Boeing Finds More Misdrilled Holes On 737 In Latest Setback (yahoo.com) 78
Boeing found more mistakes with holes drilled in the fuselage of its 737 Max jet, a setback that could further slow deliveries on a critical program already restricted by regulators over quality lapses. ArchieBunker shares a report: The latest manufacturing slip originated with a supplier and will require rework on about 50 undelivered 737 jets to repair the faulty rivet holes, Boeing commercial chief Stan Deal said in a note to staff. While he didn't identify the contractor, a spokesman for fuselage supplier Spirit AeroSystems Holdings said it's aware of the issue and will conduct repairs. The extra time required for inspections and repair work could delay near-term plane deliveries, Deal said in his memo, which was seen by Bloomberg News. He didn't say whether any action would be required on the in-service 737 fleet.
What kind of bonus did upper management get for co (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of bonus did upper management get for cost cutting?
They outsourced the FUSELAGE? (Score:4, Funny)
That literally IS the airplane! Is there anything left?
They should outsource the CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was going to ask: What is next? The bolts and rivets holding the wings maybe?
bolts and rivets done by the same people who did t (Score:1)
bolts and rivets done by the same people who did titanic!
Re:bolts and rivets done by the same people who di (Score:4, Funny)
bolts and rivets done by the same people who did titanic!
Tough gig for people 119 years old. You'd think they'd be retired by now -- or dead.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean the Titanic was actually pretty well built - it just had incredibly bad luck and some poor management decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
actually they did cut many corners to get cost and meet the deadline. One of the issues were using worse bolts (or it was using they wrongly, i don't recall anymore)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't cutting a corner though. The watertight bulkheads used didn't normally go full height of the ship. There was always a tipping point at which the ship would sink.
Re: (Score:2)
correct, only after titanic they decided to start build water tight bulkheads, where it was possible, of course.
Titanic also had a coal fire in the coal storage (gravity feed storage, so no easy access) around the icebert hit area before launch and while controlled, it is suspected it was never put out. This could left a slow burning fires inside, that could have increased the temperature enough and weaken the iron on that region , making it fail more. This was alerted by several experts at that time but to
Re: (Score:2)
Or rather the Titan submersible, which is more plausible. You know, the sort of people that don't hire boring 50-years old engineers with tons of knowledge and experience, for being boring and "un-inspiring". Yes, I know that knowledge and experience cost money. It's still hardly an excuse.
You know, Mr. Stockton Rush at least had the decency to go and perish himself in his own inspiring experiment. Unlike others, who happily risk the lives of hundreds of passengers while counting their money.
Re:They outsourced the FUSELAGE? (Score:4, Informative)
That literally IS the airplane! Is there anything left?
They should outsource the CEO.
The fuselage is a tube. The wings make it fly. Boeing makes the wings and probably a lot more
https://simpleflying.com/putti... [simpleflying.com]
Re: They outsourced the FUSELAGE? (Score:2)
The 737 fuselage is made in the same factory in Wichita it has been made in for decades, it just belongs to Spirit Aero now.
Re: (Score:2)
So they can blame someone else for screwing it up by cost cutting?
Outsource to Airbus (Score:2)
Outsource the whole plane to Airbus, put your logo on it.
At least they will not fall to pieces after a month.
It's nice to have subcontractors to pass the blame (Score:4, Interesting)
It's nice to have subcontractors to pass the blame to.
And with their being little competition and big back logs. The buyers of new planes are stuck.
Now will China be able to do better (and not be the cheap built parts)
At least people did not die this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Subcontractor...but not really. Spirit AeroSystems was just a division of Boeing that they sold off likely for this exact reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Curious naming choice... When I think of Spirit in relationship to flying, I don't have good thoughts.
It's kind of like Ford spinning off their engine manufacturing to a company called Yugo Manufacturing.
Re: (Score:1)
As I understand it, Boeing is the prime integrator therefore responsible for all aspects of the delivered system. If not...well there is your problem.
Drunk in charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
What IS going on in these suppliers? 50 fuselages with errors is a systematic issue of both manufacturing process (what is being done) and QA (catching what is being done). It's a very serious inditement of their QA, which has implications for their ability to catch other, unrelated additional errors.
