Live data from Hacker News

Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

reuters.com

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#61
post #5

It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.

Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Have you ever met a customer?

We have a lot of them where I live. They're always in the stores and restaurants trying to get stuff. I mostly shop online so I don't run into too many of them, which is nice.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#62

I'm not sure there exists a more complex set of requirements for paint than for aircraft. Extreme cold to surface temperatures, the requirement to flex with adhered surfaces without cracking, plus the desire for a paint job to last for years. It looks like conductivity is also desired, to some degree, to help the metal surfaces dissipate lightning.

>I'm not sure there exists a more complex set of requirements for paint than for aircraft. Extreme cold to surface temperatures, the requirement to flex with adhered surfaces without cracking, plus the desire for a paint job to last for years. That's basically a walk in the park compared to anything that needs to deal with unearthly temperatures and harsh chemicals at the same time. Furthermore, air (and airborne wat…

I really liked the old American Airlines scheme where they just didn't paint the airplane. It was beautiful.

But in the modern age, if you need a metal mesh around a carbon fiber fuselage then not painting the airplane is probably not an option. Sad.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#63
post #5

It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.

It’s because of trust and money. Saying something is wrong is very expensive in this business, in outright money to fix (hundreds of millions - or more if this is fleet wide) and in public perception (“A350 is unsafe!”).

Much easier to water down the issue and turn it to a mutual blame game.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#64
post #16

Wow. People were speculating that this was a ruse by Qatar to get out of contracts with Airbus. After seeing the images, that's no ruse. And that appears to be a bit more than "cosmetic".

Feedback from Qatar is always taken with a grain of salt given the long history of Akbar Al Baker using fallacious pretexts to engage in ruthless contractual fights.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#65
post #2

Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…

Well at least carbon fiber composites are not new, used in Formula 1 probably when most posters here weren't born. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_MP4/1

Ha ha, I was a teenager.

Formula 1 though were never looking for 50-year integrity for their cars. While your example establishes the beginning of the use of carbon fiber, it seems otherwise orthogonal to its present use in commercial aircraft.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#66
post #26
post #5

It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.

>Whatever happened to the customer is always right? That never made it to Europe to begin with.

Ans that's very good. Customers are wrong most if the time really, so it's generally better to have honest service providers that aren't bending to ridiculous customer demands.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#67
post #5

It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.

>Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly.

The lesson the public repeatedly teaches to MBA types is that the narrative matters more than reality. It makes complete business sense to blame the customer.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#68
looking at that mesh over carbon skin it is really hard to imagine how any paint can adhere long term there given the flight conditions, temp changes ,vibration, etc. Went out of curiosity to check out how Boeing solves the issue on 787 and voila, Boeing didn't disappoint :

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-removed-lightning-str...

"Boeing removed a feature that protects its 787 planes during lightning strikes as a cost-cutting measure, even after FAA experts objected"

Mind you, that is 2019, after the 737 MAX crashes, it is like the 787 department just didn't get the memo. Or may be there weren't any memo inside Boeing.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing also initially blamed pilots for 737 MAX crashes, until too many of them crashed, the regulators caught up and grounded the planes, and forced them to take responsibility. It seems like shifting the blame is the norm in the airline industry. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-16/are-boein...

I thought Boeing blamed it on a combination of poor maintenance practices by the relevant airlines, poor handling and response to inflight error messages and maintenance requests on previous flights that left the issue unaddressed, and then weaknesses on the pilot side during the accident flights? I personally think they went a bit overboard with the revised procedure memory items.

I am no expert, but I remember the main culprit was that Boeing had insisted no further training is required for pilots to avoid some sort of expensive recertification. Weakness of pilots was the direct result of this. Pilots having experience with previous 737 planes were told in no uncertain terms that they can fly this new plane the exact same as the previous one and no further training or testing is required or even available. They did just that, but actions which would have saved the plane in previous generations ensured its crash in the MAX generation.

And Boeing had the audacity of blaming the pilots when they inevitably died in crashes.

> In vivid detail, the documentary pieces together what Boeing knew about the potential for disaster with the 737 Max and when the company knew it. Pasternak says in the film that in 2012, a “Boeing test pilot was flying the MAX in a flight simulator and trying to respond to an activation of MCAS, and that resulted in what he described as a catastrophic event. It showed that if that had been in real life, he [could] have lost the airplane. They realize from that moment on, even a Boeing test pilot may have trouble responding to MCAS.”

> Yet internal communications explored in the film show that Boeing was determined to maintain the status quo: avoiding potential scrutiny by the Federal Aviation Administration that would add costs; keeping new simulator training for pilots to a minimum; and even requesting that MCAS be removed from pilot training manuals.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/video-clip-boeing...

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#70
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Marshall Field, the man who coined that phrase, went out of business. His department store got eaten by Macy's.

Marshall Field died in 1906. Marshall Field's was an independent public company from 1930 until 1982.

OK, fine...

Marshall Field's, the company founded by the man who coined that phrase and which used it as a slogan and marketing campaign for decades, went out of business. It eventually got eaten by Macy's.

Happy?

Post reply on HN