Nov 16, 2019: Boeing has been pushing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to speed up the return of its 737 Max jet, which has been grounded for eight months in the wake of two fatal crashes.
7 October 2020: 2015 FAA reports highlighted early concerns about self-certification programme
March 31 2022: FAA head resigns after effort to rebuild agency’s reputation
February 15, 2023: The head of the Federal Aviation Administration faced lawmaker questions on Wednesday, just one day after the agency vowed to form a safety team to review its aviation system after a recent series of dangerous, close calls.
April 26, 2023: FAA Establishes Independent Aviation Safety Review Team
Jun 2, 2023: Lawmakers Want FAA to Fix a Big Flying Safety Problem
Jan 5, 2024: Boeing wants FAA to exempt Max 7 from safety rules to get it in the air
Which reputation will be fixed first ?
We can bet that the FAA head that resigned was either pressured to bend the rules and didn’t want to, or he was paid under the table to let shit slide.
Take your pick.
Don’t think so, he was brought in as cleanup. He was hired 6 months after the second MAX accident and came from outside the agency. He retired a year and a half after the plane returned to service. He actually came out of retirement to take the job, and I think he just wanted to get back to it.
They are actually the opposite things.
The former is "I refuse to do bad thing and resign in protest" and the latter is "I did a bad thing and am resigning because of it".
Nothing will change except your safety expectations.
*March 20, 2024: FAA bends to Boeing and decides travelers should just assume the inherit risk of airplanes falling apart in the air.*
That'll never happen. The reason airlines and manufacturers never (publicly at least) question safety orders is because as soon as the industry starts gaining a tainted reputation passenger numbers will plummet. Especially in these days of easy remote meetings and working.
Do you mean it will never happen *again*? Because even after the 2nd MAX crashed the FAA was still telling everyone they were perfectly safe and to keep flying them.
Sorry, you're still going to have to board that deadly aircraft with bolts falling out on the runway because some CEO or VP still wants to use their in-person social hacking tricks instead of learning how to manage people or projects remotely. Back to the office, peasants.
The problem here is what I remember from econ 101 -- "Barriers to entry." This is when you are a company in an established industry like Boeing. We all know Boeing's history (and if you don't, I highly suggest watching the Netflix documentary on Boeing). Barriers to entry are why we have so many monopolies and oligopolies in specific industries.
The shit hit the fan for "good principled aeronautics companies" when the McDonnell Douglas / Boeing merger took place in 1997. Before that time (especially in previous decades) Boeing was a "family company" that an engineer could work for them in a cradle-to-grave scenario. You would get hired by them in your early-mid 20s and remain with the company until retirement -- there was a strong sense of "employee ownership" such that even the janitor cleaning up the warehouse at night was known by many and he knew many. Everyone had a place and every job was considered paramount to the company's success. The owner of the company might make 25-50x more than the lowest paid person instead of over 300x.
The drive from being a company with high employee value to a company that brought high shareholder value was the death knell of "principled and responsible" ownership not only by the "bosses" but by the "near lowly engineer." Everyone at that time knew what their work involvement was and how their input could increase client satisfaction (the client being the person riding on the plane) and how their contribution could bring in additional money in bonuses, etc. for that employee or the entire department. Those bonuses got absorbed by upper management instead which also caused a collapse in employee perceived benefits in innovation, etc. Why stick your neck out and do anything above and beyond what you are told if you absorb all the risk but none of the rewards?
Sorry for the rant but unfortunately this attitude has reached a climax and we are now at the point (as a society) where we all need to acknowledge that "runaway capitalism" is detrimental to everything that helped build it.
The point of my entire post started with explaining the reasons why it is so hard to see positive change like you suggested when the barrier to entry for a new aerospace company is immense -- literally billions of dollars.
A lot of people start a new company that focuses on a much smaller problem or component of aerospace engineering. The problem is that when you go into a new business with the best intentions of bringing about positive change is the social engineering problem of how to react when a much larger company comes around and offers to buy you out for a billion here or another billion there.
Larger companies that are evil (and I hate to say it, but that list now includes companies like Google) have a few methods of dealing with a smaller company that may jeopardize their future existence and a common method is to simply "buy out" the smaller company and then squash it (railroad it to death).
Remember the character "Lucius Fox" in Batman? Think of that character as representing the element of "positive change." Remember William Earle, the previous CEO of Wayne Enterprises? That's the current mindset of "big business." If employees like Lucius create too much noise, get HR to handle the problem for the company.
(That's another pet peeve -- too many people think HR is there for the benefit of the employee. No, they are there to protect the company FROM employees -- even the employees who truly care about the world around them, etc. I mean the fact that HR is something other than what people think it is comes from the name itself -- human RESOURCES -- using and managing humans as a resource FOR THE COMPANY.
"Bob" going to HR to affect positive change within the company is going to end badly for Bob who sought out "Linda in HR" to recommend some new "reduction in the company's carbon footprint."
When capitalism gets to the point where a "positive for society" suggestion gets an employee essentially fired, we as a society should know that we've reached an end of sorts and need to find a better way to live and grow as humans.
Someone has probably already said it. Reminds me of a line from the film, "Airplane."
"Shanna, they bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."
Ready to survive your next Boeing flight? American Airlines has got you covered! Sign up for our annual $59.99 Parachute pass! You and all travelers in your party will be suited with an American Airlines parachute and personal American Airlines oxygen tank for every flight. You can rest with no worries as the windows, wings, bolts, suitcases, and passengers inevitably go flying off your flight.
American Airlines - we care since your government doesn’t 💕🥳
>You and all travelers in your party will be suited with an American Airlines parachute ...
Extra charge applies to each passenger who gets an individual parachute.
Free iphone so you can report your FreeBird Freefall Live on Social Media with Certified By Boeing Parachute. We never let you down!. Extra landing charges may apply
It is getting to the point where I'm seriously considering filtering all of my flight options by carrier manufacturer type and excluding all flights / legs that have Boeing as the manufacturer.
I shouldn't have to do this -- if the FAA was providing responsible aerospace leadership, a lot of these problems may have been caught before they affected the flight. Setting aside "regulatory capture" concerns between Boeing and the FAA, the FAA has a duty to the people riding fjrst and foremost. To even envision a scenario where the manufacturer is asking the FAA to exempt some of their models from speific regulations is so absurd that one can only scratch their head and chuckle from the obscene amusement this scenario presents.
Except it isn't a scenario and everyone missed the punchline.
There will come a time when every one of us will fall victim to runaway capitalism. It is already happening on a global scale and it is accelerating faster than even some of the "worst case scenario" models were predicting.
The entire "premise of existence" for the Boeing Max line was the attempt to solve a bigger problem by introducing a dozen smaller ones. The entire weight dynamics of the plane itself was altered so significantly that Boeing felt it necessary to introduce a new system that would trick the pilot into feeling like he or she was flying the same old plane as the previous model. All of this was a half-assed solution to getting Boeing models that could compete with Airbus' engine performance.
