Oversight of Boeing 'is Not Delivering Safe Aircraft', Says America's Top Aviation Regulator (apnews.com) 99
America's Federal Aviation Administration "is midway through a review of manufacturing at Boeing," reports the Associated Press, but "already knows that changes must be made in how the government oversees the aircraft manufacturer."
FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker suggested that Boeing — under pressure from airlines to produce large numbers of planes — is not paying enough attention to safety.
Whitaker said that FAA has had two challenges since January 5, when an emergency door panel blew off a Boeing 737 Max 9 jetliner over Oregon. "One, what is wrong with this airplane? But two, what's going on with the production at Boeing?" Whitaker told a House subcommittee. "There have been issues in the past. They don't seem to be getting resolved, so we feel like we need to have a heightened level of oversight."
Whitaker, who took over the FAA about three months ago, was making his first appearance on Capitol Hill since the blowout over Oregon.... Whitaker said the FAA is halfway through a six-week audit that has involved placing "about two dozen" inspectors in Boeing's 737 plant in Renton, Washington, and "maybe half a dozen" at a Wichita, Kansas, plant where supplier Spirit AeroSystems makes the fuselages for 737s. The inspectors are looking for gaps in the quality of work during the manufacturing process that might have contributed to a door plug blowing off an Alaska Airlines Max 9 at 16,000 feet over Oregon. Whitaker said he expects the FAA will keep people in the Boeing and Spirit factories after the audit is done, but he said the numbers haven't been determined.
For many years, the FAA has relied on employees of aircraft manufacturers to perform some safety-related work on planes being built by their companies. That saves money for the government, and in theory taps the expertise of industry employees, but it was criticized after two deadly crashes involving Boeing Max 8 planes in 2018 and 2019. "In order to have a truly safe system, it seems to me that we can't rely on the manufacturers themselves to be their own watchdogs," Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, said during Tuesday's hearing. Whitaker has said that the self-checking practice — in theory, overseen by FAA inspectors — should be reconsidered, but he again stopped short of saying it should be scrapped. But he said closer monitoring of Boeing is needed.
"The current system is not working because it is not delivering safe aircraft," Whitaker said. "Maybe we need to look at the incentives to make sure safety is getting the appropriate first rung of consideration that it deserves."
Whitaker said that FAA has had two challenges since January 5, when an emergency door panel blew off a Boeing 737 Max 9 jetliner over Oregon. "One, what is wrong with this airplane? But two, what's going on with the production at Boeing?" Whitaker told a House subcommittee. "There have been issues in the past. They don't seem to be getting resolved, so we feel like we need to have a heightened level of oversight."
Whitaker, who took over the FAA about three months ago, was making his first appearance on Capitol Hill since the blowout over Oregon.... Whitaker said the FAA is halfway through a six-week audit that has involved placing "about two dozen" inspectors in Boeing's 737 plant in Renton, Washington, and "maybe half a dozen" at a Wichita, Kansas, plant where supplier Spirit AeroSystems makes the fuselages for 737s. The inspectors are looking for gaps in the quality of work during the manufacturing process that might have contributed to a door plug blowing off an Alaska Airlines Max 9 at 16,000 feet over Oregon. Whitaker said he expects the FAA will keep people in the Boeing and Spirit factories after the audit is done, but he said the numbers haven't been determined.
For many years, the FAA has relied on employees of aircraft manufacturers to perform some safety-related work on planes being built by their companies. That saves money for the government, and in theory taps the expertise of industry employees, but it was criticized after two deadly crashes involving Boeing Max 8 planes in 2018 and 2019. "In order to have a truly safe system, it seems to me that we can't rely on the manufacturers themselves to be their own watchdogs," Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, said during Tuesday's hearing. Whitaker has said that the self-checking practice — in theory, overseen by FAA inspectors — should be reconsidered, but he again stopped short of saying it should be scrapped. But he said closer monitoring of Boeing is needed.
