|
Boeing suffers renewed scrutiny after industry investigations.  Image c/o John Keeble/Getty Images By Anthony Romero News Reporter The year 2024 has proven to be a rough year for the Boeing Company, following several harrowing reports involving its planes that have sparked renewed concerns for public safety. The first week of 2024 saw a Boeing 737 Max 9 passenger jet lose a rear door plug midflight, with the broken piece landing in a high school teacher’s backyard in Portland, Oregon. The resulting incident led to the flight and its 171 passengers and six crew members having to make an emergency landing at the Portland International Airport. In response, the Federal Aviation Authority ordered the grounding and inspection of 171 Boeing aircraft from the first accident on January 5th to the 26th after the FAA cleared the 737 Max 9 models to fly again after having undergone a rigorous inspection and maintenance process. Despite the Boeing model returning to flights, the company is barred from expanding its production and is capped at 38 planes per month until these quality issues are fully addressed. A subsequent report from the US National Transportation Safety Board found that four bolts meant to secure the door to the plane were not fitted
A six-week audit in March discovered further complications with Boeing’s manufacturing line, including tests undergone with Spirit Airlines planes that identified five problems with the door plug. A separate failed audit involved a cargo door and another brought up installation concerns over cockpit windows. During an expert review panel, the FAA reported a disconnect between Boeing's senior management and other employees on matters of safety culture. Amidst heightened public scrutiny and legal pressure, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun is set to step down from his position by the end of the year, following similar announcements from head of production Stan Deal and board chair Larry Kellner to exit their roles. As a result of this quality crisis, the Boeing Company has reported a loss of $355 million in the first three months of this year. Production has remained way below the cap set by the FAA, and the organization has demanded Boeing produce a plan to improve manufacturing by the end of May. The January 5th accident has seemingly halted Boeing’s public perception recovery 5 years after the two fatal crashes of Max aircraft in 2018 and 2019. Despite this, Calhoun reports that he is confident the company can recover, even as Boeing suffers a one-third dip in its stock. In addition to slowdowns in production and a limited manufacturing schedule, the Boeing Company has had to pay $443 million to airlines due to the 737 Max 9 groundings and the growing frustrations concerning delays in airplane orders. Several former managers have also stepped forward to cite multiple manufacturing issues with Boeing’s 737 and 787 liners, culminating in Boeing eventually having to deny the claims from a whistleblower that implied the company took shortcuts in developing the frames of the 787 Dreamliner model. In light of several massive developments, Boeing remains a central manufacturer of large passenger planes- maintaining its duopoly with Airbus. Analyst Richard Aboulafia does not see Boeing losing this position despite its setbacks: “Even if they are No. 2 and have major issues, they are still in a very strong market and an industry that has very high barriers to entry,” he says. In the meantime, the Bay Area has also had its fair share of difficulties with Boeing aircraft. On March 28th, a United Airlines flight departing from SFO to Paris was forced to land in Denver due to issues with one of its engines. The Boeing 777-200 arrived at the Denver International Airport where all 273 passengers and 12 crew members deplaned unharmed. This particular incident is only the latest of a slew of technical mishaps: on March 18th, a United flight to Japan had to return to its gate at SFO due to an engine start failure, while on March 15th a Boeing 737-800 plane arrived at the Rouge Valley International Medford Airport in Oregan with a missing external panel. Another notable incident occurred on March 7th, when a flight departing to Osaka, Japan lost its tire while taking off. The tire landed in the SFO employee parking lot and damaged several cars; there were no injuries reported on the ground, and the plane itself was safely diverted to LAX. Eyewitness Gary Glass was able to describe the moment the tire landed in the parking lot: “At the speed and velocity that it was coming down, it would have crushed somebody like a grape," said Glass, “I look up and it's a tire spinning at a rapid speed. It bounced in the staff parking lot and it bounced onto a car, a small compact car and I thought that it was going to crush that car and stay there but it actually bounced again really high, and tires still spinning and then landed on a red Tesla and completely totaled and crushed the red Tesla.” Aviation experts state that the missing tire is quite rare and is a singular maintenance problem that is not indicative of a larger manufacturing issue.
