Boeing, Not Spirit, Mis-installed Piece That Blew Off Alaska MAX 9 Jet (seattletimes.com) 98
Dominic Gates, reporting for Seattle Times: The fuselage panel that blew off an Alaska Airlines jet earlier this month was removed for repair then reinstalled improperly by Boeing mechanics on the Renton final assembly line, a person familiar with the details of the work told The Seattle Times. If verified by the National Transportation Safety Board investigation, this would leave Boeing primarily at fault for the accident, rather than its supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which originally installed the panel into the 737 MAX 9 fuselage in Wichita, Kan.
That panel, a door plug used to seal a hole in the fuselage sometimes used to accommodate an emergency exit, blew out of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 as it climbed out of Portland on Jan. 5. The hair-raising incident drew fresh and sharp criticism of Boeing's quality control systems and safety culture, which has been under the microscope since two fatal 737 MAX crashes five years ago. Last week, a different person -- an anonymous whistleblower who appears to have access to Boeing's manufacturing records of the work done assembling the specific Alaska Airlines jet that suffered the blowout -- on an aviation website separately provided many additional details about how the door plug came to be removed and then mis-installed.
"The reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeing's own records," the whistleblower wrote. "It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions of the business." The self-described Boeing insider said company records show four bolts that prevent the door plug from sliding up off the door frame stop pads that take the pressurization loads in flight, "were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane." the whistleblower stated. "Our own records reflect this." NTSB investigators already publicly raised the possibility that the bolts had not been installed. Further reading:
Alaska Air CEO Says Loose Bolts Found in 'Many' Boeing Jets.
Delta Air Lines Boeing 757 Lost Nose Wheel Before Takeoff, FAA Says.
FAA Calls for Door-Plug Checks on Second Boeing Jet.
That panel, a door plug used to seal a hole in the fuselage sometimes used to accommodate an emergency exit, blew out of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 as it climbed out of Portland on Jan. 5. The hair-raising incident drew fresh and sharp criticism of Boeing's quality control systems and safety culture, which has been under the microscope since two fatal 737 MAX crashes five years ago. Last week, a different person -- an anonymous whistleblower who appears to have access to Boeing's manufacturing records of the work done assembling the specific Alaska Airlines jet that suffered the blowout -- on an aviation website separately provided many additional details about how the door plug came to be removed and then mis-installed.
"The reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeing's own records," the whistleblower wrote. "It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions of the business." The self-described Boeing insider said company records show four bolts that prevent the door plug from sliding up off the door frame stop pads that take the pressurization loads in flight, "were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane." the whistleblower stated. "Our own records reflect this." NTSB investigators already publicly raised the possibility that the bolts had not been installed. Further reading:
Alaska Air CEO Says Loose Bolts Found in 'Many' Boeing Jets.
Delta Air Lines Boeing 757 Lost Nose Wheel Before Takeoff, FAA Says.
FAA Calls for Door-Plug Checks on Second Boeing Jet.
the original comments are interesting (Score:5, Informative)
This article was sourced from these [leehamnews.com] two [leehamnews.com] comments on the Leeham News website. I found the original comments more informative than the Seattle Times version, and while I can't be certain, the author seems credible.
I'm half tempted to apply for a job over at Boeing, just so I can understand if they're learning the right lessons from this (about fixing their culture and processes), or if they're doubling down on the post-McD merger nonsense.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Boeing: Putting the DIE in DEI!
Re: the original comments are interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Mmm...Reminds me of something...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=r5... [youtube.com]
At the time she gave this speech, Lockheed Martin had just settled it's third of three lawsuits in as many years where it had defrauded the government and its shareholders. You know what the third one was for? Basically they hired people who weren't qualified to fulfill a government contract. As the head of HR, the buck for that stops at her.
You know what her job is today? Chief Diversity Hire at Google.
Re: the original comments are interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically they hired people who weren't qualified to fulfill a government contract. As the head of HR, the buck for that stops at her.
I have never hired anyone above the Director level, so perhaps it is different for higher level hires, but I've never had our HR department heavily involved in the hiring process. It has been me as the hiring manager, my boss, and my peers who I include in the hiring process who make all the decisions. HR helps us source candidates (ha), screen candidates (ha), manage the hiring process, perform background checks, and assist (meddle) in compensation negotiation. If my hire fails, HR would be one of the last people I would blame for that. It's mostly on me as the hiring manager and on any company challenges which impacted the hires lack of success.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never hired anyone above the Director level, so perhaps it is different for higher level hires, but I've never had our HR department heavily involved in the hiring process. It has been me as the hiring manager, my boss, and my peers who I include in the hiring process who make all the decisions. HR helps us source candidates (ha), screen candidates (ha), manage the hiring process, perform background checks, and assist (meddle) in compensation negotiation. If my hire fails, HR would be one of the last people I would blame for that. It's mostly on me as the hiring manager and on any company challenges which impacted the hires lack of success.
It depends on the place, I suppose. HR is usually the group tasked with candidates hitting all the diversity check boxes, and often has strong input on fulfilling diversity requirements.
Re: the original comments are interesting (Score:2)
HR helps us source candidates (ha), screen candidates (ha), manage the hiring process, perform background checks, and assist (meddle) in compensation negotiation. If my hire fails, HR would be one of the last people I would blame for that
Sourcing, screening, background checks...these should all tell you whether somebody is qualified right? So why did her department fail so hard at that?
More importantly, how's did Google miss this when they hired her? Or maybe they didn't miss it at all.
Re: the original comments are interesting (Score:4, Informative)
Mmm...Reminds me of something...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=r5... [youtube.com]
At the time she gave this speech
The director of HR gave a speech. So what? Is there an executive who doesn't give lip service to all sorts of nice sounding things?
Lockheed Martin had just settled it's third of three lawsuits in as many years where it had defrauded the government and its shareholders. You know what the third one was for? Basically they hired people who weren't qualified to fulfill a government contract.
Why talk about 3 lawsuits if only one was for unqualified personnel? It's like you're trying to imply that all three were DEI related, but really that tells me that Lockheed Martin was in the business of trying to defraud the government.
As for the only seemingly relevant lawsuit [bergermontague.com]:
Under both the CR2 and the S3 contracts, any employees utilized by Lockheed Martin to perform services under the contract must be highly qualified in their field of expertise and possess the requisite background and experience necessary to competently perform the tasks. In exchange, the government agreed to pay a certain wage to these qualified employees. However, according to the allegations, Lockheed Martin engaged in the consistent hiring of unqualified workers that did not meet the standards listed in the government contracts – despite billing the government for the qualified employees nonetheless.
So for a particular contract Lockheed Martin hired unqualified workers and billed the government for qualified workers. Sure, it could be due to DEI, or it could be Lockheed Martin simply hiring cheaper workers without the necessary credentials.
Do you have any evidence the hiring of unqualified workers was driven by DEI? Especially given that by your own post there were two other 'defraud the government' lawsuits that didn't seem to be related to hiring practises.
Re: the original comments are interesting (Score:2)
You're missing the point. First thing to consider is her choice of words in that speech. Second, she's at the C level. If she's really all this and that, why let it happen at all? Third, she's in charge of HR, the department responsible for screening out unqualified candidates. Fourth, despite all this crap, (or maybe because of?) Google hires her anyways. Chief Diversity Hire seems about right.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the point is you still have zero evidence that this has anything to do with DEI.
We know why Boeing has problems, it's the post McDonnell Douglas merger management, that's been well documented for ages and has nothing to do with DEI.
Now you're talking about fraud in a Lockheed Martin government contract, and you don't have any evidence that it's related to DEI or even aviation. You're argument is basically well Lockheed Martin does aviation, and they were interested in DEI, and they had unqualified perso
Re: the original comments are interesting (Score:2)
Triggered much? I didn't say any of that at all, it's all in your head. Just the talk of DEI and aerospace made me think of her. It stands out to me because she's literally "Chief Diversity Officer" at Google, which is cheesy because it feels like a completely symbolic job title without any actual value or meaning other than mere impression. Not only did her department at LM fail to do one of it's most basic functions, but then somehow she joins Google almost right at the moment that they lost their ability
Re: (Score:2)
Triggered much? I didn't say any of that at all, it's all in your head. Just the talk of DEI and aerospace made me think of her.
Context matters. If you didn't want your comment to be seen as suggesting that Boeing's issues are due to DEI then don't post it in a thread where folks were trying to blame Boeing's issues on DEI.
Besides, you as much as stated that the "unqualified personnel" lawsuit was due to Lockheed Martin's DEI initiative.
Re: the original comments are interesting (Score:2)
Context matters. If you didn't want your comment to be seen as suggesting that Boeing's issues are due to DEI then don't post it in a thread where folks were trying to blame Boeing's issues on DEI.
Indeed it does. And I pretty clearly and unambiguously made her the topic, and everything else I mentioned was in relation to her specifically. And you know what else? I baited you. And your bit. Hard. Go read it again if you don't believe me.
By far the biggest criticism I've levied against the whole woke thing is the fact that people like you have a strong tendency to throw out your objectivity. Or to put it another way, you turn your brain off, and you simply follow an algorithm. Like crowd around the ten
Re:the original comments are interesting (Score:4, Informative)
I find it amazing how easy it is to convince a right-winger of anything.
I find it amazing how hard it is to speak simple logic and democratic values to these same people. They have their chosen sources of information and trust and otherwise cannot be reasoned, with at least not with me, ...and the idea of political compromise at the higher levels of governments to accomplish stuff is not appreciated or valued.
Cute debating point (Score:2)
At some point the top executive in a branch of a corporation cease to be responsible for what happens at lower levels; this is only fair as they cannot seriously be expected to know everything that is going on. Admittedly they may be responsible for creating a culture where such behaviours to develop and allowing it to persist, but that's hard to really blame them for it.
On the other hand doing so might 'encourage the others'...
Re: (Score:2)
Wow - brilliant strategy (Score:2)
Thanks for that information; fascinating and VERY depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Though in Boeing's case, after the merger the new executives took explicit steps to remove themselves from 'day to day operations', and rewarded downline managers who did the same. So they careated a culture of 'winners don't know what is going on, losers do'.
Sounds like a recipe for success. Also sounds like most of our politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
At some point the top executive in a branch of a corporation cease to be responsible for what happens at lower levels; this is only fair as they cannot seriously be expected to know everything that is going on.
I strongly disagree with this. I haven't risen above the manager of managers level, but it's already certainly true that I don't know everything that is going on below me (or in teams I help "manage" as an advisor). But I'm still responsible for the impact of everything they do. I either directly set or heavily impact direction / vision / strategy for those either below me on the org chart and in many cases even those who don't report up to me but still look to me as a leader. I am not necessarily responsib
Re: (Score:3)
At some point the top executive in a branch of a corporation cease to be responsible for what happens at lower levels; this is only fair as they cannot seriously be expected to know everything that is going on.
My dude, responsibility never ceases to exist. Top execs don't need to know every detail of what happens below them. They are supposed to delegate, and to have processes and procedures to govern and ensure things are bolted correctly.
And for industries as critical as aerospace (or medical equipment), this is even more important.
Top execs might not be culpable if something catastrophic happens on the floor, but they are responsible (and in some cases, legally liable.) This is specially true if it is not
Re: (Score:3)
It's a rejection of the ideas of the Enlightenment. One can't reason with them when they don't really believe in reason. The founding fathers were almost all a part of the enlightenment; free thinkers, avid learners, believers in science, believers that power should derive from the people and not top down from a powerful institution like the monarchy or church. But some want that powerful figure at the top again, the guy with all the answers who's in charge of it all.
Re:the original comments are interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case, Chris Rufo openly stated that the plan was to blame DEI for every problem that occurred at a company that had any sort of DEI initiative at all, because it would hang an albatross around their neck, and contribute to their culture war.
Simple solution. Hire only women. Then, when the whiners whine, tell them you don't do DEI. Let their heads spin trying to not say you should do DEI.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the system is organized around discrimination. You don't get all white males in power without discriminating somewhere along the way. Unless you're one of those who seem to think white males are superior? Or are you one of those that now when you're at the top you say that you believe in equality but still shut and lock the gates to preserve the status quo?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course gullible, all humans are amazingly gullible. However, most take some effort to try and hide it, lest they look foolish. Others however seem to utterly delight in their gullibility and foolishness. Some probably now believe that magnets don't work under water. Surrendering the thought process to a higher authority is easy, and thus it is also conservation of energy. Biologically, using the brain for thinking is a waste of calories.
We used to have a party in America called the No Nothing Party,
Re:the original comments are interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how your post comes right after https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org] currently.
Re: (Score:1)
It's only funny if you switch off your brain. Turn it back on and show how diversity and inclusion was a problem here. It may come as a surprise to you (until you turn your brain on) but incompetence occurs when employees are 100% white skinned with a penis too.
But if you can point to someone hired as a diversity number, who was incompetent, who had a causal relationship to this problem, then we can start taking you seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the original comments are interesting (Score:4, Funny)
I'm half tempted to apply for a job over at Boeing, just so I can understand if they're learning the right lessons from this (about fixing their culture and processes), or if they're doubling down on the post-McD merger nonsense.
Narrator: Boeing learned nothing from this incident.
Re:the original comments are interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Those links make for fascinating reading. Here's the money quote:
there are 4 bolts that prevent the mid-exit door plug from sliding up off of the door stop fittings that take the actual pressurization loads in flight, and these 4 bolts were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane
Emphasis mine. If true, then it has nothing to do with "loose bolts". This is far more serious, and a total failure of QA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is false confidence. If you can't see any bolts, there's a glaringly obvious issue there. Loose bolts risk being overlooked as long as they are seen.
Re: (Score:3)
How is loose bolts any different from missing from a completeness standpoint? Loose or missing, same difference.
Loose indicates a failure to secure them in place, or a failure to double-check post-installation. This can simply be accidental.
Missing means a) no one bothered to install (or criminally neglected to do so), and b) no one double-checked post-installation (also criminal negligence.)
Also, their net effects might not be the same. A loose bolt might or might not come off - it's an installation Russian roulette, and typically a function of incompetence.
A missing bolt, that's another level of negligence be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How many times have I been told 'Stop Testing, you're finding too many defects.'
Re: (Score:1)
The only time I saw something similar to this was during the pandemic when "that florida guy" said that there were too many cases of Covid-19 being discovered.
""If we stop testing right now, we'd have very few cases, if any," Trump asserted."
www.voanews.com/a/covid-19-pandemic_trump-if-we-stop-testing-wed-have-fewer-cases/6191165.html
Re: (Score:2)
If you have extra parts left over when you build IKEA furniture, ya did it wrong.
If you have extra parts left over when you build a plane, ya did it really, really wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
The 4 bolts are work by shear not by grip. They have crenelated nuts with cotter pins to insure they don't get loose.
Without the bolts the plug door can move and depart the airframe.
"How is loose bolts any different from missing from a completeness standpoint?"....... Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Those links make for fascinating reading. Here's the money quote:
there are 4 bolts that prevent the mid-exit door plug from sliding up off of the door stop fittings that take the actual pressurization loads in flight, and these 4 bolts were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane
Emphasis mine. If true, then it has nothing to do with "loose bolts". This is far more serious, and a total failure of QA.
Reading the source posts, it's a leap to say the bolts weren't installed at all. It reports that reinstallation of the bolts is not documented, but neither was their removal in the first place - that was the real point, the removal and refitting should have been properly documented and then subject to QA checks. So it's not actually clear what went wrong with the undocumented refitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Boeing has admitted, according to an anonymous whistle blower, that the door plug on the airframe was not installed correctly in Kansas. In Renton BOEING removed it and "worked on the plug". There is no paperwork, meaning that the process was not followed and it is quite possible that the bolts were not re-installed.
This is on Boeing and the white (had to do this because of all the DEI BS) guy did not do his job.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a bit surprised that Boeing does not have everyone who works on these planes wear Go-Pro cameras. I suppose they could be reviewed by AIs. In any case, who left the bolts out or failed to tighten them would be on record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, their headquarters are still in Chicago, so no, they're not improving things.Because the executives are isolating themselves from the engineers. What made Boeing was the fact that the management staff routinely walked the line and talked to the engineers and things were communicated.
