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

391–400 of 454 posts

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#391

Post by philistine »

paulmd wrote: post #387
kccqzy wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't sound likely. They can wait for existing planes to age out and then buy a competitor's planes. For many reasons including fuel efficiency, when an airline retires a plane they are not going to replace it with the exact same plane. So some levels of pilot retraining is expected.

Type certification is a thing that exists, and the whole reason the 737 max is designed in this particular wonky way is so that it can grandfather into the type certification from the existing 737 family. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate Having to mix and match pilots across the fleet is less efficient, what if you have a 737 pilot but the only aircraft available is an airbus? So, many airlines (eg so…

> So, many airlines (eg southwest) will indeed only use one type

And yet many airlines fly a very high amount of planes of many types, of multiple brands. Southwest is a consumer darling and punches above its weight but it is an outlier.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#392

Post by smcin »

sonicanatidae wrote: post #320
AaronM wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meaningful penalties would address this nicely, but since CU legalized clear, over-the-table bribery, I suspect it'll never happen.

('CU' = Citizens United ruling (2010) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC)

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#393

Post by ok_dad »

r00fus wrote: post #389
Simon_ORourke wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there - the man was such poison, that such top-down layoff should include any private chefs, baristas or garbage guys that dealt with him.

Clearly you're going for some snark, but some form of purge would be a good signal that the company isn't putting up with bullshit ideology.

Who’s going to purge them? They’re the idiot execs in charge everywhere now! Jack Welch was a good name in business management circles, and still is to this day, even though his theories and work have not withstood the test of time to regular folks like us.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#394

Post by datavirtue »

nimish wrote: post #233
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…

> Jack Welch protégé At this point pre-emptively firing any Jack Welch associated executive would probably be a good idea

He's an order barker. He won't move the needle one point on that culture. All GE people understand is hierarchy.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#395

Post by datavirtue »

eduction wrote: post #153
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…

Ya, Calhoun has been there four years already, so he's had plenty of time. Also, he decided to continue outsourcing to Spirit despite Spirit's known issues. Everything in your post indicates he's not inclined to make fundamental alterations to the post Stonecipher strategy which fits with all this.

Spirit is technically not Boeing. It's Boeing.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#396

Post by roenxi »

tomp wrote: post #369
krisoft wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why do investors (owners of the company) accept CEO's pay packages that involve golden parachutes My understanding is that this is seen as a cost of acquiring the right expertise. “Pay peanuts, get monkeys” kinda thing. They want the best of the best, and according to their perception these people can do a number of things with their time. Why would they work on this thing instead of their own thing, or a number of…

No I don't buy this. The shareholders would be better off if they promised a $800m incentives-based / performance-based package (e.g. stock options etc.) than promising $80m if the CEO performance sucks . And any CEO rejecting this offer, is a huge red flag.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea, but CEOs face the same problem as politicians - while they are responsible for whatever happens (good and bad) they are not actually in control of very much.

A bad CEO can destroy a company in a few years. A good one can set up years of profits. But the "can" there does some heavy lifting - sometimes a CEO will walk in to a company and there just won't be any opportunities. Eg, you take over a restaurant chain then the COVID overreaction happens. Not much the CEO can do.

Long and short, I can see why a good CEO might go for guaranteed compensation rather than big payoffs for good results. They can't guarantee good results. Nobody can make that sort of promise.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#397

Post by dmazzoni »

philistine wrote: post #391
paulmd wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Type certification is a thing that exists, and the whole reason the 737 max is designed in this particular wonky way is so that it can grandfather into the type certification from the existing 737 family. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate Having to mix and match pilots across the fleet is less efficient, what if you have a 737 pilot but the only aircraft available is an airbus? So, many airlines (eg so…

> So, many airlines (eg southwest) will indeed only use one type And yet many airlines fly a very high amount of planes of many types, of multiple brands. Southwest is a consumer darling and punches above its weight but it is an outlier.

Well, Southwest was a successful well-run regional carrier that grew as large as the big mega-airlines, while trying to keep running the business the same way.

There are still 20 smaller regional airlines in the U.S. and hundreds around the world. The vast majority of those fly just one or two types of planes.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#398

Post by throwaway2037 »

BoxFour wrote: post #253
strangattractor wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk Someone with an engineering background and a pinch of Vlad the Impaler;)

Whatever your opinion of Elon is, it’s extremely generous to say he comes from an engineering background and just flat-out wrong to say he comes from the type of traditional engineering background relevant to companies like Boeing (the PE type of engineering). If you approve of Elon as a leader, he is basically the embodiment of “you do not need to be an engineer to run a highly technical company”

> PE type of engineering

What is PE?

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#399

Post by datavirtue »

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.

You forgot, treating Tesla like piggy bank. That company has a rusty frame. Still looks shiney.
Post reply on HN