7 ms·

Boeing's actions are absolutely mind boggling. All consumers want is _some_, _any_ evidence that they take passenger safety seriously. Pilots have to take less

by nxc18 8y ago

Boeing's actions are absolutely mind boggling. All consumers want is _some_, _any_ evidence that they take passenger safety seriously. Pilots have to take less training to operate a proven deadly aircraft, with software patch on top, than I have to take to work in an office job... that's fucking insane. How can we make Boeing feel some pain for this? You know, actually enough for them to start taking this seriously.

ReptileMan 8y ago
Nothing mind boggling. Boeing are trying desperately to avoid new type rating. That would leave them in the same business position where they were before developing MAX and with a bad image to boot. Not saying they are right, but they just don't have many good moves. Doing the Right thing leaves them years behind. It will also limit airline expansion. Airbus cannot pick up slack and there are no other players in the market. It is a clusterfuck but like it or not 737 MAX is too big to fall(pun intended) .
- gotocake 8y ago
  Except it has failed, twice. It’s not as though shoving it back out the door and crossing fingers isn’t potentially going to lead to more tragedy and an even worse image, plus the potential for ruinous lawsuits. Boeing is in a terrible position they created and the only way out will hurt them, but less than staying the course.
  - krustchinsky 8y ago
    Once. Do you have a copy of the running report for the Ethiopian crash? We don't know yet.
    - gotocake 8y ago
      No, I’m working on the same assumptions as every aeronautical regulatory body on Earth though.
    - mhandley 8y ago
      The official preliminary report is due out in a day or two, but the contents have already started to leak: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/29/ethiopian-crash-boeing-737-max-anti-stall-system-likely-activatedwsj.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/29/ethiopian-crash-boeing-737-m...
- ironmagma 8y ago
  They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind.
  - magduf 8y ago
    >They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind. No, they don't. They deserve for their executives and PEs to be behind bars, and for the company to go out of business. Let Airbus or the Chinese buy it and take it over. We've shown that we're completely unable to properly regulate companies like this where safety is so critical, so we need to let someone else take over that task. Foreign ownership of Boeing would put those regulators in charge, which would only be an improvement.
    - dragonsngoblins 8y ago
      Because China will regulate more effectively? The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around
      - magduf 8y ago
        >The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around Sounds a lot like America these days... Worse, regulation is seen as bad here, and Trump has directed everyone under him to eliminate as much regulation as possible, and then some. Why would you trust regulation from a country that explicitly doesn't believe in regulating?
        dragonsngoblins 8y ago
        I'm not saying I do, I'm just saying I don't trust China to either really
- salawat 8y ago
  Doing the Right Thing would put them on schedule. This isn't some stupid race. This is making a machine that can safely be flown. The market doesn't need a risk profile that drops plane loads out of the bloody sky Because a company pushed their people into hiding things from their customers. I'm normally all for free market optimization when it makes sense, and all actors act in reasonably good faith concomitant with the magnitude of lives they are endangering. That didn't happen here, and the regulatory agency responsible for making it happen was powerless to do it's job to stop or raise a red flag on it either. By no definition of sound risk assessment should this plane have flown without training. Period. Boeing failed its job at being a trustworthy corporate citizen in a high-impact infrastructural industrial vertical. Honestly, I'm not sure how to get over this one. I don't believe some sort of fine and move on is really sufficient in terms of contrition. It won't bring those people back, and it seems a bit too "cost of doing business"-like to successfully act as a deterrent to future malfeasance. Breaking up maybe? Clearly competition in the sector seems to have devolved into a duopoly to some degree.
  - magduf 8y ago
    >Honestly, I'm not sure how to get over this one. I don't believe some sort of fine and move on is really sufficient in terms of contrition. It won't bring those people back, and it seems a bit too "cost of doing business"-like to successfully act as a deterrent to future malfeasance. >Breaking up maybe? Clearly competition in the sector seems to have devolved into a duopoly to some degree. You can't really break up a company like Boeing; they aren't even vertically integrated anyway. Just like a carmaker, they get their components from other companies. They don't even make their own engines (those come from Pratt & Whitney, GE, Rolls Royce, etc.) the way car companies do. How we "get over" this is simple, though I don't see it happening in Trump's America any time soon: you prosecute Boeing executives and engineers (the PEs) for criminal negligence, and throw them in prison. The company goes under, and gets bought out by one of its competitors. As for duopoly, that's currently the case, but China's aircraft manufacturer is working hard on getting their aircraft certified, so if that happens there will now be 3 big competitors in the market, which is generally the sign of a mature but competitive market. If Boeing gets bought out, it'd probably be 2. But I'd feel much safer with Airbus using Boeing's facilities to build Airbus-designed airplanes, which have been properly certified by European regulators.
