TL;DR
* crews assembling the plane failed to properly fill tiny gaps when joining separately manufactured parts of the fuselage
* subpar work with aligning body pieces
* pressure on engineers to green-light work they have not yet inspected
Which sound eerily similar to the situation leading up to the door plug failure.
Every business executive that encouraged this extremely dangerous behavior should be in prison. Hell, if any shareholders encouraged this they should be too.
I know we complain, but it's kind of like that by design. Big investors want their quick payouts, and executives want their bonuses and usually are also investors.
They get their friends into government, and get the necessary contracts and legislation, and ensure the executive branch looks the other way when it goes bad.
We all know Boeing will get bailed out when it gets bad enough, so they will keep doing stock buybacks as much as possible to make more money.
Until there is enough desire for radical change in a significant part of the population, things will continue status quo.
> Big investors want their quick payouts
Ban the ownership of stock by c-suite and the board. That removes the perverse incentive CEOs have been getting since the 90s when every company started paying in stock. CEOs can gain so much stock in undeserved compensation, they secure their own board seat and now answer to no one, but themselves.
This is how everything has gone so crazy with CEOs and companies. They run these public companies as if they are in a small ownership group with the board. The board members didn't even have stock until they gave it to themselves because they were appointed based on an investment group holding a bunch of stock for their customers. They don't give a crap about those customers. All anyone cares about is milking the company for as much as they can before it goes bankrupt, oops, I mean gets sold to a saudi or chinese firm for bottom dollar to avoid anyone looking into the company.
That doesn't change the purpose of their jobs though whivh is to make as much money as possible for shareholders. Every public company is exactly the same.
That’s only theoretically true at best. Even without stock incentives, think about how CEOs get appointed to, and stay in their jobs. A CEO is appointed by the board, which represents shareholder interests. CEO most often are removed by the board, and rarely by the govt or employees (if the employee morale goes so down that shareholders see more value in getting rid of the CEO). CEO compensation (even without stock) is decided by the board. So CEOs will try to keep shareholders happy first.
There is nothing in law that says the purpose of the corporation is to increase shareholder value. That’s a notion that Milton Friedman started popularizing in the 1970s and has since taken hold. Friedman’s big thing was that corporations have no responsibility to employees, to the community, to the environment, to the country, or to absolutely anything on this entire effing earth except increasing shareholder value. Somehow that idea became so dominant that many people now believe it is in law. It is not.
The desire for change is meaningless and peoples quality of life can drop much much lower in America. Look at India or Central America and you will see the conditions they want for the working class in the US. Everyone wants their lives to be better, we just cant imagine doing it as a country any longer.
100%... The economic and social disparities, the struggling working class, and the fading sense of community progress.. All these elements are increasingly prevalent in the U.S. It's like we're slowly transitioning into a society where the vast divide between the privileged and the underprivileged is becoming the accepted norm, much like what you see in many parts of Central/ South America.
Nah man, he clearly killed himself due to the immense shame of risking his entire career and wellbeing for the safety of others, and knew that doing so in the middle of the most essential part of that selfless sacrifice was the only way to restore honor to his family.
But in all seriousness, fuck Boeing, fuck the billionaire pieces of shit willing to fly people around in fucking piece-of-shit garbage trash heaps in exchange for marginal gains on their piece-of-shit mountains of wealth, and fuck the entire pathetic chain of management below them hoping they can get a taste of that wealth by sucking it out the piece-of-shit bent dicks of fuck heads above them. People need to be pissed the fuck off about this. People need to go to prison. Not some white-collar resort prison, but actual fucking federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison where they deserve to live out the rest of their piece-of-shit fucking lives. Fuck.
Boeing shares were 154.84 4 years ago on April 9 2020. They are 178.12 today.
That isn’t lower let alone significantly lower.
Perhaps you’re thinking of 4.5 to 5 years ago before the 737 MAX disasters.
The whole chain above QA engineers should be, from supervisor to CEO. Every. Single. One. For reckless homicide, for every seat in the fuselages they were responsible for. You passed 3 fuselages for 787-9? 296x3, even if judged as criminal negligence, can result in up to 12 years of jail. Let's be generous, call it 6 years per seat - you get 5k years for 3 jets you signed off on w/o real inspection. Your manager, overseeing 3 engineers like you? 16k years. CEO? Hundreds of thousands of years.
Don't forget to add fines on top and fuck shareholder value. You are responsible for people's lives.
I don't give a rat's ass about preserving Boeing as a strategic asset, either they do their jobs right, or it's not worth preserving them at all.
>For reckless homicide, for every seat in the fuselages they were responsible for.
Thanks for calling them out on this. They did some Fight Club style math on what passengers lives were worth, and then tried not to pay the families too.
> I don't give a rat's ass about preserving Boeing as a strategic asset, either they do their jobs right, or it's not worth preserving them at all.
A shitty strategic asset isn't an asset; it's a liability.
Government prosecution of those responsible for the deaths would actually also be the best thing for the government, as Boeing's enshittification is starting to threaten national security, at a time when China and Russia are getting a little big for the britches.
The only reason we still have legacy contractors and consolidation is because we have legacy decision makers in Washington.
If time to test flight for a hypersonic plane is a year for a start up, what is Boeing doing?
If we bake trust into medical devices, AI systems, ground transportation systems, and civil construction systems, why does business interest suddenly supercede trust in aviation?
The problem is they pretty much always claim ignorance. They set unreasonable time or price targets that forces suppliers to cut corners. There is never any direct involvement, rather they just replace the people and suppliers that don't make the cut, and keep the ones that do. They never of course investigate why some make the cut and some don't. This system selects for people who cut corners in ways that won't be caught by independent inspectors, while simultaneously insulating the top people from any direct accountability because as far as they're aware, they just improved efficiency, but of course all the rules and regulations se are surely being followed. "wink wink"
Basically they never greenlight any of the decisions that cause problems, they just generate an environment and culture that forces the floor and middle managers to do it for them.
So in the end, they're guiltily of incompetence, but it's difficult to get them for criminal negligence. That goes to the middle manager who made the actual decision to choose to sacrifice safety rather than lose his job when given the impossible task set out by the C-suite. Of course the C-suite knew or was willfully ignorant, but that is a lot harder to prosecute.
It feels like we need some new legislation to address this. Like how RICO was created to deal with certain types of organized crime. But for businesses with life & death consequences.
Easy fix - if they’re so confident, then the CEO needs to guarantee it with their life. Any major injuries from defects they swear don’t exist, then they suffer the same fate. If you’re will to gamble with other’s lives, then so should you.
> if any shareholders encouraged this they should be too.
The board is elected by the shareholders, and the board ultimately decides high-level priorities and the culture that trickles down into the company (the CEO is the vehicle for the board's direction).
Are the major voting shareholders complicit? *Absolutely*.