With the management hidden away in some Chicago office, they're not listening to the engineering teams. They can implement all the processes they want, but management and engineering just aren't communicating. Right now it
Re: (Score:1)
As of 2023, the Boeing Company's corporate headquarters is located in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia.
AHH - that ain't Chicago.
" the door plug will have to be removed and re-installed by Boeing in order to have the interiors fitted out properly."
Pure dishonest Bull Shit. In order to "open" a plug door, you need to remove the side wall panels and the insulation covering the door. This myth is idiotic and flat out wrong.
Thanks for playing mr. Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
Boeing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just came from a YouTube video where an NTSB spokesman speculated that the four bolts were not installed. Sad story really.
Boeing, once an icon of America's might, now a poster child of America's decline..
Re: (Score:1)
If it *was* only one, you might have a point. But, ah...
Re: (Score:1)
Found the Kool-Aid manufacturer.
Re:Boeing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So which company would be the poster child of tihis the greatest country? Because it seems that if you look into it, theyre all being run by all the same sociopath bosses, talking all the same talk and walking all the same walk. Pissing on their customers and the society, costcutting every corner, squeezing out every last drop from what was built by those long gone... A total disregard for tomorrow, manifesting a destiny that was set out to arrive as certainly as death and taxes once you started walking down the ego trip that is believing you are the greatest...
TLDR; Boeing is not being generalized into the decline here. The decline is being particularized by Boeing.
Twas ever thus (Score:2)
If you look at the history of corporate capitalism from the 19th century with the industrial revolution and railway boom through the depression of the 20s , the resurge after WW2 (juicy contracts from the Marshall Plan) and onwards thats how corporations and the often sociopaths who control them have usually behaved.
The problem isn't the corps, its that the controls on their behaviour that should be there have been weakened especially when economies are sputtering along and governments just want tax take ab
What can I get away with v what's right to do (Score:3)
An autobiography* refers to this story:
'I was sent to a boarding school in England in the 1960s. There I was taught that the umpire was ALWAYS right. I remember only one occasion when this wasn't the case; a boy walked from the wicket, admitting he was out, when the umpire had decided he was not.'
At some point over the past 50 years that attitude has become replaced with: what can we get away with without getting into trouble. Professions now have to legislate for appropriate behaviour because if it isn't w
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So which company would be the poster child of tihis the greatest country?
That's a pretty easy answer, considering 9/10 of the largest non-state run companies in the world are US-based companies. Take your pick: Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, NVidia, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway, Tesla, or Eli Lilly. All US companies who are the poster children of the strength of the US economy.
There are plenty of reasons to resist calling the USA the greatest country in the world, such as income inequality, lack of universal healthcare, high crime and incarceration rates, etc. But I wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
Let me put it in a plane analogy. The height of a plane in flight is not worth much in long term, if you do not take into account speed, direction, lift and thrust. And for the US economy, those are not looking good. The economy is cannibalizing the country. The wings have been sold to "reduce drag", fuel is being "rightsized" to someone's jacht and the pilot cabin is full of chimps who put on quite the show, but do not have any idea about the controls.
You know the US share of the world economy is falling,
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you can be the greatest, on top of everyone else, and still in decline. Proving you're the best doesn't disprove you're in decline.
Re:Boeing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not get carried away. One mediocre company does not equal a failing country.
I get that some people want to pretend that America is a failed state, but that's commie bullshit. America is the greatest country in the world, and I'll shove my red white and blue boot up the ass of anybody who claims otherwise just because one random company isn't what it used to be.
It is a symptom of a failing country. People rage against federal agencies but they are a major reason for why the US in general used to have a reputation for making quality products because they used to oversee companies like Boeing give them a swift kick in the ass if they slacked off. Then armies of free market nut-cases began a decades long project to wreck the US administrative state while being cheered on by the millions that voted for them. Now, the SCOTUS is set to eliminate the Chevron doctrine meaning that what used to be done by regulatory agencies will now have to be done by the court system (as if the court system isn't congested enough already) and if you think federal agencies are a bitch to deal with, just wait until you have to spend years in court and fork over millions of dollars over every single legal and statutory ambiguity because the courts are expensive as all heck and move at speeds slower than continental drift. It's been said that the US will always do the right thing after trying everythign else first. I'm sure the US will eventually self-correct but not before trying and failing at a nationwide 'Kansas experiment v2.0': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Boeing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
America is the greatest country in the world, and I'll shove my red white and blue boot up the ass of anybody who claims otherwise just because one random company isn't what it used to be.
