Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
sxf24 wrote:Boeing says story is inaccurate and “features distorted information, rehashing old stories and rumors that have long ago been put to rest.” The NY Times also declined Boeing’s invitation to go to CHS and discuss.
https://weareboeingsc.com/new-york-time ... 11354204=1
From speaking to Boeing contacts in SC, there is suspicion this is an IAM advocated story as part of the continued retaliation against the nomination of Nikki Haley to Boeing’s board.
NWADTWE16 wrote:This was reported in a very well produced documentary 4 years ago by Al Jazeera: Its low paid, non unionized employees to the best of my memory, and a ton of scary things being brushed aside. I have not flown a 787 since, and would not if it was produced in CHS.
phlswaflyer wrote:910A wrote:I saw the article also..So we now have the 787 issues which have been ongoing , the Max issues, the AF Tanker issues, perhaps Boeing needs to shake up top management and re-evualute their procedures, goals, standards etc.
The MAX issue should have been the end of the CEO.
NWADTWE16 wrote:This was reported in a very well produced documentary 4 years ago by Al Jazeera: Its low paid, non unionized employees to the best of my memory, and a ton of scary things being brushed aside. I have not flown a 787 since, and would not if it was produced in CHS
Link to full Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os
Trk1 wrote:Boeing is a company in deep trouble. If you do not think there are problems at Charleston just ask a few airlines about what they have found and you will find the NYT article to be spot on. FAA is not what it used to be and also needs a major shake up. When you only have one company in the country making commercial aircraft this drop off is not surprising. We found the same thing as we lost auto manufactures in the US.
Revelation wrote:sxf24 wrote:Boeing says story is inaccurate and “features distorted information, rehashing old stories and rumors that have long ago been put to rest.” The NY Times also declined Boeing’s invitation to go to CHS and discuss.
https://weareboeingsc.com/new-york-time ... 11354204=1
From speaking to Boeing contacts in SC, there is suspicion this is an IAM advocated story as part of the continued retaliation against the nomination of Nikki Haley to Boeing’s board.
NYT got what it wanted, a lot of clicks and "impressions" from its reader base, one that is easily triggered by a story about an evil corporation ignoring the wails of the peons.
I have at least two relatives whose ability to think critically seems to go into hibernation when they start reading a NYT article.
Yet as time goes by it's clear the amount of effort NYT puts into creating balanced content goes down.
Want evidence? "The NY Times also declined Boeing’s invitation to go to CHS and discuss" says it all.
And I say all this as one of the board's better known lefties.
acjbbj wrote:This is why McDonnell-Douglas should have been bailed out and restructured.
Revelation wrote:I have at least two relatives whose ability to think critically seems to go into hibernation when they start reading a NYT article.
acjbbj wrote:Trk1 wrote:Boeing is a company in deep trouble. If you do not think there are problems at Charleston just ask a few airlines about what they have found and you will find the NYT article to be spot on. FAA is not what it used to be and also needs a major shake up. When you only have one company in the country making commercial aircraft this drop off is not surprising. We found the same thing as we lost auto manufactures in the US.
And this is why McDonnell-Douglas should have been bailed out and restructured, not allowed to get bought.
Cubsrule wrote:MrBretz wrote:I just read the article. It is unsettling to say the least. There is a link in the article asking anyone knowing of safety violations to confidentiality report them to The NY Times.
Unsettling, but is there evidence that the issues are different from the Washington plants or any Airbus FAL? There’s some level of these concerning behaviors at virtually any large factory across industries.
A320FlyGuy wrote:acjbbj wrote:Trk1 wrote:Boeing is a company in deep trouble. If you do not think there are problems at Charleston just ask a few airlines about what they have found and you will find the NYT article to be spot on. FAA is not what it used to be and also needs a major shake up. When you only have one company in the country making commercial aircraft this drop off is not surprising. We found the same thing as we lost auto manufactures in the US.
And this is why McDonnell-Douglas should have been bailed out and restructured, not allowed to get bought.
Yeah, because McDonnell Douglas has such a reputation for building a safe aircraft with no issues that would lead to a grounding....
A320FlyGuy wrote:acjbbj wrote:And this is why McDonnell-Douglas should have been bailed out and restructured, not allowed to get bought.
Yeah, because McDonnell Douglas has such a reputation for building a safe aircraft with no issues that would lead to a grounding....
GSOflyerDL wrote:Cubsrule wrote:MrBretz wrote:I just read the article. It is unsettling to say the least. There is a link in the article asking anyone knowing of safety violations to confidentiality report them to The NY Times.
Unsettling, but is there evidence that the issues are different from the Washington plants or any Airbus FAL? There’s some level of these concerning behaviors at virtually any large factory across industries.
I disagree. Compare the purported Boeing culture to that of Volvo Cars (link below), located a few miles west of the Boeing facility, or Toyota. Communication of flaws in the manufacturing process should be *welcomed*, not shunned.
Volvo link: https://www.motortrend.com/news/volvo-s ... volvo/amp/
Trk1 wrote:Boeing is a company in deep trouble. If you do not think there are problems at Charleston just ask a few airlines about what they have found and you will find the NYT article to be spot on. FAA is not what it used to be and also needs a major shake up. When you only have one company in the country making commercial aircraft this drop off is not surprising. We found the same thing as we lost auto manufactures in the US.
dennypayne wrote:A320FlyGuy wrote:acjbbj wrote:And this is why McDonnell-Douglas should have been bailed out and restructured, not allowed to get bought.
Yeah, because McDonnell Douglas has such a reputation for building a safe aircraft with no issues that would lead to a grounding....
