Live data from Hacker News

Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

channelnewsasia.com

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#71

Right now any bad news related to a 737 is fatal to the brand, regardless of how common or uncommon the incident may be.

Or the opposite. Now people will become desensitized and assume it's just more clickbait.

I think you underestimate how many people hold a dim view of (nu)boeing

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#72
post #36
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fuck the investors, they're literally killing people epitaph of the new century. from water that makes your teeth black to illegal drug trials in poor countries. corporations are amoral by design and we have to assume they will do literally anything to make a buck.

>from water that makes your teeth black ???

Fluoride is known to discolour teeth; also, inactive dental caries will turn dark, and most dentists will jump at the opportunity to drill that shit out.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#73
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing made a business decision to brand a new model as a "737". They wanted to trade of the reputation of the 737. Instead they tarnished it.

Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing, supplier management and quality insurance. There is nothing to funny about any of that.

> The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training.

I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#74

The plane in question was JA56AN [0], which according to PlaneSpotters.net was delivered in June 2009 [1]. Forbes [2] indicates that the service life of a fight deck window is ten years (it's not clear if that applies to the windshield as well as passenger windows)—if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately. Unfortunately for Boeing it doesn…

[deleted]

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#75
post #2

This is one of those stories that wouldn't be noticed if not for the attention on anything Boeing related right now. Instead it's near the top of the front-page. This hyper selective attention is very bad. It leads to all kinds of wrong inference about the background frequency of events, because suddenly when under the microscope we notice all kinds of things that would have previously gone unnoticed.

Even if it normally wouldn't be news, given the shitshow that the MAX is and how they're now trying to get MAX-10 certified, this might be a case of the media being a functionally broken clock.

The FAA should have hell to pay if they certify it and this will put pressure on them, as at the end of the day they answer to the American public, even if boeing only answers to shareholders.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why the service life is relevant here, unless ANA wasn't maintaining their planes properly which I doubt is the case given the reputation of this airline.

I included it because in theory it shows that the windshield was either overdue for replacement or it wasn't an original windshield, so it's not evidence of failure on Boeing's part in the initial manufacture of the plane. Admittedly, I don't know much about how maintenance works for these planes, so there could be something I'm missing.

I'd wait with any judgment until the inevitable investigation has run its course because there are just as many ways in which it could be a Boeing issue as there are ways in which it can't. Anything specific about this failure is right now mostly speculation. Also, and maybe surprisingly to some, cracked cockpit windows are not a big deal as long as they stay in place until the landing because they are multi-layered and ridiculously strong to begin with.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#77
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it doesn't remind us all of the ill fated JL123 flight...

Reading the wikipedia page on that one is horrific.

For the curious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_Flight_123

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#78
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing made a business decision to brand a new model as a "737". They wanted to trade of the reputation of the 737. Instead they tarnished it.

Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing, supplier management and quality insurance. There is nothing to funny about any of that.

they kept the 737 branding to indicate backwards compatibility with existing jetways so airlines wouldn't need to upgrade other equipment.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, the hyper focus on Boeing might result in some actual change instead of more of the same as before. Perhaps a little of the stick to contrast with the carrot?

I wholeheartedly agree. They need to get an aerospace engineer back at CEO and not some MBA optimizing for quarterly reports. People are absolutely dying because of an incoherent understanding of the value chain. The decision to outsource may please Wall Street for three months but it certainly hurts the brand in the long term. Boeing is in the business of R&D and production. That’s their value add. Fuck the investor…

Perhaps the government should create a fund which guarantees a hefty reward for whistleblowers on aviation companies/airlines, enough that they don't need to fear for their own livelihood and can effectively retire without loss of income if they expose something significant.

Apparently AF261 had a whistleblower who had to sue in court for damages. That's not correct, that's not how this should be done.

Post reply on HN