United Plane Veers Off Runway in Third Boeing Incident This Week (bnnbloomberg.ca) 132
A United Airlines Holdings aircraft ran off the taxiway into a grassy area after landing at Houston Friday, the third incident this week involving the airline's Boeing planes. From a report: United Flight 2477, with 160 passengers and six crew, had just landed at George Bush Intercontinental Airport about 8 a.m. local time Friday when it veered into the grass on a turn. No one was injured, and passengers left the plane on a set of stairs before being bused to the terminal, the airline said.
The incident follows the mid-air loss of a tire from a United Boeing 777-200 Thursday, just after the plane took off from San Francisco on a flight to Osaka, Japan, and an engine fire on a United flight from Houston to Fort Myers, Florida, earlier this week. The plane in the Houston-to-Florida flight had to make an emergency landing after one of its engines burst into flames 10 minutes after takeoff. The 21-year-old aircraft was also a 737 -- but an earlier version than the Max, according to FlightRadar24.
The incident follows the mid-air loss of a tire from a United Boeing 777-200 Thursday, just after the plane took off from San Francisco on a flight to Osaka, Japan, and an engine fire on a United flight from Houston to Fort Myers, Florida, earlier this week. The plane in the Houston-to-Florida flight had to make an emergency landing after one of its engines burst into flames 10 minutes after takeoff. The 21-year-old aircraft was also a 737 -- but an earlier version than the Max, according to FlightRadar24.
Tire was Boeing's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious that Boeing has some incredible and perhaps criminal quality control issues, but it seemed like the tire incident was more likely to be some maintenance staff didn't replace a tire correctly.
I feel like having a hair trigger to blame Boeing for things like this risks diluting the seriousness of the claims actually attributable to them.
Re:Tire was Boeing's fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no fan of Boeing, but airlines are responsible for maintenance. Pilots are who fly the plane. Nothing in these stories alludes to this being a Boeing problem.
It's OK to heap on Boeing for other problems, but this is just click-bait and likely not a Boeing problem.
Re: Tire was Boeing's fault? (Score:2)
We don't yet know if a defective part was at fault, so we don't yet know which corporation's executives to blame. I notice that doesn't stop people around here, though.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence so far of a defective part. There might not even be any, a maintenance or other problem. People will leap to conclusions, the correlation==causation myth.
Besides . . . (Score:3)
Official Boeing response:
"It is important to note that no engines, doors or other parts fell off this plane . . . err . . . well, at least it stayed on the runway, that is."
Re: (Score:2)
We don't yet know if a defective part was at fault
All the more reason not to make assumptions or assign blame to a vendor, especially given that none of these aircraft were newly delivered.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in these stories alludes to this being a Boeing problem.
Exactly right. Falling off the runway is almost always pilot error. Engines are a distinct part that is neither engineered nor built by Boeing. Tire problems are almost always a maintenance issue.
Correlation is not causation. Absent additional evidence, none of these issues should be attributed to Boeing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the common thread here really seems like United Airlines here... and Boeing hasn't owned United for 90 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of Boeing, but airlines are responsible for maintenance.
Maintenance eats into profits. The activity isn't worth doing if it does not bring in greater than 10% pure profit. Even then, if it is not at least 20% profit, it will still likely be dropped.
Long story short, you can have airlines, or you can have profit, but in the long run, you can't have both.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty binary thinking. Insurance companies pretty much demand that maintenance cycles are honored, and the FAA will toast you if you deviate too far from them.
Yes, they eat into profits, but that new, higher bag fee makes up for the difference.
This is not to defend their practices, rather, to target your "long story short" fallacy. It's just not that simple. Nonetheless, we agree that the airline (and their many contractors) are responsible for the astute and logged maintenance. It keeps fliers aliv
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty binary thinking.
Yes. Yes it is.
Insurance companies pretty much demand that maintenance cycles are honored, and the FAA will toast you if you deviate too far from them.
That used to be true, that the FAA would toast you; however, if the FAA can't see the problem, they can't toast you. Which is what started all of this shit to begin with. They, Boeing, were granted the ability self-certify.
