Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157

[956 Worldwide 34,738]

7 hours ago, royiv said:

Not a good sign for Boeing when the CEO of your biggest customer starts calling you out in public.

https://apnews.com/article/united-airlines-ceo-boeing-manufacturing-problems-4090ea6176ef59e382dd18e9522596bc

Well, Mr. United CEO. You can say you don’t want to buy new Boeing planes, but what if we don’t MAKE new Boeing planes for you to buy! Making new planes is bad for institutional investors! Check-mate, asshole, why don’t you get Airbus to make new airplanes for you as I am sure they will. 

[wildcat09 29,360]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Well, Mr. United CEO. You can say you don’t want to buy new Boeing planes, but what if we don’t MAKE new Boeing planes for you to buy! Making new planes is bad for institutional investors! Check-mate, asshole, why don’t you get Airbus to make new airplanes for you as I am sure they will. 

You know, come to think of it, maybe anticipated market response from a market that gave us the Gamestop/BBBY/AMC bubbles and that currently values Tesla at $655.33 billion shouldn't be the primary driver of decision-making at businesses that can kill shitloads of people by committing just a couple simple oversights. 

[Chopper 17,242]

Over at Leeham News, a blog about developments in aerospace, in the comments section to their article about the unplanned separation of the door panel, an anon claiming to be a Boeing employee posted and seems to have them convinced they're the real deal. It's more than a little jaw dropping.

https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962

Quote

 

Current Boeing employee here – I will save you waiting two years for the NTSB report to come out and give it to you for free: the reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeings own records. It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions of the business.

A couple of things to cover before we begin:

Q1) Why should we believe you?
A) You shouldn’t, I’m some random throwaway account, do your own due diligence. Others who work at Boeing can verify what I say is true, but all I ask is you consider the following based on its own merits.

Q2) Why are you doing this?
A) Because there are many cultures at Boeing, and while the executive culture may be throughly compromised since we were bought by McD, there are many other people who still push for a quality product with cutting edge design. My hope is that this is the wake up call that finally forces the Board to take decisive action, and remove the executives that are resisting the necessary cultural changes to return to a company that values safety and quality above schedule.

With that out of the way… why did the left hand (LH) mid-exit door plug blow off of the 737-9 registered as N704AL? Simple- as has been covered in a number of articles and videos across aviation channels, there are 4 bolts that prevent the mid-exit door plug from sliding up off of the door stop fittings that take the actual pressurization loads in flight, and these 4 bolts were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane, our own records reflect this.

The mid-exit doors on a 737-9 of both the regular and plug variety come from Spirit already installed in what is supposed to be the final configuration and in the Renton factory, there is a job for the doors team to verify this “final” install and rigging meets drawing requirements. In a healthy production system, this would be a “belt and suspenders” sort of check, but the 737 production system is quite far from healthy, its a rambling, shambling, disaster waiting to happen. As a result, this check job that should find minimal defects has in the past 365 calendar days recorded 392 nonconforming findings on 737 mid fuselage door installations (so both actual doors for the high density configs, and plugs like the one that blew out). That is a hideously high and very alarming number, and if our quality system on 737 was healthy, it would have stopped the line and driven the issue back to supplier after the first few instances. Obviously, this did not happen. Now, on the incident aircraft this check job was completed on 31 August 2023, and did turn up discrepancies, but on the RH side door, not the LH that actually failed. I could blame the team for missing certain details, but given the enormous volume of defects they were already finding and fixing, it was inevitable something would slip through- and on the incident aircraft something did. I know what you are thinking at this point, but grab some popcorn because there is a plot twist coming up.

The next day on 1 September 2023 a different team (remember 737s flow through the factory quite quickly, 24 hours completely changes who is working on the plane) wrote up a finding for damaged and improperly installed rivets on the LH mid-exit door of the incident aircraft.