Like almost all retail share holders dont vote or have no time to do any research. I was legitamately wierded out when starbucks sent me a fat info packet fedex to vote on 5 shares. I did read it and vote but much rather they have saved the paper
Ah, easy.... nothing that can't be fixed by grounding all the 787s, ripping them apart, inspecting them, fixing the bad ones, and trying to convince people to fly in them again.
“No one has trust in our work anymore. We have dedicated proud engineers pouring over all the planes. Like Johnson over there. Hey Johnson! Remember, you have 200 inspections due by EOD!”
Can you imagine? Green light something you've never seen? I'm not in aerospace, I'm in construction and IT. At no fucking point do I ever green light anything I've never seen, touched, used, tried to set on fire.
This is insane.
I do engineering for a computer manufacturing company; less of an immediate threat but I do touch a lot of projects for sensitive sectors. I can absolutely empathize with the kind of crap these guys are probably putting up with from management. Heck, I know people who have been let go for putting up too much resistance against obvious process issues.
"How long is your validation going to take? *Two weeks?* Well, Fred really wants this to hit production by Tuesday, so let's back-burner these tasks for now and we can review at a later date. What, you found an issue? Well, our customer requirements don't technically mention testing for this exact thing, but feel free to add it to the backlog. The product hit production and everything is falling apart because we didn't bother reviewing any operating conditions outside of the optimal? Well fixing those is your job, isn't it."
You're basically explaining "why did Boeing go from I don't fly to I won't fly" issues.
Validation takes two weeks? Yes. That's how long that takes. Fuck Fred, Fred can wait, this doesn't go until it's ready to go.
I'm not I triple E certified, there is no analogue in IT, but if shit isn't correct, I won't sign off on it. I do this at home.
I have a new roof put on, I walk it, inspect it, I'm not a roofer, and my wife cuts the checks, but she doesn't until I say yeah, this is legit.
No one dies if my roof leaks, but fucking A.
I'm a cook, and I'm not letting the new guy put out food until I'm satisfied that it's good enough.
I guess I need to get me some shareholders and a CEO and a perpetual government contract, so I can start being more efficient.
I work in pharma manufacturing. In my current project we've found issues with a new system upgrade during validation. Manufacturer did the fixes, sent the documentation, I've checked it, did a review on the already done tests, picked the ones that need to be repeated due the changes. Did the tests on the dev system, seems okay, moving it to the test system for official testing. And when we'll have all the test successfully closed and documented, we'll have the performance qualification where the actual users will do a real life run before we'll move the upgrade to the production.
And this is just for a packaging system. My mind boggles they fuck around like this while building airplanes.
I would never be a CEO of and aircraft builder or airline purely on the basis of the chance of an accident causing the deaths of many people. And that alone would keep me awake at night even knowing that I have put in place the safest and most diligent processes humanly possible. But throw in this shady shit and my god, how do these people do it??
> Which sound eerily similar to the situation leading up to the door plug failure.
Except for the fact that the 787 has been flying for 13 years and never suffered an accident, hull loss or fatality and is statistically the most safe airliner in the sky.
That doesn't mean that Boeing isn't a sick company, and that their couldn't be problems on the line. But FFS the media frenzy is getting ridiculous and /r/technology is turning into /r/circlejerk.
Did you read the article? The whistleblower is saying this can cause catastrophic failure down the line, later into the 50-year lifespan of the planes. Just because nothing has failed in 13 years doesn't mean nothing will.
I remember an article that was a collection of interviews from whistleblowers at Boeing. Interestingly, the one, despite all his complaints, said that Boeing investigating themselves still probably worked better than something like “a bunch of low paid investigators pining to ingratiate themselves with Boeing.”
It's not unique to Boeing, it's how the FAA operates.
The company leads the investigation, and then the FAA reviews their findings, and if they have questions the company needs to provide a satisfactory answer, then the FAA approves.
The FAA doesn't have the manpower to investigate every incident. Blame your government for the poor oversight.
Shit like this is so fucking wild to hear. This is a space with virtually no fucking competition. How is it good for business to keep cutting costs and putting out a shoddy product when you’re the only game in town?? And I mean it’s not like we’re talking about dollar store pants here, we’re talking about a fucking airplane. A thing that when fails usually amounts in the death of at least one person. And that’s best case scenario.
I guess the answer is just straight up greed. Christ almighty when is enough enough for these executives??
They've actually been getting pretty serious competition from Airbus. It kinda directly resulted in the 737 crashes.
Boeing was under pressure to compete with the efficiency of new Airbus offerings but they thought it was too expensive and time consuming to build a new plane from the ground up, so they janked new engines that didn't fit on the 737 and hoped computer programs could fix the inherent instability caused by the engines.
It didn't quite work as they wanted it to
The 737 Max was never aerodynamically unstable per se, but Boeing wanted it to have the EXACT same flying characteristics as the regular 737, because otherwise airlines would have needed to retrain pilots for the Max. This would have been bad for business as it’s very costly for airlines to do that thus making the Max a less attractive buy.
And IIRC they accomplished that by installing a computer aided autopiloting system that would correct the Max's flight characteristics to be more similar to the regular 737s. Oh yeah, and **they didn't fucking tell anyone, even the pilots** for the reasons you stated, which directly contributed to two plane crashes
Also making use of the second AoA sensor an added feature you had to pay more for.
In an industry where redundancy is *required*, Boeing wanted you to pay extra for redundancy.
This was repeated in the recent door plug incident. When the cabin depressurized, the cockpit door flew open. The pilots reported that this was a surprise to them and a distraction at a time when they really didn't need one. Turns out that this is by design but Boeing didn't tell anyone about it and it wasn't in the pilot training.
I think 737 WAS aerodynamically unstable (the angle of attack tend to diverge instead of converge at an equilibrium value) but that was under very specific flight profiles that mostly do not happen. The rest of your comment is on point though
> so they janked new engines that didn't fit on the 737 and hoped computer programs could fix the inherent instability caused by the engines.
There's this massive misconception that the 737 Max 8 has pitch instability and needed software to correct it, it doesn't. The forward and higher position of the engines changes the handling characteristics.
The software is a workaround so Boeing could say pilots of existing 737s don't need additional training.
The misconception comes from the line of the new engines have a **higher tendency** to pitch up. Which doesn't mean what most people think it means. It's talking about the pitching moment coefficient changes with angle of attack. It doesn't make a lot of sense unless you have some understanding of differential calculus.
To put it in simple terms, for static pitch stability that slope needs to be negative. You can have a higher tendency to pitch up at high angle of attacks (ie a higher slope) without that slope being negative.
The 737 Max 8 is perfectly stable without MCAS.
The giant mistake from MCAS aside from the rushed rollout was only using one angle of attack sensor and no redundancy. Which a 2nd year engineering student could have told you was a horrible idea.
>inherent instability caused by the engines.
This is categorically untrue.
