Unfortunately, it’s kind of overblown. That particular exemption already exists for the 8 and 9, they just haven’t granted it specifically for the 7 yet. It’s not clear that there’s any issue there.
Nice summary of the comments from that post, unfortunately zero people there actually know what differences or mitigations are in place for the 8 & 9 that aren’t relevant for the 7 & 10.
Given Boeings absolutely atrocious safety record with the Max, I’m not similarly inclined to believe a bunch of speculation about regulators being dumb
It might be related to the crash of two MAX-8 (albeit not American ones), after the same exemption was given to it. It would be understandable that the FAA would be more cautious.
> According to FAA record posted online, the Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023.
The pictures clearly show that the seat is still there.
It also wasn't a window... that's a plug for an unused emergency exit location. Planes have spots in the fuselage where emergency exits can be placed if the aircraft is configured with enough seats where it needs more exits. This one wasn't, so instead of an emergency exit, there's a plug bolted into the spot instead. Would have to guess that there was a defect in this one though...
It's not a plug door. It's an outward-opening door, apparently. [1] Usually, those things are plugs, and have to be pulled inward to open them, which is not possible when the cabin is pressurized. But there are B-737 configurations where it's an outward-opening door. For those, when there's a door installed, there's a single solenoid to prevent opening it in flight.[2] Is there some kind of dummy door that's installed if that location is not set up as an exit?
I'd thought that outward-opening doors on passenger aircraft had gone away after the DC-10 disasters with them.[3] Apparently not.
The Turkish airlines crash was even worse. And it happened almost two years later after the FAA was fine with a gentlemen's agreement instead of an airworthiness directive.
Even if that is the case, it shouldnt been an issue. The DC10 problem was due to insufficient safety mechanism that allowed for crew to unknowingly close the door without engaging the safety lock.
According to the NYT report, there was no one seated in the seat by the window (which is still there in pictures). That is very lucky. The child seated in the aisle of that row had his shirt ripped off by the depressurization.
Man.. if I hadnt seen it I wouldn't have believed it.That is absurd. How the FAA keeps approving this junk from Boeing is even more concerning than how bad Boeing manufacturing has become.
Sadly, that's the story of most great technology and manufacturing companies of the past.
Maximizing profit is a good thing that a healthy company should do, but if it wants to remain a healthy company in the future then it should not be done "at all costs"... Profit needs to be balanced with: safety, quality, and the humans who research, create, and manufacture the products. Too much emphasis is put on the one person at the very top who often makes decisions that sacrifice safety, quality, and the humans who research, create, and manufacture the products.
It’s not cursed, it’s the inevitable outcome of regulatory capture. That Boeing have suffered little to no consequences from the Max failures is a symptom of an FAA that desperately needs a purge of corrupt processes and officers.
From what I remember from the first 737 max incidents, the 737 max was designed as an iteration of 737 limited to the updates that would allow Boeing to bypass re-certification. The upgrades were significant and some, like engine placement, un-natural and clearly driven by regulation bypass.
I think it is quite logical that the added complexity results in additional failures.
It's going to be quite hard for the public to regain confidence in that aircraft, especially when (as noted elsewhere) Boeing was just now trying to get an exception from the FAA re: certification of the max 7.
But was that door specific to the max? I would assume previous generations of B737 had the exact same door. It seems to me that this is more an indictment of Boeing's manufacturing than a design flaw specific to the max (well, we will see what actually caused it). If that's the case, this would curse all boeing models.
I don't think we know that yet. Yes, I have seen many reports that the Max has the "exact same door" as the 737-900, but how confident are we that there wasn't some cost-cutting or "simplification" measure done on newer models, or a change to a cheaper subcontractor building a crucial part, or whatever? There's enough complexity there that I think there could be significant differences while still theoretically staying within the "same design."
Airbus has never been a Boeing joint venture. It is a politically desired united European aircraft company (doesn't sound good so far?) that somehow took off (heh).
Maybe it worked because the predecessor companies' main problem was "just" scale - they made some decent planes already.
It’s rather ironic that by claiming their comment lacks credibility without including any counterpoints it makes your comment itself lack credibility too.
ignoring various questionable details here, the one main point is correct: Boeing and Airbus are strategic industrial assets of USA vs EU and have deep implications for strategic security for both US and EU and their clients. For example, servicing these machines provides access to sensitive infrastructure all over the planet to these two companies’ employees & “certified” 3rd party consultants. If you are sitting say in UAE, buying Boeing vs AirBus is a political decision as well as a practical decision.
> American Airlines replaced a chunk of their fleet with the A320 because the Dreamliner was literally killing about as many people as it managed to transport when it wasnt down for loose bolts or reboots due to battery issues.
From Wikipedia:
> The Boeing 787 has been involved in seven accidents and incidents as of November 2023, with zero fatalities and no hull losses.
This makes no sense. The Comac 929 is a widebody that is still in the prototype stage, the SSJ100 is a regional jet that competes with the A220 or Embraer (a market where Boeing doesn’t even have a product), and the A320 is not a widebody. No airline replaces Dreamliners with A320s.
Fun fact: they dim the interior lights when you're landing at night so your eyes are already adjusted to the darkness if an evacuation is required.
It's not always noticeable since they are sometimes already dim (especially on later flights when people might be trying to sleep, but they will turn the lights on for their safety check and then turn them off again).
Unreal. Do people not go deaf from the sound of the air coming into the exposed fuselage like that? I would have thought they'd be covering their ears or something.
It's not so bad. Used to be a jumpmaster in the 82nd Airborne, where part of the job was to stick your head out of the side of the open door of a C141 while in flight to check for issues, towed jumpers, etc. It's loud, but survivable. You can hear yelling over it. Of course we were going much slower...
400MPH with an open window plausibly causes some loud noise due to turbulent flow across the opening. The turbofan engines are also reasonably close to the opening and ground crew wear hearing protection to mitigate the effects of the noise.
My assumption was that the air pressure at that height is low enough to not be loud. Yeah it’s moving fast but there isn’t much of it. Different story on the ground.
That's a good thought. Initially the density is pretty normal and I'm sure there's a loud sound, but once pressure drops the air wouldn't transmit as much sound.
I don't see enough detail to really know how high they fly once the depressurization happens. I'm guessing that, if possible, they descend to an altitude where the supplementary oxygen is not critical for preserving life so the loudness could go back up. I couldn't find if there's a "typically safe" maximum altitude that is used in depressurization or it's situational.
Probably someone with better flightradar knowledge could figure out the altitude with time.
Once pressure is equalized, you have the same situation as an open car window, except at much higher speeds. I don't know about other people, but to me the noise of an open car window is really annoying even at 120 km/h. I can't image what it must be like at airliner speeds.
Plus increased noise from the engines (or at least the engine on that side of the plane), as a sibling comment notes.