0 Comments
New developments in Concord’s five-phase urban development plan.  Image c/o Google Satellite By Anthony Romero News Reporter The City of Concord has finalized a partnership with Brookfield Properties after accepting a term sheet for developing a naval weapons station. Plans for the former military base include the construction of a sustainable community space with unique offerings for housing, diversified job opportunities, and open recreational areas for hopeful residents in the East Bay. This particular five-phase deal with Brookfield is set to start development over a period of 40 years and will engage union organizers and emphasize community benefits. The 4,972-acre area will include 12,200 homes and 880 acres of dedicated green space; the developers intend to allocate 25% of the planned housing projects to designated affordable rates adjusted to the East Bay area. "I like the idea that our good friends at Brookfield are sticking their neck into the business (of affordable housing)," stated Concord Mayor Edi Birsan. "I think that's great." The majority of housing will be centered near Highway 4 and its commercial district at the western end will be close to the North Concord BART Station. Improvements to current infrastructure will also be considered, such as widening Willow Pass Road.
The Concord City Council’s negotiation agreement with Brookfield will give the real estate company 48 months to discuss the plan with the US Navy, who as of now still owns the land but has already selected the City of Concord as the primary reuse authority for future developments. Brookfield has brokered exclusive partnerships with the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council and the Nor Cal Carpenters Union to handle construction for the project. Over its construction period, Brookfield has agreed to dedicate $100 million to build local sports parks, $65 million towards a community center and library, and reserve 55 acres for schools. Half of the area will encompass a 2,543-acre park, which will preserve habitats for endangered plants and wildlife. The overall goal for the area is to provide a solution to the expensive housing market in the Bay Area while also reducing the suburban climate impact. “There’s an emphasis on lowering greenhouse gas emissions and making it a transit-oriented development that is pedestrian and bicycle-friendly with higher densities around the train station,” says Guy Bjerke, Concord’s director of economic development and base reuse. As a developer, Brookfield is set to receive $6 billion.  Image c/o Thomas Smith/Bay Area Telegraph By Matthew Colvin News Reporter In March of 2021, controversy arose over a group of pro-Trump supporters demonstrating on the El Curtola overpass over CA Highway 24 in Lafayette. They were protesting the 2020 election results by hanging flags and banners over the side of the overpass to be seen by passing drivers. The group posted up on the overpass weekly for several months, ultimately prompting enough complaints from Lafayette residents that a city council meeting was held to address the issue. In the end, Caltrans and the CHP were ordered to enforce state highway regulations that prohibit hanging banners or signs on the edges of overpasses, dispersing the demonstrations. Defending the council decision, Lafayette mayor Susan Candell stated, “While the city of Lafayette recognizes and respects the First Amendment rights of all protesters, we are increasingly concerned about the safety of motorists on the highway.”
While the situation was seemingly resolved at the time, three years later demonstrations at the El Curtola overpass have become relevant once again. In the wake of recent events in Palestine and Israel, pro-Israeli supporters have begun demonstrating on the overpass, hanging flags and banners in much the same manner as the pro-Trump group had done years prior. At first, the city of Lafayette seemingly ignored the new protesters, but in the late night aftermath of one of their demonstrations, pro-Palestine supporters graffiti-ed the overpass in response. This event brought the overpass back into the local community’s eye, leading to another city council discussion concerning the bridge and the ongoing protests being held on it. Residents expressed concerns that protests and demonstrations would only increase in frequency as the year progressed due to the upcoming presidential election, but no decision was made concerning CHP or police action. The decision, or lack thereof, certainly raises questions concerning the inconsistency of the city of Lafayette’s enforcement of highway regulations, with pro-Trump demonstrations being shut down, while pro-Israel protests have thus far been allowed to continue without police interference. As one city council member, Carl Anduri opined, “Nobody should be out there with flags, banners, marching, or protests.”  Image C/O Bloomberg / David Paul Morris By Andrew Martinez Cabrera Associate Editor On April 11, the Port of Oakland’s Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to rename their operating airport, the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (OAK), to “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport.” The following day, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors unanimously supported the name change. The success of the vote follows a March 29 announcement of the inevitable rename, in the hopes of “boosting geographical awareness” of OAK’s airport location.
