7 ms·

The management imported from McDonnel-Douglas? The same management that drove it to ground? The fish rots from the head. And these constant problems sure do s

The management imported from McDonnel-Douglas? The same management that drove it to ground? The fish rots from the head. And these constant problems sure do sound like a new company culture of cutting corners instead engineering first.

rvba 3y ago
Looks like the installer did their job poorly and the QA rubber stamped it without checking. Are the QAs required to make photos to prove that they did their job? Like those food delivery people. Alternative is wrong bolts, or sabotage. But more possible - one lazy QA ghosting.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mywacaday 3y ago
  I would doubt one lazy QA, more likely a over worked and time short QA in a company culture that does not allow them to speak up when they need additional support.
  - legacynl 3y ago
    Exactly. This is a failure of management.
- goku12 3y ago
  They're finding problems on multiple aircrafts. This isn't one QA. In fact, forget QA missing this. Bolts on aerospace systems are supposed to be properly torqued and arrested in most cases. How do the assembly people make such big mistakes? In my experience, no one puts their job on the line over silly reasons like this, unless there is intense pressure (unrealistic deadlines, heavy workload and poor working conditions) that makes mistakes like this inevitable. I wouldn't be surprised if an honest independent review of either company found ridiculous cost-cutting measures and/or emotional overload.
  - mikrotikker 3y ago
    Perhaps DEI hires that don't have to do their full duties because expecting them to is racist or transphobic or something stupid and they'll be protected by their manager who got shafted in his last performance review because he had too many "white males" on staff.
    - goku12 3y ago
      Do you have any reasonable justifications to base that speculation on, or are you just using this as an opportunity to target people racially or based on orientation? This sounds oddly similar to how Boeing tried to save their own skin by pinning the blame on foreign-trained foreign pilots when their own mismanagement in the form of 737 Max 8 MCAS killed hundreds of passengers.
      - mikrotikker 3y ago
        I am extrapolating from the DEI stuff exposed by Ashley St Claire at United Airlines and I'm using this to target patronizing and dangerous DEI initiatives, not individuals. Boeing should be held liable for hiring based on skin colour and orientation instead of merit, this risking lives.
        goku12 3y ago
        So you're 'extrapolating' an unrelated incident in a different company to target DEI initiatives at Boeing? If you remember the MCAS saga, you'll note that rot occurred at the exceedingly white executive level while the company was trying to pin the blame on foreign pilots. This is even supported by voice clips and email transcripts. Some of those were outright arrogant. It clearly shows a pattern consistent with profiteering work culture and nothing related to any race. In fact, this is one pattern I've seen with such racist dog whistles - blame the marginalized groups and target DEI measures without any good justification to save the image of the privileged. It propagates the sinister implication that an employee is definitely bad if they are a DEI hire. We're talking about a dangerous situation again with the potential to cause loss of life. It warrants serious contemplation as it might affect us some day. The fact that some people will hijack the discussion to advance their racist agenda is beyond disgusting.
- joquarky 3y ago
  Perhaps the installer and/or QA person should be required to be a passenger on the plane after their inspection and before they can mark the task complete.
markdown 3y ago
> The management imported from McDonnel-Douglas? I've heard this since they killed hundreds of people in the two crashes. Why are they being protected? They have names.
- kakwa_ 3y ago
  It's not necessarily a question of persons (and the CEO did a resigned after the Max crashes). It's more a question of culture (oversimplifying, sales vs engineering) and this is harder to change most of the time. Apparently, even the Max debacle was not enough.
  - markdown 3y ago
    > and the CEO did a resigned after the Max crashes That was a funny one. They replaced him with his chairman... hence, more of the same.
  - aredox 3y ago
    The MD "moles" managed to change the culture of Boeing pretty quickly from engineering- to sales-first. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing... https://archive.ph/vy5p7 https://archive.ph/vy5p7
    - sushibowl 3y ago
      Some of these executive quotes read (admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) like satire. > But the nearest Boeing commercial-airplane assembly facility would be 1,700 miles away. The isolation was deliberate. “When the headquarters is located in proximity to a principal business—as ours was in Seattle—the corporate center is inevitably drawn into day-to-day business operations,” Condit explained at the time. Oh man, wouldn't want that to happen. > With ethics now front and center, Condit was forced out and replaced with Stonecipher, who promptly affirmed: “When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm.” Indeed.
  - 3y ago
leptons 3y ago
The "MAX" in 737 MAX means "maximum profit", not "maximum safety".
- siva7 3y ago
  You're joking but it's the real meaning conveyed to their customers, the airliners.
  - rob74 3y ago
    Yeah, that's why the leading low-fare airlines (Southwest, Ryanair) love it - so it's up to the customers to say that they no longer want to fly with an over 50 year old design that was initially a regional airplane but is now being used for transatlantic flights.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      > that was initially a regional airplane but is now being used for transatlantic flights. And had its engines moved to an unstable location 50 years after the type first flew, necessitating software controls to compensate for which, paradoxically, are there so that the pilots do not need to train on the new aircraft's inherent flight characteristics yet should be disabled by the pilots under some emergency situations.
glcihgnwe 3y ago
[flagged]
- boxed 3y ago
  You can prop up a bad system for many years by having a lot of workers still around from the old system. It takes time to fully drive a company as good as Boeing into the ground. Managers think they are the reason anything happens, but fortunately in this case this is a delusion. In places where a great manager tries to turn a business around that is broken that's a bad thing.
- yftsui 3y ago
  I heard a similar story regarding Boeing’s North Charleston factory due to that push, it leads to some Boeing customers request the last inspection done in the Everett factoryinstead before delivery. My bigger worry is 787 as apparently it is moving to SC.
- matthewmacleod 3y ago
  “This aircraft failed because Boeing is too woke” is a pretty amazing take, I’ll grant you that.
  - didntcheck 3y ago
    "because they were prioritizing other factors instead of competency" That's not a particularly outlandish take, and the other factor is orthogonal
    - foldr 3y ago
      GP appears to have a bee in their bonnet about wokeness (see post history). Unless they provide some evidence to support their take, I see no reason to take it seriously.
    - Snow_Falls 3y ago
      Do you believe that other factor is wokeness, or is it maximising profit
lvl102 3y ago
[REDACTED]
- throwup238 3y ago
  737 Max 9s are made in Renton, WA.
em1sar 3y ago
[dead]
giardini 3y ago
Wby the rush to judgement ("The fish rots from the head."). What was done and not done will be traced and the causes determined with good old engineering and detective work. Responsibility will be revealed and the proper parties punished. Rushing to judgement merely obscures the true responsibilities.
- browningstreet 3y ago
  Given Boeing’s success in getting passes directly from Congress, that could be plausibly too rational given the current circumstances. Boeing got to where they are because your outcomes didn’t actually happen.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  the point is maintenance personnel might be directly signing off but that doesn't mean they're directly responsible if their management set unrealistic timetables. that's the point, systems are as accountable as individuals but often individuals are easier to indict and scapegoat.

