Because Boeing were on such a good streak already…

  • Augustiner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    158
    ·
    9 months ago

    Working for Boeings PR department must be absolute madness right now… imagine having to somehow excuse all those fuck ups and every week there is a new one

    • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      130
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Except this one isn’t even a Boeing issue - this is a plane Delta has operated since 1992. This is entirely Delta’s maintenance’s fault. Boeing will still get blamed for it, of course.

      • Augustiner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        89
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I know, but no one cares who’s responsible at the moment. What people care about is that they read a new article about Boeings planes endangering passengers every 3 days. So while Delta is most likely at fault, Boeing is gonna take the hit to the company image. That’s why I was specifically speaking about the Boeing PR team. Those guys and the crisis managers won’t be able to catch a break for a loooong time.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          9 months ago

          45,000 commercial flights a day in the U.S. 35 deaths in the last 10 years. Thats about 164 million flights.

          ~115 people dying by car daily, and those numbers have been rising every year…

          If planes get their kill ratio up high enough people will stop caring and start saying it is expected/needed.

          Clearly more plane crashes are the answer.

        • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          “Next up: are Grandma’s visits killing her? Investigation finds Boeing builds airframes out of aluminum, which may or may not be linked to alzheimers. More at 11.”

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think we have enough information to say whether it’s a Boeing thing or not. The reason I say that is, that my understanding is some maintenance and repair operations will be performed by Boeing, or Boeing appointed subcontractors. What we may never find out is whether there was any work done on, or requiring access via the nose wheel area, and whether it was performed by Boeing/Boeing subcontracted technicians.

        But, as I said in my other comment. This will be an ongoing problem where every Boeing plane issue will be reported now and unless announced by the operator or Boeing themselves, we’ll never know whether it was a Boeing maintenance problem or just neglect by the operator.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      9 months ago

      The thing is, every Boeing plane that has any problem is going to make it to the news right now. So it’s very hard to see what is relevant and what is just “one of those things”. So, this will make them look worse than they really are.

      Having said that, they have problems. My opinion is that cost-cutting has created all their recent actual problems (MCAS, missing bolts, loose bolts etc) and I’d argue that unless the actual location(s) responsible for these problems is identified, the safest thing to do would be to recall ALL aircraft recently (last 3 years AT LEAST) serviced, repaired or had their configuration changed at a Boeing owned or subcontracted location should be reviewed for substandard work.

      My reasoning here is that if we have loose/missing bolts on the 737 Max 8/9 and -900ER. It won’t stop there, it is going to almost certainly be an institutionalised problem of quality control slippage that could affect any aircraft maintenance, repair, or adjustment operation.

      But, I’m not an aviation expert, so my opinion is worth very little.

      • Augustiner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        I agree with your comment, even though I have no idea on the technical aspects. What I can weigh in on is crisis management, especially communication.

        Boeing needs to take control of the situation and actively start communicating and showing that they are working on fixing this thing. In Situational Crisis Communication Theory you would call it a rebuild approach. They tried denial, they tried downplaying, it’s not working. A rebuild strategy is usually the last resort, as things like admitting your mistakes and fixing them are rarely appreciated by investors. Furthermore it’s usually a huuuuge cost to do a recall on that scale. But Boeing need to show the public that they are actively working on improving the situation, to earn back their trust. So at least a partial recall should be considered.

        You’re exactly right in your first paragraph about the news. The media and the public are very sensitive to Boeing quality issues rn. These articles won’t stop unless one of three things happen. Either Boeing gets their shit together and gets some effective crisis management and communication done, the company goes bust, or something else turns up in the news that replaces this. The third option will be the most likely, but it will also haunt them forever. It’s like that exploding galaxy note 7 situation. There were articles about that for every new generation of Galaxy Note, despite Samsung doing pretty well in investigating the issues. And while the following Note phones sold alright, the whole thing was a significant loss of trust and money for Samsung and enabled competitors like Huawai to catch up.

    • Blueoaky@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      The company is still worth over 100 billions. They do something right.

      Otherwise I agree with you. It’s almost hilarious to see fail after fail (as long as you are not in the plane).

      • Augustiner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        What they do right is having a duopoly with Airbus, and great military contracts. So investors know that even if things are shit rn, they will probably get better again.