"The current system is not working because it is not delivering safe aircraft," Whitaker said. "Maybe we need to look at the incentives to make sure safety is getting the appropriate first rung of consideration that it deserves."
Management requires 3 kinds of capabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Thorough interest in many areas of the technology.
2) Strong, careful, caring interest in people.
3) Concern for the complicated issues of finances.
News stories have indicated that Boeing management focuses on finances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Management requires 3 kinds of capabilities (Score:5, Informative)
Being in the news every week for your latest critical safety disaster is not good for stock prices.
Re: (Score:1)
Being in the news every week for your latest critical safety disaster is not good for stock prices.
Real companies are in the news every week to announce their latest AI gimmick.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Management requires 3 kinds of capabilities (Score:4, Interesting)
Go check out Okta’s stock price. They got hacked, you see the dip, a few months later they lay off like 10% of their workforce, announce it at the shareholder call, stock goes back up to where it was. This is not even the first time they were hacked. All better.
Pretty much exactly what jhoegl described and from a security company no less. The allure of outsourcing AAA to another company without paying Azure prices is just too powerful to the MBAs running everything. Multiple hacks resulting in multiple customers being hacked, 10 year old company with insane growth; None of it counts in 2024 as long as you make the right promises.
Re: (Score:3)
Okta might get away since no one noticed or remembers this. Boeing will not.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true like everyone knows about and understands broken planes and it’s a lot harder to dismiss dead people from a risks and liability perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't make profit if no one trusts them.
1. Fuck up horribly. Stock goes down. Customers make noise. Quietly hire sacrificial lambs.
2. Fire sacrificial lambs. Make promises to improve. Customers are sated. Stock goes up.
3. Goto 1.
Re: Management requires 3 kinds of capabilities (Score:1)
That Okta hack led state affiliate hackers to breach CloudFlare: https://www.bleepingcomputer.c... [bleepingcomputer.com]
That anyone still uses either Okta or Cloudflare is purely for short term cost reasons. Maybe it's time to look at https://european-alternatives.... [european-alternatives.eu] where the GDPR makes companies strongly protect personal data.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these are brand new planes right off the factory line.
Re: (Score:1)
Lol, yeah I guess they can save money by doing QA on 1 in 10 planes.
Top-level Boeing managers quit. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Long-Forgotten Flight That Sent Boeing Off Course [theatlantic.com]
"A company once driven by engineers became driven by finance."
Boeing must change leadership: Former employee [yahoo.com]
Quoting that story:
Boeing executives "need to get out of their corporate headquarters and they need to spend time with their troops on the factory floor and they need to understand what they're dealing with," Pierson, a former Boeing Senior Manager and a whistleblower on similar issues in 2019, adding: "If it was up to me, I would absolutely advocate the change of leadership."
Re: (Score:3)
A company where safety is a top priority will have a policy asking all personnel to keep an eye open for problems.
Like here there must have been painters and interior 'decorators' that noticed the holes missing bolts, yet they did not report it.
Re:Top-level Boeing managers quit. (Score:5, Informative)
Like here there must have been painters and interior 'decorators' that noticed the holes missing bolts, yet they did not report it.
The exterior paint is often applied when the plane is almost ready to be delivered. Depending on the airline that could be everything is installed or the plane is ready for the seats to be installed. Interior parts should already be painted before being installed. And the airline could request the plane delivered as unpainted. So painters would not notice those missing bolts on the inside.
In assembling a large plane involves many different teams. People that installed the interior panels may have no idea what is and is not missing from the door frame
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The fish rots from the head down. The lower levels take their cues from the levels above. They note what gets rewarded, what gets punished, and what gets ignored. Management that presents as you just do what I say gets little feedback. Management that conveys BY ACTIONS that everyone has a stake and everyone matters get the helpful feedback you're calling for.
Management that flies off to another city to get away from the peons sends a message.