For the past two months, I have been avoiding 4 737max flights already. This is to the extent that one of them was to transit for 10 hours (without max), compared to a 2-hour convenient layover with 737max. I guess this will stay as my personal rule of thumb for the foreseeable future.
You're spending an extra 8 hours to marginally (at best) improve safety? I'd be willing to bet good money that you partake in wildly more risky activity (such as driving or even walking down the street). This feels almost like virtue signaling without it being virtue signaling.
Statistically it might be safe, but the vast majority of people are still going to make decisions based on perceived risk.
As a customer, how else can you send your feedback to Boeing (and the airlines) that this level of perceived risk is unacceptable? It's clear there are issues at the company and Boeing is unlikely to respond unless there are financial consequences.
Call me a betting man, but I'd be willing to bet yet even more money that at least 95% of people don't even know what plane they're getting on during their trip. And of that 5% left, only a handful people would rebook their flights at an increased expense of money/time to signal to Boeing that 737 max is unsafe. The handful of people doing it are bordering on virtue signaling.
With that said, however, I really dislike Boeing's recent decisions and the safety issues that have come up. I do agree that Boeing needs to face financial consequences, but I don't believe that customers have any power in this situation. Realistically, airlines and governing authorities would have the most impact and if they don't see issues big enough with Boeing to stop ordering planes, there isn't much else to do.
Yeah, it's 100% a shitty situation for the customer. I personally haven't checked the plane ahead of time for any of my flights, but with all the recent failures/headlines I am much more inclined to do so. Not out of virtue signalling, but out of my own peace of mind.
I am unsure if this applied to all the flights, but most flights I booked showed the airplane model before I paid. I guess this is a good thing for customers, i.e., one can make an informed decision without too much hassle by manually checking the flight history.
Well, for me. I never care about this feedback thing. It is apparent from the situation that Boeing had enough feedback (and scrutinization) from everyone after lion air 610 and ethiopian 302.
The fact that they refuse to fix the problem after Lion 610, such that Ethiopian 302 faced the same fate, is, at least for me, horrendously wrong.
FWIW being involved in a commercial airliner accident is an order of magnitude more terrifying a prospect than getting in a car accident. If there's a one in a million chance that multiple of my worst nightmares could be realized-- plummeting from 30,000ft, being stranded in the middle of the ocean at night, enduring such things due to the hubris, greed, bullshittery of some shmucks currently warm and cozy in their mansions somewhere-- I will have that one in a million chance top of mind. especially when it makes the news multiple times within a few years!
100% agree. As a former airline employee at a major airline, I've given up flying altogether. I've heard the 'but driving to the airport is more dangerous than flying' argument a zillion times. That's not the point. The point is that flying has become incredibly intrusive and uncomfortable and the fact that in addition to being treated like cattle, having to endure the security theatre, the indignity of being rushed around only to sit and wait, cancels/delays, rude people and or belligerent or mentally disturbed flyers, ug... it's just not fun anymore.
THEN add on the fact that there's a one in a million chance your plane may open up and accidentally cast you into the abyss and I say, just give me a car, my snacks, my music, my full seat, and the ability to stop and use the washroom when I want and Im good to drive across the country. Flying bites.
> I've heard the 'but driving to the airport is more dangerous than flying' argument a zillion times. That's not the point.
That's not YOUR point. The head of this thread (although to be fair, didn't SAY, but implied) he was swapping planes for safety. And that he's still flying, just on a different plane model, seems to reinforce that it was THEIR point.
Well, avoiding a specific airplane model, especially one with a notorious history like the 737MAX, isn't about 'marginally improving safety'; it's about making an informed choice based on known risks.
If we “assume” the eight hour distance is “life lost” and based on your age and average life expectancy, I wonder what the mathematical actuarial tables say.
I was on a flight that made and emergency landing once, it was TERRIFYING. The pilot circled once then we went down at a very steep angle.
What was even worse was the three days we were stranded in Gander Newfoundland while they fixed the plane and then flew in a new crew. It was basically an refueling/military base and not a real airport, no food or facilities. After that I never flew without my toothbrush, change of clothes and contact solution in my carry on.
If it makes you feel any better, planes can operate much “wider” than they normally do for the comfort of the passengers.
If you ever watch the takeoff profile of a FedEx or UPS plane compared to the airlines, they turn much harder because they’ve no passengers to complain.
Thats a decent setup for a Hallmark movie - two travelers stranded and isolated find love through the zaney activities used to pass time in a remote locale.
That's a very common (emergency) stopping point because it's the last major airport for Eastbound planes headed to Europe, at least until you get to Greenland.
Heh. Although was it was a very NON-ROMANTIC situation!! We all were in the same clothes for four days and people were getting majorly drunk and throwing up because the flight crew gave away all the alcohol from the plane to apologize for the delay.
I've never felt more gross in my life or had a nicer shower in my life than that first one after we finally landed, got to the location and finally relaxed. Mainly it was not having a toothbrush that was the worst!
It is more common than you can think of. Especially when people have a “base” both in their departure and destination locations.
For example i know a couple living a long distance relationship. They both have enough stuff at each others place so that they can travel very light.
Now of course it sucks if you suddenly get stranded in between, but it is not life threatening just an inconvenience. And from then on it is just a tradeoff. You can gain a small bit of regular convenience for the cost of risking a rare but moderate inconvenience.
People go everywhere all the time without a couple of Snickers bars and/or Walkers style shortbreads or equivalents, some wet wipes, a disposable fork, a 3-port power strip, and a bottle of unsweetened beverage.
Unbelievable by my standards, because those items had saved me time and again from my frequent time mismanagements, but not everyone is on an exact same standard.
Ha, maybe I know you irl. Although it's a pretty common emergency landing and refueling spot for cross Atlantic flights. I think a lot of the 9-11 planes got grounded there, there's a nice book about how the local population of Canadians in Gander supported the giant sudden influx of population from the grounded flights.
Hearing stories like this over the years is why I always wear the seatbelt during the entirety of any flight... Just one of those small things that could make all the difference in a sudden emergency situation.
That just shows: you never know. Perhaps something had been done to this plane too, indeed. The only thing I would exclude at this point is bad maintenance. It's so unlikely that that part needed maintenance in less than 2 months. But your example shows we really should wait for the report.
Credit where credit is due. This plane obvisouly suffered a massive rapid decompression. But it didn't crash. All the other engineering and safety systems functioned to absorb and mitigate this damage, getting everyone back on the ground safely. That is saying something.
Aircraft are not minivans. Whether a ship, large truck, aircraft, power plant, datacenter, or new house, its is normal for complex systems to suffer more faults when brand new. This was a dramatic and unacceptable fault, but the idea that brand new planes sould have fewer faults than those a few years older doesnt mesh with the reality of such complex and dynamic products.
The 737 max product line is not new. This individual aircraft is only two months out of certification. By large aircraft standards, that is showroom new.
