Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 454 posts

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#321

Post by CamperBob2 »

hef19898 wrote: post #102
NoboruWataya wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was arguably under Muilenberg, an engineer, that many of the current issues with Boeing's culture were either created or allowed to flourish. I think it is "frequently framed" as an engineers-vs-accountants thing by engineers or others who like to think that STEM people can do no wrong.

I am an engineee of sorts, and have zero illusions about the shit engineers can cause, and do.

Exactly. If ordered to do so, a good engineer will be better at cutting costs to the bone than the greatest MBA.

It sounds like Boeing has mastered the art of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntzing ... at 30,000 feet.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#322

Post by kelnos »

denton-scratch wrote: post #171
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.

I don't buy the oft-repeated claim that you can re-make a company simply by replacing the CEO. I don't believe that CEOs in large companies have much influence on the company's direction, except in terms of decisions to downsize/outsource, how to use money, and who's on the board. There's only so much one person can do (and accordingly, I think all big-company CEOs are vastly overpaid). Moving the deckchairs in the b…

Company culture is a top-down sort of thing.

Take a simpler thing: if a new CEO sets an example of taking a decent amount of time off and promoting that as what people should be doing, because they value mental health, then that will gradually trickle down into upper and middle management, and down to the rank-and-file.

Management types who resist that will be replaced or marginalized, because this aspect of culture matters to the CEO and this is something they want to promote. It won't happen overnight, but ultimately management will be filled with people who are taking solid amounts of vacation and push their reports to do the same.

A CEO that wants to push an engineering-first/safety-first culture will be firing executives and management types that try to hide problems or push through things that don't meet the quality bar that the CEO is looking for. This sort of shift will not happen overnight. It can take years. Whether or not a company like Boeing can survive this sort of change, and if they even have years left to make that change, is another question, of course.

But I argue the opposite: the CEO (critically, with the unwavering support of the board, which requires the support of shareholders) is the only person who can make this sort of shift.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#323

Post by _ea1k »

tomp wrote: post #296
mayneack wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, in "Flying Blind", the book written about the first round of 737 max issues, the author has a pretty negative outlook on Calhoun as being mostly aligned with Muilenburg. > Robison, however, finds little reason for optimism. While Boeing has now accepted responsibility for one of the crashes as part of a settlement, no one at the company besides Forkner has been charged with a crime. Muilenburg wa…

Can ELI5 why do investors (owners of the company) accept CEO's pay packages that involve golden parachutes? It doesn't make sense to me (I mean, it might in case of offensive takeovers, but who's gonna take over Boeing?!)

Because both the CEO and the board recognize that he might need to be the designated scapegoat in a future failure.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#324

Post by kelnos »

denton-scratch wrote: post #263
twh270 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't "re-make" a company by replacing the CEO/CxO, but I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the influence of the c-suite either. What they care about and talk about filters down, often through unofficial channels of communication, and it does have an impact on how front-line employees do their work. Of course, this does take time and often involves some changes in management as well.

I've been watching the Post Office Horizon Inquiry sessions, and reading transcripts. From what I've seen, a completely new board would have no noticeable effect on the PO; they'd have to remove most of the management. It looks as if the company ethos is driven by line management. Well, that really means tearing the company up completely. I can't see how a new board could effect reform. And replacing all the middle m…

If replacing all of middle management to effect an essential change will destroy a company, then that company maybe needs to be destroyed.

Because that's how the CEO makes big change happen: management -- from the C-suite down to line managers -- needs to get on board with that change. If they refuse, they get fired and are replaced by people who will carry out the change. If this process will take too long to save the company, then... again, maybe the company needs to fail.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#325

Post by tivert »

AaronM wrote: post #248
Syonyk wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? The CEO of a company this big, no matter their background, has no business building an intimate understanding of the tech. This is certainly a point of contention in modern schools of business thought, but the concept of a CEO who doesn't understand what the company builds is bizarre to me. The CEO of Boeing, IMO, should probably have aircraft engineering experience, and, ideally, also be a pilot with the suit…

Does the CEO need to know these things? I would argue no. What needs to happen is the CEO needs to listen and trust the technical people that report to him. There is a misalignment of priorities that will never be fixed as long as the primary incentive for the CEO is to maximize shareholder value. If you remove that, and force the primary incentiven to be safety over profits, the rest of the business will follow.

> Does the CEO need to know these things? I would argue no. What needs to happen is the CEO needs to listen and trust the technical people that report to him.

He should probably know enough to sense if the people who report to him are talking nonsense or not, and to properly weigh what they say.

