9 ms·

Boeing might represent the greatest indictment of 21st-century capitalism

40 points by wolfgke 7y ago

Nasrudith 7y ago
This article reminds me of ones I have read about the British class system and how it has been blamed for failures in being technically innovative despite being the nation which produced Alan Turing. I think it might be profound yet sort of obvious - hierarchical organizations reflect the failings of their heads as their control causes the organizations to reflect their /actual/ values, the ones not on banal mission statements but how they act. The same already happened with Detroit car companies and how they have often been a joke even domestically. The real question is how to reform or replace Wall Street Investment "management" as they lead down hill by being too short-termist and bean counter. They seem somewhat aware of it themselves in some ways with market caps often being higher in tech companies with "executive" shares given disproportionate control value to founders.
- prewett 7y ago
  I've come to the conclusion that the problem with large, MBA-managed companies is that they are centrally-planned dictatorships. I think the founders typically make an effort to have the leaves make decisions, but after the founders are gone then decision-making centralizes. Beyond a certain size, central-planning is inefficient, as we've seen with Communist countries. And from my outside perspective, MBA programs teach people that central-planning is what produces "shareholder returns". Add in some hubris on the part of the CEO and the fact that control is the easiest way to get people to do what you the central-planning agency wants, and you get the large corporation. Leadership is vision and empowering the leaves, but that takes knowing yourself (to get the vision) and courage (to let the leaves have control). It's easier to act like a boss and give yourself the title of "leader". The only difference between a boss and a dictator is that that a boss controls by economic power and a dictator controls by physical power. (Of course, most companies and management are somewhere in-between the poles)
ackfoo 7y ago
Salon.com uncritically regurgitating someone else's ridiculous article for clicks may be the greatest indictment of 21st-century capitalism. From the original article: "So Boeing produced a dynamically unstable airframe, the 737 Max." No, it was not dynamically unstable. It just had sufficiently different performance compared with the original that it would require a new type rating without the MCAS system. And since you all demand low ticket prices to make you feel like you are not being exploited by stagnant low wages and unpaid internships and whatnot, market forces required the airlines and Boeing to find a solution that would not require excessive retraining. But I guess that's what you might think if you're a GA pilot whose greatest source of relevant experience is that you once flew a 757 full-motion simulator. By all means, keep jetting around the world belching out greenhouse gasses and demanding that Boeing comply with the deflationary forces that you have come to accept as your birthright. I'm sure a quick technical fix will ensure that an incompetent pilot never has to hand-fly an aircraft ever again. Good plan.
CorvusCrypto 7y ago
This article seems to focus on things from a perspective of things from a small plane pilot. So a little wider perspective might be helpful. A 737 first off is not a Cessna like the author mentions flying. You do not get to use direct inputs easily nor do you want to have to fight stab trim because the force on the stabilizer control surfaces is muuuch higher than those on a slower flying plane. Because of this, when the 737 came out there were designs for trim systems that can help. These systems work by adjusting the trim settings for pitch using motors (like the author mentioned). However sometimes these systems would give erroneous inputs to the trim. The system might be causing incorrect trim up or down depending on the failure. This is officially known as stabilizer trim runaway. The procedure for this has been well established as a memory item meaning all pilots of 737s must be able to correct this without referencing a checklist since it is so dangerous. And it is HARD to correct because of the aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer. You can find videos of training for it. Now they introduced MCAS. A system designed to adjust trim automatically to compensate for the shift in the moments acting on the plane due to powerplant placement, etc. This adjusts the trim as well to prevent to high of angle of attack that would allow these different moments to introduce a stall situation. So what procedure should you use if it starts giving incorrect inputs? That's right, the stab trim runaway procedures, which again should be a memory item all pilots of these 737s should know and be ready and able to execute. The differences between systems that cause it just means you are taking different systems out of the control loop. This is also why I believe the FAA said it was fine to forego full airframe certification requirements. The procedures for handling the plane just didn't change drastically enough. Yes there was negligence on Boeing's part, but I also think it's worrying that the reports seemed to indicate that the correct procedures for runaway stab trim were not followed which could have saved lives (e.g. turning MCAS back on while dealing with runaway stab trim). Also something to note is the plane in Ethiopian airways' crash was flying with "unusually high thrust settings". Remember the aerodynamic forces that make runaway stab trim a bitch to deal with? Well those forces get stronger with more speed. People are quick to point the finger at Boeing and surely they ARE at fault in some ways, but what's worrying to me is that there are pilots that are being trained that cannot perform the proper procedures that have been known since way before MCAS. Whats more is that the motors for trim from MCAS is limited to move at a rate of 2.5 degrees over 10 seconds with a pause of 5 seconds before the next adjustment. This is definitely slow enough to give pilots time to catch the runaway trim, cutout the stab trim and regain control. Anyway I am just surprised that the engineer, working for Boeing, couldn't be arsed to also give this info which allows an alternative perspective. It is bad that stab trim runaway is happening more with this system and Boeing acknowledged it and pushed patches. It is worse imo that pilots are forgetting or just not being trained on how to recognize and correct for stab trim. Edit: Any details or numbers about the systems I got wrong please post a comment so I can correct it.
86carr 7y ago
If the massive success of air travel in the US, which Boeing is a part of, is a product of 21st-century capitalism, THEN SIGN ME UP FOR MORE OF THAT! This article seems a bit myopic.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  You should try travelling around another continent, it might be a bit of an eye-opener.
- blub 7y ago
  The massive success was in the 20th century, the 21st has been a massive annoyance because of the loss of rights and privacy. The interesting thing to me is that Boeing seems to have completely failed to restrain management pressure to perform economically and went right past the acceptable performance boundary (dynamic safety model). Even an allegedly high reliability organization was not able to escape bean counting in the end. It would seem that capitalism's typical obsession with profit can't be reconciled with reliability on the long term.
  - nwah1 7y ago
    Corporations and capitalism are different things. Capitalism is composed of a constant churn of organizations which are all failing at different rates. The point is that the system as a whole is not reliant upon the continual success of any of them. In a planned economy, the entire system depends on a single institution remaining competent indefinitely.

