Hacker News Reader

Comment by atoav | Hacker News Reader

The number one reason the planes start to have issues is essentially a lack of effective oversight. Not sure how much blame boeing gets for this, but this is a prime example for a certain amount of effective regulation having a positive impact on the safety culture within a corporation.

The MAX should never have been accepted as being the same airframe as the original 737.

View on HN

> lack of effective oversight

Regulators getting cozy with the people they're supposed to regulate happens in every industry, in every country, and... understandably so. Those are people who have the same expertise, same training, who work together all their life.

It may be one of the most difficult problems to solve.

I guess the question I would have is: to what degree is this happening in the US versus other places like Europe or China, and what can we learn by examining this in those places.

I would hope FAA learned their lesson after being (rightfully!) publicly humiliated by Trump doing their job better and proceeding to lose their prestige as the leading authority of aviation authorities.

But stupider things have happened.

Are you taking about the executive orders trump signed that reduced FAA oversight?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/03/18/did-tru...

Or maybe he was talking about Trump nominating a new FAA head who illegally retaliated against a pilot who was a whistleblower at Delta regarding safety concerns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/business/stephen-dickson-...

[citation needed]

Its not "getting cozy", its good old felony called corruption. You can tackle that, its not that hard if done correctly. But one needs to avoid conflict of interest from all angles

Number one reason is lack of meaningful competition (political buying decision Boeing vs Airbus) and industry monopolization. In the 1960s there were Douglas, Convair, Lockheed, Boeing domestically

And now compare the safety records, and number of plane crashes, between the 60s and today.

Causation, Corelation.

I agree that a lack of oversight is a core issue, but it also isn’t the job of the government to make your products good. The government can set same rules, but it’s on Boeing to execute.

Of course, besides that, Boeing itself is maybe THE major force reducing oversight.

> but it also isn’t the job of the government to make your products good

A century of progress in domestic automotive sector would disagree with your opinion, here.

If it wasn't for the gub'ment infringing on the liberties of the little guys (corporations), we'd still be driving cars without airbags, seatbelts, and proper fuel tank safety regulations.

I think we’re in agreement on that. I wasn’t saying that regulations shouldn’t exist. I was saying that if Boeing makes shitty products that kill people, then it is entirely their fault if they go out of business. The person I was replying to seemed to be shuffling some of the onus onto the government.

I think it’s to a significant degree the government’s fault that air travel wasn’t safe and people got killed, but it is entirely Boeing’s fault that their products suck and kill people and are losing them money.

Why would they go out of business? Unless of course they are actually banned from flying death traps.

Besides, Boeing as the only US aircraft manufacturer is too big to fail, especially with China aircraft increasing in number globally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com