More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback • Hacker News Board

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#191

Post by mschuster91 » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 5:48 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #179

mschuster91 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They either have the war chest or the financial backing to pull that off without an immediate price increase or they’re toast. Boeing has gotten Too Big To Fail, way too much military/space contracts. The US government can't let them fail because then the only remaining space capability would be SpaceX who can't fulfil everything (and is under control of an increasingly erratic billionaire). What should happen is t…

When was the last time you remember the USG nationalizing a large corporation?

Forbes has a handy list for banks [1], that were usually nationalized, cleared up and the remains sold off. There was an article detailing the practice here on HN a year or so ago, but I can't find it at the moment - it was around the time of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse I think.

Additionally, after 2001 airlines were bailed out, and in the wake of 2008ff car makers and more banks [2].

[1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/list-of-failed-banks/

[2] https://thenextsystem.org/history-of-nationalization-in-the-...

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#192

Post by philip1209 » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 5:48 PM UTC

I haven't fully thought through this, but -

Why can't regulators try splitting Boeing up, anti-trust style? Part of the issue is that there's no competition. (Yes, Airbus, but tariffs seem to factor into purchasing decisions a lot.) If you create more competition, everybody should benefit.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#193

Post by bbojan » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #112

randmeerkat wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk is an interesting standards bearer for sanity. Think what you will about Musk, but SpaceX has completely revolutionized space travel and will be in the history books a hundred years from now.

Boeing will be as well for the 737 Max, in the history books that is. And so far, Space X only got more junk up to places we already did junk up to before. SpaceX ahs yet to get us some place we haven't been in space, or at the very least one we have not been to in a long time. By themselves, if they deliver portions of the mission equipment they are a supplier like everyone else. SpaceX achieved impressive things, t…

> SpaceX ahs yet to get us some place we haven't been in space, or at the very least one we have not been to in a long time.

It got us to a place where the cost of a rocket launch is 10 times less than it was before, and soon it will get us to 100 times less. It's just a matter of time that this is leveraged to bring us to new physical places.

> And equalizing SpaceX successes with Musk a person does way more than just rub me the wrong way.

He is the person that single-handedly made the decision to start a rocket company, decided on the initial architecture, hired the key people and finance the whole operation.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#194

Post by stouset » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

nottorp wrote: post #119

stouset wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is irrational. Since November 2001, there has been one death aboard a major airline operating in the U.S.[1]. That was a Southwest flight where an entire engine self-destructed. It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did. You might choose to include one more. An Asiana flight tumbled end over end after arriving short at SFO. Everyone survived the crash, but a passenger was killed when an eme…

The stereotypical American that is unaware there is a world outside their borders seems to actually exist :)

If I was unaware of a world outside American borders, I would not have explicitly excluded it.

I make no claims regarding the safety of airlines operating in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. I don't think the safety records of those airlines are particularly relevant to the majority of those on HN nor to the manufacturers of the airplanes they operate (and which are frequently barely maintained).

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#195

Post by margalabargala » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 5:52 PM UTC

flaminHotSpeedo wrote: post #56

This title is extremely misleading, to the point of being factually incorrect. Boeing didn't find the fault, Spirit did and notified Boeing, and the problem only affects undelivered fuselages.

> the problem only affects undelivered fuselages

The problem has only been observed on undelivered fuselages, because those are the ones that Spirit has on-hand to check. They are not confident the problem is absent in delivered aircraft.

You could also say, "the problem affects all of the delivered aircraft that have been checked for the problem".

From another article:

> As of Friday, the "non-conformance" or quality defect had been found in 22 fuselages out of 47 inspected up to that point, spread between Boeing and Spirit, and may exist in some 737s in service, the sources said.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-boeing-delays-73...

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#196

Post by rabf » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #108

randmeerkat wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk is an interesting standards bearer for sanity. Think what you will about Musk, but SpaceX has completely revolutionized space travel and will be in the history books a hundred years from now.

