Boeing Removes Head of Its 737 Max Program After January's 'Door Bolts' Incident (cnn.com) 52
On Wednesday Boeing "removed executive Ed Clark, the head of its 737 Max passenger jet program," reports CNN, "after a dramatic — and terrifying — midair blowout in January underscored ongoing problems with the jet."
A preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board found that the four bolts that should have held the door plug in place were missing when the plane left Boeing's factory. The NTSB report did not assess blame for the missing bolts and the accident but in a statement to investors before the findings were released, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun assumed responsibility for the incident. "We caused the problem, and we understand that," he told investors during a call after reporting the latest quarterly loss at the company. "Whatever conclusions are reached, Boeing is accountable for what happened."
Clark, who had been at Boeing for 18 years, had only been in charge of the Max program since March of 2021, assuming that title after the jets had been returned to service following the crashes. But he had previously held roles related to the 737 Max, including as chief engineer and chief 737 mechanic.
With the news of Clark's departure, Boeing also announced a shuffling of a number of executives in its Boeing Commercial Airplanes unit. It created a new executive position, Senior Vice President for BCA Quality, and named Elizabeth Lund to that position.
Clark, who had been at Boeing for 18 years, had only been in charge of the Max program since March of 2021, assuming that title after the jets had been returned to service following the crashes. But he had previously held roles related to the 737 Max, including as chief engineer and chief 737 mechanic.
With the news of Clark's departure, Boeing also announced a shuffling of a number of executives in its Boeing Commercial Airplanes unit. It created a new executive position, Senior Vice President for BCA Quality, and named Elizabeth Lund to that position.
Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
That's mostly what executives are for: a lot of them are mostly useless, but they serve as fuse when there's someone to blame.
Not to worry though: the guy will probably leave with a fat check for all his trouble.
The real culprit at Boeing of course is the FAA itself: they let a for-profit regulate itself with issues of safety certification that cost money. What were they thinking? Personally, I'm still waiting for the head of someone at the FAA to roll.
Boeing, for its part, did what all the other corporations do when left to their own devices: they jeopardized the lives of human beings in the pursuit of profit with complete callousness. You can't really blame them as a corporate entity for being legally almost compelled to act in this sort of psychopathic fashion I guess...
Re:Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
1960s lakes on fire, here we come!
Re:Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:4, Informative)
1960s lakes on fire, here we come!
Get your facts straight and stop exaggerating. Lakes weren't catching on fire in the 1960s. It was only rivers [history.com].
("only" is inserted there as sarcasm, just in case that's not clear - this being Slashdot)
Re:Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
The ultimate blame for this is Newt Gingrich, his moment of "brilliance" was when he realized that he didn't have to eliminate regulatory agencies like the FAA, EPA, FCC, etc. that his corporate benefactors disliked. All they had to do was make the enforcement division a separate line item, and squeeze. And squeeze they have, once upon a time the FAA had people competent to look at the 737 MAX and say, "This is too large a change and needs to be recertified." Now their only option is to trust the corporations under the ridiculous Libertardian dogma that no one would ever sell a defective item because they'd be sued in their phantasmagorical court system made up of incorruptible judges, honest lawyers, and jurors with the wisdom of Solomon.
Re:Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:5, Interesting)
Now their only option is to trust the corporations under the ridiculous Libertardian dogma that no one would ever sell a defective item because they'd be sued in their phantasmagorical court system made up of incorruptible judges, honest lawyers, and jurors with the wisdom of Solomon.
Funny you mention that, I ran into this about 20 years ago when a US lawyer at a privacy conference said that unlike the EU which had privacy legislation, the US didn't need that because any company that did something bad would get sued and so no regulation was necessary.
Listening to his talk gave me the same feeling as Hamlet about Denmark.
Designated engineers (Score:2)
It always raised my eyebrows that company personnel could sign off on things, but fact is it worked well for generations. Boeing has lost the culture that made that possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Designated Engineering Representatives had legal obligations to the FAA, so this was not just 'employees signing off'. I don't know why FAA abandoned this system, which worked well for a long time. (I'm sure Boeing told the FAA all kinds of "costs too much" stories.)
