When experienced pilots who knew all about the details crashed a simulator programmed with what was supposed to be the fix, that was the end of any credibility the current management could muster.
They're still treating it like a PR problem instead of an engineering/management one. They cant just fire a few people or run some newspaper ads to make the plane safe. The entire world is watching and will not be satisfied unless they actually make it safe.
Well, I'm looking at air travel totally different. Where once I thought "Hey let's fly somewhere...", now I'm thinking more and more that local travel is more the way to go, since the rich turds in management can't even so much as own up to issues anymore.
They still have a near monopoly when it comes to production within the US, and that status continues to be propped up by the government. It still isnt clear that Boeing's negligence will hurt their shareholders as much as it should. It's looking unlikely that the criminals who forced through the dismantling of essential safety measures while concealing their actions from regulators and the public will face justice. Management has no incentive to do anything except stay the course.
I agree with your last sentence... It's weird though. Why won't smooth marketing talk work this time? It has worked many times, for many companies, independent of factual reason. What's particular about this time?
I understand the HN consensus about what actually went wrong inside Boeing. Maybe the HN consensus is right, maybe it isn't. What I find weird is that this time, the PR works differently.
This will have been the biggest, or at least the most visible, collective failure of aviation regulators in a very long time, if not ever, to provide checks on a company. So they are all pissed. And now that the FAA has fucked up other regulators are not keen to just blindly follow their guidance, particularly those in jurisdiction with existing or potential Boeing competitors.
15 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 49.3 ms ] threadNot just the 737 max but also the problems with the 787. Boeing is a good example of what happens when enginnering is taken over by management.
And the 737 NG too: cracks appearing in the wing supports.
I understand the HN consensus about what actually went wrong inside Boeing. Maybe the HN consensus is right, maybe it isn't. What I find weird is that this time, the PR works differently.
In the US, the traditional solution to a nasty plane crash is to merge another airline just to get a new name (cf AirTran nee ValueJet 593)
Every day they fail to resign costs them more. At the time, two or three resignations would have done it. Now we know how deep the rot runs.