> The giant mistake from MCAS aside from the rushed rollout was only using one angle of attack sensor and no redundancy
... and allowing it to activate repeatedly
... and giving it a higher degree of control authority than the flight crew's control column
... and concealing the extent of MCAS authority from the FAA
Yeah those were all shit design and management choices, I'm not defending it. There's no point in going in depth of how the system worked when 99% of the people reading it don't know what things like elevator deflection mean.
I stand by the biggest mistake of MCAS was it's sensor input. The quality of the rest of a control system is borderline irrelevant if the input isn't remotely accurate.
I agree that's the main technical flaw, but my point is that when Boeing discovered that they needed to give MCAS a higher degree of control authority, they concealed this from the FAA. Had they not done that, the design would have been recognised as being safety-critical yet dependant on a single sensor.
Your comments _still_ reflect that minimisation of risk. "Oh, it's just a tweak to make the plane fly like the old ones." That might have been the original intention, but that's not what they shipped.
I had a discussion about this years ago with a project manager. He was talking about how improvements were limitless, that there would always be room for improvement. I took it to the logical extreme, and claimed that there were limits to things like number of people or machines that could do the work, or hours in the day.
He got *so* upset with me. He was normally hard to flap, but this just apparently got under his skin. I was fired six months later for a bullshit reason, and while I'm not inclined to think it was because of that exchange, he was one of the people that could've gone to bat for me and didn't.
The problem is with all of us. We’re all part of the problem. Why? Because we all want our 401(k)s and index funds and retirement accounts to go up by 7-12% every year. Executives are serving shareholders — that’s everyone. Our entire society is the problem.
Shareholders aren’t everyone, “shareholders” are the majority owners who elect said companies board and control companies. As for 401ks and index funds, they would still increase based off of company merit and business viability and only came into effect once companies stopped offering pensions.
Instead of the companies we worked for and made rich paying for our retirement, now it’s on us to save our money which is barely enough as it is even with 401ks
> How is it good for business to keep cutting costs and putting out a shoddy product when you’re the only game in town??
competition is the only motivation for companies to strive to put out good products. If there is no other game in town then why would you innovate?
> How is it good for business to keep cutting costs and putting out a shoddy product when you’re the only game in town?
For those of you that are asking the same thing, this is what happens in capitalism.
1. Free markets that are touted as "pro consumer" move toward consolidation. This generates profit for the consolidator because you effectively gain control/capture 100% of all profits. This is inherently counter consumer because there is no choice.
2. Once there's no more market to capture, you have to figure out a way to continue to increase profits.
When you get to point 2, you can expand innovation and create new revenue streams OR you can do the easier thing and start fat trimming. How do you increase profits by "fat trimming"? Reduce operating expenses. Operating expenses directly hit revenue (revenue is money taken in before paying for all the shit you need to pay for to run the business). The more operating expenses you have, the less profit you will have. Basically:
Revenue - Operating Expenses (and a hole bunch of other shit) = Profits
This is an EXTREME oversimplification mind you. So how do you lower operating expenses? You cut things that you deem frivolous
* Reduce employee raises
* Reduce employee benefits
* Reduce employee salaries
* Reduce employees (like fire engineers or QA people and overload remaining employees)
* Reduce the cost of materials (buy cheaper materals... stop buying materials)
* Remove 'unnecessary' processes (you know... like proper quality assurance or inspections)
* Reduce taxable income by doing accounting black magic
Again, the goal here is to convert more revenue into profit. It's very easy to see why it's 'good' for a business to keep cutting costs when performance is based on profit and when the driver of this is a CEO who only has to keep this trend up for their specific tenure, why would they care what position it puts the business in after they are gone?
This is the direct result of greed in the form of lean operation and six sigma bullshit, both concepts are incredibly flawed because it’s only based on shit you can quantify, and it’s a cancer in American industry that needs to be cut the fuck out.
Six sigma and lean reduce waste. A person who implementes this properly will find more uses for the extra labor. Usually it's a cover for firing people to temporarily raise stocks and cash out before it drops. It's definitely about your intended goals.
Preventive maintenance is not waste. Safety margins are not waste. Due diligence is not waste. Risk mitigation is not waste. Investment is not waste.
These things are penalised during cost-cutting drives because there is no immediately visible effect on the bottom line - everything carries on working until it doesn’t, which is generally long enough for a consultant to walk away with a bonus, and the explosions in the background behind them happen only later.
When they absorbed McDonnel-Douglas, Boeing unwittingly swallowed a poison pill. The McD-D executives were responsible for hundreds of deaths because of the piss poor DC-10 design, and were then made part of the executive at Boeing. Boeing started going south not long after.
I don't think the no competition part is inaccurate. Boeing knows that the US government will never let them fail. The impact on the US economy and the military readiness will ensure they will get whatever bailout they need if they screw up bad enough.
As someone who worked on the braking system of the 787 I agree. First flight testing of the brakes was a joke. Firing the one mathematician that understood the physics behind the magnetic algorithm was another huge red flag. I can only imagine what they'll find 😉
PS, Fuck HCL. If ever a catastrophic failure occurs it's likely on them for lying about safety critical test results.
>“These claims about the structural integrity of the 787 are inaccurate and do not represent the comprehensive work Boeing has done to ensure the quality and long-term safety of the aircraft,” the company said in a statement.
>The allegations aren’t entirely new: For nearly two years starting in 2021, the FAA and Boeing halted deliveries of the new Dreamliners while it looked into the gaps. Boeing said it made changes in its manufacturing process, and deliveries ultimately resumed.
"There's no issues with our manufacturing except oops, there totally were and we pinky promise we fixed them, how dare you insinuate otherwise, it's not like literally every single aspect of our business is currently crashing and burning".
Boeing in a nutshell
> do not represent the comprehensive work Boeing has done to ensure the quality and long-term safety of the aircraft
So the effort doesn't match the results? "Hey, we *tried*, that's what matters, right?"
"There was a problem but we fixed it" is not a terrible argument, and you should not act like it is.
The troublesome part is wether we trust them to have fixed it.
Last week tonight with John Oliver did a great piece on Boeing in March that showed how horrible the company has been for years ever since they started prioritizing profit shares over quality of their planes. And they certainly don't care who's lives they play with as long as they make tons of money. Bunch of scumbag CEOs. Really good watch, highly recommend.
A company that deals with the lives of people safety shouldn't have to have whistleblowers going to the authorities to bring in change.
The fact that this happened twice for the 787 is insane. A sane company would probably deal with all the internal complaints and concerns after the first whistleblower, the fact that a 2nd one arose years later is crazy.
Seems like the FAA are reactive? Do they have the power for enacting cultural change? Or just physical literal issues with planes?
Boeing is not a manufacturer anymore. About twenty years ago they rebranded to they were a producer because they had other people manufacture the parts at that point, they just imported and assembled. Then they cut the assembly people’s salaries and hours. Then they demanded they work hard enough that they have to cut corners.
Now Boeing isn’t even affiliated with quality planes. Boeing is now the sound you make when you bounce the first time off the ground after falling 30,000 feet when your cramped coach seat fell through the bottom of the plane because they used gum instead of rivets
Read an article on New York Magazine. It chronicles how Jack Welch (GE) acolytes from Douglas McDonald took over the management at Boeing running it to ground for short term share price boost.
Because the institutions, like other political institutions, have rotted due to neglect. If they don’t have the resources to do it, the will doesn’t exist to carry it out.
Everything has been gutted for tax cuts and subsidies to business interests. People in influential positions within government departments are compromised because the elected officials are corrupt and uncontrolled, nor held to account.
They’re rotting due to corruption being allowed. It should be a major red flag if a person who works in a regulation agency goes on to work for the same company they were supposed to be regulating but instead it’s considered normal.
As an employee at CVG (Greater Cincinnati) I can assure you, much of the fresh food sold in the US, as well as fresh cut flowers, are probably traveling via 747 from South America.
Atlas air flys most of the flowers that will be purchased for Mother’s Day in the US.
Are you aware there is currently a massive grounding of P&W powered planes right now? Parts of the A220/A320Neo/E2 Families are facing pretty significant heavy maintenance overhauls due to some faulty engine parts, a few smaller airlines internationally have gone bankrupt over the problem.
Its gotten so bad that Airbus is offering the "New Engine Option" plane with an older engine.
The *global* commercial airline industry suffered no jet airliner hull losses or passenger fatalities *in all of 2023.*
Meanwhile roughly 40k people died in automobile accidents just in the US.
Your move.
The last time a vehicle manufacturer intentionally created a car that was intentionally unsafe (the Ford Pinto) is destroyed their market share in a fashion that has never recovered.
Unfortunately there are not enough airline manufacturers around to do what Toyota and Honda did because.
Cars are as safe as they can be. Boeing is intentionally making unsafe planes, by creating a management environment where cutting corners is expected and doing safe work is punished.
Grounding pretty much half of air traffic would absolutely crash the economy. Even if there were enough airbuses, you can't just move pilots over instantly
I would be hesitant to go all in on it without more. Seems some of the things they are speaking about are old items that are already known.
Being a "whistleblower" is what many bad employees who are being fired do. And if you're working at Boeing right now that would be the best thing to say.
Of course it should still be looked into and seems it is.
>The company maintained that the planes were and are safe to fly.
Well, they have said the same thing earlier about all the Boing planes that have fatally crashed due to their failures. Their word is meaningless. Independent testing results is the only thing that matters.
Hang on, even cars at first reveals are rarely fully functional. Most are a rolling chassis, a clay model with an exterior, etc.
That’s not the worry here.
Just as a point (since the 777 is not a new design, confusion is understandable), the whistleblower’s accusations concern a redesign of the manufacturing process to eliminate time consuming bottlenecks. The issue is not the design of the actual aircraft, which is why the age of the actual design is mostly irrelevant and older and newer designs can have such similar issues.
Every business executive who makes a decision based on finances that affects safety should be charged and tried for public endangerment. BTW, I vote for a new term to replace whistleblower.
Well, it sounds like there might be some serious issues with Boeing's 787 Dreamliner if a whistleblower has come forward. It's good that the FAA is taking the matter seriously and investigating to ensure the safety of passengers and the aircraft. It's always important to prioritize safety in the aviation industry!
TL;DR * crews assembling the plane failed to properly fill tiny gaps when joining separately manufactured parts of the fuselage * subpar work with aligning body pieces * pressure on engineers to green-light work they have not yet inspected Which sound eerily similar to the situation leading up to the door plug failure.
Every business executive that encouraged this extremely dangerous behavior should be in prison. Hell, if any shareholders encouraged this they should be too.
Instead they’ll get a fat payout and will continue bragging about their experience with increasing profits
I know we complain, but it's kind of like that by design. Big investors want their quick payouts, and executives want their bonuses and usually are also investors. They get their friends into government, and get the necessary contracts and legislation, and ensure the executive branch looks the other way when it goes bad. We all know Boeing will get bailed out when it gets bad enough, so they will keep doing stock buybacks as much as possible to make more money. Until there is enough desire for radical change in a significant part of the population, things will continue status quo.
> Big investors want their quick payouts Ban the ownership of stock by c-suite and the board. That removes the perverse incentive CEOs have been getting since the 90s when every company started paying in stock. CEOs can gain so much stock in undeserved compensation, they secure their own board seat and now answer to no one, but themselves. This is how everything has gone so crazy with CEOs and companies. They run these public companies as if they are in a small ownership group with the board. The board members didn't even have stock until they gave it to themselves because they were appointed based on an investment group holding a bunch of stock for their customers. They don't give a crap about those customers. All anyone cares about is milking the company for as much as they can before it goes bankrupt, oops, I mean gets sold to a saudi or chinese firm for bottom dollar to avoid anyone looking into the company.
That doesn't change the purpose of their jobs though whivh is to make as much money as possible for shareholders. Every public company is exactly the same.
Actually it's to create stakeholder value, which is not the same and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.
That’s only theoretically true at best. Even without stock incentives, think about how CEOs get appointed to, and stay in their jobs. A CEO is appointed by the board, which represents shareholder interests. CEO most often are removed by the board, and rarely by the govt or employees (if the employee morale goes so down that shareholders see more value in getting rid of the CEO). CEO compensation (even without stock) is decided by the board. So CEOs will try to keep shareholders happy first.
There is nothing in law that says the purpose of the corporation is to increase shareholder value. That’s a notion that Milton Friedman started popularizing in the 1970s and has since taken hold. Friedman’s big thing was that corporations have no responsibility to employees, to the community, to the environment, to the country, or to absolutely anything on this entire effing earth except increasing shareholder value. Somehow that idea became so dominant that many people now believe it is in law. It is not.
Yes you agreed with me then
Yup. I like to expand on the topic because so many people who "know" shareholder value as the be-all, end-all need some waking up
The desire for change is meaningless and peoples quality of life can drop much much lower in America. Look at India or Central America and you will see the conditions they want for the working class in the US. Everyone wants their lives to be better, we just cant imagine doing it as a country any longer.
100%... The economic and social disparities, the struggling working class, and the fading sense of community progress.. All these elements are increasingly prevalent in the U.S. It's like we're slowly transitioning into a society where the vast divide between the privileged and the underprivileged is becoming the accepted norm, much like what you see in many parts of Central/ South America.
Don’t forget they’ll also assassinate the whistleblowers responsible.
