Latest Boeing News
Thread Starter
This from the Uk Guardian newspaper today.
Boeing’s largest factory is in “panic mode”, according to workers and union officials, with managers accused of hounding staff to keep quiet over quality concerns.
The US plane maker has been grappling with a safety crisis sparked by a cabin panel blowout during a flight in January, and intense scrutiny of its production line as regulators launched a string of investigations.
Its site at Everett, Washington – hailed as the world’s biggest manufacturing building – is at the heart of Boeing’s operation, responsible for building planes like the 747 and 767, and fixing the 787 Dreamliner.
One mechanic at the complex, who has worked for Boeing for more than three decades, has claimed it is “full of” faulty 787 jets that need fixing.
Many of these jets are flown from Boeing’s site in South Carolina, where the company shifted final assembly of the 787 in 2021 in what was characterized as a cost-cutting measure.
“There is no way in God’s green earth I would want to be a pilot in South Carolina flying those from South Carolina to here,” the mechanic, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, told the Guardian. “Because when they get in here, we’re stripping them apart.”
Managers at Everett “will hound mechanics” to keep quiet about quality-assurance concerns and potential repairs, the mechanic alleged, emphasizing speed and efficiency over safety. He added: “Boeing has to look in the mirror and say: ‘We’re wrong.’”
The US plane maker has been grappling with a safety crisis sparked by a cabin panel blowout during a flight in January, and intense scrutiny of its production line as regulators launched a string of investigations.
Its site at Everett, Washington – hailed as the world’s biggest manufacturing building – is at the heart of Boeing’s operation, responsible for building planes like the 747 and 767, and fixing the 787 Dreamliner.
One mechanic at the complex, who has worked for Boeing for more than three decades, has claimed it is “full of” faulty 787 jets that need fixing.
Many of these jets are flown from Boeing’s site in South Carolina, where the company shifted final assembly of the 787 in 2021 in what was characterized as a cost-cutting measure.
“There is no way in God’s green earth I would want to be a pilot in South Carolina flying those from South Carolina to here,” the mechanic, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, told the Guardian. “Because when they get in here, we’re stripping them apart.”
Managers at Everett “will hound mechanics” to keep quiet about quality-assurance concerns and potential repairs, the mechanic alleged, emphasizing speed and efficiency over safety. He added: “Boeing has to look in the mirror and say: ‘We’re wrong.’”
I am curious about one aspect of the Boeing issues of recent years
Are there any records of whistleblowers speaking out against the aircraft and how they are manufactured, safety issues etc prior to the MAX crashes?
It takes a lot of courage to be a whistleblower, you tend to lose your job and the company concerned will do its upmost to question and utterly destroy your sanity, sincerity and uphold its reputation by any means necessary.
When the MAX crashes happened it seemed, from an outsider to the industry's point of view, that a very nasty can of worms started to spill and not just about the MAX but also the KC135, 777, 787 et al.
Were the powers at be at Boeing surpressing and hoping to keep surpressed any whistleblowing prior to MAX failures?
With the best will in the world I cannot believe that prior to the MAX crashes, everything in the Boeing garden was rosy, there has to have been people on the assembly lines and other sectors within Boeing who had doubts, concerns and so forth about quality control, systems etc, did they just keep it to themselves, were they stopped from speaking out?
When at work you are usually actively encouraged to speak out if something is wrong, does Boeing have that much power over its employees that they were too scared to have spoken out prior to the MAX crashes?
Are there any records of whistleblowers speaking out against the aircraft and how they are manufactured, safety issues etc prior to the MAX crashes?
It takes a lot of courage to be a whistleblower, you tend to lose your job and the company concerned will do its upmost to question and utterly destroy your sanity, sincerity and uphold its reputation by any means necessary.
When the MAX crashes happened it seemed, from an outsider to the industry's point of view, that a very nasty can of worms started to spill and not just about the MAX but also the KC135, 777, 787 et al.
Were the powers at be at Boeing surpressing and hoping to keep surpressed any whistleblowing prior to MAX failures?
With the best will in the world I cannot believe that prior to the MAX crashes, everything in the Boeing garden was rosy, there has to have been people on the assembly lines and other sectors within Boeing who had doubts, concerns and so forth about quality control, systems etc, did they just keep it to themselves, were they stopped from speaking out?
When at work you are usually actively encouraged to speak out if something is wrong, does Boeing have that much power over its employees that they were too scared to have spoken out prior to the MAX crashes?
It takes a lot of courage to be a whistleblower, you tend to lose your job and the company concerned will do its upmost to question and utterly destroy your sanity, sincerity and uphold its reputation by any means necessary.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Farnham
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotting like a fish
I am curious about one aspect of the Boeing issues of recent years
Are there any records of whistleblowers speaking out against the aircraft and how they are manufactured, safety issues etc prior to the MAX crashes?
It takes a lot of courage to be a whistleblower, you tend to lose your job and the company concerned will do its upmost to question and utterly destroy your sanity, sincerity and uphold its reputation by any means necessary.
When the MAX crashes happened it seemed, from an outsider to the industry's point of view, that a very nasty can of worms started to spill and not just about the MAX but also the KC135, 777, 787 et al.
Were the powers at be at Boeing surpressing and hoping to keep surpressed any whistleblowing prior to MAX failures?
With the best will in the world I cannot believe that prior to the MAX crashes, everything in the Boeing garden was rosy, there has to have been people on the assembly lines and other sectors within Boeing who had doubts, concerns and so forth about quality control, systems etc, did they just keep it to themselves, were they stopped from speaking out?
When at work you are usually actively encouraged to speak out if something is wrong, does Boeing have that much power over its employees that they were too scared to have spoken out prior to the MAX crashes?
Are there any records of whistleblowers speaking out against the aircraft and how they are manufactured, safety issues etc prior to the MAX crashes?
It takes a lot of courage to be a whistleblower, you tend to lose your job and the company concerned will do its upmost to question and utterly destroy your sanity, sincerity and uphold its reputation by any means necessary.
When the MAX crashes happened it seemed, from an outsider to the industry's point of view, that a very nasty can of worms started to spill and not just about the MAX but also the KC135, 777, 787 et al.
Were the powers at be at Boeing surpressing and hoping to keep surpressed any whistleblowing prior to MAX failures?
With the best will in the world I cannot believe that prior to the MAX crashes, everything in the Boeing garden was rosy, there has to have been people on the assembly lines and other sectors within Boeing who had doubts, concerns and so forth about quality control, systems etc, did they just keep it to themselves, were they stopped from speaking out?
When at work you are usually actively encouraged to speak out if something is wrong, does Boeing have that much power over its employees that they were too scared to have spoken out prior to the MAX crashes?
it can be done but those on Wall Street who have at least in part driven the change should take some responsibility and share the pain. Those obscene management pay schemes are little more than bribes to pay out to shareholders regardless of the consequences for the business, let alone customers and staff. They need employ real managers who understand customers, products and people and get rid of the financial engineers.
Companies dont go bad overnight so the impact of the McD management takeover took time. Clearing out experienced managers and engineers together with outsourcing, would have reduced the chance of whistleblowing together with a clear message from the top on changed priorities. Cut costs, maximise returns to shareholders. There were early warning signs with the 787 problems but it took the Max crashes for the full can of worms to be exposed. It will take years and top to bottom changes to get Boeing back to full health.
it can be done but those on Wall Street who have at least in part driven the change should take some responsibility and share the pain. Those obscene management pay schemes are little more than bribes to pay out to shareholders regardless of the consequences for the business, let alone customers and staff. They need employ real managers who understand customers, products and people and get rid of the financial engineers.
it can be done but those on Wall Street who have at least in part driven the change should take some responsibility and share the pain. Those obscene management pay schemes are little more than bribes to pay out to shareholders regardless of the consequences for the business, let alone customers and staff. They need employ real managers who understand customers, products and people and get rid of the financial engineers.
"Lessons will be learnt" is generally the script that follows. But obviously lessons are not being learnt and the DC10, although eventually successful and relatively popular, pretty much destroyed McDonnell-Douglas reputation in the same way, it seems, the MAX and 787 are doing for Boeing.
There certainly is far too much emphasis on money and nowhere near enough emphasis on basic safety and quality. As much as people would hate to see the demise of Boeing, they along with every company like them who place money before safety, only have themselves to blame.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Farnham
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have not forgotten the Turkish airlines crash as I knew people on the flight. There had been a big rugby game in Paris and people were coming home from it.
Which makes me think - when did MD become flakey? The history of Douglas is pretty honourable, and late 60s/early 70s pre-dates shareholder value and the malign influence of Wall Street.
Which makes me think - when did MD become flakey? The history of Douglas is pretty honourable, and late 60s/early 70s pre-dates shareholder value and the malign influence of Wall Street.
The UK Guardian article is typical of the media approach to the crises at Boeing - it repackages information already in the public domain in a way that tends to exaggerate or sensationalize. In particular, the inspection of "joins" in the 787 aircraft still on Boeing premises has been discussed with FAA and was the subject of an extensive safety analysis and public discussion by a relevantly responsible Boeing engineering executive several weeks ago.
Perhaps the mechanic quoted in the article knows something more. Based on the information already in the public domain, that appears doubtful, and very likely it is very doubtful.
