Jump to content

Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157


Nueces River Rat

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by tokamak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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”?
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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…

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Chopper said:

image.thumb.png.36c7b7d526623de0366a5e11ce131746.png

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Deej
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Incredulity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bateshorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by tokamak
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

image.jpeg.0e53600889d06746a76240fb08506cba.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


 

 

 

 

7F858D4A-42EE-4ED1-9057-D21B822CEF4E.jpeg.83b4887070256b5ffa9b9565866e868d.jpeg

it’s all ball bearings nowadays.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...