Boeing's greatest need is for new management. If their 'teams' have difficulty understanding the need for the quality as passengers' lives depend on it, how much improvement can these programs really make?
They should have a system where engineers who actually understand the design and build of the planes have final authority on production and scheduling. If management tries to rush and cut costs, they should be able to say no without management overruling them. It used to be an engineering first company. That's what led to dominance, not cutting corners and pushing outdated designs as far as they can go.
Spot on. It takes as long as it takes to make sure it's safe and this needs to be spelled out to airlines in particular who put the delivery schedule pressure on manufacturers to begin with. Akbar Al-Baker from Qatar was a horrific example of this, now fortunately given the boot. O'Leary from Ryanair another one.
The outdated design is their plan for having a less educated workforce. They think they can reuse the engineering from before the merger and everything will be great.
Exactly. Pencil pushers are the bane of engineering companies. The company I worked for had a CEO with Finance background and without the Directors intervention, would have ran the company down. Now she learnt her lesson and is keeping out of the policy decisions.
I worked for a major company that provided All the automotive companies their car parts, and besides Quality walking around checking and taking your part to measure , our supervisors instead of sitting behind a desk would have to go to each station running, take a part and inspect it with the sample part every hour to make sure it was done right. Me being a senior of 14yrs didn’t mind at all, it made me feel good to know I wasn’t passing bad parts to bmw, Mercedes, gm,nissan etc
I worked on the software side in Automotive - very stringent quality standards, especially when working with German companies, those guys had very high standards. I can say that I am proud of the system with developed for/with Daimler, very high quality
Quality escapes are occurring because of management pressure to meet schedules. I am certain this frustrates the line workers who are trying to build quality products. The solution to any problem at Boeing is more training. The problem is that the line workers forced into the long-winded training sessions aren't empowered by Boeing to actually do anything about production schedules. I worked as an engineering subcontractor on a Boeing program many years ago. The problem then was unethical actions by 3 successive, short-term CEOs. Guess who got the training? The poor Boeing engineers I was working with who had done nothing wrong.
Firt we must make sure to not adopt the euphemistic Orwellian lingo like 'quality escape'. Change the language, change the thinking. They are masters at this, behavioral science.
I have an idea : All Boeing staff - CEO, management, corporate, and workers - must fly on the 737 MAX at least once a month, with no exceptions. Their immediate families - partners, children, grandparents etc - must also travel with them. It would be a powerful show of confidence in their product, which is after all completely safe.
Wasn't it the upper management that cut corners and reduced checking to save money? Wasn't that also pointed out by their union representative? Did Boeing not decide to move production to a different location to avoid oversight by the qualified workforce?
Yes Boeing made all of the mistakes you mentioned, but they will never fix this as long as bean counters run the company that is what needs to change, upper management is the problem.
@@johncherish7610 absolutely agree with you. They sacked out almost all of Boeings old management after they merged with McDonald Douglas. They made the choice then that safety was less important than profit. The FAA have been way too lenient with Boeing for a long time. The max series should have been a fully updated version not a rehash with yesterday's technology.
Regarding the 737, Spirit Aerospace, now owned by Boeing, has built the body of the 737 in Wichita Kansas, then the fuselages are put on railroad cars and shipped to Renton Washington for all the remaining assembly. These planes are not built in other locations (non union). Airbus builds the A320 series planes in non union locations such as Alabama and Mississippi and have done just fine. While certainly Boeing screwed up when they merged with McDonnell Douglas, moving away from an engineering centered company to a corporate centered company, moving to a right to work state is the best move any company can make if they want to avoid waste and corruption.
They are good at announcing things, but actually implementing them is something else entirely. That's why the threat of litigation is a wonderful thing. Its the stick part of carrot and stick. The only stick corporations understand is financial damage.
But litigation has done nothing to instigate any change in Boeing even when 300+ fatalities directly related to a systems problem from outsourced engineering ... so that doesn't work.
Boeing has to pay. I thought that would have been obvious. Boeing pays and if they need to increase the price of their planes they'll have to do so. One place where I do empathize with Boeing is that Airbus has an unfair advantage of receiving significant government funding (beyond just gov. contracts, as in actual financing aid to provide the company with liquidity).@@robainscough
@@cplcabs The FAA are conducting a one-time independent review. I am saying that all Boeing aircraft need to always be reviewed independently, whether by the FAA or an independent safety auditor. At the moment Boeing are allowing independent reviews by the FAA every time something goes wrong with their planes, which defeats the purpose of quality control.
If Boeing and Spirit would reward instead of fire production staff who identify issues (e.g., uncalibrated torque wrenches), there could be massive improvements.
The NEW Boeing..... now WITH quality control standards!!! Always good to see voluntary quality control improvements following a 20% loss of company stock equity.
Just like the old days when the execs were caught in criminal activity and instead of the execs being punished the serfs were forced to attend ethics training. No accountability at the top level.
Seems to me that upper management have been the problem all along. Moving from the original location to a new inexperienced workforce to save money has backfired bigtime. Trouble is, Boeing needs a whole new board, lead by engineers, not accountants. Only then will things change. Who these days chooses to fly Boeing if there's an alternative?
Well, lots of companies still choose Boeing with other choices around. AA, UAL, Alaska, and SWA, just to name a few big US airlines. I suspect that Boeing has had to offer bottom-market prices to keep some of that loyalty. Also, airlines see value in keeping their fleet diversified, so that a grounding of one aircraft type doesn’t cripple the company. Oddly, only Boeing products have been getting grounded lately.
@@RobertsonDCCD Actually having diverse airplanes various types in their fleets actually increases training costs for them as for each type of different model of plane they fly requires pilot type certification for each one, pilots must be type certified to fly them. Having only one model reduces training costs. South West only flies 737's for this reason
@@johncherish7610 This is all true. Why then, would UAL, AAL, and DAL all operate models of the 737 and A320 simultaneously? Do they hate money? I think one answer is that they collect these fleet types over time, with different management teams, mergers, and Boeing/Airbus deals prevailing over the years. If training costs were the overriding factor, these airlines would consolidate similar fleets under a single model. Alaska did that recently, but others seem happy to operate Airbus and Boeing side by side. I don’t have a verified reason why they do this.
