Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Boeing Bashing
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
Mar 16, 2024 14:08:53   #
Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
 
It was all profit related.

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 14:26:24   #
ecblackiii Loc: Maryland
 
FYI, Boeing's headquarters is in Arlington Virginia, not Chicago.

Regardless of headquarters location, every business corporation MUST make a profit. That profit is demanded by the investors who put up the capital to create and operate the business. If the company doesn't make a profit, it goes out of business. So, profit is essential just to stay in business.

The idea that a business simply chooses between doing quality work and making a profit is a silly daydream. It isn't an either/or. Companies that make junk products in aviation don't survive. Boeing was forced to find ways to streamline operations in order to survive the cut-throat cost-competition from government-subsidized Airbus. But safety was NEVER disregarded.

Research and development of new manufacturing technologies and new materials changed manufacturing processes significantly and were more economical. Eliminating unprofitable product lines [e.g., the MacDonald Douglas MD-90 (AKA Boeing 717), Boeing 727 and 757, certain satellite programs, and the digital video transmission business] along with eliminating the thousands of job redundancies that resulted from major mergers with North American, Hughes Aerospace, and MacDonald Douglas were other sources of cost reductions. And all along the way, Boeing's unions won industry leading wages.

You have no idea how many thousands of people were involved in creating the tens of thousands of pages written to describe all the training, operating, and maintaining instructions for Boeing aircraft. Yes, there can and will always be improvements. But there is a point at which humans cannot absorb and remember everything. And there is no set of perfect instructions that can prevent any possible source of human error.

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 14:27:43   #
Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
 
at any price? Board members should be criminally liable for their actions. If they cost live... they should be charged.

Reply
 
 
Mar 16, 2024 14:38:23   #
ecblackiii Loc: Maryland
 
Your point assumes that Board members deliberately violate the law, a fact not in evidence. You also assume that there is a perfectly obvious simple solution to every problem, which is just not the case in highly competitive, very technologically complex reality.

Every major company has to be concerned about liability, because their very size makes them prime targets for greedy litigators. But being sued when not at fault is just as bad as being sued when at fault. Today the cost of litigation is so astronomical, most suits result in some sort of settlement. If you doubt that, just look at your insurance bills. Are they going up or going down?

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 14:53:51   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Dikdik wrote:
at any price? Board members should be criminally liable for their actions. If they cost live... they should be charged.

How about the designers and fabricators. They were part of it also.

Forget that someone other than Boeing may actually be responsible.
OR, simply something called an accident.

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 14:57:29   #
ecblackiii Loc: Maryland
 
Longshadow wrote:
How about the designers and fabricators. They were part of it also.

Forget that someone other than Boeing may actually be responsible.
OR, simply something called an accident.


Your original post only mentioned board members, so I responded to that. Do you intend to create separate posts for each type of job among the tens of thousands of people involved in the production of a large commercial aircraft?

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 15:04:21   #
Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
 
Longshadow wrote:
How about the designers and fabricators. They were part of it also.

Forget that someone other than Boeing may actually be responsible.
OR, simply something called an accident.


They can be culpable, but the direction for the actions comes from the board. They are the instigator. If they are criminally liable, then things will improve. In Canada, with construction safety, when managers became responsible, there was a sudden increase in safety.

Reply
 
 
Mar 16, 2024 15:05:25   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
ecblackiii wrote:
Your original post only mentioned board members, so I responded to that. Do you intend to create separate posts for each type of job among the tens of thousands of people involved in the production of a large commercial aircraft?

MY post(s) never mentioned board members. Check your reference.

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 15:07:28   #
M1911 Loc: DFW Metromess
 
Y'all realize that the Boing CEO has an open door policy, right.

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 15:09:28   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Dikdik wrote:
They can be culpable, but the direction for the actions comes from the board. They are the instigator. If they are criminally liable, then things will improve. In Canada, with construction safety, when managers became responsible, there was a sudden increase in safety.

Yea, I know a person who was a supervisor/manager for one hydro concern in Canada.
His responsibility if one of the linemen screwed up and was injured.
No matter how or why he screwed up.

Unbelievable.

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 15:27:24   #
ecblackiii Loc: Maryland
 
Dikdik wrote:
They can be culpable, but the direction for the actions comes from the board. They are the instigator. If they are criminally liable, then things will improve. In Canada, with construction safety, when managers became responsible, there was a sudden increase in safety.