Re:Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno - if you've held both the chief engineer and chief mechanic positions and you don't ensure production processes are safe, I think you do indeed need to go.
At that level your sole job is to fight off the beancounters and make sure things are safe - in spite of the beancounters.
Re: Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:2)
If that has happened to you, shame on them. But such things are only possible when the masses remain silent, so then also shame on us.
That said, posts like this oversimplifies things. Iâ(TM)ve been in a number of big organizations, sometimes pretty near the top, and while many an exec might wish for this kind of power, it simply doesnâ(TM)t exist. We lead people, not robots, and people simply are not that easy to control.
Complexity is a b*tch.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be the guy got old and lost his edge. Happens.
Re:Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:5, Interesting)
Could be the guy got old and lost his edge. Happens.
He took the role in 2021. In the previous three years there were four other people [forbes.com] at that same position. As this comment from a Reuters article [reuters.com] relates, removing him won't fix the problem. The problems at Boeing are cultural.
"Firing the head of the MAX program was likely a matter of time, but I don’t think it means very much," said Richard Aboulafia, managing director of aerospace consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory and a Boeing critic. “The company’s problems are cultural, with the tone being set from the top.”
Another quote from the same article had this to say:
David Nolletti, New York-based head of the aerospace practice at business services consultancy Riveron, said the change would affect how the program is managed and could signal more changes.
“It’s not just a figurehead position,” Nolletti said.
“I think we’ll see more changes at Boeing as they evaluate their position and how their programs are performing.”
In addition, this article [reuters.com] from when Clark was added in:
Clark is the fifth person in four years to take the helm of the program, which has over the years grappled with quality shortfalls, parts shortages and then the safety ban following the crashes
In other words, there's more going on than just one person.
Re: (Score:3)
Throw the technical lead under the bus. Certainly not a business failure on the part of executives or bean counters.
Given that technical decisions on the 737 MAX were what landed it in hot water in the first place (their approach with MCAS was an overly complex, error-prone one with inadequate redundancy), he never should’ve been promoted to this role in the first place. They should’ve brought in an engineer from a line with a proven track record to right the 737 MAX ship, not one of the guys who failed to blow the whistle on these issues before planes literally fell from the sky, despite his ostensibly being
Re: Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:2)
Re: Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the executives laid off all the programmers competent to deal with real-time systems and multiple inputs, preferring less expensive contractors. In the case of the MCAS they hired a company which normally creates financial programs for banks, because all programmers are the same, right?
Re: (Score:2)
>with inadequate redundancy
I've been in the position of saying more sensors or I quit. It's not complicated. If the safety relies on the sensor being known to be correct or known to be broken, you need at least three sensors to be able to majority vote out the bad one. If you're the engineer signing off on the design, you're on the hook when someone dies (In EU law).
This sensor penny pinching appears to have happened on both the A380 and the 737 MAX.
Re: (Score:2)
Airbus has used at least three AoA sensors since the very first A300. Boeing still uses just two on their newest 787.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But no one dies when Hubble has myopia. Drivers die when ABS stops working.
Re: (Score:2)
Throw the technical lead under the bus.
Yes, they fired the guy responsible.
Certainly not a business failure on the part of executives or bean counters.
It is not the CEO's job to check bolts.
Nor is it the CEO's job to tell the technicians to check the bolts. That's the tech lead's job.
The CEO's job is to fire incompetent and negligent managers, which is what happened here.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the CEO's job to make sure the technical lead has enough funds to do his job. That obviously failed here. It is also the CEOs job to make sure the tech lead clearly communicates when he cannot do his job with what he has. So, yes, the tech lead needs to go, but the CEO needs to go as well.
Re: (Score:1)
It is the CEO's job to make sure the technical lead has enough funds to do his job.
How expensive are those bolts?
That obviously failed here.
