Alaska Airlines grounds Boeing 737 Max 9 planes after mid-air window blowout

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/06/alaska-airlines-grounds-boeing-737-max-9-planes-after-mid-air-window-blowout

by robin_reala • 3 years ago

358 329 3 years ago

theguardian.com

usui• 3 years ago

Seems like the Boeing 737 MAX series of planes can’t catch a break especially after what happened in 2019.

Unless—how often does an airline company ground a particular model?

Dalewyn5• 3 years ago

It's Boeing that can't catch a break.

Starliner? Delays and cancellations.

KC-46? That POS still isn't reliably refueling, and if I understand correctly USAF is rumored to be looking for a replacement.

F-15EX? It can't use conformal fuel tanks the F-15E has been using for almost 40 bloody years. No, that means it can't achieve its major selling point of carrying 22 missiles either.

737 MAX? Clearly maximum kek given this and that whole comedy about safety exemptions yesterday.

I want to like Boeing, but I feel it's justifiable to tell them to go fuck themselves at this point.

EDIT: I also forgot that V-22 Osprey that crashed into the sea off Japan back in November, killing all on board. As far as I'm aware, that led to a complete grounding of all Ospreys by all US military branches and also the JSDF pending investigation findings.

KolmogorovComp2• 3 years ago

You’ve forgotten the numerous delays for the 777X

atoav2• 3 years ago

The number one reason the planes start to have issues is essentially a lack of effective oversight. Not sure how much blame boeing gets for this, but this is a prime example for a certain amount of effective regulation having a positive impact on the safety culture within a corporation.

The MAX should never have been accepted as being the same airframe as the original 737.

exo762• 3 years ago

Brain drain caused by SpaceX? (shooting in the dark here)

somerandomqaguy• 3 years ago

Even funnier because Boeing tried being cute with the Canadian aerospace industry, and instead shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun.

Boeing tried to screw Canada's Bombardier out of the C series aircraft by getting the US Gov to throw on tariffs for an aircraft they had no competitor for. Everything was already done AFAIK that point too; certifications, and everything, the plane was entering into production to fufill US airline orders. It cost $1.3 billion Canadian to develop the plane.

I suspect Boeing thought that'd be the end of it. Airbus had other ideas. They got the whole Bombardier C series aircraft for about $550 million and opened an assembly plant in Alabama in Mobile, about 350 miles from Boeing's assembly plant in Huntsville. Along with the orders from US airlines (I think for 130 aircraft). No more tariffs because these planes are now US made.

As a Canadian it stings a little, but I can't help but cackle at the fact that Boeing execs handed their one major competitor several billion in revenue on a silver platter. And Boeing will need years if not decades to come up with a competitor.

So from Canada: Get fucked sideways Boeing.

hef198986• 3 years ago

KC-46: The USAF had Airbus tankers on order, before Boeing sued and the cinzract was, surprise, awarded to Boeing again. So the USAF and Boeing share equal blame here.

I have to read up on the F-15EX, generally so these kinds of upgrades are basically new designs and as such prone to delays and a bunch of technical issues. Especially for military aircraft.

Nothing to add on the MAX that wasn't said already. Boeing sure has its work cut out developing a new version, the existing 737 design is beyond its design life by now.

Well, if a plane crashes for unonown reasons, it is quite normal to ground the fleet, nothing special about Boeig here.

terramex• 3 years ago

It was not a "window and chunk of fuselage blowout" but a safety door blowout. In case 737MAX-9 is configured with maximum possible seat count then additional safety door have to be added.

On lower seat count configs (like on that incident flight) those extra door are still present but locked, hidden and not visible from inside.

MichaelMug• 3 years ago

Is there a citation or source for that? Not doubting you just interested.

the_mitsuhiko• 3 years ago

You can see the disabled door here in the picture. It’s behind the window that has more spacing: https://www.planespotters.net/photo/1483230/n969ak-alaska-ai...

Inside there is no exit: https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Air...

londons_explore• 3 years ago

still present but locked, hidden and not visible from inside.

Well that seems like a massive waste of weight...

sitharus3• 3 years ago

The fuselage opening for the door is still present as it’s a common part. The door is replaced with a window panel to seal the space, there is no door there.

Any mechanical component - even if unused - requires servicing and maintenance. No airline would want to pay for that and the fuel cost on every flight to carry a door they don’t want.

blensor• 3 years ago

Somehow it feels less error prone to service an extra door than to replace the whole element from time to time. At least to my armchair viewpoint

usrusr2• 3 years ago

“That particular Boeing 737 Max 9 rolled off the assembly line and received its certification two months ago“

Not a maintenance issue. Or if it is, that's a seriously shocking amount of maintenance demand.

