And the workforce get scapegoated and sacrificed?
Are there any laws against that?

The courts have ruled fiduciary responsibility. The law mandates that sort of behavior.

So... A change in the law or a change in the interpretation of the law is needed?...
All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin

It doesn't even need to be law. Companies that are led by accountants will always do the sums and if the expected costs of any and all failures is less than a certain percentage of the profits and doesn't have any long term affects on the shareholders income, then the company will always do and argue for the least amount of work possible.

It doesn't even need to be law. Companies that are led by accountants will always do the sums and if the expected costs of any and all failures is less than a certain percentage of the profits and doesn't have any long term affects on the shareholders income, then the company will always do and argue for the least amount of work possible.

Which is the essence of "the fiduciary duty to the shareholder." Do whatever to maximize the return to the investor. If breaking a law with a maximum fine of $50,000.00 gets $5,000,000.00 in profit, you break the law. Throw workers under the bus. Throw shift managers under the other side of the bus. Make money.

And really? Is that 'legal'??

Have Boeing coldly callously deliberately calculated that there is more profit to be made in killing their aircraft passengers?

And really? Is that 'legal'??

... Software and wiring fixes pending...

... Boeing initially dismissed this as merely a nuisance light that would require a simple software patch and wouldn’t cause a delay.

However, engineers have now established that the problem is trickier to fix than first thought. It stems from a small disagreement between the angles of the two parts of the stabilizer on either side of the tail....

While assembling the Max, workers at Boeing’s Renton, Wash., factory had ground down the outer shell of a panel that sits atop the engine housing in an effort to ensure a better fit into the plane. In doing so, they inadvertently removed the coating that insulates the panel from a lightning strike, taking away a crucial protection for the fuel tank and fuel lines

Huh?! A lightning bolt travels through miles of air, one of the best insulators around. Some coating is supposed to do a better job? Sounds like someone got the story wrong or is omitting many details.

... for detailed inspections and repairs or replacement if needed for panels on top of the engine housing that may not ensure adequate shielding of the underlying wiring.

Boeing said in the December bulletin that owners had six months to complete inspections and repairs, but the FAA is now proposing that the actions be conducted before the airlines make further flights because of the “potential for a common-cause failure of both engines.” ...

While assembling the Max, workers at Boeing’s Renton, Wash., factory had ground down the outer shell of a panel that sits atop the engine housing in an effort to ensure a better fit into the plane. In doing so, they inadvertently removed the coating that insulates the panel from a lightning strike, taking away a crucial protection for the fuel tank and fuel lines

Huh?! A lightning bolt travels through miles of air, one of the best insulators around. Some coating is supposed to do a better job? Sounds like someone got the story wrong or is omitting many details.

And the answer is (unsurprisingly):


U.S. regulator: Airlines should complete inspections on 737 MAX panels before flying
wrote:

... for detailed inspections and repairs or replacement if needed for panels on top of the engine housing that may not ensure adequate shielding of the underlying wiring.

Boeing said in the December bulletin that owners had six months to complete inspections and repairs, but the FAA is now proposing that the actions be conducted before the airlines make further flights because of the “potential for a common-cause failure of both engines.” ...

However, very scary stuff for why only found now?... And really?? Go flying for six months when a single lightning strike could very well cause disaster??!

All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin

For some interesting context, here's an article describing just some of Boeing's varients of their 737:


Boeing Has Built 22 Variations Of The 737


For just one example, I'd never realised that the original 737 carrying 85 passengers has since then been stretched to carry up to 204 passengers now... Some stretch...


All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin

Between the B737-100 and the B737MAX-10
Seat pitch only tells part of the story. The length has gone from 94ft to 143.7ft, the span from 93ft to 117ft 10in, exit limit (effectively the maximum number of passengers permitted) from 124 to 230. (As far as I'm aware the MAX-10 hasn't actually been built.)
The exit limit is particularly telling as that means more exits have been installed (the rules say all passengers must be able to exit the aircraft in 90 seconds using 50% of the exits).

All this load increase has been accompanied by a power increase from 14000lb to 29000lb.

The BBC has seen the Air Safety Report (ASR) of that event. BA threatens staff with disciplinary action - or even the sack - if they reveal the contents of such confidential reports, but one of them has risked it, arguing that the truth needs to be known.

The BBC has seen the Air Safety Report (ASR) of that event. BA threatens staff with disciplinary action - or even the sack - if they reveal the contents of such confidential reports, but one of them has risked it, arguing that the truth needs to be known.

Profits 1st & to hell with safety?

Fume events are not uncommon :-( on all aircraft types :-( ...

Also of note is that newer types of aircraft such as the B787 do not use bleed air off the engine compressors, but use air drawn in from outside via electrically driven compressors which should help reduce if not eliminate this problem.

... Critically, the [NASA] panel learned early this month that Boeing did not perform a full, end-to-end integrated test of Starliner in a Systems Integration Lab with ULA’s Atlas V rocket. The test typically shows how all the software systems during each component of the mission would have responded with each other through every maneuver — and it could potentially have caught the issues Boeing later experienced in the mission.

“It’s pretty exhaustive [(comprehensive)]. You gotta do that,”...

... the multitude of problems have led NASA to call for a full re-verification of Boeing’s software — a process that will take analyzing about a million lines of code...

... Still, he added, “that doesn’t mean it’s not a business right? And they’re trying to do things efficiently and cost-effectively.”

Boeing said it followed all of the testing procedures NASA required of it prior to the Starliner test flight...

... Transport Canada is among a core group of regulators, including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), that are evaluating needed changes for the 737 MAX to fly again after nearly a year.

Transport Canada told Reuters by email on Wednesday it would not hesitate to add "Canadian-unique" non-normal procedures as a supplement to the MAX's aircraft flight manual...

... "Fortunately, in some cases, as the time went along they [FAA/Boeing] started to adopt these ideas," he said.

"I guess they came to their own conclusions and validated our concerns. But we’re not done yet."

Also, are the air intakes protected in any way from pulling in the fumes when the plane is doused with deicer?...