There is zero evidence that the bolts were not installed because of a funding problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have no clue at all how this works. This is not about the cost of the bolts (and they did come with the part _anyways_) and that comment you made there is so abysmally stupid, it is staggering.
So, not for you, because you are insisting on being stupid, here is an explanation: What went wrong is 1. The people doing the installation were not adequately educated and did not have adequate experience or they would have made sure the bolts are in there, because they would have realized how important
Re: Yeah, that'll fix it (Score:2)
âoeDave Calhoun assumed responsibility for the problemâ ⦠which is why he fired someone entirely different.
Thatâ(TM)s not what taking responsibility looks like. Thatâ(TM)s what passing the buck looks like.
"Off with his head!" (Score:3)
Now to appoint a new scapegoat....
"Next!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I am being paid millions per year to be made a scape goat that will not suffer any criminal / civil charges, with a golden parachute when I am fired as the scape goat, where do I sign up?
"Deck chairs on the Titanic" (Score:2)
Until Boeing does a top-to-bottom reset of its culture, shuffling executives who came up and were successful in the "financial focused" Boeing of the last 20 years will just result in a new set of people to blame for a new set of failures.
Re: "Deck chairs on the Titanic" (Score:2)
Psychopaths regulating psychopaths is a strategy that is unlikely to work out well.
Unless there's a wholesale replacement of everybody V.P. level and above, it's just going to be the same types of people as replacements. Finance bros are never going to admit there's anybody better than another finance bro.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even that. These are _dumb_ psychopaths. They all need to go. "Business" types that think they know better have outlived their usefulness and have become a liability.
Re: Acronym? (Score:2)
Bean Counting Arseholes. ?
Re: Acronym? (Score:2)
Body Count Acculmulating ?
Does anything work in this program? (Score:3)
First the planes fall apart, now the head is falling apart...
rot starts from the top (Score:1)
It may be that he deserved to be canned.
it is also probable that he was put in a situation to fail.
so he could either stand up to the execs above him and get replaced or ... let something bad happen and get replaced ?
Hard to say.
But rot most definitely starts from the top.
I wonder what the CEO was telling investor last year or the year before.
I wonder if the word safety was used in any way other than as window dressing.
Maybe the CEO should have an engineering degree (Score:2)
I think that Boeing's CEO and the head of the FAA should have engineering degrees and at least 5 years experience in aerospace engineering. In fields where specialized knowledge directly correlates with outcomes—such as medicine and law—leadership roles require a professional degree. This ensures leaders are deeply versed in the nuances and ethics of their field. Aerospace should be no exception, given its technical demands and the critical importance of safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And personal liability if they fuck up badly enough (as they have done here). But greed and stupidity makes that impossible to happen without regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy Boeing fired as CEO, Dennis Muilenberg, had an engineering degree. That doesn't help if you're then trained to become a cost manager.
Head removed (Score:4, Funny)
I guess it wasn't bolted on.
I don't think they removed the head. (Score:2)
I think it fell off on its own and they're covering it up.
There is no pleasing people... (Score:2)
Pick one.
The truth is that this thing seems to be rotten from the head down and fixing it is going to take a _lot_ of changes. In management and on the floor. That takes time. You need do a full analysis and determine wh
There is a saying ... (Score:2)
... involving hogs and lipstick.
lipstick on a pig (Score:2)
ALL of Boeing's current management needs to go... and WITHOUT any "golden parachutes".
The total meltdown of Boeing's competence happened with the McDonnell Douglas merger, which the US government should have NEVER allowed. Normally when a successful company trounces a less-competent competitor and then decides to buy it, the resulting company ditches the management of the company that got bought and the people who end up in charge are the management of the bigger successful company that made the purchase.
Have No Fear... (Score:2)
Elizabeth Lund will get it done!
aye but did he get to keep his golden parachute (Score:2)
DEI (Score:2)
Remove white guy engineer, and replace him with girl mba. Definitely the right move.
Fall Guy (Score:2)
The 737 in any form is a piece of shit.
Boeing should have stuck with 757 instead of flogging this crap.