Summary
Whistleblowers at Boeing allege widespread safety lapses, including missing or defective parts and improper assembly practices, driven by pressure to maintain production schedules.
A January incident where a door panel blew off a new 737-9 Max mid-flight has sparked investigations, with insiders like Sam Mohawk revealing that thousands of faulty parts may have been installed on planes.
Other whistleblowers describe similar concerns over quality control failures, managerial indifference, and retaliation for speaking out.
Boeing denies safety risks but faces ongoing FAA investigations amid heightened scrutiny over its practices.
That’s what happens when you tie people’s bonuses directly to how many planes they push out the door. You optimize for production quantity at the cost of everything else.
Let’s ignore Boeing for a second, because this is an interesting problem. Our society rewards production and accepting that, I’m not sure getting planes “out the door” is inherently bad.
It seems to me the issue lies in how to reward the auditors. I think we’d all agree this responsibility should ultimately be a Gov’t function… but internal quality assurance is a thing too. So, how does a company reward this team of auditors? E.x., Finding more errors naively seems like the correct metric. However, their bonus would then go down with program effectiveness- that is, fewer errors/faults based on adversarial competition between the production team and the auditing team would lead to fewer findings (presumably).
Management bonuses is a whole other issue. Then, who should oversee this entire program of rewards to ensure it’s systematically safe for the public? Assuming we accept the premise that rewards are desired.
Boeing doesn’t reward their auditors (called QA Inspectors in aviation). They’ve been cutting down their numbers and replacing them with much less experienced people at much lower pay for many years.
Yes, that’s why I said let’s ignore Boeing. I’m asking for the “correct” solution to this problem.
The more I think about it, I think the adversarial nature of auditing must come from the Government side. Which is precisely why Boeing became an issue.
There is an option where independent teams of auditors review the product, and the team with the most findings gets a bonus. Perhaps this could be considered. But again, who’s job is it to ensure this overall program is safe for the public? That’s not the manufacturer, especially a corporation. We already know the courts have ruled corpos only responsibility is to current stock holders and short term gains.
“The team with the most findings.” Lol
“Here are your audit reports. We’ve made them extra spicy this month, just like you like it.”
Reward the entire company when the recall numbers get lower and the safety in the air numbers get higher. Have a culture where someone saying that something isn’t right is a good thing, not punished. This could be done through the training of managers and open door policies. People don’t always need financial compensation. Telling an employee that they’re appreciated for finding and fixing issues can go a really long way.
And this is why “the free market will solve everything” is naive, at best.
It is not a zero sum game where QA is red teaming production and so forth. The execs (and anyone with stock) benefits from “planes out the door”. There is zero reason to incentivize QA/QC and… they don’t.
The part that proponents gloss over about the “the market will solve everything” is that people die first. Boeing puts out very bad planes that kill people, then they fail. The cereal company puts arsenic in food and kills people, then they fail, on and on. We know this is how the market works, because that’s how it used to work before we regulated it.
The market alone is an executioner, and everyone rallying for it doesnt think they will be next.
As with lots of topics, John Oliver does a great job explaining how something as “simple” as a company merger and moving the headquarters can begin to rot a company from the top down.
Everyone in Seattle knew this was going to happen when it happened. The local employees had been through a lot with Boeing and would never have let them outsource and do all the shady shit they’re doing. It was obvious at the time what they were up to.
Something as simple as a crack pipe.
I’ve worked in production environments and let me tell you: some managers simply do not give a fuck.
At least our parts were not putting people’s lives at risk.Edit: “not”
At least our parts were putting people’s lives at risk.
Did you mean “Weren’t putting people’s lives at risk”?
No
Hahahahaha
Yes, thank you.
I think Boeing’s hitmen are barking up the wrong tree.
Do you think the hitmen and counter-hitmen will eventually end up confronting each other?
I said I would never fly again unless I absolutely have to. Now I will absolutely have to and I hope to god it’s on an Airbus.
