Boeing 737 Max Recertification Testing - Finally.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Board change at Boeing
Whether the departure of Caroline Kennedy from the Boeing Board of Directors will lead to a greater focus on engineering over bean-counting might not be a question that can be answered just by assessing or commenting on the qualifications and experience of the new director taking that Board seat. Announcement from Boeing:
Boeing Elects Lynne Doughtie to Board of Directors, Following Resignation of Director Caroline Kennedy - Jan 15, 2021 (mediaroom.com)
Boeing Elects Lynne Doughtie to Board of Directors, Following Resignation of Director Caroline Kennedy - Jan 15, 2021 (mediaroom.com)
So here is what Ms Doughtie doesn't bring to the board
1) Any experience in any facet of air transportation
2) Any engineering or technical experience in any field
3) Any education or experience or even exposure to safety systems in technologically complex enterprises
Another bean counter, that's just what Boeing needs since the last round of bean counters did such a good job......
1) Any experience in any facet of air transportation
2) Any engineering or technical experience in any field
3) Any education or experience or even exposure to safety systems in technologically complex enterprises
Another bean counter, that's just what Boeing needs since the last round of bean counters did such a good job......
They will need to save and free money now that the main problems hopefully lay behind them. Without money they couldn't move forward. From this perspective it makes sense to hire some senior audit and finance specialist like her.
I agree that they'd need senior aerospace engineering guys (or girls) up there as well to get longer term strategic projects going for their commercial airplanes division. NMA, NSA or whatever they call it.
And if too many experienced people are now early retired or leaving or similar they'd loose a lot of the knowledge that made them great. Both in engineering and manufacturing. This will be demanding to save the know how over some more quiet years.
I agree that they'd need senior aerospace engineering guys (or girls) up there as well to get longer term strategic projects going for their commercial airplanes division. NMA, NSA or whatever they call it.
And if too many experienced people are now early retired or leaving or similar they'd loose a lot of the knowledge that made them great. Both in engineering and manufacturing. This will be demanding to save the know how over some more quiet years.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: East Coast
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caroline Kennedy
WillowRun 6-3
Is this THE Caroline Kennedy? She was on the board at Boeing? I am simply aghast. She attempted to run for elective office and failed miserably. Something about IQ as I recall...
Is this THE Caroline Kennedy? She was on the board at Boeing? I am simply aghast. She attempted to run for elective office and failed miserably. Something about IQ as I recall...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fundamentally the decision to flog the 737 further rather than look to commence a modern design to compete in the market place for the next 30-40 years is the death knell.
No amount of changes at board level can change the impact of this decision.
You could realistically see Airbus introduce the next generation to their fly by wire family, competitors from the Far East start up and bring ultra modern jets to the market and Boeing will still go on stretching the 737 and fitting even bigger more forward engines. At what point do Boeing see sense with this? It’s all a bit bizarre.
The Max issue seemed sciences way of saying “enough already”. So it does raise the question of how long are Boeing going to continue with what was a pretty good project upto the 1980s maybe even the 90s.
No amount of changes at board level can change the impact of this decision.
You could realistically see Airbus introduce the next generation to their fly by wire family, competitors from the Far East start up and bring ultra modern jets to the market and Boeing will still go on stretching the 737 and fitting even bigger more forward engines. At what point do Boeing see sense with this? It’s all a bit bizarre.
The Max issue seemed sciences way of saying “enough already”. So it does raise the question of how long are Boeing going to continue with what was a pretty good project upto the 1980s maybe even the 90s.
Boeing has pretty good fly by wire since the 777. The 787 is even better.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EPHD75
Yes of course it is the same individual. Ms. Kennedy served for a little more than three years as the United States Ambassador to Japan. She has a law degree from Columbia University in New York, is an editor of several books and co-author or author of others. I don't know what her political acumen might be, or in what political calculus Ms. Kennedy might have been way off course.
