Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157

[Blotto 23424]

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

Blame the FAs. I assume that’s on page 1 of the pilot union handbook?

[crash_davis 23081]

Good news keeps rolling for Boeing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-ed-pierson-whistleblower-recognized-model-plane-boarding-2024-3

A Boeing whistleblower said he was meant to take a domestic flight last year but ended up leaving the plane before takeoff because he refused to travel on a Boeing 737 Max.

Ed Pierson, a former senior manager at Boeing, told CNN he was set to fly from Seattle to New Jersey with Alaska Airlines. He said he made sure to select a flight that didn't use a Boeing 737 Max.

Pierson's flight was in 2023 — before the January Alaska Airlines door-plug blowout.

"I walked onto the plane — I thought, it's kind of new," Pierson said. "Then I sat down, and on the emergency card it said it was a Max."

He quickly got off the plane just as a flight attendant was closing the front door, he said.

Pierson told CNN that he managed to book an Alaska red-eye flight leaving that evening that wasn't on a Max. He said he had to spend the day at the airport but it was worth it.

Alaska Airlines didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about the apparent last-minute change of aircraft. Boeing didn't immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Pierson's account.

Pierson previously told the Los Angeles Times that he would "absolutely not" fly on a 737 Max because of safety concerns.

Pierson worked at Boeing between 2008 and 2018. He has said that during his time working at Boeing's 737 factory in Renton, Washington, he witnessed overworked employees, parts shortages, and quality issues, which he said made the planes produced by the factory unsafe. He said he recommended to the company's leadership that it close down production at the factory but it ignored his requests.

He testified to Congress in 2019 about production in the factory after two Max 8 crashes in October 2018 and March 2019 killed nearly 350 people — all the passengers and crew on board.

 

Also: Is he now a "celebrity" since he's on the news? And can I add him to the celebrity death watch, suicide of course.

Edited March 15 by crash_davis

[Incredulity 11541]

27 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

 

Ed Pierson, a former senior manager at Boeing,

He said he recommended to the company's leadership that it close down production at the factory but it ignored his requests.

https://www.edpierson.com/

Just a straight shooter with upper management written all over him.

30 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Also: Is he now a "celebrity" since he's on the news?

I'd take him a whole lot more serious if he didn't have a glitzy website and a podcast to sell.   Reeks of grift.

 

And that doesn't excuse Boeing of responsibility for current issues.  They are in it really deep.

 

But, "i recommended they shut a factory down".  give me a fucking break.

 

[ClubWhatever 12086]

1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

So there's a switch causing/allowing the seat to move forward quickly enough to cause an instant zero gravity dive? Is it next to the "wings fly off" switch?  

It moves at about the same rate as an automatic car seat and is supposed to stop moving when you stop pressing.   The switch on the seat back has a cover that is supposed to prevent inadvertent pressing.   So , either the cover was missing and somebody pressed the switch long enough to squeeze the captain against the controls, or the switch broke (or shorted) and wouldn't disengage and same happened.

[Captainant 27403]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

But, "i recommended they shut a factory down".  give me a fucking break.

The FAA's comprehensive audit identified a ton of unapproved and unsafe techniques used in their factories, including using dawn dish soap as a gasket lube on untested materials and shimming panels with fuckin hotel room key cards. 

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-faa-says-boeing-737-max-production-audit-found-compliance-issues-2024-03-04/

Small issues like that add up and compound until a door blows off an in flight airplane. It is absolutely something that would qualify shutting down a production line. Profitability should never come ahead of safety for critical products like aircraft fuselages. 

Give me a fucking break. 

[bschoolprof 6232]

1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said:

It moves at about the same rate as an automatic car seat and is supposed to stop moving when you stop pressing.   The switch on the seat back has a cover that is supposed to prevent inadvertent pressing.   So , either the cover was missing and somebody pressed the switch long enough to squeeze the captain against the controls, or the switch broke (or shorted) and wouldn't disengage and same happened.

I'm only an amateur internet pilot, but I'm gonna call bullshit on a movement like a slow automatic car seat causing an abrubt enough forward force on the yoke to cause a dive where people are hitting the ceiling.  Sounds like we had full elevator deflection.  That's more like the seat slamming forward like the old manual car seat adjustments.  

[ClubWhatever 12086]

1 minute ago, bschoolprof said:

I'm only an amateur internet pilot, but I'm gonna call bullshit on a movement like a slow automatic car seat causing an abrubt enough forward force on the yoke to cause a dive where people are hitting the ceiling.  Sounds like we had full elevator deflection.  That's more like the seat slamming forward like the old manual car seat adjustments.  

I hear you.   But if you can't stop the seat, and there's no room between you and the column, the column is going to deflect until the seat stops.  This gets into flight dynamics.  At 41000 feet and Mach .83 or whatever does it really matter whether you get full down elevator in 3 seconds or a split second?  Part of the answer is wrapped up in the fact that it's fly by wire.  Also remember that it doesn't take a lot of negative gs to make people hit the ceiling.  Minus 0.25 will do it.   That not a severe maneuver relative to airframe capability but you will definitely come out of your seat if not buckled in.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

So unsafe actions during manufacturing, and this guy testified as to the engineering design flaw that brought down the max planes?  I guess general lack of oversight is relevant but parts fitment wasn’t the issue at that time. 

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

3 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

I hear you.   But if you can't stop the seat, and there's no room between you and the column, the column is going to deflect until the seat stops.  This gets into flight dynamics.  At 41000 feet and Mach .83 or whatever does it really matter whether you get full down elevator in 3 seconds or a split second?  Part of the answer is wrapped up in the fact that it's fly by wire.  Also remember that it doesn't take a lot of negative gs to make people hit the ceiling.  Minus 0.25 will do it.   That not a severe maneuver relative to airframe capability but you will definitely come out of your seat if not buckled in.

Why would the cockpit be designed such that the seat could be so close to the stick or column?  
 

In the event that it’s a big pilot in the way that didn’t get out of the way in time, aren’t there two inputs that can independently control the plane, and anyone could throw the switch to the other side?  Or, if autopilot is on does the computer even take manual input?

[Captainant 27403]

23 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

I hear you.   But if you can't stop the seat, and there's no room between you and the column, the column is going to deflect until the seat stops.  This gets into flight dynamics.  At 41000 feet and Mach .83 or whatever does it really matter whether you get full down elevator in 3 seconds or a split second?  Part of the answer is wrapped up in the fact that it's fly by wire.  Also remember that it doesn't take a lot of negative gs to make people hit the ceiling.  Minus 0.25 will do it.   That not a severe maneuver relative to airframe capability but you will definitely come out of your seat if not buckled in.

[WARNING: SPECULATION] It is consistent with an electrical control system failure that all the panels would black out and then the electronic seat starts sliding itself forward unprompted.

It seems like a pretty important datapoint that the fly by wire plane was having electrical gremlins

[Brisketexan 104537]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

[WARNING: SPECULATION] It is consistent with an electrical control system failure that all the panels would black out and then the electronic seat starts sliding itself forward unprompted.

It seems like a pretty important datapoint that the fly by wire plane was having electrical gremlins

Yeah....but did the pilots bang on the side of the control panel like the Fonz to get things back in line?  That's like, step 1 in the troubleshooting manual.  So, it could still be pilot error.  Or, they just might not have been as cool as Fonzie.

[lemonlime 5503]

https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/cockpit-mishap-might-have-caused-plunge-on-latam-boeing-787-ee3dd7b4?st=lk5dgm4o5yrcr20&reflink=article_email_share

 

Boeing BA0.73% advisedairlinestocheckthecockpitseatson787Dreamliner jets after a seat mishap likely pushed a pilot into the controls, causing a sudden, terrifying plunge on a flight to New Zealand this week.

A Latam Airlines flight attendant hit a switch on the pilot’s seat while serving a meal, leading a motorized feature to push the pilot into the controls and push down the plane’s nose, according to U.S. industry officials briefed on preliminary evidence from an investigation. The switch, on the back of the chair, is usually covered and isn’t supposed to be used when a pilot is in the seat.

Boeing issued a memo late Thursday to operators of 787 jets recommending that they inspect the cockpit chairs for loose covers on the switches and instructing them how to turn off power to the pilot seat motor if needed. Boeing said it is considering updates to flight crew manuals.