The whole shtick is that it's not a brand new plane. Boeing sought (and obtained, and seeks yet again) exemptions because it's "just a 737". Pretending that it is a brand new plane would mean they lied to avoid costly and time consuming safety certifications. You can't have it both ways.
Indeed. The delivery of a commercial airliner from the manufacturer is nothing like buying a new car. It is a months long process, involving multiple safety checkoffs and test flights. Just about every nut and bolt is checked and double checked, and hours of inflight verifications are made. To get through that process with such a glaring defect boggles the mind.
It is dynamic because almost no two aircraft will be identical. Between the innumerable customization options, constant small changes in construction and inspection proceedures mean each aircraft is in some ways a unique product. This is an imporant consideration when, like here, a failure appears to have occured amongst one of the optional/customizable subsystems (emergency exit configs).
Well, that would contribute to your when brand new statement. Isn't this a quality assurance nightmare to the point where one must wonder if innumerable customization options is a desirable attribute?
The nomenclature is interesting. In my mind, a "depressurization event" would imply that the biggest problem was the depressurization. In other words, that there was not a big gaping structural hole.
If there can be a big hole in the plane and we can call that a "depressurization event", I would like to advocate for changing how we describe this.
I know you're kidding, but we're trained to avoid making that mistake in assignment of cause of death (and in states where I've lived, they give clear instructions on the death paperwork to remind you not to make that kind of mistake)!
Bad wording on my part since I implied but didn't state the alternative. In my mind, the alternative scenario that would create a depressurization event would be a small hole or a hole that is not visible from the passenger compartment. I.e., a hole from which a passenger or attendant could not exit the plane.
I'm no expert, but I've always assumed these pressurized cabins aren't exactly hermetically sealed, so a small invisible hole wouldn't noticeably depressurize the plane.
My assumption has been there's always fresh air actively added continuously at a rate that can compensate for such small leaks, and that it's just an automatically regulated thing. Maybe a gauge/alarm visible to the pilots would indicate an out of spec level of fresh air entering to maintain pressure, without actually being a "depressurization event"...
But a door-sized hole is a whole (har har) different story.
Your assumption is correct - air is pushed into the cabin by the engines, and the pressure is controlled by an outflow valve. An unanticipated hole, assuming it was small enough, would just be compensated for.
> unplanned holes in a pressure vessel have a tendency to rapidly get larger.
I suspect that's only an issue on airliners when the hole happens in a window.
There's no shortage of search results confirming that something like gunfire on an airliner likely won't depressurize the plane unless it hits a window....
Wouldn't a small hole quickly become a large gaping hole anyway, if it's large enough to affect the cabin pressure?
I suppose if the small hole had existed since before takeoff, you could avoid catastrophic damage as the aircraft will not be pressurized at all. I wouldn't call it a depressurization event, though.
Yes. I think the aviation community would use something like "explosive uncontrolled depressurization", to distinguish from e.g. someone forgetting to arm the pressurization system.
You can't depressurize what isn't pressurized. Also, there isn't a "if you forget this everyone suffocates" button. The controls are multiply guarded and "normally closed".
> An investigation into the crash by the Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board (AAIASB) concluded that the crew had neglected to set the pressurization system to automatic during the take-off checks. This caused the plane not to be pressurized during the flight and resulted in nearly everyone on board suffering from generalized hypoxia, thus resulting in a ghost flight [..] eventually crashed near Grammatiko, Greece, killing all 121 passengers and crew on board. It is the deadliest aviation accident in Greek history.
That's pilot error. You have to move multiple safeguards and covers to move it OUT of auto in the first place. There is a reason (very poor training and safety practices, often government corruption as well) that you hear about accidents like that happening in Greece, Vietnam or Ethiopia, not the US.
> Also, there isn't a "if you forget this everyone suffocates" button.
(Also note that the pilots did not move the pressurization system out of AUTO; you are blaming them for not discovering that a ground engineer had done so, mostly while they fought hypoxia.)
I retract nothing. The cause of that crash was pilot error. They ignored written procedure, and did not react to multiple serious warnings, including the master caution. Which is something you do not ignore. Also note this was still only an issue because the pilots ALSO refused to verify the position of the aft outflow valve. It was the combination of all these things. So no, there absolutely is not a "press this button every flight or everyone suffocates" button.
You are simultaneously arguing that it's not possible to accidentally kill everyone by having a switch be in the wrong position, and also that when this actually happens in reality it shouldn't count because "that was pilot error".
Yes, it was! Those pilots should totally have put that switch in the position that doesn't kill everyone! But they didn't, and then they got too hypoxic to fix it and now everyone's dead. It's almost like there's a switch that it's a really bad idea for pilots to forget about..
It is possible for two switches, and multiple external factors including scandalous levels of procedural error by the Captain, First Officer, and maintenance technician to kill them.
more like a "don't throw BOTH of these at the same time, while also ignoring every warning device in the cockpit". The master caution will both flash and say "CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION!" You can't miss it.
it's not generating ambiguity for the people who need to know
for example, air traffic control and other pilots listening on the radio will know that this aircraft needs to be cleared to descend to a lower altitude and other traffic needs to get out of the way, be alert, etc.
I can only assume that this is going to lead to a ton of noise and anger with very little change, unfortunately.
Boeing will investigate, regulators will rattle sabers, and the public will be very loud about this for a week until the next news cycle rolls around.
We prioritize convenience above all else. The easy answer here is people could just not fly if we're actually concerned with Boeing or the industry in general.
We don't have to fly, but it is convenient so we'd rather make a lot of noise about the headline without making any meaningful change. It sounds nice to expect the FAA or Boeing or whoever else to fix this, why do we so often skip the actual power we have by simply not spending our money there?
Me not spending a flight will have zero effect on Boeing. The FAA threatening to ground their planes will however get their attention.
The FAA actually do quite a good job and if anything are maybe a bit over the top in enforcing saftey given that for most people there is near zero risk of dying in a plane crash compared to a lot of stuff that people do die regularly from.
> The FAA actually do quite a good job and if anything are maybe a bit over the top in enforcing saftey
There's a funny thought experiment on undesired side effects there: the MAX is flawed because it was designed to maximize updates while playing the fine line to avoid re-certification. One has to wonder if getting the certification requirements easier to pass might have resulted in the MAX not existing, and instead having a more "natural" and safer plane created instead.
(no it would not, seeing as Boeing was already cutting it short, lowering the standard would lower safety. Still, interesting thought experiment)
One vote won't make a difference either, should people not vote?
I'm not saying the FAA shouldn't also intervene, I'm simply pointing out that consumers almost always seem to ignore their own power in the situation.
What you're describing feels much like a tragedy of the commons problem. If I chose not to fly everyone else still will and I'll be left driving around like a schmuck. I might as well fly too, and when I'm worried about safety I'll just call for more regulation.
Unfortunately corporations are not democracies, so no matter what happens, they can ignore our 'vote' when we use dollars. Spending or not spending money does not compel any company to do anything. So, the comparison is not valid.