Ironically, that is exactly the attitude that lies behind the widespread failures and plummeting standards in the USA. Arrogance, entitlement, and unreasoning belief in your unconditional superiority to all other humans - based on what? Why is America "the greatest country in the world"? Just because you say so? Because of its wonderful constitution, which has been ignored whenever it became inconvenient right from Day One?
Right from the foundation of the republic - and actually long before - it was dominated by ruthless, predatory men who sought wealth and power and cared nothing for law, religion, or their fellow humans. By 1776 large swathes of land had already been conned out of unsuspecting or uncaring European governments. After 1776 the process went into overdrive. (For a plethora of details, see Gustavus Myers' "History of the Great American Fortunes" and Fredinand Lundberg's "The Rich and the Super-Rich", both of which should be required reading for all American children especially). Men like Astor, Vanderbilt, Gould, Sage and Morgan were about as far from being virtuous citizens as it is possible to imagine. As Myers remarks, American society has always been an undisguised kleptocracy – perhaps the worst form of government known to man. At one point he admits,
“Through all of these pages have we searched afar with infinitesimal scrutiny for a fortune acquired by honest means. Nor have the methods been measured by the test of a code of advanced ethics, but solely by the laws as they stood in the respective times. At no time has the discovery of an ‘honest fortune’ rewarded our determined quest. Often we thought that we had come across such a specimen, only to find distressing disappointment; through all fortunes, large and small, runs the same heavy streak of fraud and theft, the little trader, with his misrepresentation and swindling, differing from the great frauds in degree only”.
Before 1941, the consequences of that ruthlessness were transparently obvious: violent repression of workers, cynical cheating in politics, and finally the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. Then WW2 gave the American ruling class exactly what they wanted: the destruction of all serious competition abroad. Paradoxically, for 20 years or so ordinary Americans flourished, as jobs were plentiful and pay fairly good. Then, as the idea of American supremacy took hold, employers bit down hard; today average Americans earn no more in real terms than they did in 1970.
By rights the USA should be a paradise by now - for everyone. Almost as good as Hollywood and TV portray it as being. After all, the USA and Canada were established on a virgin continent, its resources untouched by industry or even civilisation. North America had an enormous economic advantage over the rest of the world. Unfortunately, it fell under the control of a small group of selfish, cynical, unscrupulous businessmen and bankers who squeezed out everyone else and kept the profits for themselves. Today their attempt to extend their control to the rest of the world is in the process of failing.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why pride is a sin, even national pride (patriotism).
Re: (Score:2)
"This thing is great, and I will persuade those who don't believe it with random threats of violence". A really popular tactic actually, but doesn't work as well as you'd think.
And this shit isn't limited to America unfortunately. This late stage capitalism extreme short-term thinking malaise is causing huge problems in most, if not all, first-world nations. Boeing is just one of the most prominent (maybe the most prominent) examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you should spend a month in Dubai.
If you still think that, on average, America is as good or better than Dubai is, on average, then you’re living in a different world than me.
No income tax, government remains small and hyper-efficient. All money for the government and running society is gained from buliiding public works that either build the economy (excellent and affordable mass transit) or deliver services (50% of cell phone and Internet profits go to the government, who maintains and ex
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not get carried away. One mediocre company does not equal a failing country.
I get that some people want to pretend that America is a failed state, but that's commie bullshit. America is the greatest country in the world, and I'll shove my red white and blue boot up the ass of anybody who claims otherwise just because one random company isn't what it used to be.
Anybody saying America is the greatest country in the world hasn't even attempted to investigate very many other countries, let alone been to them. No wonder we're so fucked up. We have a large chunk of our citizenry that are absolutely opposed to believing we have any lessons left to learn as a country. Like George Washington stepped off a cloud after a meeting with god with a proven plan that would keep us going forever without ever trying to improve.
