Bloomberg Report: Boeing Mocked Lion Air Calls for More 737 Max Training Before Crash

[fdr]

The headline is bad enough, however, read what Boeing is reported to have said internally, it is beyond bad taste and manners. If correct, then shame on Boeing, doubly so for the offensive followup that was made. Not only didn't Boeing mention what they had done on the systems, they demeaned an operator that was attempting to get comfortable with the differences, in order to save their program from some questions that could cost them.

I'm not sure that is defensible in any manner, and I would think that airline acquisition departments would question how they can trust such a supplier.

Boeing, you need to clean up your act. And not the lip gloss that has passed for response to the prior ethical antics.

Or don't, and see how the market takes the latest revelations.

I am physically nauseas after reading the comments reportedly made by the manufacturer. I think I'll just go and throw up.

Boeing, you have lost me, and I have been a fan for 40 years flying your equipment.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-14/lion-air-idiots-sought-more-max-training-boeing-thwarted-it



...
“Now friggin Lion Air might need a sim to fly the MAX, and maybe because of their own stupidity. I’m scrambling trying to figure out how to unscrew this now! idiots,” one Boeing employee wrote in June 2017 text messages obtained by the company and released by the House committee.

In response, a Boeing colleague replied: “WHAT THE F%$&!!!! But their sister airline is already flying it!” That was an apparent reference to Malindo Air (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/1360582D:IJ), the Malaysian-based carrier that was the first to fly the Max commercially.

Doing simulator training would have undercut a critical selling point of the jet: that airlines would be able to allow crews trained on an older 737 version to fly the Max after just a brief computer course.
...



...
The communications include a 2017 email from Boeing’s chief technical pilot on the 737 in which he crowed to colleagues: “Looks like my jedi mind trick worked again!” The email was sent two days after the earlier messages expressing alarm about Lion Air potentially demanding simulator training.

Attached was a forwarded email exchange in which the person warned an unnamed recipient against offering simulator training for Max pilots, pushing instead for the computer-based course that regulators had already approved for flight crews transitioning to the Max from earlier 737 models.

“I am concerned that if [redacted] chooses to require a Max simulator for its pilots beyond what all other regulators are requiring that it will be creating a difficult and unnecessary training burden for your airline, as well as potentially establish a precedent in your region for other Max customers,” the Boeing pilot wrote in the forwarded message.

...

[atakacs]

Muss say the most recent reports are pretty damning, if not really surprising.

The civil lawyers will have a field day.

To me the most egregious is the CEO going out with a 60mn golden parachute. Muilenburg might have not known all that was happening but the buck stops with him.

[Zeffy]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/after-boeings-horrible-year-annual-race-against-airbus-is-no-contest/



After Boeing’s horrible year, annual race against Airbus is no contest
Jan. 14, 2020 at 8:44 am

By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Boeing’s final tally of commercial jet orders and deliveries in 2019, released Tuesday, starkly displays just how bad the year was: Deliveries were down to a level last seen when all production was halted by a two-month strike and net orders were negative — with more cancellations than new orders.

The annual competition between rival jetmakers was no contest, with Airbus the runaway winner.

Airbus released its final sales and production tally Monday, showing it delivered a total of 863 jets and won 768 net new orders in 2019.

In contrast, Boeing delivered only 380 planes, the lowest total since a 57-day strike shut down production in 2008.

That doesn’t reflect total production. Boeing built around 400 of its 737 MAXs, but with the jet grounded they were parked with their engines and inlets wrapped for long-term storage. Boeing cannot deliver them.

In an indication of the paralysis gripping Boeing’s business, sales also plummeted. There were very few sales of the MAX offset by many more cancellations.

Boeing got a big boost at the Paris Air Show when British Airways announced its intention to place an order for 200 MAXs, but not surprisingly, it was never finalized. That’s unlikely to happen until the airplane gets clearance to fly again from U.S. and foreign regulators.

Net orders for the MAX came in at -73.

Boeing also suffered a net loss of orders for its upcoming 777X widebody jet, which ended the year down 23 orders after a big cancellation from Gulf carrier Emirates.

As a result, Boeing’s overall net order figure for the year was -87.

The MAX crisis has left Airbus the undisputed No. 1 airplane manufacturer.

More details and analysis of the data to come.

Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or [email protected]; on Twitter: @dominicgates.

[fdr]

The arrogance of the Boeing staff is remarkable. I hope that Lion Air & Ethiopian families get a fair hearing and are able to be compensated for the egregious behaviour of Boeing.

Sorry, I'm just going to go throw up again.

Prior to this, I have always contended that the industry is better for having Boeing as a manufacturer, but I am not so sure that they deserve loyalty or faith in their inherent desire to build the proud products that they used to.

[Twitter]

Boeing got a big boost at the Paris Air Show when British Airways announced its intention to place an order for 200 MAXs, but not surprisingly, it was never finalized. That’s unlikely to happen until the airplane gets clearance to fly again from U.S. and foreign regulators.

The CEOs on both sides of that deal are coincidentally both out of a job...

[yyzflightpath]

Boeing's fall from grace will be a case study for the pitfalls of late stage capitalism. A complete and utter breakdown in leadership, company culture and honesty, in the name of greed and stock price. The Chicago leadership team were running this once proud company more like a desperate hedge fund than an airplane innovator and manufacturer. If Boeing were not backed by the full might of the US government there is a good chance they would be circling the drain as a company.

As a Canadian I can't help but see irony regarding the Cseries and MAX. Bombardier Aerospace invested heavily and developed a seemingly cutting edge, modern, safe plane and got bankrupted for it by the cynical tag team duo of Boeing and the US Government and the outrageous C-Series tariff. In the same time-frame Boeing cut every corner they could, lied, broke rules and laws left and right during the MAX development, certification and sales and delivered a complete dud. The CEO is rewarded with a $60 million golden parachute. Perhaps if Boeing's leadership was more focused on the engineering and manufacturing side, rather than focusing on financial and political moves to enrich themselves and torpedo competition, a few hundred people may still be alive today.

[old,not bold]

To me the most egregious is the CEO going out with a 60mn golden parachute. Muilenburg might have not known all that was happening but the buck stops with him

Yes, to me too. But he joins a long line of CEOs in all sectors of industry and finance who have demonstrated that there is no correlation whatsoever between their ability and competence, and the remuneration negotiated by them with credulous remuneration committees who have a vested interest in maintaining the fiction that they and other Directors are worth huge payouts.

However, there is a close correlation between the incompetence of a CEO and the size of the package that he/she negotiates, before taking up the job, for his/her exit within a few years as a total failure.

If Muilenberg did not know what was going on in his organisation he needs to return all the salary and other goodies he has picked up as its CEO. IT'S HIS JOB TO KNOW, FFS! If he didn't know, he was not doing his job. I fail to understand why he is receiving 1 cent, let alone zillions, as he leaves Boeing so damaged that it will only survive, if it does, as a military supplier protected by over-priced Government contracts (aka subsidy), as it always has been. (If he did know, and did nothing about it, then he should be sacked without 1 cent compensation.)

