What I'm hearing as a thesis is that a clean-sheet design would have been both more environmentally friendly and also safer.
A counterpoint is: if Boeing's culture is so trashed that relatively minor modifications resulted in such high risk, just imagine how much more surface area for failure there would have been on a full clean-sheet design? A clean-sheet design would have required retraining, yes. But retraining doesn't tighten bolts that were left loose, or provide a second AOA sensor.
A clean-sheet would have been environmentally better, maybe, but I don't think that means climate and safety have any causal relationship at all in this case. The boneheaded argument doesn't make the inverse argument correct.
Boeing will do exactly what the fossils have been doing for decades now: making decisions which maximize profits while creating all sorts of ad campaigns designed to convince the public that they're working hard to save the environment. Oh, and don't forget the gigantic "lobbying" campaign to influence legislation that could reduce their profits. Remember, folks: every million dollars spent on bribes - aka, "lobbying" - results in tens of millions of dollars in profit.
Emily or Arielle - did either of you see the recent John Oliver (Last Week Tonight) story on Boeing? He basically points out that they made a conscious decision to aggressively pursue profits over safety, and the crashes and other failures are a result of that decision. I think it ties in with one of the points you're making here - when companies keep putting profits above all else, we the people end up bearing the consequences in a myriad of ways.
I hope this information leads to Boeing being held to higher standards, but I get the feeling that's not going to happen without significant pressure on legislators from their constituents and consumer watchdog groups.
So glad to hear your parents are on the road to recovery! No doubt you played a big part in making that happen!
On the topic of combating climate change and feeding people, I would like to share the link below, of a letter to the editor I wrote, that was published three days ago.
For those folks who would be interested in doing this on a national level, they can go to:
Profit, aka greed, one of the deadliest ideas ever conceived. And Competition, profits umbrella system, on a societal level may be the most misunderstood. Love your work. Thanks.
Glad your parents are on the mend! You had a hand in that... I just want to say that there are too many people flying too often for frivolous reasons and the demand seems to be growing out of control. The demand for planes to transport them all is driving companies to short cut and speed up production. Maybe if we had a good high speed rail system the skies would be safer and travel might be a little more enjoyable. I, for one, would love to travel by train for shorter trips from upstate NY to Pittsburgh and NYC! Keep up the great writing!
I think what is interesting about planes and the airports that buy them, is that from a more right leaning "markets themselves solve societal problems, at least in an ancillary way" is sorta true in this case. Fuel is such a substantial part of the operating costs of airports, that when Airbus came out with their more fuel efficient model, airports did jump at the chance to buy it. And that made Boeing panic, which led to the 737 Max, but also disaster, like mentioned.
To be clear I'm not supporting the bullshit assertion by the NY Post piece, it wasn't "eco madness", it was actually simple market forces in which airports would save boat loads on fuel costs compared to the marginal cost increase in buying new planes from Airbus, and Boeing simply didn't have a competing product yet. And like stated it isn't driven by "good nature" but simply profit.
Obviously none of this solves the longer term goal of zero emissions from air travel, but I think it is interesting. Don't want to overstate "markets solve problems" too much though because also in this case it led to the disaster of the Max. And I think it is delusional from the part of Boeing executives to market itself as sustainable for PR purposes, when the people who care most about that, are also likely the ones who hate what clearly has been cost cutting and short term profit driven thinking, leading to the Max disasters. I don't think anyone is seeing doors fall out mid-flight and also going "well at least the plane is more fuel efficient" lmao
Looking to the future of hydrogen as an alternative fuel is also interesting to me, because I think this is one area where the public buy in has to overcome serious obstacles of perceptions of safety. I think if you tell the average person they are going to be flying on something fueled by hydrogen, their mind would go the the Hindenburg and back away. Of course in that case the hydrogen was meant for lift, but I think this is going to be a challenge. Idk just something I think about.
And fantastic news about your parents Emily! I know I can only speak for myself, but don't worry about saying "screw it". Publish and write at your own pace and whatever timeframe you feel comfortable with. Best wishes!
This is an interesting article. However, in a post about fuel efficiency claims and new aircraft models, I was disappointed to not see any quantitative comparisons. It would be helpful context to know what the fuel efficiency of the new 737-Max8 8/9 or the Airbus A320neo are, and what could have been realistically achieved by an entirely new design (as noted by the ICCT expert). Without that information, it would not be possible to judge whether Boeing made the right decision to retrofit existing 737s with new engines.
Finally, I would like to point out that there is no evidence for the statement, "...because the pressure to prioritize speed over innovation resulted in a flawed product that claimed nearly 350 lives..." - investigators concluded that the crash was due to a faulty MCAS system and sensors, which would have arguably been installed on a brand new model airplane because they did not know about its fatal flaw. The MCAS system, ironically, was an innovation - it just didn't work.
So glad, Emily, to read that your parents are doing better!
Good points, and an interesting angle!
What I'm hearing as a thesis is that a clean-sheet design would have been both more environmentally friendly and also safer.