rvba 3y ago

Looks like the installer did their job poorly and the QA rubber stamped it without checking. Are the QAs required to make photos to prove that they did their job? Like those food delivery people. Alternative is wrong bolts, or sabotage. But more possible - one lazy QA ghosting.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mywacaday 3y ago
I would doubt one lazy QA, more likely a over worked and time short QA in a company culture that does not allow them to speak up when they need additional support.
- legacynl 3y ago
  Exactly. This is a failure of management.
goku12 3y ago
They're finding problems on multiple aircrafts. This isn't one QA. In fact, forget QA missing this. Bolts on aerospace systems are supposed to be properly torqued and arrested in most cases. How do the assembly people make such big mistakes? In my experience, no one puts their job on the line over silly reasons like this, unless there is intense pressure (unrealistic deadlines, heavy workload and poor working conditions) that makes mistakes like this inevitable. I wouldn't be surprised if an honest independent review of either company found ridiculous cost-cutting measures and/or emotional overload.
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  Perhaps DEI hires that don't have to do their full duties because expecting them to is racist or transphobic or something stupid and they'll be protected by their manager who got shafted in his last performance review because he had too many "white males" on staff.
  - goku12 3y ago
    Do you have any reasonable justifications to base that speculation on, or are you just using this as an opportunity to target people racially or based on orientation? This sounds oddly similar to how Boeing tried to save their own skin by pinning the blame on foreign-trained foreign pilots when their own mismanagement in the form of 737 Max 8 MCAS killed hundreds of passengers.
    - mikrotikker 3y ago
      I am extrapolating from the DEI stuff exposed by Ashley St Claire at United Airlines and I'm using this to target patronizing and dangerous DEI initiatives, not individuals. Boeing should be held liable for hiring based on skin colour and orientation instead of merit, this risking lives.
      - goku12 3y ago
        So you're 'extrapolating' an unrelated incident in a different company to target DEI initiatives at Boeing? If you remember the MCAS saga, you'll note that rot occurred at the exceedingly white executive level while the company was trying to pin the blame on foreign pilots. This is even supported by voice clips and email transcripts. Some of those were outright arrogant. It clearly shows a pattern consistent with profiteering work culture and nothing related to any race. In fact, this is one pattern I've seen with such racist dog whistles - blame the marginalized groups and target DEI measures without any good justification to save the image of the privileged. It propagates the sinister implication that an employee is definitely bad if they are a DEI hire. We're talking about a dangerous situation again with the potential to cause loss of life. It warrants serious contemplation as it might affect us some day. The fact that some people will hijack the discussion to advance their racist agenda is beyond disgusting.
joquarky 3y ago
Perhaps the installer and/or QA person should be required to be a passenger on the plane after their inspection and before they can mark the task complete.