40 points by wolfgke 7y ago

This article reminds me of ones I have read about the British class system and how it has been blamed for failures in being technically innovative despite being the nation which produced Alan Turing. I think it might be profound yet sort of obvious - hierarchical organizations reflect the failings of their heads as their control causes the organizations to reflect their /actual/ values, the ones not on banal mission statements but how they act. The same already happened with Detroit car companies and how they have often been a joke even domestically. The real question is how to reform or replace Wall Street Investment "management" as they lead down hill by being too short-termist and bean counter. They seem somewhat aware of it themselves in some ways with market caps often being higher in tech companies with "executive" shares given disproportionate control value to founders.

prewett 7y ago
I've come to the conclusion that the problem with large, MBA-managed companies is that they are centrally-planned dictatorships. I think the founders typically make an effort to have the leaves make decisions, but after the founders are gone then decision-making centralizes. Beyond a certain size, central-planning is inefficient, as we've seen with Communist countries. And from my outside perspective, MBA programs teach people that central-planning is what produces "shareholder returns". Add in some hubris on the part of the CEO and the fact that control is the easiest way to get people to do what you the central-planning agency wants, and you get the large corporation. Leadership is vision and empowering the leaves, but that takes knowing yourself (to get the vision) and courage (to let the leaves have control). It's easier to act like a boss and give yourself the title of "leader". The only difference between a boss and a dictator is that that a boss controls by economic power and a dictator controls by physical power. (Of course, most companies and management are somewhere in-between the poles)

ackfoo 7y ago

Salon.com uncritically regurgitating someone else's ridiculous article for clicks may be the greatest indictment of 21st-century capitalism. From the original article: "So Boeing produced a dynamically unstable airframe, the 737 Max." No, it was not dynamically unstable. It just had sufficiently different performance compared with the original that it would require a new type rating without the MCAS system. And since you all demand low ticket prices to make you feel like you are not being exploited by stagnant low wages and unpaid internships and whatnot, market forces required the airlines and Boeing to find a solution that would not require excessive retraining. But I guess that's what you might think if you're a GA pilot whose greatest source of relevant experience is that you once flew a 757 full-motion simulator. By all means, keep jetting around the world belching out greenhouse gasses and demanding that Boeing comply with the deflationary forces that you have come to accept as your birthright. I'm sure a quick technical fix will ensure that an incompetent pilot never has to hand-fly an aircraft ever again. Good plan.