Symbiote3• 3 years ago

It was a "window and a chunk of fuselage". It doesn't matter how the aircraft is assembled, those are the roles performed by the parts that fell away.

HL33tibCe7• 3 years ago

https://nitter.net/avgeekjake/status/1743462030366085387?s=2..., it appears to have been the mid-aft door (this is what it usually looks like: https://nitter.net/jonostrower/status/1743466899869147549?s=...)

Dalewyn5• 3 years ago

Boeing probably isn't gonna get that safety exemption from FAA.

jbverschoor2• 3 years ago

I’d hope.

kingTug• 3 years ago

Deploy the lobbyists!

cududa• 3 years ago

That seems optimistic

DoingIsLearning2• 3 years ago

Question to the Airline people on HN:

I recall that following the 2019 deaths that Boeing was going to rebrand the Max with some number series or similar, so that passengers didn't get nervous flying in it.

How do I as a passenger identified all the rebranding permutations of the Max so that I make sure my family is not flying in them?

bagels• 3 years ago

Just fly Airbus.

DoingIsLearning2• 3 years ago

That's not realistic. Not always possible depending on routes.

ant6n• 3 years ago

Just take the train or boat.

LilBytes2• 3 years ago

Australia doesn't have any Airbus planes for domestic flights. :-/

nness• 3 years ago

Google says "737 dash 8 through 10" — and Ryanair at least (who has huge order of MAX's) uses "737-8200" or "737 MAX 10."

However, considering how common it is for an airline to switch product, it would be quite difficult to ensure your flight isn't on one of these aircraft without double-checking during boarding — then refusing to board.

merrywhether2• 3 years ago

Maybe we should help them out and start calling them 737 MBA-8/9/10.

resolutebat• 3 years ago

There was talk of rebranding them by dropping the MAX entirely and calling them simply 737-8, -9, -10, but AFAIK this didn't happen in the end.

paradite• 3 years ago

I'm sure someone will make a website for it. Sooner or later.

hef198986• 3 years ago

Unless the legal fram work changes, it won't work. Airlines are totally allowed to book passeneges on other flights and to switch aircraft anytime the have to, want of feel like it. None of which is a reason to be reimbursed as a passenger. So what do you wanna do, when you book a non-Boeing flight, the Airbus plane has technical peoblems and the airline uses one of the available Boeing planes instead? The airline won't reimburse anyone, so it woupd be up to the website doing so, if they sold this service.

By the way, Boeing planes are generally speaking perfectly fine. I'd rather avoid certain airlines with bad safety records.

fundatus• 3 years ago

It already exists: https://www.alternativeairlines.com/airlines-not-flying-boei...

wannacboatmovie• 3 years ago

You don't.

Airlines can and do switch like aircraft at the last minute all the time. Do all the planning you like, but you won't know for sure until you're seated and look at the safety card.

So unless you intend to have a "Qantas never crashed" tantrum in the airport, you may be out of luck because the only airlines in the US that have not ordered the MAX are Spirit/Frontier (Greyhound with wings) and JetBlue, and they don't fly everywhere.

deadbabe• 3 years ago

People can say what they want about Spirit but I still think they’re the best airline to get around the US if you buy one of the big front seats. And the fact they don’t fly a MAX is even better.

phil213• 3 years ago

It's performative, but I think next time I get a last minute equipment change to a MAX and nowhere urgent to be I might simply refuse to board and let them know exactly why.

I understand it will cost money and time, and really just mostly annoy the gate agents. But at some point the actual customers need to push back on Boeing and I can't really think of any other way. The FAA has clearly failed.

I'm not so naive to think I can continue air travel and not be taking the MAX quite often as time moves on, but the lack of any consequences for Boeing is rather annoying.

r053bud• 3 years ago

I only really fly Delta and they don’t have any MAX aircraft, so that makes things easy. The majority of Delta flights I’ve been on are Airbus aircraft. I’ve only flown on one Boeing (737-800) in the past two years and that was from a non-hub Delta airport.

frankthepickle• 3 years ago

can someone else tell me if the actual relative risk is significant? my gut tells me no

highwaylights2• 3 years ago

Can’t answer this with data, although I’m not sure how many more headlines we need to see before we can collectively accept that something is very, very wrong with this plane at a fundamental level.

ReflectedImage• 3 years ago

Very high. The incident suggests that there will be many more incidents in the years to come with different parts of the plane. It's a quality control thing.

stouset3• 3 years ago

There have been zero incidents involving passenger injury or death since the MCAS issue was fixed.