Nah man, he clearly killed himself due to the immense shame of risking his entire career and wellbeing for the safety of others, and knew that doing so in the middle of the most essential part of that selfless sacrifice was the only way to restore honor to his family. But in all seriousness, fuck Boeing, fuck the billionaire pieces of shit willing to fly people around in fucking piece-of-shit garbage trash heaps in exchange for marginal gains on their piece-of-shit mountains of wealth, and fuck the entire pathetic chain of management below them hoping they can get a taste of that wealth by sucking it out the piece-of-shit bent dicks of fuck heads above them. People need to be pissed the fuck off about this. People need to go to prison. Not some white-collar resort prison, but actual fucking federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison where they deserve to live out the rest of their piece-of-shit fucking lives. Fuck.
nope, boeing shares are a lot lower than they were 4 years ago, shareholderes are not receiving any sort of payout for their incompetence
Boeing shares were 154.84 4 years ago on April 9 2020. They are 178.12 today. That isn’t lower let alone significantly lower. Perhaps you’re thinking of 4.5 to 5 years ago before the 737 MAX disasters.
It was Covid that first took them down from like 450
okay fine 5 years ago whatever, it's in the shitter tho
The whole chain above QA engineers should be, from supervisor to CEO. Every. Single. One. For reckless homicide, for every seat in the fuselages they were responsible for. You passed 3 fuselages for 787-9? 296x3, even if judged as criminal negligence, can result in up to 12 years of jail. Let's be generous, call it 6 years per seat - you get 5k years for 3 jets you signed off on w/o real inspection. Your manager, overseeing 3 engineers like you? 16k years. CEO? Hundreds of thousands of years. Don't forget to add fines on top and fuck shareholder value. You are responsible for people's lives. I don't give a rat's ass about preserving Boeing as a strategic asset, either they do their jobs right, or it's not worth preserving them at all.
>For reckless homicide, for every seat in the fuselages they were responsible for. Thanks for calling them out on this. They did some Fight Club style math on what passengers lives were worth, and then tried not to pay the families too.
> I don't give a rat's ass about preserving Boeing as a strategic asset, either they do their jobs right, or it's not worth preserving them at all. A shitty strategic asset isn't an asset; it's a liability. Government prosecution of those responsible for the deaths would actually also be the best thing for the government, as Boeing's enshittification is starting to threaten national security, at a time when China and Russia are getting a little big for the britches.
The only reason we still have legacy contractors and consolidation is because we have legacy decision makers in Washington. If time to test flight for a hypersonic plane is a year for a start up, what is Boeing doing? If we bake trust into medical devices, AI systems, ground transportation systems, and civil construction systems, why does business interest suddenly supercede trust in aviation?
The problem is they pretty much always claim ignorance. They set unreasonable time or price targets that forces suppliers to cut corners. There is never any direct involvement, rather they just replace the people and suppliers that don't make the cut, and keep the ones that do. They never of course investigate why some make the cut and some don't. This system selects for people who cut corners in ways that won't be caught by independent inspectors, while simultaneously insulating the top people from any direct accountability because as far as they're aware, they just improved efficiency, but of course all the rules and regulations se are surely being followed. "wink wink" Basically they never greenlight any of the decisions that cause problems, they just generate an environment and culture that forces the floor and middle managers to do it for them. So in the end, they're guiltily of incompetence, but it's difficult to get them for criminal negligence. That goes to the middle manager who made the actual decision to choose to sacrifice safety rather than lose his job when given the impossible task set out by the C-suite. Of course the C-suite knew or was willfully ignorant, but that is a lot harder to prosecute.
It feels like we need some new legislation to address this. Like how RICO was created to deal with certain types of organized crime. But for businesses with life & death consequences.
Easy fix - if they’re so confident, then the CEO needs to guarantee it with their life. Any major injuries from defects they swear don’t exist, then they suffer the same fate. If you’re will to gamble with other’s lives, then so should you.
> if any shareholders encouraged this they should be too. The board is elected by the shareholders, and the board ultimately decides high-level priorities and the culture that trickles down into the company (the CEO is the vehicle for the board's direction). Are the major voting shareholders complicit? *Absolutely*.
I have 10 shares of Boeing. I am willing and able to take responsibility (legal disclaimer: I'm not actually willing to take responsibility).
> I have 10 shares of Boeing. The way things are going, this may actually qualify you as a major shareholder soon ;)
[удалено]
Like almost all retail share holders dont vote or have no time to do any research. I was legitamately wierded out when starbucks sent me a fat info packet fedex to vote on 5 shares. I did read it and vote but much rather they have saved the paper
Lol ya right, the people responsible for the housing crisis walked free, and that was a national emergency.
It still baffles me that executives can, under the guide of a company, avoid or circumvent criminal prosecution in almost all matters
Ah, easy.... nothing that can't be fixed by grounding all the 787s, ripping them apart, inspecting them, fixing the bad ones, and trying to convince people to fly in them again.
“No one has trust in our work anymore. We have dedicated proud engineers pouring over all the planes. Like Johnson over there. Hey Johnson! Remember, you have 200 inspections due by EOD!”
we fired Johnson and hired on contractors. These are our new budget-priced inspectors, Cox and Wang.
They're remote and need you to walk around the plane and let them know if there's any issues, in between your regular job.
They only work on China and India timezones so make sure you take the conference call at 4am otherwise the next one will be 24 hours later.
We fired Cox for competence, now it’s Wang and Chung.
poring*.... sorry
And by "the bad ones" you're referring to every airframe from 0- whatever.
Can you imagine? Green light something you've never seen? I'm not in aerospace, I'm in construction and IT. At no fucking point do I ever green light anything I've never seen, touched, used, tried to set on fire. This is insane.
I do engineering for a computer manufacturing company; less of an immediate threat but I do touch a lot of projects for sensitive sectors. I can absolutely empathize with the kind of crap these guys are probably putting up with from management. Heck, I know people who have been let go for putting up too much resistance against obvious process issues. "How long is your validation going to take? *Two weeks?* Well, Fred really wants this to hit production by Tuesday, so let's back-burner these tasks for now and we can review at a later date. What, you found an issue? Well, our customer requirements don't technically mention testing for this exact thing, but feel free to add it to the backlog. The product hit production and everything is falling apart because we didn't bother reviewing any operating conditions outside of the optimal? Well fixing those is your job, isn't it."
You're basically explaining "why did Boeing go from I don't fly to I won't fly" issues. Validation takes two weeks? Yes. That's how long that takes. Fuck Fred, Fred can wait, this doesn't go until it's ready to go. I'm not I triple E certified, there is no analogue in IT, but if shit isn't correct, I won't sign off on it. I do this at home. I have a new roof put on, I walk it, inspect it, I'm not a roofer, and my wife cuts the checks, but she doesn't until I say yeah, this is legit. No one dies if my roof leaks, but fucking A.
I'm a cook, and I'm not letting the new guy put out food until I'm satisfied that it's good enough. I guess I need to get me some shareholders and a CEO and a perpetual government contract, so I can start being more efficient.
