That's what happens when you tie people's bonuses directly to how many planes they push out the door. You optimize for production quantity at the cost of everything else.
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
510 points (99.4% liked)
News
23531 readers
6153 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Let’s ignore Boeing for a second, because this is an interesting problem. Our society rewards production and accepting that, I’m not sure getting planes “out the door” is inherently bad.
It seems to me the issue lies in how to reward the auditors. I think we’d all agree this responsibility should ultimately be a Gov’t function.. but internal quality assurance is a thing too. So, how does a company reward this team of auditors? E.x., Finding more errors naively seems like the correct metric. However, their bonus would then go down with program effectiveness- that is, fewer errors/faults based on adversarial competition between the production team and the auditing team would lead to fewer findings (presumably).
Management bonuses is a whole other issue. Then, who should oversee this entire program of rewards to ensure it’s systematically safe for the public? Assuming we accept the premise that rewards are desired.
Boeing doesn't reward their auditors (called QA Inspectors in aviation). They've been cutting down their numbers and replacing them with much less experienced people at much lower pay for many years.
Yes, that’s why I said let’s ignore Boeing. I’m asking for the “correct” solution to this problem.
The more I think about it, I think the adversarial nature of auditing must come from the Government side. Which is precisely why Boeing became an issue.
There is an option where independent teams of auditors review the product, and the team with the most findings gets a bonus. Perhaps this could be considered. But again, who’s job is it to ensure this overall program is safe for the public? That’s not the manufacturer, especially a corporation. We already know the courts have ruled corpos only responsibility is to current stock holders and short term gains.
“The team with the most findings.” Lol
“Here are your audit reports. We’ve made them extra spicy this month, just like you like it.”
Reward the entire company when the recall numbers get lower and the safety in the air numbers get higher. Have a culture where someone saying that something isn't right is a good thing, not punished. This could be done through the training of managers and open door policies. People don't always need financial compensation. Telling an employee that they're appreciated for finding and fixing issues can go a really long way.
And this is why "the free market will solve everything" is naive, at best.
It is not a zero sum game where QA is red teaming production and so forth. The execs (and anyone with stock) benefits from "planes out the door". There is zero reason to incentivize QA/QC and... they don't.
The part that proponents gloss over about the "the market will solve everything" is that people die first. Boeing puts out very bad planes that kill people, then they fail. The cereal company puts arsenic in food and kills people, then they fail, on and on. We know this is how the market works, because that's how it used to work before we regulated it.
The market alone is an executioner, and everyone rallying for it doesnt think they will be next.
As with lots of topics, John Oliver does a great job explaining how something as "simple" as a company merger and moving the headquarters can begin to rot a company from the top down.
Everyone in Seattle knew this was going to happen when it happened. The local employees had been through a lot with Boeing and would never have let them outsource and do all the shady shit they're doing. It was obvious at the time what they were up to.
Something as simple as a crack pipe.
Boeing killed John Barnett.
I've worked in production environments and let me tell you: some managers simply do not give a fuck.
At least our parts were not putting people's lives at risk.
Edit: "not"
At least our parts were putting people's lives at risk.
Did you mean "Weren't putting people's lives at risk"?
No
Hahahahaha
Yes, thank you.
Friend of mine worked there for a year in industrial health working yo make their process safer and it’s a shit show. Someone irradiated themselves.
Imagine just doing your job and then suddenly, something happens and now you are almost guaranteed to get cancer.
What a shitshow indeed.
Oh they ignored every sign and precaution and didn’t believe radiation was dangerous. Bunch of stupid good old boy shit.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I said I would never fly again unless I absolutely have to. Now I will absolutely have to and I hope to god it's on an Airbus.
i don't fly i just take trains and buses
Airbus has it's own set of issues and maintenance problems. They just haven't been newsworthy. I will hand it to them, they've consistently improved the maintainability of their aircraft over time, however they have no interest in improving longevity. Boeing has an extensive aging fleet plan and support. Airbus just says "buy a new airplane".
Can you link to sources for this?
Also, it makes sense to retire a plane when it’s 20-30 years old, essentially because it becomes extremely inefficient. That said There are nearly 200 A300s flying. They were introduced in 1974.
I have a friend who is the chief engineer for a charter airline that has a 4 plane fleet, A320, First gen. From the 80s or early 90s.
Your claim doesn’t seem to hold up.
I've worked on several fleets of cargo aircraft that are mostly comprised of PAX to cargo conversions or dedicated freighters. When they exceed their airframe hours for passenger service, they go to cargo to live out the rest of their lives. I've worked on multiple fleets that were built in the 70's. B767-200's, A300's, and DC-10's. The DC(MD)-10's on my current fleet are all retired now due to economic reasons, but the airframes are still absolutely solid. The A300's are still flying but are steadily being retired due to Airbus not approving major repairs for issues related to the age of the aircraft. All of the A310's at my company have already been retired due to Airbus dropping aging fleet support. The B767-200's will keep flying for a long time because Boeing has a very extensive aging fleet program. The only limit for the B767's longevity is the owner's wallet. With that being the case, the retired A300's and MD-10's at my company are being replaced with factory-new B767-300's and B777-300's.
Also, the B757's I've worked on will last just as long as the 767's. The oldest ones I worked on had over 150,000 flight hours and were factory freighters. The company that owned them finally retired them at 200,000 flight hours. They were still airworthy, but they were becoming pretty expensive to maintain and the owner replaced them with slightly newer but less used 757-200F's and 767-300's. The 767's were freshly retired from PAX service (got the IAI P2F conversion), and the 757's were from another freighter line.
I don't have any links. I'm actively working in the industry on the maintenance side of widebody aircraft, currently for a company that owns over 400 aircraft. I've worked on several fleets and airframes beforehand for a MRO doing similar work.
You should be able to check what airplane your flight uses. The last few times I’ve flown, I’ve been able to sort by airbus. It might be site dependent though.
Good to know, thanks.
You can choose flights that use airbus, as someone else said.
I'm on my way back from the UK on British airways because they use airbus. Was roughly the same cost as the delta flight using a Boeing.
thre are a some airlines in Europe which are all Airbus, like Easyjet, Iberia, etc. When looking for flights I always try to fly these type of airlines. Prices some times may be 10-20 € more. Worth it for me. Also, the A320 is more comfortable than the 737.
Even with everything considered you’re statistically more likely to die on your way to the airport than on the actual flight.
You’re being irrational.
Cool. I don’t fly because it’s loud, obnoxious and uncomfortable.
Amazing how many people here seem to think wanting comfort and a lack of stress and anxiety being cooped up in a tiny, loud tube with a bunch of obnoxious strangers is such an irrational thing.
And what is airbus going to do for you? Did you forget your comment?
load more comments
(27 replies)
Looks like Agent 747 is getting another mission
view more: next ›