Long story short, your belief in your theory was subverted by the company getting itself granted self-certification status.
Logic says everything should be working fine, so you trust in it. The real world along with LOTS of binary thinking, has subverted that.
I will never ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tire was Boeing's fault? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's just not much you can blame Boeing for here.
Tire: airline maintenance
Engine: Boeing doesn't make or maintain the engines (though they presumably do only support a limited number of models)
Runway: could be pilot, tower, weather conditions, etc.
Also, with big jets, there's only two companies now: Boeing or Airbus. It's kind of hard for it not to be one of the two, unless it's a mid-size regional jet or smaller. As much as I am not impressed with Boeing these days (with their space stuff as much as their jets), I can't really put any special blame on them for this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably similar to how all sorts of ATC related issues started being widely reported for a while when all sorts of mistakes and close calls happen occasionally. Now all eyes are on Boeing (and it's their own damn fault) so anything related to their plane gets picked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, with big jets, there's only two companies now: Boeing or Airbus. It's kind of hard for it not to be one of the two, unless it's a mid-size regional jet or smaller.
I also blame Boeing for this, not because they're a strong competitor, but because they had to whine to the US government to break trade law to drive a small competitor out of the market [wikipedia.org].
As far as I'm concerned they can continue to suffer until they're forced to sell of their aerospace division to a company that isn't run by amoral bean counters.
Re: (Score:2)
And the result was Airbus buying the C-series which is now sold as Airbus A220.
Re:Tire was Boeing's fault? (Score:5, Informative)
We'll have to wait for the accident report to determine who was to blame for the runway departure. Clearly the pilot *can* be to blame for some runway departures. The maintenance crews *can* be to blame for some runway departures. The airplane manufacturer *can* be to blame for some runway departures.
As an example of the latter, the MD-80, a trijet with engines mounted near the rear of the aircraft, has a design flaw where engaging the thrust reversers drastically reduced the control authority of the rudder. When a pilot lands on an icy runway, the nose steering wheel can't steer the plane effectively so he relies on the rudder to keep the aircraft on the runway, but in the MD-80 if you put the thrust reversers on the rudder no longer works. Eventually Boeing (the successor of McDonnell Douglas) issued directives saying that thrust reversers should never be used on an icy or snowy runway, which is of course exactly when you most need thrust reversers.
While it's *probable* that Boeing is not responsible for either tire or runway incident, it's *possible* it could be responsible for either or both. This is why the NTSB does investigations. You can't jump to conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't jump to conclusions.
Well you're absolutely wrong on that part, haha. Evidenced by just about every post in this article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tire was Boeing's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but if it's the engine, Boeing gets to share in the blame. They designed the engine, the warning systems, etc.
Um, not quite. While Boeing specs some of the physical and performance parameters, the engine manufacturer designed the engine and the maintenance procedures. Boeing and the engine manufacturer obviously cooperate on the engine/airframe interface parts, and there Boeing would become responsible for the design and maintenance requirements on the airframe side.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"They designed the engine, the warning systems, etc. And specified the maintenance schedule."
No, they really didn't do any of that. Pratt & Whitney or CFM International did.
Re: Tire was Boeing's fault? (Score:2)
And even if Boeing did, a 21 year old aircraft's engines would likely have been overhauled at least 10 times by now. Making it a bit far fetched to blame a design or manufacturing error for the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Tower mics (Score:2)
There are some interesting Youtube channels featuring air traffic controller communications to airplanes. You'd be astounded at how many things can fail catastrophically with no casualties. Engines catch on fire. Landing gear doesn't deploy. Tires explode on landing. Radios stop working. Electricity fails entirely. It could be manufacturing defects, or maintenance issues, or pilot error, or generic random problems that plague any piece of technology. The amazing thing is that, in the vast majority of cases,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe. The thing is that the manufacturer sets the standards. Hence some maintenance people may have felt inspired to do shoddy work by Boeing obviously doing shoddy work these days.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, no one knows. It's usually always a combination of factors - a Boeing design issue, coupled with aircraft maintenance issues, coupled with pilot error and that combination in that one specific case can lead to an undesirable result.
Unfortunately for Boeing, no one really knows until it's investigated. It may not be Boeing's fault, but given how Boeing is in the news, well what are you going to do? It could also be Boeing's fault in a being a design flaw that lead to the incident. All we kno
Re: (Score:3)
You are clearly a fanatic. You have this one issue which you mistake for an insight and then you push it on everything were it fits or does not fit.
For your information (although I doubt you are capable of understanding this), airplane mechanics need to get certified. If they are certified, it does not matter whether the are black, white, yellow, woman, man or dolphin, they know how to do it right.
Re: (Score:2)
fanatic
I would have used a different word.
Re: (Score:2)
I am referring to this quote: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.” Winston S. Churchill
I find it fits rather well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I do too.
flying on an 777is like playing the slots (Score:2)
something bad may happen and you lose it all
nothing may happen and you come out even.
or some may happen and you hit the jackpot payout!
Re: (Score:2)
Perspective (Score:2)
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a whole lot different than the mad rush of Tesla fire stories we saw a couple years ago - every single one had to be reported nationally all of a sudden, even though there are orders of magnitude more car fires every single year from ICE cars.
This led to a perception that EVs were unsafe and about to burst into flames at any moment, as if carrying tens of gallons of highly combustible liquid hydrocarbons around with you never led to fires.
This feels the same.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a whole lot different than the mad rush of Tesla fire stories we saw a couple years ago - every single one had to be reported nationally all of a sudden, even though there are orders of magnitude more car fires every single year from ICE cars.
Exactly. There has been so much talk over the past decade about misleading information on the internet. Traditional media has been misleading people for decades by hacking the human brain's availability heuristic. It's almost impossible to find trustworthy information!
Re: (Score:2)
But you know what happens when you throw lithium in a lake! You can look it up on Youtube!*
* lithium-ion batteries do not actually contain elemental lithium
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, no battery should ever just burst into flames. Basically that battery chemistry is shit and shouldn't be in use anywhere.
Re: Perspective (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Probably fewer. Airbus is mostly used by European airlines, and they generally shit their pants over stuff like that because over here such a thing can quickly ground your fleet.
Of course, in a banana republic, you can get away with shit like that as long as you grease the right palms.
Re: (Score:2)
If other planes have shown erratic behaviour... but you're right, it could also just be that the pilots are overworked or undertrained, but either way, grounding the airline is probably a good idea.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
How many incidents have involved Airbus planes this week? Now express that as a percentage of the fleet. I know Boeing has problems, but does every issue with a Boeing plane have to be Boeing's fault?
When former Boeing employees categorically state they will not fly on a Boeing Max [businessinsider.com], yes, it's Boeing's fault [politico.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably true that not every incident with a Boeing plane is Boeing's fault. But I don't dig into each one to decide, and my priors have shifted so that now I don't trust either Boeing's technical capability or their honesty. So that it's Boeing's fault is now the default position. Sure, it won't always be true, but do you bet your life?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The monkeys have decided to expel a member of the tribe, so they will bite and scratch it until it flees.
A 777 just hit an A320 on pushback. Clearly a result of Boeing no longer being a legendary engineering company and instead MBA-run and putting profits before safety!
Just about right on time. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a somewhat well-known superstition among civiland structural engineers that a bridge or tunnel or building will collapse catastrophically every 30 years or so, which is just about the time necessary for the generation of engineers that learned from the previous disaster to age out of the profession.
There hasn't been an honest-to-God air disaster caused by an in-flight malfunction on a large commercial airplane in the US in over 20 years. It's getting close.
Re: (Score:2)
well the door blowing out may of become an big disaster if some one was sitting in the seats right next to it.
Re: (Score:2)
But it probably wouldn't crash the plane the way a structurally deficient rudder or sparks mixed with fumes in the center fuel tank would.
What saved that particular plane was that it happened just above cabin pressurisation altitude and at a low speed. There is ample opinion from within the airline industry that had it happened at cruising altitude and speed it may have been catastrophic, and certainly would have been fatal to some passengers.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point there.