- magduf 8y ago
  They deserve to go out of business, and for their executives to go to prison (along with whatever PE signed off on this atrocity). As for airline expansion, Airbus can certainly pick up the slack and double their production capacity in short order. All they have to do is buy up the facilities from a now-defunct airplane manufacturer in the Seattle area. I'm sure there'll be a bunch of recently-unemployed engineers, technicians, and other manufacturing personnel happy to take a job there too.
  - ReptileMan 8y ago
    Whatever. That is beyond the point. The point is that this is rational strategy from boeing given the circumstances and not mind boggling. Feel free to condemn their actions, but they are not the action of a crazy or stupid person.
    - magduf 8y ago
      Not stupid or crazy, but definitely evil. Why are you defending their evil actions? There is no valid excuse for this kind of negligence. Are you so morally deficient that you would have done the same in their shoes? Stock price is never worth murdering hundreds of people.
ulfw 8y ago
I wholeheartedly agree and am going out of my way to not fly 737max and 787 (those aren’t any better. Their batteries still burn up, just now in a “metal container”. Just google ‘787 smoke’ and you’ll get tons of incidences, the last one was two days ago. And those planes fly over-water for thousands of miles - https://simpleflying.com/united-787-noumea-diversion/ https://simpleflying.com/united-787-noumea-diversion/). A once-proud engineering company that has become nothing more than a money-grabbing machinery it seems.
- kbos87 8y ago
  Bingo. This is the end state of capitalism, a total lack of concern for brand on the part of the companies; a total lack of loyalty and trust on the part of the customer.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Still better than famine and genocide. And since we have a representative liberal democracy, the institutions and the state have recourse and are solving the problem.
    - minikites 8y ago
      Capitalism is the only solution to address famine and genocide? Or do you mean that famine and genocide aren't possible under capitalism?
      - rbanffy 8y ago
        > famine and genocide aren't possible under capitalism? There's abundant evidence contrary to that.
  - bgorman 8y ago
    The core issue with Boeing is that they have captured the government. Boeing the largest defense contractor, and one of the biggest lobbyists. Boeing recently successfully blocked Bombardier from competing with the 737 by getting the US government to effectively ban the C-series aircraft. (Bombariders "solution" was to give Airbus a controlling interest in a joint venture to build the C-series). I don't think this is really capitalism, it is corporatism - where the government and mega-corporations are indistinguishable and they only care about profits (and consequently about preventing competition)
ams6110 8y ago
I'm going to let the pilots decide whether it's reasonable. I don't know anything about flying a 737 and I'd wager that 99% of the people posting here don't either. If the US pilots unions are okay with it, I'll be okay with it. They haven't crashed any 737 Max yet.
- volkl48 8y ago
  The US airlines all purchased some/all of the "optional" safety features that would have made it obvious to the pilots that the system was malfunctioning.
  - cmurf 8y ago
    A system they weren't told about, weren't trained on. What they have is an "AOA disagree" indicator, among dozens of indicators. There's no reason for them to see it or go looking for it in the example cases of MCAS upset where they're reacting to an urgent situation. The indicator might be useful for a maintenance squawk report. Ordinarily sensor disagree would give you some idea what could be affected because you've had training to tell you this. Not in the MCAS upset due to faulty AOA sensor case. Until the reports are complete, I think it's getting out over one's skis to say would would have been obvious to U.S. pilots.
  - emilsedgh 8y ago
    There is no regulation that prevents them from making safety-related components optional?
    - blhack 8y ago
      Nearly every option you could add to an airplane is arguably a safety feature.
    - VMG 8y ago
      What a great way to stop development of safety features. Just imagine how the automobile market would look like with that kind of regulation.
  - 8y ago
heisenbit 8y ago
I can't agree more. The existence of MCAS is a testament that the behavior of the plane wrt. to the pitch axis is vastly different. Handling this needs training and anyone doubting that please spend a moment on what happens when this savior MCAS has to be switched off. Yes, the pilots need to be able to handle the plane without. And they have to handle the plane at that point in time in an odd flight situation, are stressed themselves and have their hands on hypersensitive engine and rudder controls. Pilots train to handle airplanes with only one engine - there is a reason for that. Anyone doubting that Boeing needs to have its authority wrt. to airplane certifications cut should ponder what they are proposing here.

