General > General Technical Chat

Corperate greed & the 737 max, read this

<< < (5/7) > >>

coppercone2:

--- Quote from: chickenHeadKnob on October 03, 2020, 11:06:26 am ---The other important news out of Boeing in the last week is shutting down 787 production in Everett and moving it all to Charleston SC. Boeing built 787 in both plants but the South Carolina facility is non-unionized. It also produces significantly poorer quality aircraft, with more initial defects.


--- End quote ---

Yea, the union protection allows the workers to.. actually do their job. Without the union corporate can squeeze 'efficiency' out of the plant, meaning basically corporate can decide who to hassle/rush into passing shitty QC and shoddy work that 'they know is not important', wheras with a union, they get told to fuck off, so everything is done. So you noticed of course the numbers, two plants, one has 1/3rd of the staff, and it happens to be corporate. I wonder who has longer work hours, stricter with breaks, etc. (probobly the non union place). And being non union, they can shroud problems etc, because they are capable of exerting massive amounts of pressure on the work force.

coppercone2:

--- Quote from: tooki on October 16, 2020, 07:22:57 pm ---
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on October 16, 2020, 06:31:23 pm ---
--- Quote from: duckduck on October 16, 2020, 06:12:58 pm ---Off topic. I live in the Seattle area and Boeing employees have told me that they regularly have to rework parts from the South Carolina factory. The closing of the 787 line in Seattle is not good news for airlines or passengers. It's sad to see another formerly great business suffer the humiliations of being run by MBAs instead of engineers. I suppose it is the cycle of life.

--- End quote ---

The whole sad MAX story has "run by MBAs" written all over it too.

--- End quote ---
Yep. But I guess that was to be expected when McDonnell Douglas’s management (which was famously bean-counter types) replaced Boeing’s engineering-driven management. I think Boeing’s stockholders who want long-term value (rather than pump-and-dump style quick returns) need to oust those fools.

--- End quote ---

I find it hillarious when I read the story of the A-10 warthog, the initial design was handled on a 'price per pound'. The airplane became wildly appealing/interesting AFTER this policy was dropped. I believe that initial development was handled by McD corporate. It might have been price per cubic meter, but you get the idea of how the project was managed from the start. It's described in some old encyclopedia I read once. Also, if I recall, the initial number was completely ridiculous, even for 1960's currency value. The project started completely choked out.

I imagine the board room went somewhat like this:

Hmm. This widget we are building.. it occupies space, and it has mass. How should we design it? Hmm.
I think we should divide something by cost. I like cost. Hmm. Lets use weight. That's right, we are going to use weight.. and divide it by cost. Get to it.

 I wanna bet the sales pitch to the military was "look how cheap you are getting 10 tons for!"
What is shows you is that business administrators cannot fathom the complexity of aircraft design, r&d, etc.. and will set completely ridiculous design guidelines. They want to be hot shit, because its an aircraft and they think that they should be filthy rich from it, since it flies and looks cool, and believe in unrealistic margins. Then they complain because they setup their business logistics in some inefficient and crazy way and claim its not profitable and impossible to do any better and bitch to the government then try to strong arm global travel and national economies. 

nuclearcat:

--- Quote from: pickle9000 on September 25, 2020, 03:39:20 am ---How much you wanna bet they change the name?

I'd also say it will be safer now that people are paying attention. I think it has to be re-certified in Europe as well and it's not just a rubber stamp as is the norm.

--- End quote ---
They did, it is already in report

Alti:
I believe that the consequence of the story might be that some private enterprise replaces all government administrations dealing with aviation safety by introducing smple, open, verifyable, objective, regularly updated safety rating of a flight. In simplest concept, it is enough to do some elementary data analysis and calculate statistics regarding a proof of safe passengerkms rating for a specific flight. Just an easily comparable number 0-100.

My proposition of scaling:

0     : reserved for first flight with a test pilot on-board, stewardess shows you how to fasten your parachute.
50   : world average death rate per passengerkms for today.
100 : reserved for theoretical plane that transports all passenger trafic without single loss of life.

Once some plane hits WTC or someone beaks neck while stepping off board, the counter goes down.
PIA 8303 and rating drop by 27 points.

Human factor, geese, MCAS, surface to air missile, divine intervention, corporate greed - who cares?

I suspect there won't be many passengers interested to pay for a flight with low rating. The manufacturers would have to hire airlines for passengerkms to test the plane and raise the rating first. Some would prefer to pay extra for sth closer to 50. Personally I do not need blue leds, cutting edge technology or untested avionics that even creators are afraid to fly.

As for the victims, they were not passengers, they were guinea pigs, test flight rating 11.

SilverSolder:

--- Quote from: Alti on October 17, 2020, 03:13:06 pm ---
[...] As for the victims, they were not passengers, they were guinea pigs [...]


--- End quote ---

That, sadly, sums up the situation perfectly.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod