"United will replace planes at Guam hub, upgrade lobby; same-day connections from Saipan to Hawaii starts Dec. 1": https://www.guampdn.com/news/united-will-replace-planes-at-g... (www.guampdn.com/news/united-will-replace-planes-at-guam-hub-upgrade-lobby-same-day-connections-from-saipan-to/article_ab170120-872b-4c31-81de-83ea44357bce.html); https://archive.is/S47A0
Iffy by the headline, but the every-other-week model doesn't sound absolutely the worst. I don't have a great read on if it's a bad idea or not though.
on the bright side, the next phone which gets sucked out of a mis-installed door will get even bigger publicity if it survives intact like the last one
The headline might as well be FAA decides not to do literally their job. Again.
A more charitable explanation is that their resources are more limited than the mess Boeing have created and they can't be everywhere at once. The idea that boeing have earned back trust is laughable to me.
Ot but mentour pilot on youtube does an excellent job of explaining how insanely safety focused the airline industry is and has plenty of boeing analysis as well.
> Boeing is a major defense contractor, and the move will put executives close to Pentagon leaders.
According to the book Flying Blind: The 737 MAX Tragedy and the Fall of Boeing by Peter Robison the entire decline of Boeing started when they moved their HQ from Seattle to Chicago and deprioritized engineering, quality and safety.
"“If something requires us to cease production, we will do that:” FAA -- "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering whether to suspend the Production Certificate of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) if it’s not satisfied changes to its safety culture are sufficient, LNA has learned."": https://old.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/1bj6jsh/if_somethi... (From March 2024, old.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/1bj6jsh/if_something_requires_us_to_cease_production_we/)
It is typical for aerospace companies to have in-house "FAA delegates" who function in the stead of direct FAA reviewers, and it looks like all that is going on here is the FAA is allowing Boeing to go back to using their own internal delegates (every other week!).
If you're wondering - hey, that sounds terrible, why doesn't the FAA do anything about it? Answer, because it practically can't without maybe a 10x or more budget boost that's practically impossible.
Why? Copying from another comment I made on this thread:
(Caution, my thoughts are a bit rambly and scattered. It's been a while since I studied this in detail for a class where I had deep divided into the max 8 crash and FAA's lapse, so the details are a bit foggy.)
The short answer is that unfortunately it's practically almost impossible to do this any other way, short of massively increasing funding for the FAA (which is presumably politically not going to be done.)
The long answer is, anyone with expertise ends up going to work at an aerospace company where they are properly compensated. You end up with the engineers at Boeing et al, and the regulatory folk at FAA etc. (This isn't unique to just aviation btw but most industries where you need a high level of technical expertise.) And if you think it should be easily doable... here's a thought experiment. Say 20 people in boeing know about MCAS (pre crashes and their publicity). If even only 2 FAA employees need to be technically sound in their knowledge of such a niche system, that's about 10% of how many boeing employees know about it.
Now if you extrapolate that to all systems and all employees across multiple companies... you see why it's an issue for one agencies to have such deep knowledge about everything. (And this isn't even considering what happens when people quit etc.)
Because of this, the most obvious answer to "how does the FAA, without much engineers, decide what's safe or not", is to ask the experts and just have them certify stuff, well, not under oath, but as close to that as possible.
30 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 51.1 ms ] threadA more charitable explanation is that their resources are more limited than the mess Boeing have created and they can't be everywhere at once. The idea that boeing have earned back trust is laughable to me.
Ot but mentour pilot on youtube does an excellent job of explaining how insanely safety focused the airline industry is and has plenty of boeing analysis as well.
> Boeing is a major defense contractor, and the move will put executives close to Pentagon leaders.
According to the book Flying Blind: The 737 MAX Tragedy and the Fall of Boeing by Peter Robison the entire decline of Boeing started when they moved their HQ from Seattle to Chicago and deprioritized engineering, quality and safety.
Did Boeing implement internal and process changes to justify this? That's an actual question, if they did this step would make sense.
I want to trust Boeing to do the right thing when it comes to safety. As is, I still prefer Airbus when I get a choice.
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-boeing-airworthin...
https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_...
It is typical for aerospace companies to have in-house "FAA delegates" who function in the stead of direct FAA reviewers, and it looks like all that is going on here is the FAA is allowing Boeing to go back to using their own internal delegates (every other week!).
1. Build product people like
2. Build competitive moat
3. Extract maximum value by raising prices or spending less.
4. When the value proposition becomes negative for the end user, then legislate your business' continued profits and existence.
Why? Copying from another comment I made on this thread:
(Caution, my thoughts are a bit rambly and scattered. It's been a while since I studied this in detail for a class where I had deep divided into the max 8 crash and FAA's lapse, so the details are a bit foggy.)
The short answer is that unfortunately it's practically almost impossible to do this any other way, short of massively increasing funding for the FAA (which is presumably politically not going to be done.)
The long answer is, anyone with expertise ends up going to work at an aerospace company where they are properly compensated. You end up with the engineers at Boeing et al, and the regulatory folk at FAA etc. (This isn't unique to just aviation btw but most industries where you need a high level of technical expertise.) And if you think it should be easily doable... here's a thought experiment. Say 20 people in boeing know about MCAS (pre crashes and their publicity). If even only 2 FAA employees need to be technically sound in their knowledge of such a niche system, that's about 10% of how many boeing employees know about it.
Now if you extrapolate that to all systems and all employees across multiple companies... you see why it's an issue for one agencies to have such deep knowledge about everything. (And this isn't even considering what happens when people quit etc.)
Because of this, the most obvious answer to "how does the FAA, without much engineers, decide what's safe or not", is to ask the experts and just have them certify stuff, well, not under oath, but as close to that as possible.
many Engineer concern is ignore by management because it cost them something, greed to max
No way I'm flying Boeing again.
Even if this was a sound practical decision surely they can see how it's radioactive for their(FAA) reputation?
That said, money didn't go great for Boeing either after the last batch of people died.
I have a hard time not imagining that the engineering culture at Boeing is not just as moribund as it was.