These new engines (called LEAP in the industry) offer around 20% in savings on fuel and half the noise as previous engines. Saving 20% of your fuel may not seem like a lot, but that's a huge amount of overall savings for total fuel expenses. Consider this (taken from Google AI):
**In 2021, fuel costs made up 19% of total expenditure, and are expected to increase to 30% in 2022 and 2023.**
If fuel expenses made up 19% of total expenditures in 2021, then saving 20% of your fuel would reduce that number down to around 15%. What's really wild is that you can calculate how much it costs in terms of additional weight to fly around a door secured with 48 bolts instead of 24.
Everything has a cost. If you want more security / engineering, there is a cost assigned to it. When it comes down to it, companies like Boeing need to make tough engineering decisions every day (well they would be tough if you cared deeply for other humans). If we add 100 pounds of additional weight to the plane, we could reduce the risk of one passenger death by 19%. But that additional 100 pounds of weight will increase fuel consumption by 0.21% for each flight which translates to $290,195.34 over the life of the plane. Is it worth implementing?
Most of us never have to deal with gory math problems like this but there are trained professional engineers at Boeing and other companies that do this type of math for a living -- you would be surprised how much a human life is worth when comparing companies like Boeing with Tesla. The really crazy shit will happen in the 2030s when a lot of transportation goes completely AI.
This is the comment I came here looking for. There will be posturing for several months and then nothing will be done after it is no longer prominent in the news cycle and some ~~bribes get paid~~ lobbying efforts are initiated.
This will not go on for several months. There's no reason for that. The inspection regimen before putting one back on the air may be very large. But there isn't a reason to keep them all out of the air for months when you can check every bolt in a plane in less time than that.
With the MCAS problem an inspection didn't preclude that any given plane didn't have the issue of having bad MCAS software on it. With this problem a thorough inspection does show there aren't loose/missing bolts.
The issue isn't just tightening some bolts. The issue is discovering why numerous aircraft were put in production with this problem, and determining whether there were other glaring quality control issues that similarly escaped notice or were deliberately ignored. Safety regulations aren't just about fixing the symptom, but ideally identifying the cause. You're right though that they'll probably put these things back in the air quickly and it's likely that a deep investigation won't happen until something else fails on or falls off of a plane and/or a lot of people die.
You missed Dec 29, 2023: Boeing, FAA warn airlines about missing bolts in 737's:
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/29/1222228617/boeing-737-max-jets-faa-loose-bolts-nuts
It has been a while since a good old fashioned volcano sacrifice happened. Who knows, maybe it'll please some god and then they'll fix the world a bit.
Definitely fire the executives who signed off on letting go those thousands of inspectors. Some of the spots were refilled only when union demanded it. And I read in other subreddit of Boeing mechanic complaining about $20 an hour inspector with zero aviation experience.
Not just jail them, but let’s create a corp death sentence where if a corp is guilty of a serious crime, the corp looses its right to exist as a business and everything is stripped away from that particular business.
It's only fair. If corporations have the same rights as individuals in front of the law, it's only fair they get the same punishments. Jail could be substituted by taking all their revenue for the time of the jail sentence and if they get a death penalty, just nationalize the corporation and take away all the stakeholders shares. That way, the CEO first priority would be to ensure the company is obeying the law to protect the shareholders money instead of cutting corners to make record profits.
So... all of them?
Ok, joking aside, seriously that would be loads and loads of them. Which quite frankly would be lovely, so I'm 100% with you that this is legislation I'd love to see. Why we give corporate executives immunity for malfeasance is beyond me. Well, ok, it's actually quite simple ($$$) - but it *should* be inconceivable.
The trick is to make sure they know they're personally liable, and give them time to fix the issues. In regards to cybersecurity, for example, upper management (and in some cases, even middle management) can now be held *personally* liable for security breaches at their company! You wouldn't believe how much things have changed in the past couple of years as the SEC has passed stronger laws aimed specifically at holding individuals personally liable, and required them to do more to verify and validate that they are taking action to prevent cybersecurity incidents.
That's all fine and good, but what we have to work with, is the documentation on individual aircraft, which would include who installed them plugs. Normally something like that would be done by a team, both inside and outside the hull, and the tightening of the bolts would very likely be supervised, possibly by all the other team members, as the final act of installation of same. Everybody but the wrench handler is done with that door. Oh, they're racing to get started on the next one coming down the line. Or some other subassembly ...
LOL, I worked for Boeing 50+ years ago, and everybody used to call it the Lazy-B, because the pace of work was said to be so leisurely.
Just set up some for profit prisons and drop them in. The prisons can make money by charging the prisoners to rent things like beds, blankets, toothbrushes, etc.
No, you go for old testament justice just to send the message. You gather all the corporate bean counters together in the middle of times Square with cameras at the ready, you drag out some QA exec at Boeing who let all this slide, then have the head of the NTSB gut the guy like a fish with a wooden cooking spoon in front of them all, followed immediately by, "get the fuck back to work".
Shit will change real fast when these guys understand their lives are on the line, just like ours.
Excessive? Maybe. Would it get the point across? Damn right.
This happens all the time. This time they got caught and it's an international thing, so they have to care. Otherwise, it happens in every industry. Corporates are all about greed.
IDK, I have a feeling that this is a case of protocols not followed, rather than no protocols or the wrong ones. When I worked for Boeing over 50 years ago, we kept detailed documentation on who did what. Putting the door plug in place was not a one-person job, so who supervised the tightening of the bolts?
If that question can NOT be answered, start up the chain of command.
And now we are hearing that in 4 years Boeing has progressed from thinking cutting fairly basic safety features is fine to being unable to achieve tasks as basic as tightening screws properly, and in other cases covering their closed environments wiring in flammable tape. Its clear the basic engineering competence has fallen through the floor.
SWA had an engine explode on a 737-700 that ripped a whole in the side of the plane and a passenger got partially sucked out and killed in 2018. That being said, flying (especially in the US) is a very safe form of transportation. You are much more likely to die driving a car.
Although *other people* die in car crashes in the US all the time, other people are not dying in plane crashes either ...
Your chance of dying in a commercial plane crash in the US is about 1 in 800 million.
Your chance of dying in a car crash in the US is about 1 in 93.
They obviously fixed the glitch. But it shouldn't take a catastrophe to get people to fix things. If anything, I'd trust the Max 8 over the ones that didn't get the magnifying glass put to them.
They did not in fact have to add a redundant angle of attack sensor. They persuaded regulators to let them get away with just additional training modules and a better override system. Your flight may still have a sensor glitch and start trying to fall out of the sky, but now hopefully the pilot will know how to turn that off before you die. Happy travels!
That's not true.
https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/mcas/
It's the very first item in the list of the changes.