A brief aside to explain two of the record systems Boeing uses in production. The first is a program called CMES which stands for something boring and unimportant but what is important is that CMES is the sole authoritative repository for airplane build records (except on 787 which uses a different program). If a build record in CMES says something was built, inspected, and stamped in accordance with the drawing, then the airplane damn well better be per drawing. The second is a program called SAT, which also stands for something boring and unimportant but what is important is that SAT is *not* an authoritative records system, its a bullentin board where various things affecting the airplane build get posted about and updated with resolutions. You can think of it sort of like a idiots version of Slack or something. Wise readers will already be shuddering and wondering how many consultants were involved, because, yes SAT is a *management visibilty tool*. Like any good management visibilty tool, SAT can generate metrics, lots of metrics, and oh God do Boeing managers love their metrics. As a result, SAT postings are the primary topic of discussion at most daily status meetings, and the whole system is perceived as being extremely important despite, I reiterate, it holding no actual authority at all.

We now return to our incident aircraft, which was written up for having defective rivets on the LH mid-exit door. Now as is standard practice kn Renton (but not to my knowledge in Everett on wide bodies) this write-up happened in two forms, one in CMES, which is the correct venue, and once in SAT to “coordinate the response” but really as a behind-covering measure so the manager of the team that wrote it can show his boss he’s shoved the problem onto someone else. Because there are so many problems with the Spirit build in the 737, Spirit has teams on site in Renton performing warranty work for all of their shoddy quality, and this SAT promptly gets shunted into their queue as a warranty item. Lots of bickering ensues in the SAT messages, and it takes a bit for Spirit to get to the work package. Once they have finished, they send it back to a Boeing QA for final acceptance, but then Malicious Stupid Happens! The Boeing QA writes another record in CMES (again, the correct venue) stating (with pictures) that Spirit has not actually reworked the discrepant rivets, they *just painted over the defects*. In Boeing production speak, this is a “process failure”. For an A&P mechanic at an airline, this would be called “federal crime”.

Presented with evidence of their malfeasance, Spirit reopens the package and admits that not only did they not rework the rivets properly, there is a damaged pressure seal they need to replace (who damaged it, and when it was damaged is not clear to me). The big deal with this seal, at least according to frantic SAT postings, is the part is not on hand, and will need to be ordered, which is going to impact schedule, and (reading between the lines here) Management is Not Happy. 1/2

However, more critical for purposes of the accident investigation, the pressure seal is unsurprisingly sandwiched between the plug and the fuselage, and you cannot replace it without opening the door plug to gain access. All of this conversation is documented in increasingly aggressive posts in the SAT, but finally we get to the damning entry which reads something along the lines of “coordinating with the doors team to determine if the door will have to be removed entirely, or just opened. If it is removed then a Removal will have to be written.” Note: a Removal is a type of record in CMES that requires formal sign off from QA that the airplane been restored to drawing requirements.

If you have been paying attention to this situation closely, you may be able to spot the critical error: regardless of whether the door is simply opened or removed entirely, the 4 retaining bolts that keep it from sliding off of the door stops have to be pulled out. A removal should be written in either case for QA to verify install, but as it turns out, someone (exactly who will be a fun question for investigators) decides that the door only needs to be opened, and no formal Removal is generated in CMES (the reason for which is unclear, and a major process failure). Therefore, in the official build records of the airplane, a pressure seal that cannot be accessed without opening the door (and thereby removing retaining bolts) is documented as being replaced, but the door is never officially opened and thus no QA inspection is required.

This entire sequence is documented in the SAT, and the nonconformance records in CMES address the damaged rivets and pressure seal, but at no point is the verification job reopened, or is any record of removed retention bolts created, despite it this being a physical impossibility. Finally with Spirit completing their work to Boeing QAs satisfaction, the two rivet-related records in CMES are stamped complete, and the SAT closed on 19 September 2023. No record or comment regarding the retention bolts is made.

I told you it was stupid.

So, where are the bolts? Probably sitting forgotten and unlabeled (because there is no formal record number to label them with) on a work-in-progress bench, unless someone already tossed them in the scrap bin to tidy up.

There’s lots more to be said about the culture that enabled this to happened, but thats the basic details of what happened, the NTSB report will say it in more elegant terms in a few years.

 

 

Edited January 24 by Chopper

[FartingMonk 3,608]

6 hours ago, Chopper said:

Over at Leeham News, a blog about developments in aerospace, in the comments section to their article about the unplanned separation of the door panel, an anon claiming to be a Boeing employee posted and seems to have them convinced they're the real deal. It's more than a little jaw dropping.

https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962

 

I completely believe that report.  100 percent.

