Boeing CEO fired today, 12/23/19, effective immediately

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,468
8,070
136
Boeing's CEO is stepping down with no end in sight for a crisis that has enveloped the manufacturer and its marquee aircraft, the Max 737. The Chicago manufacturer said Monday that Dennis Muilenburg will depart immediately. The board's current chairman David Calhoun will officially take over on January 13.

"Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg was ousted on Monday after a tumultuous period in which the company faced a series of setbacks, including two fatal crashes, delays and numerous issues with its 737 Max airplane. Boeing continues to struggle to get its most important product back in the air."

CEO of Boeing fired
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roger Wilco

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,497
9,867
136
He has completely fucked up the response since the first accident. But the systematic issues are a direct result of his predecessor systemically getting rid of everyone with experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Boeing should go under. Let airbus and solid European socialist oversight save the day.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
If you feel strongly about this either way, read Michael Crichton's "Airframe."

You're welcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paperfist

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,497
9,867
136
Boeing should go under. Let airbus and solid European socialist oversight save the day.
Yeah, fuck the million people in the US that have jobs as a direct result of Boeing. Not mention direct Boeing jobs being high paying with excellent benefits. Not like Airbus hasn't had their own share of bad accidents, to the point that their cockpit control philosophy is now illegal for new design.

Just their flawed cockpit philosophy has killed more people than the Max, yet is still flying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herr Kutz

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Yeah, fuck the million people in the US that have jobs as a direct result of Boeing. Not mention direct Boeing jobs being high paying with excellent benefits. Not like Airbus hasn't had their own share of bad accidents, to the point that their cockpit control philosophy is now illegal for new design.

Just their flawed cockpit philosophy has killed more people than the Max, yet is still flying.


tumblr_pl78dtIm3T1rby04wo1_1280.gifv


i tried to google airbus and cockpit philosophy but didnt see anything really jump out at me. Do you have any news articles about crashes related to this?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
If you feel strongly about this either way, read Michael Crichton's "Airframe."

You're welcome.
I've read that book and I fail to see its relevance here. The 737 Max crashes happened because Boeing actually did take shortcuts to try to keep the 737 type competitive against the A320neo, and not because of some pilot error that the media mistakenly pinned on the airframe manufacturer.
 
Last edited:

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,497
9,867
136
tumblr_pl78dtIm3T1rby04wo1_1280.gifv


i tried to google airbus and cockpit philosophy but didnt see anything really jump out at me. Do you have any news articles about crashes related to this?
First, wishing a very profitable company with a backlog worth hundreds of billions to go out of business is not capitalism. Second, EASA has fully embraced self certification through ODAs just like the FAA.

As for accidents, here is a very obvious one wher Airbus's lack of control feedback was a major contributing factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

First, the throttles didn't follow the autothrottle setting, so we the aircraft switched to alternate flight laws the engines pulled back to idle, instead of staying in their last commanded position (uncommanded roll back is considered catastrophic in the US and thus not allowed). Then the side sticks are not linked, so the pilot didn't know that co-pilot was commanding nose up attitude keeping the aircraft in a stall. The FARs have now been updated requiring control feedback, but airbus is still rolling planes off the assembly line with this known fatal flaw.

Also, a big reason people didn't act right after the first 737 Max accident is because Lion Air has one of the worst safety records in the world, yet they are still flying.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
First, wishing a very profitable company with a backlog worth hundreds of billions to go out of business is not capitalism. Second, EASA has fully embraced self certification through ODAs just like the FAA.

As for accidents, here is a very obvious one wher Airbus's lack of control feedback was a major contributing factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

First, the throttles didn't follow the autothrottle setting, so we the aircraft switched to alternate flight laws the engines pulled back to idle, instead of staying in their last commanded position (uncommanded roll back is considered catastrophic in the US and thus not allowed). Then the side sticks are not linked, so the pilot didn't know that co-pilot was commanding nose up attitude keeping the aircraft in a stall. The FARs have now been updated requiring control feedback, but airbus is still rolling planes off the assembly line with this known fatal flaw.

Also, a big reason people didn't act right after the first 737 Max accident is because Lion Air has one of the worst safety records in the world, yet they are still flying.

It’s not me wishing anything. People are refusing to fly on Dreamliner and obviously the max.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,497
9,867
136
It’s not me wishing anything. People are refusing to fly on Dreamliner and obviously the max.
Any links to real world boycotts of the 787? Considering it has the highest production rate of any wide body in the history of aviation, I think it is doing just fine.

