Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)

Message boards : Politics : Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 . . . 38 · Next

AuthorMessage
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 722
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2131782 - Posted: 25 Jan 2024, 17:41:23 UTC - in response to Message 2131771.  

The cases that SCOTUS took seek to overturn the ability of federal agencies, experts, to write regulation and seek to force congress, buffoons, to write the regulations. Essentially they seek to remove the Code of Federal Regulations.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The Chevron case says courts shall defer to the judgement of the experts in the federal agency where there is ambiguity in something congress wrote.
Ohh... there seems to be a narrow-minded ideology that wants to go back two centuries to the founding fathers, when everything was so simple that, apart from a few simple laws, there was no need for any nationwide regulation or standardization. Seems less of a legal question than an ideological, almost religious one. Phew.
ID: 2131782 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19112
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2131794 - Posted: 25 Jan 2024, 22:10:10 UTC

Boeing, not Spirit, mis-installed piece that blew off Alaska MAX 9 jet
Seattle Times, Jan 24 - The fuselage panel that blew off an Alaska Airlines jet earlier this month was removed for repair then reinstalled improperly by Boeing mechanics on the Renton final assembly line, a person familiar with the details of the work told The Seattle Times.

If verified by the National Transportation Safety Board investigation, this would leave Boeing primarily at fault for the accident, rather than its supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which originally installed the panel into the 737 MAX 9 fuselage in Wichita, Kan.
ID: 2131794 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30700
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2131800 - Posted: 26 Jan 2024, 1:09:20 UTC - in response to Message 2131794.  
Last modified: 26 Jan 2024, 1:10:40 UTC

Boeing, not Spirit, mis-installed piece that blew off Alaska MAX 9 jet
Seattle Times, Jan 24 - The fuselage panel that blew off an Alaska Airlines jet earlier this month was removed for repair then reinstalled improperly by Boeing mechanics on the Renton final assembly line, a person familiar with the details of the work told The Seattle Times.

If verified by the National Transportation Safety Board investigation, this would leave Boeing primarily at fault for the accident, rather than its supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which originally installed the panel into the 737 MAX 9 fuselage in Wichita, Kan.

Version I heard is the door was opened by Spirit at Boeing, a repair of the seal was done and all of this was logged on Spirit's process tracking. The plug was to be put back by Boeing however Boeing's process tracking only included instructions if the plug had been completely removed not just opened. (Different incompatible software) So is this actually an IT failure?

This human comedy of errors sounds just about what one would expect with another very common candidate being shift change. Humans have known about such common failure modes for a long time, but they are very resistant to solutions.

To err is human. To really F it up requires a computer.
ID: 2131800 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20395
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2131802 - Posted: 26 Jan 2024, 1:30:55 UTC - in response to Message 2131800.  

... To err is human. To really F it up requires a computer.

The real problem there is that of disconnected procedures and no "catch-all" checking.

The 'computer' is merely a lame no-brainer excuse.

This all suggests that Boeing production must be shut down immediately until they get their working safely in order.

What other bits 'n' pieces are missing, unknown, unrecorded, unrecognised, lost?


All part of a deadly fail.

Fly safe?
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2131802 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30700
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2131816 - Posted: 26 Jan 2024, 6:04:31 UTC - in response to Message 2131802.  

The real problem there is that of disconnected procedures and no "catch-all" checking.
The catch all checking that is there are Spirit workers at Boeing to catch all quality escapes from Spirit, and there are a lot.