It is arguable that Mr Muilenberg holds a tangible share of personal responsibility for the horrific deaths of all the passengers and crew in those two B737 Max crashes. Does that concern him? I doubt it. He has hit the jackpot, and walks away with money that would have been better spent on the families of the victims of Boeing's crimes, committed under his "leadership".

[old,not bold]

Writing that last post has saddened me hugely . From the start of my time in the air transport industry I have always believed that while many aviation administrations, manufacturers and operators did things properly and systematically, with people who believed that safety was all-important, it was the USA that led the world in almost every aspect of aviation, with skill, innovation, and above all a total respect for safety and professionalism, led by an incorruptible FAA whose staff were highly trained and motivated experts. You could see everywhere the inheritance of people like Earnest Gann as they built on the foundations laid before and during WWII.

Now this might have been looking through rose-coloured specs in some ways, but by and large it was true.

What Boeing has done is to blow this image into the dust of history. In other words it has taken the reputation of whole of the USA's air transport industry down with it. The fact that in recent times the FAA have helped them mightily to do that doesn't make it feel any better.

It is a huge shame.

[Old Dogs]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/investing/delta-earnings/index.html

[meleagertoo]

The arrogance of the Boeing staff is remarkable. I hope that Lion Air & Ethiopian families get a fair hearing and are able to be compensated for the egregious behaviour of Boeing.

Sorry, I'm just going to go throw up again.

Prior to this, I have always contended that the industry is better for having Boeing as a manufacturer, but I am not so sure that they deserve loyalty or faith in their inherent desire to build the proud products that they used to.

What an appalling slander against the vast majority of Boeing employees who are decent, honest, professional and conscientious!

The extremeness of some outside views brought about by this sorry business are far, far less edifying even than some of the balls-ups made by various players within it.
It is grotesquely, outrageously unfair to publish such totalitarian accusations that you cannot possibly substantiate and which attack and belittle every single Boeing employee, just as much as it is the ultimate in spite and vindictiveness against them to whip up a Salem-witch-hunt-like frenzy against their company to see it destroyed due to the poor decisions of a few, probably very few indeed, of their colleagues.

For shame.

[Nil by mouth]

What an appalling slander against the vast majority of Boeing employees who are decent, honest, professional and conscientious!

The extremeness of some outside views brought about by this sorry business are far, far less edifying even than some of the balls-ups made by various players within it.
It is grotesquely, outrageously unfair to publish such totalitarian accusations that you cannot possibly substantiate and which attack and belittle every single Boeing employee, just as much as it is the ultimate in spite and vindictiveness against them to whip up a Salem-witch-hunt-like frenzy against their company to see it destroyed due to the poor decisions of a few, probably very few indeed, of their colleagues.

For shame.

You are suggesting libel not slander BTW.
I don't think FDR was referring to " the vast majority of Boeing employees who are decent, honest, professional and conscientious" but to senior management some of whom are walking away $60M.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/288x288/hamster_wheeledtn_ef97e02aeae5570ae14df938669bbd0adc596518.j pg

[grizzled]

What an appalling slander against the vast majority of Boeing employees who are decent, honest, professional and conscientious!

The extremeness of some outside views brought about by this sorry business are far, far less edifying even than some of the balls-ups made by various players within it.
It is grotesquely, outrageously unfair to publish such totalitarian accusations that you cannot possibly substantiate and which attack and belittle every single Boeing employee, just as much as it is the ultimate in spite and vindictiveness against them to whip up a Salem-witch-hunt-like frenzy against their company to see it destroyed due to the poor decisions of a few, probably very few indeed, of their colleagues.

For shame.

WHAAATTT???

His comments on Boeing staff are related directly to the earlier posts (and subject of this thread) -- The staff who sent all those emails. If you don't think the words, tone, and arrogantly misplaced righteousness of those emails are disgusting at best, and truly sickening at worst, you haven't been paying attention to the MAX saga.

grizz

[langleybaston]

Fact is a lot of SLF will never in their lifetimes willingly board a modern Boeing again, just as many of us have a long list of airlines to avoid.
Fact.

[Herod]

I think the people responsible for this whole sad and sorry saga should search their consciences and ask them selves "what would William Boeing say?"

[b1lanc]

I think the people responsible for this whole sad and sorry saga should search their consciences and ask them selves "what would William Boeing say?"
I don't think it matters what WIlliam Boeing would say. What this really is about is people who have no comprehension of the responsibilities placed on their shoulders and further, the the indiscriminate dismissal of such responsibilties because they siimply don't care, don't want to be bothered, or more likely - calls into question their judgement as being flawed, something which might be more intolerable for some generations than others. In over 40 years of professional work including aviation, I've not seen such appalling behaivor by some, at least in industries where lives were on the line.

[Grebe]

I think the people responsible for this whole sad and sorry saga should search their consciences and ask them selves "what would William Boeing say?"
Add to that Bill Allen, T wilson, Frank shrontz, Joe sutter, and a half dozen other long gone vp and managers

Look up Japan Airlines 123 747 crash- The first thing Tee did was to fly to japan, check with local culture and personally contacted survivors, families, etc and handed out a fair amount of money to all- later financed a major memorial

Contrast with the current missed management who me ??

[QUOTE] Japan Airlines Flight 123 was a scheduled domestic passenger flight f On August 12, 1985, a 747 operating this route suffered a sudden decompression twelve minutes into the flight and crashed ---- 100 kilometres (62 miles; 54 nautical miles) from Tokyo thirty-two minutes later. The crash site was on Osutaka Ridge, near ....
Japan . . . officially concluded that the rapid decompression was caused by a faulty repair by Boeing technicians . . .

[Loose rivets]

meleagertoo's post stood out for me because I was becoming very uneasy about the universal and almost undivided criticism. I'd even thought of writing a post called The Inertia of Indignation. But perhaps this will do. I think the problem with his post is that it's such a violent swing onto a reciprocal heading. Folk are not ready for it; not willing to give too much thought to the reality of the real human nature found in big corporations - indeed, in all walks of life. While I accept there has to be huge changes in the structure of Boeing, nothing I'm reading surprises me that much. On a small scale, I've seen it before: bewildering, cruel, callus behaviour meted out by people that should never have attained their management positions. I have been left winded by cowards and downright liars. People I'd looked up to but that clearly had no souls.

I've been pretty critical of Boeing from the onset and sometimes it's weighed on my conscience, given the millions the brand has carried. What are we really seeing when we lift the lid of this particular company? Well, bullying and resultant fear, for a start. Everyone knows that innovative design and skilled workmanship can't be carried out under threat, and it's an industry that can't blithely put failures right, but now the revelations astonish the unaware reader.

When I got old I started to look at my passengers walking out. Ordinary folk, but then a mother, carrying a child. Those little shoes, almost the same shoes I'd put out for children and then grandchildren. They looked the same, the same as the ones so often focused in on at crash sites. It's perhaps time to walk away when you start to think like that. Perhaps a case-hardening is needed to do the job, flying or crafting. But callous disregard for the reality of their responsibility? Is that what they're doing, shutting their minds to the real-world? Surely they can't rush code, or hammer parts in, if they really care about people?

It's a special industry because it can kill so quickly, but the horrific truth is there are several huge corporations that seem to shut their minds to their particular kind of carnage. The toll is vast compared to aviation deaths and remains unchecked. The $-power is unassailable. The callous disregard on a whole new scale.