[tokamak 6,432]

Right off the bat, I thought we already knew that the plug came from Spirit loose so that Boeing could open it up during assembly? That guy claims it comes in the final configuration. Which is it?

edit: read it again, and it sounds like someone who has access to those record keeping systems but doesn’t actually know how things work out on the assembly line. A supply chain middle manager or something like that. He read the associated tickets and filled in some gaps and made some assumptions. Interesting info, but I take it with a big grain of salt. Better watch his cornhole, too, because I guarantee they have a record of who accesses those systems and when. 

Edited January 24 by tokamak

[Chad Fuck 17,698]

And he is there because when Boeing bought (failing) McDonnell Douglas, cutthroat McDonnell Douglas executives were given outsized management responsibilities and they proceeded to go down the Jack Welch path.  It’s almost like McDonnell Douglas executives bought Boeing with Boeing’s money.  Then they moved HQ to Chicago to get away from engineers. 

1000x this. Moving to Chicago to be a lobbying firm rather than an aerospace manufacturer was the death knell.

[Chad Fuck 17,698]

"Institutional investors are broadly against (an airplane manufacturer) developing new airplanes" is such an absurd statement that I just can't get over it.
The only remedy is a salty, ball-breaking regulator. Every time I hear CEOs or politicians whine about "job-killing regulations" I'm going to mentally replace the statement with "door-plug-fastening regulations".

Every aviation regulation is written in blood. So when I hear about “onerous regulations” I just ask “how many dead people are worth the removal of this reg”?

[Captainant 27,690]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

Every aviation regulation is written in blood. So when I hear about “onerous regulations” I just ask “how many dead people are worth the removal of this reg”?

It's less about the number of dead people, and moreso if we can make the cost of the dead people high enough for Boeing to place their lives ahead of their shareholders profits

[Gatorubet 30,274]

On 1/22/2024 at 4:43 PM, Captainant said:

Boeing however is fuggity fucked. Ain't no """pilot error""" causing bolts to be missing and under torqued coming off the Boeing lines to customers. The fact that multiple airlines have found the same errors on their airframes is STRONG evidence of deep and systemic issues in Boeing

You blame Boeing for this, but nobody’s answered the question as to whether the plane was provocatively, painted and asking for it…

[Chad Fuck 17,698]

35 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's less about the number of dead people, and moreso if we can make the cost of the dead people high enough for Boeing to place their lives ahead of their shareholders profits

Support your local plaintiffs' attorney then.   

16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You blame Boeing for this, but nobody’s answered the question as to whether the plane was provocatively, painted and asking for it…

This is both funny and tragic.  

[FartingMonk 3,608]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

You blame Boeing for this, but nobody’s answered the question as to whether the plane was provocatively, painted and asking for it…

If the plug don't fit.  You must aquit

[AUS-97HORN 11,812]

19 hours ago, Chopper said:

Jan. 23, 2024, 12:44 PM PST / Source: NBC News
By Tom Costello and Rob Wile

The CEO of Alaska Airlines said new, in-house inspections of the carrier's Boeing 737 Max 9 planes in the wake of a near-disaster earlier this month revealed that “many” of the aircraft were found to have loose bolts.

In an exclusive interview with NBC News senior correspondent Tom Costello, Alaska Airlines CEO Ben Minicucci discussed the findings of his company's inspections so far since the Jan. 5 incident, in which a panel on one of its Max 9 jets blew out midair on a flight carrying 177 people.
 

 

Is it just me... or doesn't this article actually make Alaska look worse?

 

and what I mean by that is.. the Alaska fleet's QC process must be broke AF if "many" of your new planes have loose bolts.    Like isnt that supposed to be something you review YOURSELVES after taking ownership of the planes that nothing broke off/fell off, in the transit?

 

1 or 2 missing or loose bolts means 1-2 QA review people need to be fired.

"NUMEROUS" bolts missing/loose means not only is the Boeing/Spirt QA process broke, but Alaska's as well. 

[AUS-97HORN 11,812]

and maybe relevant to the story....

 

"Alaska Airlines... you didn't die and you have a cool story"

 

 

 

[ClubWhatever 12,154]

54 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

Is it just me... or doesn't this article actually make Alaska look worse?

