Boeing crisis grows as Singapore and Australia ground 737 Max 8

Blue Shirt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
376
#41
I am on a US forum where this topic is also being debated. The difference in attitude of Americans to that of the RoW on the grounding/banning of B737Max is marked, sometimes even comic. They use excuses ranging from "knee-jerk reaction to an unknown problem" to "3rd world airlines routinely fitting pirate parts" to deflect from the fact that a US built plane appears to have a serious safety concern.

Even the always-right FAA had to wait under Trump gave them a presidential order to react. One has to wonder what would have happened if a B737Max had crashed on US soil.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
73,633
#42
I am on a US forum where this topic is also being debated. The difference in attitude of Americans to that of the RoW on the grounding/banning of B737Max is marked, sometimes even comic. They use excuses ranging from "knee-jerk reaction to an unknown problem" to "3rd world airlines routinely fitting pirate parts" to deflect from the fact that a US built plane appears to have a serious safety concern.

Even the always-right FAA had to wait under Trump gave them a presidential order to react. One has to wonder what would have happened if a B737Max had crashed on US soil.
Americans, extremely patriotic. Don't ever criticise anything of theirs or ever mention anything better outside of their country, they don't handle it well.
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,624
#44
LOL well lets be honest, they didn't want to do that. They just didn't want to be the only a$$h0le in the unsafe plane is cleared to fly club.
It is conceivable that the company lawyers and insurers got together, and explained to the accountants that the potential liability for a 3rd crash (in US jurisdiction) could wipe out the entire MAX program (and possibly the company)!

Better to swallow the costs now with a few months loss of revenue, and hope to recover their reputation with a proper fix soon.

The B787 went through a similar fiasco with batteries catching fire (fortunately no fatalities).
 

Geoff.D

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
8,904
#45
You are being too generous in including the lawyers in the group pushing the accountants.
In my experience, it is almost always the rest of the company versus the beancounters and the lawyers.
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,624
#46
You are being too generous in including the lawyers in the group pushing the accountants.
In my experience, it is almost always the rest of the company versus the beancounters and the lawyers.
I think that depends on the kind of company. In the US contingency-lawyers could make claims of $50 million per passenger, if there is the slightest whiff that the company knew, or should have known about the defect, and did nothing to fix it. Juries are happy to award huge amounts of punitive damages in those kinds of cases. Just my interpretation...
 

Geoff.D

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
8,904
#47
I love the On/OFF data we are now getting. The one lobby says the MCAS system does not play a role in controlling the aircraft when in Autopilot mode, that is OFF/(0). The other says it appears to kick in when the Autopolt is switched On/(1)

Someone mixed up what AND means with what NOT means. (Maybe Ponderer can shed some light seeing he is an expert in understanding the Law of Non-Contradiction?).
 
Last edited:

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,624
#48
I love the On/OFF data we are now getting. The one lobby says the MCAS system does not play a role in controlling the aircraft when in Autopilot mode, that is OFF/(0). The other says it appears to kick in when the Autopolt is switched On/(1)

Someone mixed up what AND means with what NOT means/ (Maybe Ponderer can shed some light seeing he is an expert in understanding the Law of Non-Contradicion?
The reports of auto-pilot misbehaviour may or may not have anything to do with MCAS, and/or these crashes. All of them do raise issues about FAA certification of complex aircraft systems.
 
Last edited:

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
14,261
#52
For something like an airplane I want it built by the best people for the job, not the selected based on gender or race.
Diverse talent can be the best talent available. "Diverse" doesn't mean sub-standard. If substandard components go through, then blame their QA standards and procedures.
 

Cr419

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
8,447
#53
Diverse talent can be the best talent available. "Diverse" doesn't mean sub-standard. If substandard components go through, then blame their QA standards and procedures.
Of course that twat guy wouldn't see this now, even if you print it and shove it up his behind. To some of these brainless fools diversity immediately means incompetent.
 

Moosedrool

Expert Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
4,252
#54
Of course that twat guy wouldn't see this now, even if you print it and shove it up his behind. To some of these brainless fools diversity immediately means incompetent.
Few people are against diversity in the workplace.

Many are against the enforcement of AA and BBEE because it offers employment opportunities favouring a race or gender. That in effect will cause the best for the job to be rejected on many occasions because instead of how good that person was, a decision is made to take second best because of skin colour.

It's crazy that this is still an argument. If you're the best for the job you should get it irrelevant of your race, gender, fantasy gender, sexuality.

Affirmative Action
Boeing is committed to taking affirmative steps to promote the employment and advancement of minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and protected veterans. Every year, Boeing develops affirmative action programs to support its commitment to equal employment opportunity, consistent with company policy and the company's obligations as a contractor to the United States government.
https://www.boeing.com/principles/diversity.page
 

Cr419

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
8,447
#55
Few people are against diversity in the workplace.

Many are against the enforcement of AA and BBEE because it offers employment opportunities favouring a race or gender. That in effect will cause the best for the job to be rejected on many occasions because instead of how good that person was, a decision is made to take second best because of skin colour.

It's crazy that this is still an argument. If you're the best for the job you should get it irrelevant of your race, gender, fantasy gender, sexuality.



https://www.boeing.com/principles/diversity.page
I acknowledge your point. But employing someone not white doesn't immediately imply incompetence. Unless that can be proven, which is what those two fools were implying.

AA should still be the best person gets the job, and if the best is split between a person of colour, and a person that lacks colour, the person of colour gets the job. Not just chucking anyone into a position just because of their colour.
 

Moosedrool

Expert Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
4,252
#56
I acknowledge your point. But employing someone not white doesn't immediately imply incompetence. Unless that can be proven, which is what those two fools were implying.

AA should still be the best person gets the job, and if the best is split between a person of colour, and a person that lacks colour, the person of colour gets the job. Not just chucking anyone into a position just because of their colour.
If the best person is black he/she deserves the job the same for white. AA and BBEE is a racist policy that does not cater for this. I have yet to see an actual white supremest on here implying a black person will be incompetent at it.
 

Cr419

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
8,447
#57
If the best person is black he/she deserves the job the same for white. AA and BBEE is a racist policy that does not cater for this. I have yet to see an actual white supremest on here implying a black person will be incompetent at it.
The below post implies that they lady in question was only hired for her colour, and not her competence. Without proof for his assertion. It's also implied on a regular basis. And while it sometimes is true (this I know from experience, have felt like beating up incompetent morons up many a time, morons that should be where they are), it isn't always the case.

Whatwhat
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
14,261
#59
I acknowledge your point. But employing someone not white doesn't immediately imply incompetence. Unless that can be proven, which is what those two fools were implying.

AA should still be the best person gets the job, and if the best is split between a person of colour, and a person that lacks colour, the person of colour gets the job. Not just chucking anyone into a position just because of their colour.
Politicians used the legislation to meet their own needs while private sector found a way to bypass the legislation and still comply, even if it meant they do it at high cost.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
73,633
#60
The below post implies that they lady in question was only hired for her colour, and not her competence. Without proof for his assertion. It's also implied on a regular basis. And while it sometimes is true (this I know from experience, have felt like beating up incompetent morons up many a time, morons that should be where they are), it isn't always the case.

Whatwhat
Or boeing has an Indian office for cheaper labour as some salary sites suggest for boeing india...

I generally don't have much good to say of some global tech companies india divisions from personal experience... make of that what you want.
 
Top