@@RobertsonDCCD Many airlines have been moving toward consolidated fleets from one manufacturer and often one type of airplane. Southwest has operated only 737's for decades. It saves them a *lot* of money, not only from training costs, but also (and even more importantly) on maintenance and engineering costs. It's *much* cheaper to stock parts for and train engineers and technicians on one manufacturer's airplanes and moreso, on one type of airplane. Alaska has consolidated its fleet now, and others are doing so. The reasons that airlines have diverse feets are several: the route being flown (long distance and passenger demand mean bigger planes are needed), availability (Airbus and Boeing only have so much manufacturing capacity), price (airlines can sometime negotiate very favorable deals based on market dynamics), government regulations/direction (e.g. depending on relations between the US/Europe and China, Chinese airlines will be directed to buy Airbus vs. Boeing airplanes), etc. Commercial aviation is a very complicated business. Whenever you hear people say, "well, Boeing should just do X," or "That airline should just do Y," about 99.9% of the time they don't know what they're talking about.
Increasing the number of quality checks is probably not the best way to go. Ultimately it all hinges on how effective the quality checks are. I remember as a private pilot how ticking off the check list became more or less routine. It was so routine that I may well have overlooked an exceptional case of an item being out of order. Less quality checks but far more effective quality check procedures would be my recommendation!
Quality checks are a sign of useless management. Checks don't improve quality. If a process is able to fail, a check provides a probabilistic opportunity to discover the failure. But it doesn't prevent the failure. Good quality management will build a process that is resistant to producing a flaw. And good quality management is just management. I recall a quote by W. Edwards Deming where he expressed regret that the term "quality management system" was ever coined. The problem is that so many people misunderstand it as "something to manage quality" where the way it should be understood is "a high-quality system of management" which is achieved by embracing the 4 lenses to design sound working processes.
Quality is something that is built into a product, not something that is inspected in. Correct tools and processes are its foundation. QC checks merely show that the production system is working. Attempting to inspect quality into a product is a recipe for failure. One saying in software development is "the probability of undiscovered faults is proportional to the number of faults already found". That is of course assuming that some form of inspection is already happening.
When Boeing hired McNerney the company shifted to the finance guys running the company and when Muilenburg finances become everything pushing engineering and production to the back of the room. There is an old saying, "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Most companies after a while, cut things to save money thinking people won’t notice, fine. But when it risks hundreds of lives that’s not an acceptable thing to ever compromise.
Thats true, but down to what detail? Stripping the airplane to see if all the important bolts have been torqued correctly? They shouldn't have to do that, but it seems with Boeing, they do.
Boeing should do the management 1:1 and look at the achievements of Toyota. Quality of a product is inherent in mindset and process and cannot be inspected or QMS ed into the product
If Boeing or anyone else really wants to know what's going on, go to the production floor and ask the production workers what is going wrong and what they think needs to happen to fix it. Asking any other group is keeping at least one layer away from getting the answers.
Quality starts at the top. Does the plant management team get penalized if they insist on quality and slow down the production line. Do they give the production workers the authority to stop the production line when they see something wrong?
I'm from a different industry, but one of the bases rules here: Quality needs to be already included in development you cannot do it later on by QMS. Your Q.S only ensures your quality stays on the intended level. Or in short: This sounds to me like testing quality in a shitty development: this will always fail.
Probably the most in-depth review of the situation at Boeing you done so far. Not only does Boeing need to be under the microscope so does its suppliers. Just look at the 787 history when many suppliers dropped the quality control ball in the manufacturing process.
Remember, if you work for Boeing and you uncover a safety issue, there is a real danger of being retaliated against if you speak up. Best stay quiet unless you WANT to find a new job.
Alaska Airline plane was delivered last October. It shud be easy to know who was the technician working on the door and his supervisors. Ask them some questions.
@@aliasgertayabali5260 Records dont matter, dozens of coworkers & supervisors wud know who worked on the doors. It is just a few months back, people wud remember.
Yaaaa..but its also the most produced and by far the most flown (hours) .....I am not saying boeing is right but there is also basic Math and Odds to consider.
@@TrentonThomas627 Those crashes were not Pilot error who told you that? The crash was caused by poorly written programs, that were written by inexperienced programmers it was entirely a design problem caused by penny pinching bean counters who hired based on price not quality
Quality control issues are caused by management rather then the rank and file. The management that have been running Beoing over the last 20 years came in from McDonald Douglas Co. These issues were rampant in M.D.'s commercial aircraft division prior their aquitition by Beoing. These issues was never present in Beoing prior to the purchase of M.D.
So called "quality escapes" would never happen if they had a proper QA check process in place for every plane built. The truth is they had no checks in place because they got greedy and complacent.
I am on Alaska Airlines side here. Anything that Alaska Airlines can do to make sure its fleet of airplanes are sound makes good sense for Alaska Airlines. Boeing's mistakes in quality control may be on Boeing but the accident with the Door Plug happened on Alaska Airlines and it makes people wonder about the mechanical aspects and safety aspects of Alaska Airlines Company. If Boeing is cutting costs and not being transparent about what is going on, it makes its customers (airline companies) look bad as well. Passengers also come into play here. As a passenger I need to trust that that plane I am riding on is safe. I don't feel like the industry is safe. When a company changes to one with a 'For Profit' edge, Quality Control slips.
Quality Management is an integral part of achieving compliance in highly regulated industries like aviation. It is hard to overstate the magnitude of, at best negligence and at worst culpable mismanagement, on the part of Boeing since the merger with McDonnell Douglas. The deliberate bypassing of long established quality systems by Boeing management verges on the criminal, if it’s not outright criminal.
Quality lapses should not happen, but when they do, manufacturers must address two questions independently. Why made? Why shipped? Internal defects are impossible to prevent completely, but you want to reduce them as much as possible. Then you need a robust quality control system to catch any defects before they ship. In this way you protect the customer and maintain trust. If you can’t do that then you welcome closer scrutiny. Alaska sending their own inspectors is common practice after a defect outflow or “escape” like this.
It does not have to be about parts. All parts in the affected -9 plug door version are probably conform spec. But the assembly wasn't done right, in this case something was omitted and not checked off for completion. So it's mainly a procedural issue.
Management only cares about their personal stock options and bonuses. Boeing's safety reputation is not one of their priorities! QMS is a data driven metrics system that's only as good as data its fed.... which comes from previously mentioned Management.
What they need to do is replace the leaders with engineers instead of sales people. There i just fixed a critical problem in a multi-billion dollar company.
Sitting here in Paris with a several hours delay... They had to replace one of the rear emergency doors. Looked rather odd to see it missing as I ran to the gate (Air France from Geneva, the only delayed flight). Airbus A330-900 Neo, but I bet everyone is checking their bolts at the moment 😂 (Delta)
@@EuropeanRailfanAlt but he shouldn't encourage people by saying that. Those airlines can easily order boeing in fact allegiant has 737s on the way with the first already had its first flight this week
I wonder how much of Boeings problems stem from moving the headquarters out of Seattle. By moving first to Chicago, and later Virginia, they've made a statement that the focus of the company has changed from great engineering and manufacturing to great politics.
DEI is killing Boeing. When individual qualifications are NOT the primary focus of employing a person, incidents or possibly disasters will soon follow.
That depends on whether you are looking at short or long term trends. They all take a hit in the short term, exactly the opposite from what the shortsighted bean counters desire. In the long run, however, a return to quality manufacturing is essential to Boeing’s future success. I could make the argument that had Boeing never strayed from quality as job #1, we would have far more 737 Max sold, a 777 Max with deliveries, and a 757 replacement in testing/production with a full order book.
As a Manufacturing Engineer, I wasn’t allowed to express what my eyes saw, after receiving vendor inspected products that passed their quality inspection at their factories. It’s part of the procurement process and contracts, which does work provided that what’s received is per engineering. If the part isn’t, too bad, by receiving it and accepting the shipment, its agreement that its per engineering….sort of. This gap in the sending and receiving process is thorny, when contracts are thrown into the mix. Say something and you’re violating who knows what contract and possible millions in litigation.
It is difficult to imagine a product for public use more complex than an airplane. What needs to happen is for airlines to stop pressuring manufacturers re schedules. Manufacturers need to be given as much time as it takes to make sure the aircraft is safe. Period.
To me , someone from maint on 737 NGs , it just seems like the 737 MAX was conceived half heartedly , the NGs are tough and just work you know 14, 17 years hell even 20 years post production where as these new MAX' will not age as well as the old kites , always something with them.
Hi , can you describe what the green paint on outside of the pre-finished fuselage and the white shown in inside shots of the vids . Thanks very much , Neil👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
757. MAX. Redesigned and Streamlined to give the 737 room to breath. Without changing anything on its iconic look, the 737 could be reconfigured for reduced capacities so that the engines can also be less powerful. Indeed, saying "quality control" is getting vague, but there has got to be a meeting of the minds so that the top visionaries can appreciate the labor conditions to respond to all these orders in a timely fashion.
2:19 Boeing says that they have actually increased inspection since 2019 when a company focuses on processes instead of results, they can become complacent. Quality is about results, and not necessarily to adherence / compliance to process. Companies must prove that the given product is fit for use.
So with increased inspection they still failed, apparently increased inspections weren't the answer a DEI hire just checked the boxes on the inspection form without actually inspecting it.
I would think that all airlines would want to have their own team to do checks during the construction process of their new aircraft.... maybe not full on inspection teams... but maybe during major milestone steps have a few times the airline comes in and gets a once over of that phase of assembly... they talk full transparency, so why not be full transparent through all of the different phases of assembly to any airline that wants to do their own independent checks..... in the industry that I work in, we have something similar where as the building process goes on, the client gets real time updates and has the option to come see the work any time.... wouldn't hurt to open an office in the assembly building where representatives for each of the current clients work out of where as their aircraft go through the different phases they can go spot check the work.... be that final "yes its ready for the next phase" eyes on the ground kind of thing...... thoughts??
perhaps a lack of redundancy, you can see from the footage that the workers use power tools to torque fixings. However, is every bolt manually torqued again by a calibrated tool to ensure the correct level of torque has been applied?
As an ex airframe fitter working on live aircraft,I can’t believe the nonchalant attitude by Boeing regarding safety,they need to learn from Airbus where safety is paramount.
I was in Quality Control for 35 years, and Q.C. was always regarded as "Non Value Added Labor." Whenever there were workforce reductions, they hit Q.C. disproportionately ("we don't really need them"). They soon discovered they were wrong. We were constantly saying (yelling) "They don't give them enough time to build them properly, and we aren't allowed enough time to inspect them properly!"
No question they need retrospective QA inspections but long term, they need to review and adjust their manufacturing processes and lead these changes with accountability and quality above all. I do wonder if Boeing has a problem with its workforce as well. 🤔
If Boeing is admitting there were NEVER any controls surrounding the assembly of the door plug to the fuselage, that is shocking and surprising. To think Boeing had no problem assembling such a critical part of the plane with no separation of duties AND risk controls is not a simple quality escape but an unacceptable level of risk for the company and passengers. It demonstrates the current quality assurance leadership does not understand the criticalities of outsourcing manufacture to third-party entities and additional controls required. Someone may NOT be up to the task of leading.
The airlines are so suspicious about the quality, that they order lots of additional ones. I hope they have a look at all the already known quality weaknesses.
@@johncherish7610 If the bolts are not there, but the manual says „tighten them“ and you can’t/didn’t, you should not come with the „not there“ excuse. I know, the plane should be delivered with all parts in and that door plug is not an obvious serviceable part, but now as it‘s known that these pieces might be missing, they should check them. I would question to by stuff of this quality, but everyone has it‘s own priorities.
They need to incorporate all inspections and test Treat everything as level 1 pressure boundary parts even if they are accessory items. And get rid of metric system it doesn’t work.
It's not training for quality, it's trying to rush the build to meet deadlines on the line. If parts are not there at a station the fuselage keeps moving then they play catchup which makes a domino effect in quality. There is a inspection and signoff on when a part gets installed.
One big problem with Boeing AND FAA quality assurance is the lack of separation. Boeing designates employees as FAA coordinators. These coordinators sit side by side in the same room with company quality assurance employees. They all share insights and information. There are no real independent eyes looking at anything. Before an FAA inspection Boeing QA holds hands with FAA coordinators sharing their insights. This is not an independent oversight if someone is influencing the inspection process. Needs to be separation. FAA should stand alone with independent oversight.
Any industry producing complicated products like nuclear power stations or offshore installations will have third party quality inspection and possibly client inspection as well. Why this isn't the norm in aircraft production is beyond me.
Right.... The problem is employees not understanding QMS... not upper management understanding QMS... What did they do to plan, support, staff and finance quality....? So they want to come and beat the slaves in the head now for being stupid... Disgusting....
2:18 Where did Boeing say they increased the number of quality inspections by 20%? Their Jan. 15 statement said that they increased the number of quality INSPECTORS by 20% since 2019, but made no claim in that statement as to the amount of increased inspections.