Meanwhile there are something like 1,300 of them in regular service.

You’ll note, maybe, that pilots continue to fly the plane without raising a stink. If there was a serious concern for their own safety, you’d hear something about pilots refusing to fly them.

dap• 3 years ago

The FAA has grounded all of these aircraft. I think right now we have good reason to believe the risk is significant.

belter10• 3 years ago

Use this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38891172

intunderflow3• 3 years ago

If you have a free account on https://www.expertflyer.com/ and attempt to create a seat alert (but don't go through with it) the Aircraft type will be displayed above the seat map once you type in the flight details.

This will also work for aircraft swaps (including last-minute ones) all the way until the plane leaves.

mannykannot• 3 years ago

Much more of this sort of thing, and any rebranding might have to do something about the 'Boeing' part of the name. I suppose they could bring back the 'McDonnell Douglas' name... but that is associated with a far worse door-coming-open problem.

If Boeing wants to rehabilitate its reputation, showing more respect for the regulatory process would be a good start.

stouset3• 3 years ago

How do I as a passenger identified all the rebranding permutations of the Max so that I make sure my family is not flying in them?

The 737 MAX series has a better safety track record than whatever car your family drives.

Note that since the MCAS issue has been fixed, there have been zero incidents that have caused passenger injury or death.

Note further that pilots—a cohort of self-interested humans like any other—continue deciding to crew the plane. You don’t hear about pilots backing out of flights or refusing to fly in them. Pilots and air crews aren’t threatening to walk out en masse.

This plug design has been in use without incident at least since the -900ER in 2007 and prior to the MAX models. The NTSB report will be worth reading, but I will be good money it won’t have anything in it that warrants the kind of wild frothing at the mouth response here.

goblinux• 3 years ago

I have never had my car door fall off mid road trip though

salawat• 3 years ago

Pilots will go to irrational lengths to continue to fly, up to and including doing everything possible to hide any hint of medical problem to continue to do so.

Maybe you trust pilots as some sort of supra-human. I do not. They are humans just as much as the rest of us, and they need to get paid, and I wager they'd fly a bucket of bolts if that was the only thing that people were willing to pay them to fly long after sane passengers opted out of riding along.

toast0• 3 years ago

The 737 MAX series has a better safety track record than whatever car your family drives.

None of the car models I've ever driven have any recorded in-flight incidents. I highly doubt any of them were ever involved in an FAA investigation.

You can't beat the flight safety record of most automobile makers.

Ground safety, sure, some cars are worse than others. But even the MD-80 has a pretty good record on the road. All that use and only a few traffic collisions.

CubsFan1060• 3 years ago

I use the Flighty app (it's not super cheap), but it notifies me what the planes are and when they change.

lazystar• 3 years ago

related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38887840

consumer451• 3 years ago

Does this data need to be updated?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38884778

seydor2• 3 years ago

this coming in the same week when an airbus 250 crash and burned without anyone getting hurt ... is not a good look for boeing

pb7• 3 years ago

How many people were hurt here?

AndroTux• 3 years ago

It’s like comparing a car crash with a car that suddenly without any operator error bursts into flames. Causalities aren’t the point to this argument.

seydor2• 3 years ago

is this a serious question?

cherryteastain• 3 years ago

That was a runway incursion, nothing Airbus could have done about it anyway. Except building their plane as safe as possible, of course.

That said, no one died in this incident either.

Someone12343• 3 years ago

Five people died, with a sixth in critical condition, in that incident.

alistairSH2• 3 years ago

I think they’re saying the Airbus did well - crashed into another plane and stayed intact long enough for an evacuation.

Meanwhile the Boeing falls apart randomly in the sky.

jbverschoor2• 3 years ago

In-flight video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaONLEa8LFE

pizza• 3 years ago

Jesus. And that accidental cinematography what with the video showing the 787 Max safety flyer in the filmer's seat pouch..

fifteen1506• 3 years ago

Nothing to worry about.

