4 ms·

> I used to think that highly competitive markets with low prices are the best, but now I am not so sure. Those kind of markets tend to push the quality down as

> I used to think that highly competitive markets with low prices are the best, but now I am not so sure. Those kind of markets tend to push the quality down as well as squeeze the workers. I have also mostly changed my mind here. Largely because I've worked in a quality focused shop and seen the difference. But, I also appreciate that cheaper means more people can access goods and services, even if at a lower quality.

hackernewsboy 7y ago
The solution can be an arrangement with multiple tier products with different quality control and assurance.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  In some markets, yes. But in most markets there needs to be some minimum acceptable standard of QC & assurance. In the market for aluminum tubes hurling through the skies at 500 mph it's to everyone's benefit to make sure they don't come crashing to the ground. Even markets for more innocuous products/services require some minimum acceptable standard or else the race to the bottom will give us more affordable but more dangerous products: Thomas the Tank Engine ($3) vs Deluxe Thomas the Tank Engine with Lead-Free Paint ($5)
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Which is what we already have at the consumer end of airline pricing. The economy seats on an airplane put together aren't enough to pay for the cost of fuel. Business and first class passengers are the only ones that make the airlines any money.
  - caoilte 7y ago
    Given I've regularly flown on flights where over half the plane were business/first I'm not sure that necessarily means what it seems.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      Half the seats, or half the volume?
spease 7y ago
“Quality of what” is an important question as well. Oftentimes business incentivizes maximizing easily measured (and therefore also short-term) metrics. As well as metrics that are easy to gain wider buy-in, and therefore don’t rely on expert knowledge. In this case, it’s easy to understand “pilots don’t need new training” and “we don’t have to recertify as much”, but it required more expertise to understand the increase in risk of dangerous situations occurring due to those changes, and the long-term impact of a loss of trust. It also sounds like the changes in the company culture reduced the status of the people with that expertise who were responsible for measuring, understanding, and informing the physical risks of the product. It’s pretty logical in retrospect, then, that Boeing suffered a airline accident scandal rather than an overspending scandal. Because of the nature of the product, there wasn’t a gradual warning sign that the risks were getting untenable. Things crossed a threshold, air disasters happened, and permanent damage was done to the company’s reputation. Even if Boeing did replace the 737 with a new plane, I’d now be wary of flying on it due to the de-escalation of engineering concerns I’ve read about. If the importance it places on engineering has dropped to the point where it can’t upgrade its own existing planes without causing them to crash, how can I trust them to design a completely new one?

hackernewsboy 7y ago

The solution can be an arrangement with multiple tier products with different quality control and assurance.

elliekelly 7y ago
In some markets, yes. But in most markets there needs to be some minimum acceptable standard of QC & assurance. In the market for aluminum tubes hurling through the skies at 500 mph it's to everyone's benefit to make sure they don't come crashing to the ground. Even markets for more innocuous products/services require some minimum acceptable standard or else the race to the bottom will give us more affordable but more dangerous products: Thomas the Tank Engine ($3) vs Deluxe Thomas the Tank Engine with Lead-Free Paint ($5)
hannasanarion 7y ago
Which is what we already have at the consumer end of airline pricing. The economy seats on an airplane put together aren't enough to pay for the cost of fuel. Business and first class passengers are the only ones that make the airlines any money.
- caoilte 7y ago
  Given I've regularly flown on flights where over half the plane were business/first I'm not sure that necessarily means what it seems.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Half the seats, or half the volume?

spease 7y ago

“Quality of what” is an important question as well. Oftentimes business incentivizes maximizing easily measured (and therefore also short-term) metrics. As well as metrics that are easy to gain wider buy-in, and therefore don’t rely on expert knowledge. In this case, it’s easy to understand “pilots don’t need new training” and “we don’t have to recertify as much”, but it required more expertise to understand the increase in risk of dangerous situations occurring due to those changes, and the long-term impact of a loss of trust. It also sounds like the changes in the company culture reduced the status of the people with that expertise who were responsible for measuring, understanding, and informing the physical risks of the product. It’s pretty logical in retrospect, then, that Boeing suffered a airline accident scandal rather than an overspending scandal. Because of the nature of the product, there wasn’t a gradual warning sign that the risks were getting untenable. Things crossed a threshold, air disasters happened, and permanent damage was done to the company’s reputation. Even if Boeing did replace the 737 with a new plane, I’d now be wary of flying on it due to the de-escalation of engineering concerns I’ve read about. If the importance it places on engineering has dropped to the point where it can’t upgrade its own existing planes without causing them to crash, how can I trust them to design a completely new one?