3 ms·

It makes sense from a commercial perspective. Every fault you can find is a bit of a discount off the plane price

aurareturn 3y ago
It's not that. It's the fact that Boeing is letting an Airline do this. So now what? Every Airline is going to send their team to check their own Max planes during production? And if an Airline doesn't send a team to check on their plane, does that mean quality control is worse?
- dannyw 3y ago
  There's presumably clauses in the contract that let Alaska cancel orders due to issues like this; especially now that the FAA and NTSB is involved. Boeing might be willing to let airlines do things they won't normally consider, to try and save these orders.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    Let’s say Alaska Airlines returns all Max planes… They can go bankrupt, because it will disrupt their business too much. So, as in every negotiation, they can’t submit Boeing to the maximum penalty.
- jagged-chisel 3y ago
  It makes sense to Boeing. They now have a path to externalizing QA costs to the airlines.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    5D accountant chess
  - lupire 3y ago
    That will factor into pricing.
  - stronglikedan 3y ago
    externalizing QA costs and partial liability
- delfinom 3y ago
  In the commercial/industrial space, having the ability to do on-site QC visits of your supplier/manufacturer of goods is completely normal, often written into the contract itself and sometimes mandated by quality control certification standards. Part of it is to be able to challenge QC reports submitted by the company. If you have a good you receive with QC paperwork which Boeing no doubt generates, you may want to go see how legitimate the process the paperwork is certifying. The power of this paperwork extends into lawsuit ammo if a need ever arises. The job of QC in commercial/industrial is legal ass-covering for both sides of a contract.
tallanvor 3y ago
Doubtful. Rather every fault they find is something they don't have to fix later on. In any event, having their own people monitoring seems like a win-win overall.

It's not that. It's the fact that Boeing is letting an Airline do this. So now what? Every Airline is going to send their team to check their own Max planes during production? And if an Airline doesn't send a team to check on their plane, does that mean quality control is worse?

dannyw 3y ago
There's presumably clauses in the contract that let Alaska cancel orders due to issues like this; especially now that the FAA and NTSB is involved. Boeing might be willing to let airlines do things they won't normally consider, to try and save these orders.
- eastbound 3y ago
  Let’s say Alaska Airlines returns all Max planes… They can go bankrupt, because it will disrupt their business too much. So, as in every negotiation, they can’t submit Boeing to the maximum penalty.
jagged-chisel 3y ago
It makes sense to Boeing. They now have a path to externalizing QA costs to the airlines.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  5D accountant chess
- lupire 3y ago
  That will factor into pricing.
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  externalizing QA costs and partial liability
delfinom 3y ago
In the commercial/industrial space, having the ability to do on-site QC visits of your supplier/manufacturer of goods is completely normal, often written into the contract itself and sometimes mandated by quality control certification standards. Part of it is to be able to challenge QC reports submitted by the company. If you have a good you receive with QC paperwork which Boeing no doubt generates, you may want to go see how legitimate the process the paperwork is certifying. The power of this paperwork extends into lawsuit ammo if a need ever arises. The job of QC in commercial/industrial is legal ass-covering for both sides of a contract.

tallanvor 3y ago

Doubtful. Rather every fault they find is something they don't have to fix later on. In any event, having their own people monitoring seems like a win-win overall.