Airbus has it’s own set of issues and maintenance problems. They just haven’t been newsworthy. I will hand it to them, they’ve consistently improved the maintainability of their aircraft over time, however they have no interest in improving longevity. Boeing has an extensive aging fleet plan and support. Airbus just says “buy a new airplane”.
Can you link to sources for this?
Also, it makes sense to retire a plane when it’s 20-30 years old, essentially because it becomes extremely inefficient. That said There are nearly 200 A300s flying. They were introduced in 1974.
I have a friend who is the chief engineer for a charter airline that has a 4 plane fleet, A320, First gen. From the 80s or early 90s.
Your claim doesn’t seem to hold up.
I’ve worked on several fleets of cargo aircraft that are mostly comprised of PAX to cargo conversions or dedicated freighters. When they exceed their airframe hours for passenger service, they go to cargo to live out the rest of their lives. I’ve worked on multiple fleets that were built in the 70’s. B767-200’s, A300’s, and DC-10’s. The DC(MD)-10’s on my current fleet are all retired now due to economic reasons, but the airframes are still absolutely solid. The A300’s are still flying but are steadily being retired due to Airbus not approving major repairs for issues related to the age of the aircraft. All of the A310’s at my company have already been retired due to Airbus dropping aging fleet support. The B767-200’s will keep flying for a long time because Boeing has a very extensive aging fleet program. The only limit for the B767’s longevity is the owner’s wallet. With that being the case, the retired A300’s and MD-10’s at my company are being replaced with factory-new B767-300’s and B777-300’s.
Also, the B757’s I’ve worked on will last just as long as the 767’s. The oldest ones I worked on had over 150,000 flight hours and were factory freighters. The company that owned them finally retired them at 200,000 flight hours. They were still airworthy, but they were becoming pretty expensive to maintain and the owner replaced them with slightly newer but less used 757-200F’s and 767-300’s. The 767’s were freshly retired from PAX service (got the IAI P2F conversion), and the 757’s were from another freighter line.
I don’t have any links. I’m actively working in the industry on the maintenance side of widebody aircraft, currently for a company that owns over 400 aircraft. I’ve worked on several fleets and airframes beforehand for a MRO doing similar work.
What you explain sounds totally reasonable. The thing is that older Boeings And DCs and MDs have an American old school philosophy about them, think of the muscle car era, while Airbuses have been conceived different from the start. Even the 300/310 (2nd gen, with the two man cockpit) adopted a computer driven approach, while on the American ones, the computers were simply an auxiliary feature. The result is that certifying such an integral part of the system, based on computer systems is an iffy proposition. I have seen this same issue, with ATMs. While the hardware may be totally sound, getting computer spares has become extremely expensive. Replacing 286 CPUs, for example is really difficult, you can’t really find new ones on the market. Solutions exist but it’s really about economics. These solutions can extend A300’s life, up to 60 years. That’s fairly long.
DC 3’s still fly, but many have been essentially rebuilt, to the last rivet. Apart from the warbirds, the commercial ones are still used because it’s very hard to find modern planes that can replace the DC3’s unique capabilities. Rough landing strips, robustness, easy low tech maintenance, etc. They are expected to be flying into their 100th birthdays.
You should be able to check what airplane your flight uses. The last few times I’ve flown, I’ve been able to sort by airbus. It might be site dependent though.
Good to know, thanks.
Even with everything considered you’re statistically more likely to die on your way to the airport than on the actual flight.
You’re being irrational.
Cool. I don’t fly because it’s loud, obnoxious and uncomfortable.
Amazing how many people here seem to think wanting comfort and a lack of stress and anxiety being cooped up in a tiny, loud tube with a bunch of obnoxious strangers is such an irrational thing.
And what is airbus going to do for you? Did you forget your comment?
You can choose flights that use airbus, as someone else said.
I’m on my way back from the UK on British airways because they use airbus. Was roughly the same cost as the delta flight using a Boeing.
thre are a some airlines in Europe which are all Airbus, like Easyjet, Iberia, etc. When looking for flights I always try to fly these type of airlines. Prices some times may be 10-20 € more. Worth it for me. Also, the A320 is more comfortable than the 737.
