
Boeing engineer breaks silence on MAX 737 - erentz
https://kuow.org/stories/boeing-engineers-break-silence-on-max-737-read-this-letter
======
ltbarcly3
This comment from a 'boeing engineer' has basically no information content.

\- He's not a Boeing engineer, he's 'a senior member of the union'. Apparently
he was an engineer sometime in the past, now his job is to push anything that
will benefit members of the union, which is what he is doing here. He has no
specific information about the MAX to offer.

\- Cost savings is _always_ the root cause of every engineering failure, so
long as you have the benefit of hindsight. I mean once you know what the
problem is you can spend money to fix it, and they should have spent that
money right off the bat, right? I mean, if they knew there was a problem,
which they must have or else there is nobody to blame. We need someone to
blame! Of course projects that don't try to limit costs can't fail since they
are canceled and never built. Except for the Space Shuttle, which went
massively over budget again and again and still had a terrible safety record,
which absurdly was blamed on _cost cutting_.
[https://www.wired.com/2016/01/to-cut-costs-and-save-time-
nas...](https://www.wired.com/2016/01/to-cut-costs-and-save-time-nasas-taking-
more-risks/) So no matter how much money you spend, when something fails you
are going to be blamed for not spending more. If you budget $1 Billion and
then decide to spend $10 Billion to improve safety, whenever something goes
wrong they'll say you should have spent $11 Billion.

\- Trying to vilify people and attempting to create an environment to produce
massive punitive damages and lawsuits, or to bring political pressure to
change staffing decisions dramatically decreases safety. The FAA has spent
almost a hundred years building up an environment of cooperation with a shared
responsibility to understand failures and enable the changing of the entire
aviation industry whenever necessary to promote safety. This has been
fabulously successful. Trying to place blame and attack people for past
decisions will only lead to a closing of the culture and an attempt to hide
information in the future. Compare aviation to the auto industry in how they
adapt and improve safety, it's night and day for exactly this reason. Creating
an environment where companies have to be afraid to admit mistakes does not
help us find the root causes of problems and change the system to prevent
those problems in the future.

~~~
philwelch
> Cost savings is always the root cause of every engineering failure, so long
> as you have the benefit of hindsight. I mean once you know what the problem
> is you can spend money to fix it, and they should have spent that money
> right off the bat, right?

I once heard it said that any reasonably smart person can build a bridge that
doesn't collapse. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that just barely
doesn't collapse, by an acceptable safety margin that still provides economy.
So yes; any unforeseen failure exists because of that tradeoff.

The counterexample you name, the Space Shuttle, is just a series of
fundamental mistakes compounded together--a boondoggle machine designed for a
dozen different mission profiles, most of which never happened, and introduced
serious regressions in survivability and launch escape compared to Apollo.

~~~
ken
> It takes an engineer to build a bridge that just barely doesn't collapse

Cute saying, but an aircraft doesn't really share this property. You can make
a bridge or building stronger by just adding more stuff. Many pyramids and
stone bridges have held up admirably even after thousands of years.

You can't make a better aircraft by just adding more stuff. Very soon, it
becomes incapable of its primary purpose.

~~~
philwelch
I mean, most things will fly at least somewhat if you bolt on a big enough jet
engine :) But I see your point.

------
ChuckMcM
It reminds me of the adage "Workplace culture is what you _do_ not what you
_say you do_." I have met too many engineering managers over the years who
thought they could cleverly have it both ways by exhorting quality is the
highest priority while penalizing or criticizing engineers who objected based
on quality or design metrics.

~~~
a3n
I don't ever continue past the 3rd word of a corporate response for exactly
this reason. What they say is always what they "should" say, in line with how
things "should" be, rather than reality at the moment. The speaker doesn't
even have to be familiar with the issue at hand beyond keywords.

~~~
tomjakubowski
What do you get out of reading the first two words of a corporate response?

~~~
a3n
A reminder that the rest of the statement will be bullshit and I never should
have bothered starting.

------
a3n
I worked at Boeing from '88 to '94, writing test software. I liked it. I liked
the people and the atmosphere.

I always thought that when Boeing moved its headquarters from Seattle to
Chicago that that was the end of something special. They went from being
legendary Boeing to just another hyper-corporation who happens to make money
doing X or Y or Z.

In my opinion.

~~~
master-litty
Was there something special about the move that ended the era? That in itself
doesn't seem harmful to a legendary status.

~~~
a3n
There was nothing "Boeing" in Chicago at the time. The only thing relevant
there in Chicago was United Airlines. They moved top executives physically and
culturally away from where everything was being done.

In my opinion, that made the whole company abstract to the executives.

~~~
pfranz
Funny how the opposite can also be true. In 1985, Disney Animation was moved
off the Burbank lot to a cluster of buildings about 2 miles away. After the
success of Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and the Lion
King they moved back onto the lot. Their new building was literally next to
where the executives are in the ABC Studios building. I've heard complaints
that executives would walk over and make creative decisions whereas being 2
miles away they were mostly left alone.

~~~
AstralStorm
So, executives doing something other than their job and messing it up.
Classic.