In their April 12 press release, Executive Director for the Port of Oakland, Danny Wan, explained that due to the lack of name recognition for OAK and the need to increase the economic wealth of the East Bay, the new rebrand will allow for “[easier travel] for thousands of people and help grow the local economy.” In the same April 12 press release, the Port of Oakland listed local businesses’ support for the renaming, many of which reside in Oakland, in addition to the visiting bureaus for Visit Berkeley, Visit Walnut Creek, and Visit Tri-Valley. Support for the rebrand exceeds the Bay Area, as big airliners such as Southwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines, and Volaris have also vocalized their endorsement for the name change. These airliners hold large shares in OAK. For example, Southwest had the highest carrier share at 82.26% in a Feb. 2023 - Jan. 2024 window, estimated at 8,580 passengers, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. However, on April 18, the City of San Francisco filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit against Oakland. The lawsuit was filed by San Francisco’s City Attorney, David Chiu. Their cited complaints against the defendant (Oakland) include “Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114)[,] (2) Unfair Competition/False Designation of Origin (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) [and] (3) Common Law Trademark Infringement[.]” Just as the Port of Oakland owns its OAK title, the city of San Francisco owns the federal trademark name of “San Francisco International Airport” or SFO. In addition to alleged trademark infringement, Chiu also alleges in the lawsuit that Oakland’s intention of using ‘San Francisco’ in its rename will “almost certainly cause confusion among consumers and the public generally,” internationally or domestically. Also opposing the change include airliners such as United Airlines, whose carrier shares at SFO are 43.34%. In response, the Port of Oakland has denied any sort of infringement due to the renaming of its airport. Port of Oakland’s attorney Mary Richardson told CNN that “San Francisco’s lawsuit is disappointing… We will vigorously defend our right to claim our spot on the San Francisco Bay. We are standing up for Oakland and our East Bay community.”  Image c/o writer/Pocket Gamer By Matthew Colvin News Reporter In early March, a House of Representatives committee unanimously voted to pass a bill that would force Chinese company ByteDance to either sell off TikTok within approximately five months, or face the app’s total ban within the United States’ borders. Despite ByteDance CEO Shou Chew testifying last year that the app poses no threat to Americans, legislators still moved to ban the app out of fear that it was allowing the Chinese government to spy on US citizens. As Washington Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers said, “Today, we will take the first step in creating long-overdue laws to protect Americans from the threat posed by apps…”
However, it seems that Congress’ moral panic over mobile applications has not stopped there. On Sunday a House panel announced a sweeping bill that, if passed, would ban numerous apps and change the face of the App Store for good. While the bill is comprehensive, here’s a quick rundown on some of the biggest apps you may see vanish from the App Store soon if the bill passes, and why: UberEats is one of the first apps listed in the bill to be banned completely. While the service has had its fair share of controversy in the past, including allegations of monopolistic behavior and an antitrust lawsuit in 2022, Congress’ reasons for banning the app seem quite different; UberEats’ drivers never manage to deliver to the Senate Building in under forty-five minutes. As stated in the bill, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) “just isn’t him when he’s hungry” and the app’s sub-par performance “is no longer acceptable.” Tinder is being struck down, too; while speaking in favor of the bill, House Representative and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “I have had many good friends try to use [Tinder], and the app is inexcusable. These very, very good friends are unable to find matches, and the app and its users are just very discriminatory in who they choose to match with.” Continuing to speak on behalf of her unidentified ‘good friends,’ Pelosi finished, “Discriminating against 84 year-old married women from Baltimore who accidentally swipe left when they mean to swipe right is intolerable in the land of the free. That’s what my friends say.” She received a standing ovation. Service and social apps are not the only ones that will be feeling the heat of this bill, however; even mobile games may not be safe. Subway Surfers is one of the biggest and most controversial app names listed in the bill’s ban list. According to the bill, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been caught playing the game during numerous Senate sessions in recent months, and has had to have had his phone temporarily confiscated every time. Unfortunately, according to the bill, McConnell enters “grumpy mode” upon losing phone privileges and refuses to speak on any matters until he has received “an apple juice and a piece of string cheese.” As stated in the bill, this has “utterly derailed multiple sessions of the Senate, and must be curtailed immediately by a ban of the app to get him back on track.” The banning of Subway Surfers has proven controversial, though, as it seems Senator McConnell is not the only one with a strong connection to the game. Democratic opponents to the bill have claimed that President Joe Biden is unable to stay awake at Cabinet meetings unless pre-recorded Subway Surfers gameplay is being projected in the background, and that a ban of the app will interfere in his presidential duties and campaign for reelection. Should the bill pass, his supporters worry that they will need to find new means of “enrichment” for Biden if his 2024 presidential bid is to succeed. The Biden administration did not respond to our request for comment. |
StaffMadison Sciba '24, Archives
May 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed