Hacker News Reader

Comment by azinman2 | Hacker News Reader

Kind of BS. Yes the regulations and oversight should be amazing and effective, but Boeing should have redesigned the airframe from the beginning when it became clear that the more efficient engines didn’t work with the frame. Let’s not misplace the blame here. Their business driven goals (don’t require simulator training) were smart until they couldn’t be made to work. Instead they forced it, resulting in death of human lives and possibly Boeing itself.

View on HN

This is way over the top. Boeing will be fine on account of being too important to fail (and we can debate endlessly whether that’s a good thing or bad thing but that doesn’t change the veracity of the statement). Boeing’s customers wanted the Max to be built on the 737 platform. You’re vastly underestimating the impact of a new airframe on carrier operations if you think it’s as simple as simulator training.

I think above ALL, Boeing’s customers want airplanes that only make controlled landings. If that’s unachievable in practical terms with the current airframe, then it shouldn’t exist in its current form.

> Boeing’s customers wanted the Max to be built on the 737 platform.

You say that as if that's an excuse. What Boeing's customers wanted is irrelevant, but in any case, your claim is incorrect.

Airlines just want a plane that can make them money. Boeing could have build them a plane much better than the MAX, but they chose not to because if they had done so, then the airlines would have the option to switch to Airbus. The Airbus option would not be on the table if Boeing was just selling them another 737 variant.

> You’re vastly underestimating the impact of a new airframe on carrier operations if you think it’s as simple as simulator training.

What about the impact of a new model on the ground for several months, maybe a year, even maybe (with a tiny chance, of course) forever?

I bet it would have been cheaper if they started adding a new model to their operations already (for those who don't have it already)

Sure, customers always want the cheapest option, and it's up to Boeing to say when enough is enough.

> Boeing should have redesigned the airframe

In hindsight, yes, but Boeing had been modifying it for fifty years, so I get why they thought they could do it again.

Boeing doesn't care much about what's ethical, it does what's cheapest/easiest (remember the Ducommun structural parts scandal of 2010?). That's the job of the regulator: to enforce protections and be another layer of sanity checks to prevent bad processes, bad designs, bad manufacturing, bad maintenance and bad operations from occurring. Capitalism is borderline anarchy, especially when all three branches of government are in the military-industrial complexes' pocket. The FAA dropped the ball because they got too cozy with those they're supposed to regulate because the political system is so damn corrupt. The political and apolitical parts of government MUST be firewalled from corporate influence, just like the separation between church and state... separation between church of money and state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com