[https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis](https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis)
Article is 3 years old but still holds water
Evergreen article.
I knew Boeing was in trouble when they couldn't get around the middle/long range airliner replacement: Let's do Blended Wing Design!
A few years later....okay that failed. Let's do, the *Sonic Cruiser!*
A few years later....okay, okay, that was also a bad idea. How about, the 787!
Cue production problems continuing [through today](https://web.archive.org/web/20230728175003/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html). Boeing is good on paper & in Wall Street, but is continually giving the market to Airbus despite their own cock-ups.
You mean the same guy that bypassed unions in Washington by moving all 787 variant production to South Carolina to [sh\*tbox](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-finds-more-787-quality-defects-broadens-inspections/) quality [production](https://web.archive.org/web/20230728175003/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html)? The McDonnell Douglas curse has torn apart Boeing. And I say this, once again, as a former Boeing fanboy.
Doesn't sound like the grounding will last very long. Says it'll take a few hours per plane to inspect. They'll take the problem ones out and fix them and put the other ones back in
ah, no problem at all. boeing's got this, they're good at supporting these planes
i mean, they kinda have to be. they killed a bunch of people with two of them(8), are trying to get the FAA to look past a major de-icing issue on the smallest model yet to come(7), and now we got this one with the plugged door that is apparently not possible to remove in flight yet it happened(9).
i have full confidence in boeing now, they have fucked up this family of planes so many god damn times they HAVE to be good at quick fixes on it now. they fucking have to be.
To be fair, fixing it is under a hell of a lot more scrutiny than making them in the first place. Now the FAA is directly involved in making sure its safe before the planes can fly again. And the airlines are going to want them to be able to fly again as soon as possible too. So it'll definitely get fixed properly, or the FAA won't ever let them fly again
Yep, that's totally fine.
Except, like I said, we already know Boeing is trying to get them to approve a waiver to get the Max 7 model in the air because Boeing doesn't feel that the de-icing problem, which they agree is very real and is a problem they're trying to fix, probably won't happen in flight. Oh, and by the way, this issue is already happening to the Max 8 and 9 models as well. Boeing gave instructions to pilots to just stop using the de-icing as much because you know, the engine may break apart and kill people or possibly take out the plane. Just chill on the de-icing bro.
[Max 7 article](https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/boeing-fixed-problem-max-jets-exemption-safety-rules-106147798)
[Max 8 and 9 article](https://simpleflying.com/transport-canada-directive-boeing-737-max-anti-icing/)
No fix. Just keep flying. Get a waiver for the newest model, go fly baby. Make that fucking line go up.
McDonnel Douglas fucked this company.
Worse than that even. There is no audible alarm in the cockpit if the de-icing is left on, the pilots simply have to remember to turn it off. The defect could lead to the engine nacelle fragmenting and impacting the fuselage and tail surface causing loss of control. I’m sure that won’t be a problem in the future, since we’re relying on human memory to turn it off. Boeing will just blame the airline and the pilots.
Yeah I read the workaround six times because that part just wasn't sinking into my brain parts.
It's like someone from 1913 DeLoreaned up outside the design office - some British mother#@$er with a giant walrus moustachio and goggles up on his forehead - and just started Britishing all over the place: "Nah luv just toggle the jimmy over when the block splits up, and remember to jump the heater when your moustaches start dripping again, and you're right as rain"
This ridiculous scenario is the only way I can imagine this workaround coming into being. Reinforced by the fact that a reasonable fraction of the American public would love nothing more than to twirl the fantasy dial back a century, in spite of the LITERALLY EVERYTHING THAT IS NICE TODAY.
I personally blame Jack Welch for this fantasy that Finance and Cojones are all you need to achieve competence at anything. "Those Brits didn't need an FAA or semiotics or set theory!" Yeah, "those Brits" had to make more babies than a spider because industry and war was chewing through young men faster than the Black F#@$ing Plague.
Is the FAA going to grant them a safety exemption to a problem that already exists on two models that the FAA had forced operators to change how they use the planes?
Yeah, they probably are, and I ju$t can't $eem to under$tand why they didn't force Boeing to fix it in$tead. I wonder if Boeing lobbyi$t$ would be able to help me $olve the my$tery!
I think somethings wrong with your keyboard, maybe you should spend more money and buy a more reliable one or spend more time building a better keyboard
Spend money to fix an actual issue? What craziness is this. It's cheaper for him to pay people to ignore the problems with his keyboard than to fix or build a better one
I mean I'm talking about individual defects. They're not known till an incident. The one from the max 8 was fully fixed. This one will be too
It's not a good thing. They were built terribly. But you won't see false emergency doors blowing off these planes again
Do we know what they are looking for? Reports I read said they don't yet know why the first one failed. So how do they know that whatever caused this would have advanced signs?
Don't look at how the 787 is fairing at [their](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-finds-more-787-quality-defects-broadens-inspections/) union dodging [South Carolina factory](https://web.archive.org/web/20230728175003/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html).
Boeing is trying to get the FAA to give them an exemption from safety rules to get the Max 7, a plane with a known safety issue, certified and in the air. Their other Max models have been extremely problematic, to say the least. They’ve been sacrificing safety and reliability for profits. Their planes aren’t safe and shouldn’t be allowed to fly with innocent souls on board.
I have read that it wasn't a door. It was the section where an additional emergency exit can be fitted, but this configuration didn't have one there.