 

and what I mean by that is.. the Alaska fleet's QC process must be broke AF if "many" of your new planes have loose bolts.    Like isnt that supposed to be something you review YOURSELVES after taking ownership of the planes that nothing broke off/fell off, in the transit?

 

1 or 2 missing or loose bolts means 1-2 QA review people need to be fired.

"NUMEROUS" bolts missing/loose means not only is the Boeing/Spirt QA process broke, but Alaska's as well. 

Checking that door for missing bolts is not something they should have been expected to do at delivery, imo.   These bolts are hidden and opening the door requires removing part of the interior.  Now, if at the first scheduled maintenance check they found problems, and obviously if there's an accident, they will be checking the shit out of them.   But they can't be expected to check everything at delivery or the airline economic and regulatory model doesn't work at all.  Boeing is legally required to deliver a conforming product.  The plane is issued an FAA airworthiness certificate at delivery that requires a statement exactly to that effect.

[Deej 76,859]

1 hour ago, AUS-97HORN said:

Is it just me... or doesn't this article actually make Alaska look worse?

 

and what I mean by that is.. the Alaska fleet's QC process must be broke AF if "many" of your new planes have loose bolts.    Like isnt that supposed to be something you review YOURSELVES after taking ownership of the planes that nothing broke off/fell off, in the transit?

 

1 or 2 missing or loose bolts means 1-2 QA review people need to be fired.

"NUMEROUS" bolts missing/loose means not only is the Boeing/Spirt QA process broke, but Alaska's as well. 

Don't forget to check to see if your lug nuts are tightened down on your wheels the next time you buy a new car. 

Edited January 24 by Deej

[RPM 26,328]

Boeing, not Spirit, mis-installed piece that blew off Alaska MAX 9 jet, industry source says

The fuselage panel that blew off an Alaska Airlines jet earlier this month was removed for repair then reinstalled improperly by Boeing mechanics on the Renton final assembly line, a person familiar with the details of the work told The Seattle Times.

If verified by the National Transportation Safety Board investigation, this would leave Boeing primarily at fault for the accident, rather than its supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which originally installed the panel into the 737 MAX 9 fuselage in Wichita, Kan.

That panel, a door plug used to seal a hole in the fuselage sometimes used to accommodate an emergency exit, blew out of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 as it climbed out of Portland on Jan. 5. The hair-raising incident drew fresh and sharp criticism of Boeing’s quality control systems and safety culture, which has been under the microscope since two fatal 737 MAX crashes five years ago.

Last week, a different person — an anonymous whistleblower who appears to have access to Boeing’s manufacturing records of the work done assembling the specific Alaska Airlines jet that suffered the blowout — on an aviation website separately provided many additional details about how the door plug came to be removed and then mis-installed.

“The reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeing’s own records,” the whistleblower wrote. “It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions of the business.”

The self-described Boeing insider said company records show four bolts that prevent the door plug from sliding up off the door frame stop pads that take the pressurization loads in flight, “were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane.” the whistleblower stated. “Our own records reflect this.”

 

 

[ClubWhatever 12,154]

So the basic QA fuckup here was that the door was allowed to be removed without a "removal" job being entered in the official quality system.   In effect, someone can just walk up to the airplane and remove parts with no QA record of it.  Ouch.

[Incredulity 11,680]

10 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

So the basic QA fuckup here was that the door was allowed to be removed without a "removal" job being entered in the official quality system.   In effect, someone can just walk up to the airplane and remove parts with no QA record of it.  Ouch.

Edit**I read your second sentence as a question, not a statement.  My mistake.  

Yeah it appears they have a formal and also an informal task system

 

 

 

Edited January 24 by Incredulity

[Gatorubet 30,274]

“Could you make sure that the bolts to the side panel are fastened so I don’t blow out the plane?”

“Sure….that will be an extra $23.”

[Bateshorn 9,928]

22 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Well, Mr. United CEO. You can say you don’t want to buy new Boeing planes, but what if we don’t MAKE new Boeing planes for you to buy! Making new planes is bad for institutional investors! Check-mate, asshole, why don’t you get Airbus to make new airplanes for you as I am sure they will. 

