6 ms·

Inquiries won't help if they stop at Boeing, or contractors Boeing used. The problem here is much more fundamental to the regulatory bodies overseeing the airli

Inquiries won't help if they stop at Boeing, or contractors Boeing used. The problem here is much more fundamental to the regulatory bodies overseeing the airline industry and the dependence on a few companies that have become too big for the government to let fail. As long as our government is beholden to large corporations, either through lobbying or the "too big to fail" card, we functionally have a fascist state where industry took over our government. I'm not saying we're all the way there by any means, but that's inevitable if we keep bandaiding problems without getting to the root cause.

xwolfi 3y ago
But why is Airbus so much better ?
- _heimdall 3y ago
  I don't known nearly as much about thisyhud specifically, but I've seen compelling arguments for how the Boeing merger really damaged leadership and the company as a whole. I can't vouch for that personally, but it was convincing to me. Moreover though, if my original argument is right, the failing system of regulation will fail slowly (presumably then all at once). The FAA and other bodies involved in the air industry may be broken, but it still takes a kick to push a company over the edge. A company like Airbus could continue to operate extremely well despite the broken system, though I'd argue with enough time they will be hit by it as well.
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  Germans. OK, seriously though, when it comes to outsourcing, it's because Airbus/CASA rigorously defined systems interfaces and all sorts of other stuff before outsourcing design. I've been a part of the supplier chain there, and it's intense, but it means your part's got a good shot of slotting in the first time. 787 - and a whole truckload of BDS work - it's less "strict systems interface" and more "what is systems interface". You can get decades pass where the part still doesn't fit.
  - calf 3y ago
    So then is the 787 considered a safe plane? Compared to the 777 and 747? I've read many positive comments by flyers, but less focusing on its safety.
    - MilStdJunkie 3y ago
      It might be now? Honestly, it probably is, given the reworks. But the problem with the Eight, at least initially, was the way the suppliers were organized. Or, more specifically, how they weren't organized. Boeing had flushed through a half dozen generation of Systems Engineers in the aughties, and no one really had a half chance to get familiar with anything that was laid down before. Suppliers generally took their best guess and went with it - that's where we were, at the time, because it proved completely impossible to make any contact with a person at Boeing who knew what the FMS data bus was . . or, on most days, even what a FMS data bus was. So we guessed either ARINC429 or ARINC664 and got (mostly!!) lucky. There were also some . . ah, I don't want to say "bad" . . so let's say, "non-technical" SEs . . who advocated for their own vision vis a vis SE and supplier management. In short, this was a giant mish mish, and, speaking for myself, it colored my personal perception of Systems Engineering as a discipline to this day. While you get some real SE rockstars, you also get an epidemic of shysters with mild sociopathy, and it takes good, technical leadership to tell one from the other. Keep in mind this was . . sheesh . . almost two decades ago, so take it all with a grain of salt.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        System Engineering is a technical profession. I honestly don't think is does anyone any good to avoid calling nontechnical SEs bad at the job. The truth is important especially when it leads to the development of metal tubes that fly 150+ people through the air at hundred of miles per hour. With that said, a nontechnical SE is a sign of a fundamentally broken system and org. Someone had to hire them for the role. Meaning they were interviewed and deemed fit for the role, likely with room to grow given more experience and opportunities to learn from. While I would say a nontechnical SE is bad st their job, stopping there doesn't fix the problem at all and its important that the context of why they had that job isn't lost.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  They've probably just managed to avoid gaining such an extreme cost cutting culture that Boeing management is believed to have. Probably also less openly corrupt politicians over in Europe. Congress-critters don't even really make an effort to hide that they're at Boeing's beck and call.
- cpursley 3y ago
  Fewer MBAs in Europe.
eyelidlessness 3y ago
I’ll go one further: this is a compelling argument for, at least, direct government participation in markets we consider crucial to a functioning society.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  This gets to the core of what modern governments are even trying to do. At least in the US, the concept of Executive branch agencies creating and enforcing regulations, and therefore manipulating markets, is fairly new. I would personally want to see all of those agencies disbanded and regulations removed in favor of trusting markets and consumers to deal with problems. If nothing else, government intervention should be an extremely rare occurrence rather than business as usual. With that said, there are certainly benefits of those agencies that would be lost. Its just my opinion that the good doesn't outweigh the bad, and that a system with fundamental issues and misaligned incentives should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. The short term damage caused would always be less than the long term damage of continuing to hold them together with duct tape and bubble gum.
  - rstat1 3y ago
    Yes we should totally get rid of any oversight of large companies, because they will totally continue to put the safety of their customers ahead of making profit number bigger. They totally won't screw you over and/or kill people due to poor design choices if it means they can save a buck.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Are you arguing that they don't do that with federal oversight? Without government oversight providing plausible deniability and the appearance of safety, companies wouldn't get this large. When consumers don't believe the government is ensuring that only safe products and services are available they will step up to make their own decisions. Case in point, if Boeing flights started to show a pattern of safety issues and customers didn't believe that planes must be safe because they are regulated, consumers may decide to fly less or not at all. Companies would have to respond when money dries up and plane sit empty. Companies would also focus on safety if they know their business could disappear either through customers losing faith in them or due to the heavy cost of litigation when their safety lapses create a pattern of harm. Regulation on this scale serves a few purposes. Most importantly, I'd argue, to give financial and legal cover to the largest corporations, and to create the appearance of control and safety beyond what any realistic guarantee could ever possibly be.
peteradio 3y ago
In what some call a frightening abuse of executive power the FAA and Dept of Justice have combined powers in a "Power Rangers type thing" and issued a sweeping judgement against all holders of an MBA. A prepared statement released by the lead investigators from the Dept of Justice said "Those who can't do teach and those who can't do either become either an accountant or an MBA or probably both. At some point the gangrenous limb must be swiftly cleaved and that is our intent here today."
jonwachob91 3y ago
>>> Inquiries won't help if they stop at Boeing, or contractors Boeing used. The investigation hasn't stopped at Boeing nor Boeing contractors. It's not covered in the NYT article linked in this HN topic, but the Wall Street Journal article that was first to report the Justice Department investigation says the NTSB is "seeking to interview Federal Aviation Administration Officials in the Seattle area who oversee Boeing's manufacturing".[0] Sounds like an initial step towards identifying any fault that lies with the FAA and FAA oversight. [0] https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/justice-department-opens-probe-interviews-crew-in-alaska-airlines-blowout-d4cdfa6d https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/justice-department-ope...
- _heimdall 3y ago
  > seeking to interview Federal Aviation Administration Officials in the Seattle area who oversee Boeing's manufacturing That could mean anything at the moment, though hopefully its a good sign. It wouldn't be suprising for the NTSB or Justice Department to want testimony from the FAA related to a case against Boeing. It will be very surprising in my opinion if the interviews lead to any question of the FAA itself. Importantly, if the FAA was in any way a subject of the investigation they likely wouldn't be seeking interviews as that generally isn't a term used for potential defendants.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

xwolfi 3y ago

But why is Airbus so much better ?

_heimdall 3y ago
I don't known nearly as much about thisyhud specifically, but I've seen compelling arguments for how the Boeing merger really damaged leadership and the company as a whole. I can't vouch for that personally, but it was convincing to me. Moreover though, if my original argument is right, the failing system of regulation will fail slowly (presumably then all at once). The FAA and other bodies involved in the air industry may be broken, but it still takes a kick to push a company over the edge. A company like Airbus could continue to operate extremely well despite the broken system, though I'd argue with enough time they will be hit by it as well.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Germans. OK, seriously though, when it comes to outsourcing, it's because Airbus/CASA rigorously defined systems interfaces and all sorts of other stuff before outsourcing design. I've been a part of the supplier chain there, and it's intense, but it means your part's got a good shot of slotting in the first time. 787 - and a whole truckload of BDS work - it's less "strict systems interface" and more "what is systems interface". You can get decades pass where the part still doesn't fit.
- calf 3y ago
  So then is the 787 considered a safe plane? Compared to the 777 and 747? I've read many positive comments by flyers, but less focusing on its safety.
  - MilStdJunkie 3y ago
    It might be now? Honestly, it probably is, given the reworks. But the problem with the Eight, at least initially, was the way the suppliers were organized. Or, more specifically, how they weren't organized. Boeing had flushed through a half dozen generation of Systems Engineers in the aughties, and no one really had a half chance to get familiar with anything that was laid down before. Suppliers generally took their best guess and went with it - that's where we were, at the time, because it proved completely impossible to make any contact with a person at Boeing who knew what the FMS data bus was . . or, on most days, even what a FMS data bus was. So we guessed either ARINC429 or ARINC664 and got (mostly!!) lucky. There were also some . . ah, I don't want to say "bad" . . so let's say, "non-technical" SEs . . who advocated for their own vision vis a vis SE and supplier management. In short, this was a giant mish mish, and, speaking for myself, it colored my personal perception of Systems Engineering as a discipline to this day. While you get some real SE rockstars, you also get an epidemic of shysters with mild sociopathy, and it takes good, technical leadership to tell one from the other. Keep in mind this was . . sheesh . . almost two decades ago, so take it all with a grain of salt.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      System Engineering is a technical profession. I honestly don't think is does anyone any good to avoid calling nontechnical SEs bad at the job. The truth is important especially when it leads to the development of metal tubes that fly 150+ people through the air at hundred of miles per hour. With that said, a nontechnical SE is a sign of a fundamentally broken system and org. Someone had to hire them for the role. Meaning they were interviewed and deemed fit for the role, likely with room to grow given more experience and opportunities to learn from. While I would say a nontechnical SE is bad st their job, stopping there doesn't fix the problem at all and its important that the context of why they had that job isn't lost.
dotnet00 3y ago
They've probably just managed to avoid gaining such an extreme cost cutting culture that Boeing management is believed to have. Probably also less openly corrupt politicians over in Europe. Congress-critters don't even really make an effort to hide that they're at Boeing's beck and call.
cpursley 3y ago
Fewer MBAs in Europe.

eyelidlessness 3y ago

I’ll go one further: this is a compelling argument for, at least, direct government participation in markets we consider crucial to a functioning society.

_heimdall 3y ago
This gets to the core of what modern governments are even trying to do. At least in the US, the concept of Executive branch agencies creating and enforcing regulations, and therefore manipulating markets, is fairly new. I would personally want to see all of those agencies disbanded and regulations removed in favor of trusting markets and consumers to deal with problems. If nothing else, government intervention should be an extremely rare occurrence rather than business as usual. With that said, there are certainly benefits of those agencies that would be lost. Its just my opinion that the good doesn't outweigh the bad, and that a system with fundamental issues and misaligned incentives should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. The short term damage caused would always be less than the long term damage of continuing to hold them together with duct tape and bubble gum.
- rstat1 3y ago
  Yes we should totally get rid of any oversight of large companies, because they will totally continue to put the safety of their customers ahead of making profit number bigger. They totally won't screw you over and/or kill people due to poor design choices if it means they can save a buck.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Are you arguing that they don't do that with federal oversight? Without government oversight providing plausible deniability and the appearance of safety, companies wouldn't get this large. When consumers don't believe the government is ensuring that only safe products and services are available they will step up to make their own decisions. Case in point, if Boeing flights started to show a pattern of safety issues and customers didn't believe that planes must be safe because they are regulated, consumers may decide to fly less or not at all. Companies would have to respond when money dries up and plane sit empty. Companies would also focus on safety if they know their business could disappear either through customers losing faith in them or due to the heavy cost of litigation when their safety lapses create a pattern of harm. Regulation on this scale serves a few purposes. Most importantly, I'd argue, to give financial and legal cover to the largest corporations, and to create the appearance of control and safety beyond what any realistic guarantee could ever possibly be.

peteradio 3y ago

In what some call a frightening abuse of executive power the FAA and Dept of Justice have combined powers in a "Power Rangers type thing" and issued a sweeping judgement against all holders of an MBA. A prepared statement released by the lead investigators from the Dept of Justice said "Those who can't do teach and those who can't do either become either an accountant or an MBA or probably both. At some point the gangrenous limb must be swiftly cleaved and that is our intent here today."

jonwachob91 3y ago

>>> Inquiries won't help if they stop at Boeing, or contractors Boeing used. The investigation hasn't stopped at Boeing nor Boeing contractors. It's not covered in the NYT article linked in this HN topic, but the Wall Street Journal article that was first to report the Justice Department investigation says the NTSB is "seeking to interview Federal Aviation Administration Officials in the Seattle area who oversee Boeing's manufacturing".[0] Sounds like an initial step towards identifying any fault that lies with the FAA and FAA oversight. [0] https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/justice-department-opens-probe-interviews-crew-in-alaska-airlines-blowout-d4cdfa6d https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/justice-department-ope...

_heimdall 3y ago
> seeking to interview Federal Aviation Administration Officials in the Seattle area who oversee Boeing's manufacturing That could mean anything at the moment, though hopefully its a good sign. It wouldn't be suprising for the NTSB or Justice Department to want testimony from the FAA related to a case against Boeing. It will be very surprising in my opinion if the interviews lead to any question of the FAA itself. Importantly, if the FAA was in any way a subject of the investigation they likely wouldn't be seeking interviews as that generally isn't a term used for potential defendants.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]