Re:Management requires 3 kinds of capabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't understand why people don't get it. NO large company "cares", at least outside of the founders. Companies are not people, so stop Anthropomorphizing them! They don't even exist outside of a legal concept. They are only tools for profit and power. Profit over people is built in.
Smaller companies, startups, that are still largely controlled by one person, can be better, if that person has altruistic motives above profit (going to be rare, but possible), but larger companies, that go through CEOs every 5-10 years, that are shielded from criminal action in most cases, can't go far from the profit motivation. Most would argue that they deserve their pay, and frankly, no leader should ever be compensated thousands of times, that of their workers. They are not a thousand times smarter, or harder working, usually, born into wealth. Companies are controlled by CEOs, other executives, the board, and ONLY large stake shareholders e.g. hedge-funds (google blackrock). It's about as corrupt as you can get. These people seem to think that they deserve what they have. It's a question, that I believe we should all ask ourselves. Even if poor by U.S. standards, we can be much better off than poor people, in other parts of the world. I'm not saying feel guilty, but to understand that the answer is not an automatic yes, helps me be more compassionate to others. In the case of billionaires, it's always going to be an automatic NO, from my perspective.
Consider that if you want to anthropomorphize a company long-term, it has only one human trait. Greed. Greed without compassion, empathy, or any consideration of others i.e. profit over people i.e. psychopathic
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy: [americanbar.org]"the Supreme Court is allowing for vastly expanded corporate rights, while at the same time the same Court is excusing corporations from a growing list of responsibilities"
This is how we have become a Plutacracy; the death nail being the 2010 decision (same article)
Re: Management requires 3 kinds of capabilities (Score:1)
Only because government regulation lets them get away with it. In these cases, Boeing should be responsible for all damages and if severe enough go out of business as a result. Through regulation the customers of Boeing carry the immediate cost of remediation and the tax payers pay the long term cost of Boeing whenever they run short on cash.
Robert Reich had this to say (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You promised me thephydes fursona bearing all and I have been disappointed.
Re:Robert Reich had this to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice Read. Over 20 years ago I remember pilots disliking Airbus's auto controls and had a few accidents over that. Boeing had a chance to really own the market due to this and because Airbus started building large craft where Boeing started on fuel efficient craft when Oil prices spiked.
But what does Boeing do ? The US main corporate activity, outsource for profits, firing experienced workers and hiring people at the lowest wage possible.
I do not see how Boeing can survive this. I am sure many flyers are insisting on flying in Aurbus planes now, maybe to the point of cancelling their flights if on Boeing.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing wrong with the Airbus controls, pilots made the exact same mistakes with Boeing controls.
Re:Robert Reich had this to say (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing wrong with the Airbus controls, pilots made the exact same mistakes with Boeing controls.
I would like to respectfully disagree with you on this (Please note that I am not an "anti" side stick control person, which is what the controls are in an Airbus)
The side stick controls on an Airbus are problematic because there is no visual way for both pilots (or a pilot observing from the side) to intuitively see or feel what control inputs are being given to the aircraft. I.E. One pilot can be pulling back completely on the controls and except for maybe some visual indications on the heads up display, NO one knows other than the pilot doing it. With Boeing controls, control input is done via two column mounted control wheels that are mechanically linked and this type of control input would be blindingly obvious to any person in the cockpit. I.E. visually everyone in the cockpit knows what is going on with the control inputs without any need to verbally pass information.
In addition, because in the Airbus side stick controls there is no mechanical linkage to the pilot and co-pilot side stick controls, you can actually get a situation where one pilot is inputting one thing and the other pilot is inputting another which the system handles by algebraically adding them together. So if one pilot inputs "roll left" and the other pilot inputs "roll right" they will cancel each other out. With the mechanically linked two column mounted control wheel, you can not have this happen at all.