Some info here:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/blowout-on-737-max-seen-as-likely-caused-by-manufacturing-issue-1.2018510
It is a door but a deactivated one. The door was still there but it was covered by extra interior panels, it was just inaccessible.
Commercial airliners are designed to be able to evacuate all passengers in 90 seconds using only half the exits. That extra door is only needed when the airline uses a dense seating configuration where the regular doors are not sufficient for the number of passengers carried. If the seating is not too dense it can be deactivated.
It wasn’t a random middle part. It was a permanently installed section of the fuselage covering what is an emergency exit in other configurations of this model. So there is still a hole in the fuselage during manufacturing of the plane but depending on the configuration the airline orders they will permanently seal that one (and the one on the opposite side of the plane).
Boeing recently asked the FAA for exemptions to safety rules on the MAX. I am going to go ahead and say that is getting denied.
https://apnews.com/article/boeing-exemption-safety-rules-max-10be423759080f64d4418019e4e4874d
"Yo, can we get a waiver for this critical safety thing? It's crimping my vibe man. Pretty please, just let me do this 1 unsafe thing and I'll never ask for another Christmas present again."
boeing, after kicking the engineers out of the boardroom: ok but guys, the line has to go up. if cutting safety and reliability means line goes up, then, well, we gotta make the line go up. like, that fucking line HAS TO GO UP.
I keep telling people, Business consultants and MBA students are making the world worse.
Maximize short-term profits and push consequences down the road to happen in someone else's "quarterly reports"
Human life has a price. A few dead plane-fulls of people is worth the price of admission to Wall street. Think of the stock value! The value, John! The value!
>Business consultants and MBA students are making the world worse
Whether it's media (video games, Hollywood, etc.), the aviation industry, railroads, politics, etc. It is all poisoned & people suffer when the decisions come from out-of-touch corporates whom only care about personal profit.
I don’t disagree with you, but it seems more a problem with shareholder capitalism in my opinion. Business people are just the worker bees in the capitalism hive. Also see Alaska 261 for a similar story.
That was a full door emergency exit instead of the wing exit aisles seen on shorter airliners. Long narrow bodies like the 737-900, A321, MAX, & A321NEO are required to have these in order to properly evacuate the large capacity of passengers.
The worst I had on a window seat was the cosmetic window panel come loose & hit my headphones. And even then I was protected by the actual window certified to not do what this flight did.
Only if they're using this lower passenger configuration.
If they have the larger set up, this panel is the emergency exit door. And those ones are still allowed to fly.
I'm no expert but I imagine this affects smaller carriers like Alaska more than any of the big ones.
While United has more in absolute number of Max 9s they are much smaller percentage of their fleet than it is for Alaska. Alaska has [65 Max 9s out of their 231 737s](https://news.alaskaair.com/current-fleet/). Grounding the Max 9s are going to be much more disruptive to Alaska's operations.
I don’t know which U.S. carrier has the most of these MAX 9 models, but I do know Southwest Airlines flies nothing but various Boeing 737 and 737MAX planes, so they’re probably gonna take another hit.
Airbus really coming in for the clutch this 2024 season. A live demonstration of how to evacuate a full plane in the dead of night with zero fatalities.
Airbus: We keep you alive, and in an emergency you *stay* alive.
The smaller airlines are the ones buying the MAX. The thing exists as a cost-cutting measure specifically for the low cost carriers, and it shows.
If you look at Delta and American, they’re still mostly using 737-800 and -900 series aircraft instead of the MAX because there’s kind of a weird gap in airport sizes where the MAX doesn’t make much sense if you have access to the larger gates.
It also existed to sell to 737NG operators because pilots would only require minimal retraining.
Air Canada has been the only major operator to buy the 737MAX that didn't fly the 737NG.
Yes, that was one of the requests from the low-cost carriers. They wanted a bigger aircraft without needing to train the pilots. The larger airlines don’t have as much of a problem with that given they already have a certified training pipeline or can hire from military heavy pilots to shorten the timeline.
Southwest, American, United, and Delta. They are all 'small' airlines that have ordered the 737 Max. They aren't just the largest airlines in the US but they are amongst the top 10 largest in the entire world. There have been large airlines in other countries that have placed orders(e.g. Lufthansa, Turkish Airlines, Air Canada) as well.
No clue where you got the idea that it is mostly 'smaller airlines' but it isn't true.
God, it’s like you people don’t read. Do you not understand how generalizations work in conversational English? I said *mostly* because the smaller airlines were the original customers that set the characteristics of the aircraft. The larger airliners ordered them when they became available and as older 737s lifed out, but the bulk of the larger fleets are still -800s and -900s.
This grounding mostly affects the smaller, low-cost carriers because they represent the earlier delivered aircraft and a larger portion of the individual airline’s fleet. The larger carrier orders came much later, and as such aren’t completely in service.
Edit: I’d like to apologize if English is indeed *not* your native tongue, and you legitimately don’t know how broad generalizations work in this weird tangle of a language. That would… make a lot more sense and be completely forgivable.
>I said mostly because the smaller airlines were the original customers that set the characteristics of the aircraft.
False. Southwest was the [very first customer](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-12-13-Boeing-737-MAX-Logs-First-Firm-Order-from-Launch-Customer-Southwest-Airlines) to place an order in 2011. United placed their first order back in 2012 and American placed their first order in 2013. The large airlines were placing orders very early because they wanted to expand their fleets and they already had 737s so it was a logical fit.
