Ed 737 Max Crashes (was Shutdown caused Boeing crash.)

[theprestige]

Also I wonder if Lplus is confusing Spirit Airlines with Spirit AeroSystems.

Spirit Airlines is a Boeing customer, and is of course responsible for the maintenance of their airplanes after taking delivery from the manufacturer. Spirit Airlines was not involved in the door plug incident, which happened to an Alaska Airlines plane.

Spirit AeroSystems is a Boeing manufacturing subcontractor, working alongside Boeing staff on the same assembly line. The door plug incident arose from an improperly addressed manufacturing defect. The entire quality failure process happened on the Boeing assembly line, involving both Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems workers, before Alaska took delivery of the (poorly) finished product.

There was no amount of regular maintenance Alaska could have done or should have done, to find and correct this manufacturing defect.

---

Separately, there seems to be (or to have recently been) a spate of aircraft breakdowns that were pretty obviously due to maintenance failures by the owners, after taking delivery of properly-manufactured airplanes.

---

So there's two problems plaguing the airline industry right now: Manufacturing quality issues at one of the biggest suppliers of commercial airliners, and maintenance quality issues at one or more commercial airlines.

I suspect the two problems have the same root cause: Consumer confidence is harder to measure than defects per thousand, man hours per correction, and cost of correction vs cost of settlement. It seems manufacturer and airline both think they can, or think they must, accept a certain amount of risk in the service of their bottom line. Regardless of how it affects consumer confidence and their long-term business prospects.

 

[Lplus]

Also I wonder if Lplus is confusing Spirit Airlines with Spirit AeroSystems.

Spirit Airlines is a Boeing customer, and is of course responsible for the maintenance of their airplanes after taking delivery from the manufacturer. Spirit Airlines was not involved in the door plug incident, which happened to an Alaska Airlines plane.

Spirit AeroSystems is a Boeing manufacturing subcontractor, working alongside Boeing staff on the same assembly line. The door plug incident arose from an improperly addressed manufacturing defect. The entire quality failure process happened on the Boeing assembly line, involving both Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems workers, before Alaska took delivery of the (poorly) finished product.

There was no amount of regular maintenance Alaska could have done or should have done, to find and correct this manufacturing defect.

---

Separately, there seems to be (or to have recently been) a spate of aircraft breakdowns that were pretty obviously due to maintenance failures by the owners, after taking delivery of properly-manufactured airplanes.

---

So there's two problems plaguing the airline industry right now: Manufacturing quality issues at one of the biggest suppliers of commercial airliners, and maintenance quality issues at one or more commercial airlines.

I suspect the two problems have the same root cause: Consumer confidence is harder to measure than defects per thousand, man hours per correction, and cost of correction vs cost of settlement. It seems manufacturer and airline both think they can, or think they must, accept a certain amount of risk in the service of their bottom line. Regardless of how it affects consumer confidence and their long-term business prospects.

I was speaking of Spirit aerosystems, the only disagreement is whether it was manufacturing or maintenance. Since everyone else is prepared to kick Boeing, I guess I will too. I'd say Boeing should go bust and leave the airliner business to Airbus and the Chinese, but it wouldn't happen. The Us government would take it over (to the delight of the socialists among us) and if you think it's dogs breakfast now, just imagine how screwed it would be under government control.

As to the hilited, every concern involving transport has to accept a certain amount of risk - the only alternative being to stop transporting people. you may disagree with the level Boeing and the airlines accept, and so might I, but there will always be some risk.

 

[Lplus]

Well, if we are splitting hairs, maintenance is "the process of preserving the condition of something". In this case, they were not preserving any kind of condition, they were fixing a manufacturing fault. That is part of the manufacturing process, and more importantly, it was done by the manufacturer, not the customer, which is what really counts here.


Whatever the cause, the plane was being manufactured by Boeing and Spirit was Boeing's subcontractor. The buck stops with Boeing.


How would you design a removable door plug to account for any possible bodging by the assembly line workers?

I wouldn't make it removable. I'd either fit a proper door or not even leave a gap. If the airlines are so desperate for umpteen different optional layouts, it's just tough on them that they don't get this one.

 

[smartcooky]

I wouldn't make it removable. I'd either fit a proper door or not even leave a gap. If the airlines are so desperate for umpteen different optional layouts, it's just tough on them that they don't get this one.