Haven’t been on an airplane for 5.5 years. From Norway, lived in Australia for 3 years (return trip to Norway twice a year), and now live in Denmark. Closer to the continent, so we drive on holidays instead. And I’m keeping it that way!
i don’t fly i just take trains and buses
Hope you don’t drive then. Or bike. Or hell, I think even walk (need to double check that last one). Flying is still by far the safest mode of transportation.
And to those who say “well I’m not in control of the vehicle”, you truly think you are on the road with so many others in such close proximity? At least air traffic is regulated.
Cool. I don’t fly because it’s loud, obnoxious and uncomfortable.
I don’t want to fly on a Boeing in specific because, well, see above.
I’d also add expensive, inconvenient, and demeaning.
*in the US
I haven’t seen statistics from other countries.
Attitudes like this reduce the cost of flying and I thank you for that
It’s not an “attitude,” it’s factual. Airplanes are loud, the seats are cramped and uncomfortable, and the passengers are often obnoxious.
Maybe you’re okay with unpleasant loud noise, discomfort and annoyance, but considering how much people hate those things in general, I think you’re in a small minority.
People have literally consciously stopped booking Boeing flights and it’s reduced the cost of tickets. I’m not sure how what I said is in any way controversial
It’s not controversial, it’s just wrong. It’s not an attitude. Not wanting to deal with all that is an attitude.
Airplanes are loud,
Active Noise Cancelling headphones (earbuds if you only fly short hop domestic) are your friends. Failing that? Consider earplugs but those tend to exacerbate pressure issues.
the seats are cramped and uncomfortable
Anything short of a car (and even then) in the US is going to be uncomfortable. Buses are somehow worse and even trains aren’t great for extended periods of time unless you pay out the nose. Hell, even a Japanese train gets bothersome after a few hours.
What works for me is to sit in the aisle seat. For short hops it doesn’t matter. For longer flights? Being able to just get up and walk to the bathroom (or just pretend you are) once an hour goes a long way.
and the passengers are often obnoxious.
See above regarding anything but a personal car (and even then). But also? ANC Headphones help with this too
Maybe you’re okay with unpleasant loud noise, discomfort and annoyance, but considering how much people hate those things in general, I think you’re in a small minority.
Nobody likes the above. But we tend to like the places we are going a whole lot more. And we are willing to put up with a bit of discomfort in exchange for seeing the world.
Cool, I’ll just ignore my family with noise-cancelling headphones during a six-hour flight and demand I sit in a specific seat and make my wife and child sit elsewhere.
You do know not everyone flies solo, right?
I’ll just ignore my family with noise-cancelling headphones
Have you ever tried noise cancelling headphones? They are great for background noise and conversations that aren’t right next to you but you’ll have no problem actually talking to your precious family during said flight. In fact, it makes it a lot easier to hear the person next to you
demand I sit in a specific seat
Yeah? That is a pretty normal thing if you aren’t buying the most budget of budget tickets. And you wouldn’t subject your family to Ryanair, now would you?
and make my wife and child sit elsewhere.
You do you. But generally speaking, seats come in 2s and 3s. So you should be fine to sit with them. Or not. Up to you.
So… what is next on the docket to establish why your suffering is unique and the entire world should reconfigure to make you happy?
Have you ever tried noise cancelling headphones? They are great for background noise and conversations that aren’t right next to you but you’ll have no problem actually talking to your precious family during said flight. In fact, it makes it a lot easier to hear the person next to you
Except that was absolutely not true the last time I flew. Let me guess, I used the wrong kind of noise canceling headphones.
Yeah? That is a pretty normal thing if you aren’t buying the most budget of budget tickets. And you wouldn’t subject your family to Ryanair, now would you?
Really? It’s a normal thing to demand that I get the comfortable seat and my wife and daughter don’t?
You do you. But generally speaking, seats come in 2s and 3s. So you should be fine to sit with them. Or not. Up to you.
And, apparently, the solution you’re offering me is to make them uncomfortable at my expense.