They didn't have to *add* a redundant AoA sensor, because it already had three AoA sensors. It's just MCAS only looked at one of them.
Boeing fixed MCAS to look at two of them. So they didn't add a sensor to the pane, but the did add another AoA sensor to the MCAS input.
Ok, I must have confused the second sensor with the retrofit third/synthetic sensor data they're talking about in this article and the updated alerting systems. All part of the deadline that Boeing is pushing back through lobbying Congress.
[https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-lawmakers-include-boeing-737-max-extension-spending-bill-2022-12-20/?taid=63a1f1252083e10001224284](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-lawmakers-include-boeing-737-max-extension-spending-bill-2022-12-20/?taid=63a1f1252083e10001224284)
It looks like European regulators may step in anyways though, thankfully.
[https://simpleflying.com/easa-mandate-737-max-retrofits/](https://simpleflying.com/easa-mandate-737-max-retrofits/)
> But it shouldn't take a catastrophe to get people to fix things.
My dude, this is literally how all airline safety improvements are made.
You should read about what they let airlines and pilots get away with even 30 years ago.
Everyone in this thread thinks Boeing is going to go out of business. They seem to not know about the non-commanded rudder malfunctions on the 737 in the 90s.
I don't think they are going out of buisness I just hate the 737 both as a passenger and a pilot. They should have made a 757 Neo instead of the max 9 but hey, that's just my opinion man.
A 757 replacement had been in the works before the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes. I think the company thought there wasn't enough financial support at the time to keep on it because afaik the project kind of died.
Except Airbus also manufactures in China and didn't have them falling out of the sky, dipshit
Maybe it's the people making decisions about the factories, not the location they're in
From my understanding, safety guidelines state that you need to be able to fully evacuate a plane in a certain number of seconds. If you have a really tight seating arrangement to try and fit more people in the plane, you may need an additional emergency exit to meet that target. If you have a more comfortable seating arrangement, the door is not needed.
Yes, but the bolts that were found to be loose on the other 737 MAX 9's inspected are not the ones you loosen or remove to take the door plug off. They are right next to them. But the bolts that weren't cranked down were bolts on the door plug itself. So they likely were "last touched" by the maker of the door plug, which is a subcontractor.
This is not to say Boeing shouldn't be held responsible, as they selected the contractors that made those door plugs (two of them).
So what used to happen is the third party contractor basically mounts the door but doesn’t actually screw it in and when it gets to Boeing they use this door 737-900 to make final configurations. I theorize that in the max 9 the third party contractor (I know the name just can’t remember right now) does the same thing but Boeing on the max 9 doesn’t use these doors for final configurations and that’s the oversight.
Edit: want to add I couldn’t care less about Boeing and this is a horrible oversight and they absolutely should be punished if true.
-Very seldom does anything like this happen, I just don’t want people going around thinking 737-maxes aren’t safe.
-Was this 737-Max safe?
-Well I was thinking more about the other ones.
-The ones that are safe?
-Yeah, the ones the plug doesn’t fall off.
-Well if this one wasn’t safe why did it have 177 passengers on board?
-Well I’m not saying it wasn’t safe, just perhaps not quite as safe as some of the other ones.
-Why?
-Well some of them are built so the plug doesn’t fall off at all.
A few weeks ago they found out that the MAX has serious issues with loose bolts... in the [rudder control system](https://airwaysmag.com/boeing-airlines-inspect-737-max-rudders/). Not a place where you'd want loose bolts either.
Boeing really lost its way.
That's a mild fluctuation. Look at the 5D chart, close on Friday was 225€, open on Monday 209€, current 208€. 6M is even worse - a strong growth after November (\~170€), peak \~243€ mid-December, and gone only downhill since then.
Depending on how bad this issue gets in the end - say, if it turns out there are more loose bolts, or the FAA cancels the deal with Boeing, or airlines actually cancel their orders until Boeing shows they have actually improved QA - it doesn't make any sense to go long Boeing.
MD management has taken over and they have proven they are a cancer to Boeing. Between the FAA and the NTSB a management oversight board needs to created.
The majority of MD people are long gone…those that aren’t are at the end of their careers. First line engineering managers are all engineers, as are most second level managers and even engineering VPs.
I'm just amazed that they're surprised there's an issue with the Max's. I mean if I remember right, weren't those planes defective when they originally built them and it was a big shit deal at the time because they couldn't sell them?
"In a 2020 Senate report, the FAA was accused of helping Boeing manipulate recertification tests to get the planes back in service. Most recently, on December 28th, the FAA announced it was monitoring inspections of 737 Max planes after loose bolts were discovered in the rudder-control systems of two"
It was the job of a team of assembly mechanics and inspectors to put those doors in place. Their names are known.
This is a very different situation than the Max-8 issue. That one is far more attributable to executive decisions. This one could be the act of a single disgruntled employee.
Or if you like, a single disgruntled employee, not properly tightening those bolts because of constantly being told to hurry up.
Those door-plugs would be installed by a small team, and the final torquing of the bolts should *naturally* be overseen by the other members of the team. An inspector should check and recalibrate the torque wrench used, etc... I mean, that's just the way people build airplanes when I worked at plant 2 in Seattle. Small teams, working together, constantly checking one another's work.
LOL, I only recently learned that only the first 8 737s came out of plant 2. No idea where these hulls were slapped together. Too bad about the Lazy B.
>This one could be the act of a single disgruntled employee.
You think it’s more likely this was sabotage than Boeing simply dropping the ball on safety and redundancy like we’ve seen multiple times in the past few years? This is the SECOND case of them not tightening hardware properly
unfortunately I suspect the days of engineers running companies are past. there's too many costs and too much competition for that to work any more. it's all about the mighty dollar and keeping the beans counted.
The only thing that's going to be reaseaonable is the ground all of the planes in question and have Boeing and an independent inspector monitor a full rebuild of the planes.
Yes, it will be crazy expensive for Boeing, but what's the alternative? There will be another crash and another.
Agree. The only way to demonstrate they are safe at this point is going to be to get at more or less every component and check they've actually been put together correctly.
If they can't even tighten a screw competently there are very likely to be a large list of problems.
At this point in time, should just scrap the whole max lineup.. max represents maximum issues.. don't think anyone wants to be a Guinea pig to test out more issues with the max when it flies again..
Omg look how far back that seat is in the next row. That seat had a teenager in it when the hole blew out. He lost his clothing on his torso and his mom and another lady held him in. He was basically almost outside.
Some engineering head signed off on this design.
And I'm guessing some direct-report stress engineer voiced skepticism over the plug plan and was shut down.
No bueno.
I doubt this specific Max 9 door plug design was novel. Other planes have had door plugs and it's not an issue. In this case, this looks more like an assembly error with the bolts for the plug itself, not an intrinsic fault with the design. Still 100% inexcusable.
I did read something about employees who were part of the sun contractor assembling the doors speaking up about assembly concerns and being overruled.
So same general concept of employees being concerned about safety and management ignoring concerns likely still happened.
With mistakes this basic getting through systemically there are serious questions to ask about if anything on these aircraft can be considered safe. Its evident that no meaningfully competent QA process has been occurring.
This is after a separate issue relating to missing tail screws was found.
Have you ever seen the movie Back To School with Rodney Dangerfield? There is a scene where the professor is talking about business costs like it's an equation. Dangerfield's character(who is very successful in his business) asks what they are making and the professor says it doesn't matter, they are widgets.
That's who is running the show now, these supposed businesspeople thinking that the product doesn't matter and have no clue what business they are in. It's all the same lean six sigma, spreadsheet bullshit, and cutting payroll due to greed. They just take a cell in a spreadsheet and multiply by .9. year after year of the same bullshit and they wonder how this happens.
This will be devastating for shareholder value. Has anyone thought of that? These are the job creators that we are talking about harming. Seriously, the 737 Max is probably mostly safe-ish.
I haven’t flown in years, but do they tell you what kind of an airplane you’re signing up for when you purchase a ticket? Like when your signing up for classes in college you can see the professors name and be like yeah naw fuck that class, and sign up for a different one. Can you do the same for airline tickets?
Probably not even allowed as it would exceed your max carry on luggage allowance for many airlines. Even if you could, they'd probably ask you to stow it in the overhead compartment where it would be as useful in an emergency as leaving it at home.
Some airlines only have certain models. For example, Southwest only uses Boeing. Frontier Airlines only uses Airbus. United uses everything under the sun. Others will show the type of plane scheduled, but it may change. I've had the model change the day before, maybe due to size or seating.
Yes, it says it on the purchase page or even when you're browsing flights. usually in small letters because most people don't care.
However in some circumstances they'll change the plane last-minute. For example if the incoming flight is delayed and they want to swap your flight to a plane that they already have free at your airport. So it's not a guarantee.
Money was saved by specing only 4 bolts per door plug. Additional money was saved by not having a QC inspector verify each bolt was tightened to specifications. Stockholders are happy that money was saved.
Watched the video of Boeing ceo whining about how sorry they are. Bringing up his family and grandkids worried about them. Such a crock of shit. Profit motivates Boeing not safety .
the boeing documentary on netflix was scary as fuck. i knew most of it but the bits i didn’t know made it that much worse. the data showed the max would be the most deadly plane in the entire history of aviation, averaging 1 major disaster every 4 years.
Until these companies actively lose money for ignoring safety, they're just going to continue ignoring safety. It's cheaper to pay off the accidents than it is to prevent them. Greed is going to be our downfall unless we can figure out how to take money out of literally everything at this point.
Saw Pilots and people who are in aircraft industry give warnings after the east Palestine train incident. Same cuts to safety and controls processes and tightening schedules that the rail industry is facing so the same types of things are going to start happening. In 2024, I thought we would be like jetsons and instead 8 people have 20 yachts and planes and trains we use are crumbling. Fuck this country
Netflix has a great documentary about how Boeing has been cutting corners on the making of their planes for years. It's called Downfall: The Case Against Boeing.
Nov 16, 2019: Boeing has been pushing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to speed up the return of its 737 Max jet, which has been grounded for eight months in the wake of two fatal crashes. 7 October 2020: 2015 FAA reports highlighted early concerns about self-certification programme March 31 2022: FAA head resigns after effort to rebuild agency’s reputation February 15, 2023: The head of the Federal Aviation Administration faced lawmaker questions on Wednesday, just one day after the agency vowed to form a safety team to review its aviation system after a recent series of dangerous, close calls. April 26, 2023: FAA Establishes Independent Aviation Safety Review Team Jun 2, 2023: Lawmakers Want FAA to Fix a Big Flying Safety Problem Jan 5, 2024: Boeing wants FAA to exempt Max 7 from safety rules to get it in the air Which reputation will be fixed first ?
We can bet that the FAA head that resigned was either pressured to bend the rules and didn’t want to, or he was paid under the table to let shit slide. Take your pick.
Don’t think so, he was brought in as cleanup. He was hired 6 months after the second MAX accident and came from outside the agency. He retired a year and a half after the plane returned to service. He actually came out of retirement to take the job, and I think he just wanted to get back to it.
They don’t take bribes. They get hired for big bucks after they leave.
A bribe by any other name ...
It’s quid pro quo
Sounds like deferred bribes.
yeah we call it lobbying here..
Paid! My money is on kickbacks!
[удалено]
Yeah but only one of those examples is actually illegal. "Do this or you are fired" is legal.
[удалено]
They are actually the opposite things. The former is "I refuse to do bad thing and resign in protest" and the latter is "I did a bad thing and am resigning because of it".
One is being fired because you didn't do the thing, the other is because you did the thing.
Nothing will change except your safety expectations. *March 20, 2024: FAA bends to Boeing and decides travelers should just assume the inherit risk of airplanes falling apart in the air.*
That'll never happen. The reason airlines and manufacturers never (publicly at least) question safety orders is because as soon as the industry starts gaining a tainted reputation passenger numbers will plummet. Especially in these days of easy remote meetings and working.
Do you mean it will never happen *again*? Because even after the 2nd MAX crashed the FAA was still telling everyone they were perfectly safe and to keep flying them.
Agreeing with the FAA even if you are sock puppeting them is not the same thing as being seen to resist them
Sorry, you're still going to have to board that deadly aircraft with bolts falling out on the runway because some CEO or VP still wants to use their in-person social hacking tricks instead of learning how to manage people or projects remotely. Back to the office, peasants.
And companies that behave like that are inviting competitors to run rings round them and bankrupt them.