That being said, there is little quarreling, if any, over the short-sighted and ultimately vastly counter-productive "cost" saving motive for the move to South Carolina.
About generalizations on whistleblowers, sometimes their claims about impropriety or other ways of referring to "wrongdoing" are correct, and sometimes their claims are not correct. Having represented both individuals in the status of whistleblower as well as defended companies against such claims (as the attorney part of "SLF/attorney"), the reality is that just by slapping the label "whistleblower" on an individual does not guarantee their claims of impropriety or wrongdoing are valid - likewise just because the company resists the claims does not mean the claims are invalid.
Not least, trying to take a longer view, what would help Boeing in its current crisis is a Board seat for union representation of employees. Was it not the case, a good number of years ago, that the legendary labor leader William "Wimpy" Winpisinger was highly effective for the membership, difficult for the Company to exert any pressure upon (if any even could be exerted at all), and still tremendously good for the Company's success in the marketplace and in the aviation and space sectors overall? (One biolgrapher described Wimpy as "aggressive, radical, blunt, flamboyant and outspoken" (the order of those attributes might be incorrect) - couldn't Boeing at least in the minds of those who would like to see the ship righted, benefit from someone like that?)
Perhaps the mechanic quoted in the article knows something more. Based on the information already in the public domain, that appears doubtful, and very likely it is very doubtful.
That being said, there is little quarreling, if any, over the short-sighted and ultimately vastly counter-productive "cost" saving motive for the move to South Carolina.
About generalizations on whistleblowers, sometimes their claims about impropriety or other ways of referring to "wrongdoing" are correct, and sometimes their claims are not correct. Having represented both individuals in the status of whistleblower as well as defended companies against such claims (as the attorney part of "SLF/attorney"), the reality is that just by slapping the label "whistleblower" on an individual does not guarantee their claims of impropriety or wrongdoing are valid - likewise just because the company resists the claims does not mean the claims are invalid.
Not least, trying to take a longer view, what would help Boeing in its current crisis is a Board seat for union representation of employees. Was it not the case, a good number of years ago, that the legendary labor leader William "Wimpy" Winpisinger was highly effective for the membership, difficult for the Company to exert any pressure upon (if any even could be exerted at all), and still tremendously good for the Company's success in the marketplace and in the aviation and space sectors overall? (One biolgrapher described Wimpy as "aggressive, radical, blunt, flamboyant and outspoken" (the order of those attributes might be incorrect) - couldn't Boeing at least in the minds of those who would like to see the ship righted, benefit from someone like that?)
The following users liked this post:
I'll say it more concisely, Willow.
It's typical Gruniad Sensationalist Rubbish.
(Regardless of such criticism as Boeing deserves over the MCAS screw up).
It's typical Gruniad Sensationalist Rubbish.
(Regardless of such criticism as Boeing deserves over the MCAS screw up).
The UK Guardian article is typical of the media approach to the crises at Boeing - it repackages information already in the public domain in a way that tends to exaggerate or sensationalize. In particular, the inspection of "joins" in the 787 aircraft still on Boeing premises has been discussed with FAA and was the subject of an extensive safety analysis and public discussion by a relevantly responsible Boeing engineering executive several weeks ago.
Boeing might have made it into "pet peeve." But the underlying facts are probably true anyway, even if presented with a veneer of sensationalism.
The following 2 users liked this post by remi:
Thread Starter
The Boeing name was once gold plated but sadly now attracts headline stories like this.
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — The first crewed launch of Boeing's Starliner spacecraft has been delayed until no earlier than June 5 after an automatic abort cut short an attempted flight Saturday afternoon just minutes before liftoff.
Boeing's Starliner spacecraft and its Atlas V rocket were less than 4 minutes away from launching two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station(ISS) today, June 1, from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida at 12:25 p.m. EDT (1625 GMT) when the abort occurred. A ground launch sequencer (GLS) computer triggered the automatic abort 3 minutes and 50 seconds before liftoff, but the exact cause is still unclear.
"It's disappointing," NASA commercial crew program manager Steve Stich said in a press conference after the launch scrub. "Everybody's a little disappointed but you kind of roll your sleeves up and get right back to work." The delay means Starliner's astronaut crew, NASA's Butch Wilmore and Sunita Williams, must wait nearly another week to fly.
Boeing's Starliner spacecraft and its Atlas V rocket were less than 4 minutes away from launching two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station(ISS) today, June 1, from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida at 12:25 p.m. EDT (1625 GMT) when the abort occurred. A ground launch sequencer (GLS) computer triggered the automatic abort 3 minutes and 50 seconds before liftoff, but the exact cause is still unclear.