Re:Boeing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Boeing, once an icon of America's might, now a poster child of America's decline..
More a poster child of the corporate world's unashamed willingness to sacrifice safety, product quality and respect for the workforce for the sake of saving a few bucks and cutting fat checks to the company officers. That's not American, that's a worldwide trend.
Also, it's the symptom of something much more worrying: the FAA can be "convinced" to gloss over pretty damning design faults.
I worked in aeronautics as a quality engineer, and the one thing everybody knew was that if your shit didn't pass muster - either design, processes, quality system or quality docmentation - the FAA or the EASA was going to strike you down. And if it was bad enough and either the FAA / EASA or any of the workers in the chain was found to be the cause, voluntarily or not, someone was going to do hard time, and that's why people who worked aero jobs were paid so good.
The FAA I knew would never have allowed the MAX in the air. If you know anything about how aero designs are reviewed, you just know someone got paid to sign off on stuff they shouldn't have signed off on.
That's what really concerns me about the whole Boeing: I don't care about the Boeing company, I care about boarding a plane that wasn't maintained properly because the maintenance people now have that idea that if they fuck up and it's not too bad, or of their boss is buddy-buddy with someone in the right position at the FAA, it's okay - instead of knowing they'd better do their job right or the police will for sure come and get em when the plane crashes 15 years later after they've retired.
Re: (Score:1)
Ain't capitalism efficient?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the FAA allows aircraft manufacturers to serf-certify to a degree in order to make the whole process more efficient. As someone who is a proponent of a free market (with oversight and interference where needed), the notion of companies self-certifying critical safety items seems like a spectacularly bad idea to me. You'd think Boeing would have lost that particular privilege after the whole earlier mess with the MAX. More worryingly, according to that w
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't capitalism efficient?
Oh yes, it is very efficient. But at what?
Re: (Score:2)
I care about boarding a plane that wasn't maintained properly because the maintenance people now have that idea that if they fuck up and it's not too bad, or of their boss is buddy-buddy with someone in the right position at the FAA, it's okay - instead of knowing they'd better do their job right or the police will for sure come and get em when the plane crashes 15 years later after they've retired.
As if those maintenance people wouldn't get thrown under the bus in a heartbeat if it is determined they were at fault for an equipment failure. I wouldn't feel any safer as a maintenance or factory worker just because my CEO can figure out how to avoid personal responsibility. That isn't going to save me from being fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's financially efficient to discount the future. Of course then the future sucks, but you the manager are long gone by then and likely the smart stockholders have cashed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't they more a poster child of American capitalism?
You get what you measure. They switched from measuring engineering excellence to profit margin. Which is exactly what the most American companies strive for. Profit above all else.
This isn't the decline of America, this is peak America.
Deliberate Confusion (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm starting to wonder if Spirit Aerosystems was deliberately named to create confusion with Spirit Airlines.
Boeing bigwigs spun off Spirit Aerosystems from the main company and named it as such. "A contractor did it" is standard-issue plausible-deniability. And Boeing has been blaming airlines for this particular problem.
"Spirit AeroLineSystems? Those are those cheapos who lose your luggage, right? Can't have anything to do with that respectable company Boeing..."
Boeing executives fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
t is that single-mindedness which is going to result in the largest stock decrease in the companies history.
That is the future and the future is not guaranteed. The profits are now and real. What the fuck do you think they will choose? They are drug addicts looking for a drug.
Idiocracy : Boeing buys the NTSB and FAA (Score:2)
in order to deal with issues more efficiently.
It could have been one of those lines in the movie Idiocracy that were supposed to be funny.
But Boeing doing their on safety and quality checks comes scary close to the world envisioned in Idiocracy.
Too big to be allowed to fail (Score:4, Interesting)
The appropriate punishment to Boeing would be its forced division back into Boeing and McDonnell Douglass. Divide their manufacturing facilities more or less down the middle, with both new companies starting out with equal ownership of the present company's intellectual property.