A switch on the back of 787 cockpit seats controls a motor that moves the seat forward or back. Boeing in 2017 provided airlines with instructions for maintaining the switches.

“Closing the spring-loaded seat back switch guard onto a loose/detached rocker switch cap can potentially jam the rocker switch, resulting in unintended seat movement,” according to the memo, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The memo says this was a known issue and that Boeing had issued a related service notice in 2017. The memo

doesn’t indicate whether a loose switch cover played a role in the incident on the Latam flight. The part is on roughly 375 planes, according to a person familiar with the situation.

[Deej 76524]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Profitability should never come ahead of safety for critical products

[FartingMonk 3606]

38 minutes ago, Captainant said:

[WARNING: SPECULATION] It is consistent with an electrical control system failure that all the panels would black out and then the electronic seat starts sliding itself forward unprompted.

It seems like a pretty important datapoint that the fly by wire plane was having electrical gremlins

Except that motors don't move without power.    The plane may be fly by wire but the seat certainly isn't.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

Has there been any confirmation of the screen blackout?  Or still just what one passenger says the pilot offered up to him freely when asked?

[Captainant 27403]

22 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Except that motors don't move without power.    The plane may be fly by wire but the seat certainly isn't.

Electrical failures can happen such that power is applied when it should not be. It just seems like an exceptionally unusual coincidence that the cockpit glass would go dark and the seat moves "uncommanded" at the same time, and that the two are completely unrelated 

[FartingMonk 3606]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Electrical failures can happen such that power is applied when it should not be. It just seems like an exceptionally unusual coincidence that the cockpit glass would go dark and the seat moves "uncommanded" at the same time, and that the two are completely unrelated 

Electricity does what it wants, but that seat probably was stepped down to 24 VDC.  It never lost power.  It would have to have closed a switch by the the seat lever and applied power to a relay causing the seat to move forward.  I mean anything is possible, but I'm gonna say not probable 

 

 

Edit:  and losing power won't do it.  Power coming back may but again uhhhh.   Not probable 

Edited March 15 by FartingMonk

[Captainant 27403]

Hah and like clockwork my YouTube recs popped this up

It seems like it's likely a mechanical failure in the rocker switch and/or cover for the pilots seat in a 787. The video also includes a clip from a latin pilot demonstrating the failure while the plane is on the ground.

Basically the rocker switch actuates and sticks in the "on" position and moves until it's all the way forwards. This commercial pilots best guess is that the autopilot resisted the nose down input from the pilot seat moving forwards into the yoke until it finally disengaged and dumped ALL the nose down pressure at once resulting in the violent negative G maneuver for the passengers. 

So yeah looking like less electrical, but the cockpit glass going dark is a major thing if that's actually what happened. I'm assuming it did because the pilot in command said, but the investigation will (hopefully) find the truth

[FartingMonk 3606]

The most likely scenario I see is that switch doing what they said and the sudden nosedive caused the gauges to go blank.  The PLCs had a oh fuck moment.  That happens.

[ClubWhatever 12086]

55 minutes ago, Captainant said:

until it finally disengaged and dumped ALL the nose down pressure

And his dinner.  Probably a big mess all over his lap or the displays.

[DaysOff 7843]

Those seats move ridiculously slow. This story gets dumber by the day.

[FartingMonk 3606]

15 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Those seats move ridiculously slow. This story gets dumber by the day.

She was giving the pilot a ZJ and grabbed onto the switch.  

 

And you're a pilot.  You know what it is and you can afford it

Edited March 15 by FartingMonk

[Bullneck 18983]

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

Maybe SFO doesn’t have the greatest maintenance?

[Incredulity 11541]

4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe SFO doesn’t have the greatest maintenance?

 

What I have been saying 

[Captainant 27403]

9 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe SFO doesn’t have the greatest maintenance?

I certainly can't disagree with your assessment lol, but it's ridiculous to try and hold this incident in a vacuum. In 2017 the FAA was stripped of a bunch of it's power and directed to give more leeway to aircraft manufacturers to "find new efficiencies" and "reduce time to certification".

Jump ahead a few years a Boeing is killing people by the hundreds because they programmed their airplanes to lawndart, and they were allowed to do so because of regulatory capture. There's a reason we have rules and laws in place to compel for profit entities to do the right thing. 

Otherwise they'll start cutting corners and incurring grester and greater risk for lower costs, exactly like how Boeing got themselves into this mess. 

Edited March 16 by Captainant

[FartingMonk 3606]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I certainly can't disagree with your assessment lol, but it's ridiculous to try and hold this incident in a vacuum. In 2017 the FAA was stripped of a bunch of it's power and directed to give more leeway to aircraft manufacturers to "find new efficiencies" and "reduce time to certification".

Jump ahead a few years a Boeing is killing people by the hundreds because they programmed their airplanes to lawndart, and they were allowed to do so because of regulatory capture. There's a reason we have rules and laws in place to compel for profit entities to do the right thing. 

Otherwise they'll start cutting corners and incurring grester and greater risk for lower costs, exactly like how Boeing got themselves into this mess. 

Can you point on the doll where Boeing hurt you.

[Nicole44 22027]

 

[Ghost of LL 15469]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:09 PM, Braff Zacklin said:

They re-upped it this morning.

 

I'm typically a fan of John Oliver's, but there are a number of points in here that are just plain wrong or are really overexaggerated.  To identify a few:

1) McDonnell Douglas wasn't a "deathtrap manufacturer."  It's fair to say that the DC-10-10 had some real problems.  But that was 25 years before the Boeing merger.

The more recent models produced by McDonnell Douglas were both very safe and commercially successful.  The MD-11, which was a revision to the DC-10, is kind of a wonky bird that requires some careful handling on takeoff and landing, but it's perfectly safe and has had relatively few incidents relative to its flight hours.  And the MD-80 family was a great plane.  In a lot of ways, I'd argue it was superior to the 737.  

2) The HQ move wasn't aimed at getting away from the engineers; it was all about getting a tax break.  Boeing basically put its headquarters out to bid, with the finalists being Chicago and Dallas.  The primary determiner was which city/state was going to give it the most tax breaks.

I'm not going to argue that getting away from the engineers wasn't a side benefit (from the b-school boys' perspective).  But it wasn't the chief motivator.

3) It's just wrong to say that keeping the 737 certification on the new model was about costs.  As I pointed out in a post some weeks ago, it was primarily about satisfying customers (chiefly, Southwest Airlines).  

Absolutely none of which is to say that there isn't a major culture problem at Boeing.  But it is to say that when you get this many details wrong, it's hard for me not to find your conclusions to be suspect.

[Captainant 27403]

38 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

2) The HQ move wasn't aimed at getting away from the engineers; it was all about getting a tax break.  Boeing basically put its headquarters out to bid, with the finalists being Chicago and Dallas.  The primary determiner was which city/state was going to give it the most tax breaks.

I'm not going to argue that getting away from the engineers wasn't a side benefit (from the b-school boys' perspective).  But it wasn't the chief motivator.

I disagree, the Boeing leadership was pretty candid about the need to make an air gap between business leadership and engineering. From the excellent 2021 Seattle Times reporting:

It was the kind of big-picture planning Condit relished. General Electric famously had its headquarters in Fairfield, Connecticut, separate from the diverse businesses it owned. As he and Hall talked, Condit became convinced that Boeing needed a similar structure. “Headquarters is supposed to be thinking longer-term: Where are markets going, have we positioned the company correctly, are we developing the right people, what’s the compensation structure that we have? The kind of things that are not how-do-you-design-an-airplane stuff,” as Condit later recalled. “How do you avoid getting deeply engaged in the day-to-day activity, and ignoring those strategic things?”

38 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

3) It's just wrong to say that keeping the 737 certification on the new model was about costs.  As I pointed out in a post some weeks ago, it was primarily about satisfying customers (chiefly, Southwest Airlines).  

Satisfying customers that wanted... Hmmm what was it? Oh yeah, lower costs. SWA wanted a plane with the performance of an A320 neo without needing to train on an entirely new type. Boeing was able to make that plane, but it did not have the same flight profile as the old 737 - that was the entire reason for the MCAS device. It wasn't that the plane was unsafe to fly, it just HAD to handle the EXACT same as the old planes.