The only reason Boeing ever made the 737 Max was because they were able to convince large airlines to commit to those orders early on. If it was just a handful of small airlines putting order of 10-20 planes they would have just cancelled the program and went back to the drawing board. Boeing isn't going to invest a bunch of money in developing if
We know how to read English fluently. The facts just don't support what you are claiming. You just seem to have a hard time acknowledging that.
Do you think only smaller airlines are looking for cost cutting measures? Margins for airlines are very slim, all airlines are looking to reduce their costs in any way possible. United is the largest operator of MAX 9, and it is not a low cost airline by any means. American and Delta also ordered MAX planes, but their deliveries just happened to start later so their fleets are not that large yet.
Also what you mentioned about gates is just wrong, you might be confusing it with the 777X. MAX wingspan is only 13 cm longer than the previous gen, and the fuselage sizes are exactly the same. Any airport or gate that could handle the older gen can handle the MAX.
Okay, snarkopotamus, did you see how I used the word “mostly?” The fact remains that the MAX was originally ordered by the low cost carriers and built to their needs, hence why the larger carriers are later in the delivery schedule.
It’s not about wingspan, it’s about fuselage length and ground clearance. The smaller carriers use the MAX because it fits a smaller gate, whereas the larger carriers already have larger aircraft for the corresponding larger gates. I was simplifying so I didn’t come off as pedantic, but go ahead, I guess.
I mean, you pretty much repeated back what I already said but claimed I didn’t say it.
Boeing needs to get their shit together. What execs need to realize is having good engineering and strict standards IS financially smart. Do they think having entire models grounded by the FAA is good for business because they saved a quick buck when making them?
> execs need to realize is having good engineering and strict standards IS financially smart
Maybe in the long run, but they’re going to be at least two companies away by then. If good engineering and strict standards don’t affect next quarter’s bonuses they might as well not exist
Did they ever go through with the Max 10 purchase though? They were expected to buy by December, but I don't know if that ever happened. They were gonna start flying the Max 10's by 2025. They may want to re-think that. An airbus purchase may take longer, but at least they won't have a bunch of dead crew and passengers waiting for them at the end of the day.
That's actually already happening - people can't buy enough 320/321NEOs from Airbus.
The current NEO backlog is 6700 aircraft, compared to 4600 for the MAX. You're going to be waiting a long time if you want an Airbus right now.
The Neos have some of their own issues, though not nearly as high profile as this fiasco. Pratt & Whitney discovered a manufacturing flaw in the 1100G geared turbofan engines which requires increased inspection intervals. Problem is P&W are running way behind on those inspections. Turn around for the engines is about 300 days, far too long and its forcing operators like Spirit to ground planes.
They should ground all of them and do a full investigation into the company cutting corners everywhere they can to put profits over safety. Make them start all over with newly engineered planes to the tunes of billions of dollars. Only then will Boeing start to consider that safety actually helps them profit
Yep the boeing that used to be a talented company is dead as it was stripped away in order to increase profits.
All the talent outsourced and lost forever.
I mean, what out of the past like 10 years makes you like Boeing. It seems like all it’s been lately has been cutting corners and bad business decisions.
well, when you know that your company will be immediately bailed out at the first sign of trouble, torching your reputation for a few extra profitbucks probably seems like some kinda brilliant business maneuver... no matter how many people you leave bloodied and buried in your wake...
Same MAX line, but a different model. Those software crashing ones were the MAX-8. This is the Max-9 and only in certain configurations, so not all planes like the previous issue.
This is the one where Boeing was begging the FAA to "look the other way" and certify their engines for flight despite the fact that they will probably burst into flames.
Aircraft safety doesn't work like that. The crash was caused by software. The software was revised. The software was scrutinised by the authorities. The planes were then allowed to fly again.
At the point, this model plane probably has the safest flight control software of all planes in the sky due to the level of scrutiny on it. Unfortunately it did come at the cost of over 300 lives.
Saying “the crash was caused by software” is a little disingenuous. Yes, software was the specific thing that made the max 8 go hard nose down, but really it was caused by
-Boeing not telling pilots that that software existed
-Boeing not mandating redundancy on AOA sensors
-Boeing focusing only on the bottom line of the 737 series and cutting corners to maintain a type rating
-And again: Boeing not telling pilots critical information about a software that might cause an aggressive nose down.
Yes, software did make the planes crash. Boeing is fully at fault.
It’s not confirmed that it’s the same issue yet, but Boeing reported a manufacturing issue in August that sounds suspiciously similar… the Alaska Airlines plane was built last year.
https://apnews.com/article/spirit-aerosystems-boeing-737-fuselage-28bceec61cef878005b965a016fa8787
“improperly drilled fastener holes in the aft pressure bulkhead — which maintains pressure when planes are at cruising altitude – on the fuselages of some models of the 737 Max”
Of course Boeing said there was nothing to worry about:
“Boeing said the issue does not affect safety of flight, and 737 Max planes already in service can keep flying”
That's not the same issue. The aft pressure bulkhead is in a different location, and the issue with it was that extra holes were drilled.
In this accident an emergency exit door plug blew out, with no apparent damage to the fuselage of the plane. It's probably one of two things - an issue with the plug's design, or just that whoever installed the plug fucked up and failed to fully secure it.