by nxc18 8y ago

ReptileMan 8y ago

Nothing mind boggling. Boeing are trying desperately to avoid new type rating. That would leave them in the same business position where they were before developing MAX and with a bad image to boot. Not saying they are right, but they just don't have many good moves. Doing the Right thing leaves them years behind. It will also limit airline expansion. Airbus cannot pick up slack and there are no other players in the market. It is a clusterfuck but like it or not 737 MAX is too big to fall(pun intended) .

gotocake 8y ago
Except it has failed, twice. It’s not as though shoving it back out the door and crossing fingers isn’t potentially going to lead to more tragedy and an even worse image, plus the potential for ruinous lawsuits. Boeing is in a terrible position they created and the only way out will hurt them, but less than staying the course.
- krustchinsky 8y ago
  Once. Do you have a copy of the running report for the Ethiopian crash? We don't know yet.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    No, I’m working on the same assumptions as every aeronautical regulatory body on Earth though.
  - mhandley 8y ago
    The official preliminary report is due out in a day or two, but the contents have already started to leak: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/29/ethiopian-crash-boeing-737-max-anti-stall-system-likely-activatedwsj.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/29/ethiopian-crash-boeing-737-m...
ironmagma 8y ago
They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind.
- magduf 8y ago
  >They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind. No, they don't. They deserve for their executives and PEs to be behind bars, and for the company to go out of business. Let Airbus or the Chinese buy it and take it over. We've shown that we're completely unable to properly regulate companies like this where safety is so critical, so we need to let someone else take over that task. Foreign ownership of Boeing would put those regulators in charge, which would only be an improvement.
  - dragonsngoblins 8y ago
    Because China will regulate more effectively? The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around
    - magduf 8y ago
      >The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around Sounds a lot like America these days... Worse, regulation is seen as bad here, and Trump has directed everyone under him to eliminate as much regulation as possible, and then some. Why would you trust regulation from a country that explicitly doesn't believe in regulating?
      - dragonsngoblins 8y ago
        I'm not saying I do, I'm just saying I don't trust China to either really
salawat 8y ago
Doing the Right Thing would put them on schedule. This isn't some stupid race. This is making a machine that can safely be flown. The market doesn't need a risk profile that drops plane loads out of the bloody sky Because a company pushed their people into hiding things from their customers. I'm normally all for free market optimization when it makes sense, and all actors act in reasonably good faith concomitant with the magnitude of lives they are endangering. That didn't happen here, and the regulatory agency responsible for making it happen was powerless to do it's job to stop or raise a red flag on it either. By no definition of sound risk assessment should this plane have flown without training. Period. Boeing failed its job at being a trustworthy corporate citizen in a high-impact infrastructural industrial vertical. Honestly, I'm not sure how to get over this one. I don't believe some sort of fine and move on is really sufficient in terms of contrition. It won't bring those people back, and it seems a bit too "cost of doing business"-like to successfully act as a deterrent to future malfeasance. Breaking up maybe? Clearly competition in the sector seems to have devolved into a duopoly to some degree.
- magduf 8y ago
  >Honestly, I'm not sure how to get over this one. I don't believe some sort of fine and move on is really sufficient in terms of contrition. It won't bring those people back, and it seems a bit too "cost of doing business"-like to successfully act as a deterrent to future malfeasance. >Breaking up maybe? Clearly competition in the sector seems to have devolved into a duopoly to some degree. You can't really break up a company like Boeing; they aren't even vertically integrated anyway. Just like a carmaker, they get their components from other companies. They don't even make their own engines (those come from Pratt & Whitney, GE, Rolls Royce, etc.) the way car companies do. How we "get over" this is simple, though I don't see it happening in Trump's America any time soon: you prosecute Boeing executives and engineers (the PEs) for criminal negligence, and throw them in prison. The company goes under, and gets bought out by one of its competitors. As for duopoly, that's currently the case, but China's aircraft manufacturer is working hard on getting their aircraft certified, so if that happens there will now be 3 big competitors in the market, which is generally the sign of a mature but competitive market. If Boeing gets bought out, it'd probably be 2. But I'd feel much safer with Airbus using Boeing's facilities to build Airbus-designed airplanes, which have been properly certified by European regulators.
magduf 8y ago
They deserve to go out of business, and for their executives to go to prison (along with whatever PE signed off on this atrocity). As for airline expansion, Airbus can certainly pick up the slack and double their production capacity in short order. All they have to do is buy up the facilities from a now-defunct airplane manufacturer in the Seattle area. I'm sure there'll be a bunch of recently-unemployed engineers, technicians, and other manufacturing personnel happy to take a job there too.
- ReptileMan 8y ago
  Whatever. That is beyond the point. The point is that this is rational strategy from boeing given the circumstances and not mind boggling. Feel free to condemn their actions, but they are not the action of a crazy or stupid person.
  - magduf 8y ago
    Not stupid or crazy, but definitely evil. Why are you defending their evil actions? There is no valid excuse for this kind of negligence. Are you so morally deficient that you would have done the same in their shoes? Stock price is never worth murdering hundreds of people.

