3 ms·

Public sentiment is very much against Boeing right now, especially their current executives, oddly enough (since the previous ones were overseeing things when M

Public sentiment is very much against Boeing right now, especially their current executives, oddly enough (since the previous ones were overseeing things when MCAS was created). But are there arguments for the other side on any of these incidents, and have they been explored completely? For example… Is Boeing really at fault for the MCAS related crashes? Both happened at airlines from the developing world, where the pilot requirements (for hours of experience) is a lot lower than for airlines from the developed world. I recall reading that pilots from airlines in the US had also encountered MCAS in real flights but knew how to deal with the condition just using their basic piloting knowledge, by lowering flaps or turning the stabilizer trim off. MCAS activation is obvious because the trim wheels in the cockpit spin with its activation - so a pilot who doesn’t want trim can just flip the switch for them. Another possibility: is regulation at fault? Recertification is expensive, and the associated training costs are expensive. I believe it caused Boeing to not seek to classify the 737 Max as a new aircraft and downplay changes like MCAS. Could an easier certification process have caused Boeing to be more transparent about changes with this plane? MCAS itself activates only at high angles of attack and was put in to meet some of the standards of certification, not because there was a “real” problem, by my understanding. It had to do with the new engines’ cover, which does help with fuel efficiency, but changes the plane’s aerodynamics and so Boeing compensated using this system to automatically trim. Could different standards have caused Boeing to not create this system? Are unions at fault? Boeing has immense cost pressures from all sides, and I’ve heard many stories of inefficiency, avoidable costs, and painful politics at their plants due to union rules. These pressures indirectly may cause the company to cut corners elsewhere. I would be curious what HN thinks of these possibilities. There are probably other such theories as well. I’m not saying Boeing did nothing wrong, but that the public and media rarely gets complex stories right. It’s easier to latch onto simpler or more emotional explanations. But what’s actually true and how do you hand out blame?

smolder 2y ago
I don't think any of your arguments are left unexplored. They are inadequate to absolve Boeing of wrongdoing. The idea about unions sharing some blame is especially absurd and the suggestion of it makes your post very difficult to take seriously. Even if unions caused Boeing to become unprofitable, they are blameless in the decisions that led to the crashes.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > They are inadequate to absolve Boeing of wrongdoing. How so? For example if staying competitive (and therefore surviving) forces you to squeeze through without recertification, isn’t that a sign that maybe there is a better version of the regulations that should be considered that doesn’t have bad incentives? What about the well-documented reality that numerous pilots from airlines with higher requirements have had their planes experience MCAS trim but knew what was happening (since a wheel starts spinning in front of them) and were able to flip it off trivially? I’m not saying Boeing doesn’t share SOME of the blame, but it feels weird to me to ignore the fact that many pilots (literally hundreds) have had no serious issue with MCAS over hundreds of thousands of hours. > The idea about unions sharing some blame is especially absurd and the suggestion of it makes your post very difficult to take seriously. Even if unions caused Boeing to become unprofitable, they are blameless in the decisions that led to the crashes. Can you explain your view point more? To me it feels dismissive but I am trying to keep an open mind. In my view and the view of many Boeing friends, the unions have been abusive and created a big amount of avoidable expense and inefficiency to protect their own interests. I’m not making a claim as to whether that self-interest is ethical or not. But I’ve heard many stories of people not being allowed to do some trivial task because they have to wait until the person in a specific job shows up to do that task because of union rules that artificially protect unnecessary jobs. Those situations are difficult for management to overcome, since they have other things to spend time on, but they are real and do add to costs and time delays. That has to come from somewhere else in the company. I agree with you that the unions are not directly responsible for any decisions, but their effect is still real and can push the company into a corner. These situations tend to be complex - it’s not as simple as pointing at someone who is evil and does bad things - which is why I think we cannot ignore these potential causes that are many degrees away or shared blame between multiple groups (including Boeing executives).
  - smolder 2y ago
    You have submitted a lot of words with no tenable logic. Good luck with your campaign here.

smolder 2y ago

I don't think any of your arguments are left unexplored. They are inadequate to absolve Boeing of wrongdoing. The idea about unions sharing some blame is especially absurd and the suggestion of it makes your post very difficult to take seriously. Even if unions caused Boeing to become unprofitable, they are blameless in the decisions that led to the crashes.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> They are inadequate to absolve Boeing of wrongdoing. How so? For example if staying competitive (and therefore surviving) forces you to squeeze through without recertification, isn’t that a sign that maybe there is a better version of the regulations that should be considered that doesn’t have bad incentives? What about the well-documented reality that numerous pilots from airlines with higher requirements have had their planes experience MCAS trim but knew what was happening (since a wheel starts spinning in front of them) and were able to flip it off trivially? I’m not saying Boeing doesn’t share SOME of the blame, but it feels weird to me to ignore the fact that many pilots (literally hundreds) have had no serious issue with MCAS over hundreds of thousands of hours. > The idea about unions sharing some blame is especially absurd and the suggestion of it makes your post very difficult to take seriously. Even if unions caused Boeing to become unprofitable, they are blameless in the decisions that led to the crashes. Can you explain your view point more? To me it feels dismissive but I am trying to keep an open mind. In my view and the view of many Boeing friends, the unions have been abusive and created a big amount of avoidable expense and inefficiency to protect their own interests. I’m not making a claim as to whether that self-interest is ethical or not. But I’ve heard many stories of people not being allowed to do some trivial task because they have to wait until the person in a specific job shows up to do that task because of union rules that artificially protect unnecessary jobs. Those situations are difficult for management to overcome, since they have other things to spend time on, but they are real and do add to costs and time delays. That has to come from somewhere else in the company. I agree with you that the unions are not directly responsible for any decisions, but their effect is still real and can push the company into a corner. These situations tend to be complex - it’s not as simple as pointing at someone who is evil and does bad things - which is why I think we cannot ignore these potential causes that are many degrees away or shared blame between multiple groups (including Boeing executives).
- smolder 2y ago
  You have submitted a lot of words with no tenable logic. Good luck with your campaign here.