Re: (Score:2)
There hasn't been an honest-to-God air disaster caused by an in-flight malfunction on a large commercial airplane in the US in over 20 years. It's getting close.
Seriously?
OK, the Max-8 crashes weren't *in* the USA but so fucking what?
Re: (Score:2)
There hasn't been an honest-to-God air disaster caused by an in-flight malfunction on a large commercial airplane in the US in over 20 years.
Ummm... MCAS?
Nothing to See Here, Bloomberg Clickbait (Score:4)
An old joke will soon be true (Score:3, Funny)
Where a bunch of Boeing managers and engineers want to fly together and just before takeoff they get told that the plane actually IS a Boeing plane. The managers frantically dash for the door while the engineers stay calm and lean back in their seats.
Do they trust the plane to not fall apart?
No. They just trust the plane to not even take off.
Well, they were landing in Texas (Score:5, Funny)
It seems like everything is veering hard to the right down there...
Re: (Score:2)
Austin called, they said "Hold my beer"
For reference (Score:5, Informative)
Here is video of the wheel falling off [imgur.com] the jet and its aftermath [imgur.com]. And here's an interview with someone on the plane whose engine caught fire as well video of the engine on fire [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
placing blame (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no fan of Boeing in 2024 but it is painfully obvious that all of these incidents also involve United Airlines. Does Boeing maintain the planes for United?
Re: (Score:2)
No Boeing doesn't maintain any planes. That's the airliner's job.
Re: (Score:2)
https://services.boeing.com/ma... [boeing.com]
So nothing to do with Boeing's current problems (Score:5, Informative)
In short: it's an older 737 from the time when Boeing did quality work that suffered a mishap like any other aircraft can. Not related to MCAS, not related to battery fires, not related to missing door bolts.
The only thing that ties it to the latest news about Boeing is that it's a Boeing.
Yeah journalism...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The common thread I'm seeing here is that they were all United aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
In short: it's an older 737 from the time when Boeing did quality work that suffered a mishap like any other aircraft can. Not related to MCAS, not related to battery fires, not related to missing door bolts.
The only thing that ties it to the latest news about Boeing is that it's a Boeing.
While you're probably right it wasn't Boeing's fault, and certainly nothing related to MCAS, you're complete wrong about everything else. It was a relatively new Boeing 737 MAX 8 in service for under a year (not only with MCAS, but one of the ones which was grounded so the MCAS can be fixed) and definitely built in the past few shoddy quality years of Boeing.
Yeah journalism...
I wouldn't blame shoddy journalism with your poor arse reading comprehension.
When was the last plane crash? (Score:2)
Remember the 1980s and 1990s when there was a commercial plane crash in the US like every two or three years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We have more social media now so these incidents get captured. In the 80s we had more UFO sightings.
Veers off runway... (Score:2)
In third UNITED incident of the week.
Sounds more like a United issue (Score:2)
Was the plan fire a 777 or a 737? (Score:2)
In the post:
"The incident follows the mid-air loss of a tire from a United Boeing 777-200 Thursday, just after the plane took off from San Francisco on a flight to Osaka, Japan, and an engine fire on a United flight from Houston to Fort Myers, Florida, earlier this week. The plane in the Houston-to-Florida flight had to make an emergency landing after one of its engines burst into flames 10 minutes after takeoff. The 21-year-old aircraft was also a 737 -- but an earlier version than the Max, according to Fl
Definitely time to catch up on sleep.. (Score:2)
I read "George Bush Incontinental Airport". :-/
Fords (Score:2)
What's this got to do with Boeing? (Score:2)
40% (Score:2)
40% of all airplane problems should be expected to come from Boeing. Anything less than 40% and they're crushing it on safety.
not boeing, not burst (Score:2)
It's not a Boeing incident. It's a United incident. In fact, they are all United incidents, not Boeing incidents. If a Ford F-150 gets into a wreck, is it a Ford truck incident, or maybe because the F-150 is the best-selling, it is likely that ANY truck wreck is going to be a Ford F-150.
Also, in one of the other incidents, the engine did NOT "burst into flames." Rather, it experienced a compressor stall, which results in flames spewing out the exhaust.