Companies are entirely driven by money. If one person chooses not to patronize the business it probably won't change anything. But ehst if a hundred do? Or a hundred thousand?
Agree or disagree with the politics behind it, Budweiser was absolutely rocked by a large enough number of customers deciding to no longer buy their product.
The comparison is absolutely valid from where I sit. One vote or one customs makes little to no difference. Enough people raising their voice, though, can fundamentally shake the system.
They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. Case in point -- Zuckerberg is blowing billions of dollars on VR without a path to profitability. No one can make him do anything -- he can tank Facebook/Meta if he wants to, regardless of how many people do or do not buy Quests.
Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell.
> Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell.
I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar.
> They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it.
That's not true for publicly traded companies, they are legally obligated to do what is best for their shareholders. Obviously no one can predict the future so they only do what they believe is best and can get it wrong, like Zuckerberg seems to have done with the metaverse bet.
> I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar.
Regulation is the answer to this question. Asking a person to not fly and pretending that makes a difference to a huge airline is minimizing how much of a burden it is to have to deal with as an individual (a lot) vs how much difference it might make to the company (none). By comparing it to a democratic vote (mandating a change in government forcing accountability to the populace), I see it as effectively stating that money can take the place of democracy and that means that those with more money get more votes. This is a terrible way to think the world should work, so let's work on getting corporations to do the right thing by making them do it and not hoping they might because we decided not to give them money that they didn't know they didn't get from us.
Regulation should almost never be the answer in my opinion, it should be an absolute last resort. Regulation requires government officials that both deeply understand the market today and where it will be in the future. They need to be able to define clear and relevant metrics, rules without loopholes, and do it while the large financial incentives of the industry are trying to buy their way out of real regulation. This can be done but is extremely difficult, and when done wrong can just make things worse.
> Asking a person to not fly and pretending that makes a difference to a huge airline is minimizing how much of a burden it is to have to deal with as an individual (a lot) vs how much difference it might make to the company (none).
There are certainly times where not flying would be a heavy burden, but I expect the average person flies quite often for nonessential trips that could be skipped if they wanted to out of safety concerns or disapproval of the companies involved. Have a sick parent a few state or countries away? Driving could be a big burden compared to flying. Wanting a vacation to get away from work and enjoy a week with your family? I'd argue that most people could do that st home or within driving distance if that was important to them.
> By comparing it to a democratic vote (mandating a change in government forcing accountability to the populace), I see it as effectively stating that money can take the place of democracy and that means that those with more money get more votes.
Again you're putting words in my mouth that I never said. I am comparing the power an individual voter has in their political system with the power they have as an individual customer in their economic system. I am not saying that money takes the place of votes or that the systems are interchangeable. Money should play much less of a role in politics than it does today and politics should play much less of a role in business.
> Regulation should almost never be the answer in my opinion, it should be an absolute last resort.
I disagree with your opinion, which is why I responded with a post disagreeing with it.
> Again you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.
No, I put words in my mouth:
> I see it as
It is my interpretation and I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. You can't say something that means one thing and then proclaim that you disagree with that thing.
Your single vote changes nothing, but having to vote changes you. You start considering politics. You debate policies, online and online. You get your opinions across and evolve them. You persuade your community, your friends and family, and they do the same with theirs. Eventually, it turns out it’s not just your single vote.
That’s what happens where people can vote and expect that their vote actually counts.
Why is it important for everyone to cast a single vote that itself won't make a difference, but unimportant for one yo choose not to partake in an industry that they either disagree with or distrust?
If one vite is worth casting simply fr the fact that it can help a person think more deeply about issues that matter to them, certainly the same could be said for how they choose to spend their money as well.
For the same reason I can’t operate an orbital rocketry program out of my backyard. Dangerous stuff in the sky is dangerous to everybody on the ground, too.
Boeing is playing off its role as being so vital to national security that the government will keep it from suffering too much loss.
Fair enough.
However, if that is the case, then the bean counting management is guilty of sabotaging US national security by running Boeing into the ground for short term profits.
The entire C-Suite of Boeing should be sentenced to multi-decade prison terms at IDF SuperMax for their selling out US National security for profit.
> Boeing is playing off its role as being so vital to national security that the government will keep it from suffering too much loss.
I don’t actually think this is true. Boeing has a terrible track record with defense contracts in recent years. They lost the KC-X tanker competition to Airbus before Boeing lobbied to overturn the decision, they lost the JSF competition to the Lockheed Martin F-35, and they (in partnership with Sikorsky) lost the Black Hawk replacement competition to Bell. Super Hornet production is ending next year and Osprey production could probably be turned over to Bell.
No, it’s less that Boeing is vital to national security and more that Boeing is a government jobs program. It’s the jobs—not Boeing’s importance to national security—that has influenced powerful senators like Patty Murray and Lindsay Graham to put their thumbs on the scale.
I’d be willing to bet all planes built in the last year or so will be grounded immediately. As for others, possibly if they determine the issue is long standing and we’ve just been lucky.
Because it makes sense to double check your maintenance when you just experienced an issue overwhelmingly likely to be related to maintenance.
These same exact exit plugs have been in service without issue since at least 2007.
> Each aircraft will be returned to service only after completion of full maintenance and safety inspections. We anticipate all inspections will be completed in the next few days.
> you just experienced an issue overwhelmingly likely to be related to maintenance
What maintenance? The plane was barely two months old and the part that failed was meant to be something installed permanently, not an emergency exit door that would probably see regular inspections. It's probably "just" sloppy assembly from Boeing/Spirit, which, yes, merit a grounding and inspection.
> What maintenance? The plane was barely two months old
A plane is not a car. They don’t go in once a year to tighten some bolts and replace your oil filter. You have no idea how much is taken apart and reassembled on a regular basis.
A modern 737 has A / P1 checks every 500 hours. The plane in question has completed a total of 145 flights so it's quite possible it hadn't even reached the 500 hour threshold yet.
While emergency equipment like slides and doors are typically inspected with an "A" check, this wasn't an emergency door that failed. What failed was a permanently installed panel. To inspect it you'd have to pull off interior panels, something that doesn't typically happen on a 737 until a C check (roughly every couple of years or 5,000 hours).
So yeah. What maintenance on a nearly brand new plane would require pulling the interior apart and disturbing the emergency exit plug?
This wasn't a maintenance issue.
Edit: And, no, this plane was never at the Oklahoma City MRO.
Grounding is a heavy measure. They're more likely to just inspect other planes with similar doors to see if there's anything obviously wrong with them.
Planes are complicated machines and the processes for inspecting them are highly detailed. Once they figure out what happened, the fix might be simply to include some simple check for whatever happened. Just another line item for a routine inspection. And probably the list of things to check for doors is quite long already.
In any case, flailing your arms and panicking is not part of the process. This incident seems completely unrelated to previous incidents and it happened many years after the first max flew. Which suggests it's an isolated incident. It's quite possible that the door has not been redesigned for the max (quite likely even, because why would they?) in which case they might have to look at all 737s going back 50 or so years.
Then you’re going to have to ground all the 737-900ERs (in service since 2007) out there as well, since they use the exact same part.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is 1,000x more likely to be a maintenance issue than it is a faulty design.
If there were a genuine, ongoing safety issue worth worrying about pilots would stop flying them. People seem to entirely forget that the crew up in the cockpit are humans with an interest in self-preservation.
Because even if it is just a maintenance issue (which as others point out is weird for a a permanent part on a 10 week old plane that shouldn’t need maintenance on this part ever), Boeing and the FAA have completely shot their credibility over the 737.
Both in terms of original certification and also doubling down on “no issue planes are fine” until it became incontrovertible that the planes were the problem and then all the collusion and shadiness about how the 737 came to be came out.
So with that history, even if it would be an overreaction, rebuilding trust would look like immediately grounding in a situation like this out of an abundance of caution. Btw the 737 has had other maintenance problems crop up since they put it back in service since the fleet was grounded to retrofit the part that was needed to fix the original fatal-causing defect. Honestly this just looks like an unsafe plane top to bottom that could sink Boeing (except they’re not allowed to sink because they’re critical partners to the national defense industry)
My first thought was that the pilots and crew would lose their jobs if they refused to fly.
But perhaps pilots would be less likely to get rated for Max aircraft if (hypothetically) there's a perceived broad issue with their safety? This could cause those who have a choice (stronger pilots) to go airbus.
From what I understand, most pilots generally consider the famous MAX crashes to be “bad pilot crashes” and, of course, all pilots know they’re not bad pilots.
What strikes me with the ATC recording is that I can barely hear what they say (and that's the case with almost every ATC recording I heard before). And that's without being in a noisy environment (plane in flight). Is the quality really that bad? Doesn't that cause miscommunications? It seems like a fairly fixable problem in 2024.
The receivers for LiveATC and the like are frequently somewhat compromised in terms of quality and location. This can cause poor quality reception depending on the location and distance away of the transmitter.
The radios and antennas on both the aircraft and for ATC are not only of much higher quality but are also positioned as perfectly as possible so as to maximize Tx/Rx performance.
All that to say, the pilots and ATC nearly always experience more clear comms than the general public has access to.
Not long ago I took a short trip in a small Cessna (I think it was a 152). The audio quality in the headphones wasn't any better than what I hear on those ATC YouTube channels. I didn't understand a word of it (well, that's not quite true, I understood some words here and there; not nearly enough to be able to safely fly).
A Cessna 152 is not an airliner, obviously, but I would think audio quality shouldn't differ all that much between them.
The 152 could have had a 40 year old radio or a crappy antenna. Who knows. As you pointed out - that 152 is subject to a lot less maintenance scrutiny than commercial airliners are.
The other thing that plays in here is that ATC language is very highly standardized. In any specific phase of flight, the pilot will generally know what to expect next from ATC. This allows them to discern instructions (and read them back for verification) even if the signal is weak. In situations like these, ATC may seem completely unintelligible to people not used to ATC language and patterns.
From my experience as a small plane pilot, radio comms is almost always quite clear. The antennas and radios are aimed “at the planes” not at receivers on the ground, after all.
LiveATC is crowd sourced. You take a radio, put it on your desk and stream that to their site. To get decent audio, you need a big antenna on the roof of your house or be in the air, like aircrafts.
I'm a pilot and even on very old planes like piper cub where the radio is just a desk radio added in the cockpit, the audio is much clearer. And with something like Bose A1 (noise canceling headset, A20 and A30 now), you hear it very well.
Most the time you hear ATC perfectly as they have very large antenna. ATC will hear you worse because of the noise around you, but with good mic it is still quite OK. They have large receiver too so you can be far. The worst audio is always plane to plane, there are some situations where your are far from a plane and only hear the ATC side of the conversation. But even if those situations, you can ask ATC to relay a message. It is very rare as you hardly have any reason to talk with a plane that is 100km away on the other side of a mountain.
No. This question comes up on YouTube channels covering atc all the time. Apparently they get their audio from crowd sourced community receivers. Really deal is I’m told much better
Do you think there will be any accountability from Boeing executives? Boeing hasn't had a lot of good press in the last few years, will leadership ever be held accountable?
There was a time when Boeing was considered a very trustworthy and reliable company, is this the result of a decline in an engineering-focused culture?
Edit: Many of the comments in this thread mention that they avoid the 737 MAX whenever possible. Maybe if enough people start to boycott these unsafe airplanes that would result in more economic pressure and lead to improvements?
Take that with a grain of salt but I have seen several people over the years claim this is due to MDD pulling a NeXT (getting acquired then taking over culturally).
Which is a bit of white-washing, considered that the original 737 not only had a design fault that led to accidents. The issue was rudder reversal caused by using single actuator instead of two, which turns out could "flip" part of its construction at times.
Err, maybe that was there perception but isn't the 737 line responsible for the vast majority of all airline fatalities? It's basically the grim reaper of the skies!
This is public information. If it makes you feel better, go for it. If you want actual change, you’ll need to find an issue regular voters will call their electeds on.
Modern Boeing has a consistent record for a reckless disregard for critical aspects of safety in favor of profits. So assuming that this is another case of that and calling for heads to roll at first sight is a fair reaction. That is the result of the reputation their executives have willingly built and the choices they have made.
How long have you been in the field? How are you not aware of what engineers in and around Boeing have been saying about company culture for literally decades? How many Stonecipher stories have you heard? Enough with the swaggering appeal to authority.
> It's unlikely that the Boeing executives pushed a new window
Those executives are responsible for the culture, setting the priority, dictating the level of safety - and putting pressure to release, pushing people to cut corners and save cost.
Of course they "didn't push a new window". But they're where the buck stops. So if it's a build issue, they have their responsibility.
> ITT: software people think they're experts in airworthiness and aircraft maintenance.
You mean working with safety critical systems with hardware software co design and human interaction through complex processes? Yes last i checked we do have a bunch of safety focused computer engineers who do that for a living.
That you think this is a matter of simple engineering might be the problem here. "Just maintenance/installation" is a legit error case somebody should have planed for and you thinking in terms of conspiracies has me rather worried.
edit: I wouldnt assume i could tell when a design is airworthy, maybe reconsider if you are qualified to make general statements about safe operations. The two are very much not the same.
>The Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023, according to FAA record posted online.
How does the maintenance crew fuck up a plane this badly in the span of two months?
Well, this is my field so let's calm down for a sec and dispense with the hyperbole.
The plane itself is not "fucked"; my understanding is the aircraft landed safely and nobody was injured. The door/window that departed the aircraft is a serious incident that will be investigated. There will be a report produced that identifies the root cause(s).
