TaromA380 wrote:I begin to think that it’s too late now, because all the problems have the root at the internal decision to launch the industrial project (versus going new aircraft). Back then, they bet everything on the hypothesis that no one ever will be affected nor realize how generously (and cheaply) they were going to self-certify the Max. Only under that hypothesis the project would be attractive enough to win the favor over starting from scratch.
Now that initial critical hypothesis proved wrong. As the self-certified product realistically cannot be patched to make it certifiable under the whole world scrutiny, it means everything is lost. The whole program. Am I the only pessimistic out here?
It's an interesting hypothesis to suggest that the executives making the decision to go with the MAX didn't understand the degree to which the decision would result in middle managers putting the squeeze on the designers and the design reviewers to the point where those engineers would consciously or unconsciously fail to do their jobs correctly which would result in this human, fiscal and reputational tragedy that MAX has become. Interesting, but difficult to prove.
It's also an interesting hypothesis to say the self-certified product cannot be patched to be made certifiable, but IMO one far more difficult to prove.
So many high level hypothesis going around today...
Amiga500 wrote:TaromA380 wrote:As the self-certified product realistically cannot be patched to make it certifiable under the whole world scrutiny, it means everything is lost. The whole program.
Nah, its not that bad.
The various regulators will be going over most (all?) of the changes with a fine tooth comb now, so while it will cost BCA in time (and ultimately, dollars), it will see the aircraft back into service at some point.
It has to. The ramifications for Boeing if they can't are very dark.
Yet earlier we read:
NDiesel wrote:None of us hate the plane. We're just concerned about its potentially lethal flaws.
A badly designed plane shouldn't be flying just to please shareholders, my friend.
Doubling down on this statement begs the questions of how badly is it designed (i.e. fatally flawed vs patchable) and who really needs to be pleased (just Boeing stockholders, or the US national economy and the world's balance in trade)
scbriml wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:The problem appears to be the FAA. Not Boeing.
Year, it's all on the
pilotsFAA, not Boeing at all.
Where are the FAA's cut-out switches?
Boeing lobbied for more self regulation.
You would think this would also come with more self responsibility.
Yet we have many cases where we in the US capitalize profits and socialize losses.
See GFC 2008 for a great example of such.