So… what is next on the docket to establish why your suffering is unique and the entire world should reconfigure to make you happy?
What the fuck are you even talking about? I am reconfiguring by not flying. The rest of the world can do what it wants.
Why do you care if I don’t like flying anyway?
Except that was absolutely not true the last time I flew. Let me guess, I used the wrong kind of noise canceling headphones.
Apparently
Really? It’s a normal thing to demand that I get the comfortable seat and my wife and daughter don’t?
Nobody is telling you to fly first class. In fact, I specifically mentioned an aisle seat because I am cheap as hell. If you rae buying three adjacent seats you probably have one of those anyway
And, apparently, the solution you’re offering me is to make them uncomfortable at my expense.
Yes. I am specifically telling you that you must put your child in a shirt made out of human hairs to flight
Why do you care if I don’t like flying anyway?
I don’t give a fuck what you do. In fact, it amuses me that you are the kind of miserable sad sack who has to complain that the entire world is conspiring against you.
But I also think you’re spewing nonsense and it is fun to highlight that so that nobody takes you seriously.
First, your username doesn’t add up. Second, you are going to drive the distance of a 6 hour flight? yeah, comfortable.
No, I am not going to drive the six hour flight across the ocean, hence me saying:
I said I would never fly again unless I absolutely have to. Now I will absolutely have to and I hope to god it’s on an Airbus.
Reading is FUNdamental.
Secondly, I just came back from an 8 1/2 hour drive from Atlanta and I was quite comfortable. Room to stretch out in the car, able to stop when I wanted to, noise wasn’t too high, only one mostly non-obnoxious person in the car with me.
It’s almost as if you and I are different people, isn’t it?
Edit: Also, flying squid fly relatively close to the water and not for long distances. Passenger jets tend to do the opposite. https://phys.org/news/2013-02-bird-plane-squid.html
I hate to break it to you but airbus aircraft are just as loud and cramped as Boeing aircrafts. The people are equally annoying.
You’re still more likely to die on your way to the airport by a significant amount.
But yes keep letting the media control you.
A320s are less noisy, and have better pressurization and humidity control than 737s. Look it up.
I have looked it up and I have flown in both many many times. They are both very noisy. If there is a difference it’s negligible.
Yes, the media totally controls me because I don’t enjoy the discomfort and the noise and the obnoxious people. If the media didn’t exist, I’d definitely love loud noise and discomfort and obnoxious people. For sure.
Right because flying an airbus is magically going to change all of that for you. Right sure.
I never said it did.
This is what I said:
I said I would never fly again unless I absolutely have to. Now I will absolutely have to and I hope to god it’s on an Airbus.
Now, can you please quote where I said that Airbus didn’t have those issues? Good luck because I never did.
There are plenty of legitimate things to hate on me for, so maybe hate on me for those instead.
Ya flying sucks but if you do it on an airbus it’s magically better.
Friend of mine worked there for a year in industrial health working yo make their process safer and it’s a shit show. Someone irradiated themselves.
Imagine just doing your job and then suddenly, something happens and now you are almost guaranteed to get cancer.
What a shitshow indeed.
Oh they ignored every sign and precaution and didn’t believe radiation was dangerous. Bunch of stupid good old boy shit.
why is Boeing using radioactive material? I’m assuming this was on an assembly line and they dosed themselves from the x-ray scanner
I think it was scanning metal thicknesses. I don’t know all the details but she said there was two weeks of meetings and they concluded the dude was an idiot and there wasn’t really anything else that they could have done to stop him besides firing or moving him somewhere else. Dude just ignored all the safety warnings and bypassed the barriers or whatever on purpose.
I worked in a food production plant, and we had a x-ray scanner we were NOT allowed to operate because of stuff like this.
These are multiyear “professionals” supposedly trained for that work. Boeing is a shitshow.
Boeing killed John Barnett.
Looks like Agent 747 is getting another mission
Seems like an appropriate thread to drop this
RIP.
I am so happy seeing boing fail. My startup failed due to investor interference in the end, showing how MBA are incapable.