I agree with this. Maybe an ordinary door, but with no door opening handle.

 

[theprestige]

I was speaking of Spirit aerosystems, the only disagreement is whether it was manufacturing or maintenance. Since everyone else is prepared to kick Boeing, I guess I will too.

It was manufacturing. It happened on the assembly line, during assembly. A part was assembled incorrectly, and the defect was improperly reported, improperly logged, and improperly "corrected". Both Spirit and Boeing assembly-line workers are implicated in the improprieties.

And why wouldn't you be prepared to kick Boeing? Why would you need to guess? It's pretty clear that Boeing screwed up. They screwed up their quality control, and they screwed up their oversight of their main assembly subcontractor.

 

[Lplus]

I agree with this. Maybe an ordinary door, but with no door opening handle.

That works too.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Boenig needs to be shut down.

 

[rjh01]

Boenig needs to be shut down.

I almost agree with you. The main problem is that there is only one other company making large passenger aircraft. The barriers to entry are huge. Someone may come up with a design for an aircraft and it would take many years for the first one to be made.

 

[Lplus]

I almost agree with you. The main problem is that there is only one other company making large passenger aircraft. The barriers to entry are huge. Someone may come up with a design for an aircraft and it would take many years for the first one to be made.

There's also the Chinese. I'm sure they could come up with a close facsimile of a large Boeing passenger aircraft, and at half the price.

 

[rjh01]

There's also the Chinese. I'm sure they could come up with a close facsimile of a large Boeing passenger aircraft, and at half the price.

Your first sentence is reasonable. The rest of your post should be ignored.

Did a search for Chinese aircraft. Found this https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/19/business/china-comac-c919-international-debut-intl-hnk/index.html

It does highlight the difficulties they are having.
1. Huge cost of development.
2. The high level of technical expertise required.
3. Tensions between China and the USA.
4. Certification by American and European aviation regulators is required.

All of these are major issues, any one of which could kill the aircraft.

 

[Lplus]

Your first sentence is reasonable. The rest of your post should be ignored.
Did a search for Chinese aircraft. Found this https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/19/business/china-comac-c919-international-debut-intl-hnk/index.html

It does highlight the difficulties they are having.
1. Huge cost of development.
2. The high level of technical expertise required.
3. Tensions between China and the USA.
4. Certification by American and European aviation regulators is required.

All of these are major issues, any one of which could kill the aircraft.

Why do you think I put the at the end of my post?

SMH

 

[theprestige]

Boenig needs to be shut down.

Nah, Boeing just needs to get its act together. Aircraft manufacturers have weathered worse rough patches. And even a subpar Boeing is better than a giant hole in the middle of our aerospace industry.

Wait. You just mean Boeing is a corporation that employs people and makes stuff, so of course it should be shut down along with the rest of the aerospace industry and all other industries, right?

 

[jeremyp]

I wouldn't make it removable. I'd either fit a proper door or not even leave a gap. If the airlines are so desperate for umpteen different optional layouts, it's just tough on them that they don't get this one.

Not every airline wants a door there and not having a hole at all means making two different fuselages.

Furthermore, having the plug rather than no hole gives flexibility to the future owners who may change their minds over whether they need a door or not.

 

[jeremyp]

I agree with this. Maybe an ordinary door, but with no door opening handle.

There would have been no problem with the plug door, if it had been assembled correctly. Making sure that it had been assembled correctly would not have been an issue for old Being, pre MDD merger.

 

[Lplus]

Not every airline wants a door there and not having a hole at all means making two different fuselages.

Furthermore, having the plug rather than no hole gives flexibility to the future owners who may change their minds over whether they need a door or not.

you asked

How would you design a removable door plug to account for any possible bodging by the assembly line workers?

I gave you an answer based on your question - assembly line workers are assembly line workers whoever is in charge.

Airlines don't like it? Well tough. Remember the 737 crashes were due to systems added to help airlines save money by not having to train pilots for a new type of aircraft.

 

[theprestige]

you asked



I gave you an answer based on your question - assembly line workers are assembly line workers whoever is in charge.

I don't buy it. This wasn't a problem of assembly line workers being idiots who can't be trusted to tighten a screw. This was a multi-layered problem of carelessness and poor quality control processes, across multiple teams, labor and management both, from two different companies.