------
deckarep
This quote is powerful and resonates: “The cost-cutting culture is the
opposite of a culture built on productivity, innovation, safety or quality”

I know investors must see a profit and business must keep moving but honoring
the careful balance of these two ideas is a must or what are you really left
with?

------
pcurve
Very interesting. 777 probably has the cleanest safety record. Basically zero
incident stemming from design, engineering or manufacturing defect.

747 was exceedingly safe despite 3,000 deaths. Half of that was due to
bombing, hijacking, missile. Seriously.

~~~
john_moscow
Ironically, the biggest 747 crash (and, IIRC, the world's deadliest airline-
related disaster) happened on the ground due to air traffic controller's
fault, that directed 2 airplanes on a collision course in thick fog [0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster)

~~~
anamexis
Small correction: it was not the air traffic controller primarily at fault,
but the captain of the KLM aircraft for taking off without explicit clearance.

~~~
john_moscow
IIRC, at that time there was no _standard_ unambiguous way to communicate
standard procedures and misunderstandings were often (albeit not fatal). It
was after that crash when FAA introduced very strict rules on air traffic
communication (e.g. the word "clearance" can only be said by the air traffic
controller if the clearance is actually granted). Talk about rules written in
blood.

~~~
sokoloff
"Clearance" is used in many ways to indicate that a clearance has not been
granted yet (or has been revoked). From the ATC Job Order manual [0], examples
include: “continue, expect landing clearance two mile final” and "CANCEL
TAKEOFF CLEARANCE (reason)"

What you might be thinking of is the guidance against using "takeoff", which
is "Avoid using the term “takeoff” except to actually clear an aircraft for
takeoff or to cancel a takeoff clearance. Use such terms as “depart,”
“departure,” or “fly” in clearances when necessary"

[0] -
[https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65X_w_C...](https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65X_w_CHG1_CHG2_and_CHG_3.pdf)

------
ereyes01
> From a shareholder perspective, Boeing’s approach to its business has been
> wildly successful. The company is enduring its second worldwide grounding in
> recent memory.

> However, worldwide demand for airplanes is riding a high. And Boeing has
> diverted cash flow into dividends and share buybacks that have helped boost
> the company’s stock.

I started my career in IBM in the early 2000s, and this sounds incredibly
familiar. As the years passed, company messaging and all-hands meetings
increasingly celebrated the stock price, stock buy-backs, and later earnings
per share. Meanwhile, the engineering teams and products around me felt more
creaky and short-staffed, and the quality of many products (and, gradually,
the technical leadership) seemed to be declining. Also, layoffs appeared to be
picking up steam, and my salary was stagnant. I eventually left in 2010,
giving myself a big raise in the process.

Right after the time I left, IBM rocketed to all-time highs and became the
darling of the Dow, while everything else all around was still in shambles
from the recession. I had a hard time reconciling the macro performance of the
company with the facts on the ground as I experienced them. It was only much
later that I think I understood what was happening, after reading a Sam
Palmisano interview (having a hard time finding it).

The way I rationalize what I experienced at IBM is that the company leadership
decided to raid the coffers and cash out on value the company had built up
over the decades. It's like cashing in your chips at the casino after deciding
you've played enough. The way they did this was to cut costs relentlessly and
employ "financial engineering" to inflate the stock price. It was basically a
transfer of wealth from the investment in the products and the people to the
owners/shareholders in the form of higher share values and dividends.

I suppose one can interpret this sort of company decision as a bet against
future growth, and an admission that the investment to some degree had run its
course. Also, a company like IBM (and Boeing) has built so much value over the
decades, that even after raiding the coffers and cutting costs, the embers
still burn hot and the business is still huge, though perhaps now hamstrung
and unable to grow. Of course, this creates a pretty dismal situation for us
grunts on the ground, and the work product undoubtedly suffers, while the
brain drain picks up its pace.

The difference of course between IBM and Boeing is that the cost cutting in
Boeing has ended up costing many human lives, and the consequences are much
much sharper in blood and reputation, and maybe in regulation as well.

~~~
madiodio
That's a great analysis

------
lifeisstillgood
"We Shall Build Good Ships Here; At A Profit If We Can, At A Loss If We Must,
But Always Good Ships."

Collis Potter Huntington. (Newport Shipyards, contractors to US Navy)

[http://www.alwaysgoodships.com/](http://www.alwaysgoodships.com/)

------
mpoteat
Not that it detracts from the claims presented in the article, but the fact
that the author is a seemingly high ranking person in his union adds a degree
of politics to it.

~~~
hugi
Why? Is this opinion rooted in the American hatred/demonization of unions? I
come from a scandinavian country and it would be pretty normal for a union
spokesman to comment on something like this.

What would be his "political" point here?

~~~
cnnrro
Personally I didn't read it as having to do with hatred of unions, more just a
reminder of political incentives. It's very much in a union's best interest to
divert blame from the engineers it represents onto the companies "cost-cutting
culture".

It could very well be the truth that the cost-cutting culture is to blame. But
it's always worth noting incentives of parties in cases like this.

