7 ms·

Handy for Boeing if they can just stick it as a criminal act to some low level employees and case closed.

by mellutussa 3y ago

bojan 3y ago
Handy for Boeing executives maybe, but the reputation damage is probably here to stay.
- hef19898 3y ago
  As I wrote elsewhere, under EASA rules high ranking people at an organization holding design and / or production organisation approvals, are personally responsible, and liable incl. criminal liability, to make sure their organisation works properly. I forget the exact term for this role so. Not sure about FAA rules, but I assume they are somewhat similar. So at the very least, those individuals, at Boeing and Spirit Aerospace, should be a tad worried now. By the way, senior means VP-levek and above, usually one for the design side (propably less relevant in the door plug question), one on production side (they should be worried), one each for design and production quality (same as above, the production quality oeople should be worried a lot) as well as one for supply chain and other functiobs with less responsibilities (the supply chain people are imolicated in this door plug thing as). Personally, I don't see how the FAA can just let this slip, their relationship with international partbers and their reputation is already damaged by the 737 MAX, so they have to do something about it.
  - jajko 3y ago
    Why would currently anybody globally trust FAA? Clearly regulatory capture has happened, its not 1 or 2 isolated cases at this point. Trust is something thats hard earned and easily lost, they already went through both so if FAA wants to come back they have some serious effort on their shoulders in upcoming decade at least. And slapping Boeing and those responsible so hard that wall will give them another is mandatory first step since this theatre is played out for literally everybody in the world, everybody is watching.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      You are pinting to a very serious issue. Up until the 737 MAX, if someone or something had FAA or EASA certification, getting the other one was more or less just a formality. And this helped everyone a lot, and in fact made things saver as the engineering was less, constraint, limited, bothered by regulation (no idea how to phrase this...), because they only had to worry deeply about either FAA or EASA requirements. The 737 MAX did put a dent in this, and that was and is a problem. And everyone knows this, besides Boeing it seems, which is the reason why I am cautiosly optimistic about the investogations.
      - stavros 3y ago
        How did it put a dent in this? Is it not certified by one of the two agencies?
        hef19898 3y ago
        It is certified by both, with EASA nasically accepting the FAA certication at face value (oversimplified a bit). That means trusting the other agency. It was this trust that was hurt by the initial B737 MAX scandle and the handling of it by both, Boeing and the FAA.
        stavros 3y ago
        Ah, I see, thanks. So the FAA cut corners when certifying? I guess trust only works when the other agency is up to the same standards as you, but then "certified by the FAA and the EASA" only really means "certified by one of the two".
        hef19898 3y ago
        No, the FAA didn't cut corners, Boeing did. The FAA did a bad job catching it. And being certified by both means that orgs and aircraft are certified by both. Decades of cooperation and alignment of regulations and requirements mean that the sevond certification is covering the delta between both, believing the common stuff to be properly cerified by the other regulator. That is where the FAA lost trust. Hence my believe the FAA will not show much liniency to Boeing this time.
  - georgeplusplus 3y ago
    >>> Not sure about FAA rules, but I assume they are somewhat similar. So at the very least, those individuals, at Boeing and Spirit Aerospace, should be a tad worried now. It’s funny to see comments like. You think this isn’t just a dog and pony show? They don’t give a damn. They will sleep just fine. Nothing will happen because the government is in bed with these folks and they don’t implicate their own and the sooner you understand that the less it shocks you when nothing happens.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Not sure I can actually agree with that, at least in such broad strokes. And no, I know that it is not just a dog and pony show. "It" is the reason air travel is as safe as it is today, and that is way saver than 20 or 30 years ago, despite whatever Boeing did with the 737 MAX.
      - boppo1 3y ago
        >way saver than 20 or 30 years ago Is it?
        hef19898 3y ago
        Yes, it is. And 20-30 years ago it was saver than, say, 50 years ago. Like in medcine, people don't always see those incrementle improvements over time.
        chx 3y ago
        I would've agreed with you five or so years ago but https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305868 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305868 is more than an accident, you begin to wonder what's going on. There are staff shortages everywhere, why not with pilots? Are they as rested and trained as they ought to be? Together with the plane safety issues surfacing like an army of skeletons falling out of an infinite closet, I am not so sure we are on the same track as we were before.
nocsi 3y ago
All the issues are systemic, so it can't be the responsibility of some low-level employees. But it is kind of curious that Boeing suddenly wants to buy Spirit Aerosystems.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  The curious things is that they divested Spirit Aerosystems in the first place, in a financial engineering move that seemed to serve no business purpose besides a PE pump and dump.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    It kind ofnmade sense so: Tier one aerostructure suppliers are doing the easiest work, not like avionics and engine OEMs. By having those activities in-house, you have a cost center. Having that as a third-party turns it into a profit center. Also, a third party can theoretically work for other customers. Airbus did the same thing. In practice so, there are only two aircraft OEMs. Hence those structure tier ones are kind of screwed. Automotive tier ones have much more choice regarding customers.
    - Sakos 3y ago
      It only makes sense if your only metric is cost. There are a lot of reasons why Airbus owns the subsidiaries who do Spirit's type of work for Airbus (such as the airframe). Airbus does not do the same thing as Boeing.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Well, Airbus is a customer of Spirit Aerospace. And Premium Aerotec, well, they were very, very close to spin it out completely. Bavk the day, it was part of what today is Defence and Space. And Premium Aerotec is subsiediary of Airbus, it is not part of any of its divisions. So, somewhere between Spirit Aerospace and and being in-house.
        3y ago
izacus 3y ago
In previous topic, people told me that they would never want to live in a place that expects criminal liability from CEOs and executives in companies. That's only for petty criminals, murderers and people who can't pay bills.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Is it more important to dole out punishments or to get the best result? Because the best result isn't going to be from draconian punishments for CEOs. The strongest irony of what I suspect you are suggesting is that the #1 lesson of high-performance safety cultures is a blameless attitude to accidents. Criminal liabilities for the CEO ... are better than criminal liabilities for lower level employees. But still not the path to the highest levels of safety.
  - chgs 3y ago
    The Us penal system is about punishment, not rehabilitation or even deterrence.
    - User23 3y ago
      I assume you’re not being intentionally dishonest, but have instead been taken in by propaganda, so allow me to remind you that the primary purpose and effect of incarceration is preventing reoffending. Fortunately a tiny minority commits the vast majority of violent crimes[1], so considerable reduction can be achieved by containing those criminals’ ability to commit crimes. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/
      - junon 3y ago
        Not sure which USA you're living in but what you're saying does not match reality. I've had a lot of friends and family in and out of jail and it's hell, at least in the US.
        3y ago
dylan604 3y ago
I would love for an impossible outcome from this that MBAs are deemed illegal. Can anyone honestly point to an example of where an MBA has had a positive long term effect by any of their decisions?
- ht85 3y ago
  > honestly point to an example No but I can come up with a KPI that does.
  - mellutussa 3y ago
    We need a negative KPI for parts that fall off and people that die due to negligent shortcuts.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Handy for Boeing if they can just stick it as a criminal act to some low level employees and case closed.

