64
if it's boeing i ain't goeing
Boeing engineers pop the Champagne and say "The doors stayed on."
82% worked? That's a passing grade!
Only the best and most advanced technologies have been used
Engineer #1 is on the phone.
Engineer #1: "Indeed. That's right, boss. The adhering problem with the doors has been rectified. We were able to utilize cost savings as well. The expenditure was minimized to forty thousand dollars... Oh, thanks for the compliment. We did do a very good job..." Winks at Engineer #2. "Didn't we." Click.
Engineer #2: "40 grand?"
Engineer #1: "I was about to say 50. But I didn't want to push my luck. And 40 outta be fine for you, me, and my pal in accounting to spend on a Vegas weekend with hookers and blow."
Engineer #2: Okay but if we are going to blow the whistle afterwards, this last weekend better be good.
Lol imagine being worse at space than the fucking cybertruck guy
Can’t build them like they used to anymore.
Did Boeing always suck or did short term profit seeking at all costs finally do them in?
There was another US plane manufacturer named MacDonald Douglas that went to shit because the finance bros took over.
Boeing, at the time, was far more successful because it was essentially led by the engineers and so made high quality planes.
As MacDonald was going under, the US government organized a buyout and Boeing acquired MacDonald.
MacDonald engineers became Boeing engineers but the MacDonald finance bros also became Boeing finance bros and since the shareholders love their treats they were delighted to support said finance bros in doing to Boeing what they did to MacDonald.
Effectively, Boeing became McDonnell Douglas instead of the opposite
Boeing was really innovative in the 50s thru 70s. Dominated American aviation by the 80s. Became a monopoly (essentially) for domestic plane production in the USA. Have not innovated or changed much since.
The 737 Max was one of their biggest innovations in the last 30 years and they didnt even have the fancy new tech use both speed/airflow sensors, it only used one at a time. If they had used both tube sensors at least one of the crashes could have been prevented. Dumbass company also didn't train pilots on the new software because that'd cost too much. Plus they were sure it would be flawless so they didnt need to train. Basically they are the Google of aviation and are nosediving in quality just like the worlds biggest advertising company is now.
Is the 737 max really an innovation? They just wanted to spare airlines the cost of certifying pilots on a new airframe. The Max is a 737 with bigger engines, but because it comes from a time before sky bridges were common and disembarking directly onto tarmac was, it sits too low to the ground for them, so the whole center of mass was thrown off by moving the engine mounts up and back. Just a bad compromise plane
I do agree that innovation is a bad term for it. It was a modernization that was poorly developed to make as much money as possible.
Boeing used to be a fairly effective company. They had a good union and the work was largely engineer led.
The rightward turn of the 1970s eroded the union and culture. By the 2000s there was only two big players in the commercial aerospace market: Boeing and Airbus. McDonnell Douglas were limping along in a distant third place.
Boeing hoped to diversify their offerings by buying MD and using their more successful military aerospace business. MD's officers ended up gaining a lot of power in the merger and they began the process of running the firm into the ground. They went full cost cutting short term bullshit after that.
Seems a bit lib but I think there's some truth there
Imagine being an astronaut reading the news about Boeing and being scheduled on this thing
Just revert to launch and try again
who knew there was a tier of disposable astronauts
Same
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
64 points (100.0% liked)
news
23227 readers
507 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS