4 ms·
Man.. if I hadnt seen it I wouldn't have believed it.That is absurd. How the FAA keeps approving this junk from Boeing is even more concerning than how bad Boei
by Morte42 3y ago
Man.. if I hadnt seen it I wouldn't have believed it.That is absurd. How the FAA keeps approving this junk from Boeing is even more concerning than how bad Boeing manufacturing has become.
- gigatexal 3y agoYeah … I kinda wanna make sure we fly airbus planes now cuz what is going on with Boeing’s QA?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- irrational 3y agoWent from an engineering company to an MBA company.
- bonestamp2 3y agoSadly, that's the story of most great technology and manufacturing companies of the past. Maximizing profit is a good thing that a healthy company should do, but if it wants to remain a healthy company in the future then it should not be done "at all costs"... Profit needs to be balanced with: safety, quality, and the humans who research, create, and manufacture the products. Too much emphasis is put on the one person at the very top who often makes decisions that sacrifice safety, quality, and the humans who research, create, and manufacture the products.
- nimbius 3y agonot much choice. Boeing is practically the only US manufacturer of widebody passenger jets and enjoys a privileged position as such. there is literally no other American competition for passenger air. Alternatives include the Chinese Comac 929, Sukhoi SSJ100, or A320 from Airbus. the first two are non-starters as most north american politicians are furiously opposed to the idea of carriers so much as looking at chinese or russian passenger jets. the A320 on the other hand, while arguably a better widebody jet than anything Boeing has ever produced, has the same political hand-wringing and strong arming from lobbyists and airline executives alike. American Airlines replaced a chunk of their fleet with the A320 because the Dreamliner was literally killing about as many people as it managed to transport when it wasnt down for loose bolts or reboots due to battery issues. Given enough time and without meaningful reform and intervention by Washington, Boeing will literally hand the win over to these 3 other competitors just like AT&T handed over 5G to Huawei. Ironic considering Airbus was originally a Boeing joint venture.
- pinewurst 3y agoNot that I have much respect for modern Boeing, but quoting Wikipedia re Dreamliner: “The Boeing 787 has been involved in seven accidents and incidents as of November 2023, with zero fatalities and no hull losses.”
- chrisbolt 3y agoThis makes no sense. The Comac 929 is a widebody that is still in the prototype stage, the SSJ100 is a regional jet that competes with the A220 or Embraer (a market where Boeing doesn’t even have a product), and the A320 is not a widebody. No airline replaces Dreamliners with A320s.
- yread 3y agoWhy do people with no insight write walls of text on things they don't understand?
- QuibbleQuota 3y agoIt’s rather ironic that by claiming their comment lacks credibility without including any counterpoints it makes your comment itself lack credibility too.
- ulfw 3y agoHe keeps using "widebody" for narrow body planes. He lies about Boeing having anything to do with Airbus' foundation. It's like an LLM hallucinating.
- charles_f 3y agoThis is a form of ultra-BS https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/djWftXndJ7iMPsjrp/the-dark-arts https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/djWftXndJ7iMPsjrp/the-dark-a...
- wholinator2 3y agoPlease present evidence or any other narrative?
- jacurtis 3y agoHonestly this might lead to another 737 Max grounding, which will shoot up the cost of airfare. At this point, the 737 Max seems cursed.
- smackeyacky 3y agoIt’s not cursed, it’s the inevitable outcome of regulatory capture. That Boeing have suffered little to no consequences from the Max failures is a symptom of an FAA that desperately needs a purge of corrupt processes and officers.
- postingawayonhn 3y agoNot cursed, just poorly designed. They needed to go to clean sheet design.
- charles_f 3y agoFrom what I remember from the first 737 max incidents, the 737 max was designed as an iteration of 737 limited to the updates that would allow Boeing to bypass re-certification. The upgrades were significant and some, like engine placement, un-natural and clearly driven by regulation bypass. I think it is quite logical that the added complexity results in additional failures. It's going to be quite hard for the public to regain confidence in that aircraft, especially when (as noted elsewhere) Boeing was just now trying to get an exception from the FAA re: certification of the max 7.
- cm2187 3y agoBut was that door specific to the max? I would assume previous generations of B737 had the exact same door. It seems to me that this is more an indictment of Boeing's manufacturing than a design flaw specific to the max (well, we will see what actually caused it). If that's the case, this would curse all boeing models.
- zippergz 3y agoI don't think we know that yet. Yes, I have seen many reports that the Max has the "exact same door" as the 737-900, but how confident are we that there wasn't some cost-cutting or "simplification" measure done on newer models, or a change to a cheaper subcontractor building a crucial part, or whatever? There's enough complexity there that I think there could be significant differences while still theoretically staying within the "same design."