[ad_1]
Original Caption: Boeing Unscrupulous About Competition, Why Did the US Aviation Administration Go “Blind”?
Faced with the highly monopolistic reality of the US civil aviation aircraft manufacturing industry, the in-depth reform of the regulatory system proposed in this survey report is often nothing more than empty words.
On October 29, 2018 and March 10, 2019, two Boeing 737 MAX airliners belonging to Lion Air Indonesia and Ethiopian Airlines, respectively, crashed, resulting in the death of a total of 346 passengers on the two aircraft. of passengers. But where is the heart of the problem? Now the “answer” comes out: On September 16 local time, the US Congressional Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a 238-page investigative report on the Boeing 737 MAX passenger plane crash.
The report, which was only released after an 18-month investigation, confirmed that Boeing was “making progress” and used fraudulent means to swiftly pass the Federal Aviation Safety Agency (FAA) review process. In the major modification of the Boeing 737 MAX, many problems remain: for example, the immature fly-by-wire anti-lock system (MCAS) is used to replace the modification of the aerodynamic shape of the aircraft, which requires more time; for example, taking shortcuts in gathering information materials such as pilot training and flight manuals, causing customers and their pilots to disagree The MCAS system is unfamiliar and knows nothing about some of its hidden dangers that can have serious consequences.
The bottom line is that the two previous fatal crashes of the 737 MAX series aircraft were caused by Boeing and the FAA’s “serious mistakes”, and the FAA’s regulatory system “is in serious trouble” and is in urgent need of reform.
With linked interests, US regulators have long tolerated Boeing
Although in this investigative report, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the United States Congress seems conclusive, it is necessary to truly reform the regulatory system, “end the culture of concealment and effectively strengthen aviation security and regulatory transparency” . The question is not easy.
The United States has always relied on specialized agencies and rules and systems to restrict corporate behavior and strengthen product quality and safety management. But facts have shown that when this tradition meets a highly monopolistic specialty industry, such as civil aviation passenger jet manufacturing, and a “too big to fail” corporate giant like Boeing, it will appear to be seriously “passivated.”
The report mentioned that because international rival France Airbus launched the A320 NEO in December 2010, which represents a serious market threat to Boeing’s flagship aircraft, the Boeing 737 series, Boeing felt the momentum was behind, so that he did not hesitate to take various steps to approve the Boeing 737 MAX. The program was sped up and the model launched in August 2011.
In fact, Boeing has repeatedly used its monopoly position and “too big to fail” scale advantage to punch holes in the regulatory “ceiling.” The use of the federal government, local governments, and regulatory agencies to fear that Boeing will “suffer” and harm its own interests, prompting regulatory authorities to “raise their hands,” and even promote the FAA to “outsource “Part of the approval process for Boeing itself is also Boeing’s divine operation. In the end, a new “problem” model was easily shipped to market and sent to the blue sky. In half a year, it caused two major plane crashes and caused hundreds of deaths. Behind this tragedy is the failure of FAA oversight. Little bit.
The reason the FAA is willing to be “blind” is that, in addition to its bureaucracy and literary style, it also has something to do with the fact that this government agency often needs to “look at the best” and deal with the real needs of the federal government and even the president.
Competition between Boeing and Airbus influences America’s strategic interests in the “manufacturing crown” of civil aviation aircraft manufacturing, and even life or death. It is also related to the performance of the president, the reputation of the government, and party elections, as well as sensitive economic data and employment rates. And the local perceptions of the federal government and the president.
Because of this, whenever Boeing needs to compete against Airbus, the “flexibility” of the FAA regulation will be extremely flexible.
“Reform” can be an empty talk
On the day the investigation report was released, the FAA stressed in a statement that they would work with the committee to “carry out necessary reforms aimed at improving aviation security by improving our organization, processes and culture.” But how to ensure that this “necessary reform” takes place? How to carry out the inspection that the facts have been indispensable? How to force the FAA to change course? The report was unclear and the FAA was silent.
Obviously, expecting Boeing to become more “self-disciplined” is probably just a matter of fate. To a large extent, the nature of the report, which is rigorously written and promised to be reformed, is just a “by-product” of political parties in the United States. Most of the members of the Congressional Infrastructure and Transportation Committee are Democrats, who rushed to approve and publish the report on the eve of the election, while Republicans in Congress publicly expressed their resistance to the report.
The reason is clear: As the ruling party, Trump and the Republicans must do everything they can to preserve the reputation and face of Boeing and the FAA, preserve Boeing’s reputation and market share, and preserve economic data and data. of employment contributed by Boeing to highlight the reputation of the president and The good performance of the federal government has added points to the election. As an opposition party, Democratic congressmen at this time, of course, will not be “polite” to Boeing and the FAA, because the more embarrassed Boeing and the FAA are, the more they can explain that “Trump and the federal government have no way of govern”.
At first glance, the weight of 346 lives is mentioned in the game, but in their eyes, it is only a bargaining chip in the electoral battle. As for how to get rid of accumulated abuse, it can only be left to the bottom of this topic and reduced to a matter of waiting.
□ Li Houhe (columnist)
Massive information, accurate interpretation, all in the Sina Finance APP
Editor in charge: Deng Jian