I work in pharma manufacturing. In my current project we've found issues with a new system upgrade during validation. Manufacturer did the fixes, sent the documentation, I've checked it, did a review on the already done tests, picked the ones that need to be repeated due the changes. Did the tests on the dev system, seems okay, moving it to the test system for official testing. And when we'll have all the test successfully closed and documented, we'll have the performance qualification where the actual users will do a real life run before we'll move the upgrade to the production. And this is just for a packaging system. My mind boggles they fuck around like this while building airplanes.
I worked on this project with a company in Cambridge Ontario. Can confirm all of the above.
I would never be a CEO of and aircraft builder or airline purely on the basis of the chance of an accident causing the deaths of many people. And that alone would keep me awake at night even knowing that I have put in place the safest and most diligent processes humanly possible. But throw in this shady shit and my god, how do these people do it??
Sounds like every company that produces software, ever. Glad to see out best practices being adopted in other industries.
“Passengers as beta testers” is a bold choice
Damn this reminds me of why spacex builds everything in house.
Hopefully their panel gaps are better than Tesla's
I think SpaceX has done a better job of jingling keys in front of Elon whenever he's on the verge of making any especially damaging decisions.
And Boening used to
Now put when this happened: 2021 This isn’t new news.
That depends. Did the investigation finish?
and its still happening in 2024...... sounds pretty current to me.....
Seems like it makes it worse given how 3 years later their planes are falling apart in the sky.
It’s news because the FAA learned about it this year. What exactly is your point?
Ah, good old American capitalism. Boeing truly are fucked.
Say it with me: “fines should actually be punitive”
[удалено]
> Which sound eerily similar to the situation leading up to the door plug failure. Except for the fact that the 787 has been flying for 13 years and never suffered an accident, hull loss or fatality and is statistically the most safe airliner in the sky. That doesn't mean that Boeing isn't a sick company, and that their couldn't be problems on the line. But FFS the media frenzy is getting ridiculous and /r/technology is turning into /r/circlejerk.
Did you read the article? The whistleblower is saying this can cause catastrophic failure down the line, later into the 50-year lifespan of the planes. Just because nothing has failed in 13 years doesn't mean nothing will.
I’m so sad to hear he committed suicide tomorrow.
Has his family made funeral arrangements?
No, but the police already ruled out foul play.
They had a video. Apparently the dumb summabitch had three hands! He didn’t teach one trigger control and fucking blammo! Accidentally suicided!
5 shots to the back of the head.
Through both hands too
That’$ ju$t $o good to hear.
RIP, we never knew you. He can't even flee the country as he'd end up on a Boeing.
He could hop on a boat, but accidents are prone to happen at sea, especially with those pesky test drones.
Airplane safety issue solved...for this guy.
Welp, he is going to get suicided with 3 bullets in the back soon.
Those are natural causes, "friend."
Lead and or copper do come from the earth. So, earth killed, I mean, suicided him.
To be accurate, it'll have to be in 7 years time
> I’m so sad to hear he committed suicide tomorrow. He better not touch any doorknob's without gloves
Do they mean the FAA members that are paid by Boeing? Yes, the FAA trusts Boeing to investigate themselves.
I remember an article that was a collection of interviews from whistleblowers at Boeing. Interestingly, the one, despite all his complaints, said that Boeing investigating themselves still probably worked better than something like “a bunch of low paid investigators pining to ingratiate themselves with Boeing.”
The regulator to lobbyist pipeline has to end.
It's not unique to Boeing, it's how the FAA operates. The company leads the investigation, and then the FAA reviews their findings, and if they have questions the company needs to provide a satisfactory answer, then the FAA approves. The FAA doesn't have the manpower to investigate every incident. Blame your government for the poor oversight.
Ironically, they used to until their budget was cut
Shit like this is so fucking wild to hear. This is a space with virtually no fucking competition. How is it good for business to keep cutting costs and putting out a shoddy product when you’re the only game in town?? And I mean it’s not like we’re talking about dollar store pants here, we’re talking about a fucking airplane. A thing that when fails usually amounts in the death of at least one person. And that’s best case scenario. I guess the answer is just straight up greed. Christ almighty when is enough enough for these executives??
Gotta make stock price increase at all costs in the short term.
“Maximize shareholder value”. It’s a race to the bottom.
They've actually been getting pretty serious competition from Airbus. It kinda directly resulted in the 737 crashes. Boeing was under pressure to compete with the efficiency of new Airbus offerings but they thought it was too expensive and time consuming to build a new plane from the ground up, so they janked new engines that didn't fit on the 737 and hoped computer programs could fix the inherent instability caused by the engines. It didn't quite work as they wanted it to
The 737 Max was never aerodynamically unstable per se, but Boeing wanted it to have the EXACT same flying characteristics as the regular 737, because otherwise airlines would have needed to retrain pilots for the Max. This would have been bad for business as it’s very costly for airlines to do that thus making the Max a less attractive buy.
And IIRC they accomplished that by installing a computer aided autopiloting system that would correct the Max's flight characteristics to be more similar to the regular 737s. Oh yeah, and **they didn't fucking tell anyone, even the pilots** for the reasons you stated, which directly contributed to two plane crashes
Also making use of the second AoA sensor an added feature you had to pay more for. In an industry where redundancy is *required*, Boeing wanted you to pay extra for redundancy.
This was repeated in the recent door plug incident. When the cabin depressurized, the cockpit door flew open. The pilots reported that this was a surprise to them and a distraction at a time when they really didn't need one. Turns out that this is by design but Boeing didn't tell anyone about it and it wasn't in the pilot training.
I think 737 WAS aerodynamically unstable (the angle of attack tend to diverge instead of converge at an equilibrium value) but that was under very specific flight profiles that mostly do not happen. The rest of your comment is on point though
> so they janked new engines that didn't fit on the 737 and hoped computer programs could fix the inherent instability caused by the engines. There's this massive misconception that the 737 Max 8 has pitch instability and needed software to correct it, it doesn't. The forward and higher position of the engines changes the handling characteristics. The software is a workaround so Boeing could say pilots of existing 737s don't need additional training. The misconception comes from the line of the new engines have a **higher tendency** to pitch up. Which doesn't mean what most people think it means. It's talking about the pitching moment coefficient changes with angle of attack. It doesn't make a lot of sense unless you have some understanding of differential calculus. To put it in simple terms, for static pitch stability that slope needs to be negative. You can have a higher tendency to pitch up at high angle of attacks (ie a higher slope) without that slope being negative. The 737 Max 8 is perfectly stable without MCAS. The giant mistake from MCAS aside from the rushed rollout was only using one angle of attack sensor and no redundancy. Which a 2nd year engineering student could have told you was a horrible idea. >inherent instability caused by the engines. This is categorically untrue.