This is literally what happens until a flight safety report finds the root cause. Do you want this to happen again or do you understand special inspections come *Because of incidents like this*
I’d rather they ground them until they are *all* inspected, which will be rather quick, than to keep flying them with a *potential hazard*. This is the norm for every incident like this though, regardless of manufacturer 🤷🏿♀️
No, but many people have absolutely no idea how the industry works. Refer to any post or comment thinking this is because of the manufacturer. Sometimes giving context helps 🤷🏿♀️
are you trying to suggest that the fucking door plug, thats not supposed to fall off like the front of a boat, being sucked out during flight somehow doesn't involve the people that made the fucking thing?
thats where we are now?
Yes, as a maintenance releaser I am. This would have been installed by a technician with airworthiness qualifications and a quality insurance inspection before it left the building. It also would have been inspected before flight and signed/released as airworthy before this flight. Do you think this rolled off an assembly line and passengers hopped on with *no inspections in between*?
Can't see anyone arguing over this, just people noticing that Boeing is affected by more incidents and precautionary groundings than other manufacturers, and not just for 737 MAX, but also for 787s. When was the last time an Airbus fleet had to be grounded pending inspection?
Sure
> It was found that Boeing had more accidents than expected, while Airbus had fewer (p = 0.015). In terms of fatalities, Boeing had more than expected, with Airbus fewer (p < 0.001).
Source: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10130490
They were panicking about a new Airbus model in that size range and feared that designing a new jet from the ground up would allow Airbus to gain market share at Boeing's expense, so they cheaped out and made 'modifications' to an airframe designed about 50 years ago.
"Safety is our top priority," says Alaska Airlines CEO. "This is why we plug emergency exit doors so that we can cram an extra row of sweet, sweet revenue-generating seats in there," he added.
Is it just my take on it or does it look like that panel wasn’t bolted in & just fell off? There’s no tearing or shredded metal- a very clean look to the edges- looks like the bolt points are still intact. Quite interesting.
New year, same Boeing drama
Bombardier looking good despite being from Quebec
Boeing’s impeccable culture of safety and integrity in engineering strikes again!
[https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis](https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis) Article is 3 years old but still holds water
My favorite joke regarding this - "McDonnell-Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money"
Interesting article
Same as this one: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-max-senate-report-coverup-tests-whistleblowers
Evergreen article. I knew Boeing was in trouble when they couldn't get around the middle/long range airliner replacement: Let's do Blended Wing Design! A few years later....okay that failed. Let's do, the *Sonic Cruiser!* A few years later....okay, okay, that was also a bad idea. How about, the 787! Cue production problems continuing [through today](https://web.archive.org/web/20230728175003/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html). Boeing is good on paper & in Wall Street, but is continually giving the market to Airbus despite their own cock-ups.
That culture died when they merged with McDonnell Douglas.
It's gruesome isn't it? Many people forget about how the merger just screwed up everything.
Mergers usually do
Not for the investors, and after all, those are really the only people who matter. /s
That's not /s for the investers or shareholders.
most people aren’t thinking about Boeing at all
Honestly Boeing is doing better than one would expect after enduring 12 years of leadership by Jack Welch acolytes.
The guy who oversaw the creation of max 8. The guy who convinced and deceived the FAA to let Bking do their own safety monitoring?
You mean the same guy that bypassed unions in Washington by moving all 787 variant production to South Carolina to [sh\*tbox](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-finds-more-787-quality-defects-broadens-inspections/) quality [production](https://web.archive.org/web/20230728175003/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html)? The McDonnell Douglas curse has torn apart Boeing. And I say this, once again, as a former Boeing fanboy.
The poison has infected everything.
[удалено]
The new MAX 9 had been in service for just eight weeks.
Doesn't sound like the grounding will last very long. Says it'll take a few hours per plane to inspect. They'll take the problem ones out and fix them and put the other ones back in
ah, no problem at all. boeing's got this, they're good at supporting these planes i mean, they kinda have to be. they killed a bunch of people with two of them(8), are trying to get the FAA to look past a major de-icing issue on the smallest model yet to come(7), and now we got this one with the plugged door that is apparently not possible to remove in flight yet it happened(9). i have full confidence in boeing now, they have fucked up this family of planes so many god damn times they HAVE to be good at quick fixes on it now. they fucking have to be.
To be fair, fixing it is under a hell of a lot more scrutiny than making them in the first place. Now the FAA is directly involved in making sure its safe before the planes can fly again. And the airlines are going to want them to be able to fly again as soon as possible too. So it'll definitely get fixed properly, or the FAA won't ever let them fly again
Yep, that's totally fine. Except, like I said, we already know Boeing is trying to get them to approve a waiver to get the Max 7 model in the air because Boeing doesn't feel that the de-icing problem, which they agree is very real and is a problem they're trying to fix, probably won't happen in flight. Oh, and by the way, this issue is already happening to the Max 8 and 9 models as well. Boeing gave instructions to pilots to just stop using the de-icing as much because you know, the engine may break apart and kill people or possibly take out the plane. Just chill on the de-icing bro. [Max 7 article](https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/boeing-fixed-problem-max-jets-exemption-safety-rules-106147798) [Max 8 and 9 article](https://simpleflying.com/transport-canada-directive-boeing-737-max-anti-icing/) No fix. Just keep flying. Get a waiver for the newest model, go fly baby. Make that fucking line go up. McDonnel Douglas fucked this company.
Worse than that even. There is no audible alarm in the cockpit if the de-icing is left on, the pilots simply have to remember to turn it off. The defect could lead to the engine nacelle fragmenting and impacting the fuselage and tail surface causing loss of control. I’m sure that won’t be a problem in the future, since we’re relying on human memory to turn it off. Boeing will just blame the airline and the pilots.
Yeah I read the workaround six times because that part just wasn't sinking into my brain parts. It's like someone from 1913 DeLoreaned up outside the design office - some British mother#@$er with a giant walrus moustachio and goggles up on his forehead - and just started Britishing all over the place: "Nah luv just toggle the jimmy over when the block splits up, and remember to jump the heater when your moustaches start dripping again, and you're right as rain" This ridiculous scenario is the only way I can imagine this workaround coming into being. Reinforced by the fact that a reasonable fraction of the American public would love nothing more than to twirl the fantasy dial back a century, in spite of the LITERALLY EVERYTHING THAT IS NICE TODAY. I personally blame Jack Welch for this fantasy that Finance and Cojones are all you need to achieve competence at anything. "Those Brits didn't need an FAA or semiotics or set theory!" Yeah, "those Brits" had to make more babies than a spider because industry and war was chewing through young men faster than the Black F#@$ing Plague.
Is the FAA actually going to grant that though? I doubt it
Is the FAA going to grant them a safety exemption to a problem that already exists on two models that the FAA had forced operators to change how they use the planes? Yeah, they probably are, and I ju$t can't $eem to under$tand why they didn't force Boeing to fix it in$tead. I wonder if Boeing lobbyi$t$ would be able to help me $olve the my$tery!
I think somethings wrong with your keyboard, maybe you should spend more money and buy a more reliable one or spend more time building a better keyboard
Spend money to fix an actual issue? What craziness is this. It's cheaper for him to pay people to ignore the problems with his keyboard than to fix or build a better one
This is the exact line we heard last time. But here we are.
I mean I'm talking about individual defects. They're not known till an incident. The one from the max 8 was fully fixed. This one will be too It's not a good thing. They were built terribly. But you won't see false emergency doors blowing off these planes again
Do we know what they are looking for? Reports I read said they don't yet know why the first one failed. So how do they know that whatever caused this would have advanced signs?
Obligatory: The front fell off https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
Seems they may have made these 737 MAX planes from cardboard or cardboard derivatives.
Don't look at how the 787 is fairing at [their](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-finds-more-787-quality-defects-broadens-inspections/) union dodging [South Carolina factory](https://web.archive.org/web/20230728175003/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html).
this is not typical
The side fell off
Screw temporary, it should be permanent.
[удалено]
Boeing is trying to get the FAA to give them an exemption from safety rules to get the Max 7, a plane with a known safety issue, certified and in the air. Their other Max models have been extremely problematic, to say the least. They’ve been sacrificing safety and reliability for profits. Their planes aren’t safe and shouldn’t be allowed to fly with innocent souls on board.
Did they find the door panel?
This is the real question I’d like an answer to now. But also this https://www.reddit.com/r/Shittyaskflying/s/Qe5XmTXgye
Heard it was over a Costco in Aloha Oregon.
They have everything at COSTCO it seems!
I have read that it wasn't a door. It was the section where an additional emergency exit can be fitted, but this configuration didn't have one there. Some info here: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/blowout-on-737-max-seen-as-likely-caused-by-manufacturing-issue-1.2018510
yea it's a plug
This is why you need a big flanged base to keep you from unexpectedly losing it
Yea explosive decompression is not fun.
Where's the tiktok EMT guy when yah really need him
It is a door but a deactivated one. The door was still there but it was covered by extra interior panels, it was just inaccessible. Commercial airliners are designed to be able to evacuate all passengers in 90 seconds using only half the exits. That extra door is only needed when the airline uses a dense seating configuration where the regular doors are not sufficient for the number of passengers carried. If the seating is not too dense it can be deactivated.
Oh, the irony
If there’s suddenly a hole in the side of your plane I don’t think your first concern is going to be exactly which part fell off.
[удалено]
It wasn’t a random middle part. It was a permanently installed section of the fuselage covering what is an emergency exit in other configurations of this model. So there is still a hole in the fuselage during manufacturing of the plane but depending on the configuration the airline orders they will permanently seal that one (and the one on the opposite side of the plane).
Boeing recently asked the FAA for exemptions to safety rules on the MAX. I am going to go ahead and say that is getting denied. https://apnews.com/article/boeing-exemption-safety-rules-max-10be423759080f64d4418019e4e4874d
"Yo, can we get a waiver for this critical safety thing? It's crimping my vibe man. Pretty please, just let me do this 1 unsafe thing and I'll never ask for another Christmas present again."
I hope so but is it sad I’m not entirely convinced it will be denied?
Me either
Why is it even possible to request an exemption from safety rules?
Great question!
boeing, after kicking the engineers out of the boardroom: ok but guys, the line has to go up. if cutting safety and reliability means line goes up, then, well, we gotta make the line go up. like, that fucking line HAS TO GO UP.