No body could fly on a Max right now, even if they wanted to, the second a Max flight is $2 cheaper than an A320 flight, nearly everyone will forget their refusal pledge. Just like people still fly Lion Air and people kept flying US Air in the 90s after they had four fatal accidents due to pilot error.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,468
8,070
136
I've read that book and I fail to see its relevance here. The 737 Max crashes happened because Boeing actually did take shortcuts to try to keep the 737 type competitive against the A320neo, and not because of some pilot error that the media mistakenly pinned on the airframe manufacturer.
This is what I've suspected. I'm not knowledgeable about this but my intuition tells me what they were saying is likely a smoke screen. You also get this from the horse's mouth in an interview that aired a couple weeks ago or so on NBC national news:

Boeing Manager Says He Warned Company Of Problems Months Before 737 Max Crashes | NBC Nightly News

 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,497
9,867
136
This is what I've suspected. I'm not knowledgeable about this but my intuition tells me what they were saying is likely a smoke screen. You also get this from the horse's mouth in an interview that aired a couple weeks ago or so on NBC national news:

Boeing Manager Says He Warned Company Of Problems Months Before 737 Max Crashes | NBC Nightly News

Neither accident has anything do with production issues. Military also has shit safety compared to any commercial aircraft, even though they do ground their fleets all the time. The concerns he raised seem like pretty typical issues any time there is a rate hike or new sub-model at any production facility. But it sounds good enough to scare up the masses on the nightly news.

The issue was in the flight control software and the fact that the system was designed and certified as limited authority, but was then turned into a full authority system during flight test and for some reason (that I don't believe has been published) it was not re-evaluated based on the massive fundamental change in significance. People should be focusing on how such a major change wasn't caught in the certification process, since that could lead to widespread safety issues through aviation, as opposed to some new guy whining about too much OT during a rate increase.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,468
8,070
136
Neither accident has anything do with production issues. Military also has shit safety compared to any commercial aircraft, even though they do ground their fleets all the time. The concerns he raised seem like pretty typical issues any time there is a rate hike or new sub-model at any production facility. But it sounds good enough to scare up the masses on the nightly news.

The issue was in the flight control software and the fact that the system was designed and certified as limited authority, but was then turned into a full authority system during flight test and for some reason (that I don't believe has been published) it was not re-evaluated based on the massive fundamental change in significance. People should be focusing on how such a major change wasn't caught in the certification process, since that could lead to widespread safety issues through aviation, as opposed to some new guy whining about too much OT during a rate increase.
I remain unconvinced that those two catastrophes were due to negligence in the certification process for changes. They don't go to sleep on stuff like that. However, foolish production environment management is hard to pin down (or stomach). They'll never admit to that, and that video makes a strong case that Boeing was playing with fire on those planes. You're telling me they do this all the time. Makes me want to stay off Boeing planes (if that's true).
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,032
6,825
136
Boeing should never have been allowed to merge/purchase its way to its current market position, and we should never have stood for the regulatory capture these companies are pulling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Neither accident has anything do with production issues. Military also has shit safety compared to any commercial aircraft, even though they do ground their fleets all the time. The concerns he raised seem like pretty typical issues any time there is a rate hike or new sub-model at any production facility. But it sounds good enough to scare up the masses on the nightly news.

The issue was in the flight control software and the fact that the system was designed and certified as limited authority, but was then turned into a full authority system during flight test and for some reason (that I don't believe has been published) it was not re-evaluated based on the massive fundamental change in significance. People should be focusing on how such a major change wasn't caught in the certification process, since that could lead to widespread safety issues through aviation, as opposed to some new guy whining about too much OT during a rate increase.

So why is it taking so long to achieve certification? I'd think they could have gone with the certified limited authority setup to get there.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,497
9,867
136
I remain unconvinced that those two catastrophes were due to negligence in the certification process for changes. They don't go to sleep on stuff like that. However, foolish production environment management is hard to pin down (or stomach). They'll never admit to that, and that video makes a strong case that Boeing was playing with fire on those planes. You're telling me they do this all the time. Makes me want to stay off Boeing planes (if that's true).
Believe what you want. It is public information the system was certified as limited authority, but then changed to full authority without that change being recognized as significant. There is also zero evidence of any type of production failure leading to these accidents (or any other that I'm aware of anytime in recent history).

If you feel you're right, please provide some links showing that production issues in Renton had anything to do with these accidents.

I didn't say this was only common at Boeing, every manufacturing plant I've been around works a lot of OT when increasing rates or introducing a new model to the line. I also don't understand the massive concern about Boeing production issues, that have nothing to do with these accidents, while ignoring real contributing factors outside of Boeing.
 
Last edited: