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

41–50 of 84 posts

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

#41

Post by comfymatrix »

gsnedders wrote: post #12
riffraff wrote: post #2

Have airlines cancelled orders of the 737 Max? If yes the will they be canceling orders of this one too?

> Have airlines cancelled orders of the 737 Max? Yes. (Though IAG did agree a letter of intent—not an actual order, though—with Boeing for 200 aircraft. It was rumoured this was the biggest discount seen in the aviation world since Ryanair's large post-9/11 order.) > If yes the will they be canceling orders of this one too? Probably not? The 777X will be looked at incredibly closely prior to certification, and doesn'…

> The 777X will be looked at incredibly closely prior to certification

One would hope so...

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

#42

Post by z3ncyberpunk »

mhandley wrote: post #37
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…

The parts about supplies completely ruin your simulator argument

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

#43

Post by cryptonector »

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…

The process from the first MAX crash to decertification of all MAX aircraft was a few months. Boeing made all the wrong decisions in that period of time. Other companies have handled crises much better. I think GP is referring to this.

It's one very bad thing to have allowed shoddy engineering and all the other failures on the way to the MAX, and quite another much worse thing to then also stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is ok when the shoddy engineering kills people.

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

#44

Post by CrazyStat »

crdoconnor wrote: post #38
dehrmann wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the current safety record of the 737 Max (2 crashes out of ~half a million flights), if you flew on one every day for the next 50 years there's about a 7% chance that you'd be in a crash. This is ignoring any improvements that might be made--to the plane itself or to pilots' knowledge and training--before it's allowed back into service.

If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, it's a fraction of a percent chance.

Boeing's behavior was very poor and they have been rightfully taken to task for it. Aviation safety standards are incredibly high and the 737 Max didn't live up to those standards. The focus on cost cutting, selling critical redundant sensors as an upgrade to milk a little more cash out of buyers, mocking customers who wanted simulator training for their pilots, and more are all indicative of a bad corporate culture.

But the 737 Max is still a very safe plane. I have no qualms about flying on it.

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

#45

Post by Retric »

z3ncyberpunk wrote: post #42
mhandley wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The parts about supplies completely ruin your simulator argument

So you have specifics? Because aircraft simulators are complex machines not just software.

Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7iSlqpIHpw

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

#46

Post by craigharley »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #36

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.

It’s all because of card fees. It’s not economical to charge $0.5

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

#47

Post by userbinator »

It's not just planes; I've noticed a lot of things seem to get better over time, then take a nosedive (pun not intended). I wonder if it's an inherent property of systems to do this, or if it's the result of some perverse incentives to have "progress" at all costs.

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

#48

Post by Numberwang »

craigharley wrote: post #46
gordon_freeman wrote: post #36

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.

It’s all because of card fees. It’s not economical to charge $0.5

what about cybercoins or bitdongles?

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

#49

Post by notatoad »

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…

the problem with the max is that it has a tendency to crash. everything else is just a cause or symptom of that problem. If the 777X isn't going to crash, then it doesn't share the same problem.

when planes operate properly, nobody cares what business or engineering practices allowed that.

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

#50

Post by jiofih »

craigharley wrote: post #46
gordon_freeman wrote: post #36

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.

It’s all because of card fees. It’s not economical to charge $0.5

That “problem” has been solved two decades ago. In the EU debt reins, with zero fees, and there are dozens of micro-payments systems operating all over the world. Isn’t Venmo big in the US?
Post reply on HN