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

301–310 of 454 posts

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#301

Post by moffkalast »

margalabargala wrote: post #195
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 qualit…

Ah yes the tried and true scientific approach of "if we don't check it we won't find any problems puts hands over ears lalalalalala"

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#302

Post by AniseAbyss »

ken47 wrote: post #237
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.

Boeing apparently can't withstand the immense quarterly financial scrutiny it is under without making dangerous engineering trade offs. Time to take the company private?

[dead]

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#303

Post by sonicanatidae »

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?!)

The small shareholders don't have enough shares to make an impact and the large shareholders view it as a cost of doing business. Remember, they aren't investing in moral outcomes, just profits. With the DoD funding Boeing in perpetuity, there is zero incentive or consequences, so it's still a "good" investment...for now.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#304

Post by drstewart »

jsiepkes wrote: post #40
rootusrootus wrote: post #15

This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them.

> This transparency is good, don't punish them for it. There's no guarantee whatsoever that other plane manufacturers don't run into similar problems and don't announce them. Make no mistake, there is no real transparency here. There is no sudden "culture shift". Boeing is under a magnifying glass and no-one is going to stick their neck out and say: "Well, geez this is such a small mistake I'm going to ignore it". Be…

>no real transparency

>There is currently just very little incentive for anyone (employees, managers, FAA, etc.) to led things slide.

What is "real" transparency?

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#305

Post by seb1204 »

mcphage wrote: post #186
gruez wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> domestic flyers in the U.S. deserve something better than a 1967 design. Or maybe the market has spoken. Similar to how people complain about lack of legroom but proceed to book with airlines that have less legroom because it's cheaper, they're happy to fly on 1967 design planes to save a buck.

> Similar to how people complain about lack of legroom but proceed to book with airlines that have less legroom because it's cheaper When you're booking a plane ticket, you don't have much information about the legroom amount. Maybe you can tell somewhat from the airline, but most airlines have a variety of different planes, and I don't know how to use that information to determine legroom.

I don't fly a lot but legroom and comparable CO2 emissions have become attributes that price search engines show. This flight emits 12% less than comparable flights etc.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#306

Post by rossdavidh »

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?!)

I think it's because when they get the contractually guaranteed "golden parachute", the board thinks this CEO is gonna work out great so why argue, and since it's not at all uncommon it doesn't seem like a red flag at all; it's the norm. By the time it actually happens, they have a contract that says it will happen, which is rarely overturned.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#307

Post by rpmisms »

afavour wrote: post #283
rpmisms wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think describing Elon as a small-e engineer (not designing powertrains, but at least understanding them) is accurate, and saying that an an engineering-first mindset is important for companies like Boeing and SpaceX would ring true. Engineering background is different than engineering mindset.

People contain multitudes. While I would agree that Elon has more of an engineer mindset than other CEOs I’m still not convinced that would amount to much. A look at Tesla build quality, or that ridiculous demo where the Cybertruck window smashed are just two things that immediately come to mind to cast doubt on Musk’s commitment to engineering. I think he’s a big picture guy, I absolutely think issues like those we'…

I'm not saying Elon would be a good aerospace CEO, although he seems to do well at SpaceX. I'm saying that his attitude towards technical subjects ("this is ABSOLUTELY my problem and I should understand what we make") is what airplane-making CEOs should be going for.

Edit: airlines don't build planes

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#308

Post by mynameisnoone »

zerocrates wrote: post #216
gruez wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By the time there were c380 Max's built ??? Are you talking about the 737 max?

They mean "c" as in "circa," i.e., about 380 had been delivered.

"C." means "circa", c380 means nothing.

Re: More misdrilled holes on 737 MAX in latest setback

#309

Post by drstewart »

altairprime wrote: post #210
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…

> You don’t think twice about hopping into a passenger vehicle. I think twice quite regularly about hopping into a Tesla, and after years of avoiding them solely for aesthetic dislike, I found that they also have been burying quality control issues rather than repairing them — just like Boeing! — and so I intend to continue avoiding riding in them whenever possible. > You don’t […] refuse to hop in an Uber driving th…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN