Alaska Airlines explosive decompression 1/5/23

I’m pretty sure this was a forgone conclusion by that whistleblower’s account of the root problem. Didn’t they say that removal of the bolts to crack open the door didn’t require documentation as long as the door wasn’t completely removed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
Half Fast said:
With respect to documentation, if the door plug removal was undocumented there would be no documentation to share.
Click to expand...
That is the most brain dead, say nothing statement ever. Thank you Boeing for literally just defining “undocumented” lol
 
AKiss20 said:
That is the most brain dead, say nothing statement ever. Thank you Boeing for literally just defining “undocumented” lol
Click to expand...
When the NTSB Chair calls Boeing out publicly saying they are being uncooperative because they haven’t providing documentation for the door removal how would you expect Boeing to respond when the documentation doesn’t exist? It seems like a dumbed down statement is what the NTSB chair needed in order to understand why.
 
kmacht said:
When the NTSB Chair calls Boeing out publicly saying they are being uncooperative because they haven’t providing documentation for the door removal how would you expect Boeing to respond when the documentation doesn’t exist? It seems like a dumbed down statement is what the NTSB chair needed in order to understand why.
Click to expand...
Then why use the word “if” (as HalfFast said)? Either the documentation exists or it doesn’t. Say whether it does or doesn’t.

The statement as written doesn’t say “the documentation doesn’t exist therefore we aren’t being uncooperative by not sharing it”. It currently says “we wouldn’t be being uncooperative if the documentation didn’t exist, but we aren’t saying whether it exists or not,” which itself is basically stalling and being uncooperative.

If Boeing is trying to communicate what you claim, then they need a communications class.

“With respect to documentation, unfortunately none exists and therefore it is impossible for us to share said documentation with the NTSB.This represents a major failure of our internal processes and we will be reviewing how this could have occurred and how we can prevent it in the future. Furthermore, we will continue to cooperate with the NTSB fully with all aspects of the investigation to the fullest extent possible.”

How about that for a response?
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
FIFY

This part is utter BS:
NTSB investigators do not know who on the Boeing assembly line removed and reinstalled the door plug...​
You mean to tell me Boeing doesn't know who was at work that day and they have no time and attendance records and no accounting of who charged the rework charge number and no one signed an approval for the work??!! I gotta admit, it takes some serious cajones to lie like that.

I'll note that what Boeing said is actually "if" there are no records.
Boeing followed up with a statement: "With respect to documentation, if the door plug removal was undocumented there would be no documentation to share.​
So we're supposed to think that Boeing does undocumented R&R on an airliner? I'm sure their potential customers (if any are left) are going to love that one!
Click to expand...

“Ziad Ojakli, Boeing executive vice president and the company’s chief government lobbyist, said in a letter to Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wa., obtained by the Seattle Times, adding the “working hypothesis: that the documents required by our processes were not created when the door plug was opened.”

From my POV this plug has been treated somewhere between a door and not a door. If there is no signature on the process, its going to be difficult to nail down who performed the task. Do you expect the union crew to point out who it was? If documentation/process for the plug never existed, can we really fault who opened the plug? If this was considered a door for MX purposes, would anyone think twice about just opening it?

In a past life I worked RJs that many been in service many years. In a couple year time span I bet that I sent the OEM nearly a dozen AMM amendment proposals for incorrect or incomplete/missing processes. Several of them were published in AMM revisions, others in service instruction letters, and at least one service bulletin revision.

All that is to say that its entirely believable to me that documentation for these processes (On a brand new airplane by comparison) was missing.
 
Bacho said:
If documentation/process for the plug never existed, can we really fault who opened the plug? If this was considered a door for MX purposes, would anyone think twice about just opening it?
Click to expand...
Rroot of the problem. This isn’t a door that you can see is closed. So yes, if documentation isn’t required for a part that needs to be bolted into place then it’s Boeings fault. But I’m guessing documentation was required - so it’s Boeings fault for lack of training and oversight, and lack of quality control to notice the confirmation / paperwork was missing.
Click to expand...
 
Mentour Pilot does an amazing job on this one

 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Be careful.
Click to expand...
Accountants have lots to contribute to the world and often do a great job at the helm of a business. That said I do see validity to ensuring the senior leadership of an engineering company are engineers.

The royal ****ing of Boeing directly correlates to the time frame of the guys at the helm with no engineering experience. May just be a coincidence.
 
Jack Welch was an engineer. I think time has now proven his legacy.

Accountants can ruin companies. Engineers can ruin companies. It comes down to the person and their motivation (and leadership). Scapegoating a profession is just done through frustration. I could write a book about my dealings with engineers. :)
 
Years ago, a politician was doing a press conference describing what the definition of "it" is. And "Controlling Legal Authority" - which basically meant no one had prosecuted him yet, so it must be OK. Similar to many years ago when a politician accused his opponent's wife of being a Thespian.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Jack Welch was an engineer. I think time has now proven his legacy.

Accountants can ruin companies. Engineers can ruin companies. It comes down to the person and their motivation (and leadership). Scapegoating a profession is just done through frustration. I could write a book about my dealings with engineers. :)
Click to expand...
You have got to get a part time job teaching at a college. So many people don't understand this.

My career was spend doing Market Research / CI, and THE most important thing was "What is the overall Business Objective". 9 out of 10 marketing people couldn't articulate it. Everything follows that. IF it is "to make as much money as possible", then ok - just burn the plant down and collect the insurance money. IF it is "to make the most liked commercial", then ok - just spend tons of money for something entertaining that has no impact on sales.

IF your goal is to build the most advance airliner in the world, you end up with the L10-11, which while amazing almost destroyed Lockeed.

Need to be financially successful by building what the customer needs and wants - in this case an airplane that is error free, inexpensive to operate and maintain, reliably performs to set standards, and can be produced so that a profit can be made. Not easy - but that's why they get paid what they do.
 
WDD said:
... THE most important thing was "What is the overall Business Objective". 9 out of 10 marketing people couldn't articulate it. Everything follows that. IF it is "to make as much money as possible", then ok - just burn the plant down and collect the insurance money. IF it is "to make the most liked commercial", then ok - just spend tons of money for something entertaining that has no impact on sales.

IF your goal is to build the most advance airliner in the world, you end up with the L10-11, which while amazing almost destroyed Lockeed.

Need to be financially successful by building what the customer needs and wants - in this case an airplane that is error free, inexpensive to operate and maintain, reliably performs to set standards, and can be produced so that a profit can be made. Not easy - but that's why they get paid what they do.
Click to expand...
Great post!

I'm going to take a small exception to the bolded, however. You must always build what the customer needs, but if you wait for it to be what they want, you are behind the curve.

True innovation requires building something that customers didn't know was possible. Either meet a need that they didn't know they had, or come up with a new solution for their problem that they never thought about before. Customers don't know what new concepts and technology that may be available to solve their problem, so they can only articulate their needs and wants through the lens of what's already on the market.

1710422313187.png

As a side note, I would never expect marketing people to understand the business objectives for purposes of product development. That is the job of a product manager or business GM. Once the business objective has been set, it is the marketer's job to execute the customer-facing portion of the plan through demand creation, advertising, and brand/image management.
 
As someone who did a million focus groups, I can tell you that if you want people to design a product for you, directly and succinctly tell you want they want and need you’re rather lazy and will be forever disappointed. The purpose of focus groups and any MR is to allow you to listen, observe, and see what others aren’t seeing so you can bring a creative idea to people they haven’t seen before.
 
StraightnLevel said:
True innovation requires building something that customers didn't know was possible. Either meet a need that they didn't know they had, or come up with a new solution for their problem that they never thought about before. Customers don't know what new concepts and technology that may be available to solve their problem, so they can only articulate their needs and wants through the lens of what's already on the market.
Click to expand...

Yes, but only for certain customers. These aren’t cell phones. I might argue that many business models, and likely much of the domestic air service market, customers are not looking for revolutionary change, but maintaining their conservative, low risk status quo with minimal change.

Example is the MAX series, as multiple customers flat out rejected a new type certificate and demanded minimal changes to training, service, and parts. From an overall cost perspective they only wanted to supplement their fleet with incrementally higher pax capacity and lower fuel usage.

How Boeing executed this is an entirely different discussion.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Yes, but only for certain customers. These aren’t cell phones. I might argue that many business models, and likely much of the domestic air service market, customers are not looking for revolutionary change, but maintaining their conservative, low risk status quo with minimal change.

Example is the MAX series, as multiple customers flat out rejected a new type certificate and demanded minimal changes to training, service, and parts. From an overall cost perspective they only wanted to supplement their fleet with incrementally higher pax capacity and lower fuel usage.

How Boeing executed this is an entirely different discussion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Boeing would have been better off giving their customers what they actually needed, as opposed to what they were asking for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
StraightnLevel said:
Great post!

I'm going to take a small exception to the bolded, however. You must always build what the customer needs, but if you wait for it to be what they want, you are behind the curve.

True innovation requires building something that customers didn't know was possible. Either meet a need that they didn't know they had, or come up with a new solution for their problem that they never thought about before. Customers don't know what new concepts and technology that may be available to solve their problem, so they can only articulate their needs and wants through the lens of what's already on the market.

View attachment 126695

As a side note, I would never expect marketing people to understand the business objectives for purposes of product development. That is the job of a product manager or business GM. Once the business objective has been set, it is the marketer's job to execute the customer-facing portion of the plan through demand creation, advertising, and brand/image management.
Click to expand...
Customers have no idea what they want, and they won't tell you even even you ask them directly. According to market research and focus groups, New Coke is exactly what was needed to save Coca Cola from being destroyed by Pepsi gobbling up its market share. Neither of those things happened.
 
Lindberg said:
Customers have no idea what they want, and they won't tell you even even you ask them directly. According to market research and focus groups, New Coke is exactly what was needed to save Coca Cola from being destroyed by Pepsi gobbling up its market share. Neither of those things happened.
Click to expand...

Marketing airliners is a bit different from marketing soda.