But back to the absurd communications. I wonder how many times I've heard management and senior pilots blasting forth after a few drinks. A lot of the often loud protests were banal, embarrassing and often threatening. Yet, I'd perhaps flown with them for the entire day, and they'd been nothing short of professional. Strange what that evening drink can do, especially when you're venting and think no one will ever see your words.

Can we expect people in aviation to set a whole new standard? Well yes, we can expect until the cows come home but it won't make a jot of difference. Human nature will out, and there is probably nothing we can do about it. To build a perfect corporation that can produce something at the cutting edge of man's ability and then sell it into a world-wide market against powerful competition is simply not possible. Even with US government funding and the science of NASA, things still went disastrously wrong.

This time it was the bizarre coincidence of two disparate faults that exposed the fallibility of the single sensor, but that's 'all' it was. Hard to say the word, but that's all it was. But it opened the can. What is so hard to visualise is just how different the lives of thousands would be if two small components hadn't failed. Is it possible that an airliner can be produced that could self correct issues and always fail safe? I think we could possibly get close to that in twenty years, but not while the free world model of competition is allowed to eat at the moral fabric of corporations. The two just don't go together. Aviation a special case? It won't happen. You don't have to search long for far greater disregard for human life, and that's getting worse by the patent.

[Icarus2001]

In the same time-frame Boeing cut every corner they could, lied, broke rules and laws left and right during the MAX development, certification and sales and delivered a complete dud.
You don't think that is overstating things just a little? Which laws (plural) did they break?

Fact is a lot of SLF will never in their lifetimes willingly board a modern Boeing again,
Here is a FACT, that is just an assertion, an opinon of yours.
In my opinion MOST passengers have no idea what type of aircraft they are expecting to board when they buy a ticket. Even when shown on the booking.

[BDAttitude]

meleagertoo's post stood out for me because I was becoming very uneasy about the universal and almost undivided criticism. I'd even thought of writing a post called The Inertia of Indignation. But perhaps this will do. I think the problem with his post is that it's such a violent swing onto a reciprocal heading. Folk are not ready for it; not willing to give too much thought to the reality of the real human nature found in big corporations - indeed, in all walks of life. While I accept there has to be huge changes in the structure of Boeing, nothing I'm reading surprises me that much. On a small scale, I've seen it before: bewildering, cruel, callus behaviour meted out by people that should never have attained their management positions. I have been left winded by cowards and downright liars. People I'd looked up to but that clearly had no souls.

I've been pretty critical of Boeing from the onset and sometimes it's weighed on my conscience, given the millions the brand has carried. What are we really seeing when we lift the lid of this particular company? Well, bullying and resultant fear, for a start. Everyone knows that innovative design and skilled workmanship can't be carried out under threat, and it's an industry that can't blithely put failures right, but now the revelations astonish the unaware reader.

When I got old I started to look at my passengers walking out. Ordinary folk, but then a mother, carrying a child. Those little shoes, almost the same shoes I'd put out for children and then grandchildren. They looked the same, the same as the ones so often focused in on at crash sites. It's perhaps time to walk away when you start to think like that. Perhaps a case-hardening is needed to do the job, flying or crafting. But callous disregard for the reality of their responsibility? Is that what they're doing, shutting their minds to the real-world? Surely they can't rush code, or hammer parts in, if they really care about people?

It's a special industry because it can kill so quickly, but the horrific truth is there are several huge corporations that seem to shut their minds to their particular kind of carnage. The toll is vast compared to aviation deaths and remains unchecked. The $-power is unassailable. The callous disregard on a whole new scale.

But back to the absurd communications. I wonder how many times I've heard management and senior pilots blasting forth after a few drinks. A lot of the often loud protests were banal, embarrassing and often threatening. Yet, I'd perhaps flown with them for the entire day, and they'd been nothing short of professional. Strange what that evening drink can do, especially when you're venting and think no one will ever see your words.

Can we expect people in aviation to set a whole new standard? Well yes, we can expect until the cows come home but it won't make a jot of difference. Human nature will out, and there is probably nothing we can do about it. To build a perfect corporation that can produce something at the cutting edge of man's ability and then sell it into a world-wide market against powerful competition is simply not possible. Even with US government funding and the science of NASA, things still went disastrously wrong.

This time it was the bizarre coincidence of two disparate faults that exposed the fallibility of the single sensor, but that's 'all' it was. Hard to say the word, but that's all it was. But it opened the can. What is so hard to visualise is just how different the lives of thousands would be if two small components hadn't failed. Is it possible that an airliner can be produced that could self correct issues and always fail safe? I think we could possibly get close to that in twenty years, but not while the free world model of competition is allowed to eat at the moral fabric of corporations. The two just don't go together. Aviation a special case? It won't happen. You don't have to search long for far greater disregard for human life, and that's getting worse by the patent.
Wholheartedly agree, except for one little detail: It's not the competition which eats the moral fabric of corporations, it's a false foundation of business purpose and goals which leads to squeezing the last cent and trading the future for short and medium term benefits. Competition may in fact mitigate the outcome but there is no "healthy" competition. Neither with the manufacturers nor with the airlines.

You don't think that is overstating things just a little? Which laws (plural) did they break?


Here is a FACT, that is just an assertion, an opinon of yours.
In my opinion MOST passengers have no idea what type of aircraft they are expecting to board when they buy a ticket. Even when shown on the booking.

Civil, accounting, criminal laws ... we shall see, there is still a lot to come, we are still in discovery phase.

They might not, but the DO know B vs A which is bad enough. Chances of B remaining a prime example of corporate ethics failure like Monsanto or Dow chemical are high.

[beamer]

I am retired now having spent much of my civilian aviation career flying Boeing products mostly on the sublime 757. My licence shows that I was rated on the Boeing 737 100 through 900 series despite only having flown the 200 and that over thirty years ago. If I has spent my time with an operator flying just the 737' presumably I would have been able to convert to each 'new" version with the minimum of fuss which seems to have led to a scenario where the manufacturer recommends that differences training may be carried out by means of reading material on a tablet with no recourse to the simulator, CBT or classroom. Certainly I felt that towards the end of my time with my final employer, they felt absolutely compelled in fall in line with manufacturers methods of operating as opposed to decades of operational experience and this all down to the fear of corporate liability should the Operator choose a different procedure from the manufacturer.

Boeing were and indeed still are capable of producing first class aeroplanes. Their employees, customers and most important of all, passengers, deserve better than the level of management apparent at the factory.

[UltraFan]

You don't think that is overstating things just a little? Which laws (plural) did they break?
Corruption, improper influence of a government official, criminal negligence. I'm sure there are bribery, involuntary manslaghter and "murder one" hidden there somewhere.

In my opinion MOST passengers have no idea what type of aircraft they are expecting to board when they buy a ticket. Even when shown on the booking.
Just like pregnant women didn't have any idea what kind of anti-nausea medication they took. Just like people didn't have any idea how their car behaved in a crash test. After a while (and usually after a big tragedy) people start paying attention. And when they start paying attention they don't want to dig too deep. They still don't know or don't care what model of airplane EXACTLY they are flying on. All they know is that certain makes of planes should be avoided. Eventually, it seeps all the way up to the people who run things. It will only take just one insurance company to have higher premiums for employees who travel on 737MAX.