As a public figure, I would guess she possesses a pretty thick skin against cheap shots, as those come with the territory.
I don't say any of this because I think her board service at Boeing was beneficial - no one thinks that. It's just that I don't want my callsign associated with a personal attack on anybody's intellect which is completely unfounded as far as I know -- even if you might happen to have closer, and unfavorable, information.
Maybe the daughter of the late president has some other career move in mind. Maybe the incoming White House administration, and its altogether unconventional nominee for Sec. of Transportation, have some real "shake-'em-up" moves in mind to kick Boeing into a higher, and better, gear. I don't know.
Yes of course it is the same individual. Ms. Kennedy served for a little more than three years as the United States Ambassador to Japan. She has a law degree from Columbia University in New York, is an editor of several books and co-author or author of others. I don't know what her political acumen might be, or in what political calculus Ms. Kennedy might have been way off course.
As a public figure, I would guess she possesses a pretty thick skin against cheap shots, as those come with the territory.
I don't say any of this because I think her board service at Boeing was beneficial - no one thinks that. It's just that I don't want my callsign associated with a personal attack on anybody's intellect which is completely unfounded as far as I know -- even if you might happen to have closer, and unfavorable, information.
Maybe the daughter of the late president has some other career move in mind. Maybe the incoming White House administration, and its altogether unconventional nominee for Sec. of Transportation, have some real "shake-'em-up" moves in mind to kick Boeing into a higher, and better, gear. I don't know.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 17th Jan 2021 at 10:59. Reason: correction, length of service as US Amb, Japan
I really cannot believe that Boeing are so head-in-the-sand as to now appoint Lynne Doughtie to the board. After all the informed commentary about beancounters over aviation, they go and appoint the Chairman/CEO of KPMG, one of the finance world's centres of manage-by-spreadsheet. It's completely one in the eye for those who spoke about the need to understand what these things that Boeing builds actually are. KPMG, among other Wall Street allies, are at the centre of all the Stock Buy Back stuff, and using major corporates as a financial plaything. The very last thing they wanted is yet another high-roller beancounter.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less Hair
They don’t have anything for the “now” ageing FBW generation as a short/medium haul offering though. The FBW was introduced in the 1980s thats 40 years ago. The 737 remains sat in the generation before this one. Clearly time to move on.
They don’t have anything for the “now” ageing FBW generation as a short/medium haul offering though. The FBW was introduced in the 1980s thats 40 years ago. The 737 remains sat in the generation before this one. Clearly time to move on.
I am well aware and didn't claim anything different.
https://www.avgeekery.com/pilot-repo...imulator-ride/
"Manual trim at this speed took some effort, but was easily achieved. Slowing to 210 kts allowed the flying pilot to easily fly and trim without assistance from the non-flying pilot."
Easily with assistance ?
"Manual trim at this speed took some effort, but was easily achieved. Slowing to 210 kts allowed the flying pilot to easily fly and trim without assistance from the non-flying pilot."
Easily with assistance ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willow,
With respect, this is exactly the response that "typical lawyers" make in response such as mine.
I have no faith in the legal, justice or governmental departments that have covered up the inadequacies of these terrible accidents.
You do not have the experience as a pilot dealing with these pricks at any level.
With respect, this is exactly the response that "typical lawyers" make in response such as mine.
I have no faith in the legal, justice or governmental departments that have covered up the inadequacies of these terrible accidents.
You do not have the experience as a pilot dealing with these pricks at any level.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikeSnow
"Without" assistance refers to after slowing to 210 knots. This implies (truly, it does) that at speeds above that, assistance was required, but the statement says manual trim was "easily" acquired, presumably meaning it was easy for two people.
"Without" assistance refers to after slowing to 210 knots. This implies (truly, it does) that at speeds above that, assistance was required, but the statement says manual trim was "easily" acquired, presumably meaning it was easy for two people.
Last edited by FlightlessParrot; 18th Jan 2021 at 20:40.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
568
Couple of points.
Eventually after spending time on threads here, it seemed to be clear that pilots, first of all, generally aren't in the business of conversing with people who don't know what the pilots are talking about (and worse, often bring misconceptions to the aviators' conversations). And second, when pilots are in a discussion amongst themselves, it is a wise course to keep one's SLF mouth shut, and keyboard idle.
Except rule of law is too fundamental a principle for these niceties of professional boundaries.
I have not contended and do not contend that there aren't any Boeing senior or top management people whose conduct could be prosecuted and lead to a conviction. What I have said is that I am not willing to prejudge the legal process. If that makes me a typical lawyer, well, look up the oath of adherence to rule of law principles lawyers swear to in the United States, and you'll see that such adherence is a requirement, not an option.
I think the question of what deters future bad screw-ups by corporate leaders and officials is a topic where, certainly, different types of professional or occupational experience (different individual backgrounds, also) will lead people to different viewpoints. It might be the case, in the 737 MAX debacle, that the slamming of the prison cell door is the right result, but only after due process of law. And you might be pleased, on reading some of the legal work I did in one of the pending cases against Boeing, that in my advocacy role I take no prisoners and rather than a voice of reason, I go for killer instinct. That too is in the professional conduct rules, though politely called zealous advocacy. And thanks for the note of respect, I am trying here to acknowledge it, among all else.
Couple of points.
Eventually after spending time on threads here, it seemed to be clear that pilots, first of all, generally aren't in the business of conversing with people who don't know what the pilots are talking about (and worse, often bring misconceptions to the aviators' conversations). And second, when pilots are in a discussion amongst themselves, it is a wise course to keep one's SLF mouth shut, and keyboard idle.
Except rule of law is too fundamental a principle for these niceties of professional boundaries.
I have not contended and do not contend that there aren't any Boeing senior or top management people whose conduct could be prosecuted and lead to a conviction. What I have said is that I am not willing to prejudge the legal process. If that makes me a typical lawyer, well, look up the oath of adherence to rule of law principles lawyers swear to in the United States, and you'll see that such adherence is a requirement, not an option.
I think the question of what deters future bad screw-ups by corporate leaders and officials is a topic where, certainly, different types of professional or occupational experience (different individual backgrounds, also) will lead people to different viewpoints. It might be the case, in the 737 MAX debacle, that the slamming of the prison cell door is the right result, but only after due process of law. And you might be pleased, on reading some of the legal work I did in one of the pending cases against Boeing, that in my advocacy role I take no prisoners and rather than a voice of reason, I go for killer instinct. That too is in the professional conduct rules, though politely called zealous advocacy. And thanks for the note of respect, I am trying here to acknowledge it, among all else.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR, as I am not so knowledgeable in anglo saxon style law:
Does it mean Forkner and his successor are off the hook now, or will they still be prosecuted as natural persons?
When that DPA talks about fraud would it include any financial / stock coproration law issues arisen during the course of actions detailed in that Annex A?
Is BA not off the hook for involuntary manslaughter by negligent design of MCAS or have all investigations by public prosecution finished now?
Does it mean Forkner and his successor are off the hook now, or will they still be prosecuted as natural persons?
When that DPA talks about fraud would it include any financial / stock coproration law issues arisen during the course of actions detailed in that Annex A?
Is BA not off the hook for involuntary manslaughter by negligent design of MCAS or have all investigations by public prosecution finished now?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First answer is easy to give: the DPA itself states that the government and Boeing's agreement applies only to Boeing and goes on to state expressly that the individuals who were involved remain subject to prosecution. However, whether these two individuals actually will be prosecuted, the avoidance response is to say it's still too soon to forecast . . . but my inclination is to anticipate that despite trenchant efforts by their defense counsel, they will face charges.
Second, the DPA Statement of Facts struck this SLF/attorney as so infuriating that I couldn't even read it sentence-for-sentence. That said, it is striking in that it serves as a predicate for fraud and conspiracy charges. But: the charges involved in the DPA are only those against Boeing relating specifically to the conduct (or misconduct, as the situation may be) spelled out in the Facts. Do I think those Facts could provide part of the basis for prosecution for securities law violations? - possibly a substantial part of such a basis? I do think so (and an anecdote about why, at the end). It's not my area so I won't try to predict any precise claims; but doesn't it sound like the stuff of securities fraud for Boeing to have said, repeatedly, that the return to service was just around the corner? And for FAA to have felt the need, repeatedly, to assure the public that the timetable was going to be set by FAA and not by the planemaker?
Last answer, also mostly straightforward - the DPA is a limited deal, releasing the company just from the charges against it arising from the specific acts and omissions alleged to have been taken by the two individuals. The rest of potential criminal responsibility is left available.
** ** **
A few years ago a major U.S. university became immersed in intense publicity and public outrage over a serious, and sickening, scandal arising from a sports team doctor (and faculty member) having engaged in a long-term pattern and series of sexual assaults against young women and girls on various sports teams, including an Olympic team. The victim impact (should be, Survivor impact, but the other term is what is used in court) statements in a courtroom where the jail-jumpsuited doctor had been convicted gripped a nationwide television audience. Having practiced in higher ed, I watched much of this court proceeding.
It seemed odd that the person who was president of the university attended one of the court sessions. She appeared frozen by a sense of impending catastrophe, though laboring mightily to mask it. Confronted by a survivor in the hallway - on t.v. - she only deepened this impression (admittedly subjective though it is).
My point is, when I saw Dennis Muilenburg appear before committees of the United States Congress, both in the House and the Senate, the look on his face, his general demeanor, flashed right back to those courtroom scenes.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
Second, the DPA Statement of Facts struck this SLF/attorney as so infuriating that I couldn't even read it sentence-for-sentence. That said, it is striking in that it serves as a predicate for fraud and conspiracy charges. But: the charges involved in the DPA are only those against Boeing relating specifically to the conduct (or misconduct, as the situation may be) spelled out in the Facts. Do I think those Facts could provide part of the basis for prosecution for securities law violations? - possibly a substantial part of such a basis? I do think so (and an anecdote about why, at the end). It's not my area so I won't try to predict any precise claims; but doesn't it sound like the stuff of securities fraud for Boeing to have said, repeatedly, that the return to service was just around the corner? And for FAA to have felt the need, repeatedly, to assure the public that the timetable was going to be set by FAA and not by the planemaker?
Last answer, also mostly straightforward - the DPA is a limited deal, releasing the company just from the charges against it arising from the specific acts and omissions alleged to have been taken by the two individuals. The rest of potential criminal responsibility is left available.
** ** **
A few years ago a major U.S. university became immersed in intense publicity and public outrage over a serious, and sickening, scandal arising from a sports team doctor (and faculty member) having engaged in a long-term pattern and series of sexual assaults against young women and girls on various sports teams, including an Olympic team. The victim impact (should be, Survivor impact, but the other term is what is used in court) statements in a courtroom where the jail-jumpsuited doctor had been convicted gripped a nationwide television audience. Having practiced in higher ed, I watched much of this court proceeding.
It seemed odd that the person who was president of the university attended one of the court sessions. She appeared frozen by a sense of impending catastrophe, though laboring mightily to mask it. Confronted by a survivor in the hallway - on t.v. - she only deepened this impression (admittedly subjective though it is).
My point is, when I saw Dennis Muilenburg appear before committees of the United States Congress, both in the House and the Senate, the look on his face, his general demeanor, flashed right back to those courtroom scenes.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canada returns MAX to service
Transport Canada - news reports:
Canada clears Boeing 737 Max for flight nearly 2 years after global grounding | CBC News
Canada clears Boeing 737 Max for flight nearly 2 years after global grounding | CBC News