this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
428 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

73876 readers
3389 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Textbook case of late stage capitalism and a resounding success for Boeing's major shareholders.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The ceo of Boeing was the ceo of my bosses last company. He cut every corner possible, took his paycheck and ran right before the company nose dived into the ground.

Now that he’s CEO of Boeing he did the one thing he set out to do. Get the Max series in the air so he can get his fat paycheck. Hopefully nothing literally nose dives this time.

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The term is "GE flunkie." Literally a fucking accountant without a moral compass.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] weew@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Too late, 2 of them already did

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Boeing has made life a lot easier for Airbus over the past few years.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which is good for Airbus, because they haven't been doing themselves a lot of favors, either. The A380 is a pretty good plane that nobody seems to want.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, the trend turned against large planes like the A380 and 747. At least until they can make them more environmentally friendly.

[–] faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Especially since the B747 is way better than the A380 as a cargo plane, which removes an alternative for the A380

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 52 points 1 year ago

This whole LWT segment is a perfect illustration of the transition to late-stage capitalism at the microeconomic level, featuring examples of shareholder primacy, regulatory capture, communication breakdown, and recursive subcontracting. If I was teaching junior college microeconomics (Economics 1B), I'd consider showing this in class or recommending it to my students for viewing.

It really is a good schoolbook example of how a large reputable company goes to shit from the common ailments of real-world capitalism.

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So I lived in the Everett area and worked near the Boeing plant. My ex gf's brother worked directly on the line. One family dinner someone mentioned the two MAX crashes mentioned in the video. He totally brushed them off and said

They were from """n-word""" countries. They crashed it themselves.

He was the most blatant, but the other Boeing folk I knew spoke simmiliarly.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone on Boeing subreddit said almost same thing under this video. They just used politically correct term, 'backwards'.

[–] stellargmite@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Yeh that was one of the most shocking aspects of Boeing behaviour post the first Max crash. But it was the attitude from the top. Blaming the victims, on effectively racial or cultural grounds. An incredibly cynical and disgusting tactic, to deflect from their own abject failure of a business model resulting in death. The whole corporation showed how it values its passengers in those moments for me, ( and as a non American). They have no interest in our safety and due to this I haven't stepped on a Boeing plane since the Lion air incident. Not that they care. It also made me wonder to what extent Boeing are responsible for the poor air transport safety history of Indonesia and elsewhere. I would bet they haven't put a cent into atleast helping to improve it, considering how much money they have probably made there - it being an archipelago and the 4th most populated country globally. Several hundred people were sacrificed in order to expose these criminals for what they are. Profit making is too often a conflict of interest when lives are at stake.

[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a lot of people would actively refuse to fly on a 737 MAX in the future.

The design of the MAX was flawed to begin with. Essentially, the Boeing 737, designed in the 1960s,could not compete with the newer A320Neo on fuel efficiency due to Airbus redesigning the A320 around the much larger, state of the art CFM LEAP engines (Neo stands for "New Engine Option"), Boeing choose to jerryrig the CFM LEAP engines on their existing 737 airframe instead of redesigning another plane around the engine.

Now, since the engine is oversized with respect to the airframe, the newly christened 737 MAX has a tendency to tip upward due to too much lift when flying. Boeing opted to correct this in software by having the plane automatically correct its flight by tipping downward if it senses the plane was tipping up, which they called the MCAS. And of course, since one of the selling point of the 737 MAX Boeing promised was that no additional training was needed for the 737 MAX, the pilots did not know about MCAS, much less have a way to have a manual override for it.

So what if the sensors made a mistake and tipped downward when it's not supposed to, you ask? We found out in 2018.

It is not something that is fixable barring a grounds up redesign. But that's not going to happen.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At this point I'm not flying on any Boeing if I can help it. There's no way to know how recently it was made or refurbished and anything that Boeing touched in the last few years is suspect.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I work in the world of planes, my rule for the 737 family. Is anything in the older NG family is fine. They were designed and built long enough ago for Boeing's current issues to not be a problem. Plus they have seen enough maintenance with the airlines that they would have found any just in case. So that would be any 737-900/800/700/600

As for the Max family nope, I wouldn't fly it. For a number of reasons, but mostly the engines are in the wrong spot and nothing they do can change that. That will be any 737-7/8/9/10 with the 10 still delayed. You may or may not see the word MAX in the name.

The quick and easy way to tell them apart is to look at the engines. The Max ones are larger and have a sawtooth edge on rear cowling

As for other Boeing planes currently flying. Basically everything else is an older legacy model except the 787.

TLDR stay away from the 737 Max everything else is fine.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

I bet if we give them more tax money they’ll do better next time. Promise

[–] DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why is Boeing even still operating after 737 max, Alaskan airlines, tax avoidance?

[–] weew@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Boeing's #1 competency isn't airplanes or engineering, it's lobbying.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Honestly, this is probably true for any company once it reaches a sufficient size.

[–] exu@feditown.com 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're the only other big plane manufacurer beside Airbus and being the only remaining US based one, probably important for national defense as well.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fucking nationalize them then. And prosecute their senior management.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sir this is America. We only do hardcore capitalism in this country, preferably to the detriment of the average citizen and benefit of CEOs and stockholders the way God intended. /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Why aren't these people in prison? They're not going to change anything until there's murder charges.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe this will be one of the drops in the bucket that show that the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is the issue.

[–] nullPointer@programming.dev 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

no one escapes enshitification

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FollyDolly@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My uncle repaired airplanes for a living. I have never flown as an adult and I hopefully never will. Somethings I just can't unlearn. When he first started things were great, but by the time he retired it was a shitshow of cutting corners on replacement parts and who knows what else.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wish I knew who made the plane that scared me, I remember it was a Southwest flight, oh, almost 30 years ago now.

I had a seat on the wing and the engine STOPPED. No more pleasant engine noise, just silence.

And I'm like "We're OK, there's more than one engine..."

Then the silence was broken by the sound of them trying (and failing) to re-start the engine...

"Boy, they sure seem intent on re-starting that engine..."

[–] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 year ago

One of the defining characteristics of Southwest is that they ONLY fly 737s (Boeing). That and their focus on domestic flights helps them offer good rates and low/non-existent fees. I guess their maintenance only has to focus on one plane. However, it seems like they got caught up in Boeing's "737 MAX is the same plane" scam because they fly some of those too and I believe it affected their stock.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yet flying has gotten safer and safer, statistically.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Commercial flying remains the safest way to travel, and it continues to get safer. That's not to minimise your reluctance to fly. I get it: if something goes wrong it's 99.9% sure you're going to die, and know about it long enough for your last moments to be horrifying. But the facts is the facts and the facts is that you're way more likely to die on a bicycle journey.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WaterWaiver@aussie.zone 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country"

(Australia)

Any other way to see this? Or is this show not freely available (ie you have to pay for it)?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Let's cut all the things that made us great!

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 8 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/Q8oCilY4szc?feature=shared

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] SuperSynthia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I am so glad that all my flights on Boeing aircraft was in my childhood. Thankfully AirBus hasn't fallen out of the fucking sky :\

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Since this is lemmy and not tiktok, anyone has a short description? There are reasons i can't play it.

[–] BillMurray@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Boeing used to be a company that put safety and quality first, they revolutionized plane travel with the 737. But recently Boeing has put share price ahead of safety and decided to move their corporate office from Seattle, where the planes are built and engineering is done, to Boston (edit: Chicago, not Boston). Why? Because executives heard that successful companies have corporate offices in a separate location. Then the merger with McDonnell Douglas, who has a horrible track record just made Boeing's quality slide even further. Boeing now parcels out work to subcontractors who subcontract even further and there is no oversight or quality control on the components. This results in "door plugs" missing bolts or having bolts that were not tightened properly on the 737 max.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

According to the video it was Chicago, not Boston. Why anyone would move to The Windy City is beyond me.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RamSwamson@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In case anyone wanted to buy one of those sweet shirts he inadvertently plugged in the clip, I checked the Boeing store and it appears they have pulled it already.

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Was that the "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going" shirt? I think it can be fairly easily fixed with a sharpie. If you're feeling creative, you could also draw the wreck on the runway.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›