> So, where are the bolts? Probably sitting forgotten and unlabeled (because there is no formal record number to label them with) on a work-in-progress bench, unless someone already tossed them in the scrap bin to tidy up.
So this is like when I would take apart and re-assemble everything when I was a little kid. Sometimes I would have several screws left over. It's a good thing I wasn't making airplanes!
This seems very funny/strange to me. Way back in the early/mid-90s, the company I worked for invested a lot of money to switch to some new computer accounting/inventory system that ran on AS400 (just to show its age). The software was originally built to track all of the parts and pieces to build an airplane. What type of airplane I don't know, but we made VHS tapes so the level of complexity between and airplane and VHS cassette always seems to be out of whack.
After that, I just assumed all airplane manufactures used something like this.
That comment thread is wild. Do you think it is genuine?
If what that commenter says is true, the whole company ought to be shut down.
It’d also be an easy sell for either of the two presidential candidates - one can say he’s clamping down on incompetent elites who aren’t that elite after all; the other can talk about a profit-seeking company killing Americans.
>If what that commenter says is true, the whole company ought to be shut down.
No it won't. Boeing has reached too big to fail status.
They employ many millions of people directly and indirectly between commercial and military aerospace.
Boeing has reached PEAK too big to fail recently too when they announced that due to their too big to fail status, they are unable to estimate or control costs anymore and will no longer bid for any US military contracts that are fixed-price.
What you will see is billions in bailout funds given to Boeing shareholders.
Still ought to be shut down though. Given they're outsourcing so much of their maintenance and shitting their bed on their existing products, at some point too big to fail just turns into a big failure.
I think the cracking down on incompetent elites that aren't that elite is something Republicans feel should be left to the market to decide. I don't think it's an easy sell to argue the government should shut down an entire company over issues rather than letting the issues lead to fewer sales and having the market sort it out. I think most Republicans would vehemently disagree with a statement like "the government should decide who the elites are", which this action seems to be doing.
I agree the profit-seeking company killing Americans is an easy sell with democrats and possibly even a good chunk of independents.
Sure, but due to its nature the aircraft industry for commerical planes isn't really a free market.
Obviously, Boeing and Airbus represent a duopoly. When you factor in one of them is US-based and is relied upon to deliver on certain national security projects, defense etc no politician is going to let the commercial arm fail and risk the national security arm failing too.
Also there is a lag in the system around failure. The market could decide that Boeing planes are poorly constructed, but how many accidents and deaths would have to happen in order for customer (airlines) to decide to no longer put in orders. That's not really feasible.
Boeing is also a major defense contractor, and has facilities spread out across many states. No politician of either party is going to call for the shutdown of a major employer of their constituents and a key component of national security.
seems to me that you might want quality control on those defense/weapon systems. if the rot is this bad in one part of the company like as not it is just as bad on the govenrment contract side as well.
The US doesn't do government-owned (except in exceptional circumstances). For one, they would be sued by the shareholders (unfair seizure) and competitors (unfair competition). It also is not clear that the government acquiring something would make it run better.
It’s hard for both candidates. Boeing is our only airline manufacturer and an American institution. If it shuts down all we have is an European Airbus and creates an opening for a Chinese COMAC.
I spent 15 years of my career working in contract manufacturing, building and managing engineering teams building manufacturing & quality systems. A lot of what our company did was for regulated industries (defense & medical). What's not surprising at all is that Boeing customers would have conducted independent audits of the materiel being delivered to them, either while the planes were on the line, or post-delivery. That's to be expected, as is periodic external audits by regulatory bodies. What's mildly more interesting, but still not surprising, is that Spirit was so consistently upset with finished product quality that they contracted with Boeing to have Spirit employees colo'd at Boeing shops to inspect and warranty repair their planes. This is also not remarkable in electronics contract manufacturing: very frequently there are OEM employee squads staffing QA & Repair/RMA benches at contract manufacturer factories, for two reasons. 1) The OEM knows their product better than the manufacturer, and 2) Risk. Ultimately the OEM is accountable for quality to the consumer, no matter who the constructor is.
It mildly more interesting to learn that Spirit was not granted access to Boeing's MES, which leads me to believe that Boeing's stance toward Spirit is more like "they're our customer and they insist on on-site inspection & repair so we'll begrudingly allow it" than "they're our customer and we have a shared interest in quality manufacturing so we'll partner with them to ensure that happens." This is a failure of leadership and extremely short-sighted, and is virtually guaranteed to result in the sort of process failures and outcomes the throwaway describes.
It's not uncommon for OEMs to take over contract manufacturer's sites, either because of a strategic decision to conduct manufacturing operations internally [again], or due to persist or pernicious quality issues arising from specific partners' operations or at specific plants. This is relatively feasible in the case of most electronics and smaller mechanical devices, and contract manufacturers operate in a state of existential fear most of the time, knowing their destiny is in the hands of a small handful of OEM customers (just look at the impact Apple's quarterly reports and projections have on partners like Foxconn, Jabil and Pegatron). It's not practical -- or even really possible due to capital expense -- to do this in aerospace. For that reason primarily, I see no alternative than for Boeing (and others) to be forced into 100% process compliance by presence of permanent external audit teams based in corporate offices and every manufacturing & assembly location. I wouldn't be surprised, too, if Boeing were forced (for political rather than anything to do with quality) to onshore more of their supply chain[1]).
My impression was the the Spirit mentioned in the comment was Spirit AeroSystems, not Spirit Airlines, so the relationship between the two companies is the other way around; Boeing is the customer.
Spirit Aerosystems also used to be Boeing, but Boeing spun out that division years ago. I don't know, but it seems to me that history makes the relationship between the two more than just supplier/customer.
Interesting, I see this attitude too often in the healthcare industry as well, often leading to recalls.
It sounds like someone under pressure came up with a "loophole" that was compliant with a motivated but literal reading of the CMES reporting requirement. In this case, I would wager dollars to donuts that the CMES reporting requirement only anticipated door separated/not separated.
Mental gymnastics is used to argue compliance with some technical requirement, like it is some legal proceeding where you can debate what the definition of "is" is.
No amount of formal quality process can defend against business pressure and incentives to hack the same system. Requirements dont and cant cover every corner case, like someone saying a door was never fully separated because you tied them together with a shoelace before dethatching it.
Asking if a justification passes the "red face test" is ultimately more valuable than asking if it passes a literal reading.
https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installa...