Boeing is unscrupulous in competition, why did the US Aviation Administration become "eyes blind"?
Column
In the face of the highly monopolistic reality of the U.S. civil aviation airliner manufacturing industry, the thorough reform of the regulatory system proposed in this survey report is often nothing but empty words.
On October 29, 2018 and March 10, 2019, two Boeing 737 MAX passenger planes belonging to Lion Air Indonesia and Ethiopian Airlines respectively crashed, resulting in the death of a total of 346 passengers on the two passenger planes.
But where is the crux of the problem?
Now the "answer" came out-on September 16, local time, the US Congressional Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a 238-page investigation report on the Boeing 737 MAX passenger plane crash.
The report, which was only released after 18 months of investigation, confirmed that Boeing was "grabbing progress" and used fraudulent means to quickly 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-stall system (MCAS) is used to replace the more time-consuming aircraft aerodynamic shape modification; for example, cutting corners in the compilation of 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 may lead to serious consequences.
The conclusion is that the previous two fatal crashes of the 737 MAX series aircraft were caused by Boeing and the FAA's "serious mistakes", and the FAA's regulatory system "has serious problems" and urgently needs to be thoroughly reformed.
With interests linked, U.S. regulators have long condoned Boeing
Although in this investigation 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 safety and regulatory transparency." The point is not easy.
The United States has always relied on specialized agencies and rules and systems to restrain corporate behavior and strengthen product quality and safety management.
But facts have proved that when this tradition encounters a highly monopolistic special industry such as civil aviation passenger aircraft manufacturing, and a corporate giant "too big to fail" such as Boeing, it will appear to be seriously "passivated."
The report mentioned that because international rival France Airbus launched in December 2010 the A320 NEO, which poses a serious market threat to Boeing’s main aircraft, the Boeing 737 series, Boeing felt that the spur was behind it, so it did not hesitate to take various measures to approve the Boeing 737 MAX. The program speeded up and the model was launched in August 2011.
In fact, Boeing has repeatedly used its monopoly position and “too big to fail” advantage of scale to make holes in the regulatory “ceiling”.
The use of the federal government, local governments, and regulatory agencies to fear that Boeing would “suffer” and hurt their own interests, prompting the regulatory authorities to "raise their hands", and even promote the FAA to "outsource" part of the approval process to Boeing itself is also Boeing's god operation.
In the end, a new "problem" model was easily sent to the market and sent to the blue sky. In half a year, it caused two major air crashes and caused hundreds of deaths. Behind this tragedy is the failure of FAA supervision. Bit.
The reason why 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 up to the best" and take care of the actual needs of the federal government and even the president.
The competition between Boeing and Airbus has a bearing on the strategic interests of the United States in the "manufacturing crown" of civil aviation airliner manufacturing, and even life and death. It is also related to the president's political performance, government reputation and party elections, as well as sensitive economic data and employment rates. And local perceptions of the federal government and the president.
Because of this, whenever Boeing needs to race against Airbus, the "flexibility" of the FAA's regulation will be extremely flexible.
"Reform" may be empty talk
On the day the investigation report was released, the FAA underlined in a statement that they would work with the committee to "make necessary reforms aimed at improving aviation safety by improving our organization, processes, and culture."
But how to ensure that this "necessary reform" is in place?
How to carry out supervision that has proved indispensable in fact?
How to force the FAA to change its course?
The report was unclear, and the FAA was silent.
Obviously, expecting Boeing to become more "self-disciplined" is probably because of the odds.
To a large extent, the nature of the report, which is rigorously worded and vowed to reform, is only a "by-product" of the political parties in the United States.
The majority of the members of the Congressional Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are Democrats. They rushed to pass and release 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 Republicans need to do their best to preserve the reputation and face of Boeing and the FAA, preserve Boeing’s market share and reputation, and preserve the economic data and employment data that Boeing brings to highlight the president’s and The federal government's good governance performance adds points to the election.
As the opposition party, the Democratic congressmen at this moment, of course, will not be "polite" to Boeing and the FAA-because the more embarrassed Boeing and the FAA, the more they can show that "Trump and the federal government have no way to govern."
At first glance, the weight of 346 lives is mentioned in the game, but in their eyes, it is just a bargaining chip in the election battle.
As for how to get rid of the accumulated abuses, it can only be put on the bottom of this issue and reduced to a question of waiting.
□Li Houhe (Columnist)