Market will fix it after lots of people die and people return to using buses and boats for long-distance travels.

epolanski3• 3 years ago

Part of me wants to never get on any of the Max variants, on the other hand, so many have been ordered around the world that it's impossible to avoid the plane.

midasuni8• 3 years ago

Depends on the continent. Between easyJet and BA you can get most places in europe without risking a Max (BA run boeing long haul)

Do all US carrier rally have Max planes?

isp• 3 years ago

Previous related(?):

- Yesterday (Friday 2024-01-05): "Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air" (417 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358

epolanski3• 3 years ago

Two different variants and two different kind of failures.

bjelkeman-again• 3 years ago

I would think it is the same type of failure. Management failure.

hosteur3• 3 years ago

It is the same (defunct) company, though. So, I would say this is highly relevant.

pts_• 3 years ago

Are they following agile or what?

pimpampum3• 3 years ago

Idea for a startup, a website that sells plane tickets exclusively avoiding Boeing planes. You have a customer waiting.

jonatron• 3 years ago

Kayak already has an aircraft filter, the many other flight comparison sites could easily add the same.

hef198986• 3 years ago

Perfect use for VC money: Reimburse customers when the airline switches planes or flights in perfectly legal manner and customers end up with a Boeing plane anyways.

yreg• 3 years ago

All the other Boeing plane models are quite flight proven.

And also, airlines can switch planes at any time, you won't find out for sure what plane you are taking until you sit on it.

midasuni8• 3 years ago

Unlikely an airline that doesn’t own or lease a max will swap one in.

Sadly the majority of people will choose the cheapest result and voting with your wallet doesn’t work. Which is why we need regulation and can’t leave things to the free market, despite what the libertarians say.

pimpampum3• 3 years ago

All the other Boeing plane models are quite flight proven.

Until they install a half-assed update coded by some underpaid Indian freelancer.

dubcanada• 3 years ago

So you just want flights that have a Airbus plane?

pimpampum3• 3 years ago

Basically, yes. Boeing has proven unreliable time and again.

w3ll_w3ll_w3ll• 3 years ago

Passenger Diego Murillo, who had been on his way to Ontario, California, said the gap was "as wide as a refrigerator" and described hearing a "really loud bang" as the oxygen masks dropped from above.

He told KPTV: "They said there was a kid in that row whose shirt was sucked off him and out of the plane and his mother was holding onto him to make sure he didn't go with it."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67899564

MOARDONGZPLZ• 3 years ago

For any other Americans like myself trying to conceptualize exactly how wide this hole was, imagine about 1/150th of a football field.

williamcotton3• 3 years ago

Can you put that in units of elephant so I can truly grasp the magnitude?

louthy2• 3 years ago

Or, 3 bald eagles

RealStickman_• 3 years ago

I just realized Americans would use a different size of football field than the rest of the world.

sschueller2• 3 years ago

The refrigerator comparison also doesn't help much because American fridges are much larger then European ones.

addicted• 3 years ago

Well played!

sandworm101• 3 years ago

Football field? It was the size of a smallish door. Better analogies would be commonplace things like bathtubs or car doors, not dramaticlly oversized objects like fields or office towers. It was about exactly the size of the emergency exit doors we all see when lucky enough to be seated in an exit row.

drtgh• 3 years ago

Photo https://imgur.com/a/G6rtsys

Observable: the entire lateral structure of the aircraft has disappeared next to the seat.

highwaylights2• 3 years ago

So.. anyone still feel like travelling on a 737 Max with their family?

What a mess.

aledalgrande• 3 years ago

Almost every flight that doesn't cross the ocean on Air Canada is on a Max. Great to see this as they are not going to ground them as well...

PS: the documentary Downfall: The Case Against Boeing was very eye opening, and really shows what happens when a company goes from a Jobs-like CEO to a Ballmer-like CEO, lesson to keep in mind

williamcotton3• 3 years ago

You mean when they replace an aerospace engineer experienced with the actual business operations and administration with someone who doesn’t know anything about aerospace engineering and learned about business management purely from a financial perspective that quality suffers? Next you’ll tell me that EBITDA isn’t a good metric for internal accounting and value costing!

raverbashing• 3 years ago

doesn't cross the ocean on Air Canada is on a Max. Great to see this as they are not going to ground them as well...

If they use the same kind of plug on their Max aircraft then I'd say grounding is merited. But if not then it shouldn't matter.

Unless it's an unknown issue or possibly too generic (like the case of the MCAS) then ADs/grounding/etc take into account the specific failure.

throw0101d2• 3 years ago

* https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646497/flying-blind...

fennecbutt• 3 years ago

Lmao you think Jobs was focused on technical/safety stuff. He was a marketing guy. Read Woz's biography, they shows glimpses of the real jobs, even tho it's still toned down since they were "friends".

astrange2• 3 years ago

People seem to think "marketing" means "making ads for an already completed product". That is not what it means.

midasuni8• 3 years ago

If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going.

sschueller2• 3 years ago

Is this rupture of the hul possibly caused by that new deicing system that was mentioned in the other HN thread?