What's wild about what United is saying, and I've heard this elsewhere: People don't want 737's.  They actually want Airbuses, but the delay in airframe delivery due to demand forces people into buying new 737's, or they are rejiggering their lineups to more of a tiered play system, instead of a do it all 737-Max and a 777 for international.  American recently announced they are getting more Embraer's to be their regional carriers.   All of which is ironic:  The pre McDonnell Douglas Boeing sort of set up the tiered Airline model:  737 for your regional jumps, 757 for your long domestics. 767 for your cross country/short international, 777 for your global, 747 for heavy global/superlong haul to the southern hemisphere. 

The 747 became obsolete when the new GE engines could allow 777 to do the same thing for much cheaper. 

Edited January 24 by Bateshorn

[Brisketexan 105,180]

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

What's wild about what United is saying, and I've heard this elsewhere: People don't want 737's.  They actually want Airbuses, but the delay in airframe delivery due to demand forces people into buying new 737's, or they are rejiggering their lineups to more of a tiered play system, instead of a do it all 737-Max and a 777 for international.  American recently announced they are getting more Embraer's to be their regional carriers.   All of which is ironic:  The pre McDonnell Douglas Boeing sort of set up the tiered Airline model:  737 for your regional jumps, 757 for your long domestics. 767 for your cross country/short international, 777 for your global, 747 for heavy global/superlong haul to the southern hemisphere. 

The 747 became obsolete when the new GE engines could allow 777 to do the same thing for much cheaper. 

Here's a question -- if Boeing ends up genuinely on the ropes (and it damned well may, with the twin hits to its reputation and marketability coming so close together, showing systemic problems)....what does the US government do?  Do we allow our ONLY domestic commercial aircraft manufacturer go belly-up?  Shit, we get a crapload of DOD products (F-18, F-15, Apache, the KC line, etc.) from Boeing.  I suspect it firmly falls in the "too big/important to fail" bucket....but it may end up completely restructured, and I can damned well see shareholders taking a brutal bath.

If I had Boeing stock, I'd sell now, even at a loss....because the losses sure look like they'll get a good bit worse.  Boeing is a shit company right now.

[Bateshorn 9,928]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's a question -- if Boeing ends up genuinely on the ropes (and it damned well may, with the twin hits to its reputation and marketability coming so close together, showing systemic problems)....what does the US government do?  Do we allow our ONLY domestic commercial aircraft manufacturer go belly-up?  Shit, we get a crapload of DOD products (F-18, F-15, Apache, the KC line, etc.) from Boeing.  I suspect it firmly falls in the "too big/important to fail" bucket....but it may end up completely restructured, and I can damned well see shareholders taking a brutal bath.

If I had Boeing stock, I'd sell now, even at a loss....because the losses sure look like they'll get a good bit worse.  Boeing is a shit company right now.

I don't see how they would let Boeing fail.  I'm not arguing the merits, I'm just saying, they didn't let Chrysler fail. And Chrysler sucks. 

But yes, I would think the shareholders would be slaughtered and new management would come forth. The real loser here is SWA.  They are really staring at the abyss. 

Edited January 24 by Bateshorn

[Brisketexan 105,180]

6 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I don't see how they would let Boeing fail.  I'm not arguing the merits, I'm just saying, they didn't let Chrysler fail. And Chrysler sucks. 

But yes, I would think the shareholders would be slaughtered and new management would come forth. The real loser here is SWA.  They are really staring at the abyss. 

I dunno...if Boeing goes into the shitter, won't there be a fire sale on 737 airframes?  Kinda joking...kinda not....

[Bateshorn 9,928]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I dunno...if Boeing goes into the shitter, won't there be a fire sale on 737 airframes?  Kinda joking...kinda not....

Just make sure you squeeze a little loctite on the bolts before you re torque em. 

[ConferenceRoom 6,144]

[Chopper 17,242]

2 hours ago, ClubWhatever said:

Checking that door for missing bolts is not something they should have been expected to do at delivery, imo.  

Absolutely. The plug is a structural part of the plane. It's not like a door where something noticeable or expected might happen as with a hinge, or a latch, and therefore the manufacturer has provided maintenance recommendations for it. In this case, Boeing buried the bolts for basically the lifetime of the aircraft - and, oops, they forgot to make sure the bolts were even secure.

