- Captain compares 737 Max to child
- Boeing faces safety, culture scrutiny
- FAA finds manufacturing noncompliance
Piloting a Boeing 737 Max is described by Captain Dennis Tajer as “observing a troubled child.”
The pilots union for American Airlines, the Allied Pilots Association, is led by its president, who asserts that he would never board an unsafe aircraft.
However, he declares that he must recognize the calibre of the aircraft he is operating.
He says, “I am in an alert status that I have never been in before aboard a Boeing aircraft.”
Because I need more confidence in their adherence to the established procedures that have ensured my safety on Boeing aircraft for the past thirty years.
One could understand why executives at the aerospace conglomerate’s gleaming new headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, might feel as though they are under attack.
The company, whose reputation has been severely damaged and under increasing pressure from regulators and airlines, is the subject of more negative news daily.
A brand-new Boeing 737 Max experienced its first malfunction in January when an inactive emergency exit door detonated shortly after departure from Portland International Airport.
The National Transportation Safety Board of the United States concluded in its initial report that four bolts intended to secure the entryway to the aircraft had yet to be installed.
Reportedly, Boeing has been confronted with criminal charges stemming from the incident and legal proceedings initiated by passengers on the aircraft.
However, even though no one was gravely injured, the affair had far-reaching consequences. The incident brought the aerospace conglomerate’s corporate culture and safety stance into sharp focus.
The Blowout of Flight 1282
A terrifying moment when an aeroplane door tears away in the air—every passenger’s worst nightmare.
Five years ago, Boeing encountered one of its most significant controversies when two brand-new 737 Max aircraft were involved in nearly identical crashes, resulting in the loss of 346 lives.
The root cause was allegedly maliciously concealed details of defective flight control software that were brought to the attention of regulators.
Although it initially admitted to deception and agreed to pay $2.5 billion (£1.8 billion) to resolve fraud charges, the company formally pleaded not guilty at subsequent court hearings. It subsequently encountered extensive criticism regarding its alleged prioritization of financial gain over the well-being of its passengers.
It reaffirmed its dedication to safety, and its newly appointed CEO, Dave Calhoun, pledged to “do better” in early 2020. “Much more so.”
Nonetheless, the examination that ensued after the occurrence in January of this year has cast doubt on that dedication.
Mr. Calhoun responded to these concerns by stating, “We will proceed slowly, we will not rush the system, and we will ensure that everything is done correctly.”
The Federal Aviation Administration of the United States announced earlier this month that throughout a six-week audit of Boeing and its supplier Spirit Aerosystems’ 737 Max production process, “multiple instances where the companies failed to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements” were discovered.
The results surfaced near an additional enquiry conducted by an expert panel concerning Boeing’s safety culture, which identified a “disconnect” between senior management and regular staff, along with indications that employees were apprehensive about reporting issues due to concerns of reprisal.
Former Boeing senior manager and 737 Max programme contributor Adam Dickson concurs that a divide exists between executives and factory floor employees.
He claims that the culture at Boeing has been unbelievably toxic for over a decade.
“Additions of safety measures and procedures are possible. “However, the underlying problem of mistrust renders these modifications virtually futile,” he asserts.
This week, however, additional evidence of how production issues may compromise safety surfaced.
The FAA warned that wiring bundles improperly installed on 737 Max aircraft could become damaged, resulting in the unintended deployment of wing controls and the aircraft initiating a roll.
The statement continued that failure to resolve this issue may lead to an aeroplane losing control. Consequently, hundreds of aircraft already in service will require inspection.
Boeing stated that, in light of the FAA audit, it would continue to develop a comprehensive action plan and implement immediate changes to enhance quality and safety and inspire passenger and customer confidence.
However, Boeing’s production standards have long been a source of concern.
John Barnett, the deceased whistleblower, was an employee of Boeing’s South Carolina facility from 2010 until his retirement in 2017. His body was discovered last weekend.
As a quality manager for the 787 Dreamliner programme, he asserted that unsafe practices resulted from the haste to produce aircraft as quickly as feasible to maximize profits.
One of several accusations he made was that, in certain instances, employees under duress had intentionally assembled aircraft with inferior components while on the assembly line.
Boeing refuted his assertions. He died untimely; however, they received renewed scrutiny during legal proceedings in litigation against the company.
Due to the aerospace behemoth’s crisis, airlines need help.
Ryanair has cautioned that passenger fares in Europe will increase this summer due to delays in the delivery of new aircraft. South-west, an American airline, intends to reduce its capacity this year due to difficulties acquiring the necessary aircraft.
Certain airlines might attempt to acquire Airbus models to substitute the Boeings that have been lost. However, relocating all orders from the American manufacturer to the European is impractical.
Each has a highly filled order book. Boeing has a backlog of over 6,000 aircraft, while Airbus has over 8,000.
Already, airlines are experiencing unfavourable waiting periods for the delivery of new aircraft. Deliveries have been delayed due to the supply chain issues that Airbus has encountered.
A potential third contender exists. The C919 is an aircraft manufactured by the Chinese firm Comac intended to compete with the 737 Max and the A320 Neo.
However, this initiative is still in its infancy. It will produce only 150 aircraft annually by 2028.
However, the market requires Boeing to remain healthy and promptly resolve its existing challenges. Can that, therefore, occur?
Ed Pierson, executive director of the Foundation for Aviation Safety, asserts that the problems are intricate yet rectifiable.
As a former whistleblower for Boeing, he has devoted years to persuading regulators to adopt a more stringent stance towards the organization.
“Take a step towards financial freedom – claim your free Webull shares now!”
He claims that although Boeing, their suppliers, airlines, and government agencies can overcome these obstacles, truthfulness is the first step in resolving them.
They must acknowledge the existence of these issues and cease twisting the truth. An increase in rotation rate corresponds to a lengthier problem-solving process and a heightened level of risk.
Boeing has never hesitated to decelerate or suspend production or shipments to ensure that everything has been executed flawlessly over the past several years.
Additionally, it stated that it has initiated a “Speak Up” initiative to motivate personnel to bring forth concerns that require attention.
