Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by magtux 2610 days ago
I always had great respect for aerospace and thought they'd put safety above all else but seeing all this, Boeing seems like a fucking travesty.
3 comments

Boeing opened its South Carolina plant to avoid a unionized workforce, and that plant has been responsible for producing these horrific excuses they call airplanes. They had the benefit of a doubt before, but now it's clear that Boeing's leadership, like that of other public companies, values cheap labor over safety.
Things would change if there was accountability transferred all the way along the chain of command, and then the salaries C-level executives would certainly be much more warranted; the not just fines but hard jail time argument.
I'm pretty sure the 737 Max planes has been entirely assembled in Washington State, where the Boeing employees are unionized.
Perhaps, but the story is about 787s.
Southwest doesn't even fly the 787. The article never mentioned that plane.
I'm not sure how unions have any relations to this. They exist as a mediator between management and workers for pay and rights; customer satisfaction or safety is completely outside their domain
Unions give employees the knowledge and leverage to push back against unrealistic demands, deadlines, and cost-cutting measures without retaliation. These kinds of rushed solutions causing more problems down the line are caused by a culture that rewards employees who put up with managers breathing down their neck.
Irrelevant in this case, though. While concerns have indeed been raised about SC production quality, this particular story involves an engineering failure, not a production issue. Boeing engineers are unionized through SPEEA. They can bring the company to its knees at contract negotiation time, and they have done so in the past.
I disagree, it is also a production issue because:

"One whistleblower reported to the FAA that they had seen damage to the electrical wiring connected to the plane’s angle of attack sensor from a foreign object, which feeds data to the MCAS system so it can determine whether it needs to engage to prevent the plane from stalling. This wouldn’t be the first time Boeing’s manufacturing process reportedly had problems guarding plane components against foreign object debris produced by the fabrication process."

Stuff happens. The fact that damage to a single AOA sensor -- whether in the factory or in the field -- could cause this sort of event is strictly an engineering issue.
Another poster cited a small anecdote about a Boeing whistleblower:

> In another case, a whistleblower in charge of defective inventory found that some of the items marked defective were going missing and ending up installed on aircraft to meet production goals rather than wait for a proper replacement, the red paint marking them defective having been clumsily rubbed off.

In a unionized workforce, people are far more confident about pushing back on this sort of criminal bullshit, when their manager asks it of them. (Because getting rid of someone in a union shop requires a paper trail. And people making illegal demands hate, hate, hate paper trails.)

In a non-unionized workforce, the only recourse we, as the public have is to jail the line workers who scrubbed the paint, while their managers will quietly deny any wrongdoing (Of course we didn't suggest this sort of thing, of course we had no idea this was happening, of course we didn't pressure anyone into doing something so blatantly unethical, under express or implied threat of termination...)

We just told people that we need them to ship 100 parts, and waggled our eyelashes suggestively at a box labeled '100 defective parts'.

This is not a manufacturing issue. It is all on poor engineering and poor management making poor decisions.
Gosh, it's almost like corporate greed is ruining our country.
In South Carolina Boeing produces 787 Dreamliners. The 737 Max is produced in Washington.
It didn't always used to be this way - at one point Boeing delivered planes that were substantially safer than their competitors.

Moving the HQ to Chicago was a terrible idea. Companies like boeing should be managed by engineers not salespeople.

Companies like boeing should be managed by engineers not salespeople.

Dennis Muilenburg, the Boeing CEO, is an engineer.[0] And he apparently doesn't even have an MBA. It's hard to know exactly how and when he became seduced by the dark side.

Here's a summary (which I've posted before) of his egregiously bad behavior:

   Oct 29, 2018 Lion Air crash, 189 dead

   Nov 10, 2018 pilots already talking about Boeing
   emergency airworthiness directive related to MCAS[1]

   Mar 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crash kills 157

   Mar 11, 2019 Boeing CEO "confident in 737 MAX safety"[2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg

[1] https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614857-indonesian-aircra...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-boeing-ceo...

The last CEO, James McNerney, was some Yale B.A dude with a Harvard MBA. The 737 MAX is fruit of the poison tree.
It's hard to keep a mistress when she lives in the same city as your wife.
What does this even mean?

Boeing has one job - making airliners that don't fall out of the sky. People have been putting planes in the air for over 100 years, it should be getting safer and easier to do so each year but apparently not. Boeing is failing at their one job.

Former CEO Phil Condit opened the Chicago office at least in part so he could have his secretary/mistress shack up in a company provided apartment.
> thought they'd put safety above all else

The bottom line is always above all else. Or is it executive compensation? I always forget which is first.