Because if it didn't handle the same, they'd have to retrain the pilots and that would cost more.

It's a cop out and playing "hide the weasel" to say that Boeing was simply trying to satisfy its customer. Nobody was holding a gun to their collective heads and forcing them to hide critical flight systems and actively block any mention of the system from the flight manual except for a single time in the glossary (Seattle Times on that reporting too). The only reason Boeing made the choice to conceal those changes and ultimately kill several hundred passengers was to protect the low cost for production for the 737MAX, and thus, low cost of procurement for their customers. 

Edited March 18 by Captainant

[Wally Fairway 5517]

28 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

 

3) It's just wrong to say that keeping the 737 certification on the new model was about costs.  As I pointed out in a post some weeks ago, it was primarily about satisfying customers (chiefly, Southwest Airlines).  

Absolutely none of which is to say that there isn't a major culture problem at Boeing.  But it is to say that when you get this many details wrong, it's hard for me not to find your conclusions to be suspect.

I thought the main motivation for new model vs. new plane was time, that Boeing needed something to compete with the A320 (maybe the A320neo) and that it would take years longer to certify as a new plane rather than a new model. FAA bent right over and said yessir may I have another. 

[Ghost of LL 15469]

54 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I disagree, the Boeing leadership was pretty candid about the need to make an air gap between business leadership and engineering. From the excellent 2021 Seattle Times reporting:

It was the kind of big-picture planning Condit relished. General Electric famously had its headquarters in Fairfield, Connecticut, separate from the diverse businesses it owned. As he and Hall talked, Condit became convinced that Boeing needed a similar structure. “Headquarters is supposed to be thinking longer-term: Where are markets going, have we positioned the company correctly, are we developing the right people, what’s the compensation structure that we have? The kind of things that are not how-do-you-design-an-airplane stuff,” as Condit later recalled. “How do you avoid getting deeply engaged in the day-to-day activity, and ignoring those strategic things?”

Satisfying customers that wanted... Hmmm what was it? Oh yeah, lower costs. SWA wanted a plane with the performance of an A320 neo without needing to train on an entirely new type. Boeing was able to make that plane, but it did not have the same flight profile as the old 737 - that was the entire reason for the MCAS device. It wasn't that the plane was unsafe to fly, it just HAD to handle the EXACT same as the old planes.

Because if it didn't handle the same, they'd have to retrain the pilots and that would cost more.

It's a cop out and playing "hide the weasel" to say that Boeing was simply trying to satisfy its customer. Nobody was holding a gun to their collective heads and forcing them to hide critical flight systems and actively block any mention of the system from the flight manual except for a single time in the glossary (Seattle Times on that reporting too). The only reason Boeing made the choice to conceal those changes and ultimately kill several hundred passengers was to protect the low cost for production for the 737MAX, and thus, low cost of procurement for their customers. 

1) Yeah--that entire justification for moving HQ was lipstick on the pig of seeking tax breaks.  I'm not saying there's no lipstick there.  There definitely is.  But let's be real honest: it's not very attractive to local and state politicians (or their constituents) to say "we're considering moving to your town solely because you're giving us the biggest tax breaks."  I mean, it's true.  But you've got to dress that shit up some.

2) Keeping the 737 certification on the Max was all about Southwest's costs.  Not Boeing's costs.  Oliver indicates that it was due to the latter, when the reality is that it was due more primarily to the former.

52 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I thought the main motivation for new model vs. new plane was time, that Boeing needed something to compete with the A320 (maybe the A320neo) and that it would take years longer to certify as a new plane rather than a new model. FAA bent right over and said yessir may I have another. 

No.  Boeing needed an update to compete with the NEO.  But as to whether to build a new model or update the 737, that was a decision made entirely to appease Southwest.

If Southwest would've signed on to being the launch customer for a 7X7 successor to the 737, Boeing would've gone that route irrespective of the timing.  But it didn't.  Southwest made clear that there would be a competition between the 7X7 and the A320, and Boeing didn't want that.

