patrick.net

FischerKing
@FischerKing64
I can explain Boeing quickly. It attained a market dominant position in the USA following the merger with McDonnell Douglas. This made it lazy. It then got new management, which emphasized financial chicanery over top flight engineering, symbolized in its move of its corporate HQ from Seattle to Chicago. The financial geniuses then worked to break the union, shift production away from its trained Seattle work force to places like South Carolina, and outsource production of most plane components abroad - the American work force was left to assemble all these disparate parts rather than produce them here. Software was also outsourced. The end result was lower quality of aircraft, delays in development and production, and even fatalities from crashes. But rest assured the management in Chicago did very well.

Meanwhile, by focusing on MBAs and JDs rather than engineers, top management fell victim to all the pathologies coming out of top schools. This is where the DEI nonsense comes from, which would have been much harder to impose if management were more focused on building good planes than stock buybacks. So the outsourcing, cost cutting, diminishing the original work force - all this is now working in tandem with the sort of diversity/DEI dysfunction visible all over corporate America. It’s a feedback loop that could be fatal to Boeing, and has already been fatal to someone airline passengers.

This is basically it. It’s not an elaborate conspiracy. It’s a tale of greed and dysfunction that you can see all over America.

https://x.com/FischerKing64/status/1768750379242807425?s=20

80% of our MIC problems would be solved by having Lockheed and Martin, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. Split 'em up.

B.A.C.A.H. says

"The mature airframe design was not the root cause of the problems."

You are ignoring the fact that during the assembly process Boeing failed to install four bolts and four
nuts on this "mature and unchanged airframe" of yours. As a result, a panel on the fuselage blew
off during the Alaska Airlines flight.

In other words, Boeing delivered an unsafe brand new plane to Alaska Airlines.

If you do not follow the design steps then the end result is an unsafe airplane and the fact that it is
a "mature, unchanged airframe design" is irrelevant.

B.A.C.A.H. says

"Dude, we know, from your posts, that you love to travel by air. And we know, from your posts, that you're a loyal customer of Southwest which has all Boeing 737, including MAX."

No you don't know because I never said that.

"You don't have to reflexively defend The Boeing Corporation and blame everyone else for the recent issues to enjoy the travel."

I never defended Boeing.

Have a nice day.

Lol. The engineering is so poor that they can land without an engine,door, exterior panel and NO ONE DIES!!! Maybe think about it before typing and research aviation. Boeing and American pilots have the safest transportation record on the planet.

The_Deplorable says

No you don't know because I never said that.

"You don't have to reflexively defend The Boeing Corporation and blame everyone else for the recent issues to enjoy the travel."

I never defended Boeing.

Have a nice day.

Chill out. My comments were directed at Wookie whose "quote" was inside of your quote. I will edit my comment so it's clear to whom I was directing my remark.

Have a nice day.

B.A.C.A.H. says

You don't have to reflexively defend The Boeing Corporation and blame everyone else for the recent issues to enjoy the travel.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall at this point. The AIRLINES are in charge of the plane once they take ownership. The pilots look over them EVERY flight. This is end user errors. For all you engineers it is frankly a basic concept. YOU catch issues if under warranty and call them out. That's not what's happening. These are 5 year old planes. It's on the airline and sure they could work with Boeing on issues, but it's the airline that needs to maintain their fleet.

This has nothing to do with my flying. I could stop flying tomorrow and be miserable just sitting in the same place. That's fun. Most you cats sound miserable. I'll enjoy my travels. I'll enjoy the 737 that is completely safe. Driving a car is exponentially more dangerous and has more engineering fuck ups.

But hey, a guy off's himself and a conspiracy theory is created... Brilliant.

WookieMan says

"For all you engineers it is frankly a basic concept. YOU catch issues if under
warranty and call them out."

In science we follow the data WookieMan. In this case the data says that the 737 has very
serious safety problems and needs to be recalled. It is not that complicated.

And stepping back and looking at the big picture, Boeing has a major problem with safety.

The_Deplorable says

In science we follow the data WookieMan. In this case the data says that the 737 has very
serious safety problems and needs to be recalled. It is not that complicated.

What safety problems? Name one that wasn't on airline negligence? Just one. No one has yet.

You guys clearly don't know anyone in the insurance industry or law. Stick to science I guess. If an employee changes a tire on an aircraft and doesn't do it right and it falls off, how is that Boeings fault.

The logic is not there. It's not scientific. It's retarded.

"In science we follow the data WookieMan. In this case the data says that the 737 has very
serious safety problems and needs to be recalled. It is not that complicated."

WookieMan says

"What safety problems? Name one that wasn't on airline negligence? Just one.
No one has yet."

I did. During the assembly process Boeing failed to install four bolts and four nuts on the fuselage.
As a result, the fuselage blew off during the Alaska Airlines flight. In other words, Boeing delivered
an unsafe brand new plane to Alaska Airlines.

Did you expect Alaska Airlines to rebuild the plane for Boeing? And United? And Ameriacn? And
Continental? And Delta? And... And...

WookieMan says

"If an employee changes a tire on an aircraft and doesn't do it right and it falls
off, how is that Boeings fault. The logic is not there. It's not scientific. It's retarded."

Your argument is incoherent. Changing a tire is a maintenance issue. Failing to assemble the
fuselage by not bolting it down is a manufacturing issue.

.

This talks about what was on Rogan's podcast: https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-accidents-far-right-dei-conspiracy/

of course they use the term "far right" for public shaming or gaslighting

you never hear them say "far left" when the AntiFa crowd goes nuts when Biden threatens to close the border

.

GNL, who was on the senior leadership team ? Did they have an aerospace or mechanical engineering background and degrees ?

Are they licensed pilots or were military pilots ?

.

I have no idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utgar8x5mx0

The_Deplorable says

Your argument is incoherent. Changing a tire is a maintenance issue. Failing to assemble the
fuselage by not bolting it down is a manufacturing issue.

Lol. They took control of the aircraft. Airlines have mechanics look it over for the 8-9 figure purchase they just made. You do know this right?

Fine, Boeing missed things, so did the airline. I don't buy pants with a 36" waist and a 48" waist arrives and not notice. Sure someone fucked up, BUT I CHECK TO MAKE SURE IT'S CORRECT. I cannot be clearer. Assume everything is defective that you buy. Especially a $120M aircraft. You have it looked over by your mechanics. I guess this isn't common knowledge???

Watch some aviation videos and read about it. As I've said, you're out of your element. I'll be on a Max in about 48 hours or so. No concerns.

WookieMan says

"Lol. They [Alaska Airlines] took control of the aircraft."

Irrelevant.

"Airlines have mechanics look it over for the 8-9 figure purchase they
just made. You do know this right?"

You seem unable to distinguish between facts from fiction. The US government requires
manufacturers to recall vehicles that have safety-related defects or do not meet Federal
safety standards. What makes you think that Boeing is an exception? No answer.

The_Deplorable says

You seem unable to distinguish between facts from fiction. The US government requires
manufacturers to recall vehicles that have safety-related defects or do not meet Federal
safety standards. What makes you think that Boeing is an exception? No answer.

This isn't a car the general public purchases. You're comparing apples to watermelons. This isn't John Doe buying a Chevy at the dealership. You're not understanding the corporate to corporate purchase. Alaska airlines is ultimately on the hook for this. They're the ones that are going to lose business from this. Boeing has a massive backlog of orders.

As a non-mechanic I look over everything on my car before purchasing. If there was something I didn't know about I'd have a mechanic look it over asap. Then take it back to the dealer and have it fixed. Airline mechanics and techs make a ton of money for a reason. There's not one product on the planet that is engineered perfectly 100% of the time. Alaskan airlines clearly didn't look over and take care of the aircraft.

I will never fly Lion Air or Ethiopian because they didn't train their pilots on a basic system for flight controls. Blame the Boeing MCAS system all you want, it was easy to override and was trained to US pilots. I won't fly Alaskan now because the mechanics missed stuff that was obvious a part of the plane that was easy to inspect in a day. This wasn't a brand new plane delivery and first flight.

The Max has a massive fleet already. This would be happening all the time. It's not. And guess what? No one died either. Totally shit engineering.... You must be the type that doesn't check your tires, brakes, oil and then goes and bitches to the manufacturer? Alaskan didn't take care of a 9 figure asset. There's not much else to this. Again this isn't a public to corporate purchase like a car. It's corporate to corporate. Totally different animal.