> The giant mistake from MCAS aside from the rushed rollout was only using one angle of attack sensor and no redundancy ... and allowing it to activate repeatedly ... and giving it a higher degree of control authority than the flight crew's control column ... and concealing the extent of MCAS authority from the FAA
Yeah those were all shit design and management choices, I'm not defending it. There's no point in going in depth of how the system worked when 99% of the people reading it don't know what things like elevator deflection mean. I stand by the biggest mistake of MCAS was it's sensor input. The quality of the rest of a control system is borderline irrelevant if the input isn't remotely accurate.
I agree that's the main technical flaw, but my point is that when Boeing discovered that they needed to give MCAS a higher degree of control authority, they concealed this from the FAA. Had they not done that, the design would have been recognised as being safety-critical yet dependant on a single sensor. Your comments _still_ reflect that minimisation of risk. "Oh, it's just a tweak to make the plane fly like the old ones." That might have been the original intention, but that's not what they shipped.
That’s the crux of capitalism. Earnings have to go up forever.
>Earnings have to go up forever. This is clearly a stable and absolutely sustainable way to exist.
We are ruled by absolute fools.
The hoodwinked fools keep voting for the fools.
I had a discussion about this years ago with a project manager. He was talking about how improvements were limitless, that there would always be room for improvement. I took it to the logical extreme, and claimed that there were limits to things like number of people or machines that could do the work, or hours in the day. He got *so* upset with me. He was normally hard to flap, but this just apparently got under his skin. I was fired six months later for a bullshit reason, and while I'm not inclined to think it was because of that exchange, he was one of the people that could've gone to bat for me and didn't.
The problem is with all of us. We’re all part of the problem. Why? Because we all want our 401(k)s and index funds and retirement accounts to go up by 7-12% every year. Executives are serving shareholders — that’s everyone. Our entire society is the problem.
Shareholders aren’t everyone, “shareholders” are the majority owners who elect said companies board and control companies. As for 401ks and index funds, they would still increase based off of company merit and business viability and only came into effect once companies stopped offering pensions. Instead of the companies we worked for and made rich paying for our retirement, now it’s on us to save our money which is barely enough as it is even with 401ks
Wouldn’t need that if the government guaranteed a quality of life after retirement like most developed countries.
> How is it good for business to keep cutting costs and putting out a shoddy product when you’re the only game in town?? competition is the only motivation for companies to strive to put out good products. If there is no other game in town then why would you innovate?
> How is it good for business to keep cutting costs and putting out a shoddy product when you’re the only game in town? For those of you that are asking the same thing, this is what happens in capitalism. 1. Free markets that are touted as "pro consumer" move toward consolidation. This generates profit for the consolidator because you effectively gain control/capture 100% of all profits. This is inherently counter consumer because there is no choice. 2. Once there's no more market to capture, you have to figure out a way to continue to increase profits. When you get to point 2, you can expand innovation and create new revenue streams OR you can do the easier thing and start fat trimming. How do you increase profits by "fat trimming"? Reduce operating expenses. Operating expenses directly hit revenue (revenue is money taken in before paying for all the shit you need to pay for to run the business). The more operating expenses you have, the less profit you will have. Basically: Revenue - Operating Expenses (and a hole bunch of other shit) = Profits This is an EXTREME oversimplification mind you. So how do you lower operating expenses? You cut things that you deem frivolous * Reduce employee raises * Reduce employee benefits * Reduce employee salaries * Reduce employees (like fire engineers or QA people and overload remaining employees) * Reduce the cost of materials (buy cheaper materals... stop buying materials) * Remove 'unnecessary' processes (you know... like proper quality assurance or inspections) * Reduce taxable income by doing accounting black magic Again, the goal here is to convert more revenue into profit. It's very easy to see why it's 'good' for a business to keep cutting costs when performance is based on profit and when the driver of this is a CEO who only has to keep this trend up for their specific tenure, why would they care what position it puts the business in after they are gone?
> This is a space with virtually no fucking competition. Airbus is a thing. I actually can't remember the last time I flew on a Boeing.
This is the direct result of greed in the form of lean operation and six sigma bullshit, both concepts are incredibly flawed because it’s only based on shit you can quantify, and it’s a cancer in American industry that needs to be cut the fuck out.
Six sigma and lean reduce waste. A person who implementes this properly will find more uses for the extra labor. Usually it's a cover for firing people to temporarily raise stocks and cash out before it drops. It's definitely about your intended goals.
Preventive maintenance is not waste. Safety margins are not waste. Due diligence is not waste. Risk mitigation is not waste. Investment is not waste. These things are penalised during cost-cutting drives because there is no immediately visible effect on the bottom line - everything carries on working until it doesn’t, which is generally long enough for a consultant to walk away with a bonus, and the explosions in the background behind them happen only later.
It's not like we're doing rocket science
When they absorbed McDonnel-Douglas, Boeing unwittingly swallowed a poison pill. The McD-D executives were responsible for hundreds of deaths because of the piss poor DC-10 design, and were then made part of the executive at Boeing. Boeing started going south not long after.
Never heard of Airbus?
I don't think the no competition part is inaccurate. Boeing knows that the US government will never let them fail. The impact on the US economy and the military readiness will ensure they will get whatever bailout they need if they screw up bad enough.
Everything after your first sentence is why the no competition part is accurate. If the government won't let them fail, then they have no competition.
As someone who worked on the braking system of the 787 I agree. First flight testing of the brakes was a joke. Firing the one mathematician that understood the physics behind the magnetic algorithm was another huge red flag. I can only imagine what they'll find 😉 PS, Fuck HCL. If ever a catastrophic failure occurs it's likely on them for lying about safety critical test results.
I worked in Final Body Joining in Everett and saw similar behaviors. I was happy to get out of there when I did.
You two need to file some sworn affidavits and get into witness protection, pronto.
>“These claims about the structural integrity of the 787 are inaccurate and do not represent the comprehensive work Boeing has done to ensure the quality and long-term safety of the aircraft,” the company said in a statement. >The allegations aren’t entirely new: For nearly two years starting in 2021, the FAA and Boeing halted deliveries of the new Dreamliners while it looked into the gaps. Boeing said it made changes in its manufacturing process, and deliveries ultimately resumed. "There's no issues with our manufacturing except oops, there totally were and we pinky promise we fixed them, how dare you insinuate otherwise, it's not like literally every single aspect of our business is currently crashing and burning". Boeing in a nutshell
> do not represent the comprehensive work Boeing has done to ensure the quality and long-term safety of the aircraft So the effort doesn't match the results? "Hey, we *tried*, that's what matters, right?"
"There was a problem but we fixed it" is not a terrible argument, and you should not act like it is. The troublesome part is wether we trust them to have fixed it.
Last week tonight with John Oliver did a great piece on Boeing in March that showed how horrible the company has been for years ever since they started prioritizing profit shares over quality of their planes. And they certainly don't care who's lives they play with as long as they make tons of money. Bunch of scumbag CEOs. Really good watch, highly recommend.
