Even that could've been believable. But , and correct me if I'm wrong, the comment claims that Boeing's systems clearly show that the bolts were never installed. Like, they knew about it even after all of that, and knew about it upon delivery. Again, that just doesn't even make sense from incompetence, greed, laziness or any other angle. It's not like the same people on the factory floor who would want to sweep the bad repair under the
rug[0] also gets to control the delivery process, the massive paperwork, checks, automated checks, etc that are inherent to massively complex manufacturing. Again, this is claiming that the system knew about it, and that it was written there all along. So we are way beyond manufacturing issues here.
[0] (not that they would for what is claimed to be literally just painting over the plugs, without installing anything. that's just dumb, it's not something you can just get away with, it would've been visible from the very first flights and would he basically a world's first)
the comment claims that Boeing's systems clearly show that the bolts were never installed.
As I read it, it's kind of the opposite. The records show a repair that required removal of the bolts, but there is no record of replacement of the bolts. And there is a record of discussion of if the repair required a formal inspection, which (I think) would have involved recording the status of the bolts.
This is taken as clear evidence that the bolts were not there, but IMHO, if the bolts were missing, that's where they went, but it might not be enough to show they were missing. Also, there's some clear process problems.
I'd sure like to know about the inspections on the other plug doors.
Stupid metaphor but please help me understand, if I ordered a chicken-sandwich and was served with raw-meat, I would not politely return it and request a correction, I would flee the scene.
How are they in any sense whatsoever still working with a company or process that would 'paint over the plugs'? That was the warning sign.
I'm sure the answer is money somehow but is that even accurate? Surely this is more costly? Different budget maybe?
How are they in any sense whatsoever still working with a company or process that would 'paint over the plugs'?
Because there is no alternative supplier that could supply the same components in a shorter-than-years timeframe. And they don’t want to halt all production as it would bankrupt the company.
To the HN crowd, this is like AWS becoming broken and unreliable, but your entire build and architecture has AWS baked in. Moving to Azure or Google or whatever would take years of engineering and data migration. So you paper over the holes as best you can to keep the lights on.
Well mistakes happen. I wouldn't assume that my main supplier is malicious, because then you have much bigger issues than just a single defective part. The issue isn't that a part was defective here, the thing I have a hard time believing is that the part was not just defective, but that spirit just didn't do the job, knowingly. They didn't have the parts that an actual legit repair/rebuild would have required so they didn't do it. To me that makes very little sense, especially since they apparently tried to just lie about it first too, and then no systems or QA did anything about it.
Raw meat can happen, you catch it before you start eating it. In this case, it's more like you got a pack of used needles instead (pretty much equivalent to a non installed door in an airplane) because the chef didn't want to wait 5mins for the meat to cook, you basically just acknowledge the needles and start eating. That what is hard for me to believe. The original 737max controversy made sense, shortcuts were taken, and it made sense why that sort of disfunction would slowly creep into the design process. It also makes sense that some believed that the redesign would still work since hey, pilots just have to handle the errors if they happen! But in this case? The motivations don't make sense, especially since it apparently wasn't just a mishap or a failure, but intentional fraud.
Comments
Even that could've been believable. But , and correct me if I'm wrong, the comment claims that Boeing's systems clearly show that the bolts were never installed. Like, they knew about it even after all of that, and knew about it upon delivery. Again, that just doesn't even make sense from incompetence, greed, laziness or any other angle. It's not like the same people on the factory floor who would want to sweep the bad repair under the rug[0] also gets to control the delivery process, the massive paperwork, checks, automated checks, etc that are inherent to massively complex manufacturing. Again, this is claiming that the system knew about it, and that it was written there all along. So we are way beyond manufacturing issues here.
[0] (not that they would for what is claimed to be literally just painting over the plugs, without installing anything. that's just dumb, it's not something you can just get away with, it would've been visible from the very first flights and would he basically a world's first)
As I read it, it's kind of the opposite. The records show a repair that required removal of the bolts, but there is no record of replacement of the bolts. And there is a record of discussion of if the repair required a formal inspection, which (I think) would have involved recording the status of the bolts.
This is taken as clear evidence that the bolts were not there, but IMHO, if the bolts were missing, that's where they went, but it might not be enough to show they were missing. Also, there's some clear process problems.
I'd sure like to know about the inspections on the other plug doors.
Stupid metaphor but please help me understand, if I ordered a chicken-sandwich and was served with raw-meat, I would not politely return it and request a correction, I would flee the scene.
How are they in any sense whatsoever still working with a company or process that would 'paint over the plugs'? That was the warning sign.
I'm sure the answer is money somehow but is that even accurate? Surely this is more costly? Different budget maybe?
Because there is no alternative supplier that could supply the same components in a shorter-than-years timeframe. And they don’t want to halt all production as it would bankrupt the company.
To the HN crowd, this is like AWS becoming broken and unreliable, but your entire build and architecture has AWS baked in. Moving to Azure or Google or whatever would take years of engineering and data migration. So you paper over the holes as best you can to keep the lights on.
There seem to be no alternatives other than buying them back, and it's not surprising since they were a core part of Boeing.
Even if there were alternatives, it might irk them to acknowledge that outsourcing most (all?) of their manufacturing didn't end well.
As for buying them back, see [1].
Doing so would reduce their return on net assets.....
[1] https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/boeing-rules-out-buying-t...
Well mistakes happen. I wouldn't assume that my main supplier is malicious, because then you have much bigger issues than just a single defective part. The issue isn't that a part was defective here, the thing I have a hard time believing is that the part was not just defective, but that spirit just didn't do the job, knowingly. They didn't have the parts that an actual legit repair/rebuild would have required so they didn't do it. To me that makes very little sense, especially since they apparently tried to just lie about it first too, and then no systems or QA did anything about it.
Raw meat can happen, you catch it before you start eating it. In this case, it's more like you got a pack of used needles instead (pretty much equivalent to a non installed door in an airplane) because the chef didn't want to wait 5mins for the meat to cook, you basically just acknowledge the needles and start eating. That what is hard for me to believe. The original 737max controversy made sense, shortcuts were taken, and it made sense why that sort of disfunction would slowly creep into the design process. It also makes sense that some believed that the redesign would still work since hey, pilots just have to handle the errors if they happen! But in this case? The motivations don't make sense, especially since it apparently wasn't just a mishap or a failure, but intentional fraud.