~~~
hugi
Why would it be in the union's interest to "divert blame from engineers"? Does
it benefit financially from it? Do their members somehow benefit from it? Are
you saying that Boeing wants to blame their Engineers and this is now a fight
between Boeing and it's employees?

Serious questions, I'm not quite understanding that corporate culture.

~~~
sokoloff
SPEEA is a union representing (and collecting union dues from) Boeing's US
engineers but not the $9/hr outsourced engineers. [0]

That being the case, the motivation to ensure that the former are not blamed
for the 737-Max issue and to call into question the quality of work of the
latter is probably clear.

[0] -
[http://www.speea.org/Join_Our_Union!/FAQ.html](http://www.speea.org/Join_Our_Union!/FAQ.html)
("Where do SPEEA members work?")

------
breck
Is there a link to the source/actual letter?

~~~
mehrdadn
Haven't read it yet but I'm guessing it's this:
[https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/what-will-it-be-
boeing-...](https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/what-will-it-be-boeing-great-
airplanes-that-generate-cash-flow-or-great-cash-flow-period/)

~~~
pcurve
"According to Boeing’s annual reports, in the last five years Boeing diverted
92% of operating cash flow to dividends and share buybacks to benefit
investors. Since 1998, share buybacks have consumed $70 billion, adjusted for
inflation. That could have financed several entire new airplane models, with
money left over for handsome executive bonuses."

So many punchlines, but this one is is just sad. 92%.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
Excessive buybacks are bound to doom companies. If you can't compete, if you
can't innovate, if your destroy your brand's reputation in order to maximize
share buybacks, you will no longer have the revenue to continue the buybacks.

Like most things, a happy medium is good. Too few buybacks, you might be
wasteful in your R&D spending. Too much, you get a Boeing situation. A middle
ground optimizes for continuing to produce innovations, while maintaining (and
hopefully growing) revenues.

~~~
jonahhorowitz
Before the 1980s, buybacks were illegal and seen as stock manipulation. We
should get back to that. If you can't find a good use for the money, pay
dividends.

~~~
TimTheTinker
I strongly agree.

I wonder if it would help for a new kind of union to arise - one that exists
_only_ to guarantee good wages for its members -- to force companies to direct
more profits toward wages instead of towards stock buybacks.

------
chvid
Boeing is trading some 20-25% from its all time high. I find that amazing.

The stock market is basically telling us that this is all just a bit of bad
press that will pass.

This story is very similar to a story here on hn from just a few days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353342](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353342)

~~~
perl4ever
Compare BP with Tokyo Electric Power.

------
viburnum
I didn’t realize Boeing’s stock had done so well! Now that’s shareholder
value.

------
wrong_variable
I am not sure why this is not talked about often enough.

Prior to the 1980s, Japan's economy functioned as a sort of War economy.
Companies would spend and invest to gain market share at the cost of margins.
share prices were rarely something a company worried about, it was always
about product.

This was key to Japan's insane post WW2 success.

Then came the 80s, with it US style shareholder capitalism. and within 10
years Japan's economy collapsed - never to recover.

If you notice, China is following the same exact pattern, running a War
economy with a razor focus on market share over profitability. It's what
causes great fortunes to be made and lost in China.

Coming back to Boeing, because of the monopolist dynamic here, nothing is
going to change. Especially since the people who died were mostly foreign
nationals. I doubt even if some unfortunate event like that happens in the
EU,NA Boeing would go bankrupt - there would be a lot of noise for a few
years, maybe some board members get fired. Too many pension plans and
retirement plans depend on Boeing's survival.

~~~
amluto
One might argue that the US, as a matter of national security, should forcibly
fix Boeing. In my mind, the US’s major defense suppliers are too consolidated
and too dysfunctional to adequately support the military.

Arguable the US should develop more in-house capabilities (as in government
employees producing their own technologies) to compete with Boeing, etc if for
no other reason.

~~~
noir_lord
Or not by things unless there are two viable independent sources for them,
forcing the companies to co-operate but not merge, since if you merge no
longer two sources, if you don't co-operate no longer two sources.

------
thtthings
I know the mistake was very costly and we are talking about lives here. But,
come on.. is there a chance people are over analyzing. We can try hard and do
everything right and still something can go wrong.

They are humans and the airplanes from Boeing have been very very very
reliable. It's not like every max 8 dropped from the air. A lot of them, most
of them flew alright. I know the people who lost their lives paid a big price
but, in hindsight everyone has an opinion.

~~~
jdavis703
There was an article about ladders, tools and debris being left inside various
parts like the tail. I’m sure management put the workers under extreme
deadline pressure, but this kind of negligence isn’t simply a small human
mistake. It shows there’s a systematic flaw in their quality assurance
capability.

Source:
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/busi...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-
dreamliner-production-problems.amp.html)

~~~
aaronbrethorst
In case you want to hear directly from a former Boeing employee on this:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/podcasts/the-
daily/boeing...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/podcasts/the-daily/boeing-
dreamliner-charleston.html)

------
rinze
No surprises here. It's called "crapitalism" for a reason.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially not unsubstantive
ideological battle comments. We're trying for a more thoughtful sort of
discussion on this site.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