ulfw 8y ago

I wholeheartedly agree and am going out of my way to not fly 737max and 787 (those aren’t any better. Their batteries still burn up, just now in a “metal container”. Just google ‘787 smoke’ and you’ll get tons of incidences, the last one was two days ago. And those planes fly over-water for thousands of miles - https://simpleflying.com/united-787-noumea-diversion/ https://simpleflying.com/united-787-noumea-diversion/). A once-proud engineering company that has become nothing more than a money-grabbing machinery it seems.

kbos87 8y ago
Bingo. This is the end state of capitalism, a total lack of concern for brand on the part of the companies; a total lack of loyalty and trust on the part of the customer.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Still better than famine and genocide. And since we have a representative liberal democracy, the institutions and the state have recourse and are solving the problem.
  - minikites 8y ago
    Capitalism is the only solution to address famine and genocide? Or do you mean that famine and genocide aren't possible under capitalism?
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      > famine and genocide aren't possible under capitalism? There's abundant evidence contrary to that.
- bgorman 8y ago
  The core issue with Boeing is that they have captured the government. Boeing the largest defense contractor, and one of the biggest lobbyists. Boeing recently successfully blocked Bombardier from competing with the 737 by getting the US government to effectively ban the C-series aircraft. (Bombariders "solution" was to give Airbus a controlling interest in a joint venture to build the C-series). I don't think this is really capitalism, it is corporatism - where the government and mega-corporations are indistinguishable and they only care about profits (and consequently about preventing competition)

ams6110 8y ago

I'm going to let the pilots decide whether it's reasonable. I don't know anything about flying a 737 and I'd wager that 99% of the people posting here don't either. If the US pilots unions are okay with it, I'll be okay with it. They haven't crashed any 737 Max yet.

volkl48 8y ago
The US airlines all purchased some/all of the "optional" safety features that would have made it obvious to the pilots that the system was malfunctioning.
- cmurf 8y ago
  A system they weren't told about, weren't trained on. What they have is an "AOA disagree" indicator, among dozens of indicators. There's no reason for them to see it or go looking for it in the example cases of MCAS upset where they're reacting to an urgent situation. The indicator might be useful for a maintenance squawk report. Ordinarily sensor disagree would give you some idea what could be affected because you've had training to tell you this. Not in the MCAS upset due to faulty AOA sensor case. Until the reports are complete, I think it's getting out over one's skis to say would would have been obvious to U.S. pilots.
- emilsedgh 8y ago
  There is no regulation that prevents them from making safety-related components optional?
  - blhack 8y ago
    Nearly every option you could add to an airplane is arguably a safety feature.
  - VMG 8y ago
    What a great way to stop development of safety features. Just imagine how the automobile market would look like with that kind of regulation.
- 8y ago

heisenbit 8y ago

I can't agree more. The existence of MCAS is a testament that the behavior of the plane wrt. to the pitch axis is vastly different. Handling this needs training and anyone doubting that please spend a moment on what happens when this savior MCAS has to be switched off. Yes, the pilots need to be able to handle the plane without. And they have to handle the plane at that point in time in an odd flight situation, are stressed themselves and have their hands on hypersensitive engine and rudder controls. Pilots train to handle airplanes with only one engine - there is a reason for that. Anyone doubting that Boeing needs to have its authority wrt. to airplane certifications cut should ponder what they are proposing here.