Bring it on. Dodd-Frank had 848 pages, and was considered ‚high level‘ still.
Then the agencies had at it and produced thousands of pages of (badly needed) guidance, aided by intense consultation/ expertise from the industry.
Imagine the latter task had been bestowed on lawmakers. Then again, perhaps the plaintiffs have that in mind.
Corrrect. But Congress did NOT specifically detail what, how, when, where, etc those inferior courts could do. You know, like the lawsuit claims about administrating authority to other bodies. Thus, the Supreme Court has the identical problem. ALL lower court rulings are now null and void–per the outcome of the lawsuit.
Heh. When Medicare Pt D was in Congress, I remember the head of the minority party in the committee that was writing the legislation, complaining about how his group had been locked out of the meetings. They were never told, by the leader of the majority party, when meetings were going to be, or where they were held. The minority head resorted to some spycraft, and found out where a meeting was being held. He, and the rest of his group burst into the room, to find a handful of the majority party, with drug industry lobbyists, writing the legislation.
iirc, the crux of the “Chevron” doctrine was that the administrative departments that write the regulations have better technical knowledge of the subject than courts or Congress.
If you take rulemaking away from the departments that have the specific technical knowledge, and give it to Congress, where will Congress turn for the technical knowledge? The experts at the administrative department? Or industry lobbyists?
Steve…things that make you say “hmmm”
I think I’ll hold off until the class action lawsuits pan out. This won’t help either -
I am not exactly sure the point to post this but I have the idea it is to point out that Airbus might have similar issues as Boeing??? But the last line that gets cut off is worth noting if somebody doesn’t open the link…
“ Through 2015, the Airbus A320 family has experienced 0.12 fatal hull-loss accidents for every million takeoffs, and 0.26 total hull-loss accidents for every million takeoffs; one of the lowest fatality rates of any airliner.”
Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett’s passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.
It said the 62-year-old had died from a “self-inflicted” wound on 9 March and police were investigating.
…as opposed to “falling out a window”?
Meanwhile, a 78 en route from Australia to New Zealand, experienced a significant and sudden loss of altitude. Sounds like a typical air pocket to me, but the airline said the problem was “technical”.
I’m suprised I haven’t seen anyone reference ANOTHER Boeing 737-MAX issue that has popped up on the radar. There was an incident with a United 737-MAX traveling from Nassau, Bahamas to Newark on February 6, 2024 in which the pilot reported his rudder controls STOPPED WORKING during landing. Right at the point of touchdown, the pilot realized the rudder controls appeared to be unresponsive. Upon touchdown, the pilot had no lateral control over the plane until the nose touched down, at which point he had to use that gear to keep the plane down the middle of the runway as the plane slowed. By the time the plane slowed to taxiing speed, the rudder controls appear to “unfreeze.” United pilots re-tested the plane a couple of days later and REPEATED the problem.
NBC noted the following about Boeing’s response to the incident:
The airline said the parts involved in the rudder pedal issue are related to a landing feature that was not selected by United and are only present on nine United aircraft that were originally built for other airlines. Those parts have since been replaced.
So exactly HOW “identical” from a flight perspective ARE these planes. “A landing feature that was not selected by United?” I understand why UNITED may not have paid attention to this part problem if these planes had originally been built for another airline before being purchased by United. But why weren’t these parts FIXED by the prior owner? How many other 737-MAXs owned by other airlines have that “landing feature” and haven’t replaced those parts? What ELSE is lurking on these planes that is not IDENTICAL that hasn’t been shared with pilots and maintenance personnel?
Curiously, a different United 737-MAX flight landing in Houston on March 8 ran off the edge of a runway. Original press accounts from Friday were not clear WHERE in the plane’s path from touchdown to gate it was when it ran off the runway. Reports about the incident days later seem to be worded like the pilots misjudged a turn and STEERED the plane while taxiing off into the grass.
Footage in a CBS report from Saturday indicate the plane was traveling at a high rate of speed (e.g. still LANDING, not merely taxiing) and SKIDDED off the runway, leaving skid marks at least 30-40 feet long. That report states “a gear” failed. Not clear if that means “a gear” within the nose-gear steering apparatus controlling direction or “gear” as in an entire wheel assembly (nose gear or left / right rear gear).
The initial description of this runway departure sounded nearly IDENTICAL to the probem encountered by the flight in Newark. Namely, a plane losing lateral control during landing. However, if Boeing and United are to be taken at their word, this Houston incident would HAVE to be unrelated to the Newark incident because Boeing and United publicly stated they replaced all the parts associated with that problem in the eight other planes United purchased from other airlines. That means this could be ANOTHER manufacturing problem with the 737-MAX.
WTH
It’s difficult to keep track of all the issues. Given their serious challenges with QC/QA, it’s not surprising that multiple components / systems would be affected.
This seems like a cultural problem, where quality and safety were sidelined for shareholder profit. With the looming class action, those same shareholders could very well doom corporate leadership.
Always loved that scene.
d fb
What the heck sort of “feature” is a frozen rudder?
iirc the “news” report said another plane was landing right behind the United flight, so the tower told the United pilot to not slow down. implying he took the turn off the runway too fast.
But if the “JCs” win in the SCOTUS, then all these “burdensome, intrusive” FAA regs are invalidated.
But wait, there’s more: Boeing starts contract negotiations with one of it’s unions in a few weeks. Maybe Boeing will simply shutter operations around Seattle, and build a new plant in Mexico, if the Mexican government will pay for it. It doesn’t matter that Mexicans have little experience building airliners. They work for $30 a day, and that is good for profits!
Steve
Local news coverage of the start of negotiations between Boeing and the machinist’s union. Reportedly, the machinists have not had a new contract in 15 years.
I think it is a gamble but should go up a couple of times in value over the next decade. I am not buy it. I do not want to buy gambles.
It has gone nowhere for now.
These findings were part of a six-week audit documented in a set of FAA presentation slides upon which The Times based its report.
The slides said that Boeing had failed 33 of 89 product audits related to 737 Max production, while Spirit failed seven of 13 audits, per The Times.
Good recap of how the deteriorating culture at Boeing has led to their current issues.
Interesting comments in that, like factory floor employees who try to report a problem face retribution. Typical shiny management. I saw that at both the pump seal company and RS. Only tell management what it wants to hear, or face consequences.
As noted before, I have trouble, these days, finding companies that aren’t shrinking their equity, in a stealth liquidation, to “create shareholder value”.
The DC-10 mentioned in the piece? I remember the analysis after one augered in at ORD: cheap, shoddy, design of the hydraulics system, that made the system very fault-intolerant. The L-1011 was much better designed, but then, that was before Lockheed became the shiny fiasco it is now, leaching off DoD, which tolerates massive delays and cost overruns.
Steve
MBA’s find blame. They do zero work at Boeing. It is capital management with a crap attitude. I had not seen the CEO’s shyte statement before.
Capital management should not be a spoiled brat’s pursuit.
quality escape…like calling a worker a prisoner on the factory floor. If you can get an advanced degree but need to relearn English Boeing will take you anyway.
… Asked on Wednesday if EASA would be prepared to stop recognising U.S. approvals declaring that Boeing jets are built safely, Tytgat said: “If need be, yes”.
“If need be, yes” = If the US won’t properly regulate safety, we will.
Boeing is and always has been a high wire act. Failure of a major product investment could sink the company.
Finance and capital management is essential.
We wish them much success and hope they get their act together. Engineers need more say in decisions.