Someone12343• 3 years ago

No. The engine cowling didn't fail on this aircraft.

yellow_lead2• 3 years ago

If you're a passenger on a flight like this, how much compensation could you be looking at?

dudeinjapan• 3 years ago

Depends on whether your lawyer is Johnnie Cochran or Lionel Hutz.

“If the plane has a hole, the airline must dole!”

voakbasda• 3 years ago

Also known in the US by the saying: you can only get as much justice as you can afford.

alistairSH2• 3 years ago

Not much? What’s your damage claim? Delay? Stress? The airline should probably give you some bonus miles/free tickets as a sign of goodwill, but not sure why they’d owe you beyond that.

If you get sucked out and die, or injured, there’s a claim. But neither happened here.

yellow_lead2• 3 years ago

Emotional distress can reward a lot. Although there were no casualties on this flight, having a near death experience is certainly stressful, and can result in ptsd. This can end up costing a lot in therapist bills.

cf12412908413• 3 years ago

For reference: earlier fuselage failure in 737:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

edit: Earlier door failures happened to two McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 after they changed their locking mechanism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981

Situation back then was made worse as it sucked part of the floor out with the door.

light_hue_12• 3 years ago

Yeah, if by earlier you mean 35 years ago. In a totally different airplane design. Literally nothing in common with this flight.

cf12412908413• 3 years ago

It was a fuselage failure, those dont happen all too often. Back then it was because of a lack of maintenance.

It was before i read it was the door though.

edit: In case its not obvious, would be great if you could post other examples. These events in the air are rather rare and i am rather curious for the upcoming ntsb report of this one.

edit1: Apparently the newer one is a 737 from Southwest from 10 years ago, also maintenance issues. But like similar ones it was rather small https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_812

KoftaBob• 3 years ago

Primary source of the announcement: https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-airlines/operations/as-128...

kmarc2• 3 years ago

I fly quite frequently, 320 flights so far based on my diary. The MAX accidents back then obviously made me a bit uncomfortable.

Until a week ago, I had't actually flown with a MAX; but on January 1st, I took an Air Mexico flight which happened to be one. I wasn't scared (in the sense I know about myself when I'm scared), but rather curious, so, funnily enough, I came to HN and searched for the MAX articles from back then, because I expected that I'd find insights, good technical conversations and in-deep articles about the topic.

On the other hand, I do have one fear.

On longer flights, the large aircrafts that have three batches of seats per row, I prefer an aisle seat in the middle: there is a lower chance that I'm gonna be the one woken up when the middle seater has to go to the bathroom. On a smaller aircraft (that usually fly for less than 3h, so I don't have to use the bathroom myself) I always prefer a window seat (1)

My nightmare is that once the window breaks, or a panel (that you can see the sealing points of) gets ripped off. This only ever happened a couple times, so I very well know there is practically zero chance that this would happen to me.

And now this, in the news, coincidentally.

(1) and I always check which side that window seat should be so I have the better view(2), like more mountains etc

(2) but honestly, I usually don't have a good view, since I prefer a seat oat the middle of the wings' height so that my ride is less bumpy.

belter10• 3 years ago

"Which Airlines Fly The Most Boeing 737 MAX?" - https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-airlines/

"Boeing 737 MAX 9 Production List" - https://www.planespotters.net/aircraft/production/boeing-737...

The need for this post, shows the pathetic of the situation.

phil213• 3 years ago

This is somewhat amusing, and at risk of a "me too" low value post...

When I started regularly flying, I would actually search NTSB reports for the airframe in question in the airport lounge. I don't really know why exactly, but I think the engineering related discussion and the dryness of those accident reports were quite comforting - reading about those crashes really drove home how safe air transport really is. I'm sure I raised a few eyebrows though for anyone glancing at my screen.

I also have the semi-irrational fear of where I sit. However mine is in relation to the engine nacelle - I don't want to be within 4 or 5 rows from where the fan blades are in case they explode into the cabin. Same with prop aircraft - I highly prefer to not be seated in the aisle next to the prop.

So, there are at least two of us out there!

sq_2• 3 years ago

I do the same thing with the nacelle!

I haven’t researched enough to be certain, but it seems like shielding yourself from being hurt by an uncontained engine failure is probably the only thing that an individual can affect by their own choices on a modern commercial jet. Most other accident types seem to be either not tied to any specific area of the plane or so large/non-survivable that there’s nothing a passenger can do.