[royiv 9,333]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's a question -- if Boeing ends up genuinely on the ropes (and it damned well may, with the twin hits to its reputation and marketability coming so close together, showing systemic problems)....what does the US government do?  Do we allow our ONLY domestic commercial aircraft manufacturer go belly-up?  Shit, we get a crapload of DOD products (F-18, F-15, Apache, the KC line, etc.) from Boeing.  I suspect it firmly falls in the "too big/important to fail" bucket....but it may end up completely restructured, and I can damned well see shareholders taking a brutal bath.

If I had Boeing stock, I'd sell now, even at a loss....because the losses sure look like they'll get a good bit worse.  Boeing is a shit company right now.

I was thinking about this earlier and was wondering if we could see Boeing split into two with commercial aviation being one standalone business and defense and space being a separate standalone business.

[Updawg 2,280]

, and I can damned well see shareholders taking a brutal bath.

You’re funny. Too big to fail should tell you this can never be allowed to happen

[Updawg 2,280]

I was thinking about this earlier and was wondering if we could see Boeing split into two with commercial aviation being one standalone business and defense and space being a separate standalone business.

Was thinking about that as well.

Isn’t the defense / space part of them taking it on the chin as well right now

[royiv 9,333]

1 minute ago, Updawg said:

Was thinking about that as well.

Isn’t the defense / space part of them taking it on the chin as well right now

Yes, neither business is being managed particularly well at the moment.

[Shoxthemonkey 1,982]

10 minutes ago, royiv said:

Yes, neither business is being managed particularly well at the moment.

An interesting sidenote: Spirit came into existence when Boeing Military was pulled out of Wichita.

[ROFL BOX 6,649]

Checking that door for missing bolts is not something they should have been expected to do at delivery, imo.  

Does Avis / Dollar General / Hertz check the lug nuts on every car they rent out, whether it has less than 25 miles upon accepting delivery or +15,000 miles (assuming no flat tires & obv. less than enough usage to require replacement due to wear)?

*similar to the response by @beej

[tokamak 6,432]

What a business model. Yeah yeah, our planes are death traps designed by accountants. But also! Consider this! The market for our product is a duopoly and our competitor is backlogged and we're too strategically important for our government to let us fail, so.....fuck you, pay up.

Maybe these MBA geniuses are on to something after all. They probably fly Gulfstreams, so no harm no foul as far as they're concerned.

Edited January 25 by tokamak

[Captainant 27,690]

41 minutes ago, tokamak said:

What a business model. Yeah yeah, our planes our death traps designed by accountants. But also! Consider this! The market for our product is a duopoly and our competitor is backlogged and we're too strategically important for our government to let us fail, so.....fuck you, pay up.

Maybe these MBA geniuses are on to something after all. They probably fly Gulfstreams, so no harm no foul as far as they're concerned.

It's almost like it's not an actual free market, but we are nonetheless allowing the costs to be socialized (too big to fail) while boeing reaps and privatizes whatever gains and profits there are to be had.

[RPM 26,328]

I'm telling ya Lockheed needs to roll out an updated L 1011. Lose the rear engine and mount new high bypass on the wings. No competition leads to shit product.

[Dahobbs 17,627]

18 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I don't see how they would let Boeing fail.  I'm not arguing the merits, I'm just saying, they didn't let Chrysler fail. And Chrysler sucks. 

But yes, I would think the shareholders would be slaughtered and new management would come forth. The real loser here is SWA.  They are really staring at the abyss. 

Could SWA somehow end up with a Boring civilian division? They are so heavily invested in the 737 that vertical integration may actually make sense. 

[Incredulity 11,680]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Could SWA somehow end up with a Boring civilian division? They are so heavily invested in the 737 that vertical integration may actually make sense. 

What would make you think the current incarnation of SWA could run a manufacturing company?  They can't even execute flight scheduling.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/26/1151667801/southwest-airlines-investigation-losses-holiday-travel-cancellations

[Bateshorn 9,928]

31 minutes ago, RPM said:

I'm telling ya Lockheed needs to roll out an updated L 1011. Lose the rear engine and mount new high bypass on the wings. No competition leads to shit product.