The deficiencies and consequences of the side stick control scheme are shown completely by the crash of Air France 447. This crash fundamentally happened because the least experienced pilot, who was flying the plane, stalled it by pulling back too much on the side stick and keeping it pulled back without the other pilot being aware of it. Because it was dark outside and the other pilot could not see the control input, the pilots of that plane crashed a perfectly good airplane into the ocean. The crash of Air France 447 would not have happened if they had been flying a Boeing control input configured airplane because the actions of the one pilot would have been totally obvious to the other pilot who would have been able to correct the situation.
As I relate, I am not a "side stick" hater. But this is one area where Boeing got it right and Airbus got it wrong. And until Airbus gets their ego out of the way and fixes it by doing some type of mechanical linkage between the two controls, either actual or (more likely) servo based, we will always have the danger of Air France 447 style crashes happening.
Re: (Score:3)
People always bring up AF447, but rarely realise that the same situation happens on Boeing aircraft as well.
AF011, operated by a 777, suffered exactly the same “pilots entering opposing control motions” during landing and go-around, without each realising the other was doing anything.
Why?
Because even on Boeings, that “control columns are linked” is not permanent and can be broken with less force than you think - its designed to do so in case one jams. So you can easily end up in the
Re: (Score:2)
I have an even better example: Kenya Airways Flight 507.
This was a 737-800, so no fly by wire.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, this has happened on mechanical yoke aircraft as well. Pilots without situational awareness simply assume that the reason the yoke is unresponsive is a technical defect and just use more force. At least an Airbus literally tells the pilots that they both are in control. The AF447 crew simply ignored it. Maybe Airbus should re-record their voice warning systems to sound more urgent for warnings.
Re: (Score:3)
They do warn, but usually at this time the warnings are ignored because the pilots are processing other thing
Re: (Score:2)
There is a voice warning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Robert Reich had this to say (Score:4, Informative)
What the Reich piece fails to address are 2 core points: (1) why Boeing changed from its previous dominant position in aircraft safety. (2) And who owned the company back then. I'm not convinced by the argument that government ownership somehow makes Airbus "safe".
I observed the change in Boeing culture when I was on the government side of a major DoD project. And I learned about software safety from people who worked for "old Boeing" on projects like 777. The change in the procedures I learned about (e.g. Designated Engineering Representatives) that let Boeing do much more -unsupervised- self-certification is definitely part of the problem.
But at the end of the day, someone signed off on 737 MAX designs, including the incomplete hazard analysis. And someone signed off on the aircraft with the missing bolts. THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED. And that is most certainly an appropriate role for government.
Re:Robert Reich had this to say (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not convinced by the argument that government ownership somehow makes Airbus "safe".
It's not just the fact of the matter I think, but it's a matter of amongst Airbus shareholders you have 25% of whom the priority is reliability and safety, not profits and it also holds the executive and board class more accountable as you have effectively government with vote control inside your company.
Like if a holding company that represented the USG owned 25% of Boeing maybe the McDonnell merger isn't allowed to happen, maybe there would be a much larger reckoning after the first MAX incidents, maybe there is less desire to cut production corners in the first place. Maybe a world with a more involved government oversight doesn't end up cutting FAA staffing since the 80's
It's fair to remain unconvinced but based on your first two point's Boeing has lost it's dominant position in not just safety but pure aircraft orders to Airbus and Airbus is partially state owned. Correlation not causation but it's worth looking into, results are results at the end of the day and Airbus looks to be a far more well managed company.
Re: (Score:1)
> And someone signed off on the aircraft with the missing bolts. THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED.
Agreed, but also, so should their boss, their boss's boss... and so on - all the way up to the CEO. They might not all need to have jail time, but they're all some fraction of the problem.
Do that, and Boeing will be fixed in short order. Of course, what'll happen is some low-level flunky in an outsource will get charged, the C-suite get some bonuses and the whole thing gets swept under the rug.
Re:Anything Built by Humans Will Have Flaws (Score:5, Insightful)
Theres a reason the once impeccable record of Boeing is in the toilet, its not just a matter of mistakes, its corporate culture that has changed, and allowing self inspection has been an utter disaster. Im am trained airworthiness inspector for sailplanes, purely none commercial, but our airworthiness results are excellent overall, because everything is double checked every time.
Stop making excuses on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
Re:Anything Built by Humans Will Have Flaws (Score:4, Informative)
It's been obvious for quite some time now that Boeing shouldn't be allowed to self-certify. Yet the FAA has continued to allow it...
Re: (Score:2)
How come airbus isn't dropping bolts?
When is the last time we heard about one of their safety failures?
Are they not human?
Re: (Score:1)
You're going to be strangely silent when they find out the worker who forgot the bolts is a white guy living in a trailer with a MAGA hat and missing some teeth.
Re:Anything Built by Humans Will Have Flaws (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to say it every thread but 25% of Airbus is owned (controlling shares no less) by the governments of France, Germany and Spain.
It doesn't account for all the differences but I think having a quarter of your company owned by entities where profit isn't the #1 priority can have a stabilizing effect on a companies overall priorities. Airbus is a matter of national pride to Europe, Boeing should be the same in the US, it's a good definition of a company that really is "too big to fail" and we should just acknowledge that and treat it as such and that would mean some mechanism to even have public entities like the GAO investigate Boeing themselves, not just the FAA
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point well made. They're still people, though. The excuse OP was giving for Boeing was "but they're people and it's haaaarrrrrrdddd!" which is a bunch of crap. Be it government or whatever other reasons, Airbus isn't dropping bolts and Boeing is. It isn't just "people".
I shouldn't have to check my flight to make sure I'm not on a 737 before boarding.
Re: (Score:2)
...they will never be able to monitor every single moment of every single process in the manufacture and servicing of every component that goes out the door...
I'm far from an expert here, but from what I've personally seen from touring manufacturing and MRO facilities, my understanding is that this is exactly the standard of quality control that they are held to.
Re: (Score:2)
How American Capitalism Really Works (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't pay anywhere near reasonable taxes, they steal from those who work for them when they don't outsource to the even more corrupt, and they are never held accountable even if people die for profit. Every corporation large enough to be listed on the NYSE has made money off of killing someone no matter what business they're in. Often times they don't do it themselves, but they are reaping profits directly from death and destruction.
They scream about what a great job they do while they bribe the government and hire armies of lawyers to hide what they do and how they do it. And it's getting worse. The Supreme Court is about to gut regulation and render agencies like the EPA and OHSA out of business so they don't even have to pretend that maiming or killing workers is wrong. Child labor in dangerous conditions is on the rise at the same time the federal budget for enforcement is being cut by 30%. [dcreport.org]
The morons who suggested that shooting up bleach would cure COVID are in charge and we are all completely screwed. Airplanes falling out of the sky because of missing bolts is the least of our problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, greed.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not wrong. In a sense, a lot of the US industry is in the last stage of enshittification. That cannot go well.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, America was sold out in the 60s-70s (40s-50s?). We are now seeing the consequences of it. Daddy and mommy are not going to come fix it. And you can't fix it because your name is on a list. Enjoy your remaining years.
Re: (Score:1)
Cursed, I say. (Score:4, Funny)
I think the 737 Max factory was built atop an ancient burial ground.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL!
Re: Cursed, I say. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Basic airworthiness. (Score:3)
Every job should be double checked, by a second inspection before being close up, there is a simple procedure, CASAFODA
Correct Assembly
SAfety (lock nut, split pin, nylock)
Foreign Objects
Damage (During assembly)
Missing bolts means this simple and effective procedure was not followed.
Its disgracefully lax.
Throwing inspectors at the problem (Score:3)
Isn't one of the attributes of Deming/Toyota/Lean Manufacturing that you institute reliable processes rather than the Volkswagen Approach (at least as claimed in their 1960's commercials) of layering on inspections?
Some of this is also cultural in terms of giving assembly workers authority to stop the line if something is going wrong.