It’s silly since the odds of literally anything happening are so low, but it makes some part of my brain happier so I do it.

asylteltine3• 3 years ago

Well you can feel better knowing that planes are designed to have tear off strips so if a piece ever rips off it only tears to a maximum small area and shouldn’t keep tearing. At least that’s how Boeing designed it…

cjbprime3• 3 years ago

Sudden decompression at high speed and altitude is dangerous to both humans and airframes, regardless of "tear off strips". A common pattern in explosive decompression accidents is that e.g. the cargo door opens and then the cabin floor caves in and severs vital control surface cables.

kmarc2• 3 years ago

Looking at similar events, like the infamous Aloha Airlines' case, I'm not sure how much better I should feel knowing sabout this stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Also, many passengers don't keep their seat belts closed during flight, which scares me too

tw19842• 3 years ago

This is what happens when your economy got de-industralized to favor those gamblings of the wall st.

tw19842• 3 years ago

Must be hurting to see such truth. Why bother doing engineering when there is quick & dumb money to be made in all those Ponzi schemes of the wall st.

chinathrow• 3 years ago

https://www.aeroinside.com/19018/alaska-b39m-at-portland-on-...

josemanuel• 3 years ago

I really want badly to boycott Boeing.

It's seems impossible that on some routes we do not have alternative to Boeing planes. Consumers should be allowed to decide with their wallet. Isn't that the whole purpose of the Capitalist system?!

phil213• 3 years ago

This, combined with the recent news that Boeing wants to correct a design flaw on the engine nacelle anti-icing system by putting it on the pilots leads me to simply no longer trust this aircraft.

The first couple crashes were sobering, but I thought Boeing would recover and a single issue like that would get corrected and not happen again. The fact they are still trying to "blame" pilots for aircraft design flaws though is beyond the pale and shows they learned absolutely nothing.

I was trying to put my finger on it last night. I got on a MAX a few weeks ago and I absolutely noticed and felt mildly uncomfortable for a minute. I was chiding myself for feeling irrational fear.

The reason was in front of me the whole time. It's actually rational after all:

I simply do not trust the people who designed this aircraft.

brnt2• 3 years ago

There's been enough written about the cultural changes since MD and Boeing, and goes to show that incidents are unlikely just that. Indeed, incidents keep coming.

hengheng• 3 years ago

Statistically they're still rare, fortunately. There's a lot of these planes in the air every day, and it's far more likely to be involved in a car crash caused by somebody not paying attention, than it is to be on one of these flights.

That said, I don't really want to live with the nature of all these flaws. This is not their rocket science that is failing, but it rather reeks of complacency.

I still remember the wrenches found in early Dreamliners. Noone died, but I mean, come on.

Cacti3• 3 years ago

lol that was nearly 30 years ago. give it a rest. “heritage” Seattle screwed this up just fine on their own.

belter10• 3 years ago

"Boeing Repeatedly Burned By Outsourcing" - https://simpleflying.com/boeing-burned-by-outsourcing/

belter10• 3 years ago

From 24 Aug 2023... "Boeing and a key supplier find a new manufacturing issue that affects the 737 Max airliner" - https://apnews.com/article/spirit-aerosystems-boeing-737-fus...

"...Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems said they discovered 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. Wichita, Kansas-based Spirit said late Wednesday because it uses multiple suppliers, only some units are impacted and it will continue to deliver fuselages to Boeing.

Boeing said the issue does not affect safety of flight, and 737 Max planes already in service can keep flying..."

petre• 3 years ago

The managers and the bean counters got cheap. I bet Chinese Comac airliners are safer than the Max.

MilStdJunkie• 3 years ago

Spirit was Boeing - Boeing Wichita - which B sold off to bankers in 2005. It's not "burned by X", it's "sold the plumbing, burned down the restaurant for insurance money". Except not even Tony Soprano would expect to get fresh pizza from a burnt-out shell.

kelseyfrog2• 3 years ago

The passive voice shell game in this article is absurd.

Boeing Repeatedly Burned By Outsourcing
Boeing's outsourcing strategy might be producing more problems than solutions.

No, no, no. Let me re-write them for you Chris Loh[1][2], since you've failed as a journalist.

Boeing's Decision To Outsource Repeatedly Harms Fliers.

Boeing's Decision To Outsource Causes More Problems Than Solutions.

Have some balls, man.

1. https://simpleflying.com/author/chris/

2. https://lt.linkedin.com/in/chris-loh-5b949040

amelius• 3 years ago

(...) leads me to simply no longer trust this aircraft.

aircraft -> company

replygirl• 3 years ago

I simply do not trust the people who designed this aircraft.

oatmeal13• 3 years ago

Is this aircraft designed to a less safe standard than other aircraft? Yes. Is flying on this aircraft also one of the safest modes of transportation I will use this year? Also yes.

kijin• 3 years ago

I wonder how unreliable a specific model of commercial aircraft would need to be in order for it to no longer be the safest mode of transportation.