The biggest improvement at Boeing would be to fire any of the bean counters in the C Suite with execs with an engineering background. The experiment of outsourcing much if the the aircraft was a mistake and they should build the planes themselves It wouldn't have hurt if the executives were close to the facilities where the aircraft are being built.. If there is a report of an issue then it' a short stroll down to the production line to identify and correct the issue before it's sold. If they built toasters then let the headquarters be anywhere. But when you are building something that millions of people trust their lives to, you should be near the final assembly plants. They should have never merged with McDonnell Douglas, but they wouldn't be in this spot if Boeing execs were running the company instead of MD execs.
I remember when Thikol told their Engineers "it is time to take off your Engineering hat and put on your Management hat". The end result. Seven dead people and a destroyed space shuttle.
In all industries it seems to be a race to the bottom, maximize shareholder value, reduce manufacturing cost, and quality is given nothing but lip service. It will come to having to monitor and inspect a car once its produced at the factory, to make sure not too many corners were cut.
It makes sense , it’s the highest runner so although escapes should not happen if robust quality is in place , it’s at the same time the most probable to suffer escapes one could argue. Increasing inspections highlights issues in the process in my opinion and is not a good sign. Inspections should be temporary and should decrease as the product matures, they carry risk of escapes too unless a robot is doing them
QMS is a manual that talks about the process of quality management - that means Boeing must act on those, I'm not convinced they will because they are not audited by anyone so who will question them...
Checking other aircraft at other airlines other than Alaska, finding bolt's loose or missing is an absolute problem. It is an obvious flaw at Boeing, even if the part was made at a subcontractor, Boeing has the ultimate authority of having inspections to verify safety at all cost, no questions. With the FAA's job as enforcing safety, they did not earn their pay and the taxpayers were not given their money's worth. In the aviation industry we have fears of people making profits over safety and when myself and others speak up, we get in trouble and then the aircraft has a catastrophic issue arise. I personally spoke up to the FAA prior to fatal accidents, and I don't think I was taken seriously. It is catastrophically painful to watch fatalities occur when the FAA misses an opportunity to improve safety. I am respectfully and politely stating we all need to work together and move forward with a positive attitude to improve safety for the general public.🙂
Honestly, airlines running their own inspections seems like kind of a good idea. They should hire up whistle blowers and have them run the inspections, lol
Spirit doesn't permanently install the door plug. They temporarily install it Boeing removes it does some work then permanently installs the door plug.
The price of the aircraft should include quality assurance. Like Honda motors,people will pay a premium for a Honda product because they trust their products. Or they don’t in the case of the Chinese products available for a fraction of the cost of quality products
With all this being pushed for and approved by Upper Management, I don't feel like this is really just a "training" problem but more so people's mentality/approach. This is certainly going to be a difficult process going forward (but also definitely need more passenger rail in more countries anyways, far safer and lasts longer than these planes do anyways)
Don't get rid of engineers from your executive board, don't move your HQ halfway across the country from your manufacturing plants and when your CEO is saying (again) how after your latest screwup your have really learned your lesson fire him.
Adding more inspectors or inspection steps may create a new problem: Too many people doing the job results in a 'Who is going to catch the baby problem' or somebody else will do it. The person on the line need to know that it is his responsibility and if he slips up, he personally will get fired.
Boeing's greatest need is for new management. If their 'teams' have difficulty understanding the need for the quality as passengers' lives depend on it, how much improvement can these programs really make?
someone have to resign. he must be in jail.
It would occur to me that if (being sarcastic) more time is spend on QA than the actual manufacturing Process, a Company is in very deep Toddler poop.
boeing can hire more qa wokers when they save ceo's salary.
They are already under new management after the Mcas system right?
@@NhiNguyen-tj4co Yes, the previous CEO was fired after the mcas problems. He also got a 60 million dollar paycheck on his way out.
Maybe don't fire employees pointing out manufacturing defects and assembly issues.
But if there’s no one around to say that there’s a problem then that means that there is no problem.🤡👍
Hire LGBTQ people. They can find any problem in the system and fix it with warm hands.
Management by ostrich.
And don’t fire the senior employees to save a small amount on labor costs.
THIS
They should have a system where engineers who actually understand the design and build of the planes have final authority on production and scheduling. If management tries to rush and cut costs, they should be able to say no without management overruling them. It used to be an engineering first company. That's what led to dominance, not cutting corners and pushing outdated designs as far as they can go.
Spot on. It takes as long as it takes to make sure it's safe and this needs to be spelled out to airlines in particular who put the delivery schedule pressure on manufacturers to begin with.
Akbar Al-Baker from Qatar was a horrific example of this, now fortunately given the boot. O'Leary from Ryanair another one.
Fir any non engineer in mngt.
The outdated design is their plan for having a less educated workforce. They think they can reuse the engineering from before the merger and everything will be great.
"But that'll cost money!" - management, probably
Exactly. Pencil pushers are the bane of engineering companies.
The company I worked for had a CEO with Finance background and without the Directors intervention, would have ran the company down. Now she learnt her lesson and is keeping out of the policy decisions.
I worked for a major company that provided All the automotive companies their car parts, and besides Quality walking around checking and taking your part to measure , our supervisors instead of sitting behind a desk would have to go to each station running, take a part and inspect it with the sample part every hour to make sure it was done right. Me being a senior of 14yrs didn’t mind at all, it made me feel good to know I wasn’t passing bad parts to bmw, Mercedes, gm,nissan etc
I worked on the software side in Automotive - very stringent quality standards, especially when working with German companies, those guys had very high standards.
I can say that I am proud of the system with developed for/with Daimler, very high quality
Quality escapes are occurring because of management pressure to meet schedules. I am certain this frustrates the line workers who are trying to build quality products. The solution to any problem at Boeing is more training. The problem is that the line workers forced into the long-winded training sessions aren't empowered by Boeing to actually do anything about production schedules. I worked as an engineering subcontractor on a Boeing program many years ago. The problem then was unethical actions by 3 successive, short-term CEOs. Guess who got the training? The poor Boeing engineers I was working with who had done nothing wrong.
The management living in their ivory towers in Chicago
Firt we must make sure to not adopt the euphemistic Orwellian lingo like 'quality escape'. Change the language, change the thinking. They are masters at this, behavioral science.
I have an idea : All Boeing staff - CEO, management, corporate, and workers - must fly on the 737 MAX at least once a month, with no exceptions. Their immediate families - partners, children, grandparents etc - must also travel with them. It would be a powerful show of confidence in their product, which is after all completely safe.
