3 ms·

I feel that particular quote is taken out of context a bit. The line immediately preceding it is: > Another damning exchange calls into question the safety of

I feel that particular quote is taken out of context a bit. The line immediately preceding it is: > Another damning exchange calls into question the safety of the 737 Max long before the plane was approved to fly passengers. It’s the quality of the finished product I care about, not the quality of the product at some unspecified point during R&D.

robbiep 7y ago
I don’t see that extra bit of context changing the quote
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Vague remarks about the design of the plane being unsound at any point in time prior to it being approved to fly passengers, doesn’t reveal any information at all about the soundness of the design of the plane that was eventually approved to fly passengers.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    Your statements broke my brain... "The plane got approved, it must have been good enough, however grueling it got during the design process". But all evidence shows it wasn't good enough (the design killed some 300 people!), but it got rubber stamp approval.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      > But all evidence shows it wasn't good enough Sure, but without additional context we can’t know what they were talking about, or whether those remarks were relevant to the final product.
      - robbiep 7y ago
        Except, the quote you’re referring to was dated 2018. The 737 MAX started operations in May 2017. So the comment was after the plane was regularly flying, and people on the inside were STILL joking about its safety. (0) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/09/boeing-737-max-internal-messages?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/09/boeing-737-...
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        In that case the NPR article (which doesn’t mention a date) is just factually incorrect. > Another damning exchange calls into question the safety of the 737 Max long before the plane was approved to fly passengers. > "Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No." If that quote was from 2018, then it’s from a year after FAA approval, not “long before” it. I was criticising the reporting, not defending Boeing, and as you’ve kindly pointed out, the reporting is even more dubious than I had first thought.
        robbiep 7y ago
        The source and year of the quote I took from the guardian article I referenced. I’ve got no idea what you mean by ‘long before’, unless you somehow Switched what I was talking about - my point is exactly that the employees were discussing that they wouldn’t fly on it the year following the start of service. QED?
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        I feel like you haven’t read OP article, or the parent comments in this thread. The quotes I posted above are directly from the NPR article that this thread is commenting on. I wasn’t making any comments regarding Boeing’s culpability, I was specifically commenting on the quality of the OP article. As those quotes are presented in the NPR article, they lack sufficient context to communicate anything meaningful, and based on what you’ve posted, appear to be reported in a factually incorrect manner (they directly contradict the guardian reporting, so at least one of them must be incorrect).
admax88q 7y ago
Presumably internal employees are familiar with the design process of planes. Or do you suspect they make statements like this for every plane during th early stages?
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I have no idea. I doubt anybody commenting in this thread does either, given the complete lack of context. Given Boeing’s proven track record, you could potentially speculate that the comments are actually in reference to some serious failure. But the quote as it’s presented doesn’t provide any meaningful information.
  - fooker 7y ago
    The 'proven track record' is pretty much non existent at this point.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      > Given Boeing’s proven track record, you could potentially speculate that the comments are actually in reference to some serious failure Read the whole sentence. Boeing does have a proven track record of serious failures, negligence, coverups... If you were inclined to speculate, you could speculate that this comment is in reference to some sort of serious issue that eventually made it into the production model. However the article doesn’t substantiate that implication (and it is only an implication). The author of the article clearly wants you to come away from reading it with a diminished impression of Boeing. They have a clear profit incentive to make the article as outrageous as possible. A lot of people (myself included) already have a pretty poor opinion of Boeing, and I’d bet a lot of people who clicked on the article would be inclined to believe any negative claims made against them. The dangers of Fake News are often discussed on HN, and this is exactly the sort of situation where it is most important to exercise critical thinking. That quote, without context, doesn’t reveal any meaningful information at all. I presume I’m getting downvoted because people think I’m defending Boeing, which I haven’t done once. I’m simply pointing out the danger of getting sucked in by outrage journalism, especially when it plays into your preconceived notions (no matter how well founded they are).
jsight 7y ago
Bluntly, this is why companies have email "retention"[1] policies. Lots of products have internal emails about all the scary things that can (and will) go wrong. Its hard to put them into context, but if things do go wrong they will be all over the press. [1] Really deletion policies
tasty_freeze 7y ago
The Washington Post article says that quote was from 2018, contrary to your speculation that it was some long-ago comment that is no longer relevant. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/internal-boeing-documents-show-employees-discussing-efforts-to-mani/2020/01/09/83a0c6ec-334f-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/int...

