Use code "mentournow" and the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/mentournow

@kennethlilliehook7839

4 ай бұрын

Boeing, Biden and the swedish socialist are all f***ing losers.

@sparky6086

4 ай бұрын

Spirt Aerosystems retired all their experianced employees early during Covid to save money, leaving nothing but an assortment of low paid Millennials & Zoomers who don't know one end of a screwdriver from the other, with no one around to teach them!

@dreimalnein22

4 ай бұрын

Please stop the sound effects, they are horrible on headphones. Maybe ists just the volume. Stresses me out...

@Bob_Burton

4 ай бұрын

It makes me cringe when KZread creators bend their narrative so that they can begin talking about their sponsors products and services in what I imagine they think is a natural way

@mickcraven980

4 ай бұрын

I like your new intro format: Non-obtrusive background music, more succinct introduction, straight into the report. Very streamlined approach.

When the definition of "non-core" is "not highly profitable" you're obviously asking for trouble down the road. Never in his worst dreams would an engineer call the hull construction "non-core".

@starbase218

4 ай бұрын

That particular segment caught my attention too. Apparently, what is core and what is not is determined by the financial performance. Not by the risks involved. Very strange.

@pizzablender

4 ай бұрын

How profitable something is also depends on how you distribute and calculate costs. Obviously, they didn't catch the value of good quality production.

@k53847

4 ай бұрын

This was carefully explained in a 2001 paper by Boeing employee Dr Hart-Smith OUT-SOURCED PROFITS -THE CORNERSTONE OF SUCCESSFUL SUBCONTRACTING, where he pointed out that "any attempt to boost RONA by divesting assets at any one site will be counterproductive - particularly if the best business plan required that all the work be done by a single organization." Like say making the structure of your aircraft....

@Jimorian

4 ай бұрын

Now picture a scenario where Spirit ends up going bankrupt on its own (as many spinoff companies do). Where does Boeing now get hulls?

@johnopalko5223

4 ай бұрын

Exactly. An engineer would never do that. Unfortunately, Boeing is no longer run by engineers. It was taken over by accountants and it's been downhill ever since.

Former spirit employee here. One of my favorite stories of Boeing is when they ran the numbers and decided that it was cheaper to not salt during snowstorms because it’s just cheaper to pay the lawsuits from slip and falls.

@paulmea3166

4 ай бұрын

I used to work for a place like that.

@Blaze6108

4 ай бұрын

Economics moment

@GemmaLB

4 ай бұрын

Lovely ethics, like Ford deciding it was cheaper to pay compensation to victims of the Pinto fires than fix the problem.

@vincentsutter1071

4 ай бұрын

@@GemmaLB and the GM Pickup sidesaddle gas tanks.

@JP-jq1qx

4 ай бұрын

@@vincentsutter1071 that turned out to be a media ethics problem

Whew! I’m glad you eventually said it…”no matter how you look at this, it’s still Boeings problem.”

I have worked at several companys within QC in Sweden. Both private owned, family owned and by the state. To praise finding defects and issues has always been a naturally part of the culture. No matter the financial/delivery delay effects. And that being said, most of the companies did not even manufacture safety-related products. Quality and safety must be the top priority from top management and the board. There is no other way around it.

@mafiousbj

3 ай бұрын

That´s why Saab cars were so good back in the day. Loved those. People called them over engineered, but dam they felt like a product of love and people enjoying their craft, not the soulless mass market product you usually get.

@TheRedc0met

3 ай бұрын

American leadership for manufacturing isn't to the consumers but rather for the investor's ROI.

Boeing has been on a downhill trajectory for some time now. I first noticed it in the early aughts when they made the seemingly boneheaded move of their headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. Separating upper management from the factory floor by half a continent was bound to lead to problems.

@danh6720

4 ай бұрын

Then recently moved it further to VA.

@Gerhardium

4 ай бұрын

Exactly right: it was the beginning of the end as the "serious business people" began to make decisions that defied sensible engineering but increased profits. The process was completed when the MD management took over and brought along their own brand of failure. I knew a few guys in engineering who's dream was a job at Boeing when they graduated in the late-80's: one is still with them but only after he got an MBA.

@y_fam_goeglyd

4 ай бұрын

​@@GerhardiumAn engineer needing an MBA? That's fecked up!

@donwald3436

4 ай бұрын

@@y_fam_goeglyd An engineer who is moving to upper management, that's exactly who an MBA is for, not fresh grads with zero experience lol.

@bartsolari5035

4 ай бұрын

Management could have its office on the assembly line and NOTHING would change

I'm working as aircraft mechanic / licenced aircraft maintenance engineer on both Airbus and Boeing aircraft (several types of each). Airbus has occasional bloopers, but I have never seen as many as with Boeing aircraft. We had brand new Boeing 737NGs which had lots of problems with the enine fire detection systems. It turned out that somebody at Boeing used incorrectly calibrated crimping tools to install the terminal lugs on the wire looms at the detectors. I also remember a brand new B737NG, where we had problems with an engine high pressure fuel shut off valve (essentially the engine did not shut down when the pilots turned the fuel lever off, the spar valve closed, but the engine kept on running until the fuel in the fuel line from the wing to the hydromechanical unit was used up, about 2 minutes). It turned out to be a loose Cannon plug (where the wires leave the pressurised fuselage to go into the wing leading edge, under the wing to body fairings). the plug was installed cross threaded. Somebody signed for the installation and somebody else for the inspection.

@zeitgeistx5239

4 ай бұрын

That’s American brain rot neoliberalism for you. Jack Welch destroyed American manufacturing by pushing short term profit at all costs and not doing long term planning. His managers went to McDo and then merged with Boeing. This is how GE is a shadow of its former self and Intel on life support. Internationally American manufacturing is seen as a joke.

@1hatep1ck1ngnames

4 ай бұрын

Thank you for that detailed comment, which is also interesting for all those whataboutism comments about Airbus.

@theinfinitymachine9610

4 ай бұрын

This is really insightful information, thank you for sharing. I wish more of these maintenance check are logged so we can see the percentage of failure between the two airlines. Your job is so important that it would make sense to build redundancy and have several mechanical checks.

@AC-yg9zf

4 ай бұрын

I am curious to know how Boeing check & monitor competency of Staff, and how thorough their Readiness Reviews are conducted prior to transitioning to the next stage of design, tests and manufacturing.

@Time.for.a.new.september.11

4 ай бұрын

American crap

This is a excellent case study on when you outsource, then apply cost reductions to the supplier, eventually things just don't get done.

@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg

4 ай бұрын

RailTrack subcontracted track repairs, leading to the Potters Bar crash.

@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg

4 ай бұрын

Jarvis were the firm mainly to blame. 6 people died so they could maximise profits. Nobody went to jail. When jail is a threat, you may see better behaviour.

@richardmccaughey5928

3 ай бұрын

This is the result of the modern corporate mind set. Profits above all. Keep the stockholders happy and make sure those multi-million dollar bonuses (linked to stock price appreciation) for the executives keep rolling in. That Boeing subcontracts the manufacture of the entire 737 fuselage is mind boggling. When shit happens, Boeing conveniently points the finger at Spirit, a creature of their own making by the way.

@HaroldBrice

3 ай бұрын

To @Editsjidanger: I object, Your comment is assuming "facts" not in evidence. In FACT, they are not facts at all. They are incorrect assumptions. The specific problem with Alaska 1282 and the door plug that gave up and departed the aircraft mid-flight did start with something at Spirit not being done correctly. When the plane was back at Boeing and the plug had to be removed in order to correct some rivets that Spirit had bungled was when the missing bolts on the door plug occurred the responsibility shifted back to Boeing. It is probably right that when cost is an overriding factor and people cannot keep up the quality at that speed then it IS a problem. It always costs more to fix a problem than to do it right the first time. We just need to find people who will put out the extra effort to care enough to do it right, the first time, whether Boeing, Spirit, or all. So now we know it WAS a bad idea for Boeing to sell part of their company to Spirit.

@Editsjidanger

3 ай бұрын

Dude that is my point, Spirt caused the rework, non standard process. This increases risk, I always drill down to the root cause.

I work in an industry that has a high safety consequence and IMO, there is a higher appetite for risk, among senior management and executives, in an effort to enjoy short term gains. Safety and design margins are taking a back seat to share price, more now than i have ever seen.

@EM-rm2xh

3 ай бұрын

Late stage capitalism and lack of unions.

@elilass8410

3 ай бұрын

CEOs blame DEI instead and idiots believe them.

@mikeall7012

3 ай бұрын

@@EM-rm2xh I work in a union heavy field in union heavy states. Some are great but a lot are worthless.

@marquisdelafayette1929

3 ай бұрын

@@Begeye-bh5uxthe CEOs do everything they can to increase short term gains because by the time consequences happen, they are somewhere else after leaving with a big fat bonus. Like Caterpillar (the construction company) rushed an employee through training and had outdated and /or no safety equipment. 9th day on the job he fell into a thing of molten iron. OSHA fined them $140,000, less than an hour of profits. Meanwhile, his fiancé and kids are left with nothing. Or the kid near me who was 16 and operating a wood chipper and got pulled in partially. Was alive long enough to be medevac’ced to the nearest trauma center. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and he didn’t live anyway, but they are the ones left holding the bag. The employer is crying poor.😂 Just long enough to hide anything valuable.

Turning Boeing Wichita into Spirit was an incredibly bad idea, but even worse was moving Boeing HQ to Chicago. This removed the upper-most layers of Boeing away from manufacturing which caused two main corporate cultures to form: one in Chicago focused on all matters financial, and one in Seattle focused on meeting the performance numbers set by Chicago. This was a recipe for disaster which we're now seeing up close. The best practice for any manufacturing company is for the people on the manufacturing floor to show management what's going on.... "hey, Mr. Exec. VP this is Ralph over in Wing-box Assembly. We got an issue and I want to show it to you and see if you can help us figure it out before it becomes a real problem." That's a doable thing when HQ and Manufacturing are in the same city. Not so much when separated by 1200 miles. As a former CEO of an equipment manufacturing company I can't tell you how many times the engineering manager, a shop foreman, or even a welder would grab me and make an issue known so I could do my job -- which was to enable everyone else in the company to do their jobs, and do them right.

@NicolaW72

4 ай бұрын

Indeed a very good point.