bojan 3y ago

Handy for Boeing executives maybe, but the reputation damage is probably here to stay.

hef19898 3y ago
As I wrote elsewhere, under EASA rules high ranking people at an organization holding design and / or production organisation approvals, are personally responsible, and liable incl. criminal liability, to make sure their organisation works properly. I forget the exact term for this role so. Not sure about FAA rules, but I assume they are somewhat similar. So at the very least, those individuals, at Boeing and Spirit Aerospace, should be a tad worried now. By the way, senior means VP-levek and above, usually one for the design side (propably less relevant in the door plug question), one on production side (they should be worried), one each for design and production quality (same as above, the production quality oeople should be worried a lot) as well as one for supply chain and other functiobs with less responsibilities (the supply chain people are imolicated in this door plug thing as). Personally, I don't see how the FAA can just let this slip, their relationship with international partbers and their reputation is already damaged by the 737 MAX, so they have to do something about it.
- jajko 3y ago
  Why would currently anybody globally trust FAA? Clearly regulatory capture has happened, its not 1 or 2 isolated cases at this point. Trust is something thats hard earned and easily lost, they already went through both so if FAA wants to come back they have some serious effort on their shoulders in upcoming decade at least. And slapping Boeing and those responsible so hard that wall will give them another is mandatory first step since this theatre is played out for literally everybody in the world, everybody is watching.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    You are pinting to a very serious issue. Up until the 737 MAX, if someone or something had FAA or EASA certification, getting the other one was more or less just a formality. And this helped everyone a lot, and in fact made things saver as the engineering was less, constraint, limited, bothered by regulation (no idea how to phrase this...), because they only had to worry deeply about either FAA or EASA requirements. The 737 MAX did put a dent in this, and that was and is a problem. And everyone knows this, besides Boeing it seems, which is the reason why I am cautiosly optimistic about the investogations.
    - stavros 3y ago
      How did it put a dent in this? Is it not certified by one of the two agencies?
      - hef19898 3y ago
        It is certified by both, with EASA nasically accepting the FAA certication at face value (oversimplified a bit). That means trusting the other agency. It was this trust that was hurt by the initial B737 MAX scandle and the handling of it by both, Boeing and the FAA.
        stavros 3y ago
        Ah, I see, thanks. So the FAA cut corners when certifying? I guess trust only works when the other agency is up to the same standards as you, but then "certified by the FAA and the EASA" only really means "certified by one of the two".
        hef19898 3y ago
        No, the FAA didn't cut corners, Boeing did. The FAA did a bad job catching it. And being certified by both means that orgs and aircraft are certified by both. Decades of cooperation and alignment of regulations and requirements mean that the sevond certification is covering the delta between both, believing the common stuff to be properly cerified by the other regulator. That is where the FAA lost trust. Hence my believe the FAA will not show much liniency to Boeing this time.
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  >>> Not sure about FAA rules, but I assume they are somewhat similar. So at the very least, those individuals, at Boeing and Spirit Aerospace, should be a tad worried now. It’s funny to see comments like. You think this isn’t just a dog and pony show? They don’t give a damn. They will sleep just fine. Nothing will happen because the government is in bed with these folks and they don’t implicate their own and the sooner you understand that the less it shocks you when nothing happens.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Not sure I can actually agree with that, at least in such broad strokes. And no, I know that it is not just a dog and pony show. "It" is the reason air travel is as safe as it is today, and that is way saver than 20 or 30 years ago, despite whatever Boeing did with the 737 MAX.
    - boppo1 3y ago
      >way saver than 20 or 30 years ago Is it?
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Yes, it is. And 20-30 years ago it was saver than, say, 50 years ago. Like in medcine, people don't always see those incrementle improvements over time.
        chx 3y ago
        I would've agreed with you five or so years ago but https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305868 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305868 is more than an accident, you begin to wonder what's going on. There are staff shortages everywhere, why not with pilots? Are they as rested and trained as they ought to be? Together with the plane safety issues surfacing like an army of skeletons falling out of an infinite closet, I am not so sure we are on the same track as we were before.