It reminds me of the time I got to tour the manufacturing plant of a major luxury car brand in Germany (one of the three you just thought of).
I saw with my own eyes: beer-dispensing vending machines for workers *right alongside* the production line. Wow. That's gotta help quality.
Re:Drunk in charge? (Score:5, Informative)
What is going on - organizational psychology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a directive from the top. Get the planes out the door by any means. QA/QC be damned. Many heads have been sacked or given warnings for raising any concerns. This is the last 25+ years of production.
Most every NG body will now be suffering from early fatigue failures. There is examples of rough landings where the body breaks in half or worse. No doubt some airlines have already retired some planes early for this.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw with my own eyes: beer-dispensing vending machines for workers *right alongside* the production line. Wow. That's gotta help quality.
Well, it is called "Spirit" AeroSystems, so no beer at the worksite. Instead, they have gin and whiskey dispensers on the factory floor.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is called "Spirit" AeroSystems, so no beer at the worksite. Instead, they have gin and whiskey dispensers on the factory floor.
Hmmm... Wichita. Hmmm... Kansas. Hmmm... Moonshine.
Re: (Score:2)
Half-dressed and playing games. (Score:2)
But office air conditioning? No thank you, we are serious, responsible Germans!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is pretty much Bavaria specific.
Re:Drunk in charge? (Score:4, Informative)
It reminds me of the time I got to tour the manufacturing plant of a major luxury car brand in Germany (one of the three you just thought of).
I saw with my own eyes: beer-dispensing vending machines for workers *right alongside* the production line. Wow. That's gotta help quality.
It's a guess, but.... am I right if I narrow down the three to the 2 of them from Bavaria? :-)
I remember the time when that wasn't too unusual. And honestly.. at the time you went there.... do you remember anyone speaking of "quality issues" with German brands? That was later when management ordered those cheating devices...
I mean still, everyone wants to have a Tesla, but they also say the mechanical build quality is really bad with uneven gaps between parts that would never have left a German factory.
But that matches the history of Tesla - they started with the new "disruptive" technology and the rest of the car was an afterthought. And that's the part of evolutionary invention the traditional car makers completely missed. Sometimes I wonder what could have been if the new Tesla Technology had been combined with someone who knows how to build the rest of a car.
Got their manufacturing "talent" from Audi (Score:2)
Tesla combined with people from Audi, not people who knew how to build the rest of the car, either.
Re:Drunk in charge? (Score:4, Interesting)
> And honestly.. at the time you went there.... do you remember anyone speaking of "quality issues" with German brands?
It was one of my most memorable experiences of my professional life, largely because I was touring this plant with a colleague who used to do Quality/TPS at Toyota. While I was wildly impressed with most everything I saw (even the beer vending machines), my Quality friend was visibly and audibly horrified with some of what he saw from a QA/LEAN PoV. So I gather the German auto companies were still lagging the Japanese at that time.
Still - the beer: probably not a big deal. Americans are still rather puritan about alcohol: as a European by upbringing, it was normal to have a beer at lunch when I worked there in the 90's. After I moved to the US I quickly learned that that was considered very unprofessional here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... that whole lean production wasn't till later 90s. Didn't help acceptance that VW worded it in a way that they are turning German roads into their "rolling warehouses" with just in time delivery - and never mentioned paying rent....
Sounds cheesy, but I guess until then the best QA was to give every worker a chance to be proud of the cars they made. Same story I heard about an US motorcycle company. Laid of all the expensive but expirienced workers and immediatly having problems. And it seems to be the
Re: Drunk in charge? (Score:1, Interesting)
Until the 1980s, martinis for lunch were the norm. With cigarettes. Lots and lots of cigarettes. We got to the moon that way. We built the 747 that way. Huge reeducation campaign in the 1908s. You were educated by the same people that ended martinis for lunch. How are we all doing now without martinis and cigarettes for lunch?
I don't drink at all BTW. And really don't give a shit. Just pointing stuff out.