@landnnut

4 ай бұрын

@mikeceranski5868 You are an exceptional CEO to have been willing to talk to one of your welders to solve a problem.

@cr10001

4 ай бұрын

@@landnnut Not running Mr Ceranski down, but I think many CEO's of middling-sized engineering companies would - and certainly should - be accessible to be made aware of production issues.

@XShifty0311X

4 ай бұрын

The execs moved the HQ even further away. They are now outside of DC.

@twig3288

3 ай бұрын

I believe the move was due to government incentives.

Bottom line is that boeings quality control signed off on an unsafe aircraft. When boeing starts rewarding people who find issues regardless of the cost to boeing(like they did many years ago), then and only then can their QA be trusted again.

@patrikfloding7985

4 ай бұрын

And the potential cost up front is way, way lower than the actual cost later of grounding the fleet for months and months. But the CEO may already have cashed out by then.

@SirVerdown

4 ай бұрын

Yeah at the end of the day Boeing holds the responsibility for signing off on it knowingly.

@VishnuAi

4 ай бұрын

Simply dont fly boeing, problem solved

@erichusmann5145

4 ай бұрын

This. I used to work in the aerospace industry. Had a QA who had limited experience in my working area flag an issue that ended up scrapping a part. I asked my supervisor to put a bee in his supervisor's ear about an on-the-spot award, because a) dude had limited experience with the tools used, b) the issue was found at a time that we saved money (and parts) by snagging it right then, and c) he'd spotted something that the engineers were all over quickly because "we haven't seen THAT before!". That's the kind of QA Boeing needs, and the kind of attitude they need.

@garybrown1404

4 ай бұрын

Incentives for quality upon which passenger safety depends.

Absolutely agree with all points. Trust is easy to lose and extremely hard to gain back. Any issue with any Boeing aircraft, even the lost wheel on the over 20 year old Delta B757 is highlighted by the media as "another Boeing problem". It will take a long time for Boeing to recover.

@kenmohler4081

4 ай бұрын

That is assuming that current Boeing management even wants to recover if that recovery effort would reduce the profit margin.

@johnaustin6853

3 ай бұрын

I agree. I understand that the DC10 was a great aircraft...but several early and spectacular accidents, caused mainly by a faulty cargo door design, led to it being avoided by passengers. Following redesign of the cargo doors the hulls that were built and sold went on to a long service life with a good safety record....but the 'DC' brand was tarnished forever. The next product was the MD-11, an improved DC-10, but even that only sold ~200 hulls. Trust was lost.

@HaroldBrice

3 ай бұрын

Yes, very typical of the way so many people respond to their world. So many folks are unable to think for themselves.

As a former glider pilot turned English teacher it is very inspiring to hear how much your English has improved since you started this channel 👍🏼 Keep up the good work ✈️

@davidpereira9238

3 ай бұрын

Better not read the comments then, you'll blow a gasket

@PauldeSwardt

3 ай бұрын

I look forward to the quirky way he pronounces J's ! 😎

This is the type of problem when bean counters / finance takes control of what should be an engineering focused company. We have the shareholders to thank for this sort of debacle..

@omgsrsly

4 ай бұрын

Well, mismanagement is one thing. But on the other hand those bean counters don't manufacture anything. Potentially underqualified workers with a shit attitude are responsible for doing a bad job in the first place.

@bryanstephens4800

4 ай бұрын

Exactly

@94XJ

4 ай бұрын

@@Plutogalaxy Big shareholders can sue a company for not hitting expected profit goals pushing a company away from what could be more expensive but higher quality practices in favor of pushing up profits and thus share prices. Spending a lot of money on quality production can also result in handing over even more money in settlements and then also doling out some of that money in the (obviously smaller) share price increases as well. In the modern market, focusing on quality over profitability can bankrupt a company even if it would have traditionally made a profit. Are you responsible? No...but some of those 401k funds? Yeah...they share some of the blame because they're the ones posing the financial threat if targets are missed. Edit - I was thinking about this in the shower and how easily this concept can be misunderstood so let me try to clarify. A company wouldn't necessarily be on the hook if there was a downturn or something...so it's not like you can sue for money lost during a recession (well...ehh...so many nuances let's just keep moving :D). Instead, say Boeing kept the full manufacture of the 737 in house, spent tons of money making everything perfect and sales were what we'd expect from a new, trouble free 737. Airlines love the commonality, similar type rating, etc. The true golden standard. Yet, if through this success large volume shareholders (who have a lot of say in the company, mind you) see that while they're getting a positive ROI, Boeing had opted to not make decisions to prioritize profits say, though splitting off the fuselage manufacturing to a 3rd party where expected quality and production rates are equivalent but costs could be lower, THEN shareholders can and have sued companies for failing their "duty" to the shareholders to make the most effective use of their money and provide the largest possible returns. The weird world of corporate finances when figures are in the billions doesn't run the same way most people budget. Income can be counted without receiving a single penny, debts can be filed away somewhere for a more opportune time and shareholders with zero expertise in the industry have a loud voice amplified directly by each dollar.

@wolfumz

4 ай бұрын

Boeing is a brilliant example of being penny wise and pound foolish. They pulled all these crazy tricks all so they could save a little bit of money in the short term, and the cost of ever making a safe plane again. And here we are again, they're losing billions of dollars, and it's totally self inflicted. The wild part to me is how Boeing leadership and the executive class refuses to learn their lesson. The 787 was a nightmare and went overbudget due to boneheaded outsourcing decisions from senior management that didn't adequately consider long term costs... These idiots had a hugely successful airplane and still lost money, because of bad management. Then the Max killed all those people. That was so bad, the DOJ was going to charge them for criminal fraud. Boeing had committed fraud. But the CEO of Boeing personally met with President Trump in late 2020, and after that, DOJ immeadiatly decided to relent. Boeing signed a deferred prosecution agreement instead. And now, this. The leaker/whistle-blower said, Spirit (run by a former Boeing executive, was formerly part of Boeing in 2007, and whose single customer _is_ Boeing), they had so many QA problems with bad parts, that they had full-time staff at the Boeing floor to fix their mistakes. The whistle-blower said, in a healthy system, if you get a 9-12, mistakes like this, you go back to your supplier and give them a "come to jesus" style meeting, and take steps to ensure there are no more mistakes. Boeing let it slide so that there close to 400 bad parts over the last 365 days. So it was bedlam. It's no wonder something slipped through, in a torrent like that. They have been able to use their status as a monopoly to get out of trouble for decades. These guys in executive management won't learn their lesson. I think Boeing needs to be broken up. Awarding them monopoly status was a mistake, and its led to a company that, like all monopolies, can ignore market discipline.

@PRH123

4 ай бұрын

Shareholders play no role in the operation of a company. They are anonymous traders electronically buying and selling around the world. They have no interest in participating in the operation of a corporation. The stock price is their assessment of how well they think a company is performing. “Boeing’s largest shareholders include Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock Inc., Newport Trust Co, State Street Corp, Fmr Llc, VTSMX - Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares, Capital World Investors, VFINX - Vanguard 500 Index Fund Investor Shares, Capital Research Global Investors, and Loomis Sayles & Co L P .”

I find corporate executives to be amoral scum of the earth quite willing to sacrifice your safety for the "bottom line". As a Senior Staff R&D engineer me and my fellow worker got caught up in some of this shit. They wanted us to sign off on faked numbers. They knew they were faked and so did we. Good thing my co-worker was a retired full bird AF Colonel. We were having meetings with corporate everyday for a week before my buddy figured it out and gave me a heads up before the next meeting. Of course our "pal's" at corporate assured us they'd cover for us. So the meeting starts and my buddy said, "Sure, fine, will sign the documents as soon as you send us both an EMAIL ordering us to do so. The meeting was over within a minute and no further requests were forthcoming. If some don't quite get it, never trust those snakes. They'll throw you under the wheels so fast ya won't know what hit you.

@justkittensbeingkittens5892

4 ай бұрын

Jesus… that’s pretty scary

@TheUnforgiven69

4 ай бұрын

I can tell by your poor grammar you are not, nor have you ever been, what you claim. You are not an educated person.

@uslaserguideddemocracyseed1039

4 ай бұрын

And then hire burger flippers to build their aircraft.

@Shade_Tree_Mechanic

4 ай бұрын

That's pretty much what Spirit is doing right now. I believe Blancolirio said something like 60% of their workforce are now "inexperienced" new hires. ​@@uslaserguideddemocracyseed1039

@brandonbrown4819

4 ай бұрын

@@uslaserguideddemocracyseed1039 It was most likely undocumented maint, that caused the door plug issue!! Someone pulled the plug to perhaps ease putting the interior back together, and didn't write it up!!

In my view, this is your most exceptional and thorough video to date. Thank you from a retired aerospace propulsion engineer and, hopefully, a heeded call for a better and more honest culture in all of manufacturing.

@tjroelsma

3 ай бұрын

To use an old but still very relevant proverb: you get what you pay for. Boeing has been penny-pinching for decades now and even manufacturers like Spirit have had to accept lower prices for the products they deliver to Boeing. Those price-cuts lead to cuts at Spirit as well and QC is one of the most obvious to go first, as many processes simply can't be done cheaper. Lower QC at Spirit should in theory be immediately noticed by Boeing QC, but guess where Boeing also made severe cuts? In the end it's a simple equation of cause and effect: pay less, get less and if on top of that your own QC isn't up to scratch, your planes start failing. And the ultimate irony is that this might be the definitive blow for the 737 Max, as the one thing both airlines and their customers see are failing 737 Max's.

A few days ago flown from İstanbul to Belgrad on 737 MAX. When realized the aircraft type became a little bit nervous. After the takeoff i was happy that seemingly MCAS didn't engage and we were not flying into the ground. When reached altitude 15000 ft and all the doors were still at their places i finally fell asleep with happy smile on the face. Nothing more to worry about.

@Enkaptaton

4 ай бұрын

this is both heavy sarcasm and maybe the truth

@markusstudeli2997

4 ай бұрын

Even if they don't admit it, that's probably what goes through lots of people's minds when flying with a MAX nowadays. If they are following the news.

@scottaustermiller2412

3 ай бұрын

Sounds like we were the real winners here. Definitely don't want anything untimely to happen to you.

@twig3288

3 ай бұрын

I think I will always try to avoid the Max

@ThorstenKreutzenberger

3 ай бұрын

737 also suffers from sudden uncommanded rudder hardovers. Several deadly crashes resulted which cannot be explained until today. Just wanted to keep your excitement up haha.

I trained as an Airframe Technician at Short Brothers in Belfast, 1980 apprentice intake. Short Brothers was eventually bought by Bombardier and a few years ago Spirit Aerosystems took over the Belfast assembly plant. I remember that when I was working at Short Brothers, we were always told about how great Boeing was and they were the apex of quality. It's so sad to see such a decline, which I personally believe boils down to sheer greed on the part of a ruthless corporate mentality.

@allangibson8494

4 ай бұрын

Boeing got taken over by McDonnell Douglas in the 1990’s and imported McDonnell’s corporate culture - the same company that had multiple doors blow out of aircraft.

@thereissomecoolstuff

4 ай бұрын

You realize it was 4 bolts. You realize no one died. Your realize Boeing doesn’t make the fuselage. They arrive in Renton by rail. The fuselage’s unfortunately are often damaged and vandalized enroute to assembly. The door wasn’t caused by vandals. We have never been given a number of aircraft affected by loose hardware.

@allangibson8494

4 ай бұрын

@@thereissomecoolstuff You realise Boeing stated that it was their mistake. They opened the door plug and didn’t check that it had been reinstalled correctly because the procedure they had didn’t include a step to check the bolts were reinstalled and no one flagged them as missing before the cabin interior was installed, by Boeing which made the bolts impossible to check in service without dismantling the cabin interior. (Simply accessing the bolts requires removing three rows of seats and over fifty screws to remove the interior lining). So - not Spirit’s fault, Boeing’s. The buck stops with Boeing. Training all your staff to report “deviations” that aren’t in their job and encouraging them to do so is a key to good quality and safety. BTW - damaged fuselages don’t get “fixed”, they get scrapped. Just like cars that get damaged in transit (although some car dealerships have been known to sell cars damaged after delivery as “new”).

@thereissomecoolstuff

4 ай бұрын

@@allangibson8494 they do not scrap a fuselage if it’s damaged enroute unless it is significantly damaged. They have all kinds of things that happen to them. It’s well known. I still haven’t heard a number of actual planes with issues. That’s the ultimate transparency we all need either from the company or the FAA or airlines.

@allangibson8494

4 ай бұрын

@@thereissomecoolstuff They turn damaged fuselages into flight simulator cockpits…

Blancolirio went into some detail about Spirit and Boeing's different and incompatible bug tracking systems. It sounded like the workflows defined for the plug door were the same as for an operational door. The workflow for a "door opened" event did not include a step for inspecting the retention bolts, while the workflow for a "door removed" event included that step. The problem is that for a plug door "opened" == "removed". The scary part is how many other bad workflows are currently defined in their systems?

@Mentaculus42

4 ай бұрын

If the “information leak” that was divulged at Leehamnews is confirmed, then it actually was caused by “SPIRIT WARRANTY WORKERS THAT ARE AT BOEING”! If the information is correct, and it does seem to have the “feel” of authenticity, then the “culture issue” has possibly morphed into something more “intense” with some “factions” at Spirit actively and purposefully trying to push sub-quality products through. Like warranty workers purposely painting over faulty rivets identified by Boeing. As this was mentioned by Blancolirio and he spent a complete video talking about this information and linked to the source material but interestingly did not make it clear where this information came from in the video. This same information was covered at another site.

@NicolaW72

4 ай бұрын

Indeed, I watched it, too, it´s a disturbing and dangerous Quibble what has happened here.

@alphalunamare

4 ай бұрын

Having two quality systems is bad engineering. Boeing Engineers and Spirit Engineers 'on site' at boeing speak different Quality Languages! That is just plain crazy.

@deadbrother5355

4 ай бұрын

I believe what he spoke on were SATs and CMES. Spirit doesn't have access to cmes because you have to be a boeing employee to access it. CMES has all the technical drawings and critical qa and mechanic buy offs. I would imagine spirit has no access to this because you can look up other drawings beside what you're working on. There is sensitive info in there.

@alphalunamare

4 ай бұрын

@@deadbrother5355 Human life is prety sensitive as well. I think that they need to take the sensitivity out of safety and make Safety and ideologcal necessity. Part of Their Mission Statements in fact.

At a Boeing supplier I worked at, I was utilized as a FAA Repairman Inspector (since I have an FAA Airmen license) towards the end of the month, instead of day to day Repair & Overhaul responsibilities. Occasionally I did need access to Boeing online BQM requirements, which meant getting an engineer to get me into the site, or get me the information I needed to adequately inspect and pro-forma the 8390 in order to ship the part. Sometimes this has to be done on the production floor too. Cradle phase, ATP, with ambiguity issues, or interpretation problems of maintenance assembly, or repair procedures the 4790 will lead you back to the aircraft manufacturer requirements. This sounds like a Murphy Law instance where the door plug can be removed and re-installed according to two different inspection processes, Spirit, or Boeing.

@pickpac1

4 ай бұрын

It is well known in this industry, in the quality departments at least, that "repair" and "rework" have different meanings, I was once on a Matrrial Review Board, MRB, and learned this. Repairs are NOT to drawing specifications, Boeings process for these are Deviations bought off by engineering. Rework designation ARE made to print specifications. Most of what we call "depot" or field returns are coded as repair, I can't stress enough in the definition of both when deciding application

Thank you for the excellent in-depth videos. I am a retired AME from the Canadian helicopter industry. I started in 1975 and it was apparent early on the only protection (albeit a small protection) we maintenance types had from unscrupulous employers was government regulations and inspectors. Around 2008 the Safety Management System was brought in by Transport Canada and I saw some good value in the system, but the potential for abuse by commercial companies was immediately seen by those of us in the industry. To allow commercial companies to self regulate the very items that affect their financial bottom line is counterintuitive. Actual government inspector interaction with maintenance organizations was reduced to reviewing the safety system the company had put in place. Gone were the days of a government inspector actually looking at an aircraft…..the fox is now guarding the hen house.

I think it is Boeing. I am a native Washinton resident and I've watched this unfold over the last 2 decades like a slow motion train wreck. I think it does go back to the greater emphasis on speed, cost, and profit over safety in general. They spun off the subcontractors to save money with non-union labor. They built the new plant for the Dreamliner in South Carolina because it's a non-union state. They've been cutting inspection personnel and speeding up production lines even though it forces workers to cut corners and take shortcuts. And it did all start after the McDonnell Douglas merger. To the extent that this is a Spirit quality control problem it still goes back to Boeing. They are the ones who pile on the pressure for a high rate of production no matter what the effects on safety.

@paulkoza8652

4 ай бұрын

I could not have said it any better. You hit the nail on the head.

@davidcole333

4 ай бұрын

You were okay until you said the comment about speed over safety. That's a very serious and broad claim a lot of people make but can't or don't back it up. It's just an opinion or accusation. Where does pressure for speed truly come from? The customer. You have to meet customer expectations or you have no customer and ergo no company. I dare say that liberal, lazy, union workers are a larger issue than an assumed corporate culture of greed.

@Wargasm54

4 ай бұрын

It’s definitely Boeing. Even if a sub contractor does work, Boeing is responsible for signing off on it upon acceptance.

@darter9000

4 ай бұрын

I think every corporation is favoring speed/profitability over safety-it’s just that regulations, technologies, and the vaporization of the moral fiber in the boardroom has made it easier to test the boundaries of “safe”

@JuffoWup78

4 ай бұрын

@@davidcole333 So you are saying speed is a customer problem? Because what I see is Boeing setting the expectation. The customer can't demand more speed if the company tells you they can only delivery x units per month and in signing at that moment would put them at this x months after production. Boeing is the one that set expectation on production, not the customer. Want to know why your box gets punted around no matter if it is shipped by ups, fedex, or dhl? Same thing, they have set an expectation to you that it'll arrive anywhere else the next day. So employees are told to work faster and harder to get it all moved and sorted and back on the next plane as short as possible to make the next flight for that next day delivery.

As usual an excellent presentation by Petter. It seems to me that Boing are missing an absolutely key element if their “solution”( at 19:20) is limited to more inspections, reviews, and meetings while not focussing on rewarding or promoting employees who raise quality problems and firing or demoting managers who fire or demote their subordinates for raising problems.

@JSmith73

4 ай бұрын

So much this. Surface level patching vs root level repair.

@davidcroxton8306

4 ай бұрын

At some point, I think it's about the difference between a patch/repair and a fix. The patch/repair often doesn't address the cause of the problem. A FIX tries understand the problem and change things to completely prevent it recurring. The ultimate test is TIME.

@Gregorius421

4 ай бұрын

The solution to a culture problem - as usual - is at the source of the problem, which is the managers (middle and top) who created that culture. Replacing those is never done until a company crashes, so this problem won't be fixed and we'll see more and more accidents until the world stops buying Boing, it goes bankrupt and the management is replaced. The timeframe for this is decades, after all this cash before safety culture has been growing since the McDonnell Douglas merger, thanks to their managers taking over. As they say McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money.

@Anonymous______________

4 ай бұрын

There's a much easier solution stopping hiring people on the basis of immutable characteristics (aka diversity) in favor of competency. I am willing to bet these repeated mini-disasters are the direct results of years of competency erosion due to diversity and inclusion. Diversity has a price and it may one day be your life.

@Richard-dc5he

4 ай бұрын

Both MCAS and these production issues have the same underlying culture problem as the cause. They're only looking at numbers, and treating the numbers as the important thing - regardless of the effect on the actual quality of the product. They outsourced major parts of the manufacturing, and have set all their targets based on numbers, not actual quality. You can often do that with mass-produced products because you can take a representative sample from a delivery and take it completely apart looking for 'batch' defects and detect issues like a moulding tool that's wearing out before it actually causes a quality problem. Airframe manufacture doesn't work like that. Boeing _need_ their supplier to perform good inspections _and find issues_. Yet they're setting targets based on minimising the number of issue found - thus directly encouraging Spirit (et al) _not_ to inspect.

I remember some time ago a whistlblower reporting that Spirit was drilling the frame and hull holes crudely, by hand, ignoring specialized cnc fixturing that was contractually specified.