"It's disappointing," NASA commercial crew program manager Steve Stich said in a press conference after the launch scrub. "Everybody's a little disappointed but you kind of roll your sleeves up and get right back to work." The delay means Starliner's astronaut crew, NASA's Butch Wilmore and Sunita Williams, must wait nearly another week to fly.
Just the case of the media piling on. As I understand it Boeing's only involvement is with the capsule itself yet the problem was with the Atlas V rocket. But according to the media its Boeing's fault.
The following users liked this post:
I thought Boeing was the prime contractor for the Starliner, so that makes it Boeing’s fault just like the door plug fiasco is on Boeing.
From the layman's side, yes the media have pounced on Boeing and continue to chew on Boeing for everything including any remote connection to the company cos Boeing have actually invited it by their arrogance over MAX.
When the first MAX went down, the attitude of the upper management at Boeing was dismissive and somewhat shifting on the "blame game". When the second MAX went down, they still had an almost untouchable arrogance. It appeared to the public that Boeing were riding on the coat tails of their own history of building fine aircraft and their desire to beat Airbus at any cost. You only had to look at the comments sections of the various media to see that, although most public didn't know the details of MAX, the mud was sticking to it and thus the company like superglue.
The MAX exposed a huge disconnect tween the upper management of Boeing and reality. It took too long for them to admit that they may have got things wrong. Then the whistleblowers started talking and that exposed even greater disconnect tween the upper management and the shopfloor and then everything just snowballed and progressively got worse.
The media is a double edged sword.....when you are doing well, it will sing your praises from the rooftops......do something wrong and not mea culpa immediately and people die, then the media will crucify you.
So as much as the media are still chewing on Boeing and causing discomfort to the company, they have largely invited and asked for it by virtue of their reactions and attitudes to MAX and the subsequent quality control issues on other aircraft that were exposed by whistleblowers. The authorities can punish Boeing for their failings but the media can and will rub salt into those wounds and make sure they never forget that they answer to the public, they depend on the public to succeed in their business and that the attitude that the bank balance is not more important than public safety.
When the first MAX went down, the attitude of the upper management at Boeing was dismissive and somewhat shifting on the "blame game". When the second MAX went down, they still had an almost untouchable arrogance. It appeared to the public that Boeing were riding on the coat tails of their own history of building fine aircraft and their desire to beat Airbus at any cost. You only had to look at the comments sections of the various media to see that, although most public didn't know the details of MAX, the mud was sticking to it and thus the company like superglue.
The MAX exposed a huge disconnect tween the upper management of Boeing and reality. It took too long for them to admit that they may have got things wrong. Then the whistleblowers started talking and that exposed even greater disconnect tween the upper management and the shopfloor and then everything just snowballed and progressively got worse.
The media is a double edged sword.....when you are doing well, it will sing your praises from the rooftops......do something wrong and not mea culpa immediately and people die, then the media will crucify you.
So as much as the media are still chewing on Boeing and causing discomfort to the company, they have largely invited and asked for it by virtue of their reactions and attitudes to MAX and the subsequent quality control issues on other aircraft that were exposed by whistleblowers. The authorities can punish Boeing for their failings but the media can and will rub salt into those wounds and make sure they never forget that they answer to the public, they depend on the public to succeed in their business and that the attitude that the bank balance is not more important than public safety.
The following 2 users liked this post by BonnieLass:
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: The Moon
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think the US Justice Department will sue Boing this summer?
Lately at the ACC, a Boeing traffic had a hidraulic failure, and another Boeing lost the autopilot and the RVSM.. just in the last few days. There are constant incidents with these planes. This is not normal.
Lately at the ACC, a Boeing traffic had a hidraulic failure, and another Boeing lost the autopilot and the RVSM.. just in the last few days. There are constant incidents with these planes. This is not normal.
Professional Student
Do you think the US Justice Department will sue Boing this summer?
Lately at the ACC, a Boeing traffic had a hidraulic failure, and another Boeing lost the autopilot and the RVSM.. just in the last few days. There are constant incidents with these planes. This is not normal.
Lately at the ACC, a Boeing traffic had a hidraulic failure, and another Boeing lost the autopilot and the RVSM.. just in the last few days. There are constant incidents with these planes. This is not normal.
Unless those issues are caused by QA issues on newly delivered Boeings, it's not noteworthy.
The Starliner is a Boeing product, but neither of the last two scrubs were due to faults in the Starliner. However, the Atlas V booster is a United Launch Alliance (ULA) product, which is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. The recent scrub was due to a faulty ULA ground computer and the scrub prior to that was due to a valve problem in the Atlas V upper stage, so Boeing has shared responsibility for the scrubs. That being said, how many news articles have mentioned Lockheed-Martin?
So while Boeing is 'connected' by the ULA venture, problems with the Atlas fall directly on Lockheed-Martin.