[old,not bold]

Back in the days when I sat behind a sales desk I must have issued 100s of IATA tickets to people who neither knew nor cared which airline they were booked on, let alone which aircraft. They knew the itinerary they wanted, and we sorted out the ticketing, fares and reservations to get them the cheapest overall cost for that. On a long itinerary several airlines might be used.

But the internet, and development of the locos and short-haul point to point return trips, has changed all that. However, apart from a possible reaction to massive adverse publicity for a particular aircraft, it seems to me that the public's normal assumption is still that "if it's allowed to fly it must be safe", contrary to all the evidence. And then they go for the best price.

The jury's out on whether passengers will specifically avoid booking on the B737 MAX if and when it returns to service, by positively checking with the airline/agent/website operator which aircraft they are booking on and not proceeding if it's a B737 MAX. But I'll predict that the assumption "if it's allowed to fly....etc" will prevail, not least because finding out in advance which type will operate your flight is well-nigh impossible, unless the airline only operates one model variant. This is equally true of customers booking through a tour operator.

[Less Hair]

Booking sites already had filters in place to not show any MAX flights before the recent grounding. I'd say brand image has become more important. Even for individual aircraft types and families. Especially as the average Joe won't know much and just exclude certain types perceived to be dangerous "just to be safe".

[dufc]

...Folk are not ready for it; not willing to give too much thought to the reality of the real human nature found in big corporations - indeed, in all walks of life. While I accept there has to be huge changes in the structure of Boeing, nothing I'm reading surprises me that much. On a small scale, I've seen it before: bewildering, cruel, callus behaviour meted out by people that should never have attained their management positions. I have been left winded by cowards and downright liars. People I'd looked up to but that clearly had no souls....

Loose Rivets is right, problems exist everywhere.

Away completely from the aviation sector, I have become aware of a group of people on Facebook offering an apparently 'independent' information service. Buried in the pages of this substantial group is this statement "In making agreements to secure group discounts, on occasions some Admin may receive endorsement payments of which a large percentage will be given to the groups chosen charities."

It is believed that there may be monetary and '"in kind" benefits from recommended 'partner' companies enjoyed by the Admin but the folks involved will not disclose the detail of this when asked despite highlighting of possible ethical challenges in respect of these arrangements.

What has in fact followed from this is a blanket ban of discussion within the group of any competing offers (many undeniably better) or suppliers of services with messages on the subject quickly deleted thus protecting and increasing the monetisation of the practices in place.

This is the kind of thing that happens when a sector is not, or is inadequately, regulated. As Loose Rivets said "..the reality of the real human nature .. "

[fdr]

So there is no ambiguity, I am rated on all Boeings from the 727 to the 787, and have flown command on all of those. I am also rated on the 320, 330, 340... I have supported Boeing throughout my career, and have friends in the company in design, test and certification. I think the workers in Boeing have been let down for the last 20 years, from the Ducomon shock, the tanker ethics, and the rest of the revelations that have come out from whistleblowers within the company on matters that should be of concern. I would prefer to see a strong Boeing in the commercial field, but the ship of state doesn't seem to be answering to any rudder inputs from those that have been attempting to navigate the shoals of public loss of confidence in their product.

Back in the day, when we had such systemic issues in the military, an adult would call "uncle", and we would have a safety stand down, belly button cogitation, and get back to trying to do what we were supposed to, without killing so many people on the blue team. The Max shambles has been disappointing from the get go, but the comments from within the company need action by adults that are interested in the commercial future of the company, which is in the industries best interest. My comment earlier indicates a simple observation, there are options to the product line, and such comments and the underlying attitude that presages those are unlikely to be what you want on your resume as the industry responds as they have the right to.

Boeing has a great tradition, that only gives so much latitude for such attitudes before things go bad. For those that love and live with Boeing, this is your company that is acting this way. Is this the company that you are proud to be associated with, or is it time to defend your company by objecting to these sort of indiscretions, such as the MCAS debacle, the comments of your type chief pilot as reported etc. Against the new burial mounds and ashes, I think those that want the company to excel, need to object, and be heard. When engineers report that they don't want to fly on their own product, there is justifiable concern from the rest of the community as to what on earth is passing for acceptable standards.

It is indeed true that mature western corporations seem to be hell bent on their own demise by such means. That doesn't give the board and CEO license to disregard warnings on the ethics of their organisation, there have been warning flags for 20 years. Know this, that a friend of mine, who was the chief designer of the B747 was dismayed by the direction of the company in his final years in retirement. I am glad he has not had to see the MCAS debacle play out, or to read the reported comments of the crews that manage the product flying side. He was of clear eye and sharp mind to the end.

I've owned 3 Boeings over time, personally, so yes, I am surprised and disappointed by the direction that the company has gone. Where are the white knights that will not just deny the issues, but will acknowledge the problems, and meaningfully restore the company to it's place of pride.

Meleaguer:

The extremeness of some outside views brought about by this sorry business are far, far less edifying even than some of the balls-ups made by various players within it.
It is grotesquely, outrageously unfair to publish such totalitarian accusations that you cannot possibly substantiate and which attack and belittle every single Boeing employee, just as much as it is the ultimate in spite and vindictiveness against them to whip up a Salem-witch-hunt-like frenzy against their company to see it destroyed due to the poor decisions of a few, probably very few indeed, of their colleagues.

For shame.

Bloomberg is reporting what your company staff said. If you have a problem with that, then fix your company. I for one would like to see Boeing sort their act out, Shooting messengers is so 2019 Trumpist. Where on earth is it reasonable to play "Jedi mind tricks" that unfortunately tie into a bad day for 346 innocent humans. You have a problem with that, then go get yourself a conscience.

WTF

Fact is a lot of SLF will never in their lifetimes willingly board a modern Boeing again,

Is that a probable outcome? I doubt it, however it is a possible one. To avoid what appears to be a non zero existential threat, then those that truly care for Boeing's heritage and the standards that it held for products such as the 727, 747, 757, 777, then defend your company from the management malaise that afflicts it today. Alternatively, don't, after all, it is your company and your future. Just don't expect those that have respected the former company for it's competency to be impressed with what passes for acceptable ethics. You probably have months to sort it out, it is unlikely to be years. So far, who has come to the fore to defend the standards, and not just be an apologist for what has occurred.

Anyone?

Years ago, when we got dragged into a program to stop it falling off the precipice, a letter went out to all in the company concerned, "straight talk", it was no more excuses. TBC needs to stem a loss of public confidence. That does not include hand wringing, apologies, obsequiousness, or deflection, it is to get on with the job of defining what you want the company to be, identifying the gaps between assumptions and realities, and get on with cleaning house on ethics. Also, as a PS, stop shooting your messengers, they are what stand between the abyss of blissful ignorance and a return to excellence. Boeing is not the first here, NASA beat them to the post, twice, and did and does appear to have taken heed of the peril that exists in what passes for ethics today in corporations.

[FlightlessParrot]

SNIP
But I'll predict that the assumption "if it's allowed to fly....etc" will prevail, not least because finding out in advance which type will operate your flight is well-nigh impossible, unless the airline only operates one model variant. This is equally true of customers booking through a tour operator.

I just booked flights on Air New Zealand. The seat allocation pages clearly showed which types were supposed to operate each flight, and distinguished between 777-200ER and 777-300ER, which mattered to me because of the arrangement of seats. In the other direction, I chose the A321neo, which meant a slightly different class of booking. People book online a lot these days, and it probably suits the airlines to get seat allocation done in advance. In these circumstances, it is possible to avoid an aircraft which is faintly dodgy, even if one recognizes that an exceptionally unlikely event is only made slightly less unlikely.

[UltraFan]

The problem, fdr, is that you (and actually anyone inside the US) think that only the company needs to be fixed. Enron, Boeing, Amazon, whatever. I know this might sound like a dooms-day proclamation, but the entire capitalism system has run its course and has proven to be a dead end. By the example of the USA we are now observing the final stages of capitalism. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. When the poor have so little money that they can't sustain their lives, it'll implode. The saddest part is - it's not a quick process. The changes are needed on a MUCH larger scale. The entire system of business and labor relationships in the country needs an overhaul.

[Bergerie1]

Many years ago when I held a management position in an airline, I had a little private eleventh commandment. "Love they rebels, because they may speak truth unto management." Of course it didn't always work, but it is well to leave the ivory tower and listen to the gripes, comments and complaints of those out there who are doing the real work.

[old,not bold]

I just booked flights on Air New Zealand. The seat allocation pages clearly showed which types were supposed to operate each flight, and distinguished between 777-200ER and 777-300ER, which mattered to me because of the arrangement of seats. In the other direction, I chose the A321neo, which meant a slightly different class of booking. People book online a lot these days, and it probably suits the airlines to get seat allocation done in advance. In these circumstances, it is possible to avoid an aircraft which is faintly dodgy, even if one recognizes that an exceptionally unlikely event is only made slightly less unlikely.
Yes, you're right, I know. DIY booking and seat selection systems give you that opportunity. But then again, within the airline, the ops centre (Maintrol or whatever) and its maintenance provider you have other priorities and forces at work, that mean that on the day of your flight the model/variant that was supposed to fly won't be available so another type will be substituted. There may have been a catastrophic delay somewhere in the system that meant that aircraft and crews must be shuffled around, or an AD may have required a hangar visit for the whole fleet, or scheduled maintenance may mean that the aircraft that would have operated is on a major check on the day of your flight and a substitute is pulled in, or any one of many other disruptive factors.

In short, the day's Mayfly (or its modern electronic equivalent) never looks quite like the programme entered into the reservation system 6 months before. So while it's very likely that you'll get the aircraft type and seat you expected, it ain't guaranteed, whatever they may tell you. You'll only know when you walk down the airbridge and see what's attached to the other end of it.

[fdr]

The problem, fdr, is that you (and actually anyone inside the US) think that only the company needs to be fixed. Enron, Boeing, Amazon, whatever. I know this might sound like a dooms-day proclamation, but the entire capitalism system has run its course and has proven to be a dead end. By the example of the USA we are now observing the final stages of capitalism. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. When the poor have so little money that they can't sustain their lives, it'll implode. The saddest part is - it's not a quick process. The changes are needed on a MUCH larger scale. The entire system of business and labor relationships in the country needs an overhaul.

UF, If only!

Seriously, we have an economic basis that doesn't know how to deal with a diminishing activity level, not withstanding that economics is supposed to be the science of management of resources. Smiths treatise on the wealth of nations (all 5...) doesn't hint on how to work with a program that hits the edge of the petrie dish, and we are fast approaching that point, on food, water, arable land, liquid hydrocarbons, pollution, tuna stocks (Nooooooo.... !, the humanity, no tekka maki, no tuna tataki.... "OMG!"). Humans have been smart at least on occasions, but there is need to take care on multiple fronts at this time, and with a number of conditions that can lead to bad days. And yet, with more than 50% of the Phuds on the planet, the USA got trumped. (well played Lt Col Putin formerly of the FSS).

Our financial institutions are epitomised by VEB and Deutsche Bank, outstanding. Corporate management is viewed with envy by former Enron management.... (you got a bonus, I got vilified.... ) Truth is whatever is tweeted. facebook takes no responsibility for their platform, crypto currency.... seriously? the 400 lb bed wetter is dreaming up a tulip economy?

Back in our neck of the woods, old glory needs to be flown upside down, and the union jack needs to be flown at half mast. NATO is heading towards being TO, the NA has gone lord knows where.... perhaps towards the light, perhaps now to become NATOME... it rhymes with, whatever.

China floats round in the bathtub that is the SCS, nudging to the shore line of Indonesian islands... How long before the emperor for life plants a flag on the middle of Krakatau, or perhaps on the shores of Taal, it may be gong as cheap realestate soon. A great place for the golden arches of a TRUMP edifice, an alternative to Trump Baku perhaps.

Australia, smokin' ! the government permits f... rackin', it was great for Pennsylvania's water supply, any water you can ignite has gotta give you a lift. Lets open up more coal mines, owned by India and or China, and lets just enjoy the smoke. The good news is that you don't need lights at night, you have the glow of the embers that used to be the rain forests and coastal hinterland of the great southern land. Garret's song is going to be reissued, without talking about beds...

"this here's the wattle, it is the symbol of our land, you can stick it in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand... crack tube...." smoke masks on lads, it's a but thuck today... I love a sunburnt country...

Now in Florida, Mar el Lago will look great as an island surrounded by water, big water, wet water..... with the odd occasional boat of unknown patronage floating by in the next tempest. It will be waterfront, as will be most of Mouse town, Merritt island will make a great harbour. Defuniak Springs, water water everywhere. Okaloosa shallows.... the lost city of NOLA.

For a planet that is actually supposed to be in a cooling cycle at this time, golly.

So, again; UF, If only!

Time for a beer, my alert is over, tomorrow is another day in paradise.

As stewards of the blue marble, doubt we rate anything above an F grade.

[kontrolor]

Boeing's fall from grace will be a case study for the pitfalls of late stage capitalism. A complete and utter breakdown in leadership, company culture and honesty, in the name of greed and stock price. The Chicago leadership team were running this once proud company more like a desperate hedge fund than an airplane innovator and manufacturer. If Boeing were not backed by the full might of the US government there is a good chance they would be circling the drain as a company.

As a Canadian I can't help but see irony regarding the Cseries and MAX. Bombardier Aerospace invested heavily and developed a seemingly cutting edge, modern, safe plane and got bankrupted for it by the cynical tag team duo of Boeing and the US Government and the outrageous C-Series tariff. In the same time-frame Boeing cut every corner they could, lied, broke rules and laws left and right during the MAX development, certification and sales and delivered a complete dud. The CEO is rewarded with a $60 million golden parachute. Perhaps if Boeing's leadership was more focused on the engineering and manufacturing side, rather than focusing on financial and political moves to enrich themselves and torpedo competition, a few hundred people may still be alive today.

This sums it up perfectly. I hope Boeing goes under. The price for the arogance must be harsh.

[Twitter]

All under the motto “I’m all right Jack?”