This all suggests that Boeing production must be shut down immediately until they get their working safely in order.
The issue is Boeing never opens the doors at their plant so they don't have a procedure to close them. Why would they? Again it is a failure that a subcontractor starts work and walks away assuming that someone else later will finish their job. It is a failure that the subcontractor uses its own software while on site at Boeing and not Boeing's software. It is a failure of IT that each software vendor wants to be the sole closed box supplier of systems and they are designed so they can't talk to each other.
Remember Spirit has been contracted to deliver an air frame with plug doors fully installed and that is how they are shipped from Wichita by rail. Spirit because they are so sloppy has had to send Q/A to Boeing in Seattle to inspect and fix upon arrival before delivery. Is it not reasonable to assume when the Spirit's Q/A says good to go, that it is good to go? Clearly in one case it wasn't.
So Spirit's software is fine because it is only used in Wichita and all boxes are ticked before it is shipped to Seattle. Boeing's software is fine, because each air frame enters in a known state. Sounds like an API doesn't it?
So when a Spirit worker at Boeing unticks the boxes for bolts installed on Spirit's software and that condition is not transmitted to Boeing's software because the software doesn't talk to each other ... you have an IT failure.

Now I'm going to hazard a guess as to what happened. Spirit worker fixing a quality escape of the door seal puled the bolts opened the door and fixed the seal. In checking the fix he pulled the door shut but did not pin it nor leave it ajar. Boeing workers told all good finished out the cabin over the unpinned door. If that Spirit worker had left the door ajar there is no way this accident would have happened. So is it the Spirit manual that allows a door to be closed but not pinned when you walk away at fault? Is it Boeing that doesn't require the entire incoming air frame taken back to rivets to inspect because their subcontractor can't be trusted?

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. Classic human factors Swiss cheese with a computer drilling more holes in the cheese.
ID: 2131816 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20395
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2131833 - Posted: 26 Jan 2024, 15:31:49 UTC - in response to Message 2131816.  
Last modified: 26 Jan 2024, 15:33:42 UTC

... Is it Boeing that doesn't require the entire incoming air frame taken back to rivets to inspect because their subcontractor can't be trusted?...

Which is where we have checks, verification, certification, compliance, the FAA, to supposedly ensure that people do not consequently needlessly die.

It is very much Boeing's responsibility to ensure everything is safely correct. There must be no excuses of a blame game...

If any incoming parts are not safe, then Boeing must not use them.

Thanks for giving a very plausible explanation of what has likely happened. If so, that explaination is damming and deadly dangerous for anything that Boeing has touched...

Are there not also criminal aspects for how certification has been abused?


For Boeing, can any of us fly safe?...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2131833 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20395
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2131835 - Posted: 26 Jan 2024, 15:46:40 UTC
Last modified: 26 Jan 2024, 18:09:14 UTC

Note also that for this latest near-death 'incident', in my most humble uneducated personal opinion, I consider the Boeing cockpit to yet again to be demonstrated to be deadly dangerous...


During the blowout and decompression, the pilots lost their old paper + ringbinders checklists out the door. They were left with no pre-prepared instructions for handling 'The Emergency'. They instead had to make best guesses from their memory and from whatever fortuitous ad-hoc experience they had that might help...

On this occasion, they 'winged it' well enough.

Really! Is that safely good enough?!...


This is where I feel strongly that ALL passenger aircraft must be fitted, and those in service retrofitted, to include EICAS - ECAM to alert and guide the pilots without the need for fumbling the unwieldy encyclopaedias of paper checklists...

No more 1960's Boeing excuses!


Only then we might fly safer?...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2131835 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30700
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2131846 - Posted: 30 Jan 2024, 6:44:00 UTC - in response to Message 2131835.  

This is where I feel strongly that ALL passenger aircraft must be fitted, and those in service retrofitted, to include EICAS - ECAM to alert and guide the pilots without the need for fumbling the unwieldy encyclopaedias of paper checklists...

EICAS message: Cabin Depress -> Upon completion of Memory items as shown on emergency card at 4-7 ...

Those emergency cards aren't huge, they are usually just a recitation of the memory items...
1) Don oxygen mask
2) Ensure oxygen flow
3) Make sure all flight deck personal have donned masks.
4) Pull handle to deploy masks for PAX (they should have automatically deployed)
5) Descend to 10000 feet within 10 minutes
6) Pick up with step 5-102-AP on page 382 in abnormal procedures

It is the last item, the page number, for the rest of the checklist that is the one forgotten.
ID: 2131846 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34983
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 2131847 - Posted: 30 Jan 2024, 6:50:46 UTC

ID: 2131847 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 722
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2131856 - Posted: 30 Jan 2024, 13:52:40 UTC - in response to Message 2131847.  

20 odd years of being run by bean counters instead of engineers.
I think bean counters are extremely important for each aircraft manufacturer. These ultra-complex products easily get too expensive... fewer sales... insufficient profits (e.g. history of Saab Aircraft, Fairchild, Dornier, ...). Were the bean counters the actual problem, or were it the greedy Boeing CEOs who over a decade pushed Boeing's market value (and their bonus) through extensive share buybacks? Were did they get all the money for this?
ID: 2131856 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19112
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2131866 - Posted: 31 Jan 2024, 1:55:20 UTC - in response to Message 2131856.  
Last modified: 31 Jan 2024, 1:55:50 UTC

20 odd years of being run by bean counters instead of engineers.
I think bean counters are extremely important for each aircraft manufacturer. These ultra-complex products easily get too expensive... fewer sales... insufficient profits (e.g. history of Saab Aircraft, Fairchild, Dornier, ...). Were the bean counters the actual problem, or were it the greedy Boeing CEOs who over a decade pushed Boeing's market value (and their bonus) through extensive share buybacks? Were did they get all the money for this?

Not as important as the engineers.
Money for the 707 and the 747 development and building would never have been available if today's been counters had been in charge.
Ergo no Boeing as we know it.
ID: 2131866 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30700
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2131876 - Posted: 31 Jan 2024, 5:26:19 UTC - in response to Message 2131847.  

20 odd years of being run by bean counters instead of engineers.
Wall Street Bean Counters -- never ever forget Boeing is a public company that must answer the fiduciary duty to the shareholder -- deem that designing new aircraft is far too expensive, so keep strapping new parts onto the 737 type certificate (supplemental type certificate) so we can keep selling aircraft. Then when the customers finally catch on and sales fall, find a buyer for the shell of a company, cash in and move on to the next Enron.
ID: 2131876 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 722
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2131897 - Posted: 31 Jan 2024, 13:40:03 UTC - in response to Message 2131876.  

Wall Street Bean Counters -- never ever forget Boeing is a public company that must answer the fiduciary duty to the shareholder -- deem that designing new aircraft is far too expensive, so keep strapping new parts onto the 737 type certificate (supplemental type certificate) so we can keep selling aircraft. Then when the customers finally catch on and sales fall, find a buyer for the shell of a company, cash in and move on to the next Enron.
That's okay for 'normal companies' competing on a 'regular market' if there are many (at least a dozen) other companies (e.g. the automotive industry). But there are only Airbus and Boeing, eventually the Chinese will join them (pushed by government money and control). So they all are too big to fail. Normally shareholders should understand they may get their money out of the 'shell of a company' but there's no 'next Enron' to move on. Instead they are going to abuse and kill a unicorn. Why don't they recognize this simple fact? I thought Wallstreet people or e.g. Blackrock guys are smart, intelligent people, aren't they? Or it is the very long time span after which decisions and investments turn out to be right or wrong? The greedy CEOs have long since retired until their misdeeds become apparent.

Somehow this duopoly requires an appropriate mix of liberal economic principles (shareholders, free market, no government interventions) and responsible large shareholders who are concerned about the sustainable, stable development of these unique companies and who do not aim at short-term profits, but at securing long-term market shares, jobs and value creation in many regions (e.g. Washington state, Kansas, ...). Therefore a state minority shareholder. To Anglo-Saxons this idea seems wrong, because governments or politicians can't be wiser than the market (this centuries old belief). But is this still true for such complex giants like Boeing or Airbus Industries?
ID: 2131897 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Dr Who Fan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jan 01
Posts: 3236
Credit: 715,342
RAC: 4
United States
Message 2131924 - Posted: 1 Feb 2024, 1:59:20 UTC

Don't count your chickens profits before they hatch >>>>
Boeing Shareholders Sue Following MAX 9 Blowout
... According to a proposed class action filed on Tuesday, Boeing spent more than four years after the Oct. 2018 and March 2019 crashes of two other MAX planes, which killed 346 people, assuring investors that it was "laser-focused" on safety and would not sacrifice safety for profit.

