4 ms·

Different countries have different standards of safety, and different budgets. Boeing got more $$$ from airlines in the US by making planes in Ethiopia and Indo

Different countries have different standards of safety, and different budgets. Boeing got more $$$ from airlines in the US by making planes in Ethiopia and Indonesia less safe. Yay capitalism.

ddalex 7y ago
Not less safe. Perhaps not as safe at others. Such as of those where the front doesn't fell off.
- FabHK 7y ago
  Well, it's not built of cardboard and rubber... Does everyone know this delicious skit? "Clarke and Dawe - The Front Fell Off" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
- firethief 7y ago
  I mean less safe relative to shipping the same hardware with the warning feature enabled, which they could have done at no cost except the loss of loss of price discrimination (which I'm sure was substantial, but probably not enough that they don't now regret it)
fit2rule 7y ago
Since the 737 MAX also has military customers, it may be more likely that Boeing's design of the modular components was compromised by the need to accommodate military specs, which often leave off 'unnecessary consumer safety options' ..
Haga 7y ago
Maybe should have run adds in the cockpit
briandear 7y ago
That’s weird to say. Lion Air is a sloppy, cheapskate airline — look at their horrible maintenance and crash history for evidence of that. That they didn’t want to pay slightly extra for additional options on the plane was their choice. And Ethiopian is a flag carrier: they could have easily gotten the extra option, but likely some accountant thought it wasn’t necessary. Who spends over $100 million on an airplane and then declines a $1 million safety option?
- marksweston 7y ago
  Who ships safety-critical features as an optional extra?
  - bumby 7y ago
    There's levels to safety-criticality so these aren't binary decisions. Often they are based on severity/probability/detectability measures. For example, airbags on your car may be mandatory but automatic emergency braking not so much.
    - marksweston 7y ago
      I agree, but was responding to a post that was heavily criticising Lion Air for not paying for the option and implicitly laying the blame for the crash at their door. Either the option was safety critical, in which case Boeing had no business making it optional, or it wasn’t, in which case blaming Lion Air is unreasonable. Given that thanks to Boeing, the Lion Air crew didn’t even know the MCAS subsystem existed, and that MCAS would continue to rely on the single faulty sensor however many extra redundancies were installed, the decision not to buy seems kind of irrelevant.
      - bumby 7y ago
        > Either the option was safety critical, in which case Boeing had no business making it optional This is the part I was trying to clarify. I don't know Boeing's internal processes, but there certainly could be options that are safety-critical but still optional because they are ranked low enough on the severity/probability/detectability scale. I agree that it's wrong to blame Lion Air as the consumer. The fault seems to be in Boeing misapplying the risk categorization.
- caf 7y ago
  Southwest didn't buy the option either until after the Lion Air crash: In manuals that Boeing gave to Southwest Airlines — the biggest operator of both the MAX and 737s in general — the warning light was depicted as a standard feature just as it is on older 737s, according to Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King. After the Lion Air crash, Ms King said, Boeing notified Southwest that it had discovered the lights did not work without the optional angle-of-attack indicators, so Southwest began adding the optional feature too. (quotes from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/boeing-knew-737-problems-before-lion-air-ethiopia-crashes/11084326 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/boeing-knew-737-probl... )
Arnt 7y ago
You appear to assume that the 20% of aircraft with the optional feature are in the US. That's possible, but... Citation needed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- firethief 7y ago
  It's not a random assumption. I read in some recent article that the airlines in the US have the feature--sorry I don't remember which, but you can look it up as easily as I.
  - Arnt 7y ago
    How can I look that up? You're the one who made the factual statement. I'm not the one that's obliged to back that up. Wikipedia lists the customers, and the number of aircraft delivered to US airlines is a good match for the 20% of aircraft that are said to have that feature. However, that assumption implies that 0% of leasing companies ordered it, that 0% of Canadian customers did, that the American airlines bought all their aircraft and didn't lease any, etc. Might all be true but you can see why I asked for a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...