>How does the maintenance crew fuck up a plane this badly in the span of two months?
Are you under the impression that aircraft maintenance works like car maintenance, where you just change the oil every so often?
Lots and lots of things get removed and replaced on a regular basis. It's entirely possible somebody just didn't install the door properly after removing it for a routine inspection. It's a big deal and a serious incident but these things do happen from time to time, even at name-brand airlines.
I'm all for lambasting Boeing but let's stop frothing at the mouth until we see the report.
This is a pretty arrogant reply. Whatever “field” you refer to, the problems at Boeing cut across disciplines and appear to go to systemic management problems. It’s not just issues engineering new systems.
There have been well documented issues also with assembly and inspection. Boeing has a track record of recent quality problems at assembly time and even clashed with FAA on how to detect defects
Yes, software engineers should take over airplane maintenance because their track record at safety is just sooooo much better, right?
Airline industry has processes that work well and made flying ridiculously safe - there hasn't been a major plane crash in the whole of 2023! - maybe they know more about maintenance, accidents, investigations and corrective actions than a bunch of HN users?
Members of the public should be encouraged to ask how this happened because they’re the ones who trust their lives to these planes. The airline industries in places where the public couldn’t ask questions did not make flying ridiculously safe.
People can make a much better motivator by simply not flying.
The general public really isn't particularly well suited for asking the right questions to get to the bottom of this, but they are well suited for not being customers if trust in the industry is lost.
Frothing at the mouth is exactly what is called for here. A plane that loses a big chunk is indeed “fucked”, the only reason someone didn’t die is that that particular seat wasn’t occupied. There should have been many many redundant safety systems and procedures here with either didn’t exist or failed. People should be out for blood because there are obviously serious problems at both Boeing and the FAA.
This was not a near miss, this was a 10 out of 10 failure of the kind which should never happen. The NTSB report will indeed show much but there is no reason to not demand congressional hearings and criminal investigations immediately. Everyone on that plane should start a class action suit against the FAA and Boeing immediately.
I'm not standing by comments that go against the safety culture of aviation
No, nobody should be "frothing at the mouth", that's an ignorant and unhelpful behaviour. Air travel didn't get safer by doing that
> A plane that loses a big chunk is indeed “fucked”
It landed fine and it is in principle repairable. No, it is not fucked
> There should have been many many redundant safety systems and procedures here with either didn’t exist or failed
Again someone who doesn't know nothing about the subject and thinks that experts haven't thought about their first conclusion after 5 seconds of thinking.
> this was a 10 out of 10 failure
5 out of 10 wrong on that comment. The seal failed and everything else worked. The masks, the procedures, the emergency landing.
But yes, either the installation of that door seal was faulty or there is a systemic issue with that seal (not sure how many customers are flying with it as opposed to just having the door there) - or a combination of factors with something else in between.
> Although a door is available for that row in the plane's design Alaska chose not to exercise that option, having the doors deactivated by Boeing before delivery.
> It therefore appears from the inside of the cabin like a regular window seat, although from the outside the frame of the deactivated door remains visible
Aerospace was my field before tech was. Reliability is still my field.
A door got sucked out of a plane in flight. That is not a matter of unavoidable human error but can only be the consequence of a concert of cascading failures of the type that should never happen which is why it’s a 10/10, if the flight had been full at least one passenger would have likely been sucked out. It is dumb luck that this did not happen.
Your attitude of derating a disaster like this is a strong indicator of the type of problem in the industry. In the end if we don’t get executives resigning and major operating overhauls with the responsible entities, it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice.
From the sound bites in these videos it seems sitting on the seat next to that empty seat was a child. I am thinking how each we fly my son always asks to sit next to the window.this accident was so close to having a fatality…
How do you know it's related to Boeing's actions in any way? Why do you think there weren't any safety procedures, and again, how do you know it's Boeing's fault they weren't followed?
Do you think it's only Boeing itself doing aircraft service? It's not.
It is Boeing’s aircraft. Absent a sophisticated act of intentional sabotage, Boeing is at least partially responsible. The physical design, manufacturing, assembly, qualification, maintenance plans, and maintenance training are all responsibilities of the prime contractor. If a damn door falls off in flight more than one of those definitely contributed. It isn’t only Boeing. The FAA is also reasonable for verifying and requiring Boeing do all the right things and they will share blame as well as likely one or more of the several groups that will have contributed to the failure.
If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly, not that there is a systematic issue. That'd require much more fallen doors.
>If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly
More or less what both Boeings predecessor and the FAA took away last time such a thing occurred. Crew didnt close the door properly and a warning sign was installed.
No, bad case of language barrier. Thanks for asking for clarification, its an equally unpleasant misunderstanding as people feeling insulted by the use of the generic you.
This isnt my native language, might i ask you for your interpretation of that post? I didnt think i was being confrontational here, so i cant figure out how to interpret your post.
What you mean to say throwaway51104 is that it is completely Boeing's fault and you work on minimal wage in a hired PR firm trying to defend them on social media.
There have been warnings for years that Boeing has lost the plot and abandoned their safety culture.
> How do you know it's related to Boeing's actions in any way?
With all of their actions in recent memory, they currently have negative benefit of the doubt; problems and issues should be assumed, and if/when they occur, public blame and shame will generally start on them until proven otherwise.
That's the consequence of throwing caution to the wind and repeatedly trashing their own reputation for a few more short-term dollars.
According to news reports, it wasn't a door though. It is said it was a window located at a place where a door could be installed as an option.
If it's the case, I suppose there was not specific maintenance on this part of the aircraft.
I do agree with you that proper investigation is required before jumping to any conclusion, plenty of factors (external or internal to boeing) can contribute into this type of incident.
I'd recommend searching Google Flights with the "Legrooms for Google Flights" Chrome extension. Not only does it visibly list each aircraft type in the list of search results, but it also shows you how many inches of legroom each one has. One of the most useful Chrome extensions, IMO.
Doesn't matter what turns out to be root cause here. The Max might finally get the critical mass of brand damage here. Especially if Daily Mail et al are reporting it in the headlines.
Boeing might be properly held accountable* for their previous mistake, now.
IMO the previous outcome did not seem fair to 'consumers' / victims, and did not seem to be an appropriate deterrent / incentive for future QC/QA improvements.
*The company - I don't hold hope for holding execs accountable.
> Alaska flight 1282 left Portland just after 5pm local time on Friday when an emergency door blew out at 16,000 feet.
If this happened at cruising altitude with a higher pressure differential, would the plane survive? (I know generally the door won't open at that altitude since they open inward, but I assume the same forces wouldn't do anything to prevent a window blowout)
Southwest Airlines Flight 1380's window was broken at 32,000 feet, the plane survived but one passenger was sucked part way out the broken window and died of her injuries.
The Aloha Airlines Flight 243 incident took place at 24,000 feet.
> The captain felt the aircraft roll to the left and right, and the controls went loose; the first officer noticed pieces of grey insulation floating in the cockpit. The cockpit door had broken away and the captain could see "blue sky where the first-class ceiling had been.
> The crew declared an emergency and diverted to Kahului Airport for an emergency landing. During the approach to the airport, the left engine failed, and the flight crew was unsure if the nose gear was lowered correctly. Nevertheless, they were able to land normally on Runway 2, thirteen minutes after the incident.
What kind of policing is this anyway? Does pointing out the irony of the fact that Boeing forgot how to build planes feels kinda butthurt compared to being supremacist about technology?
Well it actually should. And this topic SHOULD be inflammatory and provocative. It would be totally weird if everyone is fine with this. Its not like supremacist outlook on tech has nothing to do with deteriorating quality of that tech anyway.
I always wonder if passengers are compensated for like.. the trauma? The videos going around on Twitter show the oxygen masks dropped and people chatting in their seats about thinking they were going to die. Seems like a fine line between manufacturing "shortcuts" and criminal negligence.
I remember reading an article about how some Boeing employees are surprised the 787 planes don’t have more issues because their warnings about quality issues are ignored.
It can also survive a colision with another aircraft while landing, and people can survive inside it for 20 minutes while it is literally on fire. That’s pretty compelling.
> the Boeing Dreamliner for example is shockingly uncomfortable to fly in
Struggling with this comment, I do a lot of long-haul and the dreamliner is a clear differentiator on arrival due to cabin pressure and humidity. Boeing seems to have made a lot of mistakes over the years but I seek out a dreamliner for anything over 8 hours.
Perhaps you are the victim of the airline more than the aircraft itself?
The 787 is nice, but the competing A350 and A380 both have similar pressurisation and I haven't noticed humidity issues on either. I think the 787 was a significant step up on the 777, but compared to modern alternatives I think it probably is slightly less comfortable.
> Park praised three aircraft types in particular: the Airbus A380, the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350.
> The 787 and A350 nudge the humidity up to approximately 25% — an incremental upgrade, to be sure, but an upgrade nonetheless. That's because their composite-materials fuselages won't rust like metal ones would under increased humidity.
Haven't been on an A350 but definitely enjoyed the other two for long-haul. There's a noticeable difference when you spend enough time in that tube, Sydney to London is 24hr's straight with a short time off the plane halfway in the middle of the night. Long-haul is the default for Australians travelling internationally.
Yeah I live in London and my partner lives in Melbourne. Been doing 3x a year since covid.
Something that's fascinating to me though, and which puts a lot of online aviation discourse (that mostly comes from US domestic flights) into perspective, is that the short hops we sometimes do like Melbourne -> Hobart, is that they are immediately noticeable as far less comfortable. Apart from sleep effects, 1 hour of domestic flying leaves me feeling worse than 14 hours of long haul, and I think it's just seats and leg room. Economy (and cheap!) long haul flights are not actually that bad, at least for me as a 6' tall guy.
Same here: lot of long haul. Know of all the rumors about bad 787 engineering. Still much prefer 787 over alternatives because I find it significantly more comfortable.
I've done a few New Zealand to Houston trips on the Dreamliner and I find the vibration, temperature and humidity to be totally hostile compared to the A350.
I was pleasantly surprised recently that a much smaller airliner the Embraer 195 had much more cabin comfort than a 737. Considering the smaller size I was expecting the opposite.
I think the algorithmic flight pricing has picked up on this.
I was seeing flights on 737 Max 8 were easily 10-20% cheaper compared to other models on a given route and date. The 737 Max 8 ended up being my most flown model in 2023.
They used to say “if it’s not Boeing, I’m not going.” Some sort of jingoistic tripe. I wonder how many true believers are left after all the trash Boeing has been putting out lately.
Is there a browser addon that can list the type of plane next to the flight in popular flight search tools? (e.g. Google Flights, SkyScanner etc). I’d love such an addon.
It's seems impossible that on some routes we do not have alternative to Boeing planes. Consumers should be allowed to decide with their wallet. Isn't that the whole purpose of the Capitalist system?!
Weeelll, it's a duopoly, and consumers rarely get details about the aircraft prior to booking their tickets. So we have at best an indirect say in what planes get acquired and used by the airline.
Booking sites like Kayak let you filter flights by aircraft model, but it's a pretty rare feature from what I've seen.
> The Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023, according to FAA record posted online.
It’s 2 months old, so poor maintenance, wear and tear, etc are not even minor factors.
This is just a poorly made plane with awful quality control.
And that’s even before we get into some of the design issues, both the shortcuts they’ve taken and ones that are more fundamental.
The part that blew off was a blank filler panel for an optional emergency door. With that context, are they still delivered as part of the fuselage or are they added in the final assembly?
"Provision for the new exits – which boost the exit limit capacity from 189 to 215 passengers – “will be structurally installed as standard in all -900s, and will allow operators to decide if the door should be activated or deactivated”, says 737 chief project engineer Mike Delaney."
Makes it sound like they're always installed, and airlines can opt to activate them or not...
Stan and the gang will try and pawn this off on Spirit, but Renton is supposed to do high blow[1]. It's one of the last things that gets done, with hydraulics and suchlike. I'm just guessing here, but I bet someone waived a batch of Spirit stuff through the process to get more units out the door. "Eh, this whole block is probably fine". False Equivalence strikes again[2].
[1] Simulated full pressurization, often many of them
[2] And yeah. Spirit's got problems. But those problems wouldn't be problems if Boeing didn't sell off BCA's Wichita fuse fab to investment bankers back in 2005 as "Spirit". It's a pretty good name, since it's what some religions think is left behind after you're dead.
Please, Stan the Man will blame the pilots, the passengers, the Wright brothers themselves before admitting Boeing screwed up again. Accountability left that company years ago.
> This is just a poorly made plane with awful quality control.
Maybe if Boeing, you know, lobby to lower these safety restrictions then those pesky quality control checks will reduce and somehow everything will just work out just fine [1].
Seriously though, as a brand new, fresh off the production line 737 this kind of event should be so rare as to be nearly impossible.
> Maybe if Boeing, you know, lobby to lower these safety restrictions then those pesky quality control checks will reduce and somehow everything will just work out just fine
I am open to the possibility that an industry might be over-regulated and also expect that the people who would be most likely to try and correct that imbalance would be the companies in the industry. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a company should be able to lobby the government in it's own interests. The issue of de-regulation creating safety hazards lies completely with the government officials who take their advice (and probably money) without regard to the effects that might happen.
When a mobster bribes a cop, the person that's commiting the (much) greater offense is the cop.
a) you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest
b) you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them
c) you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation
> you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest
I didn't say that. I said I'm okay with them lobbying for their interests and that am open to the idea that some industries might be over-regulated and that the companies in that industry are in the best position to know that.
> you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them
Yes.