markdown 3y ago

> The management imported from McDonnel-Douglas? I've heard this since they killed hundreds of people in the two crashes. Why are they being protected? They have names.

kakwa_ 3y ago
It's not necessarily a question of persons (and the CEO did a resigned after the Max crashes). It's more a question of culture (oversimplifying, sales vs engineering) and this is harder to change most of the time. Apparently, even the Max debacle was not enough.
- markdown 3y ago
  > and the CEO did a resigned after the Max crashes That was a funny one. They replaced him with his chairman... hence, more of the same.
- aredox 3y ago
  The MD "moles" managed to change the culture of Boeing pretty quickly from engineering- to sales-first. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing... https://archive.ph/vy5p7 https://archive.ph/vy5p7
  - sushibowl 3y ago
    Some of these executive quotes read (admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) like satire. > But the nearest Boeing commercial-airplane assembly facility would be 1,700 miles away. The isolation was deliberate. “When the headquarters is located in proximity to a principal business—as ours was in Seattle—the corporate center is inevitably drawn into day-to-day business operations,” Condit explained at the time. Oh man, wouldn't want that to happen. > With ethics now front and center, Condit was forced out and replaced with Stonecipher, who promptly affirmed: “When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm.” Indeed.
- 3y ago

leptons 3y ago

The "MAX" in 737 MAX means "maximum profit", not "maximum safety".

siva7 3y ago
You're joking but it's the real meaning conveyed to their customers, the airliners.
- rob74 3y ago
  Yeah, that's why the leading low-fare airlines (Southwest, Ryanair) love it - so it's up to the customers to say that they no longer want to fly with an over 50 year old design that was initially a regional airplane but is now being used for transatlantic flights.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    > that was initially a regional airplane but is now being used for transatlantic flights. And had its engines moved to an unstable location 50 years after the type first flew, necessitating software controls to compensate for which, paradoxically, are there so that the pilots do not need to train on the new aircraft's inherent flight characteristics yet should be disabled by the pilots under some emergency situations.

glcihgnwe 3y ago

[flagged]

boxed 3y ago
You can prop up a bad system for many years by having a lot of workers still around from the old system. It takes time to fully drive a company as good as Boeing into the ground. Managers think they are the reason anything happens, but fortunately in this case this is a delusion. In places where a great manager tries to turn a business around that is broken that's a bad thing.
yftsui 3y ago
I heard a similar story regarding Boeing’s North Charleston factory due to that push, it leads to some Boeing customers request the last inspection done in the Everett factoryinstead before delivery. My bigger worry is 787 as apparently it is moving to SC.
matthewmacleod 3y ago
“This aircraft failed because Boeing is too woke” is a pretty amazing take, I’ll grant you that.
- didntcheck 3y ago
  "because they were prioritizing other factors instead of competency" That's not a particularly outlandish take, and the other factor is orthogonal
  - foldr 3y ago
    GP appears to have a bee in their bonnet about wokeness (see post history). Unless they provide some evidence to support their take, I see no reason to take it seriously.
  - Snow_Falls 3y ago
    Do you believe that other factor is wokeness, or is it maximising profit

lvl102 3y ago

[REDACTED]

throwup238 3y ago
737 Max 9s are made in Renton, WA.

em1sar 3y ago

[dead]

giardini 3y ago

Wby the rush to judgement ("The fish rots from the head."). What was done and not done will be traced and the causes determined with good old engineering and detective work. Responsibility will be revealed and the proper parties punished. Rushing to judgement merely obscures the true responsibilities.

browningstreet 3y ago
Given Boeing’s success in getting passes directly from Congress, that could be plausibly too rational given the current circumstances. Boeing got to where they are because your outcomes didn’t actually happen.
cyanydeez 3y ago
the point is maintenance personnel might be directly signing off but that doesn't mean they're directly responsible if their management set unrealistic timetables. that's the point, systems are as accountable as individuals but often individuals are easier to indict and scapegoat.