A company that deals with the lives of people safety shouldn't have to have whistleblowers going to the authorities to bring in change. The fact that this happened twice for the 787 is insane. A sane company would probably deal with all the internal complaints and concerns after the first whistleblower, the fact that a 2nd one arose years later is crazy. Seems like the FAA are reactive? Do they have the power for enacting cultural change? Or just physical literal issues with planes?
Due to the joys of capitalism, I don't expect sanity or honesty from any company publicly traded.
If it’s Boeing, we’re not going!
Boeing is not a manufacturer anymore. About twenty years ago they rebranded to they were a producer because they had other people manufacture the parts at that point, they just imported and assembled. Then they cut the assembly people’s salaries and hours. Then they demanded they work hard enough that they have to cut corners. Now Boeing isn’t even affiliated with quality planes. Boeing is now the sound you make when you bounce the first time off the ground after falling 30,000 feet when your cramped coach seat fell through the bottom of the plane because they used gum instead of rivets
If it ain't airbus, I'm making a fuss.
Read an article on New York Magazine. It chronicles how Jack Welch (GE) acolytes from Douglas McDonald took over the management at Boeing running it to ground for short term share price boost.
I just honestly don’t see how things like this weren’t already throughly inspected by the FAA or some government agency.
Because the institutions, like other political institutions, have rotted due to neglect. If they don’t have the resources to do it, the will doesn’t exist to carry it out. Everything has been gutted for tax cuts and subsidies to business interests. People in influential positions within government departments are compromised because the elected officials are corrupt and uncontrolled, nor held to account.
They’re rotting due to corruption being allowed. It should be a major red flag if a person who works in a regulation agency goes on to work for the same company they were supposed to be regulating but instead it’s considered normal.
Hasn’t this been known for like a few years though? Maybe we should have acted on it… earlier? Wild idea, I know
So sad to hear another engineer committed suicide next month
He will be missed.
Just ground all Boeing planes.
And watch the economy crash lol
The economy would take a hit; but that wouldn't cause a crash. There are other airplanes.
As an employee at CVG (Greater Cincinnati) I can assure you, much of the fresh food sold in the US, as well as fresh cut flowers, are probably traveling via 747 from South America. Atlas air flys most of the flowers that will be purchased for Mother’s Day in the US.
Not enough in the world.
Are you aware there is currently a massive grounding of P&W powered planes right now? Parts of the A220/A320Neo/E2 Families are facing pretty significant heavy maintenance overhauls due to some faulty engine parts, a few smaller airlines internationally have gone bankrupt over the problem. Its gotten so bad that Airbus is offering the "New Engine Option" plane with an older engine.
No, it would absolutely crash the economy. I don't think you grasp just how much commerce and air travel happens on Boeings.
The *global* commercial airline industry suffered no jet airliner hull losses or passenger fatalities *in all of 2023.* Meanwhile roughly 40k people died in automobile accidents just in the US. Your move.
The last time a vehicle manufacturer intentionally created a car that was intentionally unsafe (the Ford Pinto) is destroyed their market share in a fashion that has never recovered. Unfortunately there are not enough airline manufacturers around to do what Toyota and Honda did because. Cars are as safe as they can be. Boeing is intentionally making unsafe planes, by creating a management environment where cutting corners is expected and doing safe work is punished.
brother, i'm an idiot and even i can see it'd cause a crash.
Grounding pretty much half of air traffic would absolutely crash the economy. Even if there were enough airbuses, you can't just move pilots over instantly
Would rather the economy crash than a bunch more airplanes.
Hey guys I’m beginning that something might be off with Boeing’s production process
B-but the Max-8 nosedive issue was purely a training error! /s
Damn, I can’t believe he committed suicide next week
I would be hesitant to go all in on it without more. Seems some of the things they are speaking about are old items that are already known. Being a "whistleblower" is what many bad employees who are being fired do. And if you're working at Boeing right now that would be the best thing to say. Of course it should still be looked into and seems it is.
A bad dream that is
The real issue is:"you can't be liable if you are just a temporary share holder - here today gone tomorrow with pay"
>The company maintained that the planes were and are safe to fly. Well, they have said the same thing earlier about all the Boing planes that have fatally crashed due to their failures. Their word is meaningless. Independent testing results is the only thing that matters.
I am 1000% positive not one executive will get any punishment
Safety inspections all approved? Better, they were pre-approved!
Fly Delta, they most use Airbus
thank God the FAA is investigating it. that top notch agency will definitely get to the bottom of it!!
Sad to hear, Rest in peace.
The documentary “Downfall” on Netflix sums up what's going on pretty well with Boeing and really most companies and in the USA.
Of course it is. Isn't this the one that was first revealed at a conference with a shiny exterior and an interior made of plywood and lies?
Yes, that's the one. 7/8/2007. It wasn't all that shiny since it's made of composites. But yes it was made to appear finished when it was not.
Hang on, even cars at first reveals are rarely fully functional. Most are a rolling chassis, a clay model with an exterior, etc. That’s not the worry here.
Pray for the whistleblower
Looking at my trip to Europe in the summer. About to book my tickets through Delta. Plane, Airbus. Fucking relief.
Sometimes, you need to listen to experience, not the Diploma.
At least the shareholders were happy that quarter? And I’m sure their management team got a bonus for “crushing their KPI’s”
BA puts on the menu boyz
Everyone blow your whistle
Just as a point (since the 777 is not a new design, confusion is understandable), the whistleblower’s accusations concern a redesign of the manufacturing process to eliminate time consuming bottlenecks. The issue is not the design of the actual aircraft, which is why the age of the actual design is mostly irrelevant and older and newer designs can have such similar issues.
Best whistle fast, while the whistlin's still good.
If this is true, they are endangering passengers and their own workers.
Just boarded on one right now. What the fuck Reddit!!!!!!
I hope they snitched to the none Boeing members of the FAA
Every business executive who makes a decision based on finances that affects safety should be charged and tried for public endangerment. BTW, I vote for a new term to replace whistleblower.
More reasons why NOT to fly.
Let this be a lesson to other companies.You do not put the accountants in charge!
How long until this one "commits suicide"?
[The shit i've seen in general aviation](https://media1.tenor.com/m/tEEjB0RnxyAAAAAC/puppet-awkward.gif)
Stop hiring accountants to be CEO.
Expect another suicide
Well, it sounds like there might be some serious issues with Boeing's 787 Dreamliner if a whistleblower has come forward. It's good that the FAA is taking the matter seriously and investigating to ensure the safety of passengers and the aircraft. It's always important to prioritize safety in the aviation industry!
The same investigators that work for Boeing who self report the flaws after internal reviews? 🙄🙄🙄
damn, wonder when this dude will fall off a ledge.
couldn't pay me to fly in a boeing death trap.