Different countries have different standards of safety, and different budgets. Boeing got more $$$ from airlines in the US by making planes in Ethiopia and Indonesia less safe. Yay capitalism.

ddalex 7y ago

Not less safe. Perhaps not as safe at others. Such as of those where the front doesn't fell off.

FabHK 7y ago
Well, it's not built of cardboard and rubber... Does everyone know this delicious skit? "Clarke and Dawe - The Front Fell Off" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
firethief 7y ago
I mean less safe relative to shipping the same hardware with the warning feature enabled, which they could have done at no cost except the loss of loss of price discrimination (which I'm sure was substantial, but probably not enough that they don't now regret it)

fit2rule 7y ago

Since the 737 MAX also has military customers, it may be more likely that Boeing's design of the modular components was compromised by the need to accommodate military specs, which often leave off 'unnecessary consumer safety options' ..

Haga 7y ago

Maybe should have run adds in the cockpit

briandear 7y ago

That’s weird to say. Lion Air is a sloppy, cheapskate airline — look at their horrible maintenance and crash history for evidence of that. That they didn’t want to pay slightly extra for additional options on the plane was their choice. And Ethiopian is a flag carrier: they could have easily gotten the extra option, but likely some accountant thought it wasn’t necessary. Who spends over $100 million on an airplane and then declines a $1 million safety option?

marksweston 7y ago
Who ships safety-critical features as an optional extra?
- bumby 7y ago
  There's levels to safety-criticality so these aren't binary decisions. Often they are based on severity/probability/detectability measures. For example, airbags on your car may be mandatory but automatic emergency braking not so much.
  - marksweston 7y ago
    I agree, but was responding to a post that was heavily criticising Lion Air for not paying for the option and implicitly laying the blame for the crash at their door. Either the option was safety critical, in which case Boeing had no business making it optional, or it wasn’t, in which case blaming Lion Air is unreasonable. Given that thanks to Boeing, the Lion Air crew didn’t even know the MCAS subsystem existed, and that MCAS would continue to rely on the single faulty sensor however many extra redundancies were installed, the decision not to buy seems kind of irrelevant.
    - bumby 7y ago
      > Either the option was safety critical, in which case Boeing had no business making it optional This is the part I was trying to clarify. I don't know Boeing's internal processes, but there certainly could be options that are safety-critical but still optional because they are ranked low enough on the severity/probability/detectability scale. I agree that it's wrong to blame Lion Air as the consumer. The fault seems to be in Boeing misapplying the risk categorization.
caf 7y ago
Southwest didn't buy the option either until after the Lion Air crash: In manuals that Boeing gave to Southwest Airlines — the biggest operator of both the MAX and 737s in general — the warning light was depicted as a standard feature just as it is on older 737s, according to Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King. After the Lion Air crash, Ms King said, Boeing notified Southwest that it had discovered the lights did not work without the optional angle-of-attack indicators, so Southwest began adding the optional feature too. (quotes from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/boeing-knew-737-problems-before-lion-air-ethiopia-crashes/11084326 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/boeing-knew-737-probl... )

Arnt 7y ago

You appear to assume that the 20% of aircraft with the optional feature are in the US. That's possible, but... Citation needed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
firethief 7y ago
It's not a random assumption. I read in some recent article that the airlines in the US have the feature--sorry I don't remember which, but you can look it up as easily as I.
- Arnt 7y ago
  How can I look that up? You're the one who made the factual statement. I'm not the one that's obliged to back that up. Wikipedia lists the customers, and the number of aircraft delivered to US airlines is a good match for the 20% of aircraft that are said to have that feature. However, that assumption implies that 0% of leasing companies ordered it, that 0% of Canadian customers did, that the American airlines bought all their aircraft and didn't lease any, etc. Might all be true but you can see why I asked for a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...