3 ms·

But in this case the "new thing" is a warning system that is found in almost all modern planes. It's not new to Boeing or its pilots, is an industry standard,

But in this case the "new thing" is a warning system that is found in almost all modern planes. It's not new to Boeing or its pilots, is an industry standard, and doesn't require novel engineering practices. It sounds like Boeing painted itself into a corner once again (this time with the Southwest orders), and doesn't want to eat the engineering/certification cost to get out "the right way" by implementing this system in its existing avionics. Boeing should feel the consequences of its actions, including lost profits, and play by the rules.

hakfoo 4y ago
The scale of sunk-cost fallacy here just seems comical. Assuming you didn't want to just scrap or major-refit the planes entirely, presumably the right answer was to back away from the "We'll make it the same type rating." Then you can probably discard the MCAS system, which regardless of its technical merits is a hopelessly damaged brand. I get that there was some financial penalty attached to that strategy, but I have to imagine they long ago sailed past that cost in settlements, reputational damage, and cancelled orders. It's not like this is going to buy back their reputation either. People don't want to see legal loopholes and "here's a patch fix you can bolt on the side and it really fixes it, we're sure, honest, trust us." They want some obvious and grand gesture to help restore trust, like "we're ripping out the Fly Into The Ocean mechanism and retraining every pilot that walks within three kilometres of these planes at our own colossal expense." Of course, my opinion of Boeing has been undermined since mid-Pandemic; they have a factory nearby and every day there was a huge cluster of employees protesting the vaccination mandates. At this point, I'd feel more confident in an Tupolev product.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The original post had numbers, it seems they could probably swing a deal with Southwest to cancel the tiny one (who knows, subsidize fuel for them or something) but the big one is going to be harder to satisfy the contracts without cost. Someone deep in the bowels of Boeing is running the numbers, I assure you - and right now the cheapest option is "get the FAA to let them run without this thing" but once that window closes the next cheapest may be "add the thing" or it may be "negotiate with the airlines with purchase orders to do something" which could include offering to up-train pilots on type, paying cancellation fees, who knows. And as long as the first option is open, they'll argue that it's the only possible option.

hakfoo 4y ago

The scale of sunk-cost fallacy here just seems comical. Assuming you didn't want to just scrap or major-refit the planes entirely, presumably the right answer was to back away from the "We'll make it the same type rating." Then you can probably discard the MCAS system, which regardless of its technical merits is a hopelessly damaged brand. I get that there was some financial penalty attached to that strategy, but I have to imagine they long ago sailed past that cost in settlements, reputational damage, and cancelled orders. It's not like this is going to buy back their reputation either. People don't want to see legal loopholes and "here's a patch fix you can bolt on the side and it really fixes it, we're sure, honest, trust us." They want some obvious and grand gesture to help restore trust, like "we're ripping out the Fly Into The Ocean mechanism and retraining every pilot that walks within three kilometres of these planes at our own colossal expense." Of course, my opinion of Boeing has been undermined since mid-Pandemic; they have a factory nearby and every day there was a huge cluster of employees protesting the vaccination mandates. At this point, I'd feel more confident in an Tupolev product.

bombcar 4y ago
The original post had numbers, it seems they could probably swing a deal with Southwest to cancel the tiny one (who knows, subsidize fuel for them or something) but the big one is going to be harder to satisfy the contracts without cost. Someone deep in the bowels of Boeing is running the numbers, I assure you - and right now the cheapest option is "get the FAA to let them run without this thing" but once that window closes the next cheapest may be "add the thing" or it may be "negotiate with the airlines with purchase orders to do something" which could include offering to up-train pilots on type, paying cancellation fees, who knows. And as long as the first option is open, they'll argue that it's the only possible option.