I am really fed up with Boeing but I’m not hoping they “go under...”

So many hard working conscientious folks should lose their livelihoods
because of the sins of a minority of gangsters?

I guess it may look different in the morning...

[FlightlessParrot]

SNIP
So while it's very likely that you'll get the aircraft type and seat you expected, it ain't guaranteed, whatever they may tell you. You'll only know when you walk down the airbridge and see what's attached to the other end of it.

Yes, I know that. I also know that I may book a flight with one airline and then discover that it is actually operated as a code share by a company I wouldn't dream of flying with if I had a choice. But unless a company hides the fact that it has a fleet of, say, 737-MAX aircraft (or, as it might have been, DC-10s when they were having a bad time) they'll still suffer resistance at the point of booking, if it should happen that potential passengers take an aversion to a particular type. As to how much impact equipment has on passenger choice, I don't know, but airlines often put a bit of money into advertising when they get a new type, so they presumably think there's some effect. I guess it's different for long haul than for short range, low cost, airlines.

[Icarus2001]

they'll still suffer resistance at the point of booking

We get your point. You are on PPRUNE you are not an "average" traveller.

My comment was in reference to the poster that said emphatically that people will stop flying on Boeings. Any Boeings.

A ridiculous theory.

[edmundronald]

If someone here has an idea how regulation can discourage a company from maximising medium term shareholder value, they should say so.

Because this sad story is a sum of 2 effects:
- Companies take shortcuts when it saves them money in the short run, not the long run.
- Regulations get written to protect the industry incumbents, not the consumer, even when they start out as consumer protection rules.

Edmund

[Dave Therhino]

You don't think that is overstating things just a little? Which laws (plural) did they break?


.

The obvious one is 18 USC 1001(a), which states that the penalty for making intentional false or misleading statements to the government is punishable by up to 5 years and $50,000.

[Grebe]

The obvious one is 18 USC 1001(a), which states that the penalty for making intentional false or misleading statements to the government is punishable by up to 5 years and $50,000.

So which Boeing executive(s) do you think deserve club fed accomodations ?

Better yet- which grunt- non executive level type is the designated lamb ?

[Clandestino]

Would the folks who are lamenting the sad state of aerospace industry or even the current dominant political & economic system please be reminded that the problem we're discussing is actually quite localized; it was Boeing Co that designed and produced the flawed airliner and FAA that didn't stop it from going into service. Not Tupolev and Rosaviyatsia. Not Embraer and ANAC. Not Bombardier and TCCA and especially not Airbus and EASA.

[sky9]

I wonder whether airline directors are looking at the Boeing debacle and noticing a certain similarity in the way they are driving down costs without any concern for the people they employ.
Many years ago I used to buy the company annual accounts, what was apparent in the 70's was the MD was generally earning about twice the salary of the senior pilots. That certainly isn't the case today where there is a relentless drive to reduce costs while at the same time benefiting from "performance related pay".

[Icarus2001]

The obvious one is 18 USC 1001(a), which states that the penalty for making intentional false or misleading statements to the government is punishable by up to 5 years and $50,000.

I guess lots of people were put in prison after the GFC then? No? Only one? Really...

[Hot 'n' High]

......... that the problem we're discussing is actually quite localized; it was Boeing Co that designed and produced the flawed airliner and FAA that didn't stop it from going into service. Not Tupolev and Rosaviyatsia. Not Embraer and ANAC. Not Bombardier and TCCA and especially not Airbus and EASA.

Aviation is as safe as it is today, in no small part by our ability to learn from the mistakes made by others; pilots, engineers, baggage handlers, ATCOs ... CEOs - we can all learn. As sky9 observes, I'd really hope that everyone is looking in at this and wondering "how could I improve what I do day-to-day given the commercial and other pressures I face in my workshop/office/cockpit/ramp?".

Never has there been a better case of "There by the Grace of (insert your own religious/other Deity) go I!". "Finance" is "finance", "humans" are "humans", "CEOs" are "CEOs" (even some CEOs are human .... well, almost!), "Regulators" are "Regulators" and "Customers" are "Customers". After years of working in various capacities, in various organisations dealing with various outside stakeholders, what has struck me are the similarities in so many organisations and business relationships. Mainly because humans are involved!

I've done things in the past and then gone "WTF?" when I've suddenly paused and thought a bit more about what I have just done. I've also seen countless cases where others have done things and, when queried, gone "What's wrong with that?" and got a bit "huffy" with H 'n' H or whoever brings up the question. These can often be senior, experienced folk who know better going and doing something daft.

The checks we build in to doing whatever it is in Aviation are there for one reason, to pick up when someone slips up. But even that is not foolproof and things slip through the net, particularly if all involved in the QA process are subjected to the same pressures. Not every error which gets through the system leads to an accident/incident and so they just sit there, un-noticed. Others................!

Just an observation! On reflection tho, I guess, to an extent, you are correct Clandestino - it is localised. Localised to where us human beings are involved!

Cheers, H 'n' H

[ErwinS]

This time it was the bizarre coincidence of two disparate faults that exposed the fallibility of the single sensor, but that's 'all' it was. Hard to say the word, but that's all it was. But it opened the can. What is so hard to visualise is just how different the lives of thousands would be if two small components hadn't failed. Is it possible that an airliner can be produced that could self correct issues and always fail safe? I think we could possibly get close to that in twenty years, but not while the free world model of competition is allowed to eat at the moral fabric of corporations. The two just don't go together. Aviation a special case? It won't happen. You don't have to search long for far greater disregard for human life, and that's getting worse by the patent.

Thats 'all' you say? The fact that Boeing designed a system without any redundancy in this day and age is nothing more than criminal. As long there are components they will fail. And espescially with components which affect the basic flying of the aircraft there should be at least 2 channels. It is just gross negligence.

No MAX for me .....

[fdr]

Law, Ethics, & Consequences

Edmund had made an interesting point previously, that the corporate world, indeed the world at large is interested in the consequences of liability arising from breaches of the law. That is quite true. It doesn't however give a free pass to corporations for their actions, when they breach ethical guidelines, which are few and far between. At the end of the line, a moral objection to the action of a corporation appears toothless, except for a couple of items. In a deliberation in a jury room, morality is often more important than any code, either legal or ethical. The decision often comes down to what is reasonable, to the great unwashed public, the pool from which a jury is drawn. Therein lies justice. Where a corporation offends the sensibility of the public, or their customers, and where there is a choice available, pain may occur to the bottom line.

I have little faith in corporate entities ethics, and the law is an ass. However, I have observed 12 individuals gain consensus on what is right or wrong. Assuming that a government instrumentality will sort out problems historically has a poor record, no matter what the persuasion of the system, capitalistic, socialist or communist.

[Grebe]

Boeing pilot union decertification vote postponed as SPEEA files chargeJan. 16, 2020 at 6:00 am

By
Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter

A vote to decide if a small group of Boeing safety and flight-training pilots in the Seattle area will leave their union has been postponed, pending an investigation into a union charge that Boeing violated labor laws and manipulated its members.

In an email Friday, the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) said the case will be held “in abeyance” while it investigates an unfair-labor-practice charge filed by Boeing’s white-collar union, the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA).