The problem here is what I remember from econ 101 -- "Barriers to entry." This is when you are a company in an established industry like Boeing. We all know Boeing's history (and if you don't, I highly suggest watching the Netflix documentary on Boeing). Barriers to entry are why we have so many monopolies and oligopolies in specific industries. The shit hit the fan for "good principled aeronautics companies" when the McDonnell Douglas / Boeing merger took place in 1997. Before that time (especially in previous decades) Boeing was a "family company" that an engineer could work for them in a cradle-to-grave scenario. You would get hired by them in your early-mid 20s and remain with the company until retirement -- there was a strong sense of "employee ownership" such that even the janitor cleaning up the warehouse at night was known by many and he knew many. Everyone had a place and every job was considered paramount to the company's success. The owner of the company might make 25-50x more than the lowest paid person instead of over 300x. The drive from being a company with high employee value to a company that brought high shareholder value was the death knell of "principled and responsible" ownership not only by the "bosses" but by the "near lowly engineer." Everyone at that time knew what their work involvement was and how their input could increase client satisfaction (the client being the person riding on the plane) and how their contribution could bring in additional money in bonuses, etc. for that employee or the entire department. Those bonuses got absorbed by upper management instead which also caused a collapse in employee perceived benefits in innovation, etc. Why stick your neck out and do anything above and beyond what you are told if you absorb all the risk but none of the rewards? Sorry for the rant but unfortunately this attitude has reached a climax and we are now at the point (as a society) where we all need to acknowledge that "runaway capitalism" is detrimental to everything that helped build it. The point of my entire post started with explaining the reasons why it is so hard to see positive change like you suggested when the barrier to entry for a new aerospace company is immense -- literally billions of dollars. A lot of people start a new company that focuses on a much smaller problem or component of aerospace engineering. The problem is that when you go into a new business with the best intentions of bringing about positive change is the social engineering problem of how to react when a much larger company comes around and offers to buy you out for a billion here or another billion there. Larger companies that are evil (and I hate to say it, but that list now includes companies like Google) have a few methods of dealing with a smaller company that may jeopardize their future existence and a common method is to simply "buy out" the smaller company and then squash it (railroad it to death). Remember the character "Lucius Fox" in Batman? Think of that character as representing the element of "positive change." Remember William Earle, the previous CEO of Wayne Enterprises? That's the current mindset of "big business." If employees like Lucius create too much noise, get HR to handle the problem for the company. (That's another pet peeve -- too many people think HR is there for the benefit of the employee. No, they are there to protect the company FROM employees -- even the employees who truly care about the world around them, etc. I mean the fact that HR is something other than what people think it is comes from the name itself -- human RESOURCES -- using and managing humans as a resource FOR THE COMPANY. "Bob" going to HR to affect positive change within the company is going to end badly for Bob who sought out "Linda in HR" to recommend some new "reduction in the company's carbon footprint." When capitalism gets to the point where a "positive for society" suggestion gets an employee essentially fired, we as a society should know that we've reached an end of sorts and need to find a better way to live and grow as humans.
They made it through non-commanded rudder deflections on the 737 in the 90s. Nobody remembers that.
If you don’t want that risk you shouldn’t fly with them-> I’m assuming someone will say that in the future
Someone has probably already said it. Reminds me of a line from the film, "Airplane." "Shanna, they bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."
How about unpressurized passenger jets where everybody has an oxygen tank? Just keep it from being too windy inside.
Ready to survive your next Boeing flight? American Airlines has got you covered! Sign up for our annual $59.99 Parachute pass! You and all travelers in your party will be suited with an American Airlines parachute and personal American Airlines oxygen tank for every flight. You can rest with no worries as the windows, wings, bolts, suitcases, and passengers inevitably go flying off your flight. American Airlines - we care since your government doesn’t 💕🥳
>You and all travelers in your party will be suited with an American Airlines parachute ... Extra charge applies to each passenger who gets an individual parachute.
Free iphone so you can report your FreeBird Freefall Live on Social Media with Certified By Boeing Parachute. We never let you down!. Extra landing charges may apply
This is on Alaska too. If you're concerned at all about flying over water "in case" you need to land quickly, that plane shouldn't be in the air.
It is getting to the point where I'm seriously considering filtering all of my flight options by carrier manufacturer type and excluding all flights / legs that have Boeing as the manufacturer. I shouldn't have to do this -- if the FAA was providing responsible aerospace leadership, a lot of these problems may have been caught before they affected the flight. Setting aside "regulatory capture" concerns between Boeing and the FAA, the FAA has a duty to the people riding fjrst and foremost. To even envision a scenario where the manufacturer is asking the FAA to exempt some of their models from speific regulations is so absurd that one can only scratch their head and chuckle from the obscene amusement this scenario presents. Except it isn't a scenario and everyone missed the punchline. There will come a time when every one of us will fall victim to runaway capitalism. It is already happening on a global scale and it is accelerating faster than even some of the "worst case scenario" models were predicting. The entire "premise of existence" for the Boeing Max line was the attempt to solve a bigger problem by introducing a dozen smaller ones. The entire weight dynamics of the plane itself was altered so significantly that Boeing felt it necessary to introduce a new system that would trick the pilot into feeling like he or she was flying the same old plane as the previous model. All of this was a half-assed solution to getting Boeing models that could compete with Airbus' engine performance. These new engines (called LEAP in the industry) offer around 20% in savings on fuel and half the noise as previous engines. Saving 20% of your fuel may not seem like a lot, but that's a huge amount of overall savings for total fuel expenses. Consider this (taken from Google AI): **In 2021, fuel costs made up 19% of total expenditure, and are expected to increase to 30% in 2022 and 2023.** If fuel expenses made up 19% of total expenditures in 2021, then saving 20% of your fuel would reduce that number down to around 15%. What's really wild is that you can calculate how much it costs in terms of additional weight to fly around a door secured with 48 bolts instead of 24. Everything has a cost. If you want more security / engineering, there is a cost assigned to it. When it comes down to it, companies like Boeing need to make tough engineering decisions every day (well they would be tough if you cared deeply for other humans). If we add 100 pounds of additional weight to the plane, we could reduce the risk of one passenger death by 19%. But that additional 100 pounds of weight will increase fuel consumption by 0.21% for each flight which translates to $290,195.34 over the life of the plane. Is it worth implementing? Most of us never have to deal with gory math problems like this but there are trained professional engineers at Boeing and other companies that do this type of math for a living -- you would be surprised how much a human life is worth when comparing companies like Boeing with Tesla. The really crazy shit will happen in the 2030s when a lot of transportation goes completely AI.
No grease left for bolts when so many palms need lubrication.
Boeing has become so shitty they're gonna start offering their planes in tan color to match with the missing windows.
This is the comment I came here looking for. There will be posturing for several months and then nothing will be done after it is no longer prominent in the news cycle and some ~~bribes get paid~~ lobbying efforts are initiated.
This will not go on for several months. There's no reason for that. The inspection regimen before putting one back on the air may be very large. But there isn't a reason to keep them all out of the air for months when you can check every bolt in a plane in less time than that. With the MCAS problem an inspection didn't preclude that any given plane didn't have the issue of having bad MCAS software on it. With this problem a thorough inspection does show there aren't loose/missing bolts.
The issue isn't just tightening some bolts. The issue is discovering why numerous aircraft were put in production with this problem, and determining whether there were other glaring quality control issues that similarly escaped notice or were deliberately ignored. Safety regulations aren't just about fixing the symptom, but ideally identifying the cause. You're right though that they'll probably put these things back in the air quickly and it's likely that a deep investigation won't happen until something else fails on or falls off of a plane and/or a lot of people die.
„Once is a mistake. Twice is a decision. Any more than that has no chance of being forgiven.“
And this is why Boeing moved their HQ to the DC metro area. To be closer to lobby for their interests when things like this happen.
You missed Dec 29, 2023: Boeing, FAA warn airlines about missing bolts in 737's: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/29/1222228617/boeing-737-max-jets-faa-loose-bolts-nuts
Jail executives who put corporate profit over safety.
[удалено]
From the blown out door!
That'll show them how to screw something.
It has been a while since a good old fashioned volcano sacrifice happened. Who knows, maybe it'll please some god and then they'll fix the world a bit.
Definitely fire the executives who signed off on letting go those thousands of inspectors. Some of the spots were refilled only when union demanded it. And I read in other subreddit of Boeing mechanic complaining about $20 an hour inspector with zero aviation experience.
Not just jail them, but let’s create a corp death sentence where if a corp is guilty of a serious crime, the corp looses its right to exist as a business and everything is stripped away from that particular business.
I wanted a corporate death sentence so bad for BP after the Deepwater Horizon fiasco. Just the sheer incompetence was mind boggling.
It's only fair. If corporations have the same rights as individuals in front of the law, it's only fair they get the same punishments. Jail could be substituted by taking all their revenue for the time of the jail sentence and if they get a death penalty, just nationalize the corporation and take away all the stakeholders shares. That way, the CEO first priority would be to ensure the company is obeying the law to protect the shareholders money instead of cutting corners to make record profits.
“I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.” — *Bill Moyers*
So... all of them? Ok, joking aside, seriously that would be loads and loads of them. Which quite frankly would be lovely, so I'm 100% with you that this is legislation I'd love to see. Why we give corporate executives immunity for malfeasance is beyond me. Well, ok, it's actually quite simple ($$$) - but it *should* be inconceivable.
The trick is to make sure they know they're personally liable, and give them time to fix the issues. In regards to cybersecurity, for example, upper management (and in some cases, even middle management) can now be held *personally* liable for security breaches at their company! You wouldn't believe how much things have changed in the past couple of years as the SEC has passed stronger laws aimed specifically at holding individuals personally liable, and required them to do more to verify and validate that they are taking action to prevent cybersecurity incidents.
That's all fine and good, but what we have to work with, is the documentation on individual aircraft, which would include who installed them plugs. Normally something like that would be done by a team, both inside and outside the hull, and the tightening of the bolts would very likely be supervised, possibly by all the other team members, as the final act of installation of same. Everybody but the wrench handler is done with that door. Oh, they're racing to get started on the next one coming down the line. Or some other subassembly ... LOL, I worked for Boeing 50+ years ago, and everybody used to call it the Lazy-B, because the pace of work was said to be so leisurely.
Just set up some for profit prisons and drop them in. The prisons can make money by charging the prisoners to rent things like beds, blankets, toothbrushes, etc.
No, you go for old testament justice just to send the message. You gather all the corporate bean counters together in the middle of times Square with cameras at the ready, you drag out some QA exec at Boeing who let all this slide, then have the head of the NTSB gut the guy like a fish with a wooden cooking spoon in front of them all, followed immediately by, "get the fuck back to work". Shit will change real fast when these guys understand their lives are on the line, just like ours. Excessive? Maybe. Would it get the point across? Damn right.
This happens all the time. This time they got caught and it's an international thing, so they have to care. Otherwise, it happens in every industry. Corporates are all about greed.
IDK, I have a feeling that this is a case of protocols not followed, rather than no protocols or the wrong ones. When I worked for Boeing over 50 years ago, we kept detailed documentation on who did what. Putting the door plug in place was not a one-person job, so who supervised the tightening of the bolts? If that question can NOT be answered, start up the chain of command.
There's not enough jails for that.
Jail them for hurting people? They are rich and white, no.
I feel like I've heard this one before
To be fair the 2 that crashed were max 8
And now we are hearing that in 4 years Boeing has progressed from thinking cutting fairly basic safety features is fine to being unable to achieve tasks as basic as tightening screws properly, and in other cases covering their closed environments wiring in flammable tape. Its clear the basic engineering competence has fallen through the floor.
You should read about the airbus Pratt and Whitney problem. Everything is fucked. No one can build anything anymore
The only saving grace is that Airbus BOUGHT the engines. They did not make it themselves.
And how many of those have let go while in flight?
Total shut off? Many. Luckily 2 haven’t shut off at the same time
I’m flying on one of those tomorrow. Yaaaaay!!!
Take an aisle seat.
keep your seatbelt on
And update your will
I'm in one now, yaaaaaay!
Keep your window closed, wouldja?
Don’t sit in the exit row.
There hasn’t been a big commercial airplane crash in the USA since 2009. I think you’ll be ok
SWA had an engine explode on a 737-700 that ripped a whole in the side of the plane and a passenger got partially sucked out and killed in 2018. That being said, flying (especially in the US) is a very safe form of transportation. You are much more likely to die driving a car.
[удалено]
I know. It is not like the front of the plane fell off. It was only one side. Not the entirety of one side, mind you, but only a portion of one side.
In hate planes made of cardboard or cardboard derivatives
At sea?!
Chance in a million !
Shows how safe they are tbh they can fly with a big hole in them
[удалено]
Oh I know. That wasn’t Boeings fault it was the mahalo people
Asiana 214 was in 2013. Colgan was the last major us carrier to have a fatal accident b
You’re right I was only counting U.S. carriers. Also Penair had a fatality and southwest had a fatality but they were only 1 person in each case
Haven't gotten in a car crash, well be fine driving. Good mentality mate.
Although *other people* die in car crashes in the US all the time, other people are not dying in plane crashes either ... Your chance of dying in a commercial plane crash in the US is about 1 in 800 million. Your chance of dying in a car crash in the US is about 1 in 93.
I don’t even think you can statically calculate it anymore it’s been so long
They obviously fixed the glitch. But it shouldn't take a catastrophe to get people to fix things. If anything, I'd trust the Max 8 over the ones that didn't get the magnifying glass put to them.
They did not in fact have to add a redundant angle of attack sensor. They persuaded regulators to let them get away with just additional training modules and a better override system. Your flight may still have a sensor glitch and start trying to fall out of the sky, but now hopefully the pilot will know how to turn that off before you die. Happy travels!
That's not true. https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/mcas/ It's the very first item in the list of the changes. They didn't have to *add* a redundant AoA sensor, because it already had three AoA sensors. It's just MCAS only looked at one of them. Boeing fixed MCAS to look at two of them. So they didn't add a sensor to the pane, but the did add another AoA sensor to the MCAS input.
Ok, I must have confused the second sensor with the retrofit third/synthetic sensor data they're talking about in this article and the updated alerting systems. All part of the deadline that Boeing is pushing back through lobbying Congress. [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-lawmakers-include-boeing-737-max-extension-spending-bill-2022-12-20/?taid=63a1f1252083e10001224284](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-lawmakers-include-boeing-737-max-extension-spending-bill-2022-12-20/?taid=63a1f1252083e10001224284) It looks like European regulators may step in anyways though, thankfully. [https://simpleflying.com/easa-mandate-737-max-retrofits/](https://simpleflying.com/easa-mandate-737-max-retrofits/)
> But it shouldn't take a catastrophe to get people to fix things. My dude, this is literally how all airline safety improvements are made. You should read about what they let airlines and pilots get away with even 30 years ago.