This was the best comment !!! Absolutely 💯 % !
Must fly everywhere, not just once a month on the 737 max.
Wasn't it the upper management that cut corners and reduced checking to save money? Wasn't that also pointed out by their union representative? Did Boeing not decide to move production to a different location to avoid oversight by the qualified workforce?
Yes Boeing made all of the mistakes you mentioned, but they will never fix this as long as bean counters run the company that is what needs to change, upper management is the problem.
@@johncherish7610 absolutely agree with you. They sacked out almost all of Boeings old management after they merged with McDonald Douglas. They made the choice then that safety was less important than profit. The FAA have been way too lenient with Boeing for a long time. The max series should have been a fully updated version not a rehash with yesterday's technology.
Regarding the 737, Spirit Aerospace, now owned by Boeing, has built the body of the 737 in Wichita Kansas, then the fuselages are put on railroad cars and shipped to Renton Washington for all the remaining assembly. These planes are not built in other locations (non union). Airbus builds the A320 series planes in non union locations such as Alabama and Mississippi and have done just fine. While certainly Boeing screwed up when they merged with McDonnell Douglas, moving away from an engineering centered company to a corporate centered company, moving to a right to work state is the best move any company can make if they want to avoid waste and corruption.
They are good at announcing things, but actually implementing them is something else entirely. That's why the threat of litigation is a wonderful thing. Its the stick part of carrot and stick. The only stick corporations understand is financial damage.
But litigation has done nothing to instigate any change in Boeing even when 300+ fatalities directly related to a systems problem from outsourced engineering ... so that doesn't work.
@@robainscough What needs to be done is to hold upper management criminally responsible fot it.
@@johncherish7610 I think that is what happened last CEO with the MCAS issue but he lawyered up and nothing came of it.
Boeing needs INDEPENDENT quality control and process auditing. This is so far from a proper response.
Isn't that what the F.A.A. were supposed to be doing?
But someone has to fund "INDEPENDENT" ... who can do that without there being some leverage ... tax payers?
The FAA allowed Boeing to self inspect starting a few years ago. @@cplcabs
Boeing has to pay. I thought that would have been obvious. Boeing pays and if they need to increase the price of their planes they'll have to do so. One place where I do empathize with Boeing is that Airbus has an unfair advantage of receiving significant government funding (beyond just gov. contracts, as in actual financing aid to provide the company with liquidity).@@robainscough
@@cplcabs The FAA are conducting a one-time independent review. I am saying that all Boeing aircraft need to always be reviewed independently, whether by the FAA or an independent safety auditor. At the moment Boeing are allowing independent reviews by the FAA every time something goes wrong with their planes, which defeats the purpose of quality control.
If Boeing and Spirit would reward instead of fire production staff who identify issues (e.g., uncalibrated torque wrenches), there could be massive improvements.
The NEW Boeing..... now WITH quality control standards!!! Always good to see voluntary quality control improvements following a 20% loss of company stock equity.
Just like the old days when the execs were caught in criminal activity and instead of the execs being punished the serfs were forced to attend ethics training. No accountability at the top level.
Seems to me that upper management have been the problem all along. Moving from the original location to a new inexperienced workforce to save money has backfired bigtime. Trouble is, Boeing needs a whole new board, lead by engineers, not accountants. Only then will things change. Who these days chooses to fly Boeing if there's an alternative?
Well, lots of companies still choose Boeing with other choices around. AA, UAL, Alaska, and SWA, just to name a few big US airlines. I suspect that Boeing has had to offer bottom-market prices to keep some of that loyalty. Also, airlines see value in keeping their fleet diversified, so that a grounding of one aircraft type doesn’t cripple the company. Oddly, only Boeing products have been getting grounded lately.
@@RobertsonDCCD maybe lower than market prices ?
@@RobertsonDCCD Actually having diverse airplanes various types in their fleets actually increases training costs for them as for each type of different model of plane they fly requires pilot type certification for each one, pilots must be type certified to fly them. Having only one model reduces training costs. South West only flies 737's for this reason
@@johncherish7610 This is all true. Why then, would UAL, AAL, and DAL all operate models of the 737 and A320 simultaneously? Do they hate money? I think one answer is that they collect these fleet types over time, with different management teams, mergers, and Boeing/Airbus deals prevailing over the years. If training costs were the overriding factor, these airlines would consolidate similar fleets under a single model. Alaska did that recently, but others seem happy to operate Airbus and Boeing side by side. I don’t have a verified reason why they do this.
@@RobertsonDCCD Many airlines have been moving toward consolidated fleets from one manufacturer and often one type of airplane. Southwest has operated only 737's for decades. It saves them a *lot* of money, not only from training costs, but also (and even more importantly) on maintenance and engineering costs. It's *much* cheaper to stock parts for and train engineers and technicians on one manufacturer's airplanes and moreso, on one type of airplane. Alaska has consolidated its fleet now, and others are doing so. The reasons that airlines have diverse feets are several: the route being flown (long distance and passenger demand mean bigger planes are needed), availability (Airbus and Boeing only have so much manufacturing capacity), price (airlines can sometime negotiate very favorable deals based on market dynamics), government regulations/direction (e.g. depending on relations between the US/Europe and China, Chinese airlines will be directed to buy Airbus vs. Boeing airplanes), etc. Commercial aviation is a very complicated business. Whenever you hear people say, "well, Boeing should just do X," or "That airline should just do Y," about 99.9% of the time they don't know what they're talking about.
classic bean counter statement "we will fix this issue by having meetings and blaming the workers on the ground"
Increasing the number of quality checks is probably not the best way to go. Ultimately it all hinges on how effective the quality checks are. I remember as a private pilot how ticking off the check list became more or less routine. It was so routine that I may well have overlooked an exceptional case of an item being out of order. Less quality checks but far more effective quality check procedures would be my recommendation!
Quality checks are a sign of useless management. Checks don't improve quality. If a process is able to fail, a check provides a probabilistic opportunity to discover the failure. But it doesn't prevent the failure. Good quality management will build a process that is resistant to producing a flaw. And good quality management is just management. I recall a quote by W. Edwards Deming where he expressed regret that the term "quality management system" was ever coined. The problem is that so many people misunderstand it as "something to manage quality" where the way it should be understood is "a high-quality system of management" which is achieved by embracing the 4 lenses to design sound working processes.
Boeing has a culture of sacking those who warn of quality problems.
So replace the humans with AI robots? I'm actually on board with that ... except I'd rather see AI robots replacement executive management.
Absolutely!!!
