded OP up and you down for trolling. If he has worked there, his opinion is far more valid (and interesting) than yours or GP's. You have no clue how Boeing goes about its diversity practices, nor does GP, yet you modded OP down simply because of your personal politics. You are contributing to the brainless aspect of the left/right divide here on /.
Also, consider why there is no -1 Racist option. The answer might help you develop.
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hires (Score:1)
To be honest, there is a hint of merit to saying "we should be hiring the best qualified for the job", but in the context of equal opportunity employment it is inherently racist/sexist/etc.
I mean, two things come to mind. If it wasn't for systematic racism/sexism/etc equal opportunity employment wouldnt need to be a thing right now.
Second it implys that non-white,non-male people are inherantly less qualified.
I agree its not a perfect system, but its a system the result of addressing the wrong (underlying)
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hire (Score:1)
To be honest, there is a hint of merit to saying "we should be hiring the best qualified for the job", but in the context of equal opportunity employment it is inherently racist/sexist/etc.
I mean, two things come to mind. If it wasn't for systematic racism/sexism/etc equal opportunity employment wouldnt need to be a thing right now.
Theres just so much wrong with that. First you make an assumption that the differences are due to racism/sexism. Then you make a second assumption that the way to fix it is by engaging in racial and sexual discrimination. At no point do you stop to actually consider whether either of your assumptions is valid, but you're perfectly fine with categorizing those who disagree as racist/sexist.
Second it implys that non-white,non-male people are inherantly less qualified.
No, it doesn't; it implies that non-male and (some) non-white people are ON AVERAGE less qualified. Which is demons
Re: (Score:1)
I'll take the mod down points.
No, it doesn't; it implies that non-male and (some) non-white people are ON AVERAGE less qualified. Which is demonstrably true. There are far fewer programmers - and still fewer GOOD programmers - amongst the female half of the population. Same goes for the 13% of the population which is black. That's just a fact.
The fact that you capitalized "ON AVERAGE" basically demonstrates the point I was trying to make, be it correct or not.
respectably, I disagree, the moment you attribute any aptness to a demographic (race, gender, nationality etc), that is in fact racist, sexist, whatever. Until you attribute that to actual intellectual merits outside those designations, it is what is is.
Not disregarding everything else you said, I just do not think my assumptions need to be validated, they are
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hire (Score:1)
respectably, I disagree, the moment you attribute any aptness to a demographic (race, gender, nationality etc), that is in fact racist, sexist, whatever.
That's just fucking absurd. Imagine we are back in the 1500s, and you hear some English sailor saying "Ya know, there don't seem to be very many sailors amongst these Indians we've found". Is that racist?
If you honestly believe that factual observations are racist, you either do not understand what the word racist means, or you are completely disconnected from reality.
Until you attribute that to actual intellectual merits outside those designations, it is what is is.
I don't have to attribute it to anything. I'm making an observation. You're the one who's trying to attribute it to bullshit like "system
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hir (Score:2)
Your comparison doesnt contextually make sense. You're comparing indiginous peoples (which you called indians) knowing what a european ship is, to modern people of varying demogrphics not knowing what a computer is or how to program it as well as another demographic, or at least as well as another demographic.
I assert that demographic isnt a significant factor.
Frankly this is more of a response than yours deserves.
Not trying to be trolly, but seriously.. indians!?
Stated before, i'll take the mod down.
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hi (Score:1)
I see the problem; you're in idiot who has confused modern social justice causes with reality.
If you have a problem.with the word Indian, take it up with the Association on American Indian Affairs:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Or maybe the National Congress of American Indians:
http://www.ncai.org/ [ncai.org]
Feel free to explain to them how racist and clueless they are. I'm sure they'll love being lectured by a white boy. As for our discussion, feel free to come back when you're ready to apologise and start making
Re: (Score:2)
(which you called indians)
That's what an English sailor in the 1500's would have called them. He was imagining what an English sailor in the 1500's might say.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a whole back story to how indigenous peoples of North America came to be known as "Indians", but it doesn't excuse modern intelligence from correcting those wrongs. Yes I understand it's now common tongue, but it's not correct. An Indian is a person born of India, as an American is a person born of America. Also I not once indicated I was either white or a boy.
As to "our discussion" however, You completely ignored my argument regarding comparing people having never seen a European ship before to
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hi (Score:1)
There is a whole back story to how indigenous peoples of North America came to be known as "Indians", but it doesn't excuse modern intelligence from correcting those wrongs.
Again, feel free to explain to the American Indians that it's wrong for them to use that name. I'm sure they're quite used to having white boys telling them what to call themselves.
Yes I understand it's now common tongue, but it's not correct. An Indian is a person born of India, as an American is a person born of America.
Dumbass, the word "India" itself is a European invention. It originates from the Indus River, which is itself a corruption of the Persian word "Hindu" which is ITSELF a corruption of "Sindhu", meaning "river". So shall we rename the entire Indian subcontinent, as well as the country of India? Or can you just grow the fuck up
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hi (Score:2)
The question I asked was whether or not you felt heritage or demographic was a signicant factor in ones competence to do ones job.
Ill ignore everything else as not to confuse. Really this is my only beef.
In any case, sorry slashdot, i had my say and ill shut up now.
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the h (Score:1)
The question I asked was whether or not you felt heritage or demographic was a signicant factor in ones competence to do ones job.
Were I to answer that question we would likely agree, but I will not, simply because it has no bearing on the original discussion.
You stated that simply saying "we should hire the best person for the job" is racist. My opinion on whether heritage plays a role in ones competence is completely irrelevant to that claim. You are trying to backpedal and find ways to justify your absurd accusations. I'm not going to help you do that. Either take back your original accusation, or find a way to support it, or p
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hir (Score:1)
Thanks. You are right; i was speaking in the coloquial terms of the time, and I should have probably pointed that out. But after his response I was kinda annoyed by him trying to SJW the word into obsolescence in favour of "native people" when there isn't even agreement between American Indians on which term is better, and more of them tend to favour "American Indian" over "Native American".
It's basically a colonial saying "nope, we were wrong to use this one word, so now we've made up a new word,
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, My issue with the term Indian has more to do with them not calling them American.
I didn't go further after explaining that when talking about Americans I do not distinguish between Irish American and Italian American, given context they are both American. A Native American this day in age is as much an American as any other.
Disclaimer, I am not American (Though I AM North American), and I do have Indigenous roots. Maybe I'm a little more sensitive to the specifics, but making distinctions usin
Re: Worked at Boeing and it is all about the hir (Score:1)
Not sure if you'll even see this response, but thank you. This comment makes you look far more sane and decent, and makes me regret perhaps being too harsh with you. I think you're still horribly confused about what we were discussing, but my estimation of you as an individual has shifted dramatically. I wish we could have discussed this over a few beers instead of arguing on here.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably seems creepy that I responded as quickly as this, I swear I just sat down at my computer and got an email notification to a response that I clicked =)
No, we're good. I'm human, and sometimes I over react, and more often than that I shell myself into a sort of righteous way of thinking.
If is Friday, so since we couldn't talk this over a beer, I'll just raise a glass this evening instead.
Have a great weekend!
Re: (Score:2)
There's the problem. GP made no comment on aptness at all. GP made no attempt to ascribe any cause to the empirical data at all. None was needed to make the point.
You ASSuMEd that GP was engaging in racist and sexist stereotyping.
There are plenty of probable causes that have nothing whatsoever to do with aptness, but you rejected even the possibility that GP might believe any of them to be the cause and jumped directly to the racist assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed for this one. It can just as well be corruption from calcified hiring structures that only hire "kids of friends".
More likely it's a sum of many factors.
The merger with Mcdonnell Douglas is the culprit! (Score:1)
Mcdonnell Douglas, builders of the famous DC-10, bean counters took over and ruined the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Diversity hires instead of hiring the best are what is leading to these failures at Boeing.