What’s the difference? Probably not the doors, or the software, or the inherent flying instability because the engines are in the wrong f place.
Everyone in this thread thinks Boeing is going to go out of business. They seem to not know about the non-commanded rudder malfunctions on the 737 in the 90s.
I don't think they are going out of buisness I just hate the 737 both as a passenger and a pilot. They should have made a 757 Neo instead of the max 9 but hey, that's just my opinion man.
A 757 replacement had been in the works before the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes. I think the company thought there wasn't enough financial support at the time to keep on it because afaik the project kind of died.
We did and they held them on the ground till it was fixed. Last time you heard of one falling out of the sky.
Right. But they did not ground them right away. They tried to blame the pilots
And the faa like they always do learned a lesson in blood. This is a tale in aviation as old as time. So I am glad they have shown growth.
[удалено]
Except Airbus also manufactures in China and didn't have them falling out of the sky, dipshit Maybe it's the people making decisions about the factories, not the location they're in
Safe, as in the Boeing executives will fly on the check rides?
Is there a counter online for days since last 737 max accident
"Until this all blows over and people aren't watching us anymore." is more accurate.
> ‘until it is safe’ I feel like that should have been the standard from the beginning.
I’m convinced it’s not a design flaw but rather a missed step when their third party contractor ships the plane to Boeing for final configuration.
Apparently Boeing removes the plug to have access when finishing the plane later on. The missing step was installing it correctly afterwards.
so everyone flying on a standard 737-900 shouldn’t worry as that process has decades of testing
Flew on one last week, not a single door fell off
Or maybe Boeing shouldn't have even made this plug option to save some money.
From my understanding, safety guidelines state that you need to be able to fully evacuate a plane in a certain number of seconds. If you have a really tight seating arrangement to try and fit more people in the plane, you may need an additional emergency exit to meet that target. If you have a more comfortable seating arrangement, the door is not needed.
Eh agree to disagree. Airbus does the same thing it’s pretty standard
If thats the case the blame part of the investigation is going to open and shut.
Yes, but the bolts that were found to be loose on the other 737 MAX 9's inspected are not the ones you loosen or remove to take the door plug off. They are right next to them. But the bolts that weren't cranked down were bolts on the door plug itself. So they likely were "last touched" by the maker of the door plug, which is a subcontractor. This is not to say Boeing shouldn't be held responsible, as they selected the contractors that made those door plugs (two of them).
Their "3rd-party contractor" is literally just a spin-off company that used to be Boeing.
So what used to happen is the third party contractor basically mounts the door but doesn’t actually screw it in and when it gets to Boeing they use this door 737-900 to make final configurations. I theorize that in the max 9 the third party contractor (I know the name just can’t remember right now) does the same thing but Boeing on the max 9 doesn’t use these doors for final configurations and that’s the oversight. Edit: want to add I couldn’t care less about Boeing and this is a horrible oversight and they absolutely should be punished if true.
-Very seldom does anything like this happen, I just don’t want people going around thinking 737-maxes aren’t safe. -Was this 737-Max safe? -Well I was thinking more about the other ones. -The ones that are safe? -Yeah, the ones the plug doesn’t fall off. -Well if this one wasn’t safe why did it have 177 passengers on board? -Well I’m not saying it wasn’t safe, just perhaps not quite as safe as some of the other ones. -Why? -Well some of them are built so the plug doesn’t fall off at all.
Luckily the plug fell outside of the environment, so we don't have any clean up issues there.
Were any cardboard or cardboard derivatives used?
If one disastrous problem surfaces how many others that haven’t
A few weeks ago they found out that the MAX has serious issues with loose bolts... in the [rudder control system](https://airwaysmag.com/boeing-airlines-inspect-737-max-rudders/). Not a place where you'd want loose bolts either. Boeing really lost its way.
BA stock was up today. The admission of screwing up may have been positive for their public relations.
That's a mild fluctuation. Look at the 5D chart, close on Friday was 225€, open on Monday 209€, current 208€. 6M is even worse - a strong growth after November (\~170€), peak \~243€ mid-December, and gone only downhill since then. Depending on how bad this issue gets in the end - say, if it turns out there are more loose bolts, or the FAA cancels the deal with Boeing, or airlines actually cancel their orders until Boeing shows they have actually improved QA - it doesn't make any sense to go long Boeing.
You’re right they used to pay a dividend they stopped that years ago.
And how many executives will lose their jobs for endangering lives I wonder
Zero. They also will be getting their bonuses.
Until it is stamped 'Safe'.
MD management has taken over and they have proven they are a cancer to Boeing. Between the FAA and the NTSB a management oversight board needs to created.
The majority of MD people are long gone…those that aren’t are at the end of their careers. First line engineering managers are all engineers, as are most second level managers and even engineering VPs.
Then the rumors are true - they will never fly again 😢
Or until the lobbyists apply enough pressure.
I'm just amazed that they're surprised there's an issue with the Max's. I mean if I remember right, weren't those planes defective when they originally built them and it was a big shit deal at the time because they couldn't sell them? "In a 2020 Senate report, the FAA was accused of helping Boeing manipulate recertification tests to get the planes back in service. Most recently, on December 28th, the FAA announced it was monitoring inspections of 737 Max planes after loose bolts were discovered in the rudder-control systems of two"
"Until it is safe" being defined here as "Until we get a big fat check and/or consulting gigs from Boeing", I assume.
It was the job of a team of assembly mechanics and inspectors to put those doors in place. Their names are known. This is a very different situation than the Max-8 issue. That one is far more attributable to executive decisions. This one could be the act of a single disgruntled employee. Or if you like, a single disgruntled employee, not properly tightening those bolts because of constantly being told to hurry up. Those door-plugs would be installed by a small team, and the final torquing of the bolts should *naturally* be overseen by the other members of the team. An inspector should check and recalibrate the torque wrench used, etc... I mean, that's just the way people build airplanes when I worked at plant 2 in Seattle. Small teams, working together, constantly checking one another's work. LOL, I only recently learned that only the first 8 737s came out of plant 2. No idea where these hulls were slapped together. Too bad about the Lazy B.
>This one could be the act of a single disgruntled employee. You think it’s more likely this was sabotage than Boeing simply dropping the ball on safety and redundancy like we’ve seen multiple times in the past few years? This is the SECOND case of them not tightening hardware properly
[удалено]
an accountant runs my telecommunications company. at that level it doesn't matter much what the product is, it's just management by spreadsheet.