As a machinist and part of quality control I can tell you that management at 2/2 of the shops I've worked it have an attitude of 'we make parts, it's the customers job to catch mistakes'. The people with tools in hand will, for the most part, be as lazy as their supervisors let them, yet can only make as good a part as their equipment can. I.e, if management buys cheaper drill bits yet expects them to last as long as the higher quality ones, theres not much the employee can do.

@bradleyross2274

2 ай бұрын

This was at another aerospace company, but my manager actually said that we don’t record the finding of software bugs unless the customer files a complaint. This was in reference to a Y2K bug found in the 1980’s. I was also told by multiple managers that I would never get anywhere so long as I cared anout the quality of the products.

"Making aicraft fuselages is not our core business" ~ Major aircraft design and production corporation

@kaasmeester5903

4 ай бұрын

"Focus on our core business" has been the mantra of the MBA bred manager for decades now. The idea behind it is sound: don't do stuff yourself if others can do it better or cheaper. It's a problem if you start believing that the other guy is always better and cheaper. Sometimes you're the best and you can capitalize on that. - Western companies: "Not our core business" - Asian companies: "Good business is where you find it. We do cars, ships, consumer electronics, cosmetics, and rubber dog poo"

@rhetorical1488

4 ай бұрын

Airlines no longer consider flying planes as core business. they loose money on flights. they have literally become credit card companies selling packges to frequent fliers.

@CW-rx2js

4 ай бұрын

I am an MBA and I would have never gone for that​@@kaasmeester5903

@SafeBandicoot

4 ай бұрын

@@kaasmeester5903 exactly. Take Hitachi for example. My wife love her Hitachi Magic Wand massager and I love their excavators. They also do nuclear power plants.

@pizzablender

4 ай бұрын

Sending the invoice is what makes the profit, right? The rest is all very difficult and only costs money.

When you see one cockroach on the floor, this means that there's a hundred of them in the walls that you don't see. Likewise, when such a serious defect makes its way to the public eye, this must mean that there are deep cultural issues in the production line that we don't see.

WOW!!! Petter, you nailed it here completely. From the MacDac merger, selling off what because Spirit, to Boeing BEING COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE for the performance of their sub-contractors. What was TOTALLY AMAZING to me that I didn't know is that Boeing had already put Spirit under "probation" but did nothing to help Spirit fix their quality issues NOR did they increase inspections on incoming Spirit parts.

As a retired ME and SQE Supplier Quality Engineer for UTC, Honeywell, and Boeing, you said it yourself. The issue is NOT the mistakes. The issue is the "BACKSLIDING". Engineers and people in the shop must "systemically" be able to have quality concerns elevated up the chain of command, to a proper resolution. It doesn;t matter who owns Spirit. As long as problems are ignored, your quality system defaults to waiting until ulta expensive disasters happen. It is cheaper to shut the plant down for a week, than have a plane crash and the FAA shuts down everything for a year. Remember, the MCAS problem was known, per the written record, for years before the two crashes.

The air travel industry and the nuclear power industry are similar in their pursuit of eliminating problems. There are things here that remind me of a bad week we had at the power plant in which my crew had two errors in two nights. These errors were inconsequential in their effects, but we had to figure out if there was a bigger problem. We all were present in a meeting while we discussed it. We laid out what had happened, and tried to figure out if these were isolated incidents, or if we had a systemic problem. The almost everyone on the crew agreed these were unusual, isolated incidents that probably wouldn't happen again. The two supervisors polled everyone at the table and they were unanimous in this conclusion...until they got to me. I said both errors were the result of people putting more attention on doing the things quickly instead of correctly. I reminded everyone that we got paid by the hour, not by the job. And that if they had to turn over part of a test to the oncoming shift, so be it. They got paid the same as we did. Once I finished my tirade, the crew agreed with me. After the meeting, both supervisors took me aside and thanked me for going against the crowd. And we started doing things slower so they'd be done right. It sounds like the people at Spirit have the same problem.

@NicolaW72

4 ай бұрын

With the difference that the Management presses at Spirit obviously for "Hurry on" no matter what ´s the outcome.

@1hatep1ck1ngnames

4 ай бұрын

Well done for standing up and mentioning that to everyone.

As a Gen X european, I grew up in a world where Boeing was the best of the best. “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t flying”. Marvelous planes that carried the dream of freedom to go anywhere anytime, to have the dream life everyone wanted to live. Of course 747 was the pinnacle. Facing Boeing, we had Airbus. Of course, being European - French European - I knew we could conceive and build great airliners. I flew on Caravelle as a child and it was so elegant, comfy and so on. Concorde? We beat you on this one. Yet, flying Boeing was flying the best possible brand. Airbus? A “flying bus”? Not so glamorous. Then, we discovered the A320. Great plane, popular, advanced, a real alternative. We started to think that we could “match”, becoming equals. The A380 was - and still is - an awesome flight experience but it was - and still is - considered as the successor of the Queen of the Sky. We still saw Boeing as the standard used to measure the European hard work. Now? Kayak allows its customers to be able to check the airliner type before they purchase a flight. To be sure they don’t fly Boeing. I’m not saying we do better now. I’m stating that we don’t see Boeing as the best of the best and we have stopped to compare in using Boeing as the standard we need to reach. It’s sad because the aerospace sector needs Boeing to function well. It has to be at least a duopole and there is no current alternative to Boeing. It’s also sad - though maybe for me only - because all these horrific accidents allowed by a deeply inaccurate management mean that one of my childhood’s dream is dead. No more sparkles in my eyes when looking at a Boeing on an airport runway. Instead an unsettling thought: “what if that one is yet another piece of junk?” Boeing will never again be the big strong brother. It needs, at least, to become the reliable competitor it is supposed to be. And currently isn’t>

@zeitgeistx5239

4 ай бұрын

You missed the decline of American manufacturing in the 1980s. Jack Welch revolutionized American manufacturing by putting all focus on short term profits and abandoning long term planning. He brought GE to its knees as it used to be the world’s largest company. His managers went on to join many companies including McDonald Douglas. During their merger with Boeing, the Welch acolytes took over Boeing. Like McDo and GE and American manufacturing in general the focus became pumping up investor stock prices at all costs. Frequent lay offs and hiring, constant mergers and sell offs. Jack Welch as the head of GE literally bought and sold thousands of companies. All in the attempt to pump up their stock price in the short term.

@NicolaW72

4 ай бұрын

Very well said and from the bottom of my heart, too!👍👍👍

@1hatep1ck1ngnames

4 ай бұрын

Much the same thoughts and feelings on this, as a European. There has to be someone to give competition to Airbus, otherwise with a monopoly it could well follow Boeing's path. I know there are different regulations here, but aviation is better served by having multiple large companies lead the way in safety.

@poddy610

4 ай бұрын

​@@1hatep1ck1ngnames Same thoughts here. The matter is how to make the thing work. Wil not be easy I guess...

@kzrlgo

4 ай бұрын

“If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t flying” is the perfect sentence to describe the idiot that said it.

I understand that the checklist for door removal and door opening requires different checks. Opening of a door doesn’t require checking closures but removal of doors does. The plug door was opened for work on the gaskets. So, there was no verification that bolts and nuts were installed. I believe that a plug door is different from a regular cabin door that is opened and closed often and doesn’t use bolts to secure the door to the fuselage. I believe that the reinstallation checklist for opening or removing a plug door should be the same for each activity.

Excellent synopsis. Been waiting for your assessment of the situation. I flew on one of the affected planes just days before the door blew. And was delayed several days on return trip because of it. Thanks for your attention to the matter and this great channel!

I have friends that worked for Boeing at the time of the McDonald Douglas merger. Most say that the mood on the floor changed and not for the good. Before workers felt free to bring concerns to supervisors and share ideas that could improve production. One said it became like working at McDonald's where you do one thing and don't worry about what anyone else is doing. To which I said, "What do you expect, after all it is "McDonald" Douglas." After a layoff when called back he chose not to return. A retired Boeing engineer once told me that Boeing will be in trouble if they ever quit building the wings?

@johncombatvet6927

4 ай бұрын

Back in the day when Boeing was an airplane company do you think they would have built the DC-10 with all its faults? Such a shame Lockheed did not sell more 1011s which was a fantastic aircraft.

@EliWallach72

4 ай бұрын

Same. They told me McDonald Douglas basically took over the company. Profits became paramount. It's built into the culture now. They need a complete overhaul of their senior management and even then it'll take many years to change back to a culture of quality and safety. Probably will never happen. Too bad.

@prasenjittripura3

4 ай бұрын

did u see the whole video?

@djsmith2871

4 ай бұрын

Boeing has not been the same since the '96 merger.

@djsmith2871

4 ай бұрын

​@@prasenjittripura3No I didn't. What's your point?

Cost cutting and profits are obviously more Important than safety, engineering and QC at Boeing.

@davidoberg203

4 ай бұрын

Sadly

@diestormlie

4 ай бұрын

But have you considered just how much value they've delivered for the Shareholders?

@aycc-nbh7289

4 ай бұрын

@@diestormlieIt wouldn’t be much if their planes can’t fly.

@laucon11

4 ай бұрын

@@diestormlie Over the last 5 years the stock is down some 40% so they aren't even doing that. Boeing's management is failing everyone it seems.

@ColorNerdChris

4 ай бұрын

1. Cost of manufacturing/union busting, 2. Spreading jobs over as many Congressional districts as possible to secure defense contract votes, 3. Stock buybacks ($42B in the last decade) 4. Selecting an HQ based on executive lifestyle, 5. Safety/QC, 6. International sales, 7. Engineering. Top three are mostly interchangeable.

One of your best videos I think. Exceptionally well done and the breadth of information provides and expertise provides objective and compelling perspectives.

Must congratulate you and your team on a brilliant video. This is a really great documentary style video. The fact based root cause analysis in this vidoe is far far better than I have seen on any news media on this topic.

@twig3288

3 ай бұрын

News media are bought and paid for if you’re looking for the truth don’t even bother with MSM

I’ve been an aircraft structures mechanic for 10 years. My first job being Spirit Aerosystems, what many people are missing is putting blame on the union. I was laid off twice from Spirit and had to train my replacements, two guys who could not drill a straight or round hole, read a blueprint, or perform a single operation correctly. Yet, they had seniority on me so I was out the door. They didn’t care. An alarming amount of people in this industry don’t care so long as they have seniority. It’s a very very long conversation to be had, the basis of which being human nature and the lower echelon of workers, but the company actually can’t do a lot about it.