A counterpoint is: if Boeing's culture is so trashed that relatively minor modifications resulted in such high risk, just imagine how much more surface area for failure there would have been on a full clean-sheet design? A clean-sheet design would have required retraining, yes. But retraining doesn't tighten bolts that were left loose, or provide a second AOA sensor.
A clean-sheet would have been environmentally better, maybe, but I don't think that means climate and safety have any causal relationship at all in this case. The boneheaded argument doesn't make the inverse argument correct.
Boeing will do exactly what the fossils have been doing for decades now: making decisions which maximize profits while creating all sorts of ad campaigns designed to convince the public that they're working hard to save the environment. Oh, and don't forget the gigantic "lobbying" campaign to influence legislation that could reduce their profits. Remember, folks: every million dollars spent on bribes - aka, "lobbying" - results in tens of millions of dollars in profit.
Emily or Arielle - did either of you see the recent John Oliver (Last Week Tonight) story on Boeing? He basically points out that they made a conscious decision to aggressively pursue profits over safety, and the crashes and other failures are a result of that decision. I think it ties in with one of the points you're making here - when companies keep putting profits above all else, we the people end up bearing the consequences in a myriad of ways.
I hope this information leads to Boeing being held to higher standards, but I get the feeling that's not going to happen without significant pressure on legislators from their constituents and consumer watchdog groups.
Dear Emily,
So glad to hear your parents are on the road to recovery! No doubt you played a big part in making that happen!
On the topic of combating climate change and feeding people, I would like to share the link below, of a letter to the editor I wrote, that was published three days ago.
For those folks who would be interested in doing this on a national level, they can go to:
foodrescue.us
I reside in the Salt Lake City, Utah; I volunteer for Waste Less Solutions, a local food rescue organization under the Food Rescue Us umbrella.
I really enjoy information you and Arielle provide in the HEATED newsletter!
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2024/03/19/letter-harvesting-hope-mission/
Profit, aka greed, one of the deadliest ideas ever conceived. And Competition, profits umbrella system, on a societal level may be the most misunderstood. Love your work. Thanks.
Glad your parents are on the mend! You had a hand in that... I just want to say that there are too many people flying too often for frivolous reasons and the demand seems to be growing out of control. The demand for planes to transport them all is driving companies to short cut and speed up production. Maybe if we had a good high speed rail system the skies would be safer and travel might be a little more enjoyable. I, for one, would love to travel by train for shorter trips from upstate NY to Pittsburgh and NYC! Keep up the great writing!
I think what is interesting about planes and the airports that buy them, is that from a more right leaning "markets themselves solve societal problems, at least in an ancillary way" is sorta true in this case. Fuel is such a substantial part of the operating costs of airports, that when Airbus came out with their more fuel efficient model, airports did jump at the chance to buy it. And that made Boeing panic, which led to the 737 Max, but also disaster, like mentioned.
To be clear I'm not supporting the bullshit assertion by the NY Post piece, it wasn't "eco madness", it was actually simple market forces in which airports would save boat loads on fuel costs compared to the marginal cost increase in buying new planes from Airbus, and Boeing simply didn't have a competing product yet. And like stated it isn't driven by "good nature" but simply profit.
Obviously none of this solves the longer term goal of zero emissions from air travel, but I think it is interesting. Don't want to overstate "markets solve problems" too much though because also in this case it led to the disaster of the Max. And I think it is delusional from the part of Boeing executives to market itself as sustainable for PR purposes, when the people who care most about that, are also likely the ones who hate what clearly has been cost cutting and short term profit driven thinking, leading to the Max disasters. I don't think anyone is seeing doors fall out mid-flight and also going "well at least the plane is more fuel efficient" lmao
Looking to the future of hydrogen as an alternative fuel is also interesting to me, because I think this is one area where the public buy in has to overcome serious obstacles of perceptions of safety. I think if you tell the average person they are going to be flying on something fueled by hydrogen, their mind would go the the Hindenburg and back away. Of course in that case the hydrogen was meant for lift, but I think this is going to be a challenge. Idk just something I think about.
And fantastic news about your parents Emily! I know I can only speak for myself, but don't worry about saying "screw it". Publish and write at your own pace and whatever timeframe you feel comfortable with. Best wishes!
This is an interesting article. However, in a post about fuel efficiency claims and new aircraft models, I was disappointed to not see any quantitative comparisons. It would be helpful context to know what the fuel efficiency of the new 737-Max8 8/9 or the Airbus A320neo are, and what could have been realistically achieved by an entirely new design (as noted by the ICCT expert). Without that information, it would not be possible to judge whether Boeing made the right decision to retrofit existing 737s with new engines.
Finally, I would like to point out that there is no evidence for the statement, "...because the pressure to prioritize speed over innovation resulted in a flawed product that claimed nearly 350 lives..." - investigators concluded that the crash was due to a faulty MCAS system and sensors, which would have arguably been installed on a brand new model airplane because they did not know about its fatal flaw. The MCAS system, ironically, was an innovation - it just didn't work.
Are we sure what caused the door to fly off the plane was faulty bolts? Don't airplanes only have rivets?