This is the second contentious effort among Boeing pilots to oust the union. It follows a 2016 decertification drive that involved Mark Forkner and Patrik Gustavsson, pilots whose exchanges regarding the 737 MAX provoked widespread outrage when revealed recently.

Although about 20 out of the group of 29 pilots signed a petition for a vote to get rid of the union, SPEEA alleges the process has been tainted by management actions.

It charges that Boeing offered large pay raises only to nonunion pilots late last year, and promised a 25% pay raise to the union pilots if they decertify.

Boeing denies that. Company spokesman Paul Bergman said the petition to leave the union “was not initiated, requested or encouraged by Boeing management.”

This group of technical and safety pilots work on developing training materials and qualifying simulators for airline pilots. It was unionized by SPEEA only in 2012.

The union also alleges that the bargaining unit has dwindled because Boeing has taken work away from the group — first by eliminating 38 jobs when it transferred Boeing’s flight-simulator-training facilities from the Puget Sound region to Miami in 2013, and then by hiring nonunion contract pilots to fill jobs anytime union pilots left.

The union charges also that the group’s safety pilots, who would normally participate in air-accident investigations to determine if the pilots flying the plane had followed procedures, were excluded from the two 737 MAX crash investigations.

Ray Goforth, executive director of SPEEA, said he expects to testify next week in an NLRB hearing to consider the union’s charges.

The previous unsuccessful drive to decertify the union in 2016 was formally filed by Gustavsson and supported by Forkner, among others. Forkner was then 737 chief technical pilot. When Forkner left Boeing in 2018, Gustavsson replaced him as 737 chief technical pilot.

Their exchanges related to early development of the 737 MAX were revealed in two troves of documents released in October and last week. The conversations included crude, derogatory banter about air-safety-authority officials, Boeing airline customers and colleagues within Boeing.

They also laid out more serious revelations. For example, more than a year before the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018, Forkner pushed hard to dissuade the airline and the Indonesian air-safety regulator from requiring their pilots to have simulator training on the MAX before flying it. He convinced Lion Air that only a short computer course was needed.

That work features in SPEEA’s charges against Boeing. Goforth said that Boeing rewarded anti-union activists, including Forkner and Gustavsson, with “unwarranted promotions” that included significant pay raises.

Forkner now flies for Southwest Airlines. Gustavsson is still at Boeing but no longer in the union. Neither pilot responded to messages asking for comment.


Goforth said he’s heard the core issue for the current SPEEA pilots is the lack of a pay raise. The union has given management a contract proposal including a salary hike but hasn’t yet had a response.

He said the SPEEA pilots “have been watching their bargaining unit whittle away and lose work. I can understand their frustration.”

The pilots at the center of this dispute will play a key role when the 737 MAX returns to service.

Boeing has switched its position to recommend full-flight simulator training for airline pilots before they fly the MAX again. Many airlines will need Boeing’s help to put their pilots through such a training regimen. In addition, Boeing will need a large number of both instructor pilots and pilots able to conduct flight tests and fly customer-demo flights.

[Thrust Augmentation]

If someone here has an idea how regulation can discourage a company from maximising medium term shareholder value, they should say so.Edmund

There needs to be legislation / regulation that considers the long term interest & survivability of the company that prevents the wholesale financial rape & eventual demise of said company. While I don't regard nationalisation as an answer, it has to be seen that there is a general national interest in said companies.

Pay-outs in whatever form they may come have to be limited & under no circumstance should interested parties be handed the golden chute while the aircraft is going down - it should be quite the opposite.

The opposite of this nonsense has generally been the way that successful small, medium businesses have been working since the dawn of time - provide a good product at a reasonable price while trying to create a good reputation & provide a secure future. The old statement "taking care of business" has been utterly forgotten in many large organisations with pay-out trumping all at any cost. It's all very sad.

[VOD80]

Boeing pilot union decertification vote postponed as SPEEA files chargeJan. 16, 2020 at 6:00 am

By
Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter

<snip>
The previous unsuccessful drive to decertify the union in 2016 was formally filed by Gustavsson and supported by Forkner, among others. Forkner was then 737 chief technical pilot. When Forkner left Boeing in 2018, Gustavsson replaced him as 737 chief technical pilot.
<snip>



What an amazing coincidence! I've seen these names before... These two apparently working to break the union and also the only ones who wrote dodgy e-mails... or the management boys got a hatchet in the back!

[FlightlessParrot]

We get your point. You are on PPRUNE you are not an "average" traveller.

My comment was in reference to the poster that said emphatically that people will stop flying on Boeings. Any Boeings.

A ridiculous theory.

The professionals on Pprune tend to have an exceptionally low view of passengers. We are not all drunken morons looking for the cheapest fare. I am on Pprune: I also know average travellers who are not on Pprune who do from time to time think about the aircraft they fly on. Obviously people are not going to "stop flying on Boeings"; but it is also not true to say that all travellers are unaware of the aircraft they fly.

[edmundronald]

People in the corporate world have been around for so long they can't see the forest for the trees:
- In olden days the owners of a company were financially and criminally responsible for its behavior. It got sued, the owners were liable.
- then the Limited Responsibility Company (LLC or LTD) was invented, isolating Acme LTD stockholders financially from misbehavior by Acme.
- also, managers at a company take any criminal blame, owners are not implicated in misdeeds.

At this point, the only real limitation to corporate unethical behavior was that a company could still go bust. But then Bush/Obama promulgated the too big to fail doctrine, which ensured that huge companies that went bust because of reckless working ethics would not be nationalised but just bailed out.

Let's skip ahead a bit - you don't need to be a genius to see that Boeing's employees were willingly and knowingly skimping on safety for the 737 because of management pressures, that the FAA was fully cognizant of these pressures, and that management and employees were well rewarded for their profit maximising.

It's time to call a spade a spade - corporate ethics is an oxymoron. The referee is wearing a blindfold, and the maximum penalty is that play gets stopped for a minute.

Edmund

Law, Ethics, & Consequences

Edmund had made an interesting point previously, that the corporate world, indeed the world at large is interested in the consequences of liability arising from breaches of the law. That is quite true. It doesn't however give a free pass to corporations for their actions, when they breach ethical guidelines, which are few and far between. At the end of the line, a moral objection to the action of a corporation appears toothless, except for a couple of items. In a deliberation in a jury room, morality is often more important than any code, either legal or ethical. The decision often comes down to what is reasonable, to the great unwashed public, the pool from which a jury is drawn. Therein lies justice. Where a corporation offends the sensibility of the public, or their customers, and where there is a choice available, pain may occur to the bottom line.

I have little faith in corporate entities ethics, and the law is an ass. However, I have observed 12 individuals gain consensus on what is right or wrong. Assuming that a government instrumentality will sort out problems historically has a poor record, no matter what the persuasion of the system, capitalistic, socialist or communist.

[knackered IV]

What an appalling slander against the vast majority of Boeing employees who are decent, honest, professional and conscientious!