Quality is something that is built into a product, not something that is inspected in. Correct tools and processes are its foundation. QC checks merely show that the production system is working. Attempting to inspect quality into a product is a recipe for failure. One saying in software development is "the probability of undiscovered faults is proportional to the number of faults already found". That is of course assuming that some form of inspection is already happening.
When Boeing hired McNerney the company shifted to the finance guys running the company and when Muilenburg finances become everything pushing engineering and production to the back of the room. There is an old saying, "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Like the old maxim... "Fast - Cheap - Good. You can only pick two."
Most companies after a while, cut things to save money thinking people won’t notice, fine. But when it risks hundreds of lives that’s not an acceptable thing to ever compromise.
It's prudent and common for buyers to inspect their suppliers. To trust is good -- to not trust is better.
Thats true, but down to what detail? Stripping the airplane to see if all the important bolts have been torqued correctly? They shouldn't have to do that, but it seems with Boeing, they do.
Boeing should do the management 1:1 and look at the achievements of Toyota. Quality of a product is inherent in mindset and process and cannot be inspected or QMS ed into the product
If Boeing or anyone else really wants to know what's going on, go to the production floor and ask the production workers what is going wrong and what they think needs to happen to fix it. Asking any other group is keeping at least one layer away from getting the answers.
This is absolutely true. Sadly, Upper management doesn't want to hear from them
Quality starts at the top. Does the plant management team get penalized if they insist on quality and slow down the production line. Do they give the production workers the authority to stop the production line when they see something wrong?
Bonus is based off quantity and stock price. All about the numbers.
Well, that part is outsourced. Depends on what's in the contract. I suppose there are no penalties on delivering faster than agreed...
When you publicly announce you have criteria for hiring employees on features that displace merit, it follows necessarily that quality will decrease.
So if the quality escapes kill more passengers, those people are not dead, but escaped our reality?
They escaped to Cecil the Lions reality
Those people were 'unalived' as is now the correct term.
I'm from a different industry, but one of the bases rules here: Quality needs to be already included in development you cannot do it later on by QMS. Your Q.S only ensures your quality stays on the intended level. Or in short:
This sounds to me like testing quality in a shitty development: this will always fail.
Indeed it can be explained simple as this: no matter how often you inspect a Lada, it will never be as good/reliable/safe as a .
Probably the most in-depth review of the situation at Boeing you done so far. Not only does Boeing need to be under the microscope so does its suppliers. Just look at the 787 history when many suppliers dropped the quality control ball in the manufacturing process.
Quality - or lack of it comes down from the very top level of management. That's where the changes must begin.
Remember, if you work for Boeing and you uncover a safety issue, there is a real danger of being retaliated against if you speak up. Best stay quiet unless you WANT to find a new job.
Is that documented somewhere?
Alaska Airline plane was delivered last October.
It shud be easy to know who was the technician working on the door and his supervisors. Ask them some questions.
It was the one with rainbow colored hair and a ring in her nose. BTW: She is a looker.
More than likely top management told the worker/s to HURRY UP !
The records were overwritten 🤔
@@aliasgertayabali5260 Records dont matter, dozens of coworkers & supervisors wud know who worked on the doors. It is just a few months back, people wud remember.
Quality assurance, it's a safety issue! And no, no other jet in recent history has the number of issues as the 737.
Yaaaa..but its also the most produced and by far the most flown (hours) .....I am not saying boeing is right but there is also basic Math and Odds to consider.
@@pranabgill1310 737s yes but the max has already had 2 crash and its not been sold for very long.
@geofrancis2001 those crashes were also partially pilot error
@@TrentonThomas627 Those crashes were not Pilot error who told you that? The crash was caused by poorly written programs, that were written by inexperienced programmers it was entirely a design problem caused by penny pinching bean counters who hired based on price not quality
@@TrentonThomas627 how can it be pilot error when they were never told the system existed?
Quality control issues are caused by management rather then the rank and file. The management that have been running Beoing over the last 20 years came in from McDonald Douglas Co. These issues were rampant in M.D.'s commercial aircraft division prior their aquitition by Beoing. These issues was never present in Beoing prior to the purchase of M.D.
So called "quality escapes" would never happen if they had a proper QA check process in place for every plane built. The truth is they had no checks in place because they got greedy and complacent.
@BassBrigade2089 -- I'm wondering which supervisors signed off on those door plug installations without even doing a verification of the work done?
Make those executives personally liable for future crashes due to manufacturing negligence , you’ll see them putting much higher priority on safety.
I am on Alaska Airlines side here. Anything that Alaska Airlines can do to make sure its fleet of airplanes are sound makes good sense for Alaska Airlines. Boeing's mistakes in quality control may be on Boeing but the accident with the Door Plug happened on Alaska Airlines and it makes people wonder about the mechanical aspects and safety aspects of Alaska Airlines Company. If Boeing is cutting costs and not being transparent about what is going on, it makes its customers (airline companies) look bad as well. Passengers also come into play here. As a passenger I need to trust that that plane I am riding on is safe. I don't feel like the industry is safe. When a company changes to one with a 'For Profit' edge, Quality Control slips.
I agree Alaska Airlines is cleary not at fault
Quality Management is an integral part of achieving compliance in highly regulated industries like aviation. It is hard to overstate the magnitude of, at best negligence and at worst culpable mismanagement, on the part of Boeing since the merger with McDonnell Douglas. The deliberate bypassing of long established quality systems by Boeing management verges on the criminal, if it’s not outright criminal.
As I said many times, 737max is the new DC-10
Quality lapses should not happen, but when they do, manufacturers must address two questions independently. Why made? Why shipped? Internal defects are impossible to prevent completely, but you want to reduce them as much as possible. Then you need a robust quality control system to catch any defects before they ship. In this way you protect the customer and maintain trust. If you can’t do that then you welcome closer scrutiny. Alaska sending their own inspectors is common practice after a defect outflow or “escape” like this.
It does not have to be about parts. All parts in the affected -9 plug door version are probably conform spec. But the assembly wasn't done right, in this case something was omitted and not checked off for completion. So it's mainly a procedural issue.
Management only cares about their personal stock options and bonuses. Boeing's safety reputation is not one of their priorities! QMS is a data driven metrics system that's only as good as data its fed.... which comes from previously mentioned Management.
The basic B737 bones have been in production for 60 years with 11,000 built and still can't get it right.
The original one was really good, I understand. It's a bit long in the tooth though.
