4 ms·
...mm... but they didnt say "we have updated our plan and will now focus on an engineered solution". That's not even a paraphrase of what they said. They said
by wokwokwok 3y ago
...mm... but they didnt say "we have updated our plan and will now focus on an engineered solution".
That's not even a paraphrase of what they said.
They said:
> we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes
When we know that:
1) The established FAA processes resulted in a variation of this aircraft that crashed.
2) The established FAA processes resulted in a variation of this aircraft that had part of the hull pop out mid-flight.
3) The established FAA processes resulted in Boeing doing their own certification of their own aircraft.
We know also know:
4) They asked for a safety exemption for the new variation of this aircraft under the 'The established FAA processes'.
slow clap...
If we're talking about investor and consumer confidence and bland corporate HR talk, they could have phrased this in any number of other ways (like saying literally what you said) that didn't draw attention to the fact that they continue to de-prioritize safety.
What they actually said does the opposite of the intended effect of 'we're focusing on safety' and instead says (to me at least) 'we continue to think we can ignore the FAA safety rules for our aircraft until a senate committee makes a fuss about it'.
- hughesjj 3y ago> senate committee makes a fuss about it Well, time to do so I think. Good call. https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm Ah, happy to see Patty Murray is already on it, but wish she was doing more - https://www.murray.senate.gov/murray-statement-on-seattle-times-reporting-on-safety-lapses-at-boeing-profits-cant-come-before-safety/ https://www.murray.senate.gov/murray-statement-on-seattle-ti...
- eastbound 3y agoThe FAA is 10x more guilty than Boeing. Boeing is not ignoring them, Boeing has benefited from corrupting the FAA.
- dmix 3y agoIt's far from just the FAA in the US gov the enabled and encouraged Boeing's monopolistic behaviour. And not just in airplanes. I have a feeling they'd be much more concerned about not messing up and protecting their reputation if they weren't the only domestic player in town.
- tracker1 3y agoMaybe time for airlines to start buying from Airbus if Boeing can't meet expectations of safety and quality. Cancelled orders should have the necessary affect on stock price to scare leadership in the right direction.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agothey won't cancel many orders. Airbus has a huge backlog
- mulmen 3y ago> while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process. Emphasis mine. Boeing literally said they won’t seek an exemption and will instead engineer a solution.
- Retric 3y agoSaying we’re going to focus on X is different from saying well half ass X. “we are confident” It they don’t think it’s necessary that means they don’t think it’s important or needs to be executed well.
- mulmen 3y agoIf you read the full sentence Boeing says they don’t believe existing regulations require an engineered solution but Boeing is pursuing one anyway. Since Boeing doesn’t believe this is required by regulations it suggests to me Boeing believes it is necessary for safe operation. If anything this reads to me like Boeing saying the regulations are too permissive. In other words Boeing isn’t trying to cheat this time.
- Retric 3y agoThey say regulations “ensure safe operation” which means they aren’t using an engendering solution over their safety concerns. Reading between the lines external pressure seems to be their justification. As “we are confident” but they aren’t going to do X.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 3y ago> They say regulations “ensure safe operation” Boeing’s statement doesn’t say that.