39 ms·
I said this in a previous thread, a QA/QC/SOP firm either has a culture where nobody would dare violate SOP or it doesn’t. It’s not about “admitting” a problem,
by CodeWriter23 3y ago
I said this in a previous thread, a QA/QC/SOP firm either has a culture where nobody would dare violate SOP or it doesn’t. It’s not about “admitting” a problem, they already have the SOPs and inspection protocols that reveal defects and proscribe ways to identify, document and address any defect. But as the QA guys where I work say, they are a cost center.
There are two real questions here, can Boeing strictly follow their QA/QC regime and remain profitable. Second, can they get through their current period where FAA inspectors have set up shop on their premises and are now effectively another layer of supervisors. They’re in the stage now where the FAA are on the shop floor basically as cops to ensure Boeing actually does what they said they would do via the documentation in their Quality suite. They either have the war chest or the financial backing to pull that off without an immediate price increase or they’re toast.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoWonder if this is problem. Current QA/SOP's are onerous and very expensive to follow. But are based on having someone 'monitor' and 'check' everything. So two people, someone doing the work, and someone checking the work. But seems like the old Boeing culture, was each employee cared about quality, so would check themselves. So needed less QA people, because everyone would 'do the right thing'. So now that the culture is broken. Enforcing current QA/SOP's with additional QA people is un-profitable.
- dylan604 3y ago> they already have the SOPs and inspection protocols that reveal defects and proscribe ways to identify, document and address any defect it's great to have those protocols, but when employees are retaliated against for bringing issues with no corrective changes made, what's the point in having the protocols?
- CodeWriter23 3y agoAny of that happens at the supervisor or mid-level manager level and should be taken to HR. By complying with bullying, the employees are not only committing a federal crime, they also risk being debarred by the FAA. That means they no longer work in the Aviation Industry.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoHR retaliates frequently
- dylan604 3y agoYeah, I'm not sure why people think that HR does not behave as instructed by leadership
- CodeWriter23 3y agoThen you man up and do the whistleblower thing. And you do it having established a written record with HR. The choice between keeping my job vs maiming / killing strangers due to my own negligence is a no-brainer for me.
- kelnos 3y agoI'm glad you have the financial stability to be able to take that (IMO admirable) principled stance, but I think it's unreasonable to expect that's the case for everyone, or even most people.
- CodeWriter23 3y agoI'm glad you're ok with killing and injuring others so you don't have to face the discomfort of finding another job. I've quit jobs on principle twice. No safety net, no savings. Just a belief I would be better off without that job. Turns out, I was right.
- dylan604 3y agoGreat, so you can be a Boeing employee that tried to raise the issue on multiple occasions, you have the documentation to prove that, you rage quite, and then attempt to blow the whistle, but the planes crash anyways. What a pathetic human you are for taking so long to grow a pair. You should grow up and realize not everyone is the same. So you've rage quit twice out of "principles". Great. What changed at the company you left? Some would rightfully call you a quitter for not seeing through with the changes. We can all have views on either end of this, but it doesn't make any of us RIGHT.
- mschuster91 3y ago> They either have the war chest or the financial backing to pull that off without an immediate price increase or they’re toast. Boeing has gotten Too Big To Fail, way too much military/space contracts. The US government can't let them fail because then the only remaining space capability would be SpaceX who can't fulfil everything (and is under control of an increasingly erratic billionaire). What should happen is that the government should do it just like with the banks in the late '00s: assume control over Boeing+Spirit Aerosystems if not outright nationalize it (without compensation to shareholders, to incentivize other shareholders of other companies to make sure their leadership doesn't prioritize profits over safety), enact sweeping changes, and then after a few years either sell the remains off again or keep it under government control.
- denton-scratch 3y agoWhen was the last time you remember the USG nationalizing a large corporation?
- mschuster91 3y agoForbes has a handy list for banks [1], that were usually nationalized, cleared up and the remains sold off. There was an article detailing the practice here on HN a year or so ago, but I can't find it at the moment - it was around the time of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse I think. Additionally, after 2001 airlines were bailed out, and in the wake of 2008ff car makers and more banks [2]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/list-of-failed-banks/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/list-of-failed-banks/ [2] https://thenextsystem.org/history-of-nationalization-in-the-us https://thenextsystem.org/history-of-nationalization-in-the-...
- nixgeek 3y agoI wonder if we’ll see Boeing split and keep its more successful Defense business “closer to the vest” and spin out the commercial airplane business?