4 ms·
There are two companies and multiple teams involved. It sounds like this is a process gap. One company has a process that states to remove and reinstall the doo
by deelowe 3y ago
There are two companies and multiple teams involved. It sounds like this is a process gap. One company has a process that states to remove and reinstall the doors but doesn't mention checking torque. Second company takes over and their procedure states to check fitment but not torque.
Something like that is likely what's happening here.
- mannykannot 3y agoThat's quite plausible, but at some level in the hierarchy, there is someone who has the responsibility of not letting things fall through the cracks - if no-one else, then it is the CEO. If outsourcing is a de facto means of avoiding responsibility, then guess what the consequences are.
- jhugo 3y agoThis may be satisfying but does nothing to prevent a recurrence. Fixing the process is much more useful if you want safer aircraft.
- pooper 3y agoWhy should public money fix a process that will help Boeing shareholder value? The executive leadership should lose their own (potential?) personal money over this incident. Until that happens, nothing will get fixed.
- deelowe 3y agoWe don't know the specific process failure. While I appreciate your anger, it's a bit premature.
- mannykannot 3y agoIt is not sufficient, in itself, to prevent a recurrence, but adjusting the incentives to encourage preventative measures is a time-honored and generally effective way of getting results. It is more effective than shrugging one's shoulders and saying "It's so complicated! It can't be helped..."