What they need to do is replace the leaders with engineers instead of sales people. There i just fixed a critical problem in a multi-billion dollar company.
That's a lot of pretty words that don't say anything to the real issue: A C-suite that's more concerned with short-term profits than long-term safety.
Sitting here in Paris with a several hours delay... They had to replace one of the rear emergency doors. Looked rather odd to see it missing as I ran to the gate (Air France from Geneva, the only delayed flight).
Airbus A330-900 Neo, but I bet everyone is checking their bolts at the moment 😂 (Delta)
Delta keeping that a330 program afloat.
@@christopherkozal7987 it's a north Atlantic route... Please skip all references to "floating" 😂😂🤦
@@cabanford 🤣
Why did they need to replace it?
Fly Airbus.
How
@@nickolliver3021It's quite easy actually...
In the US, you can fly Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit and JetBlue
@@EuropeanRailfanAlt but he shouldn't encourage people by saying that.
Those airlines can easily order boeing in fact allegiant has 737s on the way with the first already had its first flight this week
@@nickolliver3021 They'd prefer to stay with Airbus to keep fleet commonality
@@EuropeanRailfanAlt nope they've ordered the 737.
Will this dose feel a bit to late. New board and maneger is needed at the top
I wonder how much of Boeings problems stem from moving the headquarters out of Seattle. By moving first to Chicago, and later Virginia, they've made a statement that the focus of the company has changed from great engineering and manufacturing to great politics.
DEI is killing Boeing. When individual qualifications are NOT the primary focus of employing a person, incidents or possibly disasters will soon follow.
Ahhh yes "major changes"
I believe this tune Boeing is singing is starting to sound awfully familiar
Wonder how the extra quality and scrutiny will impact profit margins, production time, delivery delays, and so on.
That depends on whether you are looking at short or long term trends. They all take a hit in the short term, exactly the opposite from what the shortsighted bean counters desire. In the long run, however, a return to quality manufacturing is essential to Boeing’s future success. I could make the argument that had Boeing never strayed from quality as job #1, we would have far more 737 Max sold, a 777 Max with deliveries, and a 757 replacement in testing/production with a full order book.
"Recurring quality escapes", or "Fu@k up's" to us mortal humans.
The DEI hires are doing a great job with the maintenance letting doors fall out mid-flight
As a Manufacturing Engineer, I wasn’t allowed to express what my eyes saw, after receiving vendor inspected products that passed their quality inspection at their factories. It’s part of the procurement process and contracts, which does work provided that what’s received is per engineering. If the part isn’t, too bad, by receiving it and accepting the shipment, its agreement that its per engineering….sort of. This gap in the sending and receiving process is thorny, when contracts are thrown into the mix. Say something and you’re violating who knows what contract and possible millions in litigation.
USDA has inspectors at meat plants. FAA?
It is difficult to imagine a product for public use more complex than an airplane. What needs to happen is for airlines to stop pressuring manufacturers re schedules. Manufacturers need to be given as much time as it takes to make sure the aircraft is safe. Period.
Boeing needs to start be admitting that they are producing aircraft with known flaws..Max and 787
To me , someone from maint on 737 NGs , it just seems like the 737 MAX was conceived half heartedly , the NGs are tough and just work you know 14, 17 years hell even 20 years post production where as these new MAX' will not age as well as the old kites , always something with them.
Hi , can you describe what the green paint on outside of the pre-finished fuselage and the white shown in inside shots of the vids . Thanks very much , Neil👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
757.
MAX.
Redesigned and Streamlined to give the 737 room to breath.
Without changing anything on its iconic look, the 737 could be reconfigured for reduced capacities so that the engines can also be less powerful. Indeed, saying "quality control" is getting vague, but there has got to be a meeting of the minds so that the top visionaries can appreciate the labor conditions to respond to all these orders in a timely fashion.
2:19 Boeing says that they have actually increased inspection since 2019
when a company focuses on processes instead of results, they can become complacent. Quality is about results, and not necessarily to adherence / compliance to process.
Companies must prove that the given product is fit for use.
So with increased inspection they still failed, apparently increased inspections weren't the answer a DEI hire just checked the boxes on the inspection form without actually inspecting it.
Boeing starting to show some consideration for quality. What a change!!!
Didn't they make promises before?
Unless Boeing changes the internal culture when it comes to quality and safety, NOTHING will change. The problems are systemic from the top!
I would think that all airlines would want to have their own team to do checks during the construction process of their new aircraft.... maybe not full on inspection teams... but maybe during major milestone steps have a few times the airline comes in and gets a once over of that phase of assembly... they talk full transparency, so why not be full transparent through all of the different phases of assembly to any airline that wants to do their own independent checks..... in the industry that I work in, we have something similar where as the building process goes on, the client gets real time updates and has the option to come see the work any time.... wouldn't hurt to open an office in the assembly building where representatives for each of the current clients work out of where as their aircraft go through the different phases they can go spot check the work.... be that final "yes its ready for the next phase" eyes on the ground kind of thing...... thoughts??
When will we start hearing about “senior management escapes”?
Move the headquarter back to the factory! Why the management team is working so far from where the plane is made?
perhaps a lack of redundancy, you can see from the footage that the workers use power tools to torque fixings. However, is every bolt manually torqued again by a calibrated tool to ensure the correct level of torque has been applied?
Better late than never.. but risky when you consider that failures can be catastrophic
It might help quality if managers didn't bully their workers into rushing their work according to whistleblowers who left the company and went public.
As an ex airframe fitter working on live aircraft,I can’t believe the nonchalant attitude by Boeing regarding safety,they need to learn from Airbus where safety is paramount.
Was there not long-term issues with QC on the 777 years ago at one of their plants and how Boeing management persecuted whistleblowers?
I was in Quality Control for 35 years, and Q.C. was always regarded as "Non Value Added Labor." Whenever there were workforce reductions, they hit Q.C. disproportionately ("we don't really need them"). They soon discovered they were wrong. We were constantly saying (yelling) "They don't give them enough time to build them properly, and we aren't allowed enough time to inspect them properly!"
Same philosophy that brought us the Ford Pinto and the Corvair
No question they need retrospective QA inspections but long term, they need to review and adjust their manufacturing processes and lead these changes with accountability and quality above all. I do wonder if Boeing has a problem with its workforce as well. 🤔
If Boeing is admitting there were NEVER any controls surrounding the assembly of the door plug to the fuselage, that is shocking and surprising. To think Boeing had no problem assembling such a critical part of the plane with no separation of duties AND risk controls is not a simple quality escape but an unacceptable level of risk for the company and passengers. It demonstrates the current quality assurance leadership does not understand the criticalities of outsourcing manufacture to third-party entities and additional controls required. Someone may NOT be up to the task of leading.
The airlines are so suspicious about the quality, that they order lots of additional ones.
I hope they have a look at all the already known quality weaknesses.
Quality issue, bolts must be there for them to be tightened since no bolts were present in the door plug they weren't tightened
@@johncherish7610
If the bolts are not there, but the manual says „tighten them“ and you can’t/didn’t, you should not come with the „not there“ excuse.
I know, the plane should be delivered with all parts in and that door plug is not an obvious serviceable part, but now as it‘s known that these pieces might be missing, they should check them.
I would question to by stuff of this quality, but everyone has it‘s own priorities.
They need to incorporate all inspections and test Treat everything as level 1 pressure boundary parts even if they are accessory items. And get rid of metric system it doesn’t work.
"Quality escape"? Am I hearing that correctly? What does that mean?
Thank God for the white arrows ,otherwise I would never have spotted that aeroplane !
Finally and that's good 😉💯💯
It's not training for quality, it's trying to rush the build to meet deadlines on the line. If parts are not there at a station the fuselage keeps moving then they play catchup which makes a domino effect in quality. There is a inspection and signoff on when a part gets installed.
The inspection is that some DEI employee checks the boxes at a desk
One big problem with Boeing AND FAA quality assurance is the lack of separation. Boeing designates employees as FAA coordinators. These coordinators sit side by side in the same room with company quality assurance employees. They all share insights and information. There are no real independent eyes looking at anything. Before an FAA inspection Boeing QA holds hands with FAA coordinators sharing their insights. This is not an independent oversight if someone is influencing the inspection process. Needs to be separation. FAA should stand alone with independent oversight.
Replace management. Any other change is a cosmetic charade … it’s just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
Probably the focus should be the safest of the passengers rather than annual profit and share prices.
Any industry producing complicated products like nuclear power stations or offshore installations will have third party quality inspection and possibly client inspection as well. Why this isn't the norm in aircraft production is beyond me.
$$$$$$
Right.... The problem is employees not understanding QMS... not upper management understanding QMS...
What did they do to plan, support, staff and finance quality....?
So they want to come and beat the slaves in the head now for being stupid... Disgusting....
2:18 Where did Boeing say they increased the number of quality inspections by 20%? Their Jan. 15 statement said that they increased the number of quality INSPECTORS by 20% since 2019, but made no claim in that statement as to the amount of increased inspections.
If it ain't Boeing, it'll be something else. Aviation has some pretty strong headwinds.
The biggest improvement at Boeing would be to fire any of the bean counters in the C Suite with execs with an engineering background. The experiment of outsourcing much if the the aircraft was a mistake and they should build the planes themselves It wouldn't have hurt if the executives were close to the facilities where the aircraft are being built.. If there is a report of an issue then it' a short stroll down to the production line to identify and correct the issue before it's sold. If they built toasters then let the headquarters be anywhere. But when you are building something that millions of people trust their lives to, you should be near the final assembly plants. They should have never merged with McDonnell Douglas, but they wouldn't be in this spot if Boeing execs were running the company instead of MD execs.
"Boeing has an accountant as their CEO while Airbus has a test flight engineer as their CEO. I think that speaks volumes about each company."
As an Engineer that also has to work with Boeing as part of my job I will not fly on a Boeing plane at this point.
I remember when Thikol told their Engineers "it is time to take off your Engineering hat and put on your Management hat". The end result. Seven dead people and a destroyed space shuttle.
Its time they checked the emergency exits over the wing ,same technology but hinges on top of the door .
Hope Alaska send Boeing the bill for doing their check jobs! Credit to Alaska for going the extra mile & doing this...
Downtime costs are in the millions per day.
In all industries it seems to be a race to the bottom, maximize shareholder value, reduce manufacturing cost, and quality is given nothing but lip service. It will come to having to monitor and inspect a car once its produced at the factory, to make sure not too many corners were cut.
Well, they achieved neither. Look at the Boeing stock in the last year. Or five.
It makes sense , it’s the highest runner so although escapes should not happen if robust quality is in place , it’s at the same time the most probable to suffer escapes one could argue. Increasing inspections highlights issues in the process in my opinion and is not a good sign. Inspections should be temporary and should decrease as the product matures, they carry risk of escapes too unless a robot is doing them
QMS is a manual that talks about the process of quality management - that means Boeing must act on those, I'm not convinced they will because they are not audited by anyone so who will question them...
Checking other aircraft at other airlines other than Alaska, finding bolt's loose or missing is an absolute problem. It is an obvious flaw at Boeing, even if the part was made at a subcontractor, Boeing has the ultimate authority of having inspections to verify safety at all cost, no questions.
With the FAA's job as enforcing safety, they did not earn their pay and the taxpayers were not given their money's worth.
In the aviation industry we have fears of people making profits over safety and when myself and others speak up, we get in trouble and then the aircraft has a catastrophic issue arise.
I personally spoke up to the FAA prior to fatal accidents, and I don't think I was taken seriously. It is catastrophically painful to watch fatalities occur when the FAA misses an opportunity to improve safety.
I am respectfully and politely stating we all need to work together and move forward with a positive attitude to improve safety for the general public.🙂
Honestly, airlines running their own inspections seems like kind of a good idea. They should hire up whistle blowers and have them run the inspections, lol
@0:40 "It just so happens that the 737...." and the 787, and the Starliner orbiter....
Spirit doesn't permanently install the door plug. They temporarily install it Boeing removes it does some work then permanently installs the door plug.
The price of the aircraft should include quality assurance. Like Honda motors,people will pay a premium for a Honda product because they trust their products. Or they don’t in the case of the Chinese products available for a fraction of the cost of quality products
With all this being pushed for and approved by Upper Management, I don't feel like this is really just a "training" problem but more so people's mentality/approach.
This is certainly going to be a difficult process going forward (but also definitely need more passenger rail in more countries anyways, far safer and lasts longer than these planes do anyways)
Don't get rid of engineers from your executive board, don't move your HQ halfway across the country from your manufacturing plants and when your CEO is saying (again) how after your latest screwup your have really learned your lesson fire him.
Adding more inspectors or inspection steps may create a new problem: Too many people doing the job results in a 'Who is going to catch the baby problem' or somebody else will do it. The person on the line need to know that it is his responsibility and if he slips up, he personally will get fired.