nocsi 3y ago

All the issues are systemic, so it can't be the responsibility of some low-level employees. But it is kind of curious that Boeing suddenly wants to buy Spirit Aerosystems.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
The curious things is that they divested Spirit Aerosystems in the first place, in a financial engineering move that seemed to serve no business purpose besides a PE pump and dump.
- hef19898 3y ago
  It kind ofnmade sense so: Tier one aerostructure suppliers are doing the easiest work, not like avionics and engine OEMs. By having those activities in-house, you have a cost center. Having that as a third-party turns it into a profit center. Also, a third party can theoretically work for other customers. Airbus did the same thing. In practice so, there are only two aircraft OEMs. Hence those structure tier ones are kind of screwed. Automotive tier ones have much more choice regarding customers.
  - Sakos 3y ago
    It only makes sense if your only metric is cost. There are a lot of reasons why Airbus owns the subsidiaries who do Spirit's type of work for Airbus (such as the airframe). Airbus does not do the same thing as Boeing.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Well, Airbus is a customer of Spirit Aerospace. And Premium Aerotec, well, they were very, very close to spin it out completely. Bavk the day, it was part of what today is Defence and Space. And Premium Aerotec is subsiediary of Airbus, it is not part of any of its divisions. So, somewhere between Spirit Aerospace and and being in-house.
      - 3y ago

izacus 3y ago

In previous topic, people told me that they would never want to live in a place that expects criminal liability from CEOs and executives in companies. That's only for petty criminals, murderers and people who can't pay bills.

roenxi 3y ago
Is it more important to dole out punishments or to get the best result? Because the best result isn't going to be from draconian punishments for CEOs. The strongest irony of what I suspect you are suggesting is that the #1 lesson of high-performance safety cultures is a blameless attitude to accidents. Criminal liabilities for the CEO ... are better than criminal liabilities for lower level employees. But still not the path to the highest levels of safety.
- chgs 3y ago
  The Us penal system is about punishment, not rehabilitation or even deterrence.
  - User23 3y ago
    I assume you’re not being intentionally dishonest, but have instead been taken in by propaganda, so allow me to remind you that the primary purpose and effect of incarceration is preventing reoffending. Fortunately a tiny minority commits the vast majority of violent crimes[1], so considerable reduction can be achieved by containing those criminals’ ability to commit crimes. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/
    - junon 3y ago
      Not sure which USA you're living in but what you're saying does not match reality. I've had a lot of friends and family in and out of jail and it's hell, at least in the US.
      - 3y ago

dylan604 3y ago

I would love for an impossible outcome from this that MBAs are deemed illegal. Can anyone honestly point to an example of where an MBA has had a positive long term effect by any of their decisions?

ht85 3y ago
> honestly point to an example No but I can come up with a KPI that does.
- mellutussa 3y ago
  We need a negative KPI for parts that fall off and people that die due to negligent shortcuts.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]