> you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation
Again, I didn't say that. I used that as an analogy. Analogies aren't perfect. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I expect you know exactly what I was getting at and chose to misinterpret me so you can dunk on the strawman.
My overall point being, if you're upset with deregulation, you should direct your ire at the regulators who took the word of lobbyists at face value instead of doing their jobs.
Eh, I was being a touch snarky using your mobster analogy back at you somewhat out of context, but other than that, I wasn't really straw-manning much at all.
I guess the root of where we seem to disagree is the extent to which it's reasonable for companies to lobby, and the extent to which we believe it's reasonable to expect government employees to be the last bastion of reason and good conduct, despite everything that might be brought to bear against them.
Part of the case with Boeing and the 737 Max is actually more extreme than this, and also really interesting, as Boeing's financial interest is set clearly and diametrically against the interests of the public who might fly on their planes. Here's a precis (as I understand it): following the two earlier actual crashes of the Max (each killing hundreds of people) the FAA requested changes to those planes, to make them safer. Boeing lobbied against these changes, successfully, resulting in Congress effectively overruling the FAA, via a provision in the recent spending bill. [0]
Sadly, in reality, such "holding to account" almost certainly won't happen.
1) Congresspeople's voting can often be related to local selfish incentives - they support local industries because that's what their voters care about, irrespective of the bigger picture. There are myriad examples of this - Joe Manchin being in the pocket of the coal industry is an obvious one. In this particular case, Boeing claimed that the safety work requested by the FAA would place the 737 Max program itself (and therefore the jobs that depend on it) at risk. You could see this as democracy at work... but it's really democracy tainted by the influence of money and lobbying.
2) The 'adjustment' to the FAA's safety work was placed inside a much bigger bill, therefore obfuscating responsibility and even awareness.
3) In a highly-partisan, two-party system, it would have to be a highly emotionally-charged topic to push voters into voting tactically against their previous choice. Roe vs. Wade might be big enough for some people, but I doubt that something as small as this would do so.
--
That aside, the idea that the current system is protected by the ability of voters to 'hold their representative to account' every two or so years is surely crazy:
a) such accountability (if it ever happens) has up to a two-year lag - far from acceptable given the current example related to aircraft safety (which should be noted and reversed as a matter of urgency)
b) even if such accountability transpired, is it realistic to expect that a newly-elected replacement Congressperson could reverse the previous wrong? Highly unlikely.
Guess what, the old Boeing that did the 777 is just as much 'capitalism' as the one that did the MAX. Arguable more so because they were less focused on military and government contracts depending on what we mean when we are saying 'capitalism'.
If by capitalism you mean 'profitable' then Boeing was more so before they started making shitty products.
The reality is companies and all organisation, for many reason change over time.
I hope it's not controversial to point out that agents motivated by profit will, at the limit, optimize for profit at the expense of everything else (including, in this case, safety). Airlines are less regulated today than they were back when Boeing got its start; the other quality of free and markets is that they consolidate into monopolies, at which point the market stops functioning entirely as a useful mechanism for resource allocation.
> agents motivated by profit will, at the limit, optimize for profit at the expense of everything else
As opposed to agents motivated by conformity and an eye towards bureaucratic values?
Humans are self interested. This is common across systems. What differs is how we orient those interests in concert or competition, and when that dial is turned.
So where are the profits? Boeing hasn't made money since 2018 and I suspect their revenue per employee is very low.
They are "too big to fail", part of the ministry of defense, and a large make-work program.
> they consolidate into monopolies
Indeed there are about 3 aerospace companies setup to server the US government. It regulates everything from how paperwork is stored, to what tests candidate employees must pass, and which parts they can order.
In the commercial sector all of their customer's requirements come from the government.
I think the idea is that it used to be Boeing didn't have these kinds of problems, they managed themselves and made safer airplanes. At least they appeared safer.
I think the idea was that capitalism was at fault, so we should go back to whatever variant of the system Boeing operated under when there were less failures. Or else I’m not sure why their conclusion would be that the fix would be to reel in capitalism.
Think the govs lost their vetoes a while ago. Airbus is now a play by American asset managers AFAIK. Since the market’s mature, it’s more attractive and profitable to buy up programs like the A220 and farm EU subsidies vs. betting on a Boeing turnaround.
I have a feeling there was a decent mechanical engineer also applying to work at boeing at the same time. But my friend did check that diversity box. The same one that helps you earn your bonus at Microsoft.
This is nonsense in my opinion. SpaceX exists and did a lot of work with young engineers.
The problem isn't the engineers but the management. There are plenty of smart and hard working people in the US.
Its ridiculous to believe that GM is fundamentally unable to recruit software people. Tesla did it just fine, as a small company with less money. Its rather management that systematically for 30+ years has considered software to be unnecessary and pushed it as far down the supply chain as they could.
I think my thesis is non-controversial and entirely obvious. So I suspect we diverge on definitions rather than have a factual disagreement.
Tesla is big tech (today). SpaceX isn't only because it is niche, and hasn't gone public. Both are 20 years old, and have for the last two decades been the most exciting companies in their respective segments, by far. This allows them to compete very favorably.
GM is boring, slow and makes many public mistakes. GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009. It has to pay a significant premium to hire equivalent talent and offers significant career risk, especially to young employees.
The industry in general seems to have a huge cash pay issue. Flight attendants, bag handlers, mechanics, aerospace engineers, etc. All are paid a lot less than one would think.
I have a few friends who did aerospace for a few years. All are now in tech and earning more than they expected to earn at peak of their aerospace jobs.
Why would they? For the number of seats they had, the extra emergency exits aren't required. Installing the extra doors would mean more things to inspect or go wrong.
If you want to get hung up on the emergency exits, consider why every modern airliner has doors that are easier (power assist) to open in an emergency but the 737 has doors that are more difficult to open in an emergency.
Except, you know, this thing called the Airbus A320 NEO. You know the thing that is more modern and produced at a higher rate. Somehow that doesn't seem to have doors falling of. So your statement is objectively wrong.
Yeah must admit I think I jumped the gun a bit there. Reading about it a bit more it seems like this is a major manufacturing cock-up that this was even possible.
If an inspection done after going into service involved removing/replacing that door, it could have been done incorrectly.
There really is no way to know what happened without more research, and I’m confident the priority will be to understand if this was a one off or widespread issue.
Aren’t maintenance protocols handled by the FAA? Otherwise it would be implied that budget carriers like Spirit or Alaska would be “less” safe (which isn’t the case AFAIK).
Maintenance protocols are a mix of manufacturer recommendations and carrier/maintenance contractor SOPs, which are then approved by the manufacturer and FAA.
In 2000, an Alaska MD-80 went down, killing all 88 onboard. The NTSB found that it was apparently due to failing to adequately lubricate the tail jackscrew, as required by manufacturer documentation, not just once, but in at least two successive scheduled maintenance periods. Also, Alaska had been increasing, with FAA approval, the period between scheduled maintenence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358