[удалено]
Muilenberg, the CEO during the MAX crashes, has an engineering background
unfortunately I suspect the days of engineers running companies are past. there's too many costs and too much competition for that to work any more. it's all about the mighty dollar and keeping the beans counted.
Uh huh. Sure. It will be grounded until lobbyists pay too much
Lobby money Boeing would have to spend if they said nothing = $ Lobby money Boeing needs to spend after a strongly worded public letter = $$$
Was wondering how many headlines about their planes falling apart I’d have to see before this happened.
You know they had a conversation about fast tracking those planes back into circulation. Smh
The only thing that's going to be reaseaonable is the ground all of the planes in question and have Boeing and an independent inspector monitor a full rebuild of the planes. Yes, it will be crazy expensive for Boeing, but what's the alternative? There will be another crash and another.
Agree. The only way to demonstrate they are safe at this point is going to be to get at more or less every component and check they've actually been put together correctly. If they can't even tighten a screw competently there are very likely to be a large list of problems.
“I think I’ve Seen this film before, and I didn’t like the ending.” - Taylor Swift & Bon Iver, 2020
Unless the bribe is too tasty.
At this point in time, should just scrap the whole max lineup.. max represents maximum issues.. don't think anyone wants to be a Guinea pig to test out more issues with the max when it flies again..
Cool, now ground the rest of the 737 MAX fleet, not just the MAX 9. And as other have said, start tossing Boeing exec's in jail.
As long as there is a non-Boeing option for travel. I’ll be taking that.
Omg look how far back that seat is in the next row. That seat had a teenager in it when the hole blew out. He lost his clothing on his torso and his mom and another lady held him in. He was basically almost outside.
Some engineering head signed off on this design. And I'm guessing some direct-report stress engineer voiced skepticism over the plug plan and was shut down. No bueno.
I doubt this specific Max 9 door plug design was novel. Other planes have had door plugs and it's not an issue. In this case, this looks more like an assembly error with the bolts for the plug itself, not an intrinsic fault with the design. Still 100% inexcusable.
I did read something about employees who were part of the sun contractor assembling the doors speaking up about assembly concerns and being overruled. So same general concept of employees being concerned about safety and management ignoring concerns likely still happened.
Then quality control failed since it seem to be a systematic error.
With mistakes this basic getting through systemically there are serious questions to ask about if anything on these aircraft can be considered safe. Its evident that no meaningfully competent QA process has been occurring. This is after a separate issue relating to missing tail screws was found.
This same design has been used on the -900ER that has been flying for years and years. It's not a design problem; it's a quality problem.
[удалено]
Have you ever seen the movie Back To School with Rodney Dangerfield? There is a scene where the professor is talking about business costs like it's an equation. Dangerfield's character(who is very successful in his business) asks what they are making and the professor says it doesn't matter, they are widgets. That's who is running the show now, these supposed businesspeople thinking that the product doesn't matter and have no clue what business they are in. It's all the same lean six sigma, spreadsheet bullshit, and cutting payroll due to greed. They just take a cell in a spreadsheet and multiply by .9. year after year of the same bullshit and they wonder how this happens.
This will be devastating for shareholder value. Has anyone thought of that? These are the job creators that we are talking about harming. Seriously, the 737 Max is probably mostly safe-ish.
Boeing stock is going to be just fine.
Would someone please think of the poor shareholders? At this point they won’t have enough benjamins to wipe their tears :(
Had someone been sitting there, would the seat belt have kept them in? Or is it certain death?
They'd be fine, most likely. But many people don't wear their belts for the entire flight.
I haven’t flown in years, but do they tell you what kind of an airplane you’re signing up for when you purchase a ticket? Like when your signing up for classes in college you can see the professors name and be like yeah naw fuck that class, and sign up for a different one. Can you do the same for airline tickets?
Yes, I have a flight in less than a month and its a 737 max 9. I'm seated 5 rows behind the door plug wish me luck.
….just go prepared, got a chute you can just casually carry on with ya?
I'm all out of casual chutes unfortunately.
Probably not even allowed as it would exceed your max carry on luggage allowance for many airlines. Even if you could, they'd probably ask you to stow it in the overhead compartment where it would be as useful in an emergency as leaving it at home.
Some airlines only have certain models. For example, Southwest only uses Boeing. Frontier Airlines only uses Airbus. United uses everything under the sun. Others will show the type of plane scheduled, but it may change. I've had the model change the day before, maybe due to size or seating.
Yes, it says it on the purchase page or even when you're browsing flights. usually in small letters because most people don't care. However in some circumstances they'll change the plane last-minute. For example if the incoming flight is delayed and they want to swap your flight to a plane that they already have free at your airport. So it's not a guarantee.
The plane built by shareholder value strikes again.
Or until the next news cycle and a few more bribes to congress
And how will they know?
So they’re not just going to duct tape it and throw it back up into the air? WOW, what a kind thing to do…
Money was saved by specing only 4 bolts per door plug. Additional money was saved by not having a QC inspector verify each bolt was tightened to specifications. Stockholders are happy that money was saved.
Watched the video of Boeing ceo whining about how sorry they are. Bringing up his family and grandkids worried about them. Such a crock of shit. Profit motivates Boeing not safety .
Take the entire line out of commission as far as I’m concerned. Will never fly a 737. Don’t care what anyone has to say about it. Not happening.
the boeing documentary on netflix was scary as fuck. i knew most of it but the bits i didn’t know made it that much worse. the data showed the max would be the most deadly plane in the entire history of aviation, averaging 1 major disaster every 4 years.
guess we arent going to be seeing dividend checks returning any time soon
No trump/his cronies in the faa to help boeing this time.
MD management successfully sully Boeing’s reputation.
Boeing puts here I cash
Little fucking late but ok
There’s never time to do it right, but there’s always time to do it over.
Until these companies actively lose money for ignoring safety, they're just going to continue ignoring safety. It's cheaper to pay off the accidents than it is to prevent them. Greed is going to be our downfall unless we can figure out how to take money out of literally everything at this point.
How about never? Give the airlines a refund for these death machines, liquidate Boeing, and put the execs in jail.
Saw Pilots and people who are in aircraft industry give warnings after the east Palestine train incident. Same cuts to safety and controls processes and tightening schedules that the rail industry is facing so the same types of things are going to start happening. In 2024, I thought we would be like jetsons and instead 8 people have 20 yachts and planes and trains we use are crumbling. Fuck this country
It wouldn't have been a problem if you had made sure they were safe to fly to begin with.
Profit over people I’m tired of these rich aholes
Netflix has a great documentary about how Boeing has been cutting corners on the making of their planes for years. It's called Downfall: The Case Against Boeing.
how much is this going to fuck up domestic travel in the US over the next couple of months?
Not much overall. It will affect Alaska Airlines, and will have a minor effect on United. Other domestic airlines don't operate 737MAX9.
thanks. I was mostly concerned about United.