4 ms·

This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't a

This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them.

jsiepkes 3y ago
> This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them. Make no mistake, there is no real transparency here. There is no sudden "culture shift". Boeing is under a magnifying glass and no-one is going to stick their neck out and say: "Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it". Because if planes start falling from the sky (again) you want your ass covered. There is currently just very little incentive for anyone (employees, managers, FAA, etc.) to led things slide.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  >"Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it" There are "mistakes" you ignore when you're building an aircraft but you don't call them mistakes, because they aren't. You have tolerances for everything. To be "correct" a dimension is specified, must be no bigger than this, no smaller than that. And that's it. You're either in the spec or not. If you're not there's no ignoring, parts were delivered out of spec. There isn't some secondary "out of spec but only a little". Subcontractors (like Spirit), the prime contractor (Boeing), and everyone responsible for verifying (FAA, perhaps others) all share culpability for things going quite wrong. Hopefully the NTSB still has it's head on straight and the coming scathing reports will attract attention in Congress to light a fire under the FAA's ass to do its job, preferably with some direct legislation for things the FAA must do. (i.e. no more manufacturers doing self-verifications)
- drstewart 3y ago
  >no real transparency >There is currently just very little incentive for anyone (employees, managers, FAA, etc.) to led things slide. What is "real" transparency?
  - jbm 3y ago
    I think this is a good question and the kind I wish I thought of. Not the GP but I think in this case, "real" transparency refers to a culture in which there is no attempt to hide issues like this (internally at least); they should be caught and should be immediately handled without positive or negative impacts to one's career. As such, this would not be "real" transparency. The issues being raised appear to be only being done under duress (perhaps as an attempt to show that something is being done) and may easily vanish when media attention passes. The issues themselves seem relatively simple and should have been discovered a long time ago. As such, the implication made by the fact that /they weren't/ is that Boeing and Spirit have informal internal policies that discourage the discovery of these problems.
loeg 3y ago
I have to wonder if they're using this opportunity to dump all of their known bad production issues so they don't get sued for misleading shareholders later. The kind of stuff that wouldn't have ever come to light if the door hadn't fallen off that Portland flight. Maybe it's even something they can try to spin as improving quality control practices for brand rehabilitation. Or maybe I am just imagining things.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  There is a pretty good chance (about 100%) that after that door fell off they are reviewing a lot of stuff and that is why this has been found, not so they can 'dump all of their known bad production issues' but simply because they are becoming aware of them and are legally mandated to report those issues. > Or maybe I am just imagining things. Quite possibly. I'm as cynical as they come but I'm actually happy that they report these issues and I hope that they will do this exhaustively until they have a proper inventory of what went wrong so they have a chance to really repair both the issues and their culture, and hopefully before there is another incident.
  - loeg 3y ago
    > I'm as cynical as they come but I'm actually happy that they report these issues and I hope that they will do this exhaustively until they have a proper inventory of what went wrong so they have a chance to really repair both the issues and their culture, and hopefully before there is another incident. Sure, me too.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    I have to imagine that even a cold hearted MBA can probably appreciate that the PR damage occurring right now more than justifies the cost of a decently large team of people whose only reason for existing is auditing the assembly process.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      If they want to stay out of the docket in the long run that would be an excellent move. Because if another 737 falls out of the sky and it happens over the United States you can bet that prison time for execs is going to be called for if they don't get to the bottom of this. Whether it will happen is another thing but they have run out of goodwill.
marcosdumay 3y ago
There some very large punishments for plane manufacturers that discover that kind of problems and don't announce them.

This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them.

jsiepkes 3y ago

> This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them. Make no mistake, there is no real transparency here. There is no sudden "culture shift". Boeing is under a magnifying glass and no-one is going to stick their neck out and say: "Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it". Because if planes start falling from the sky (again) you want your ass covered. There is currently just very little incentive for anyone (employees, managers, FAA, etc.) to led things slide.

colechristensen 3y ago
>"Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it" There are "mistakes" you ignore when you're building an aircraft but you don't call them mistakes, because they aren't. You have tolerances for everything. To be "correct" a dimension is specified, must be no bigger than this, no smaller than that. And that's it. You're either in the spec or not. If you're not there's no ignoring, parts were delivered out of spec. There isn't some secondary "out of spec but only a little". Subcontractors (like Spirit), the prime contractor (Boeing), and everyone responsible for verifying (FAA, perhaps others) all share culpability for things going quite wrong. Hopefully the NTSB still has it's head on straight and the coming scathing reports will attract attention in Congress to light a fire under the FAA's ass to do its job, preferably with some direct legislation for things the FAA must do. (i.e. no more manufacturers doing self-verifications)
drstewart 3y ago
>no real transparency >There is currently just very little incentive for anyone (employees, managers, FAA, etc.) to led things slide. What is "real" transparency?
- jbm 3y ago
  I think this is a good question and the kind I wish I thought of. Not the GP but I think in this case, "real" transparency refers to a culture in which there is no attempt to hide issues like this (internally at least); they should be caught and should be immediately handled without positive or negative impacts to one's career. As such, this would not be "real" transparency. The issues being raised appear to be only being done under duress (perhaps as an attempt to show that something is being done) and may easily vanish when media attention passes. The issues themselves seem relatively simple and should have been discovered a long time ago. As such, the implication made by the fact that /they weren't/ is that Boeing and Spirit have informal internal policies that discourage the discovery of these problems.

loeg 3y ago

I have to wonder if they're using this opportunity to dump all of their known bad production issues so they don't get sued for misleading shareholders later. The kind of stuff that wouldn't have ever come to light if the door hadn't fallen off that Portland flight. Maybe it's even something they can try to spin as improving quality control practices for brand rehabilitation. Or maybe I am just imagining things.

jacquesm 3y ago
There is a pretty good chance (about 100%) that after that door fell off they are reviewing a lot of stuff and that is why this has been found, not so they can 'dump all of their known bad production issues' but simply because they are becoming aware of them and are legally mandated to report those issues. > Or maybe I am just imagining things. Quite possibly. I'm as cynical as they come but I'm actually happy that they report these issues and I hope that they will do this exhaustively until they have a proper inventory of what went wrong so they have a chance to really repair both the issues and their culture, and hopefully before there is another incident.
- loeg 3y ago
  > I'm as cynical as they come but I'm actually happy that they report these issues and I hope that they will do this exhaustively until they have a proper inventory of what went wrong so they have a chance to really repair both the issues and their culture, and hopefully before there is another incident. Sure, me too.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  I have to imagine that even a cold hearted MBA can probably appreciate that the PR damage occurring right now more than justifies the cost of a decently large team of people whose only reason for existing is auditing the assembly process.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    If they want to stay out of the docket in the long run that would be an excellent move. Because if another 737 falls out of the sky and it happens over the United States you can bet that prison time for execs is going to be called for if they don't get to the bottom of this. Whether it will happen is another thing but they have run out of goodwill.

marcosdumay 3y ago

There some very large punishments for plane manufacturers that discover that kind of problems and don't announce them.