I mean, what's going to happen if two technical leaders have a disagreement, and all he knows is how to count beans? How could someone with that background make an effective decision in that context?

People also tend to fall back on what they know in unfamiliar circumstances, and I don't think you want an aircraft-manufacturer CEO falling back on picking the "cheapest option" and accepting am unappreciated safety risk in the process.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#326

Post by _ea1k »

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.

Two of those three are operating and possibly even growing. The other was thrown out for others to pursue rather than Musk companies.

Surely there are better examples of failures than these? Personally, I would have focused on "FSD". That one has been a huge debacle with a lot of potential to get worse.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#327

Post by abtinf »

rossdavidh wrote: post #313
abtinf wrote: post #105

I happen to have quite a bit of first-hand knowledge about aerospace rivets. AMA.

Your best guess: if we checked closely for this sort of thing on Airbus planes, would it be found? I'm guessing not, but then I'm wondering if I'm naive.

The article is light on details, only stating: "...a worker at a Boeing supplier flagged that two holes in the plane’s fuselage may not exactly meet specifications."

This statement is missing the information needed to grasp the seriousness of the issue. For example, if 100% of holes inspected (very unlikely), then 2 nonconforming holes out of hundreds of thousands of rivet holes on large craft might be acceptable and possibly even within acceptable quality limits; however, if the inspection plan calls for random sampling of two holes anywhere on the fuselage, and both of them happen to be nonconforming... not good.

Non-conforming rivet holes may have many underlying causes. Even if they are missed during panel fabrication, a nonconforming hole is likely to cause a rivet installation failure, which are likely to be caught by downstream quality control processes.

If by "closely", you mean "check every single rivet hole on a large commercial aircraft", you are going to quickly discover just how difficult this problem is. The tolerances are extremely tight, the holes are very small, and you are often actually dealing with multiple holes and sealant layers (a rivet holds multiple sheets together).

I would be stunned if any large aircraft on the planet has 100% perfect rivet preparation.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#328

Post by ajcp »

hedora wrote: post #262
refulgentis wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the US government is not Boeing. Yes, Boeing is a private business. You are describing your general distaste for two entities and attempting to rationalize it. My only guess that steelmans that is you think Boeing would cease to exist without its defense business.

As of 2020, 21% of the DoD's budget went to Boeing, and was 31% of Boeing's revenue: https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/01/02/ho... It's unlikely either organization would exist as it currently does without the other.

21% of the DoD's PROCUREMENT budget, not it's entire budget.

DoD 2024 budget request: $886b[1]

DoD 2023 procurement budget: 163.7b[1]

Procurement budget is 18% of total budget.

21% of procurement budget is $34.3b

That means that means that if the percentages still stood at the 2020 numbers then Boeing would account for *3%* of the 2024 DoD budget.

1. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/pentagon-leaders-2024-budg...

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#329

Post by bluecheese452 »

tomp wrote: post #296
mayneack wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, in "Flying Blind", the book written about the first round of 737 max issues, the author has a pretty negative outlook on Calhoun as being mostly aligned with Muilenburg. > Robison, however, finds little reason for optimism. While Boeing has now accepted responsibility for one of the crashes as part of a settlement, no one at the company besides Forkner has been charged with a crime. Muilenburg wa…

Can ELI5 why do investors (owners of the company) accept CEO's pay packages that involve golden parachutes? It doesn't make sense to me (I mean, it might in case of offensive takeovers, but who's gonna take over Boeing?!)

Small time investors have zero say. Large investors are in the same social class as the ceo and scratch each others backs.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#330

Post by rootusrootus »

luuurker wrote: post #243
stouset wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One needs to look at the data to believe these planes are very safe. Even if one or two people had died on the Alaska incident (which—to be clear—would have been an avoidable tragedy for which Boeing would be responsible), flying on a major airline in the U.S. is still safer than any other form of transportation. You don’t think twice about hopping into a passenger vehicle. You don’t follow the latest NHTSA crash tes…

Planes in general are very safe compared to other forms of transportation, but we're not comparing the Boeing 737 Max to some Tesla or Ford. We are comparing it to other planes. While I'm likely to fly on a 737 in the future, it's perfectly fine to say "well, since there's an Airbus A320 Neo available, I'll fly on that instead". Why? Because while data doesn't show it, there's a list of fairly recent Boeing screw ups…

> While I'm likely to fly on a 737 in the future

The 737 is arguably the safest airliner ever produced. You are specifically talking about a specific line of 737, the 737MAX.

Post reply on HN