If you're trying to tar McDonnell Douglas with the grounding of DC-10's after AA191, you're off base. That was due to airlines following an uncertified maintenance procedure which led to cracks in the engine pylons. Pretty much exactly the opposite of McDonnell Douglas's fault.
InnsbruckFlyer wrote:I don't understand how the debris gets into the airplane? The article is unsettling, to say the least. Terrible year for Boeing. 4 months in and 2 crashes plus this? Yikes.
ElroyJetson wrote:Union shakedown published by the fake news NYT. Boeing has built commercial jets for 60 years. The record speaks for itself. Ditto Airbus. Neither manufacturer makes unsafe or poorly built aircraft.
Cubsrule wrote:I’m glad you brought up Toyota because 10 years ago we saw them in similar phenomenon: media attention resulting in scrutiny of alleged problems that were in realty more or less industry-wide.
This occurred despite the fact that, as you point out, Toyota did and does lots of things right.
To be clear, I don’t know if the problems in this piece are unique to Boeing or to Charleston. Maybe they are, but no one has yet pointed to evidence of that.
Revelation wrote:Want evidence? "The NY Times also declined Boeing’s invitation to go to CHS and discuss" says it all.
cat3appr50 wrote:Before any American made aircraft goes into commercial operation, the US FAA needs to approve. Every aircraft development activity from initial design through final engineering and detail drawings to the construction/production in any manufacturing or assembly Plant, to first flights and check out and flight testing, implementation of subsequent revisions and changes, etc. and then commercial operation needs to be reviewed and approved by the FAA.
Throughout that entire process from inception to ready for commercial operation the FAA is tasked, by US Law, with the unquestioned responsibility and accountability (and the multi $Billions of US taxpayer revenue to support the FAA) to “regulate” the aircraft industry, in any form or function. And that absolutely includes the “regulatory oversight” of manufacturing of any aircraft in South Carolina, Washington State, or any other State.
frmrCapCadet wrote:The MAX has not been ridiculously safe. And from the left, I agree that NYT has not been reliable.
WesternDC6B wrote:I’m sure if the plant were under IAM control, nothing at all would be wrong. /sarc
Trk1 wrote:Boeing is a company in deep trouble. If you do not think there are problems at Charleston just ask a few airlines about what they have found and you will find the NYT article to be spot on. FAA is not what it used to be and also needs a major shake up. When you only have one company in the country making commercial aircraft this drop off is not surprising. We found the same thing as we lost auto manufactures in the US.
Gulfstream500 wrote:I believe that it should be made necessary to have MULTIPLE different agencies (including the F.A.A., NTSB, etc.) audit the production process and certification of aircraft. Not just Boeing, but any aircraft made in the US (or any aircraft used by US operators, if possible). Just one audit can save lives - and no more of that “self certification” junk.
blueflyer wrote:Revelation wrote:Want evidence? "The NY Times also declined Boeing’s invitation to go to CHS and discuss" says it all.
Most print news organizations would have declined the invitation. What would the NYT have seen? Floors scrubbed so clean they shone like mirrors? Aircraft inspected five times by five different teams instead of the usual one inspection? An email inbox with 5 emails a day every day for a week reminding all managers the NYT is coming and they better make sure everything is spotless?
A television station might have made the trip, but mostly to shoot b-roll inside the factory.
Irrespective of the merits of the story, a planned site visit would have been rather pointless.
TheFlyingDisk wrote:blueflyer wrote:Revelation wrote:Want evidence? "The NY Times also declined Boeing’s invitation to go to CHS and discuss" says it all.
Most print news organizations would have declined the invitation. What would the NYT have seen? Floors scrubbed so clean they shone like mirrors? Aircraft inspected five times by five different teams instead of the usual one inspection? An email inbox with 5 emails a day every day for a week reminding all managers the NYT is coming and they better make sure everything is spotless?
A television station might have made the trip, but mostly to shoot b-roll inside the factory.
Irrespective of the merits of the story, a planned site visit would have been rather pointless.
A visit to the plant, and the opportunity to speak with the people involved would provide a counterpoint. That would make the article more balanced, and more valid.
CitrusCritter wrote:TheFlyingDisk wrote:blueflyer wrote:They should have moved experienced employees to Charleston to ensure that new employees were being well trained and indoctrinated into a culture of safety and excellent work.
airportugal310 wrote:CitrusCritter wrote:TheFlyingDisk wrote:
And "indoctrinated" as well into the virtues of joining a union and all that comes with it?
No doubt.
Revelation wrote:trex8 wrote:Seems shooting the messenger is a central theme too.
Some times messengers deserve to be shot.trex8 wrote:Its not just a SC problem, its a Boeing problem.
Given the quality of the reporting, there might not be a SC problem.
lightsaber wrote:Gulfstream500 wrote:I believe that it should be made necessary to have MULTIPLE different agencies (including the F.A.A., NTSB, etc.) audit the production process and certification of aircraft. Not just Boeing, but any aircraft made in the US (or any aircraft used by US operators, if possible). Just one audit can save lives - and no more of that “self certification” junk.
Do you know how much the certification process already costs? I'm sure some would like that as it would end US aircraft development.
An error was made. But look how safe aviation is. If automobiles were as safe as the MAX has been, I could understand everyone getting riled up.
The US safety process made aviation safe. The MAX will soon be back flying again and will be safe.
Too many audits make flying less safe as audits are paperwork. The process is already miserable.
Why US airlines? They maintained the aircraft properly. The Lion Air aircraft had issues. Now, the MAX needs to be made better. No one doubts that.
But by these standards in 1989 the A320 would have been permanently grounded.
Lightsaber