[RPM 26208]

Sometimes you have to tell the customer no. Otherwise you wind up with the 737Homer

[RPM 26208]

We need another domestic airliner builder besides Boeing. I'm looking at you Lockheed. You have the capacity to be turning out a new L1011 successor.

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 minute ago, RPM said:

We need another domestic airliner builder besides Boeing. I'm looking at you Lockheed. You have the capacity to be turning out a new L1011 successor.

Sorry.....this is America, 2024.  Best we can do is Elon Musk's new CyberPlane:

 

[RPM 26208]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Sorry.....this is America, 2024.  Best we can do is Elon Musk's new CyberPlane:

 

At least it can land

 

[butthurt 1520]

[Hermanator 6928]

How many people here routinely fly on 737 MAX through Southwest? Any concerns?

[Blotto 23424]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/25/business/boeing-ceo-calhoun-leaving/index.html

I guess the only unknown now is how many tens of millions Calhoun will receive in his "retirement" package. 

[tokamak 6350]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/25/business/boeing-ceo-calhoun-leaving/index.html

I guess the only unknown now is how many tens of millions Calhoun will receive in his "retirement" package. 

Interesting snippet from the article:

Quote

Boeing has been buffeted by more than five years of problems with its airplanes, including two fatal crashes of the 737 Max in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people, and most recently a door plug that blew out of the side of an Alaska Airlines 737 Max in January, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the plane. The problems have led to multiple groundings for safety issues and more than $31 billion in cumulative losses.

In a letter to Boeing employees Monday, Calhoun called the Alaska Airlines incident “a watershed moment for Boeing.”

Killing 346 mostly brown people = "lol these non-Western pilots suck"

Door falls off above Portland, no injuries = "WATERSHED MOMENT!"

[Brisketexan 104537]

Killing 346 mostly brown people = "lol these non-Western pilots suck"
Door falls off above Portland, no injuries = "WATERSHED MOMENT!"

Well, at least you understand how shit works.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13545]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/25/business/boeing-ceo-calhoun-leaving/index.html

I guess the only unknown now is how many tens of millions Calhoun will receive in his "retirement" package. 

You're fired! Here's a zillion dollars. And we're still on for pickleball Wednesday.

[ConferenceRoom 6123]

I hate pickleball and golden parachutes.

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 hours ago, ConferenceRoom said:

I hate pickleball and golden parachutes.

Ironically, you may need the latter when flying in a Boeing. 

[lemonlime 5503]

Meanwhile, Southwest 737 almost hit the tower at La Guardia.  Not that this has anything to do with the plane itself.

 

[Deej 76524]

[elfenix 34169]

24 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Meanwhile, Southwest 737 almost hit the tower at La Guardia.  Not that this has anything to do with the plane itself.

 

How bad was the weather that day?

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

How bad was the weather that day?

Bad.  I live a few miles from there, and am surprised LGA was even open.  Just driving was shit with torrential rain, flooded roads, and strong wind.

[956 Worldwide 34411]

In the Soviet Union, the party put unqualified “workers” in charge of industries based on political purity and stocked government agencies on the same principle. In the United States, we put unqualified business majors in charge of industry and their regulators with similar results.

I am only half-kidding that business schools are a menace and should be shut down. An organization chases its values.  Once you shift from “make money by building good airplanes” to “make money,” things go to shit. 
 

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-03-28-suicide-mission-boeing/

This excerpt is about the 787 and not 737.

Quote

In December 2022, Aviation Week produceda helpful diagram mapping what sections of the plane had caused auditors the biggest headaches. Every single section, from the tip of the nose to the horizontal stabilizers, was marked up with red arrows. In 2023, deliveries were halted in January, February, and again in August over problems with the shimming, the horizontal stabilizer, and God knows what else. Swampy, and hundreds of others who had blown the whistle on Boeing’s managerial nihilism, had been thoroughly vindicated. But it was too late. There were no more cleanup crews left at Boeing; too much knowledge had been drained from the company.

“For every new plane you put up into the sky there are about 20,000 problems you need to solve, and for a long time we used to say Boeing’s core competency was piling people and money on top of a problem until they crushed it,” says Stan Sorscher, a longtime Boeing physicist and former officer of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), the labor union representing Boeing engineers. But those people are gone.