If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page.
Because Airbus weren't shown, publicly, on multiple occasions, to be a bunch of incompetent fools failing to do basic manufacturing things well. Do you need a reminder that Boeing and their supplier Spirit failed at basics such as tracking who did what work, drilling holes, remembering to put back bolts they took out, tracking their work in the required systems, etc.
There is zero trust in Boeing doing the right thing, and every little detail of their operation needs to be under intense scrutiny to insure their incompetence and cost cutting do not kill any more people. Why did they change the adhesive on the oxygen masks? Did they test it enough?
If we were talking about patterns and stats that would be one thing, but this kind of pile-on after every Boeing anecdote isn't data-driven and isn't meaningful. It's just confirmation bias, and I prefer to see better on HN.
Not in the context of everything else that's happened.
> If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page.
Has Airbus been discovered to have decades long cost cutting, cutting corners, negligence, bribes, passenger deaths, incompetence, and criminal activity?
I'm not defending Boeing re: everything, I'd just like to see us rise above uninformed internet brigading and have a useful conversation that isn't primarily driven by cognitive biases.
In the context of Boeing actually fixing problems instead of sweeping them under the rug, it's abnormal to follow the prescribed procedure.
In the context of planes needing fixes like this so long after delivery, also abnormal.
Perhaps, but I think its a good thing that boeing is under more scrutiny and is getting more shit than their competition would for the same. Not much more general public can do.
Ever since the MAX crashes we periodically get these threads where a bunch of people who don't understand normal procedure speculate that a totally normal incident is actually more sinister. These are some of HN's least valuable threads, so I'd prefer to preempt it.
Might explain the comments you saw.
No.
The right way would be:
"Boeing discovered an issue in design or quality"
But this is not what happened.
It happens for example with car recalls too, there's a high profile issue that affects a lot of them or sounds particularly bad; then if there's a smaller more mundane issue they also have to recall a few for it gets attention it wouldn't have otherwise.
Anyone that remotely cares about aviation can tell you that completely routine Boeing-related “news” now routinely makes its way to the HN front page, not because it’s notable, but because everyone wants to post their recycled rants about “MBAs” because they had a bad day at work or whatever.
Exactly, I also wonder why I spend my time here commenting if everyone else is an idiot ... hmm. </ironyoff>