According to [1], commercial planes are about 3 times safer than buses per passenger mile (edit: passenger hours, sorry). That doesn't sound like a large enough margin to prevent certain more accident-prone models from earning the "deadlier than a bus" badge of shame, especially since the average is skewed by extremely reliable widebody models like the 777, A340 and A380. Meanwhile, commuter planes already suffer from a higher fatality rate than pickup trucks, while private planes are second only to motorcycles.

[1] https://turbli.com/blog/the-safest-transport-modes-ranked-by...

nerdponx• 3 years ago

one of the safest modes of transportation

How far do standards have to fall before that's no longer true?

Recall also that aviation is the safest in aggregate, but the severity of each individual incident tends to be much worse than others.

rixthefox• 3 years ago

Here here I was just about to post the same thing!

Boeing needs to be held responsible. Absolutely no way should the FAA grant Boeing an exemption for these planes under ANY circumstances. The planes have proven themselves to be dangerous and Boeing is doing nothing to fix them because it would hurt their bottom line.

This company needs to be investigated to the fullest extent by the FAA. The fact that this newest plane was only just rolled off the factory assembly line 2 months ago… a plane doesn’t just rip itself apart in less than two months. Something is seriously wrong at Boeing.

AmVess• 3 years ago

No one is going to hold Boeing responsible because Boeing owns everyone in charge at the FAA.

MasterYoda900• 3 years ago

More than merely “investigated”. The FAA should indefinitely ground all Boeing 737 Max until Boeing has fixed them - at its own expense - and the FAA has certified the fixes on each and every one of them. Financial consequences on Boeing be damned. Or kill the plane by banning the Boeing 737 Max from ever flying over the United States ever again. Let Boeing go back to the drawing table and build a plane that works. Let the executives suffer from the years long decline in Boeing’s stock price. Let them lose billions. Tens of billions. I am out of fucks to give. It’s time for the government to draw blood over this corporate malpractice.

HlessClaudesman• 3 years ago

This plane was mangled by bean counter logic: drive down costs to the point where customers go elsewhere, doesn't work at 50,000 feet.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm• 3 years ago

"bean counter logic" is literally just the logic of capitalism

asylteltine3• 3 years ago

Airbus is so much better than Boeing as of late. New Boeing planes are junk.

t3rabytes• 3 years ago

One very tiny thing (well, big) that I love about the A320 family compared to the 737 family is that the load floor on the 32x is a couple inches lower which increases headspace (both real and perceived) making it feel like a less cramped plane. Love it.

steveBK1233• 3 years ago

There was an article literally 1-2 days ago (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...) about about Boeing asking for a certification exemption on the MAX7.

My friend and I were joking "well I'm sure they know what they are doing / hey if its not safe people won't fly it / they can just rename it again if it does crash / its all just big gubmint red tape / hey if it has X% risk of crash and Y already crashed then the next Z flight should be OK right?"

Within 24 hours they blow out a door on a new jet. Amazing levels of incompetence mixed with hubris.

sircastor• 3 years ago

It’s feeling like Boing has been riding on its reputation for a little bit. I’m concerned that this is indicative of issues with any aircraft that they’ve designed in the last decade or two.

Fatnino• 3 years ago

I flew in a MAX one time. It was a short hop between Burbank and San Jose.

There were maybe around 10-15 passengers, the crew asked us to not all sit at the front for balance. The plane had been sat on the ground powered down for hours, even though it was already late afternoon. I was first on the plane and it was very hot and stuffy but a flight attendant assured me the a/c would take care of that soon and indeed it got comfortable before we even pushed back.

Burbank has a very short runway so planes have to get to takeoff speed quick and then climb steep. This is quite an experience in a plane with huge powerful engines like the MAX with fuel for only a one hour flight and essentially no passengers or their luggage.

Later, the wifi didn't work.

This was shortly after they had been allowed back into the air and at no point did I relax into my seat. White knuckles the whole way.

belter10• 3 years ago

How is this even technically possible?

When reading the multiple stories of crazies, that show up in the news once in a while, where someone tries to open doors or emergency exits mid flight ...There is always a reassuring expert comment, that he/she would not be able to, due to the higher pressure inside the airplane, and the fact these devices only open inwards.

It seems for the MAX they blow outwards as easily?

astrange2• 3 years ago

It wasn't at cruising height yet so there wasn't as much pressure difference.