The extremeness of some outside views brought about by this sorry business are far, far less edifying even than some of the balls-ups made by various players within it.
It is grotesquely, outrageously unfair to publish such totalitarian accusations that you cannot possibly substantiate and which attack and belittle every single Boeing employee, just as much as it is the ultimate in spite and vindictiveness against them to whip up a Salem-witch-hunt-like frenzy against their company to see it destroyed due to the poor decisions of a few, probably very few indeed, of their colleagues.

For shame.
I think you'll find he was referring to the particular staff mentioned in the piece he was quoting, not all Boeing staff.

[Zeffy]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-17/new-software-flaw-identified-in-boeing-s-grounded-737-max-jet


Technology
New Software Flaw Could Further Delay Boeing’s 737 Max
By Alan Levin
January 17, 2020, 2:03 PM EST Updated on January 17, 2020, 2:36 PM EST

Boeing says in statement it’s working with FAA on the issue
Software problem is latest to hit plane grounded since March

Boeing Co. has identified a new software flaw in the grounded 737 Max which will require additional work on the plane, possibly further delaying its return to service.

The company has alerted the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and is notifying customers and its suppliers about the issue, it said in an emailed statement. Boeing’s best-selling jet was grounded on March 13 after two fatal crashes involving a flight-control system.

The issue involves how a software system on the plane checks to ensure that data it is receiving from other monitors are functioning properly, said a person familiar with the issue who wasn’t authorized to speak about it. The issue occurs when the system is initially powered up, the person said.

“We are making necessary updates and working with the FAA on submission of this change, and keeping our customers and suppliers informed,” Boeing said in its statement. “Our highest priority is ensuring the 737 MAX is safe and meets all regulatory requirements before it returns to service.”

News of the software flaw sent Boeing shares down as far as $323, less than $3 from their closing low after the second Max crash. The stock dropped 2.3% to $324.30 at 2:57 p.m. in New York.

The FAA didn’t comment on the latest issue to arise on the problem-plagued plane. “We won’t approve the plane for return to service until it’s ready,” the agency said in an emailed statement.

The 737 Max is costing the planemaker billions in losses. The software problem was discovered during the final validation review process of the software updates being installed on the plane, the person said.

It’s unclear how complex the repair will be. Software systems on aircraft require a far higher degree of reliability and checks before approval compared to consumer products.

Boeing has been working for more than a year on fixing software to ensure that a flight-control system that pushes down the nose automatically -- and was linked to both fatal crashes -- is safe.

During the process of assessing the plane last year, Boeing discovered another issue and had to redesign its flight-control computers. The reworking of that software has been one of the reasons that the repairs have taken so long.

The crash of a Lion Air 737 Max on Oct. 29, 2018, and an Ethiopian Airlines plane on March 10 both occurred after a system known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System repeatedly pushed the planes into dives. Pilots in both cases were able to temporarily maintain control, but eventually the jets entered steep dives and crashed.

(Updates with details about issue starting in third paragraph)

[Takwis]

The issue involves how a software system on the plane checks to ensure that data it is receiving from other monitors are functioning properly, said a person familiar with the issue who wasn’t authorized to speak about it. The issue occurs when the system is initially powered up, the person said.

Sounds like it might possibly be the dreaded dual-FMC crosscheck. "You're wrong." "No, YOU'RE wrong."

[MechEngr]

The Bloomberg article has been rewritten - which is fine as much of the original quote makes no sense.

For one of several examples: "The issue involves how software on the plane checks itself to ensure it’s receiving valid data" instead of "monitors" and whatnot.

[Takwis]

Another translation (from the WSJ): "Boeing Co. said it is grappling with a new software problem before its 737 MAX aircraft can return to service, one that industry and government officials said prevents the jet’s flight-control computers from powering up as required prior to flight."

[krismiler]

They mocked the Indian DGCA as well.

https://youtu.be/-nfvt_LVQ4I

[jmmoric]

Nonetheless, it is not uncommon to talk about other companies and their ways, even "insulting" some of the desicions they request.

Usually these "insults" are kept within a company, and depending on the situation forgotten about rather quickly.

Bringing them forward, like it is done now, seems more like a witch-hunt than anything else.

I'm not gonna protect Boeing, or other companies for that matter. But think about how you speak of other companies/people when you think it's "confidential".... or even about some of the posts that are thrown up on this forum.

[wheelsright]

There is no doubt that some of the best people still work at Boeing. Unfortunately, both their employees and their customers have been let down by poor and apparently reckless management. Boeing can be a great company again, but it must take radical action to reform its management and come squeaky clean to do so. Customer confidence, including the flying public, are vital to the future of Boeing. I am pretty sure that the flying public will simply avoid the Max or rebadged derivatives, regardless of any assurances. The merits or flogging a dead horse come to mind.

It is difficult to see how Boeing can move forward without culling the Max and the senior staff responsible for it. I suspect that the Max will never gain sufficient confidence to ever be commercially viable, regardless of whether it gains regulatory approvals and resolves the underlying design difficulties. It is not the first time in aviation history that this has happened. I suspect the future of Boeing requires a new aircraft to replace the 737 sector/s. To do otherwise will leave Boeing mired in bad publicity and reduced general confidence for the foreseeable future. It is time for the new CEO to make some difficult decisions that may not be to the liking to many shorter term investors and shareholders.

[fdr]

They mocked the Indian DGCA as well.

https://youtu.be/-nfvt_LVQ4I

Interesting that the Indian media takes umbrage on the mild response by IDGCA to TBC. The "we respect his views and shall improve to come up to expectations" is of the same group as a Japanese CEO stating "thank you for your kind suggestion". TBC may want to sort out it's persona, and not just Las Vegas lip gloss glitter, but to get back in some semblance of harmony with it's customers, they deserve better. It is possibly not just coincidence that the news footage has lots of snappy images of crews operating Airbus equipment.

[maxter]

…………. no idea that it had been flying for three years …………..
R Guy[/QUOTE]
Just a small correction

The plane certified March 2017 and first commercial flight was in May 22 2017 and the first crash was 17 months later in October 2018 and grounded in March 2019. Never certified and flew commercially anything like 3 years. this is a myth I see regularly stated.

I have no doubt it will be back in the air again, when may be a question, and the vast majority of people will have no idea nor decide what they are flying on. Another serious incident though and that may change. Personally I am very choosey on airlines and type I use but I think this will be so vetted it will be safest 737 ever

[fdr]

FWIW, post the revelation of the issue, I have no objection to being a passenger or a Captain on the MAX. The amendment of the design logic is necessary for compliance and to restore the confidence of the public in the aircraft, but the basic problem was a design "feature" that was undisclosed that would place the aircraft in a compromised condition where recognition and response was compromised by the lack fo knowledge of the design and the associated "design features" of the 737, like manual trim constraints. With full disclosure, the issue is now fairly well comprehended by all concerned, and would be manageable in the "as was" condition. Annunciating the function failure, and removing single points of failure should put this issue to bed fully as a bad memory of a good company dropping the ball. Nothing will assuage the loss of 346 lives and the countless family members devastated by this saga, but the aircraft can be an effective design for the future. SLF should not be overly biased against the design. The manufacturer may well only have one chance to keep the faith, they better not blow it, which includes changing the spots of the corporate attitude towards its own staff. Would be happy to see that happen and the company succeed. Balls in the shareholders and workers court, are you guys happy with what has been done with your company?