You obviously do not understand how large, world-class corporations must operate. The "direction for the actions" does not come from the Board. Board member responsibility is established in law. The board meets for a few hours quarterly and reviews program and financial data. It then discusses and votes on major policy proposals brought forth by senior management--things like starting or closing a product line, building a new plant or selling/closing an existing one, major outsourcing or insourcing decisions, changes to pension plans, hiring or firing senior executives etc. It isn't and can't possibly be involved in the day-to-day engineering, manufacturing, purchasing, sales, or administration operations. Between the Board and the first line worker are several layers of management who must daily implement the generalized policies through development of detailed guidelines and job instructions. Every level of management has its specific responsibilities for everything under its control, to include safety.

I'm glad that Canadian construction safety "suddenly" increased when managers became responsible. They should have been accountable all along.

Reply
 
 
Mar 16, 2024 15:31:12   #
ecblackiii Loc: Maryland
 
Longshadow wrote:
MY post(s) never mentioned board members. Check your reference.


My apologies. I intended to respond to Dikdik's comment and accidently responded to your post about Dikdik's comment instead. Read Dikdik's comment to see why I commented as I did.

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 15:39:52   #
Jaymc Loc: Washington
 
Red6 wrote:
Yes, there is a lot of Boeing bashing going on recently but much of it may be deserved. First, let me say that I have always been a Boeing supporter and thought they made the best airplanes in the world. However, things changed at Boeing after the McDonnell Douglas merger, and not for the best. Upper management changed and started cutting costs by cutting corners and people. Speed and costs became more important than quality and safety. Boeing management became obsessed with keeping and maintaining the stock prices as high as possible. Their focus shifted from keeping customers happy and safe to keeping Wall Street happy.

This was exposed after the 737 Max crashes. Documents have been released that Boeing knew (and later lied about) the possible dangers with the MCAS system. Boeing knew all along that MCAS could be a problem but hoped they could "update" it and fix the issues while the aircraft was in service. Even after the crashes and Boeing knew that MCAS was at fault, they tried to shift blame to the airline and pilots.

MCAS description or operation was not described or even mentioned in the 737 Max manuals. Pilots and FAA inspectors did not even know it existed. In fact, Boeing employees were forbidden to mention MCAS to anyone outside the company, including the FAA. This was done by Boeing to speed up the certification of the Max aircraft by telling the airlines and pilots that the 737 Max flew exactly like the older 737s and required no additional training, an expensive cost for the airlines. All this has been revealed in released Boeing documents.

The door plug on Alaskan Airlines appears to be much the same. Boeing's first response was to blame its fuselage builders, Spirit Aerosystems, for shoddy build quality and poor quality control. Recently obtained documents now reveal that Boeing itself removed the door plug at its facility in Seattle and failed to reinstall the bolts that held the door in place. It also violated its own quality policies by NOT properly documenting the action of the door plug removal and replacement. Proper documentation would have ensured that an inspection of the reinstallation of the door plug would have taken place and the missing bolts would have been discovered. But this never happened.

Again, I am a Boeing supporter, and I truly hope they get their act together, but when they lie about their operations, and hide problems while not accepting responsibility for their actions, this becomes a huge problem for me. This is especially true when people's lives hang in the balance. These actions tell me they value money or share prices over the lives of the people who fly in and on their airplanes.

Management issues may also be apparent in other Boeing projects. The 777-9, the Air Force KC-46, and the Boeing Starliner commercial spacecraft have all experienced quality issues delaying their deliveries. I am sure regulators and customers of these aircraft are taking a much closer view of Boeing after the recent events.
Yes, there is a lot of Boeing bashing going on rec... (show quote)



Reply
Mar 16, 2024 16:04:12   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
ecblackiii wrote:
My apologies. I intended to respond to Dikdik's comment and accidently responded to your post about Dikdik's comment instead. Read Dikdik's comment to see why I commented as I did.



Stuff happens.

Reply
Mar 16, 2024 16:08:27   #
Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
 
Longshadow wrote:
Yea, I know a person who was a supervisor/manager for one hydro concern in Canada.
His responsibility if one of the linemen screwed up and was injured.
No matter how or why he screwed up. Unbelievable.


There has been a great improvement in companies looking after safety since this legislation. In addition, I don't know what the circumstances were, but there could be negligence.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.