Purchasers of very expensive commercial and military jets tend to be well-informed, have their own experts, know the state of art in related technologies, have completed their own detailed needs analysis, etc., etc. There can be some dialogue and give-&-take, but trying to tell them they’re wrong and really need something entirely different will come across as arrogance.
 
Half Fast said:
Marketing airliners is a bit different from marketing soda.

Purchasers of very expensive commercial and military jets tend to be well-informed, have their own experts, know the state of art in related technologies, have completed their own detailed needs analysis, etc., etc. There can be some dialogue and give-&-take, but trying to tell them they’re wrong and really need something entirely different will come across as arrogance.
Click to expand...
I agree that when creating a product, any product, for a specific customer(s), their input must be taken into account. And yet in both of your examples, the customers regularly **** it up and order what they don't actually need/want.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
the customers regularly **** it up and order what they don't actually need/want.
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn’t mean you can convince them of that in a competitive market where other companies are happy to sell them what they want.

The time for informing and persuading is years before the first dollar of development funding becomes available. If you wait for the BAA, for example, you’re waaaay too late.
 
So Boeing just "loses" the records. This is an improvement from the Douglas just forging them on the DC-10.
 
Lindberg said:
Customers have no idea what they want, and they won't tell you even even you ask them directly. According to market research and focus groups, New Coke is exactly what was needed to save Coca Cola from being destroyed by Pepsi gobbling up its market share. Neither of those things happened.
Click to expand...
I was there when this happened. They actually by passed the MR department who would have explained what a stupid a$& idea that was. They did blind taste tests. Idiots.
 
Oh my god. New Coke. I am *still* angry about that.
 
Half Fast said:
True, but that doesn’t mean you can convince them of that in a competitive market where other companies are happy to sell them what they want.

The time for informing and persuading is years before the first dollar of development funding becomes available. If you wait for the BAA, for example, you’re waaaay too late.
Click to expand...
British airplane makers designed a mega piston prop plane for the British airlines post WWII per their specific request. Then they bought the 707 because when they saw it they then knew they needed it. If you offer something new that makes someone more money they’ll more that likely buy it.
 
Hengelo said:
Oh my god. New Coke. I am *still* angry about that.
Click to expand...

Why would you *still* be angry about that because it was a long time ago, and there is always Pepsi or Dr. Pepper or Coors. I'm *currently* miffed at Coke for their new wokeness and am calmly (more or less) sitting in a corner sipping my Pepsi. Well since beer is one of the basic food groups, I'll just ... never mind (respects to Emily Litella on the old SNL).
 
Hengelo said:
Online pilot group reinvents business theory, news at 11.
;)
Click to expand...
I know you're kidding, but I believe it's absolutely true that the people on this forum are smarter than the average C level exec. More selfish? Perhaps not. But that's not what this is really all about.

I complain about it, and make fun about it, but even I fall into the trap of referring to corporations as entities that possess some sort of consciousness.

What is the real primary goal of the average upper level exec at a corporation? For most, it's either going to be to survive at their current status level until they retire, or to sort out a way to position themselves to make the next upward jump, toward more money and/or more influence. For the former, that's all about keeping your head down, getting things done, but not taking risks or making waves. For the later, it's typically about pushing or manipulating people and things to boost the next X weeks of numbers, and figuring out how to take credit for that. Neither of those things are really related to making a business better. They balance a bit, because one half is being cautious and slow, and the other reckless and without planning.

Business theory? A class I attended, many years ago, was taught by a tenured professor of economics. Lived his entire life within 5 miles of the college, never had a private sector job outside of teaching, never owned a business. Him teaching a business class was like a tv reporter trying to teach the operation of a nuclear reactor in a submarine.
 
Last edited:
Albany Tom makes some good points. At it's heart, a corporation has only one funciton, to make money. And a publicly listed one has to do that over very short time frames. The product is a never central.

But yeah, I'm still annoyed at New Coke, and I think "fear of wokeiness" is much ado about nothing.
 
Believe me, that publicly traded have delude value of capital worth. Learned this first hand after going from private equity to being owned by Textron. Any constructive (longer than 30 day) estimate of corporate value is its CAPACITY TO MAKE MONEY. You subvert that for some short term stock price manipulation and you're destined to lose over the long run.

I hand managers tell me that they loved software because one module was pulling in many millions with no outlay (that they could see). I pointed out that it was doing that because the year before I spent half a mil in R&D (salaries of my guys) developing it. Of course they didn't want to develop the "next thing" so they couldn't figure out why the growth wasn't continuing.

A similar thing happened with a package we wrote that gets installed in MRI scanners. Even complying with 501k procedures for clinical software, the sales price was small change to the MRI owners (I think we were like $50,000). It sold like hot cakes to all the existing MRI owners. The problem is, once you filled up all the existing units, people aren't buying new MRI machines quite at the same pace. Corporate couldn't understand how that worked.

I thought that a company that ostensibly is manufacturing based (Cessna, Lycoming, EZGO, etc... ) would understand R&D, but I guess that's why almost all of these lines are incredibly NOT innovative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top