That's not a problem Boeing can solve by trying to idiot-proof their product line. On the other hand, if Boeing does solve the quality control and workplace culture problems on their assembly line, assembling things like this door plug would probably pose no problem at all.

---

That said, there's possibly something that could be done to improve the design of the plug, such that it is easier to meet the necessary quality standard. But that's a question for proper engineers with all the data about the line and the parts and the assembly process. It's not a question for anyone here.

Also, it has been suggested that part of Boeing's problem right now is offering too many variants of the same basic aircraft. The assembly line ends up treating each fuselage as a bespoke one-off, instead of yet another standard assembly. Having to make slight variations to their process for each order that passes through their part of the line makes mistakes more likely. This will stress even the best quality control process.

So there is some merit to Lplus's suggestion that Boeing discontinue the alternate assemblies. Not in an "our customers can suck a dick if they don't like it" way, but in a "our customers don't want to pay what it would cost to do this right, and we don't blame them" way. The issue here isn't the customers being greedy, and making unreasonable demands. It's Boeing being greedy.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What is cheaper and more likely to get the result of a reliable passenger plane manufacturer in the US?

Trying to dig Boeing out of its hole when it, or more precisely its Board, has no incentive to do so?

Or to break it up, see what can work independently and build something new from the wreckage plus startups.
There should be plenty of skilled Aeronautical Engineers, given that Boeing fired them all or made them quit.

 

[theprestige]

What is cheaper and more likely to get the result of a reliable passenger plane manufacturer in the US?

Trying to dig Boeing out of its hole when it, or more precisely its Board, has no incentive to do so?

Or to break it up, see what can work independently and build something new from the wreckage plus startups.
There should be plenty of skilled Aeronautical Engineers, given that Boeing fired them all or made them quit.

The first option, and it's not even close. And even so, the board has incentive.

 

[Lplus]

I don't buy it. This wasn't a problem of assembly line workers being idiots who can't be trusted to tighten a screw. This was a multi-layered problem of carelessness and poor quality control processes, across multiple teams, labor and management both, from two different companies.

That's not a problem Boeing can solve by trying to idiot-proof their product line. On the other hand, if Boeing does solve the quality control and workplace culture problems on their assembly line, assembling things like this door plug would probably pose no problem at all.

---

That said, there's possibly something that could be done to improve the design of the plug, such that it is easier to meet the necessary quality standard. But that's a question for proper engineers with all the data about the line and the parts and the assembly process. It's not a question for anyone here.

Also, it has been suggested that part of Boeing's problem right now is offering too many variants of the same basic aircraft. The assembly line ends up treating each fuselage as a bespoke one-off, instead of yet another standard assembly. Having to make slight variations to their process for each order that passes through their part of the line makes mistakes more likely. This will stress even the best quality control process.

So there is some merit to Lplus's suggestion that Boeing discontinue the alternate assemblies. Not in an "our customers can suck a dick if they don't like it" way, but in a "our customers don't want to pay what it would cost to do this right, and we don't blame them" way. The issue here isn't the customers being greedy, and making unreasonable demands. It's Boeing being greedy.

You don't have to buy it. I was answering a specific question. The fact you (and probably I) wouldn't ask that question is neither here nor there.

Why is Boeing being greedy by aquiescing to customer demands to save the customer money and squeeze the last passenger space out of each aircraft? Foolish perhaps, for making the designs too adaptable for their quality systems to cope with but not greedy.

But then I suppose "Boeing is greedy" is the axiomatic assumption prior to any and every discussion.

 

[theprestige]

You don't have to buy it. I was answering a specific question. The fact you (and probably I) wouldn't ask that question is neither here nor there.

I think your answer is not a good answer, and I tried to explain why I think that.

Why is Boeing being greedy by aquiescing to customer demands to save the customer money and squeeze the last passenger space out of each aircraft? Foolish perhaps, for making the designs too adaptable for their quality systems to cope with but not greedy.

This has been addressed. Boeing's current management is being greedy, because they're in the grip of a misguided mindset about the nature of Boeing's business and how to profit from it.

But then I suppose "Boeing is greedy" is the axiomatic assumption prior to any and every discussion.

Possibly for some people it is. I think in this case, a lot of Boeing's current quality problems can be traced not to axiomatic greed, but to a specific culture of greed and ignorance that was cozened at McDonnell-Douglas, and brought to Boeing in the merger much like a fecal transplant - but not the good kind.