Shareholders said Boeing's statements were false and misleading because they concealed the "poor quality control" on its assembly line, and caused its stock price to be inflated.
ID: 2131924 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Dr Who Fan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jan 01
Posts: 3236
Credit: 715,342
RAC: 4
United States
Message 2131925 - Posted: 1 Feb 2024, 2:20:12 UTC

Boeing suspended its financial guidance and said it is focused solely on 'comprehensive actions' to improve the quality of its planes
Boeing suspended its financial forecast for 2024 as it reported its fourth-quarter earnings on Wednesday, amid scrutiny following the Alaska Airlines blowout.

"While we often use this time of year to share or update our financial and operational objectives, now is not the time for that," Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun said in a memo to employees.

"Our full focus is on taking comprehensive actions to strengthen quality at Boeing, including listening to input from our 737 employees that do this work every day," Calhoun said in a press release.

"As we move forward, we will support our customers, work transparently with our regulator and ensure we complete all actions to earn the confidence of our stakeholders," he added.

In the earnings report, Boeing said it "continues to cooperate transparently with the FAA following the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 accident."
ID: 2131925 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 722
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2131933 - Posted: 1 Feb 2024, 9:01:34 UTC
Last modified: 1 Feb 2024, 9:01:44 UTC

When will we hear this statement from Boeing's board? We are moving company's headquarters back to Everett (or at least Seattle). When will we hear, the Boeing board, the Boeing management is now present every day in the Boeing factories and at crucial subcontractors (e.g. Spirit Aerosystems), to understand the manufacturing process, to understand deficits on site, talking to workers, foremen, to discuss with engineers to improve the manufacturing process every day, to bring it back where it was until ~20 years ago: Boeing = top quality. When will we hear them explaining: It's serious, we need the combat dress: suits and ties are gone, now comfortable shoes and hard-wearing clothes are required, heading to the factories, up to the jet construction sites in Everett, Renton, Wichita...
ID: 2131933 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30700
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2131939 - Posted: 1 Feb 2024, 14:31:17 UTC - in response to Message 2131933.  

If you had bothered to read the last 20 years of letters to the shareholder you would understand that Boeing does not build airplanes. They just assemble parts. Wall Street has decided there is no profit in building things, but there is profit in assembling things. And there is more profit in revenue streams.
ID: 2131939 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22236
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2131944 - Posted: 1 Feb 2024, 16:36:09 UTC - in response to Message 2131939.  

For "assemble" read "screw-up".....
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2131944 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 722
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2131947 - Posted: 1 Feb 2024, 17:34:05 UTC - in response to Message 2131939.  

If you had bothered to read the last 20 years of letters to the shareholder you would understand that Boeing does not build airplanes. They just assemble parts. Wall Street has decided there is no profit in building things, but there is profit in assembling things. And there is more profit in revenue streams.
That's okay. Volkswagen did the same for two decades to maximize profits and its European market share in the automotive industry.

But Boeing totally screwed up the assembly process of their aircraft. It doesn't need rocket science to fix it.
ID: 2131947 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19112
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2131949 - Posted: 1 Feb 2024, 18:48:26 UTC - in response to Message 2131947.  

It doesn't need rocket science to fix it.

Probably not, but, do they have the skills and experience to fix it, just when the airlines are getting back to pre-covid schedules. A Reuters report today, Boeing 737 MAX crisis adds to high demand for older planes, with the spares and skills to keep those older planes flying safely, also in high demand.
ID: 2131949 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 . . . 38 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.