And dozens of his projects have utterly failed. Remember The Boring Company? Hyperloop? The-site-formerlly-and-forever-known-as-Twitter-until-Musk-ruined-it? Throw an unlimited supply of darts and you're going to get a few bulleyes. Doesn't make you the worlds greatest dart's player.

The Boring Company is still very much alive.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#197

Post by lrem » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 5:56 PM UTC

avalys wrote: post #68

spamizbad wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think having an engineer as a leader is some golden ticket to success. Its ultimately what ruined Nortel for example.

Selecting an engineer doesn’t absolve the board of the responsibility to choose the right guy. There are incompetent engineers, unethical engineers and there are engineers who are bad leaders. But an accountant as CEO is not going to restore a culture of engineering excellence.

Why? The CEO of a company this big, no matter their background, has no business building an intimate understanding of the tech. They’re there to set up an incentive system to further the goals of their choosing. Neither seems to call for deep understanding of neither. And no background absolves a CEO from building a surface understanding of all aspects of running the business.

TBF, from my experience with VPs, technical background might be a hindrance to executives. The guy who used to work on databases worries about persistence, even though nobody raised that issue. Networking background? Oh well, good that I know why we put this many bits into this field, despite it only needs a couple bytes and we can afford megabytes. Sure, they know their job enough to leave enough time for the actual question. I even understand why they first interrogate the room about some arbitrary cog in the machine. Still makes me wonder if there aren’t better ways to do this.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#198

Post by craig_s_bell » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 6:02 PM UTC

stouset wrote: post #18

user3939382 wrote: post #4

This is to the point where, although it's irrational but I know statistically I'd be fine, I'd be scared to fly on any new generation Boeing.

It is irrational. Since November 2001, there has been one death aboard a major airline operating in the U.S.[1]. That was a Southwest flight where an entire engine self-destructed. It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did. You might choose to include one more. An Asiana flight tumbled end over end after arriving short at SFO. Everyone survived the crash, but a passenger was killed when an eme…

There were a total of three fatalities resulting from Asiana 214. Two passengers died onboard, as a direct consequence of the crash.

As for the third, it was later speculated that they could possibly have already died before encountering airport fire and rescue vehicles. This is still controversial; it is also possible that the original sequence of events was correct.

The primary cause of the crash was a profound lack of airmanship by the flight-deck crew. There was also some mode confusion with the autopilot and autothrottle; however they should have overcome this using fundamental aviation skills. Nobody was minding the actual throttle state.

Either way, it is worth noting the other two fatalities. Thank you.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#199

Post by BenoitP » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 6:03 PM UTC

BoxFour wrote: post #13

Workaccount2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing needs to dump the CEO and install someone from an engineering lineage if they want to build their reputation back. An engineering company run by a longtime manager with a background in accounting is in large part how Boeing got here. Fire the guy and get someone with a technical background in there.

Like this guy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Muilenburg

I've read that he was the token engineer in the see of accountants, MBAs and consultants.

Cultural change goes much deeper than changing the CEO. Boeing might not be salvageable on the cheap side. Decapitating the company at levels 1-4 may not even be enough. It may require acknowledging that changing the flight envelope and software-patching it was a mistake.

This is a major can of worms on itself. This means a plane redesign, 6-8 years delay, and probably another round of WTO-unfriendly subsidy.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#200

Post by 7952 » Mon, Feb 05, 2024, 6:07 PM UTC

randmeerkat wrote: post #77

TylerE wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building airplanes it a bit like running a restaurant... it's a business no sane person would willingly go in to.

> Building airplanes it a bit like running a restaurant... it's a business no sane person would willingly go in to. Other people with a similar perspective about rockets tried to convince Musk that as well. Thankfully he didn’t listen. You’re never going to realize gains that surpass the return on the S&P if you don’t take risks in business.

Maybe the secret sauce is to not build a rocket company at all. You build a Mars Exploration company that gives people a purpose and objective beyond just money. A company where quality/efficiency/price have a direct benefit to a broader mission.