> 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.
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.