        Furthermore, while I agree that Boeing probably will not go bankrupt over this, the valuation sometimes is not a great indicator of what’s going on internally. Enron was worth over 60 billion. Half a year later they were at zero. Now I’m not saying Boeing is nearly that bad, but they are in some trouble for sure.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Google’s worth billions, and they can go probably about 6 years doing nothing right before that changes. It took Yahoo! a while, you’ll catch on.

  • iamjackflack@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    How is this Boeings issue? This is a maintenance problem with the airline. Tires get replaced by maintenance staff. That plane isn’t brand new.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well, if proper maintenance was done and the part still failed due to a design or quality issue that was improperly QC’d (missed, skipped, etc) then yeah it could be Boeings fault.

      They’re getting extra scrutiny right now because of all the incidents recently, and all the anecdotal stories of former employees talking about how a bunch of suits are destroying it from the inside to make a quick buck.

      And frankly, they fucking deserve it.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Careful. Boeing already tried the “but it’s not our job” excuse on a few major incidences with an executive now locked behind bars after pushing bribes to cover it up . They’d be best backing off on taking an attitude about where to assign blame. They got a lot of red spots that will never come out.

    • nyan@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      9 months ago

      If I recall correctly, the aircraft manufacturer writes the maintenance guidelines.

      This could be a Boeing issue, if it’s due to something that happened at the time the aircraft was built, or due to a foreseeable gap in the maintenance guidelines.

      It could be a Delta issue, if they weren’t following the maintenance guidelines, or a maintenance contractor working for them wasn’t following them and they didn’t catch it.

      It could also have been (very small but nonzero chance) the result of physical trauma to the plane that wasn’t foreseen, back in the 1990s when it was built, as something that might cause an issue of this magnitude. I haven’t yet seen any information on whether this particular aircraft has a history of hard landings or running over debris on the runway. Freak accidents do happen.

      All of those have precedents in aviation history.

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I remember watching this PBS Frontline segment on plane maintenance 10 years or so ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw0b020OFj4

      I imagine we still have those problems and the recent news of counterfeit parts entering the market is scary.

      Good thing these recent incidents ended up with no serious injuries or death. Perhaps this timing is good in some really weird way as the Supreme Court starts considering powers of regulatory agencies and concerns around government funding to highlight the importance and need for this government role.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think the first two repliers have never heard of Ockham’s razor. I mean a micro meteorite could have struck some part of the wheel and knocked it off too, but probably not. Though that would be boeing’s fault to, because they didn’t make it micro meteorite tolerant.

      • Nelots@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, no, no, no, it’s being towed BEYOND the environment. It’s not in the environment.

        • thenextguy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          There’s nothing out there. There’s nothing but leaves and grass and rocks.

          And?

          And a tire.

        • eskimofry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          No, no, no, no, it’s being towed BEYOND the environment. It’s not in the environment.

          Real life wall clip hack, any% boeing speedrun, impossible?

          Edit: Quoted the wrong comment

          • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

            The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is a flight stabilizing feature developed by Boeing that became notorious for its role in two fatal accidents of the 737 MAX, which killed all 346 passengers and crew among both flights. Systems similar to the Boeing 737 MCAS were previously included on the Boeing 707 and Boeing KC-46, a 767 variant. On the 737 MAX, MCAS was intended to mimic the flight behavior of the previous generation of the series, the Boeing 737 NG. During MAX flight tests, Boeing discovered that the position and larger size of the engines tended to push the nose up during certain maneuvers. Engineers decided to use MCAS to counter that tendency, since major structural redesign would have been prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

            to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

      • Welt@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The front fell off, so just tow it outside the environment

      • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes but probably management saw that as a problem limiting the future wheel assembly purchases. I mean you can land without the wheel right?

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    Clickbait. The FAA lists the plane number as N672DL and a quick flight registry check says that plane was made in 1992. This is a maintenance issue with Delta.

    • Deebster@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      The title is “Nose wheel falls off Boeing 757 airliner waiting for takeoff” and that’s exactly what happened. That’s not clickbait, since it’s not deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading. It’s just news.

    • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      i work in aerospace, and that’s not delta’s fault. delta is trying to save money according to boeings maintenance guidelines.

      (although i’m not 100% sure about that either)

      • Aatube@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Could you elaborate? Why would maintenance guidelines havee clauses for money-making?

        • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          i don’t work directly with these guidelines, but i’m told that whoever does maintenance has to follow the maintenance intervals dictated by boeing alone.

          if a plane doesn’t experience much wear, the intervals can be elongated. in addition, the maintenance company can change certain parts of the maintenance if they have the right qualifications.

          but no one really checks every single nut and bolt, so delta could’ve also been sloppy.

            • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              may be, it could also mean that boeing didn’t adequately specify the kind and amount of maintenance that has to be done. it could also mean that delta changed the maintenance procedure so much that this failure could occur.

              there have been many cases where either has led to catastrophic failure

            • Int_not_found@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              He does and he is pretty much talking out of his arse. Every thing that is written down In aviation usually has a really solid foundation, on why it is written down in that way.

              I don’t say that a plainly wrong maintenance guide is not to blame here. I’m saying that the much more likely reason, lies in less definable areas. Like bad maintenance crew training or undiscovered faults in the maintance processes, like storing badly labeled bolts with similar threading but different tolerances near each other.

        • pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because otherwise airlines buy different planes. All airplane models have extremely detailed maintenance schemas with alternative procedures described where possible. And minimum equipment lists that describes exactly what must work and what is “okay” to be broken to still fly. And it’s on FAA to make sure Delta is following these manuals. So in the end the blame is on Boeing for either bad parts, lasting shorter than required or prescribing insufficient maintenance procedures. Or it’s on FAA for not doing ther duty in making sure the procedures are followed. Of course if Delta hasn’t followed the procedures, blame is on them too, but only ever in combination with either Boeing or FAA.

    • 7heo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Isn’t Boeing QA supposed to inspect the plane and sign it off after maintenance?

      • Aatube@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, they make the guides but don’t monitor them, which would be too costly (so much employees needed) and bureaucratic

        • 7heo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I thought that there were specific “critical” operations that would require them (Delta, Boeing, or both) to record an entry in Boeing’s Collaborative Manufacturing Execution Systems (CMES) database. But I’m discovering this field, so I don’t know if they make a difference in this context between before and after delivery, and if the normal plane maintenance is covered by the same processes or not, and that’s why I’m asking, and not stating.

          However, if one doesn’t know more than me, stating isn’t more correct.

          • Aatube@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Well, they probably register repairs in databases, but they definitely don’t send people to check every single thing. Airlines also might contract Boeing to do some bigger repairs.

            • 7heo@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I don’t see how a repair that causes the nose of a plane to “fall off” would not be considered a “bigger repair”…

              I’m not saying that Boeing would be involved in the replacement of a tire from the landing gear. But something major enough to make the actual nose of the plane to literally fall off? That sounds important enough to me.

                • 7heo@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  OK I’m officially too tired to actually contribute to Lemmy. I’ll be on my way… 😭

        • 7heo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because of regulations, because of contracts, because of a myriad reasons I won’t waste my time listing here.

          The point is that they have been in business for over a century, that the aerospace industry is heavily regulated, and so I somewhat expect them to have processes in place and responsibilities to make sure the planes are delivered and remain according to their design specification.

          And you don’t strike me as someone who knows more than me (a total newbie) on the matter, so maybe we stop wasting each other’s time on a pointless argument about shit that is absolutely beyond us both. Yeah?

  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Between door bolts missing, virgin airlines missing wing bolts, this nose wheel, etc

    It almost feels like some kind of related systemic error in the very thorough maintenance documentation required for aircrafts, or a large scale sabotage of some sort.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      9 months ago

      Any regulatory agencies that enforce this sort of stuff being defunded, understaffed, or de-toothed in the last 4-8 years?

      That’s what this smells like, and we should really be getting ourselves ready for more of this in other industries.

      • Eranziel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t know about the regulatory side, but Boeing gutted their experienced engineering corps starting about 10 years ago. In the pursuit of profit of course. I think we’re seeing the effects of that finally coming to the fore.

        My understanding of the role of the regulatory agencies for stuff like this is that they can ground a model of plane if they believe there’s a systemic issue. Like we saw with the MAX.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Maybe Delta should’ve gotten the input of the focus group from I Think You Should Leave when trying to determine what they should do with their maintenance dollars.

  • Ashy@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah, that’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.

  • Shadywack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The old saying, “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going”, it just needs slightly tweaked to be accurate today XD