Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#21

Post by jschwartzi »

avalys wrote: post #13
gregoriol wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably are a developer, but engineering in life critical fields can't be reduced to cost efficiency.

I’m a developer and a pilot. I understand that cost is not the only factor. My frustration is, the attitude in the media today is to report negatively on every single instance they can find of Boeing trying to reduce costs as if that is a sin in itself, when it’s actually the most fundamental driver of improvement in the entire economy!

While I would agree with you in general, I hope in this case you can see how Boeing’s judgement can be called into question based on the terrible decisions they’ve made contemporary to the 777X development. And these are decisions that have cost lives. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume they’re just cheaping out and don’t really care about passenger safety when they have a track record of cheaping out and not considering passenger safety on the 737 MAX.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#22

Post by kortilla »

gregoriol wrote: post #10
avalys wrote: post #8

These articles are getting a little tiresome. Private enterprise is about competition and cost reduction. That’s what drives improvement, innovation, and efficiency, and it’s what differentiates private enterprise from government spending, which is about justifying why things need to be so expensive. Yes, Boeing was too aggressive about reducing cost to compete with Airbus and they need some major reform because hund…

You probably are a developer, but engineering in life critical fields can't be reduced to cost efficiency.

You probably aren’t an engineer, but reducing materials and simplifying design while ensuring you haven’t compromised things structurally is effectively the reason 95% of engineers exist.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#23

Post by thenewnewguy »

avalys wrote: post #8

These articles are getting a little tiresome. Private enterprise is about competition and cost reduction. That’s what drives improvement, innovation, and efficiency, and it’s what differentiates private enterprise from government spending, which is about justifying why things need to be so expensive. Yes, Boeing was too aggressive about reducing cost to compete with Airbus and they need some major reform because hund…

> Yes, Boeing was too aggressive about reducing cost to compete with Airbus and they need some major reform because hundreds of people are dead. But ...

"Yes, Boeing killed hundreds of people due to their negligence, but think of the cost savings!"

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#24

Post by kortilla »

jschwartzi wrote: post #21
avalys wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a developer and a pilot. I understand that cost is not the only factor. My frustration is, the attitude in the media today is to report negatively on every single instance they can find of Boeing trying to reduce costs as if that is a sin in itself, when it’s actually the most fundamental driver of improvement in the entire economy!

While I would agree with you in general, I hope in this case you can see how Boeing’s judgement can be called into question based on the terrible decisions they’ve made contemporary to the 777X development. And these are decisions that have cost lives. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume they’re just cheaping out and don’t really care about passenger safety when they have a track record of cheaping out and n…

The 737 MAX issue wasn’t Boeing cheaping our though. It was Boeing trying to avoid recertification so it was a drop in for existing 737 customers. In other words, Boeing was trying to target the airlines that cheap out and did something stupid to get there.

This wasn’t a quality problem. This is was a failure to recognize (or willful hiding) the importance of training pilots on MCAS.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#25

Post by Brave-Steak »

dehrmann wrote: post #3

That's a disingenuous headline (I blame the Telegraph). > In an email from June 2018, before the first Max crash, one Boeing worker wrote: “Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule.” > Another member of staff warns about a relentless cost focus... > Last September, the 777X suffered a setback when it failed a ground te…

I don't think it's a wrong characterization, imo. The problem with the MAX isn't necessarily the MCAS, but the culture and business/engineering processes that allowed MCAS to go all the way to production and allowed the company to convince their customers not to implement pilot training. There are multiple levels of failure beyond just MCAS being a thing, and the emails might suggest that (some of?) these systemic issues are also affecting the design of the 777x.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#26

Post by stopads »

dehrmann wrote: post #3

That's a disingenuous headline (I blame the Telegraph). > In an email from June 2018, before the first Max crash, one Boeing worker wrote: “Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule.” > Another member of staff warns about a relentless cost focus... > Last September, the 777X suffered a setback when it failed a ground te…

MCAS is the dumb bandaid they invented to save money on pilot retraining. Turns out that bandaid was so poorly built it killed people.

In the 777x It's not exact same software system, but the exact same "cheapest option on the menu every time" mindset that seems to be pervading Boeing and causing lots of problems.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#27

Post by kortilla »

texasbigdata wrote: post #17
shadow-banned wrote: post #6

Please, anyone let this be a lesson: you can destroy a brand that took decades to build in a matter of months.

The decision to launch a product and the immediate after process take a few months, but the entire product development process took years likely. Also....it makes me uncomfortable when news stations report "internal email says X". Like...a) if it's not a news outlet that's tech knowledgeable that's always scary b) let's say 5000 employees worked on this. 20x emails per day. 5 year period (10000 days). That is a lot o…

> documenting for posterity what they wanted to be in the record

The correct term is “re-iterate the talking points on the record to help shape the narrative”. It’s not for posterity, it’s for ass covering.

If all corporate emails were to become a matter of public record, they would be filled with PR-speak as well.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#28

Post by salawat »

dehrmann wrote: post #7
neuro_image3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still doesn’t fill me with reassurance about the safety of flying on one of these.

Cost cutting and aggressive timelines will always happen, and in a company as large as Boeing, someone will have made a comment like this about pretty much anything, so I have a really hard time telling if this is telling data or hindsight bias.

>Cost cutting and aggressive timelines will always happen, and in a company as large as Boeing, someone will have made a comment like this about pretty much anything, so I have a really hard time telling if this is telling data or hindsight bias.

Considering you accept that it's 100% certain it'll be be said it seems to be pretty telling data. I know we all laugh that management automatically fudges the numbers out of engineering, but mayhaps in Boeing's case the MBA logic of doing so is running into the issue of physics not being amenable to change just because management wants an earlier delivery date.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#29

Post by ReptileMan »

shadow-banned wrote: post #6

Please, anyone let this be a lesson: you can destroy a brand that took decades to build in a matter of months.

I wouldn't be too quick to write Boeing obituary just yet.

The way I don't think twitter mobs represents correctly the sentiments of the general population, I also don't think that online I will never fly boeing again will be with the same share in the real world.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#30

Post by yebyen »

Brave-Steak wrote: post #25
dehrmann wrote: post #3

That's a disingenuous headline (I blame the Telegraph). > In an email from June 2018, before the first Max crash, one Boeing worker wrote: “Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule.” > Another member of staff warns about a relentless cost focus... > Last September, the 777X suffered a setback when it failed a ground te…

I don't think it's a wrong characterization, imo. The problem with the MAX isn't necessarily the MCAS, but the culture and business/engineering processes that allowed MCAS to go all the way to production and allowed the company to convince their customers not to implement pilot training. There are multiple levels of failure beyond just MCAS being a thing, and the emails might suggest that (some of?) these systemic is…

Honestly, yes. I let my brain interpret the headline, "shares Max problem" and this is exactly what I thought it meant, before I clicked through.

As a non-aviation technologist, I initially thought it would be more surprising if the headline meant any of the specific technical failures that I've come to understand (like MCAS) which I've heard about through the ELI-5 and above coverage of the issues plaguing 737-MAX.

The root problem is the culture of disregard throughout many levels of decision making in an organization, such as Boeing has apparently demonstrated; the lack of regard for engineering quality and craftsmanship.

Edit: OK, here is another thread that has also made the HN front page with perhaps a more direct or less questionable title:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22090998

> Boeing's safety vs. cost-control culture may be what sent out fatal aircraft (cbc.ca)

Post reply on HN