Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#21

Post by Retric » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:21 PM UTC

markus_zhang wrote: post #18

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #5

I hate the "everything must be a profit center" MBA attitude. Boeing is a profitable company because they make machines that fly people from place to place safely and efficiently. Part of that is having training, support, service, replacement parts, sales, manufacturing, IT, R&D, and all the other things required to make things fly. It's easy to sit in a conference room and say "gee, IT hasn't made any money, instead…

That's what Capitalism does, to make as much money as possible. And it's up to the government to regulate them, and it failed to do so.

Boing has lost a lot of money on this, which capitalism should avoid no government intervention required.

Instead, this is not really capitalism at work but internal forces inside a giant organization. The risk reward calculation for internal management does not track the company’s overall risks vs reward resulting in company wide losses.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#22

Post by _23sd » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:27 PM UTC

mopsi wrote: post #19

markus_zhang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what Capitalism does, to make as much money as possible. And it's up to the government to regulate them, and it failed to do so.

> That's what Capitalism does Not so fast - scroll through it, to 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_accidents_and_inciden... Be sure to expand sub-articles.

What do you suggest is the cause that underlies poor aircraft design in both capitalism and not-capitalism then? The article you link is not very informative on this question since it is about an airline, not an aircraft manufacturer.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#23

Post by BelleOfTheBall » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:33 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #5

I hate the "everything must be a profit center" MBA attitude. Boeing is a profitable company because they make machines that fly people from place to place safely and efficiently. Part of that is having training, support, service, replacement parts, sales, manufacturing, IT, R&D, and all the other things required to make things fly. It's easy to sit in a conference room and say "gee, IT hasn't made any money, instead…

It feels crazy to me to see 'make training profitable'.

A) Not everything has to bring you a profit, jeez.

B) You know how you profit from training? By actually providing solid training to pilots who then fly your planes skillfully and don't crash and don't have any trouble landing. You not only get money from customers paying you for those pilots to fly them, you also save money by not getting sued into oblivion for your negligence.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#24

Post by chx » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

goldcd wrote: post #11

I've read a few stories, with different 'takes' on 'what went wrong' They're all obviously coloured by the sources/reporter as obviously (in this case) if your pilot/simulator was impacted by cost cuts, then you're going to pin those dead passengers on your pilot/simulator changes. I'm fine with that. I'd do the same myself. What scares me though, is that even now the story is still a pile of anecdotal tumble-weed. W…

> Boeing needs to try to own what it'll take to get their planes flying again.

I think they will need to meet the EASA at the Canossa Castle so to speak for that plane to fly again. The FAA so completely screwed up the EASA won't trust a word from them for a very, very long while -- not only did they let Boeing effectively certify their own plane but when the fertilizer hit the circular cooling device and the EASA served them a face saving opportunity by not issuing an EU wide grounding order immediately but individual member countries, one by one, banned the plane from their airspace without grounding them. And the FAA didn't budge! Finally the EASA said, fine, the 737 MAX is grounded. And now all the trust and goodwill carefully built between the two authorities is all gone. Getting the MAX flying again in the USA is one thing, getting it through the EASA after this will be an entire different matter...

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#25

Post by nmfert » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:40 PM UTC

Initially thought that this said they were trying to make trains profitable.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#26

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:42 PM UTC

petilon wrote: post #13

MaupitiBlue wrote: post #7

I'm sorry, but what does squeezing jobs have to do with: 1. Drive MCAS with only one AOA sensor. 2. Don't tell MCAS to look for (or even think about) bad AOA data or AOA disagreements. 3. Equip airplane with two AOA sensors as usual, but make the AOA disagree warning light a "value added option" that customers have to pay extra for. 4. Don't actually bother to tell pilots that they don't have AOA disagree warning lig…

You missed the big one that even made MCAS necessary: 0. Reposition the engine forward on the wing such that the airframe is inherently unstable and needs software for stabilization.

The airframe is not unstable. It exhibits positive longitudinal aerodynamic stability. It’s positively but insufficiently stable to meet certification requirements, which is what required them to add MCAS.

MCAS is nowhere near fast enough to compensate if the Max were actually unstable.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#27

Post by colonwqbang » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:42 PM UTC

yummypaint wrote: post #8

fzeroracer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to keep in mind for these companies keeping the customer happy is not the intent. It's merely a coincidental side effect of any potential profit seeking they do. The only people they really care about and are accountable to are the shareholders and investors. And they want infinite profit at the sake of everything else. If you want to solve this problem then you need to remove them from the equation entirely…

All publicity traded companies are the same. The only distinction is the means they use to make money at first. Making money is the only goal, and shareholders demand growth quarter over quarter. This is why the fate of successful public companies is to become broader in scope while leveraging anti-competitive practices. The possible end results are either that the company is killed off, or that it effectively become…

Blaming the share holders for something like this is a bit weak.

Share holders of a big, established company want long-term and stable profit. Short-term profit at the cost of increased risk is not something that share holders of a company like Boeing are looking for.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#28

Post by goldcd » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:48 PM UTC

chx wrote: post #24

goldcd wrote: post #11

I've read a few stories, with different 'takes' on 'what went wrong' They're all obviously coloured by the sources/reporter as obviously (in this case) if your pilot/simulator was impacted by cost cuts, then you're going to pin those dead passengers on your pilot/simulator changes. I'm fine with that. I'd do the same myself. What scares me though, is that even now the story is still a pile of anecdotal tumble-weed. W…

> Boeing needs to try to own what it'll take to get their planes flying again. I think they will need to meet the EASA at the Canossa Castle so to speak for that plane to fly again. The FAA so completely screwed up the EASA won't trust a word from them for a very, very long while -- not only did they let Boeing effectively certify their own plane but when the fertilizer hit the circular cooling device and the EASA se…

You're right. Every criticism Boeing needs to sort out, also needs to be handled by the FAA.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#29

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:56 PM UTC

colonwqbang wrote: post #27

yummypaint wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All publicity traded companies are the same. The only distinction is the means they use to make money at first. Making money is the only goal, and shareholders demand growth quarter over quarter. This is why the fate of successful public companies is to become broader in scope while leveraging anti-competitive practices. The possible end results are either that the company is killed off, or that it effectively become…

Blaming the share holders for something like this is a bit weak. Share holders of a big, established company want long-term and stable profit. Short-term profit at the cost of increased risk is not something that share holders of a company like Boeing are looking for.

In theory they should want that, but if the company spends money on preparing for the future and its profits decline as a result, then the share price drops. The incentives aren't there.

Re: Boeing push to make training profitable may have left 737 Max pilots unprepared

#30

Post by Spooky23 » Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 11:57 PM UTC

colonwqbang wrote: post #27

yummypaint wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All publicity traded companies are the same. The only distinction is the means they use to make money at first. Making money is the only goal, and shareholders demand growth quarter over quarter. This is why the fate of successful public companies is to become broader in scope while leveraging anti-competitive practices. The possible end results are either that the company is killed off, or that it effectively become…

Blaming the share holders for something like this is a bit weak. Share holders of a big, established company want long-term and stable profit. Short-term profit at the cost of increased risk is not something that share holders of a company like Boeing are looking for.

Shareholders are the strawmen used to justify what passes for modern business philosophy.

There’s an almost religious belief in whatever keeps the analysts happy this quarter is the right move. While this is done in the name of the shareholder, it happens to align with the compensation of the managers and directors making that decision.

I see Boeing as a defense/aerospace version of HP, GE, or IBM. In the case of Boeing, management went so far as to move a couple of thousand miles from most of the company. All of these firms chose to put themselves on the path to decline, and did so in a way obvious to anyone who looked closely.