Gotdamn the L1011 were badass motherfuckers.  It's a pity they couldn't make the economics work. An engineers plane. 

[Captainant 27,690]

16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What would make you think the current incarnation of SWA could run a manufacturing company?  They can't even execute flight scheduling.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/26/1151667801/southwest-airlines-investigation-losses-holiday-travel-cancellations

Yeesh yeah that's another terrible story of accumulated technical debt that eventually blew up in their faces. It's one hell of a powerful cautionary tale - got a few of my customers to finally prioritize fixes that they had been kicking the can on for years.

IMO SWA suffers from the same businessbrain that Boeing does. Both ignored accumulating long-term risks in favor of easier short-term profits and gains. SWA at least hasn't directly killed anyone, but both have lost quite a bit of trust - for whatever that's worth these days.

[Dahobbs 17,627]

28 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What would make you think the current incarnation of SWA could run a manufacturing company?  They can't even execute flight scheduling.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/26/1151667801/southwest-airlines-investigation-losses-holiday-travel-cancellations

Whether they could isn't really relevant to my question, which is whether they would try. I mean, frankly, things get dicey enough for Boeing, I'm not really sure SWA would have another choice. 

[tx 3 putt 77,237]

 

[HenryJames 66,135]

I’m sure it’s fine.

[DaysOff 7,962]

That was a ferry flight to get it back to hub maintenance to comply with the airworthiness directive beginning this weekend. UAL should have MAX9s back in the air by tomorrow.

[Armybrat 40,857]

On 1/25/2024 at 8:11 AM, tokamak said:

What a business model. Yeah yeah, our planes are death traps designed by accountants. But also! Consider this! The market for our product is a duopoly and our competitor is backlogged and we're too strategically important for our government to let us fail, so.....fuck you, pay up.

Maybe these MBA geniuses are on to something after all. They probably fly Gulfstreams, so no harm no foul as far as they're concerned.

The bean counters ruined Las Vegas…..so maybe there’s a trend in that facet of higher education?

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

5 hours ago, DaysOff said:

That was a ferry flight to get it back to hub maintenance to comply with the airworthiness directive beginning this weekend. UAL should have MAX9s back in the air by tomorrow.

There are a lot of UAL 9’s sitting in CUN. Or there were last week. 

[956 Worldwide 34,738]

On 1/24/2024 at 4:07 PM, Updawg said:

Was thinking about that as well.

Isn’t the defense / space part of them taking it on the chin as well right now

Yes. And when M-D got bought by Boeing and the M-D culture came with it— M-D had shifted away from civilian to military as their strategy. This is all part of the issue.

[956 Worldwide 34,738]

On 1/24/2024 at 3:50 PM, Chopper said:

Absolutely. The plug is a structural part of the plane. It's not like a door where something noticeable or expected might happen as with a hinge, or a latch, and therefore the manufacturer has provided maintenance recommendations for it. In this case, Boeing buried the bolts for basically the lifetime of the aircraft - and, oops, they forgot to make sure the bolts were even secure.

[Pato del Muerto 52,535]

My sainted mother has, after I presume studying the situation in depth, assigned blame. 
 

 

my entire answer is going to be “yes” and I’ll see how far that gets me.  

[UTexasFight 9,517]

https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/signs-suggest-alaska-airlines-plane-lacked-bolts-when-it-left-boeing-factory-f0246654?st=xhkn74t42fl60yl&reflink=article_copyURL_share
 

Alaska Airlines Plane Appears to Have Left Boeing Factory Without Critical Bolts

 

Bolts needed to secure part of an Alaska Airlines jet that blew off in midair appear to have been missing when the plane left Boeing  ’s factory.

Boeing and other industry officials increasingly believe the plane maker’s employees failed to put back the bolts when they reinstalled a 737 MAX 9 plug door after opening or removing it during production, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

 

 

 

it’s all ball bearings nowadays.

 

[HenryJames 66,135]

https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/boeing-finds-new-problem-with-737-max-fuselages-8ee225b9?st=gyaqz0m4zua2j1p&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Boeing Finds New Problem With 737 MAX Fuselages

Misdrilled holes on Spirit AeroSystems fuselages will require work on 50 jets and could delay deliveries