Re: The Consequences of Diversity Hires (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's definitely minorities as opposed to pushing profit over quality. Show me on the doll where those minorities took the job you weren't qualified for.
Re:DEI can be part of the corruption too (Score:5, Informative)
The whole thing about Boeing's quality issues being because of DEI is what Kipling would call a "Just So Story" -- like "How the Leopard Got its Spots". It's a made-up fairy tale written to be satisfying to childish listeners without having any facts to back it up.
There's actually a corporate history here. When Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas merged, Boeing was an engineer-driven company with a track record of producing high quality aircraft, and McDonnell was an MBA-driven company with a track record of producing shoddy, problematic airccraft. Since Boeing has a much better reputation, the combined entity was called "Boeing", but in fact the McDonnell corporate culture swallowed up Boeing; it was often said that "McDonnell bought Boeing with Boeing's assets."
Immediately the new management begain to cut corners and R&D costs to maximize short term stock prices. Probably the wackiest thing they did was they spun off the parts of the business that made different parts of the airplane -- like the fuselage (Spirit Aerosystems) into separate companies that would act as subcontractors. This means Boeing no longer has direct control over the quality of the airplane components, which from the point of view of management is advantageous because it allowed Boeing to put price pressure on the completely dependent subcontractors and then blame them for any problems that arose.
The other thing that impacted quality was the pandemic. The now-subcontractors of Boeing being under intense financial pressure let go their most expensive workers -- in other words the ones with the most experience.
Re:DEI can be part of the corruption too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The New York Post is a tabloid; it's the journalistic equivalent of a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: DEI can be part of the corruption too (Score:2)
God I fucking hate that macos "feature". If I really wanted a period, I'd fucking type one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many times are you going to trot out the same dumb ass link? Did you read the proxy statement? It doesn't say what you think it says.
It confirms my original point, "Today, DEI sometimes gets tied to CEO bonuses." My position is not what the false straw man you argue.
Re: (Score:2)
When Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas merged, Boeing was an engineer-driven company with a track record of producing high quality aircraft, and McDonnell was an MBA-driven company with a track record of producing shoddy, problematic airccraft. Since Boeing has a much better reputation...
I really don't know where you got that idea - aside from reading other coments - but the DC-10, and later the MD-11 was about the nicest jet out there, IMO. Spacious, large, and very quiet, with the engines at the back. If you had ever flown one you would know that 'Boeng built higher quality aircraft ' is pure BS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Boeing executive bonus criteria were changed from quality and safety based to DEI based.
I say this in the most respectful way possible: This statement doesn't pass the smell test. Are you suggesting that bonus structure for Boeing executives went from quality/safety metrics to solely, solely, DEI related metrics? If that's your insinuation I call bullshit, unless you can present something that supports your claim.
Re: (Score:3)
I say this in the most respectful way possible: This statement doesn't pass the smell test.
"... a proxy statement from Boeing filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Beginning in 2022, the aircraft manufacturer changed its incentive plan from giving executives bonuses based on passenger safety, employee safety, and quality to rewarding them if they hit climate and DEI targets, according to the filing."
https://nypost.com/2024/01/11/... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But thank you for conceding my original point, "DEI sometimes gets tied to CEO bonuses".
The comment I was replying to: [slashdot.org]
Boeing executive bonus criteria were changed from quality and safety based to DEI based.
Changed from. Not "sometimes gets tied to." Changed from. That's not "imprecise", it's flat out incorrect. Changed from means "we're no longer doing the first one". "Changed from" is just factually incorrect, no matter how you twist it.
One point I'll concede: I didn't read your original comment, or at least didn't correctly attribute it to you. "Today, DEI sometimes gets tied to CEO bonuses." further up there [slashdot.org] That is at least closer to what's actually going on. I would ar
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing executive bonus criteria were changed from quality and safety based to DEI based.
Which is not my main point that started this thread, its just me repeating an incorrect article. I thanked you for pointing out the article's error. However the article remains evidence of my actual point (below).
