Originally Posted by
yanrair
hi there Rated De
my god you are cynical! The biggest driver to make your airplane or airline as safe as it can be should be that this is how to stay in business. Crash twice and as we see it’s all over for a long time. I can name several airlines that went out of business on this premise.
An old saying in our airline “ if you think Safety is expensive, try having a crash or two!” The touchy-feely part about empathy for our customers etc, comes with the hard nosed business model free of charge. If you make your planes fly safely at whatever cost, it’s money well spent and passengers are as safe as can be.
Now some are saying that Boeing are taking chances with that business model deliberately. I would be amazed if that were true. That they might have screwed up the MCAS design is without doubt, but I don’t think it was a Machiavellian plot.
Yan
Not cynical nor is it Machiavellian.
Boeing used to build airliners with integrity. There is a school of thought that while they continue to trade on buzzwords welded to that premise, that expeditious (cost driven) process has replaced robust.
Passengers were, and aircraft were, as safe as they could be. Is that the contention that nothing has changed?
Boeing is symptomatic of the atrophy of the robust process, replaced with something far less but remains the same in name.
If robust process were in place the regulatory environment would provide remedy where malfeasance, divergence and negligence driven by something than adherence to robust process is discovered.
Dianne Vaughan captured the denigration, albeit incrementally in robust process, "The Challenger Launch Decision" and the
normalisation of deviance; one corner cut, budget fudge at a time.