@Eternal_Tech

4 ай бұрын

The correct way for Spirit to have handled the situation was to provide training for their employees to perform their jobs. However, if in spite of this training the employees still proved to be incompetent, then they should be fired. The presence of a union does not prohibit the firing of incompetent employees, but it does usually provide a process that the company must follow to prove incompetence and terminate the employment of incompetent employees. If management fails to follow this process, then that is on them.

@eamonhannon1103

4 ай бұрын

Unions that work closely with the company are not a problem . Their is a problem however when a them and us culture develops between management and the workforce . This then can result in conflict which is toxic .

@markwilliams2620

4 ай бұрын

​​@@eamonhannon1103 Read _A Savage Factory_ by Robert Dewar. It's a "textbook" example of when management/union relationships go full antagonistic.

@donkeytits1

4 ай бұрын

Sooo... hows that a union problem?

with this situation, for me it doesnt matter that boeing hadnt built the fuselage themselves, they were responsible for the certification and flightworthyness, its a situation that has eroded my trust in boeing and im sure many others feel the same. im hoping the NTSB report shines the light on the situation.

@whoami155

4 ай бұрын

Great point but I'm skeptical of any repercussions for boeing because they're in cahoots with the faa and the ntsb. I think that in the end they'll find a smaller company to be a scapegoat and shift blame and it'll be business as usual. Imo the flying public need at actively reject flying the max9 for anything meaningful to happen

@alanevery215

4 ай бұрын

If you have to do all the development and quality control yourself there is not a lot of point in contracting it out! I would think.

@coldham77

4 ай бұрын

Right. They are just a value added reseller of fuselages.

@QueueTeePies

4 ай бұрын

It might not be their fault but definitely it is their responsibility

@Kandralla

4 ай бұрын

@@alanevery215 That's part of it, you cannot inspect quality into a product after the fact. You have to prevent/catch the issues at the point they are created, in this case at the supplier which means you have to trust the supplier. The fault here to a large extent is a failure to adequately surveil their supplier; and really that's probably because Spirit is the one driving the boat in their relationship. There's more that can be said about that... let's just hope that the FAA spends a good bit of time at Spirit too...

You are genuinely my favourite KZreadr, thank you for everything you do.

Some passengers on the Alaska Airlines flight have filed a civil suit naming the airline and Boeing . Apparently , passengers on a previous flight had reported whistling noises eminating from the area of the door plug. The noises were reported to the flight cabin crew who supposedly advised the Captain. The passengers were told that the Flight Crew had checked their "instruments" and all was ok. This information was taken from an article in the Seattle Tmes. Perhaps it wasn't just luck that the seats by the plug door were left unoccupied.

Doesn't matter who is responsible for this incident. It's a Boeing plane. Boeing has to respond for every incident!

@joeyjamison5772

4 ай бұрын

Yes, they were the ones who accepted payment for it, they are the ones who are ultimately responsible.

@Godzi-Cicciolino

4 ай бұрын

Absolutelly in agreement with you

@DontUputThatEvilOnMe

4 ай бұрын

True but keep in mind Spirit Aerosystems does make bodies and wings for Airbus aircraft as well which makes this concerning for the entire aviation industry. It may have been coincidence and bad luck that issues have started with the 737 max first. So we don’t want just chalked up to Boeing is bad.

@OzWannabe

4 ай бұрын

I fucking love Boeing planes but I have to agree with you here.

@FrozenHaxor

4 ай бұрын

They signed off on it, they're liable.

No matter the outcome of this, the professionalism and skill of Alaska Airlines' pilots and crew cannot be understated.

@robertradmacher3823

4 ай бұрын

When you're piloting a 737 Max you simply have to :-).

@theinfinitymachine9610

4 ай бұрын

I fly from Alaska all the time out of Seattle. Their service is solid. I like delta flights more bc they have better entertainment/movies options, but Alaska definitely win on the number of flights out of SeaTac. I don't see this as their fault at all. That's like blaming the driver that their recently purchased car broke down when it's really the manufacturer's fault. I hope Alaska buy more Airbuses in the future.

@mrparlanejxtra

4 ай бұрын

This airline have had more than their fair share of crashes.

@poddy610

4 ай бұрын

Good luck Max pilots... What about a new type rating?​@@robertradmacher3823

@srpacific

4 ай бұрын

@@theinfinitymachine9610I’m fine with them keeping Boeings. Do you really want them to hire an entire fleet’s worth of brand new Airbus pilots? Loose doors will be the least of your worries.

"Door plug", not "plug door". The difference is critical (a plug door cannot blow out). 0:43

@weatherupstairs4814

4 ай бұрын

I can imagine how they labeled it in an alphabetical parts list: is it a "door, plug" or a "plug, door?" It should have been renamed something like an "Exitway panel," as it's a semi-permanent fuselage fitting used to fill the opening for an emergency exit door, and is not a conventional access hatch.

Gulfstream ditched Spirit after quallity issues. If I recall correctly, Spirit delivered a wing with one hole 1/4" in error. And when I was at Boeing, part of what kept our group going was that "Integration" was part of the name, and this was discussed informally at the time.

I’ve been waiting for a more complete and non click bait video on this. Thank you, Petter.

@MentourNow

4 ай бұрын

I hope it makes sense. We will dig even deeper now

@deeterr1227

4 ай бұрын

Me too, been waiting for him to get his teeth in this subject

@laratheplanespotter

4 ай бұрын

@@MentourNow I’m not going to pretend I understand everything, this isn’t my industry. I just don’t like the sensationalist journalism that I’ve been seeing lately. My job is about finding the truth in the criminal justice system. That truth seeking goes beyond that.

@Naptosis

4 ай бұрын

@@laratheplanespotter Are you Batman? I'll keep your secret. 🤐

@therealrobinc

4 ай бұрын

​@@MentourNowwill you dare to fly any Boeing aircraft now? 🤔

I'm sure I've posted this here before, but as I see it, Boeing changed when they didn't promote Alan Mullaly to the CEO. This is a natural result of that massive culture change. (Having worked at Ford during Mullaly's time, I see exactly what he would have done at Boeing) Time and money become more important, and things like QA/QC get trimmed to the min. QA/QC that worked would have easily seen the production issues- as inspections and reports would quickly flag issues. Maybe I'm wrong.

@johnlucas2037

4 ай бұрын

Funny how one guy at the top can make such a huge difference in a massive company.

@s2snider

4 ай бұрын

Agreed. The Boeing BOD made a very poor choice in James McNerney over Alan Mullaly. It was great for Ford, however. They got the best leader of our time. The U.S. really needs to look at how corporate board members are chosen and are held responsible for both good and bad decisions. This is where both Spirit's and Boeing's problems originate.

@Trebuchet48

4 ай бұрын

But McNerney, like Harry Stonecipher and the current clown, was a legacy GE guy, a Jack Welch acolyte. Mullaly was a Boeing guy.

@CW-rx2js

4 ай бұрын

If you look at Airbus, their CEO is a double engineer and an MBA. his specialization was aeronautical engineering and he was also a pilot for a while. Test pilot as well

@alfamaize

4 ай бұрын

@@Trebuchet48 Kind of ironic that Mullaly picked up the pieces of a disaster trying to copy GE and Welsh when at Ford. The real problem with Boeing following the "shareholder value" plan is their mistakes are so very amplified when planes have issues vs. similar issues with Ford. Can't wait to see the results of cutting processes when the results could be large numbers of deaths in a plane crash.

Very interesting analysis and commentary 👌 Thank you Petter!

It is good that you tackle the issues as a professional pilot addresses the problem serious issues.

There are already details available out there about the work that was done on this specific airplane. There was work done on the door seal, at Boeing Renton Factory, by Spirit AeroSystems employees and there were no quality control checks because of how they recorded this work in the system.

@nicholasvinen

4 ай бұрын

Apparently, they recorded that they "opened" the door plug but did not "remove" it when they fixed a damaged seal. That meant it did not need a QA inspection...

Sounds like Boeing are having to send so many employees to oversee Spirit's work they might as well buy back Spirit and make it part of the company. Making the fuselage of the 737 looks like a core part of Boeing's business. It's not like they can sell the wings without it.

@MentourNow

4 ай бұрын

Like the point I made towards the end.

@shirralia

4 ай бұрын

It's quite sad that they try to blame spirit for the accident though. I work in QA for industrial automation systems. If I sign off on a system as working perfectly, and the customer then finds a broken component in that system upon putting it into service, I can't blame the manufacturer of the component. It's my job (and my employer's) to check that it's working.

@Snaproll47518

4 ай бұрын

Commercial aircraft manufacturing is a global process. In the case of the B737 wing, it is indeed built in Everett WA. However, the B787 wing is made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nagoya Japan. The Airbus A350 wing spar is made by Spirit AeroSystems in Kinston, N.Carolina. Northrop-Grumman in Clearfield, Utah manufactures composite fuselage stringers and frames for the Airbus A350. Plymouth Engineered Shapes, Hopkinsville, Kentucky supplies titanium extrusions used extensively on the Airbus A350. Final assembly of Boeing and Airbus aircraft makes up less than 10% of total manufacturing costs. That beautiful B787 rolling off the Boeing assembly line in North Charleston, SC was in fact manufactured with foreign participation. The same can be said of the A350 final assembly line in Toulouse France.

@Mentaculus42

4 ай бұрын

If the “information leak” that was divulged at Leehamnews is confirmed, then it actually was caused by “SPIRIT WARRANTY WORKERS THAT ARE AT BOEING”! If the information is correct, and it does seem to have the “feel” of authenticity, then the “culture issue” has possibly morphed into something more “intense” with some “factions” at Spirit actively and purposefully trying to push sub-quality products through. Like warranty workers purposely painting over faulty rivets identified by Boeing.

@PRH123

4 ай бұрын

⁠@@Snaproll47518nonetheless, outsourcing one’s core competency(-ies) is a clear sign of decline, and companies that do generally speaking won’t be around for long…

I love your videos. In a increasingly chaotic world, your calm and sensible explanations of complex events and human behavior is educational and inspiring. Thanks! ❤

Mr. Mentour: Thank you for what you do here on KZread. I am looking forward to the NTSB final report on Alaska 1282. The folks who discussed the missing bolts will surely be held accountable and we will/have all benefited from this incident even though it should not have happened at all. After all the technical discussion about pressure differential, cabin altitude, blah blah blah it comes down to someone who simply did not follow through with a very simple procedure. Must have had a personal item taking their attention from the task in front of them. Wishing you continued improvement personally with priority identification, time management, and loving yourself. God Bless you and all of us.

Cost cutting = safety cutting. It's aviation, not rocket science

@MentourNow

4 ай бұрын

Good summary

@johnlucas2037

4 ай бұрын

Does the DEI or DIE culture also play a role?

@danharold3087

4 ай бұрын

@@MentourNow Not all cost cutting is created equal. One could argue had Spirit reduced the cost of building the fuselages by installing more efficient more accurate equipment the would cut costs while improving the product. People talk like they want Boeing to move back to the stone age. If the planes are too slow to build they will be sold at a loss and lets close the doors.

@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1

4 ай бұрын

@@johnlucas2037No it’s a boeing problem stop trying to blame minorities/women for Boeing greed and incompetence and mismanagement and covering up important information to consumers This has nothing to do with how many ethnic people/women etc they employ they could have 100% straight white males and the problem would remain the same

@davidfuller581

4 ай бұрын

@@johnlucas2037 No, in fact it's completely irrelevant.

Bo cares more about shareholder dividends than passengers' safety. Quote: "Boeing is a world leader in share buybacks. Between 1998 and 2018, the aircraft manufacturer also made share buybacks totaling $61 billion, or 81.8% of its profits. Adding dividends, Boeing shareholders received 121% of its profits. (Data compiled by William Lazonick and The Academic-Industry Research Network, based on Boeing's SEC 10-K filings)."

Thank you for another thoughtful and informative video!

Well explained, thank you.

I love that corporate word "culture" for how the employees act. How about stop overworking and underpaying them and their "culture" would improve drastically.

@MentourNow

4 ай бұрын

Fair point 👌

@rudivandoornegat2371

4 ай бұрын

Exactly

@diestormlie

4 ай бұрын

Incentives shape behaviour. If workers are pushed towards, say, parts installed per hour, quality will suffer, because the quantity, rather than quality, of work is selected for. To my mind, pay and conditions aren't an entirely separate domain to Corporate Culture; they're an integral part of shaping it.

@johndavies6427

4 ай бұрын

Petter would you fly the max 9?

@danharold3087

4 ай бұрын

Culture may be influenced as you say but it is still very much culture.

The selling of the Wichita facility was always a mistake. Spirit Aero had a non compete clause for 5 years. They tried to move as much of the talent they valued the most from Wichita and Tulsa back then, but didn't get as many as they had hoped to move to Seattle or to St. Louis. Once the 5 years was up, as expected, Airbus was there to open their wallets with contracts for engineering and manufacturing help. Many of these engineers had worked on the 787, and yes, you guessed it, then worked on the A350 with the experience they had gained in large composite structures on the 787. FYI, many of those engineers did work on a new composite 737 sort of aircraft for Spirit under contract from Boeing. It is the loss of this engineering talent that was one of the parts of the decision to do the MAX rather than to continue with the composite option. Others were Southwest talking to Airbus, and the pending big orders from American Airlines, United, and Ryan Air to name a few.

@kurt9395

4 ай бұрын

This plays into something that I have thought about for quite a while the is either discounted or completely ignored by the beancounter types. I call it "institutional knowledge" which are things that aren't written down anywhere, but the people on the shop floor or in the trenches "just know" from years of experience doing their jobs. Things like "when you do this, you have to watch out for that..." or "be extra careful doing this thing because it's easy to make a mistake..." and others. Hopefully, when new workers come on board, they then learn these things from the old hands and this knowledge gets passed along. But when a company decides to outsource or has mass layoffs, all this institutional knowledge gets lost and may take many years, if ever, to get recovered. The 737 Max debacle is a perfect example of that with the decision to outsource the flight control software to some outfit in India instead of keeping it in-house. As a former code monkey, one thing I learned was I had to know my client's business as well as they do. This is so when I see something I think is a mistake, I can go back to my client and explain why I think something is wrong and ask, "Are you sure this spec you gave me is correct?" and have them explain it to me why it is or change it if they're wrong. I've never done flight control software, but even I know that having your code be dependent on a single point of mechanical failure just boggles my mind and definitely something I would've pushed back on. But some guy who just got out of programming school in India is not going to know that and just assume that the spec they're given is correct and do what they're told.

@TheBmco99

4 ай бұрын

When Boeing moved out of Renton move, their corporate office out also became bankers and government officials in this once great company was a huge mistake they only care about their bottom line, the old mighty dollar not about your safety or my safety

@franziskani

3 ай бұрын

@@kurt9395 the outsourcing of coding was NOT even the main problem (just another sign of the rotten culture). it was the decision to have only ONE sensor signal fed into the program. I first thought they were so greedy because 2 signals from 2 sensors make the job more complex. But later I thought better of it. I they had given the job to a U.S. company that had experience with aviation - there could have been leaks. We are doing a software fix for an engineering problem - and this critical corrective function that could easily cause a crash depends on one sensor and there is no backup. That is unheard of in aviation production of the last decades, and there could have been leaks if experienced folks had been asked to do the job. Boeing wanted to speed up the certification and their sales pitch to the airlines was that no pilot training was needed because the change was insignificant. In order to be insignificant one signal had to be enough. And they also did not mention it in the handbook or any training. If I remember correctly there WAS another sensor but they intentionally did not use that signal. The other thing I seem to remember: Airbus has 3 sensors in such cases. So there is a backup for the backup.

Very good topic you are pointing: company culture! 👍🏻

I work on other Boeing aircraft types for a large freight carrier and I absolutely agree with you that this is not a 737 MAX problem.....we have had issues with our new 767 quality and to some extent parts quality with our 777's .....You are correct this is a BOEING problem....they need to bring the Spirit operation back "in house"...in my opinion....thank you for the info...I always enjoy your channel.!!

One of my friends has a PhD in engineering. He left Boeing almost a decade ago because he "wasn't comfortable with the culture".

@marcisdzerve9558

4 ай бұрын

​@@Plutogalaxywhen did they leave/retire?

@PsRohrbaugh

4 ай бұрын

@@marcisdzerve9558 This. If it was before the MD merger, I'm sure that's completely accurate.

@zeitgeistx5239

4 ай бұрын

@@Plutogalaxyyou dont know what you’re writing about. The Boeing 40 years ago stopped existing in the 90s when McDo merged and their managers took over Boeing and introduced Jack Welch style management practices of short term profits at all costs and ignoring long term planning. This is why American manufacturing is seen globally as a joke. Same reason why Intel is on life support and AMD chips are manufactured in Taiwan.

@marcisdzerve9558

4 ай бұрын

@@PsRohrbaugh I bet that even the immediate years after that were more or less fine. Boeing used to be known as the gold standard after all, so working there must've been great at some point haha

4 ай бұрын

@@zeitgeistx5239 Wow, your comment is so full of shit. I might have believed your Boeing/MD bit, but you closed with something that I know is bullshit.

1. People who have high incomes based on stock prices have inherent conflicts of interest. Their focus is on the short-term markets and not on what is best for all stakeholders (passengers, crew, employees, the public in addition to shareholders). A de facto near monopoly like Boeing should be transformed to a public benefit corporation with open books, in my opinion. 2. Brain scans show that people in positions of power frequently lose empathy (it can actually be seen in FMRI scans). This can be addressed partially by having people who can say ‘no’, such as a board of directors who are prohibited from having a financial stake in the organization, or in other ways that keeps the feet of the powerful people on the ground psychologically. 3. Public confidence, as well as safety culture, depend on openness. The Mentour channels, Blancolirio, and many others contribute substantially towards this objective. Fear comes from the unknown, and so do mistakes. But if we can face the challenges openly, we can overcome them together.

@awdrifter3394

4 ай бұрын

That's why they need to align those interest. The CEO bonus should have a clawback clause that will force them to return certain percent of their bonus for ever day an aircraft produced in the last 5 year is grounded by the FAA.

@franziskani

3 ай бұрын

@@awdrifter3394 The CEO should have been prosecuted for the MCAS disaster and the head of engineering as well, that would also help.

Nice well explained sir.

Love the Airbus Blueprint behind you throughout this Boing video. Class.

Blancolirio mentioned that Spirit has had people stationed at Renton permanently to fix these “escapements” issues. Apparently they have separate QC systems with a difference how errors were logged and controlled. Apparently there were instances were a post work control on the work carried out at Renton by Spirit was not carried out due to the way issues were entered into their systems. Also there had been issues with seals on the plug doors and fixing them required removing and refitting them without a control afterwards. But in short; issues with corporate culture. Well we can at least rest comfortably in knowing that at least did upper management get their millions so all is good. I am sure soendinf more on management will fix everything? Right?

@NicolaW72

4 ай бұрын

Indeed, exactly.

@donpierce4829

4 ай бұрын

It was Boeings fault they pulled the door off to do something!! Some of the people Boeing hires now a days. can't read or write and the managers are college grads who don't know their ass from the hole in ground!! Managers use to have work on the floor before they were promoted.

The more of these videos I watch, the more I can see the aviation industry as a microcosm of society at large. Boeing May have a culture problem, but so does humanity 😞

@vlbz

4 ай бұрын

Exactly my thoughts.

@hafor2846

4 ай бұрын

If Boeing's problems were caused by the state of humanity, who is working at Airbus? Aliens? This is just a cop-out. Boeing has a problem because Boeing has a problem. No mystical microcosm needed.

@terrygivens132

4 ай бұрын

Good insight

@volvo09

4 ай бұрын

It's all of large corporations. The cost cutting, retirement / layoffs of experienced staff, and the focus on maximizing work output vs high quality work. I used to work in a large office and witnessed it myself. In a span of 10 years everything about my IT job was outsourced to 3rd parties and workers went from enjoying their jobs to being frustrated over endless issues from inexperienced replacement workers, and constant delays waiting for 3rd party companies to repair things I used to be a phone call away from fixing.

@squelchedotter

4 ай бұрын

These specific problems are capitalism problems

During the Korean War, several F-86 Sabre jet fighters crashed for unknown reasons. The planes would go into an unrecoverable spin and no amount of technical inspection found any problems. Test pilot Chuck Yeager was given the task of discovering the fault…he put the plane into some violent maneuvers in which the fault occurred, but Yeager was able to land the jet with one aileron fully deployed…the bolts holding it to the activation rod had been installed upside down by a manufacturing plant worker who refused to follow the blueprint instructions. As the aileron rotated, the bolt would catch on the edge of the wing preventing any further movement. Such a simple thing took several lives.

How did the FAA determine this new maintenance protocol when they together with the NTSB haven't yet (or have they?) determined what actually happened to that plug door?

@mbvoelker8448

4 ай бұрын

My best understanding at the moment is that they know *what* happened -- no bolts in place. They don't yet know the chain of failures that permitted this to happen. As a factory worker who was expected to look at everything I was given to work on and hand back any piece that wasn't right, I personally want to know why the interior finishing crew didn't see that the door looked funny compared to the other one and call it to the attention of the inspectors. It seems from all the diagrams and photos that have been made public that those bolt should have been clearly visible with the plug in place.

Hi Petter. In spanish, we have a saying: "no hay mal que por bien no venga". I coulden´t find a propper translation in english to this saying but in general it maight be interpreted as "sometimes bad things lead to good things (more or less). My point is: thankfully nobody got hurt in the Alaska incident, and after that, a lot of issues came to the public eye; therefor other production and assembly lines (and not only aviation related) will be looked in a thorough scrutiny to prevent misshaps that could outcome in severe accidents. (you MUST preserve your shareholders!) As on the "culture" side, sometimes a honest "good job" or "well done" from a senior foreman to an emploee will boost their pride and morale, giving them the right incentive to do even better jobs. It´s NOT always a matter of money (witch is obviously good), but what is money worth if we are treated like sh.....t and go home after our shift is ended depressed and angry? As always, cheers from NE Patagonia, Argentina.

@garybrown1404

4 ай бұрын

I agree, compliments for good work create pride in good work and incentive to improve wherever possible. Morale is important and too often under appreciated!

All major corporations go through a major culture, purpose and identity crisis. There is absolutely no reason to trust these companies as a customer or citizen.

@gror7849

4 ай бұрын

You are correct but it feels like Boeing's is ongoing...

@coldham77

4 ай бұрын

Incompetence does have a shelf life.

@TheEDFLegacy

4 ай бұрын

Not all major corporations are like this. Regulations can also make a big difference.

@TheRocco96

4 ай бұрын

There definitely has been a change in corporate culture. I'm old, and I remember we used to buy appliances that only needed to be plugged in to provide power and it worked. Nowaydays, whatever you buy needs access to wifi because it needs to download new firmware of software updates. Products are now shipped in a shoddy, unfinished state, and manufacturers rely on updates to get it working after selling it. For laptops, phones, comsoles and kitchenappliances that may be a harmless but inconvenient way to work, but for airplanes it's a catastrophic way of working.

@MarkMcDaniel

4 ай бұрын

​@@TheEDFLegacy-- No, regulations drive up cost and time -- it doesn't solve a company culture problem.

blancolirio appears to have gotten some better data on what the NTSB has found. And it involves both SPirit and Boeing. And in particular a problem or hole in Boeings Quality Control Software system. Apparently Spirit has been delivering a lot of problem planes. So much so that they have a service team full time on site to fix the delivered problems. On the incident aircraft there was a problem with the door seal on the Plug Door in question. So the team had to repair/replace the door seal. And here is where the holes in the swiss cheese line up. And this should terrify everyone. To repair the door seal they could either fully dismount or remove the door plug. Or they could simply open it, as a door, make the repair, then close the door again. In Boeings QC system dismounting the door would automatically trigger a safety and quality inspection. Where the inspector comes in and makes sure everything is in compliance. BUT Simply opening the plug door, making the repair and then closing the door, for whatever reason, did not generate an inspection request in Boeing's system. Thus the door was opened, the seal repaired, the door closed, and nobody came to check that the bolts were put back in.

Great videos, you may have missed your calling as an investigate reporter!! Well Done 👏

It's definitely something more serious. Boeing has spent the last couple decades pushing out their very expensive experienced engineers and technicians to replace them with cheaper less experienced ones. The idea being that computers and modern technology will make up the difference... But the reality is it's all for short-term gains over time. With the amount of bureaucratic paperwork that comes with producing commercial aircraft, there are no other companies to give Boeing competition. So Boeing has a combination of bloat from lack of competition, and the fact that nobody can yank their license or really punitively punish them in any way because you can't kill the company... At least not when you depend on them for your other aircraft. So with a lack of negative repercussions and a lack of skill and a lack of competition, nobody is going to come up and replace Boeing. That's what's needed. But that can't happen in the current environment. There's a reason almost every new aircraft manufacturer goes out of business before they really start mass producing planes. Boeing will continue its cost cutting and outsourcing to do things as cheaply as possible as its owned by shareholders. This is just an example of how you can't run businesses like this... But we do anyway and then we freak out when that doesn't work out. Another unrelated example would be a hospital where it has to make a profit because shareholders own the holding company for the hospital. You cut staff you cut corners you cut everything you can even though it's at the cost of the end user in the first place because it's not like anyone has a choice anyway.

@danharold3087

4 ай бұрын

Cost cutting is a must. But it is done by efficiency not by rushing people. IMproved processes and modernization of production. Making assembly less open to errors.

@michaelotieno6524

4 ай бұрын

This is so true about modern corporate culture, long term planning is considered to be 3/4 months. Every shareholder has been programmed to expect growth every quarter or someone gets fired. Boeing needs competition badly because it is a systemic economic and transport risk, i don't think the answer to Boeing's problems will come from private capital.

@jantjarks7946

4 ай бұрын

Boeing can have as many licenses as they want. If passengers request a different plane type and airlines are offering the switch to a different plane type for free, your company is digging its own grave.

@danharold3087

4 ай бұрын

@@jantjarks7946Problems like this are not specific to Boeing. They are just seem to be the worst at sticking their head in the wringer.

@jantjarks7946

4 ай бұрын

@@danharold3087 I only meant what I wrote. 😉

Your level of professionalism and attention to details is amazing. As a supplier to these companies I can concur that there are structural management problems at both I see strange decisions often from both companies.

@alanevery215

4 ай бұрын

Strange decisions? I think that is synonymous with cost cuts!

I heard they changed the gasket on the door plug after it was installed and there were 2 different ways to do it. In one way the door plug remains on the aircraft and in the other way it is removed. In one way, there was no instruction that the screws should be checked by another person when everything was reassembled

Mentour Now is SITWA. So Interesting To Watch. I love abbreviations.😀

It’s a real shame business, ethics and “culture” issues like this are allowed to prevail. Especially when considering the industry Boeing and Spirit work in. Having problems like this can cost lives.

@GamePlays_1230

4 ай бұрын

At the end if the day it's the board that needs to pay not the company

@sadfatdragon9529

4 ай бұрын

Takes a unholy amount of blood to be spilled before small changes to happen if only to save face.

@no-cv4dx

4 ай бұрын

It HAS cost lives, that's why manufacturers are liable for the safety of their products. Every modern company tries to outsource liability.

It's definitely a culture issue. And culture is a very difficult problem to solve. As culture comes from the top down. It's interesting that Spirit Aerosystems quality control problems seem to only be affecting its Kansas plant as we haven't heard about Airbus complaining about parts they have been delivered from their subsidiaries in Europe. The class action suit coming from the former employees is what I'm watching very closely as it directly points out the problems that Spirit is having.

@jantjarks7946

4 ай бұрын

It's probably related to the relationship between Boeing and Spirit. The very reason why for example Airbus is not affected? It too can be a matter of business size. Boeing makes more than 60% of Spirits revenue. Thus it might be scrutinized more for profitability than any of the other operations. Especially as Boeing is a sure customer who can't simply walk away. All other customers wouldn't have it easy to replace Spirit as a supplier, nevertheless easier than Boeing. Boeing could only move away gradually. Something that very quickly would be recognized by Spirit. Location probably is another matter. Work culture in one factory won't match the work culture in another. Especially if different countries or even continents are involved. Or different customers with very different contract requirements and approach.

@Jehty21

4 ай бұрын

​@@jantjarks7946is Airbus not affected or did they just have been lucky so far?

@garybrown1404

4 ай бұрын

Excellent observations!

@cutepuppy9585

4 ай бұрын

Airbus don't rush production over quality and safety. That's why airbus problem is massive backlogs of airplane orders.

@jake_

4 ай бұрын

@@Jehty21 Spirit subsidiaries in Europe are not overseen and inspected by the FAA. There is a completely different culture when it comes to regulations. Also, the workers there get paid vacations, free health care and education for their children, so they are far more relaxed and able to concentrate on their work.

I work within a similar kind of culture where big jobs are split up into numerous subcontracts in many locations. Subcontractors may or may not have the proper expertise, technology/equipment, commitment from employees (which can reflect wages, benefits, market conditions, and quality of management), etc.for the deal to be beneficial. Proper oversight and contracting of your subs is critical to keeping the quality of the product high. Primary contractors often forget that the consequences of poor QA can far outweigh the costs.

It reminds me (although I know it is not quite the same) of outsourcing of IT systems. You end up with a scenario where the company involved is still responsible for any mistakes but has outsourced the ability to handle them.

i study business management and started to be interested in aviation thanks to your videos (you're doing a great job btw). business culture is such a interesting topic, and it has a range depending on what the company does. boeing's is absolutely different to mcdonald's, to name an example. when i first heard about this incident and the aircraft type, i thought "oh, boeing again, what a surprise"; which for me shows what the general public thinks about the company. but finding out about spirit 'culture' was absolutely shocking, because it's that "cero defects culture" sorta what lead boeing to the incidents with the MCAS. and i know that was not a quality issue, but it's always about how management will do any thing to protect their image only for money, and it's scary when it comes to industries like aviation's.

@56Seeker

4 ай бұрын

" business culture is such a interesting topic" like every other adult in the western world, I've been through innumerable corporate cultural reinventions. The only common factor between them is that there has never been a cultural professional (ethnologist or anthropologist) involved; it's always a business college graduate and they've always been empty, shallow exercises. Interestingly, the few that have had impact and effect have been projects run by ex-military guys.

@BigHenFor

4 ай бұрын

It all depends if the existing power structure wants real change, or wants a whitewash job, doesn't it? If they're not interested nothing will change.

By the way, the case on the iphone that survived the 16,000ft fall was Spigen Cryo Armour 😉

@MentourNow

4 ай бұрын

I heard!

@volvo09

4 ай бұрын

I assume the phone didn't land on concrete, but I'm sure a lot of those cases will sell anyways :)

@SeanBZA

4 ай бұрын

@@MentourNow Think they will have a lot of sales now......

@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1

4 ай бұрын

Greatest piece of advertising they could have ever gotten honestly

@hugoedelarosa

4 ай бұрын

thanks!

Now the NTSB interim report's out, the cause is clear. The plug was fitted from the outside (DC-10 error, therefore) with spring-loaded release points on the lower edge whose retaining bolts had been removed. These bolts did not secure the door. On the side of the pad were retaining pins pushing against pads to locate them, but in no wise securing them. Two heavier securing rods higher up were likewise held in place by bolts, but the mounting was too weak to resist once the bottom edge gave way. Effectively, the small pressure leaks from the door seal on previous flights had been dismissed, but slowly opened enough space to let air displaced down the sides of the fuselage under the lower edge of the pad, adding bernouilli lift to the cabin air pressure and lift from the springs. Once clear, the only thing holding it were the housing brackets for the upper pins, already weakened by the holes for the retaining bolts, and because the brackets weren't designed for that load, they tore away, releasing the door. This is potentially a danger with any emergency door or plug on any model, regardless of serial, in the Boeing Fleet, as long as it opens outwards. Open inwards, discard outwards, fine.

Petter, your ever-excellent videos already earned you more stripes than can fit on a captains's badge. You just added another one with this eye-opener on how corporate strategies, culture and pleasing the shareholders may take priority over aviation quality and safety. "Escapees" should never exit the construction site! Your channel has become a valuable and universal reference database for improvements in aviation. Please continue your crystal-clear analyses and inviting narrations!

I worked at a place where we had on site inspection by the Insurance company that insured the product. We were a small company compared with Boeing, he was on site a lot of the time we did not pay him he was paid by our insurers to make sure nothing was being done wrong.

This one is all on Boeing. The airplane was only in service for a little over a month. I'm not a pilot. I have, however, purchased several new cars. If the general rule for new cars and new airplanes is similar, then I check the gas, the oil, the coolant, the tires and get in and drive. That airplane (unless I am completely mistaken) never went into an Alaska maintenance bay. The 757 that lost a wheel on the taxiway is not Boeings fault. Fade to Kenny Rogers, "You picked a fine time to leave me loose wheel." :) I have two round-trip flights coming up in late spring. All four of those flights will be on Southwest Airlines, and Southwest flies an exclusive B737 fleet. I have no worries. I know that by the time I fly, all of the bolts will be checked.

@Confucius_Says...

4 ай бұрын

🤣🤣🤣 Great quote from "Lucille". Masterpiece, that one...

Spirit employe did not fasten the locking ”screw” because Boing disassamble it when doing the final mounting, they think. But Boing do not, and Boing do not have a safety check on that because it is on Spirit to check. A part of a company culture problem. Thoughts on that….

Very well explained the management decisions going back years, the context, and the unforeseen consequences down the line. It's difficult to see the point of having a QC team if one tells them to report their findings in a way to look good for KPIs, and then forget that they are the last backstop before a potentially faulty product goes into service.

The recent info in the last few days was about the plug door being removed at Renton to allow Spirit employees to fix rivet problems. But the way the info got into the two different quality management systems used by Spirit and Boeing, meant that the need to reinspect the plug door bolts, was missed.

@johnlucas2037

4 ай бұрын

Actually Blancolirio did a video which stated the door wasn’t actually removed but it was opened. If I remember correctly it had to do with a fixing the seal. For some reason opening the door didn’t create a paper trail while removing the door would require more paperwork so they elected to only open the door.

@clarkkent7973

4 ай бұрын

According to Seattle Times report, the door bolts were removed by Boeing and never re-installed.

@patrikfloding7985

4 ай бұрын

@@johnlucas2037it was logged as ‘opened” to remove the need for inspection. But it would have to be removed as it’s not hinged. Taking shortcuts by abusing the system is exactly how you cause disasters.

@davidbickford2539

4 ай бұрын

Spirit and Boeing use different QC systems. The paper trail for removal of the door and merely opening the door spark different inspections, depending on which operation was performed where. That is where the disconnect happened.

@davidfuller581

4 ай бұрын

@@johnlucas2037 The thing is, as a _plug_ door, there's no difference between removal and opening - you need to remove the bolts regardless.

I have a solution. Since these fuselages travel through my home town of Huntley Montana, they can put these rail cars on a siding, my buddies and I can grab our wrenches and make sure the nuts and bolts are tightened up to specs. Great Video!

I always appreciate these VERY thorough videos, and especially the fact that although you're a 737 pilot, you're not a fanboy who thinks Boeing can do no wrong. You take a very honest, but fair perspective.

Hi Petter, could u maybe look into doing a video on flight LY-1862. My dad has seen this accident happening and it is the biggest and most controversial accident in the Netherlands. Till this day, there still is discussion about it and it is very misunderstood so I thought it would be cool if you could cover it! Furthermore thanks for the amazing content, big fan!

As a former member of CAA-UK, JAA and EASA, I can't help feeling that this is ultimately a failure of regulation. The regulatory framework makes the regulator ultimately responsible for airworthiness and it does this through a series of back-to-back arrangements with manufacturers, OEMs*, their suppliers, their quality systems right down to the guy on the shop floor. The regulator has to approve these systems and carry out regular audits to ensure compliance. OEMs have the same responsibility with their suppliers. Each approved organisations also carries out internal audits. The problem comes when the manufacturer is putting profit before quality (this slowly destroyed McDonnell-Douglas). the FAA should be monitoring these possibilities and has an anonymous reporting system for whistle-blowers. But what happens when a company is the size of Boeing with it's tremendous political clout...dealing with a state-funded regulator that is continuously trying to cut its costs (FAA is not funded by industry). Well, the 737 Max 8 and 9 happen. People are cutting corners because of pressure to compete with Airbus. Quality concerns seem to take second place. FAA has always had a bit of a reputation as being amenable to political pressure in a way that EASA is not. The US, FAA and Boeing really need to tighten up their act. *OEM= Original Equipment Manufacturer

@RyanBlackhawke

4 ай бұрын

It'd help if our congresscritters weren't gutting the FAA every time we turn around.

@Taskarnin

4 ай бұрын

Agree. In my opinion at this point all MAX should be permanently grounded and their airworthiness certifications revoked. Even if only to ensure The companies suffer appropriately for these issues. Remember just a few years ago the max killed nearly 300 people.

@rfwillett2424

4 ай бұрын

Regulation is critical, but bad culture will always find ways to work around it.

@brendoncummins2762

4 ай бұрын

Citizens United all but guaranteed that regulators would have their budgets slashed so that corporations can maximize profit over public safety.

The culture will not change until the current leadership is gone. Dave Calhoun is straight from GE and has always practiced their style of management. Since 1997 (MDD merger) Boeing has been run by people that emphasize profits over safety. I highly recommend "Flying Blind" by Peter Robison, probably the best book out there as far as detailing how Boeing management works and how politics and lobbying have shaped the company into what it is today....a hot mess.

As an aviation enthusiast, I've always had a desire to work at Boeing. That desire ended around the time they "purchased" McDonnell Douglas. In reality, it was MD leadership that started to take control of the business. It soon became a stock price game rather than the Boeing so many remember. That's one of the reasons they moved their headquarters to Chicago. It seems like bad move after bad move followed. I have a friend who's wife left Boeing after 17 years and from what he said the last few years were hell for her and she spent a lot of time crying after work. That doesn't sound like a build problem to me, it sounds like a massive culture problem. When it became less about designing and building the worlds best aircraft (or attempting to) and more about how to squeeze as much money out of the company, that's when the downturn started to really take hold and unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's enough ground clearance to pull up.

I am retired now, but I used to work for another one of Boeing’s major suppliers and all I can say, is the culture at the company I was working for affected me quite negatively

@diedradiesch6491

4 ай бұрын

They behaved like a Boeing Wannabee.

It is funny that back in September of last year I was visiting the Kansas Aviation Museum that is next door to Spirit and I saw a whole bunch of green tubes and white tubes on the tarmac and wondered what they were (they were far enough away I could not see them well). Research showed they were completed fuselages that were waiting on Boeing. Shortly after I got back I heard about the bulkhead and rudder problems and then I found out that Spirit was once a part of Boeing. Further reading showed that there were a lot of problems at Spirit since it took over.

I admit to being surprised that Boeing doesn’t actually build its aeroplane bodies. I wonder how much the subcontracting culture was a factor.

@MentourNow

4 ай бұрын

A great deal

@diestormlie

4 ай бұрын

To my cynical mind, part of the attraction of subcontracting to a company like Boeing is the obfuscation and plausible deniability that it brings. Think of it like this: If Boeing did all production in house, then any manufacturing or QA failures are undeniably on Boeing. But, with such a major component of their aircraft made by a subcontractor, then it could be seen to be the fault of the Subcontractor. Or a failure in transport. Or a failure or the two different corporations to properly coordinate or communicate. Using a Subcontractor is undeniably making the entire enterprise more complicated. But that complexity can be usefully deployed as a shield.

@snarkywombat155

4 ай бұрын

@@MentourNow this makes me rethink flying Boeing aircraft. How on earth can such critical qa be performed if they don’t actually produce the product.

@SeanBZA

4 ай бұрын

@@diestormlie Thing is Spirit was spun off out of Boeing in order to separate them from liability, and to get rid of a lot of union labour in the process, as well as getting rid of high cost staff, those senior ones that had all the knowledge.

@snarkywombat155

4 ай бұрын

@@diestormlie it is not cynical, it is entirely correct.

Your final question on Boeing buying back Spirit(as a complete entity as it stands today) is impossible for competition law reasons in several countries. As you mentioned, Spirit went on a buying spurge, buying up suppliers to Airbus, Bombardier, and other aircraft manufacturers. Therefore, competition law in the EU, UK, Canada and even Malaysia, will have to be overcome. I personally think Airbus would never agree to it, having then to hand over its design blueprints for parts to its major competitor.