CorvusCrypto 7y ago

This article seems to focus on things from a perspective of things from a small plane pilot. So a little wider perspective might be helpful. A 737 first off is not a Cessna like the author mentions flying. You do not get to use direct inputs easily nor do you want to have to fight stab trim because the force on the stabilizer control surfaces is muuuch higher than those on a slower flying plane. Because of this, when the 737 came out there were designs for trim systems that can help. These systems work by adjusting the trim settings for pitch using motors (like the author mentioned). However sometimes these systems would give erroneous inputs to the trim. The system might be causing incorrect trim up or down depending on the failure. This is officially known as stabilizer trim runaway. The procedure for this has been well established as a memory item meaning all pilots of 737s must be able to correct this without referencing a checklist since it is so dangerous. And it is HARD to correct because of the aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer. You can find videos of training for it. Now they introduced MCAS. A system designed to adjust trim automatically to compensate for the shift in the moments acting on the plane due to powerplant placement, etc. This adjusts the trim as well to prevent to high of angle of attack that would allow these different moments to introduce a stall situation. So what procedure should you use if it starts giving incorrect inputs? That's right, the stab trim runaway procedures, which again should be a memory item all pilots of these 737s should know and be ready and able to execute. The differences between systems that cause it just means you are taking different systems out of the control loop. This is also why I believe the FAA said it was fine to forego full airframe certification requirements. The procedures for handling the plane just didn't change drastically enough. Yes there was negligence on Boeing's part, but I also think it's worrying that the reports seemed to indicate that the correct procedures for runaway stab trim were not followed which could have saved lives (e.g. turning MCAS back on while dealing with runaway stab trim). Also something to note is the plane in Ethiopian airways' crash was flying with "unusually high thrust settings". Remember the aerodynamic forces that make runaway stab trim a bitch to deal with? Well those forces get stronger with more speed. People are quick to point the finger at Boeing and surely they ARE at fault in some ways, but what's worrying to me is that there are pilots that are being trained that cannot perform the proper procedures that have been known since way before MCAS. Whats more is that the motors for trim from MCAS is limited to move at a rate of 2.5 degrees over 10 seconds with a pause of 5 seconds before the next adjustment. This is definitely slow enough to give pilots time to catch the runaway trim, cutout the stab trim and regain control. Anyway I am just surprised that the engineer, working for Boeing, couldn't be arsed to also give this info which allows an alternative perspective. It is bad that stab trim runaway is happening more with this system and Boeing acknowledged it and pushed patches. It is worse imo that pilots are forgetting or just not being trained on how to recognize and correct for stab trim. Edit: Any details or numbers about the systems I got wrong please post a comment so I can correct it.

86carr 7y ago

If the massive success of air travel in the US, which Boeing is a part of, is a product of 21st-century capitalism, THEN SIGN ME UP FOR MORE OF THAT! This article seems a bit myopic.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
You should try travelling around another continent, it might be a bit of an eye-opener.
blub 7y ago
The massive success was in the 20th century, the 21st has been a massive annoyance because of the loss of rights and privacy. The interesting thing to me is that Boeing seems to have completely failed to restrain management pressure to perform economically and went right past the acceptable performance boundary (dynamic safety model). Even an allegedly high reliability organization was not able to escape bean counting in the end. It would seem that capitalism's typical obsession with profit can't be reconciled with reliability on the long term.
- nwah1 7y ago
  Corporations and capitalism are different things. Capitalism is composed of a constant churn of organizations which are all failing at different rates. The point is that the system as a whole is not reliant upon the continual success of any of them. In a planned economy, the entire system depends on a single institution remaining competent indefinitely.