Interesting. Does that include management or do the problems even center on management? Or is it more of an issue with the actual workers?
Re:WTF is going on at Boeing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Greed is a form of malice.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The cost-cutting measures took place long before this "episode". In fact, the cost cutting took place during the McDuck takeover of Boeing management.
McDuck (commercial) was run into the ground by bean counters and profiteers (military - check out the cost over runs on the C-17 aka. HUGE). Once they acquired Boeing and got into upper management (i.e. Stonecipher) the company went to hell. I left in 1999 as part of the last release in voluntary layoffs. The outsourcing of the 787 drove the company into the g
Re: (Score:3)
Amusing how the story has been framed as being due to the workforce. I wonder what management is for? Are they supposed to set up systems to hire suitable workers and to give them working practices that prevent defective manufacturing or do they just collect fat paychecks and blame their workers? In any well designed manufacturing process defects are prevented. Ask Deming, he taught the Japanese how to do it after world war II, shame his American ideas are being ignored by American industry. America appears
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Deming was actively taught to all of us at Boeing at the time. Then McDuck idiots came in and actively rejected Deming, stopped the training and decided that profits were more important than good engineering.
What happened to Boeing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What happened to Boeing? (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest problem is that the US government allowed Boeing to self-regulate, and what happened next was an inevitable consequence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Like a moth to the flame, the company could not avoid cutting corners even though the consequences would ruin them in the long run. Boeing's failures need to be the final nail in the coffin of self-regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens in the game of Executive Musical Chairs, the goal is to suck what they can out of the company and then move on to loot a new company before the music stops.
Re:What happened to Boeing? (Score:5, Interesting)
The failing McDonnell-Douglas company used Boeing's money to buy Boeing, and then replaced the engineering-driven leadership with a bunch of executives that know nothing about (and have no obvious interest in) aerospace. It is now just another board gutting the very things that made their company valuable in search of short-term profits for shareholders looking for a quick buck.
And the 737-NG (Score:2)
The NG's are a ticking time bomb, just waiting to break into pieces in rough weather. There is already cases of rough landings causing them to break apart.
Re:What happened to Boeing? (Score:4, Informative)
Last *few* years?
This is the company that pushed so hard for a 7/8/07 rollout of the 787 that the aircraft was assembled as a shell (you could literally see the back end of the cabin through the cockpit windows, there were no internals at all) and with non-aviation grade fasteners, requiring huge rework and a delay to the entire program of several, years.
This is the company that took years to sort out QA issues with 787 fuselage barrels being delivered out of spec (fuselage joins being complicated because barrels were being delivered with kinks in them).
This is the company that invested heavily in outsourcing on the 787 program, which failed so spectacularly that they had to buy out their partners and bring it back in house.
This is the company which failed QA inspections on 787s to the point that fasteners were incorrectly installed, causing cracking and failures and requiring massive rework.
This is the company that, for the first time in decades, had to write off the first few aircraft produced as R&D expenses (billions of dollars) - they were intended to be delivered to customers but ended up being nowhere near spec.
This is the company which pushed the boundaries with battery technology by using lithium ion batteries on the 787 but didnt include additional safety precautions, which ultimately led to several fires and the grounding of the entire 787 fleet for a few months.
The 787 has suffered other issues, including faulty locator beacon issues, problems with the design resulting in massive rework on the join between wing and body etc etc etc.
The 787 accounting practices has also allowed Boeing to book a profit on each airframe delivered, while simultaneously booking a debt against future deliveries (so called “deferred production costs”) which reached the heady heights of nearly $20Billion before starting to decline - its now been blown completely because of Covid, meaning Boeing now has a huge paper debt to itself it needs to deal with, probably through a huge writedown). Right now, the 787 as a program will only actually turn a true profit if it outsells every previous program in Boeings history by a significant margin.
Boeing has had problems with the 787 since the beginning, and while its a good aircraft its a bad program - this story is just the latest one.
