Ok. Per your many other posts in which you 'oft say one thing, but mean something else, I'm gonna go ahead and ask the stupid question: What -precisely- did you mean by, "Yep you're right."???
Extra credit for honesty and humility in your answer.
Oh, Boeing
- Thread starter srleslie
- Start date
Extra credit for honesty and humility in your answer.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
That means plainly that I've decided your opinion is unworthy of my time and rather than argue I'll exit the conversation. Do you have some yearning to try and convince people that your viewpoint is correct? I don't and I have no issue just walking away. Is that modest enough?
Whatever your blather. You STILL didn't answer the simple question I asked.
You've got to ask yourself ONE question, punk. "Why didn't I just answer the guy's question?"+
Just sayin'... but in my travails, and intendancies and travels... When I encounter someone avoiding answering a simple question, I can judge with almost certain confidence that that person either: 1. has no answer, or 2. is acting in avoidance because he knows he's FOS.
Last edited:
knot4u
Repeat Offender
"Yep, You're Right" followed by a quick exit from the conversation should be considered as an insult because it means the person doing the Irish goodbye doesn't consider your point of view worthy of discussion. Is there any possible way that I can make it more clear to you that I consider you an imbecile and every time I engage in conversation with you my heart hurts due to the waste of time and energy. Sometimes I get a hair in my ass, tonight you're it. So talk you • dunderhead.
My, my, such negative energy!
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
This is a some what frequent problem, as it happens often enough the FAA has a program to address it. While I am not privy to the processes at Boeing and this problem, what I have seen is all sorts of problems from vendors because the lack of oversight from the final consumer. A typical scenario would be the airframe manufacturer out sources a subassembly; landing gear, pumps, or even wing box sections. That vendor produces the widgets to spec (dimensions, metallurgy, functionality, etc.) and appropriate paperwork for the component. So in this case, substandard material was used, but fraudulent paperwork to the contrary was presented. So unless the parts were thoroughly inspected (read: increased production costs and delay), the paperwork says it is a widget, so it is a widget that confirms to a spec, such as, ASTM D3492-16.
Here’s the FAA program:
invadertim
In my experence, its always my fault.
Prosecutors have recommended criminal charges be filed against Boeing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0666zr4010o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0666zr4010o
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
knot4u
Repeat Offender
It's not negligent if it's intentional. Every cert holder from A/P to 121 pilot to 135 charter to 145 Repair Station to Manufacturer assumes the risk of criminal or civil liability based on their actions. Retaliating against folks who speak up about problems during the manufacture of something as complicated as an airliner to favor the stockholders profits and management salaries is intentional. There haven't been any specific charges yet so assuming it's criminal negligence seems presumptive. I told you folks a few months ago this was coming down the pike, if memory serves I was scolded by some folks here. Well, here you go...
Minuteman
“Dongola”
“Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) refers to a defendant who acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived. Another common definition includes an act that amounts to a gross deviation from the general standard of care.”
My question is: how do we fix this?
In my opinion as I've stated many times before, this situation is the result of years of bad management. It's what happens when you blindly follow "shareholder value" trying to appease Wall Street in the short term timeframe with no regards for what happens next. By that point that manager, director, or c-suite has already been promoted for their "brilliant" idea and is never held accountable for the long term consequences of their decisions when the house of cards comes falling down. Boeing is the most blatant example but it's a style that's been rampant in corporate America for decades, just look at GE. You can tank an individual company and let it fail, but they'll just move on to their next victim after pulling their golden parachute. How do you discourage this type of behavior? From the supposed shakeup now at Boeing it all looks like smoke and mirrors but the root priorities don't seem to have changed. Just like Tommasi di Lampedusa said in the closing words of his novel The Leopard: "everything changes so that nothing changes". I don't personally have a good idea how to fix that toxic culture.
In my opinion as I've stated many times before, this situation is the result of years of bad management. It's what happens when you blindly follow "shareholder value" trying to appease Wall Street in the short term timeframe with no regards for what happens next. By that point that manager, director, or c-suite has already been promoted for their "brilliant" idea and is never held accountable for the long term consequences of their decisions when the house of cards comes falling down. Boeing is the most blatant example but it's a style that's been rampant in corporate America for decades, just look at GE. You can tank an individual company and let it fail, but they'll just move on to their next victim after pulling their golden parachute. How do you discourage this type of behavior? From the supposed shakeup now at Boeing it all looks like smoke and mirrors but the root priorities don't seem to have changed. Just like Tommasi di Lampedusa said in the closing words of his novel The Leopard: "everything changes so that nothing changes". I don't personally have a good idea how to fix that toxic culture.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Perhaps the workers, who have the most on the line, should own the means of production.
