381–390 of 454 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chalk’s Ocean was not a major airline and it was not a regional airline performing white-label service for a major airline. I hope you can recognize that a company privately operating a fleet of seven floatplanes is not particularly relevant to a discussion about the safety of mass passenger air travel, in much the same way that a carnival operating a rollercoaster is not meaningful when discussing passenger rail.
Why isn't it relevant? They obeyed the exact same rules and regulations (FAR Part 121). That's the exact same part of theregs that applies to Delta and United. They weren't a charter or sightseeing operator. They were, prior to the their closure, the oldest operating airline in the US and something like #3 worldwide, post-dating only KLM and one of the other European flag carriers. (Lufthansa, maybe? I don't have the…
I'm also pretty sure that you, nor anyone you know, nor anyone they know has ever flown on Chalk's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My lack of including that flight was a mistake. I was unaware that Comair was operating as a subsidiary of Delta. Still, it doesn’t really change the upshot. No manufacturer was at fault here. And even if you include this flight in the data, flying in the U.S. is safer than any other form of travel. I chose to limit it to airlines operating in the U.S. due to our generally higher expectations around maintenance, pilo…
> I chose to limit it to airlines operating in the U.S. due to our generally higher expectations around maintenance, pilot training, and workload, amongst other things. The high-quality training that resulted in a pilot being unable to discern the correct runway to use? Your line of argument here and elsewhere in this thread is nonsense, especially because the very US authorities you're lauding disagree with you. If…
Is your argument that better-trained pilots are expected to be perfect? Because my argument is that better-trained pilots result in fewer overlapping holes in the Swiss cheese model.
> If the foreign operations of Boeing aircraft weren't relevant to their safety everywhere, then the FAA wouldn't have grounded the MAX worldwide due to crashes that happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
The FAA being extremely cautious and willing to take serious measures to protect passenger safety is strongly in line with my argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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"
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"Replacing the CEO" isn't a panacea because most CEOs are pretty average, but when an exceptional CEO does take the helm, they can pull off some amazing feats (e.g. Satya Nadella).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Unfortunately Boeing always has a sweet defense contract waiting to compensate any "rough year", so they keep fucking around. And because once airlines have their fleets locked into a specific airplane brand, swapping it for the competition is almost impossible without crazy expense, so they coasted on this vendor lock in for decades knowing their existing customers have no choice but to keep buying their planes. An…
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.
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 southwest) will indeed only use one type, or only a handful of types. This also extends to things like parts availability etc.
The economics for switching away work exactly the same now as they did a decade ago when orders were placed: there is a very real cost to operating a mixed fleet and Boeing gets to extract a lot of that value themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Not the GP but I think in this case, "real" transparency refers to a culture in which there is no attempt to hide issues like this (internally at least); they should be caught and should be immediately handled without positive or negative impacts to one's career.
As such, this would not be "real" transparency. The issues being raised appear to be only being done under duress (perhaps as an attempt to show that something is being done) and may easily vanish when media attention passes.
The issues themselves seem relatively simple and should have been discovered a long time ago. As such, the implication made by the fact that /they weren't/ is that Boeing and Spirit have informal internal policies that discourage the discovery of these problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jack Welch protégé At this point pre-emptively firing any Jack Welch associated executive would probably be a good idea
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't it relevant? They obeyed the exact same rules and regulations (FAR Part 121). That's the exact same part of theregs that applies to Delta and United. They weren't a charter or sightseeing operator. They were, prior to the their closure, the oldest operating airline in the US and something like #3 worldwide, post-dating only KLM and one of the other European flag carriers. (Lufthansa, maybe? I don't have the…
I'm pretty sure the US majors aren't flying airframes that haven't rolled off a production line in half a century, from manufacturers that shuttered their doors over a decade prior. I'm also pretty sure that you, nor anyone you know, nor anyone they know has ever flown on Chalk's.
Your whole approach here feels rather bad faith/no true Scotsman-y. Of course you’ll have no fatal crashes if you say every fatal crash doesn’t count for some reason or another as not a real crash.