Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’ • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by apta » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

texasbigdata wrote: post #20

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!

It's hard emotionally. Most of us buy close to the cheapest flight right? Almost exclusively? Like it's a commodity service in a capital intensive industry which cyclical patterns of bankruptcy. I knew a guy at BCG/McKinsey/Bain who only did airline consulting and it seems like a particular tough industry even if fuel costs didnt move all over the place. At the same time obviously no one wants to cut a corner and cau…

If tickets weren't cheap, people would just be flying less, and it would be relegated to things like business trips and what not. Low prices should never be the end goal at the expense of things like safety. However, capitalism says otherwise.

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

#32

Post by yk » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:29 PM UTC

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…

Yes, they try to imply that the 'Max problem' in the headline is the MCAS. We can conclude that with some certainty, because the headline is quite awkwardly written, to fit the quote in there. (However, it is of course entirely correct as written.)

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

#33

Post by salawat » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #27

texasbigdata wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't PR speak when you just tell the truth in an email and don't let management bully you into not saying what needs to be said to prop up their take on it.

It can end up a bit dangerous, because they'll be more than happy to drag you through the mud in court to try to discredit you, but a lot of people kinda expect that anyway.

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

#34

Post by jonplackett » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #14

jonplackett wrote: post #4

I can’t read the whole article because of the paywall. But from the lead in it doesn’t look like it really is ‘the same issues’ as in problems with a lack of redundant sensor and overly aggressive correction due to engines that are too big. Anyone whose read the whole thing care to correct me?

The sensors and correction are a symptom of the issue at Boeing, which is an aggressive pursuit of profit over safety.

That's not the same as being the same issue. Issue implies something more specific.

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

#35

Post by __m » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

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!

How do you know whether someone is a pilot? Don’t worry they’ll tell you.

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

#36

Post by gordon_freeman » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

On another note: I just wish if every website would charge based on pay-per-read (e.g. $0.50/article) instead of forcing me to register or start a free trial or pay for a monthly subscription.

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

#37

Post by mhandley » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

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 read though all these emails and chat messages when they were first released. I'm pretty sure that those particular email quotes were from people working on developing the 737 Max simulator, not the aircraft itself. So maybe the 777X simulator program will have similar problems, but this doesn't necessarily mean the aircraft itself will. I don't have much confidence in Boeing at this point, but this does seem like scaremongering.

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

#38

Post by crdoconnor » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

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.

China's approach with its 737MAX competitor, has, ironically been the exact opposite of this. Their fear wasn't getting the price low enough to satisfy shareholders but not getting the airline approved by US and European regulators.

I was dubious before the crashes but after Boeing's reaction to the crashes I'm fairly sure I'd feel safer on their planes than Boeing's.

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

#39

Post by salawat » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

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!

Boeing isn't getting trashed because they're reducing costs, they're getting trashed because of how they are reducing costs.

Winning means jack shit if you're cheating or transmuting The cost into something that doesn't reflect on the balance scorekeeping..

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

#40

Post by Edman274 » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

thenewnewguy wrote: post #23

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!"

This sounds like Cave Johnson from Portal 2.

"All these spheres are made of asbestos, by the way. Keeps out the rats. Let us know if you feel a shortness of breath, a persistent dry cough, or your heart stopping. Because that's not part of the test: that's asbestos. Good news is, the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show a median latency of 44.6 years, so if you're 30 or older, you're laughing. Worst case scenario, you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into a calculator, it makes a happy face."