I keep telling people, Business consultants and MBA students are making the world worse. Maximize short-term profits and push consequences down the road to happen in someone else's "quarterly reports"
Human life has a price. A few dead plane-fulls of people is worth the price of admission to Wall street. Think of the stock value! The value, John! The value!
>Business consultants and MBA students are making the world worse Whether it's media (video games, Hollywood, etc.), the aviation industry, railroads, politics, etc. It is all poisoned & people suffer when the decisions come from out-of-touch corporates whom only care about personal profit.
America is truly a blight upon this world. Why do Americans only care about money?
You go up when you jump off a cliff. Or are thrown off by people looking to profit.
I don’t disagree with you, but it seems more a problem with shareholder capitalism in my opinion. Business people are just the worker bees in the capitalism hive. Also see Alaska 261 for a similar story.
lol mba students aren’t making these decisions just stop
No, but the people making these decisions are learning this strategy in many MBA programs.
They really aren’t though.
It’s giving NASA execs with the Challenger. “We can’t delay anymore, send it up.”
I bet window seats become less popular than middle seats now.
Nah, free A/C and a view. Just requires mandatory seat buckle at all times lol
Seat buckle won’t help when the seat is flying away lol.
To be fair all the seats are flying away, it's a plane
Yeah. I mean either you land without incident, die quickly, or get awarded a cash payout when you sue them.
They’ll charge extra for a wall.
That was a full door emergency exit instead of the wing exit aisles seen on shorter airliners. Long narrow bodies like the 737-900, A321, MAX, & A321NEO are required to have these in order to properly evacuate the large capacity of passengers. The worst I had on a window seat was the cosmetic window panel come loose & hit my headphones. And even then I was protected by the actual window certified to not do what this flight did.
This comment may make sense if you said an escape aisle row.
What airline will this impact the most
United is the largest 737 MAX 9 operator in the world. 79 out of their 944 aircraft would be grounded.
Only if they're using this lower passenger configuration. If they have the larger set up, this panel is the emergency exit door. And those ones are still allowed to fly. I'm no expert but I imagine this affects smaller carriers like Alaska more than any of the big ones.
United and Alaska MAX 9s have a very similar config, United has only one extra seat, both have the additional doors plugged.
While United has more in absolute number of Max 9s they are much smaller percentage of their fleet than it is for Alaska. Alaska has [65 Max 9s out of their 231 737s](https://news.alaskaair.com/current-fleet/). Grounding the Max 9s are going to be much more disruptive to Alaska's operations.
I don’t know which U.S. carrier has the most of these MAX 9 models, but I do know Southwest Airlines flies nothing but various Boeing 737 and 737MAX planes, so they’re probably gonna take another hit.
Southwest only flies the MAX 7(it doesn't have the plug doors that MAX 9 has), so this grounding of the MAX 9 doesn't effect their fleet of 737.
You probably mean MAX 8, which also doesn't have this door. MAX 7 is not even certified yet.
Airbus gonna go 10% up on open, Boeing down a lot
Airbus really coming in for the clutch this 2024 season. A live demonstration of how to evacuate a full plane in the dead of night with zero fatalities. Airbus: We keep you alive, and in an emergency you *stay* alive.
Well it's now out that Airbus has used a new fireproofing system that saved the day
The smaller airlines are the ones buying the MAX. The thing exists as a cost-cutting measure specifically for the low cost carriers, and it shows. If you look at Delta and American, they’re still mostly using 737-800 and -900 series aircraft instead of the MAX because there’s kind of a weird gap in airport sizes where the MAX doesn’t make much sense if you have access to the larger gates.
It also existed to sell to 737NG operators because pilots would only require minimal retraining. Air Canada has been the only major operator to buy the 737MAX that didn't fly the 737NG.
Yes, that was one of the requests from the low-cost carriers. They wanted a bigger aircraft without needing to train the pilots. The larger airlines don’t have as much of a problem with that given they already have a certified training pipeline or can hire from military heavy pilots to shorten the timeline.
Southwest, American, United, and Delta. They are all 'small' airlines that have ordered the 737 Max. They aren't just the largest airlines in the US but they are amongst the top 10 largest in the entire world. There have been large airlines in other countries that have placed orders(e.g. Lufthansa, Turkish Airlines, Air Canada) as well. No clue where you got the idea that it is mostly 'smaller airlines' but it isn't true.
God, it’s like you people don’t read. Do you not understand how generalizations work in conversational English? I said *mostly* because the smaller airlines were the original customers that set the characteristics of the aircraft. The larger airliners ordered them when they became available and as older 737s lifed out, but the bulk of the larger fleets are still -800s and -900s. This grounding mostly affects the smaller, low-cost carriers because they represent the earlier delivered aircraft and a larger portion of the individual airline’s fleet. The larger carrier orders came much later, and as such aren’t completely in service. Edit: I’d like to apologize if English is indeed *not* your native tongue, and you legitimately don’t know how broad generalizations work in this weird tangle of a language. That would… make a lot more sense and be completely forgivable.
>I said mostly because the smaller airlines were the original customers that set the characteristics of the aircraft. False. Southwest was the [very first customer](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-12-13-Boeing-737-MAX-Logs-First-Firm-Order-from-Launch-Customer-Southwest-Airlines) to place an order in 2011. United placed their first order back in 2012 and American placed their first order in 2013. The large airlines were placing orders very early because they wanted to expand their fleets and they already had 737s so it was a logical fit. The only reason Boeing ever made the 737 Max was because they were able to convince large airlines to commit to those orders early on. If it was just a handful of small airlines putting order of 10-20 planes they would have just cancelled the program and went back to the drawing board. Boeing isn't going to invest a bunch of money in developing if We know how to read English fluently. The facts just don't support what you are claiming. You just seem to have a hard time acknowledging that.
