Because Boeing were on such a good streak already…

  • Augustiner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    11 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
      116
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 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
        78
        ·
        edit-2
        11 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
          12
          ·
          11 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.

          • porcariasagrada@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            how many car trips per day in the us? must be billions. deaths per mile* per traveler should be the metric, not number of trips.

            ps: safest method of transportation is the elevator.

            edit:*mile traveled

            • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              Elevators don’t travel any distance so if anyone is hurt by one they immediately lose by your metrics

        • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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.”

    • Blueoaky@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 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
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        11 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
        ·
        11 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
    117
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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
      56
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 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
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 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.

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 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
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 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
        29
        ·
        11 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
          7
          ·
          11 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
          11 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
            ·
            11 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

      • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 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
    72
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    11 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
      85
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      11 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
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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
              1
              ·
              11 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

    • 7heo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

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

      • Aatube@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 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
          ·
          11 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
            ·
            11 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
              ·
              11 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
                  ·
                  11 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
          ·
          11 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?

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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.

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

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

    • derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      In fairness, the 757 was designed when Boeing was still engineering focused and is one of the best commercial aircraft ever produced. This airframe, N672DL, is 32 years old, so it was almost certainly an issue with Delta’s maintenance. It was also quickly repaired and returned to service the next day.

      No one was criticizing Airbus when one of their aircraft was found the other day missing fasteners before a flight: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/nyc-bound-flight-canceled-passenger-31941807.amp

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        All kidding aside, the passenger experience is a lot better anyway. Overhead storage bins on the newer airbus planes is a hell of a lot better, not to mention the infotainment systems that airlines seem to opt for. The way they integrate and function vs the Boeing dreamliners is a pretty stark contrast.

        • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I dunno, the 777ER is a great long distance plane, but the A320 is also a good experience. I really think Boeing fucked up with keeping that old workhorse the 737 around at the behest of pilots and customers. Especially since the 777 is (knocking on wood) as safe as it gets, no hull losses from internal factors as of today.

          Boeing’s mismanagement is not just a 737 problem: It’s a USA problem, they are the ones that make our jets, missiles, and manage our first strike capacity. These are things that much like our planes, cannot fail. EVER.

  • pachrist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 months ago

    On some Boeing aircraft, the nose wheel will actually come off when the autopilot system overcompensates during takeoff and crashes the plane straight into the ground. There were aome small news stories about it a few years back.

    • SevenProvinces@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s even known that the nose itself can come off if the autopilot overcompensates while in flight and crashes the plane into the ground.

      • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Are you sure? This makes it sound like every time the plane crashes into the ground because of autopilot overcompensation, its a good bet to assume the nose itself has already come off.