Bloomberg Report: Boeing Mocked Lion Air Calls for More 737 Max Training Before Crash
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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".
...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....
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 .. "
Thread Starter
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
WTF
Fact is a lot of SLF will never in their lifetimes willingly board a modern Boeing again,
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.
Last edited by fdr; 15th Jan 2020 at 10:11.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Last edited by fdr; 15th Jan 2020 at 11:41. Reason: can't spell to save myself
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
they'll still suffer resistance at the point of booking
My comment was in reference to the poster that said emphatically that people will stop flying on Boeings. Any Boeings.
A ridiculous theory.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better yet- which grunt- non executive level type is the designated lamb ?
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.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
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.