Best-case, the US ends up with two vigorously-competing aviation companies. Worst-case, all of Boeing's present-day shittiness gets condensed into one of them and the bad one goes bankrupt, taking the rot along with it and leaving the other to once again become a world leader.
At this point, Boeing's reputation is so badly tarnished, forced-division would probably end up being a hidden blessing to Boeing's current stockholders.
Re:Too big to be allowed to fail (Score:5, Informative)
The appropriate punishment to Boeing would be its forced division back into Boeing and McDonnell Douglass. Divide their manufacturing facilities more or less down the middle, with both new companies starting out with equal ownership of the present company's intellectual property.
Best-case, the US ends up with two vigorously-competing aviation companies. Worst-case, all of Boeing's present-day shittiness gets condensed into one of them and the bad one goes bankrupt, taking the rot along with it and leaving the other to once again become a world leader.
At this point, Boeing's reputation is so badly tarnished, forced-division would probably end up being a hidden blessing to Boeing's current stockholders.
What would actually happen is that you'd get two mini-McDonnell Douglass'es that both inherit Boeings present-day shiftiness and that would both go bankrupt. The problem here is the shittyness of modern US corporate culture in general, not McDonnell Douglas' shitty corporate culture specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
"you'd get two mini-McDonnell Douglass'es that both inherit Boeings present-day shiftiness"
We can see that right here in Boeing vs. Spirit. They are neither independent nor distinct, so blaming one over the other doesn't really bring any clarity.
Re: (Score:2)
The appropriate punishment to Boeing would be its forced division back into Boeing and McDonnell Douglass. Divide their manufacturing facilities more or less down the middle, with both new companies starting out with equal ownership of the present company's intellectual property.
Best-case, the US ends up with two vigorously-competing aviation companies. Worst-case, all of Boeing's present-day shittiness gets condensed into one of them and the bad one goes bankrupt, taking the rot along with it and leaving the other to once again become a world leader.
At this point, Boeing's reputation is so badly tarnished, forced-division would probably end up being a hidden blessing to Boeing's current stockholders.
What would actually happen is that you'd get two mini-McDonnell Douglass'es that both inherit Boeings present-day shiftiness and that would both go bankrupt. The problem here is the shittyness of modern US corporate culture in general, not McDonnell Douglas' shitty corporate culture specifically.
Yep, it's clear the private sector can't be trusted with something so valuable, partial nationalisation (the government gains a significant share of Boeing, but is essentially another shareholder) and greater oversight would probably be a vast improvement even given how incompetent the US is at oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the federal government can't just declare itself the owner of something like 1/3 of Boeing... it would have to buy the shares at a premium price, as if it were a private equity firm attempting a hostile takeover via a leveraged buy-out. Even in its wounded state, Boeing stock is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Now, granted, the government could borrow the money for a near-pittance (relatively speaking), so it wouldn't be quite as handicapped as a normal LBO, and in a sense it would be
They Inspect Their Own Planes? (Score:1)
Is this true?
Ford inspects its own cars (Score:2)
The question is when do you demand external inspections and why. And, to be fair, the actual record of air safety across the world remains remarkable - at least in civilised countries. So on the whole it is working well.
Did the customer order the four-bolt option? (Score:2)
Good explaination youtube video (Score:1)
I recommend this video for a good explanation
https://youtu.be/XhRYqvCAX_k?s... [youtu.be]
Improper change control that's not documented (Score:2)
Somewhere along the line, someone decided to make change to the assembly procedure that didn't get properly documented and and they didn't followed that new procedure.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my understanding is that there was a problem with the door seal as delivered from Spirit. To correct this, Boeing had to remove the retaining bolts. They *could* have recorded this as the door plug being "removed", but that would have triggered additional inspections of the door plug's retaining bolts. Instead they recorded the door plug as being "opened" -- as if it were a *door* -- because opening a door doesn't trigger additional inspection of how the door is attached.
So Spirit *and* Boeing both
Re: (Score:1)
Spirit AeroSystems is also a IAMAW shop. At the facilities in Wichita Spirit AeroSystems also builds parts for Airbus.
Now that is a set of meetings that would be interesting to sit in on. eh?
Is Boeing still following Six-Sigma? (Score:1)