Re: (Score:3)
"The 787 accounting practices has also allowed Boeing to book a profit on each airframe delivered, while simultaneously booking a debt against future deliveries (so called âoedeferred production costsâ) which reached the heady heights of nearly $20Billion before starting to decline - its now been blown completely because of Covid, meaning Boeing now has a huge paper debt to itself it needs to deal with, probably through a huge writedown). Right now, the 787 as a program will only actually turn a t
Re: (Score:2)
https://theaircurrent.com/avia... [theaircurrent.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I predict a long slow implosion. The people with the authority to clean up the problem ARE the problem. They will never fire themselves or in any way dilute their authority or bonuses.
Re: (Score:3)
McDonnell-Douglas happened, that's what.
It may appear that Boeing acquired MD, and on paper, that's what happened. However, culture wise, MD took over Boeing.
The move of the HQ from Seattle to Chicago was the first problem. This moved all the executives away from where things were manufactured to an isolated building. This is especially so that most of the Boeing executives were engineers and have worked the line. Thus, the chance for production issues to be raised to management early disappeared.
Basically,
Just more proof, if it was needed... (Score:3)
Just more proof that any particular problem with any particular Boeing aircraft ultimately traces back to the way the company makes decisions. The engineers are fine, it's management acting like they're infallible that isn't.
Inside the factory a few years ago (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no shortcuts to quality. Furthermore, you can't "bluff" quality. These are airplanes, they will be used long-term in places all over the world, and they *will* fail if the quality is lacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... but by that time the outgoing CEO will have enjoyed his $3 million-per-year pension for many years. So what does he care?
It seems like the more respected an organization is, the more that successful sociopaths will try to achieve leadership positions in it. I'd say something about the vultures getting to the top of Boeing, but that would be an insult to birds.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... but by that time the outgoing CEO will have enjoyed his $3 million-per-year pension for many years. So what does he care?
It seems like the more respected an organization is, the more that successful sociopaths will try to achieve leadership positions in it. I'd say something about the vultures getting to the top of Boeing, but that would be an insult to birds.
Indeed. Most large company CEOs these days are mercenaries. No loyalty to anything but themselves. And what a huge mistake to hire such people.
Re: (Score:2)
That was amazing. Just...fuck Boeing management.
There are no shortcuts to quality. Furthermore, you can't "bluff" quality. These are airplanes, they will be used long-term in places all over the world, and they *will* fail if the quality is lacking.
Very much so. Doing airplanes "cheaply" is a hugely expensive thing. One thing the incompetent bean-counters just do not get. Safe a penny here and a penny there, and suddenly these things start to fall out of the sky. You need the large safety margins on a technology like this one. Safe a penny, lose a billion.
What happened was a change in their religion. (Score:1)
It went from QUALITY to MONEY.
Re: (Score:2)
It went from QUALITY to MONEY.
Actually it went to "a lot of money now, fuck the future". Now they have unfortunately reached that future and the bill comes due.
Wow! this is not depressing (Score:2)
"Production Problems" at Boeing Factory "Prompt Regulators"
Hard to see anything good come out of this.
Saved a lot of money getting rid of experienced (Score:1)
It's simple (Score:3)
It't too bad we can't let Boeing fail, because that is really what they deserve.
I worked at Boeing (Score:5, Interesting)
Obvious solution (Score:3)
We need to reduce government regulation. It's quite clear private industry can take care of itself. No need to have the government mucking around with unnecessary rules and regulations. Get the government out of the way and these problems will go away. Once and for all.
That's why they moved to South Carolina (Score:1)
It was the Unions in Seattle (Snohomish County, actually) who kept the quality of product high. They negotiated this with Boeing decades ago. The executives were not in charge of hiring and firing in Washington State, the Union was. All Foremen and Supervisors were Union as well. If it cost more to maintain safety and/or quality of product, they spent the money even under direct orders from the executives to cut costs. The executives had no power at the Seattle plant as long as the Union could prove th