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

Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#71

Post by ironmagma »

notatoad wrote: post #70
ironmagma wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are the causes of that problem not really problems in themselves? Crashing could have multiple different causes; crashing is just a symptom.

They are problems for the people working on solving the crashing. They aren't problems for anybody else. for passengers, airlines, and anybody other than Boeing, the only problem is the crashing.

Isn’t that a bit like saying the problem in medicine is dying, and other things like heart disease, cancer, etc. aren’t really problems for the patients, as death is the only real problem?

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#72

Post by notatoad »

ironmagma wrote: post #71
notatoad wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are problems for the people working on solving the crashing. They aren't problems for anybody else. for passengers, airlines, and anybody other than Boeing, the only problem is the crashing.

Isn’t that a bit like saying the problem in medicine is dying, and other things like heart disease, cancer, etc. aren’t really problems for the patients, as death is the only real problem?

if you had cancer but experienced no symptoms, died in a car crash at age 95, and the cancer wasn't discovered until your autopsy, would you say it was a problem?

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#73

Post by kortilla »

salawat wrote: post #33
kortilla wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> documenting for posterity what they wanted to be in the record The correct term is “re-iterate the talking points on the record to help shape the narrative”. It’s not for posterity, it’s for ass covering. If all corporate emails were to become a matter of public record, they would be filled with PR-speak as well.

It isn't PR speak when you just tell the truth in an email and don't let management bully you into not saying what needs to be said to prop up their take on it. It can end up a bit dangerous, because they'll be more than happy to drag you through the mud in court to try to discredit you, but a lot of people kinda expect that anyway.

No, the whole culture around email changes when people know for certain it’s part of the public record of the company. I’ve worked in environments where all emails are retained due to government contracts, and an unwritten rule immediately emerges that nothing that could be used against the company is said in emails. Backchannels emerge with IMs, SMS, etc where the real conversations happen.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#74

Post by kortilla »

jschwartzi wrote: post #56
kortilla wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 737 MAX issue wasn’t Boeing cheaping our though. It was Boeing trying to avoid recertification so it was a drop in for existing 737 customers. In other words, Boeing was trying to target the airlines that cheap out and did something stupid to get there. This wasn’t a quality problem. This is was a failure to recognize (or willful hiding) the importance of training pilots on MCAS.

Boeing knowingly misrepresented the handling characteristics of the 737 MAX rather than risk losing money by building a new airframe to accommodate larger engines. That’s definitionally cheaping out. Rather than starting a development program and taking the business risk, potentially costing money, they chose to instead risk the lives of passengers by fixing an aerodynamic problem in software. For money. This calls i…

No, it’s not cheaping out, it’s just trying to target a very specific market. It’s targeting cheap customers. Boeing had no problem paying whatever the costs to actually make the thing compatible with the 737. You’re right that it’s still a violation of integrity, but it’s not being cheap by cutting their own costs inappropriately.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#75

Post by Pfhreak »

jonplackett wrote: post #34
Pfhreak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sensors and correction are a symptom of the issue at Boeing, which is an aggressive pursuit of profit over safety.

That's not the same as being the same issue. Issue implies something more specific.

Not at all. The 'issue' could be a technical issue, a cultural issue, a corporate issue, a documentation issue, a legislative issue, a personal issue.

If you stop diagnosing when you find a faulty part, you aren't diving deep enough. Ask why some more -- what allowed us to even ship a faulty part in the first place? The sensors in the plane are a faulty technical design, but what systemic issues enabled that faulty design to be shipped at all? Those are the root cause issues.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#76

Post by redis_mlc »

CrazyStat wrote: post #44
crdoconnor wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's approach with its 737MAX competitor, has, ironically been the exact opposite of this. Their fear wasn't getting the price low enough to satisfy shareholders but not getting the airline approved by US and European regulators. I was dubious before the crashes but after Boeing's reaction to the crashes I'm fairly sure I'd feel safer on their planes than Boeing's.

Given the current safety record of the 737 Max (2 crashes out of ~half a million flights), if you flew on one every day for the next 50 years there's about a 7% chance that you'd be in a crash. This is ignoring any improvements that might be made--to the plane itself or to pilots' knowledge and training--before it's allowed back into service. If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, i…

> But the 737 Max is still a very safe plane. I have no qualms about flying on it.

No, no it's not safe.

Your entire argument is complete nonsense.

When the AoE sensor is damaged, the chance of a MAX problem is 100%.

> But the 737 Max is still a very safe plane. I have no qualms about flying on it.

It's grounded world-wide, so you're the only one.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#77

Post by ironmagma »

notatoad wrote: post #72
ironmagma wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that a bit like saying the problem in medicine is dying, and other things like heart disease, cancer, etc. aren’t really problems for the patients, as death is the only real problem?

if you had cancer but experienced no symptoms, died in a car crash at age 95, and the cancer wasn't discovered until your autopsy, would you say it was a problem?

Of course it was a problem. If a person has diabetes but then they get shot to death, that doesn't make the diabetes irrelevant.

If 40% of people walking on the earth got cancer today, and it was asymptomatic, it would definitely be a problem, even if nobody saw it as their personal problem in this moment.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#78

Post by jiofih »

tjohns wrote: post #55
jiofih wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That “problem” has been solved two decades ago. In the EU debt reins, with zero fees, and there are dozens of micro-payments systems operating all over the world. Isn’t Venmo big in the US?

Venmo is far from ubiquitous. (None of my friends or family have a Venmo account, for instance. They prefer other apps like Square Cash / Google Pay / PayPal, or don’t use payment apps at all.) Debit cards are not popular here because they tend to lack robust fraud protection - and even if they did, your bank account could easily be zeroed for weeks while they work to reverse the fraudulent charges. Also, debit cards…

> they tend to lack robust fraud protection

That’s funny. Debit cards have always been PIN based and way safer than credit. I’ve never personally heard of a single case of fraud.

There is nothing stopping micropayments from happening as a technology, except political/market incentives. It’s already a reality everywhere else, even north Africa. Rationalizing it just solidifies the status quo.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#79

Post by CrazyStat »

redis_mlc wrote: post #76
CrazyStat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the current safety record of the 737 Max (2 crashes out of ~half a million flights), if you flew on one every day for the next 50 years there's about a 7% chance that you'd be in a crash. This is ignoring any improvements that might be made--to the plane itself or to pilots' knowledge and training--before it's allowed back into service. If you flew, say, 10 times a year rather than 365.25, all on the 737 Max, i…

> But the 737 Max is still a very safe plane. I have no qualms about flying on it. No, no it's not safe. Your entire argument is complete nonsense. When the AoE sensor is damaged, the chance of a MAX problem is 100%. > But the 737 Max is still a very safe plane. I have no qualms about flying on it. It's grounded world-wide, so you're the only one.

> When the AoE sensor is damaged, the chance of a MAX problem is 100%.

I believe you mean the AoA sensor.

> It's grounded world-wide, so you're the only one.

Yes I'm sure the reason it's grounded world wide is because, after a worldwide census, we determined that all but one person living on earth had qualms about flying on it.

If you want to disagree with me that's fine but don't make stupid arguments.

Re: Staff emails claim Boeing 777X ‘shares Max problem’

#80

Post by stopads »

dTal wrote: post #65
stopads wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MCAS is the dumb bandaid they invented to save money on pilot retraining. Turns out that bandaid was so poorly built it killed people. In the 777x It's not exact same software system, but the exact same "cheapest option on the menu every time" mindset that seems to be pervading Boeing and causing lots of problems.

>MCAS is the dumb bandaid they invented to save money on pilot retraining. No, the MCAS is to make the plane certifiable, full stop. It's less "handling characteristics of the previous model" and more "handling characteristics permissible on commercial aircraft".

I don't understand the distinction? Why is it important?
Post reply on HN