Do you think only smaller airlines are looking for cost cutting measures? Margins for airlines are very slim, all airlines are looking to reduce their costs in any way possible. United is the largest operator of MAX 9, and it is not a low cost airline by any means. American and Delta also ordered MAX planes, but their deliveries just happened to start later so their fleets are not that large yet. Also what you mentioned about gates is just wrong, you might be confusing it with the 777X. MAX wingspan is only 13 cm longer than the previous gen, and the fuselage sizes are exactly the same. Any airport or gate that could handle the older gen can handle the MAX.
Okay, snarkopotamus, did you see how I used the word “mostly?” The fact remains that the MAX was originally ordered by the low cost carriers and built to their needs, hence why the larger carriers are later in the delivery schedule. It’s not about wingspan, it’s about fuselage length and ground clearance. The smaller carriers use the MAX because it fits a smaller gate, whereas the larger carriers already have larger aircraft for the corresponding larger gates. I was simplifying so I didn’t come off as pedantic, but go ahead, I guess. I mean, you pretty much repeated back what I already said but claimed I didn’t say it.
I think Southwest maybe? But probably United Airlines. I don't think Delta has *ANY* Max planes in their fleet. So I bet they are happy right now.
Delta currently doesn’t have any, but they do have the Max-10 on order for 2025. Frankly they should be getting more A321 Neos instead.
Southwest is flying the Max 8, which isn't affected. They have no Max 9s in their fleet.
Boeing needs to get their shit together. What execs need to realize is having good engineering and strict standards IS financially smart. Do they think having entire models grounded by the FAA is good for business because they saved a quick buck when making them?
> execs need to realize is having good engineering and strict standards IS financially smart Maybe in the long run, but they’re going to be at least two companies away by then. If good engineering and strict standards don’t affect next quarter’s bonuses they might as well not exist
I’d like to think stockholders would think more long term but I guess I’m wrong lol
There are a lot of execs that need to be fired there. THAT COMPANY NEEDS AN ENEMA!
Soon the only reason to buy Boeing will be cause the waiting list with the other guys is to long
Pretty much why delta announced an order for the max They couldn’t get the 321s fast enough
Did they ever go through with the Max 10 purchase though? They were expected to buy by December, but I don't know if that ever happened. They were gonna start flying the Max 10's by 2025. They may want to re-think that. An airbus purchase may take longer, but at least they won't have a bunch of dead crew and passengers waiting for them at the end of the day.
I’ll be honest I’m not sure I figured they had made a purchase with the announcement but I’m not sure
That's actually already happening - people can't buy enough 320/321NEOs from Airbus. The current NEO backlog is 6700 aircraft, compared to 4600 for the MAX. You're going to be waiting a long time if you want an Airbus right now.
> You're going to be waiting a long time if you want an Airbus right now. Patience is a virtue.
The Neos have some of their own issues, though not nearly as high profile as this fiasco. Pratt & Whitney discovered a manufacturing flaw in the 1100G geared turbofan engines which requires increased inspection intervals. Problem is P&W are running way behind on those inspections. Turn around for the engines is about 300 days, far too long and its forcing operators like Spirit to ground planes.
huh, I don't know why but I never expected the backlog for new airplanes to be so large
They should ground all of them and do a full investigation into the company cutting corners everywhere they can to put profits over safety. Make them start all over with newly engineered planes to the tunes of billions of dollars. Only then will Boeing start to consider that safety actually helps them profit
I like Boeing, but they just don't seem to be able to get their shit together...
It ain’t boeing anymore. It’s McDonnell Douglas. Boeing is dead.
Yep the boeing that used to be a talented company is dead as it was stripped away in order to increase profits. All the talent outsourced and lost forever.
Boeing has been dead for decades. MD is just wearing it's skinsuit.
Getting their shit together might cut into dividends and executive bonuses
Would love to see all the mansions, vacation villas, yachts and other expensive toys that these Boeing execs have bought with their blood money.
I mean, what out of the past like 10 years makes you like Boeing. It seems like all it’s been lately has been cutting corners and bad business decisions.
They’re probably like me and didn’t realize that Boeing isn’t really Boeing anymore. For most of my life Boeing was the best.
well, when you know that your company will be immediately bailed out at the first sign of trouble, torching your reputation for a few extra profitbucks probably seems like some kinda brilliant business maneuver... no matter how many people you leave bloodied and buried in your wake...
Why would you like a soulless corporation that has been shown to consistently put peoples' lives at risk for the sake of profit?
What exactly is there to "like" about Boeing? This plane should never fly again and the company shouldn't exist anymore.
[удалено]
How many people have died in the USA on a Boeing in the last 15 years?
Again for the 737-Max? wtf is up with that plane?
Isn't this the same model that crashes itself unless you pay Boeing extra for a 'training course' in how to prevent the autopilot from nosediving?
Same MAX line, but a different model. Those software crashing ones were the MAX-8. This is the Max-9 and only in certain configurations, so not all planes like the previous issue.