Yes, I am aware that airplanes don't exactly come off an assembly line, and especially for something aviation related, you need inspections. And one should instill a "if
Re: (Score:2)
"Isn't one of the attributes of Deming/Toyota/Lean Manufacturing that you institute reliable processes rather than the Volkswagen Approach (at least as claimed in their 1960's commercials) of layering on inspections?"
Yes, and it's shitty. The entire approach of lean relies on nearly everything being done 'just in time' like a Java program, right down to inventory (which we see very easily how that fucks you during supply chain problems and pandemics and country-wide holiday periods.)
It leads to lots of shit
Re: (Score:2)
but if your coding practices are broken, all of the bug checking in the world isn't going to help you.
We'll just invent a new language. Rust! Yeah, that's the ticket.
Is Rust (gosh forbid Ada) bug-reduction theatre? (Score:2)
Do these languages reduce the incidence of software bugs because, "If we are programming in Ada, management must take ultra-reliable software seriously."
Re: (Score:2)
Anything higher level than assembly language is. If a developer can't handle that, they need to get out of the business. So, a lot less code (and bugs) gets produced.
Re: (Score:2)
Would should and could don't fucking matter when money is involved. The only thing that matters then is grabbing as much money as you can while the grabbing is good. The consequences can deal with themselves. As we can see so eloquently here: Some people went home in coffins, others went home in limousines.
From the point of view of the person in the limousine, everything is working out just perfectly. There will be no criminal penalties. There will be no financial penalties. The business itself may need to
Re: (Score:1)
Incentives? Here's an ideas... (Score:2)
"Maybe we need to look at the incentives to make sure safety is getting the appropriate first rung of consideration that it deserves."
For every person who dies due to manufacturing flaws in a Boeing aircraft, every Boeing executive is fined one million dollars, with the money given to the family of the individual that lost their life.
Can we please do that?
(And additional plug: Wendover productions just released an amazing video on the subject of Boeing, titled "How Boeing Lost It's Way" [youtube.com]. Definitely worth
Credit where credit is due BUT (Score:2)
The amazing thing about civil aircraft industry is how few problems there have been. Overall it has, until recently, had a very good record on things like this. The hard question is how far Boeing's culture has, indeed, changed, generating this incident.
If it has, then the best means to ensure it gets back on track is for Boeing to suffer penalties well into the billions for this mistake and the software cockup. That will be the kicking that will ensure the C-floor starts to pay attention to safety as much
greed then corruption then incompetence (Score:2)
This is the inevitable result of a classist economy based entirely upon greed and exploitation, so of course, another economic collapse is inevitable. Around and around we go, when it stops nobody knows ...
Tupolev (Score:1)
On the other hand, the Socialist System doesn't have the greatest track record.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing it's not a binary choice then.
We can adjust things inside capitalism to get the outcomes we are looking for. Different products have different markets and different levels of oversight, some are best left to a light touch, some, like civil aviation require much higher degrees of oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sausage ... can't forget government scrutiny of sausage/chicken/steak/lettuce/olive-oil/peanut-butter/cereal/* ... this list of government inspected/defined foods does not end.
So many of those are historical examples of exactly why we need government inspection and oversight of the food industries. How many stories of lettuce contamination have their been in recent years? Olive oil is famously plagued with counterfeiting scandals with most of the stuff on supermarket shelves not actually olive oil. The meatpacking industry was a health and safety disaster before regulations in the early 20th century.
Company profit ought to be the consequence of superior product-to-customer and well-maintained workers ...
Should but it isn't and these companies cannot be trusted on their own, more no
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the Socialist System doesn't have the greatest track record.
more pseudo-conservative propaganda, in fact the exact opposite is true. Social democracies like those in Northern Europe are the most stable and have the lowest deficits.
They are also far less corrupt, " Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and Sweden are perceived as the least corrupt nations in the world, ranking consistently high among international financial transparency, " ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
the worst lies are the lies we tell,ourselves
Re: (Score:2)
I can just see it now: Welcome to the Boeing Tractor Factory. Where we have again met our 5 year plan production quota.
Which is essentially what the 737 line has become. Old tech rolled out the factory door as fast as possible.
Whitaker making excuses? (Score:2)
Is Boeing under any historically-exceptional pressure to meet order volume?
Re: (Score:2)
It’s no longer Boeing (Score:2)
Now it’s just the old Mc-Donnell Douglass with it’s usual cutting-corners shenanigans who made it need a fresh new name, which they immediatelly soiled with the Dreamliner and the 737 “lipstick on a pig’s polished turd” Max.
Now Boeing is gonna be the next acquisition by Airbus, who, thankfully, doesn’t need a pristine name.
Re:It’s no longer Boeing (Score:4, Informative)
I doubt Airbus wants Boeing. Boeing is too badly broken to have any worth and is likely unfixable at this time. If Airbis wants the Boeing customers, all they need to do is wait a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt Airbus wants Boeing.
Not the whole company. But perhaps some of the tooling and facilities. In which case they would be well advised to wait for the Chapter 7 liquidation sale and pick up the pieces they want.
This is what Boeing should have done with McDonnell Douglas. They couldn't. After the company lost the first round of bidding for the JSF, the Pentagon published a picture of John McDonnell standing with a bunch of Air Force big-wigs. The message to Boeing management was clear: Protect our buddies' equity position or you'
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, greed and stupidity will eventually get hugely expensive. It just may take a while. Boeing should have given the Pentagon the middle finger. They would still be a reasonably ghealty company today if they had done that.
Re: (Score:2)
Airbus doesn't want Boeing. Airbus doesn't even want Boeing to fold because it will cause them problems with the antitrust agencies worldwide. Besides, Airbus is not capable of fulfilling the whole market demand for aircraft by themselves and they know that.
Cost Cutting Kills Consumers (Score:2)
Multiple combined failures (Score:3)
The door incident is at the very least 3 unacceptable failures:
1. Bad install
2. Bad direct QA for the job
3. Bad final QA for the part
All of these should be exceptionally rare. Instead they are apparently common enough at Boeing that all three can happen in combination. That is not a sign of an enterprise that should be making airplanes at all. Boeing is lost. No amount of oversight will fix an enterprise that cannot do the basics anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. So pretty much as I describe. Redundancy in engineering production is usually geared to rare errors and defects. When the errors and defects become more common (as obviously has happened at Boeing), you can get combined failures with "may actually happen" levels of probability despite redundancy. That is why you keep the raw error rate low.
Funny how apparently nobody noticed these bolts. In a sane process, these would have labelled "must install" with information where and there should have been ano
There is no oversight (Score:2)
The problem is nobody gets a parade for preventing a disaster. We passed regulations to solve problems and once the problems are solved people like to forget why we passed the regulations in the first place.
And it doesn't do any good to have regulations if there's nobody to enforce them. The problem with that of course is that if you're enforcing
Re: (Score:2)
They are literally being allowed to sign off on their own safety inspections with absolutely no oversight.
This is the bit that strikes me as bizarre.
There's no issue with Boeing inspecting their own planes as long as there's incentives in place to ensure they do a thorough job.
For instance, 1 in 10 planes gets re-inspected by a government inspector, and if that inspector finds something the Boeing inspector missed it means trouble not only for Boeing, but for that individual inspector.
Not you got the advantages of the in-house inspectors while ensuring they do their jobs.
Does someone with more information know
capitalism will eat itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And then Capitalism will be replaced by what, exactly? "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat?" (I'd rather fly on a 737 MAX than an Ilyushin any day....)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This is unequivocal proof that capitalism is incapable of self regulation. Profit over people at any cost. Capitalism commodifies everything from natural resources to human beings and will exploit till exhaustion or collapse.
Capitalism is a great economic system. It is a TERRIBLE social system. Unregulated Capitalism turns in to what we have today: an obscenity of wealth that is completely paralyzed at doing anything useful (other than stroking egos).
Re: (Score:1)