"Today, DEI sometimes gets tied to CEO bonuses." That is at least closer to what's actually going on. I would argue it's also "imprecise", that still makes it sound like it's the only criteria to me, but I can see where others would interpret it differently.
No, that is you completely reading in something that is not there, "tied to" does not suggest complete replacement.
Re:DEI can be part of the corruption too (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. Boeing executive bonus criteria were changed from quality and safety based to DEI based.
No it wasn't. That's just your fever dream. You are free to look this up on Boeing's website. The corporate compensation for executives is public record and the diversity goal that it does have was fucking pathetically small. The only DEI Boeing has done is improved diversity in the board of directors by appointing a woman in 2023, and a black man in 2021.
Their sum total of D&I goals was to increase representation by 20% (pathetically small number given their DEI report showing a company full of white men). In fact in all the years of publishing statistics one thing is clear: any DEI efforts they may have had has done fuck all to change the actual distribution of Boeing. Outside of the board of directors the numbers barely moved a percent over many years.
So no your point doesn't stand. DEI has had zero impact on Boeing, unlike the very well documented focus on driving down costs at the expensive of quality.
Re: (Score:2)
120% of practically zero is still practically zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Boeing executive bonus criteria were changed from quality and safety based to DEI based.
No it wasn't. That's just your fever dream.
Are you familiar with the concept of projection? Where a person sees their behavior in others?
"... a proxy statement from Boeing filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Beginning in 2022, the aircraft manufacturer changed its incentive plan from giving executives bonuses based on passenger safety, employee safety, and quality to rewarding them if they hit climate and DEI targets, according to the filing."
https://nypost.com/2024/01/11/... [nypost.com]
So the problem is not about adding a DEI target but rather removing the safety and quality targets.
Re: (Score:2)
So the problem is not about adding a DEI target but rather removing the safety and quality targets.
The problem is time and resources are finite, and yes DEI and climate distract the c-suite from safety and quality. And the distraction rolls downhill with new brainfarts from the c-suite. Secondarily this distraction is occurring during a safety and quality crisis period.
If you make something where lives are on the line, you focus on safety and quality. If you make overpriced fleece jackets for city and suburb dwellers wanting an outdoorsy image, feel free to engage in all the DEI facades the marketing
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great NYPost story, and that's all it is, a low IQ shock story from a tabloid taking a single line out of context. No company, NO COMPANY, has executive reward based on a single criteria. Just because Boeing had a DEI target didn't make their executive pay not based on something else. There was however a long history of documentation showing that Boeing's focus on quality at an executive level dropped long before you even started to fear the word woke.
Boeing's executive pay is based on multiple dif
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great NYPost story, and that's all it is, a low IQ shock story from a tabloid taking a single line out of context.
Despite its flaws, it still proves my point: "Today, DEI sometimes gets tied to CEO bonuses."
The problem is time and resources are finite, and yes DEI and climate distract the c-suite from safety and quality. And the distraction rolls downhill with new brainfarts from the c-suite. Secondarily this distraction is occurring during a safety and quality crisis period.
If you make something where lives are on the line, you focus on safety and quality. If you make overpriced fleece jackets for city and subur
Re: DEI can be part of the corruption too (Score:2)
Yawn. Your aged tropes don't convince anyone of anything except that you have poor critical thinking.
DEI hasn't been pushed by corporations for a few years now. It's old news. Fox just can't get over it though so now they have built up this obsession with identity politics and it's all they talk about now.
Meanwhile no one across the aisle (outside of TilTok) gives a single shit about DEI.
I mean I know Republicans fantasize about a fictional past, but their inability to keep up with the news is just sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn. Your aged tropes ...
Sorry bro, you are the partisan here. I'm not a republican. An SEC filing is not a trope.
Re: DEI can be part of the corruption too (Score:2)
What's also not a trope is the fact that there are fewer DEI jobs today than a few years ago.
Re:The Consequences of Diversity Hires (Score:5, Insightful)
Your are 100% correct, but not how you think.
Boeing's deadly problems stem from keeping the McD MBAs and letting go Boeing Engineers and technicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are the poorly paid and low skilled machinist making the part is a member of MAGA.
Re: (Score:2)