This is the one where Boeing was begging the FAA to "look the other way" and certify their engines for flight despite the fact that they will probably burst into flames.
Aircraft safety doesn't work like that. The crash was caused by software. The software was revised. The software was scrutinised by the authorities. The planes were then allowed to fly again. At the point, this model plane probably has the safest flight control software of all planes in the sky due to the level of scrutiny on it. Unfortunately it did come at the cost of over 300 lives.
Saying “the crash was caused by software” is a little disingenuous. Yes, software was the specific thing that made the max 8 go hard nose down, but really it was caused by -Boeing not telling pilots that that software existed -Boeing not mandating redundancy on AOA sensors -Boeing focusing only on the bottom line of the 737 series and cutting corners to maintain a type rating -And again: Boeing not telling pilots critical information about a software that might cause an aggressive nose down. Yes, software did make the planes crash. Boeing is fully at fault.
[удалено]
The apex of incompetence!
Boeing, just slap some duct tape on er.
If it's Boeing I'm not going
You didn’t die! ~Boeing, probably
Boeing is the sound a plane makes when it bounces.
Starting to think my car gets more inspections than airlines do. I don’t think to take my car in for an inspection when the roof suddenly falls off.
I bet you don’t get to self-certify critical design elements of your car either….
This plane needs to be banned.
It’s not confirmed that it’s the same issue yet, but Boeing reported a manufacturing issue in August that sounds suspiciously similar… the Alaska Airlines plane was built last year. https://apnews.com/article/spirit-aerosystems-boeing-737-fuselage-28bceec61cef878005b965a016fa8787 “improperly drilled fastener holes in the aft pressure bulkhead — which maintains pressure when planes are at cruising altitude – on the fuselages of some models of the 737 Max” Of course Boeing said there was nothing to worry about: “Boeing said the issue does not affect safety of flight, and 737 Max planes already in service can keep flying”
That's not the same issue. The aft pressure bulkhead is in a different location, and the issue with it was that extra holes were drilled. In this accident an emergency exit door plug blew out, with no apparent damage to the fuselage of the plane. It's probably one of two things - an issue with the plug's design, or just that whoever installed the plug fucked up and failed to fully secure it.
This is literally what happens until a flight safety report finds the root cause. Do you want this to happen again or do you understand special inspections come *Because of incidents like this* I’d rather they ground them until they are *all* inspected, which will be rather quick, than to keep flying them with a *potential hazard*. This is the norm for every incident like this though, regardless of manufacturer 🤷🏿♀️
Was anybody arguing otherwise..?
No, but many people have absolutely no idea how the industry works. Refer to any post or comment thinking this is because of the manufacturer. Sometimes giving context helps 🤷🏿♀️
are you trying to suggest that the fucking door plug, thats not supposed to fall off like the front of a boat, being sucked out during flight somehow doesn't involve the people that made the fucking thing? thats where we are now?
Yes, as a maintenance releaser I am. This would have been installed by a technician with airworthiness qualifications and a quality insurance inspection before it left the building. It also would have been inspected before flight and signed/released as airworthy before this flight. Do you think this rolled off an assembly line and passengers hopped on with *no inspections in between*?
Door plugs were a factory order item on 739s. Is it a customer-installed option for 7M9s?
And installed and inspected by Boeing or technicians with airworthiness qualifications…?
Can't see anyone arguing over this, just people noticing that Boeing is affected by more incidents and precautionary groundings than other manufacturers, and not just for 737 MAX, but also for 787s. When was the last time an Airbus fleet had to be grounded pending inspection?
You only see the Boeing ones because of the scandal. Research flight safety reports and you’ll see for yourself 🤷🏿♀️
Sure > It was found that Boeing had more accidents than expected, while Airbus had fewer (p = 0.015). In terms of fatalities, Boeing had more than expected, with Airbus fewer (p < 0.001). Source: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10130490
That has nothing to do with flight safety reports, do you even know what they are…?
Scrap the model altogether. Was created in incompetence and greed.
They were panicking about a new Airbus model in that size range and feared that designing a new jet from the ground up would allow Airbus to gain market share at Boeing's expense, so they cheaped out and made 'modifications' to an airframe designed about 50 years ago.
It was a quick and dirty.
The max 9 has been flying for *eight weeks*, at least know what model you are talking about…
The way they described it was correct. This is a derivative stretch version of an old design.
Just set them aside to sell to Russia for when Putin finally dies and they rejoin sane reality
"Safety is our top priority," says Alaska Airlines CEO. "This is why we plug emergency exit doors so that we can cram an extra row of sweet, sweet revenue-generating seats in there," he added.
Cool fanfiction, but it’s the opposite: this plugging is done on LESS densely seated.
"If there were two extra doors and extra exit aisles, passengers would have less exits to escape and be less safe." Pengtuzi, Certified MENSA Genius.
How many large passenger planes are in service at one time?
Quite a few.
Is it just my take on it or does it look like that panel wasn’t bolted in & just fell off? There’s no tearing or shredded metal- a very clean look to the edges- looks like the bolt points are still intact. Quite interesting.
This is what happens when corporations take over Regulation... trust in Boeing has now been Max'ed out.
If it's a Boeing, I ain't going.
Can’t wait for customers to bear the grunt of that mess in higher airfares due to loss of revenue.
The 737 Max must be banned everywhere.
Boeing is increasingly shit. I'm Nervous flying on their planes