Anyone old enough, reading this, knows this is not an exaggeration.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the "three martini lunch," yes. No idea why you were modded to oblivion. It is an interesting point. I think it's entirely correlative, but it seems that people impaired by alcohol who give a damn and built for longevity beat sober people who are in a race to the bottom on costs, and think nobody wants to pay for longevity.
What's next? Disposable airplanes? Fast fashion fighter jets?
Re:Drunk in charge? (Score:5, Informative)
It's well known by now that both Spirit and Boeing employees have been pushed by (distant) executives to "make the numbers". As in the management team, secluded away in Chicago, well away from SeaTac in Washington and Wichita in Kansas, decided they wanted to meet the numbers on their spreadsheet. Regardless of what those pesky engineers complain about - those numbers must be met so they can get their bonuses. If you need to make 100 holes an hour, you make 100 holes an hour. All about increasing productivity. Who cares if you really should only do 60 holes an hour to be within standards - just make 100 holes.
And that's how McDonnell Douglas is basically went from one of the top suppliers of airliners to basically giving it all to Airbus.
Oh sure, the building says "Boeing" on the outside, but we all know it's really McDonnell Douglas.
Re: (Score:2)
You know the old joke about door seals and whatnot between German and British car manufacturers (back in the 80s):
German: "Before the car leaves the factory, we block up all the air vents and put a cat in the car. If the cat's dead by morning, then it's good"
British: "If the cat doesn't escape by morning, then it's good"
Those beer dispensers don't look too bad to me ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just airplanes. It's like everything including computer hardware and software. Everything sucks in terms of QA. :(
No, not drunk (Score:2)
It's not drunkenness.
Rather, a few extra holes in inopportune locations of the head . . .
see, holes are contagious!
It's easy to blame... (Score:4, Insightful)
...the CEO, but the problem is deeper
The purpose of business should be to provide a quality product or service to satisfied customers, while treating employees and the environment fairly and making a profit
Somewhere along the line, somebody defined the purpose of business as increasing shareholder value. Nothing else matters
The CEO is just following the bad rule
shareholder value needs to be on line for safety f (Score:4, Insightful)
shareholder value needs to be on line for safety fails.
Not just take an small fine that is cheaper then building it the safe way.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but the CEO is the deepest level it CAN go (unless you want to point to the board, which would be fair). They shouldn't be 'following a bad rule.' They get to decide the rule.
The CEO is supposed to be in charge of the culture, it's literally their job to provide and demonstrate leadership up and down the company.
Look at Steve Jobs, or for a less tired example Sam Palmisano at IBM. They call the shots about what the company does and doesn't do. They set the tone, and if the company is failing they (should) c
Re: (Score:2)
...the CEO, but the problem is deeper
The purpose of business should be to provide a quality product or service to satisfied customers, while treating employees and the environment fairly and making a profit
I don't see a single thing in there until we get to the word profit that matches the current purpose of any given business.
Somewhere along the line, somebody defined the purpose of business as increasing shareholder value. Nothing else matters
The CEO is just following the bad rule
Yes. Shareholder value and profit. That's it. That's the sole purpose of business. In fact, I'm pretty sure at this point, that's the sole purpose of life in general. If you aren't creating profit? Why not? What's wrong with you? Do you not value your place in the oligarchy? Either create profit for others, create profit for yourself, or fuck off and die already. The treadmill is runnin
Re: (Score:2)
the propose of business WAS provide a quality product or service to satisfied customers.. but those days are gone...
now the propose is the shareholders, cut personal, cut costs, cheat, but get the shares value high, high dividends and get big bonus for the CEO and likes. If the business goes down after some years, it is not their problem
a business can make costumers happy and it should do it... but as soon as it goes public, it just a matter of time until the target shifts to shareholders... even if the ori
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of business should be to provide a quality product or service to satisfied customers, while treating employees and the environment fairly and making a profit
There is only one word in all of that which is true: Profit.
Nothing else matters. It is the primary focal point. It must be gained and maintained at any cost. Gambling with safety and quality for further profit is demanded.
It is morally corrupt.
Wonder how it feels... (Score:5, Insightful)
...to have burned your company's social capital so completely to the ground? I'll bet that in the absence of the rest of the problems, these mis-drilled holes are "no big deal". Sure, not great, and a cost in time and money, but hardly worthy of headline news. What makes it newsworthy is that it's another log on an already burning fire.
Modern air safety is an absolute wonder of human achievement. There's no industry that learns its lessons better. I remember when my manager was talking about achieving "four 9's of reliability". I told him, that shouldn't be your goal. If air planes flew with four 9's, they'd be falling out of the sky every day.
But Boeing has effectively torched their public image so thoroughly that I know people who try to avoid them when scheduling flights. That's an amazing descent. I don't know how you come back from that, save for a painstaking process of chopping the heads off of leaders, self-flagellation, and beginning to honestly climb the hill without shortcuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the MBAs who burned Boeing to the ground previously did the same with McDonnell Douglas, so they're familiar with the feeling!
I guess maybe they figured they'd do a reverse-merger with Airbus and destroy that next?
Re: (Score:1)
Boeing should have left engineers in charge instead of MBAs.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be long-term profitable not short-term profitable. In the short term, it's always better to let the finance folks make decisions. And therein lies the problem: hit one bad financial quarter, need to let the bankers steer the ship, and then discover they don't easily let go of the reins.
Re:Wonder how it feels... (Score:4, Insightful)
...to have burned your company's social capital so completely to the ground? .
Ask HP.
Re:Wonder how it feels... (Score:5, Interesting)
Four 9's, Six-Sigma, etc. Often these are buzzwords the management latches onto in lieu of turning their brain on.
As you state, quality and safety are very application specific. As an engineer I got zero training on how to even properly do a MTTF calculation, and even recently had to learn about a whole side of wear-out failure predictions that nobody within the company properly grasped, including our quality person. A 1PPM failure rate can be both horrifying, or phenomenal depending on the application and measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At Boeing, they have gone with 'lean'.
How nice.
I had to suffer through that madness at the Company I was at.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing will continue as is. There will be no substantive changes. It is a profit center and will continue to be until people wholesale avoid flying Boeing, which is still several more crashes away. Boeing leadership will take the risk of more crashes rather than change. How could they not? They are still profitable and that is the only thing that matters to the people who own America.
It's dead, Jim (Score:3)
Nothing anybody can do.
Fight Club (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Okay, criminal investigation time. (Score:2)
Lack of accountability = no change (Score:1)
Until there is obvious, very visible accountability, necessarily including job terminations, you gotta assume that lax safety protocols are an established part of the culture at Boeing. Very sad.
Boeing 737 fuselage mfging boned since 1996 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whistleblower protections in general are in tatters, and bluntly speaking the incentives vs. personal risks are such that only a fool would stick their neck out these days. Quietly create a paper trail to CYA, and find a way to escape further involvement. Anything else gets you sued and blackballed.
The Good News is (Score:2)
That Boeing doesn't make submarines. Oh wait, they do [boeing.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That Boeing doesn't make submarines. Oh wait, they do [boeing.com].
I mean technically you could say an airplane is a supermarine.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they are called BAE systems nowadays.
A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned (Score:3)
Well, at least they saved some money.
Re: A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned (Score:1)
Also kinda seems like they saved a lot of time by rushing /s
Re: A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cost savings are relevant since products need to be competitive. Boeing has an active quality program but it evidently slipped up. New staff, or suppliers, quiet quitters or even a poorly calibrated tool. Executives r to far removed from hands on processes. They will wave QA reports and spend as cover. Audits can only detect so much. But there will now need to be much more oversight of work. Silver lining uncovering before bigger disasters. New tech and procedures will be developed to help minimize. Meantime yikes.
This isn't a Slipup.
This is a Pattern and Practice.
Headline nitpick: Finding flaws is not a setback (Score:2)
Finding flaws is a good thing, because now they can be fixed before they cause major problems.
If you want to point to a setback, it happened during the construction of those planes, or (to take the broad view) during the design and implementation of the QA processes that allowed those flaws to make it into the planes undetected.
Not finding the flaws, until after one of them had caused another major safety incident, would be a real setback.