robbiep 7y ago

I don’t see that extra bit of context changing the quote

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Vague remarks about the design of the plane being unsound at any point in time prior to it being approved to fly passengers, doesn’t reveal any information at all about the soundness of the design of the plane that was eventually approved to fly passengers.
- netsharc 7y ago
  Your statements broke my brain... "The plane got approved, it must have been good enough, however grueling it got during the design process". But all evidence shows it wasn't good enough (the design killed some 300 people!), but it got rubber stamp approval.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    > But all evidence shows it wasn't good enough Sure, but without additional context we can’t know what they were talking about, or whether those remarks were relevant to the final product.
    - robbiep 7y ago
      Except, the quote you’re referring to was dated 2018. The 737 MAX started operations in May 2017. So the comment was after the plane was regularly flying, and people on the inside were STILL joking about its safety. (0) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/09/boeing-737-max-internal-messages?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/09/boeing-737-...
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        In that case the NPR article (which doesn’t mention a date) is just factually incorrect. > Another damning exchange calls into question the safety of the 737 Max long before the plane was approved to fly passengers. > "Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn't," says one employee to another, who responds, "No." If that quote was from 2018, then it’s from a year after FAA approval, not “long before” it. I was criticising the reporting, not defending Boeing, and as you’ve kindly pointed out, the reporting is even more dubious than I had first thought.
        robbiep 7y ago
        The source and year of the quote I took from the guardian article I referenced. I’ve got no idea what you mean by ‘long before’, unless you somehow Switched what I was talking about - my point is exactly that the employees were discussing that they wouldn’t fly on it the year following the start of service. QED?
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        I feel like you haven’t read OP article, or the parent comments in this thread. The quotes I posted above are directly from the NPR article that this thread is commenting on. I wasn’t making any comments regarding Boeing’s culpability, I was specifically commenting on the quality of the OP article. As those quotes are presented in the NPR article, they lack sufficient context to communicate anything meaningful, and based on what you’ve posted, appear to be reported in a factually incorrect manner (they directly contradict the guardian reporting, so at least one of them must be incorrect).

admax88q 7y ago

Presumably internal employees are familiar with the design process of planes. Or do you suspect they make statements like this for every plane during th early stages?

AmericanChopper 7y ago
I have no idea. I doubt anybody commenting in this thread does either, given the complete lack of context. Given Boeing’s proven track record, you could potentially speculate that the comments are actually in reference to some serious failure. But the quote as it’s presented doesn’t provide any meaningful information.
- fooker 7y ago
  The 'proven track record' is pretty much non existent at this point.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    > Given Boeing’s proven track record, you could potentially speculate that the comments are actually in reference to some serious failure Read the whole sentence. Boeing does have a proven track record of serious failures, negligence, coverups... If you were inclined to speculate, you could speculate that this comment is in reference to some sort of serious issue that eventually made it into the production model. However the article doesn’t substantiate that implication (and it is only an implication). The author of the article clearly wants you to come away from reading it with a diminished impression of Boeing. They have a clear profit incentive to make the article as outrageous as possible. A lot of people (myself included) already have a pretty poor opinion of Boeing, and I’d bet a lot of people who clicked on the article would be inclined to believe any negative claims made against them. The dangers of Fake News are often discussed on HN, and this is exactly the sort of situation where it is most important to exercise critical thinking. That quote, without context, doesn’t reveal any meaningful information at all. I presume I’m getting downvoted because people think I’m defending Boeing, which I haven’t done once. I’m simply pointing out the danger of getting sucked in by outrage journalism, especially when it plays into your preconceived notions (no matter how well founded they are).

jsight 7y ago

Bluntly, this is why companies have email "retention"[1] policies. Lots of products have internal emails about all the scary things that can (and will) go wrong. Its hard to put them into context, but if things do go wrong they will be all over the press. [1] Really deletion policies

tasty_freeze 7y ago

The Washington Post article says that quote was from 2018, contrary to your speculation that it was some long-ago comment that is no longer relevant. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/internal-boeing-documents-show-employees-discussing-efforts-to-mani/2020/01/09/83a0c6ec-334f-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/int...