Also in this case it didn't open inward, it fell off.

nilsbunger• 3 years ago

I was wondering the same thing. I’d think these door plugs would be designed the same way as a door, so they can only be removed by pushing them into the plane.

by_Ruben• 3 years ago

It does seem to be an emergency exit that blew.

"An emergency exit and whole panel at the left hand side of the aircraft was missing."

Check for further detail and pictures: https://avherald.com/h?article=51354f78&opt=0

justinclift• 3 years ago

That's pretty much sealing its fate as a cursed model from Boeing.

belter10• 3 years ago

Message to Boeing or Alaska Airlines...I have a door on my garden. Email me to discuss terms, or it shows up on Ebay tomorrow...

sva_• 3 years ago

Makes me feel good about flying the 737 Max 8 in a few days...

JKCalhoun• 3 years ago

Just try to avoid that row. (Whatever row that is.)

ipnon• 3 years ago

“Don’t mind that leak sailor, you can barely see it from the poop deck.”

belter10• 3 years ago

This is what is called a high stakes HN comment.

avar• 3 years ago

With MCAS the MAX is already a flying flight simulator for earlier 737 versions.

Fixing this should be trivial: Fit passengers with VR headsets to simulate there not being a giant hole in the fuselage.

intunderflow3• 3 years ago

Anyone else actively avoiding Max aircraft after this, plus the previous two crashes, and the post from yesterday that Boeing were seeking another exemption from safety rules? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358

(If this means refusing to board after an aircraft swap then at least in my case: so be it, I don't trust Boeing's safety record on these aircraft anymore)

xyst2• 3 years ago

It’s hard to find an airline not deploying them in their fleet but most do provide the type of plane you will be flying in prior to ticket purchase.

intunderflow3• 3 years ago

I live in Europe so I guess this is significantly easier over here (except for Ryanair of course)

xyst2• 3 years ago

Why does anybody continue to trust anything manufactured by this company now? How many incidents/lives is it going to take before airlines just blacklist this manufacturer?

Forget the fines. Leadership at Boeing needs to be criminally prosecuted. Send them to a federal penitentiary. Send a message to those wanting to cost cut on mission critical items. Regulators in this country are asleep at the wheel

terminous2• 3 years ago

Because Boeing is 'too big to fail', proven in the last 737 Max case with MCAS. If there were no leadership prosecuted for that travesty and tragedy, none will ever be for this one. Proper accountability would cripple both the civilian and military sides of the US aerospace sector, which is dominated by Boeing.

So Southwest is all-in on not just Boeing, but 737s. That's their entire fleet. It makes a lot of things simpler. Could they boycott and switch to Airbus? Possibly, but at massive cost and logistics nightmares. Given their logistics failures elsewhere, they'd be fools to try to exit Boeing over this.

snowwrestler• 3 years ago

Southwest is not just all-in with 737s, they have an excellent safety record flying 737s.

It’s an interesting question. Something seems clearly rotten at Boeing related to their recently designed 737 variants. Does the rot extend to older variants of the airframe? It has historically been considered very capable and reliable… the U.S. military still uses it to fly VIPs around the world.

edgyquant4• 3 years ago

What choice do I have? If I have to fly somewhere I have to choose a flight that fits my schedule.

dboreham• 3 years ago

So doing engineering with business school theory doesn't work so well.

rafaelero• 3 years ago

Not every Boeing 737 Max but always a Boeing 737 Max.

jcdavis• 3 years ago

For folks who want to feel better: this particular design feature (the unused plug exit) dates back to the 737-900 which has been around since 1997

For folks who want to feel worse: Highly recommend "Flying Blind" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08P98854S) - its a good book about how Boeing's engineering culture went to shit after the MD merger and the shortcuts used to get the Max delivered.

Cacti3• 3 years ago

The book couldn’t have been that good if it never got across to you that an airplane hitting production in 1997 was necessarily designed YEARS BEFORE 1997 (and hence the merger).

Boeings problems were long in work before the MD merger. Many commercial aerospace people in Seattle, particularly ones with parents who worked at Boeing, have struggled to come to terms with that, and there are a lot of rose colored glasses around here of what 1995-1997 Boeing looked like.

orwin• 3 years ago

It's likely this particular issue is from a lack of quality control, and you cannot blame that on 1997 Boeing.

Quality control degradation in my experience and from stories i've heard are exclusively the fault of bean counters and exec pushing for cost cuts (unlike design flaws where the engineers share the blame). I've heard a story about an industrial machine amputating someone because the new joints couldn't handle the pressure (in france, pre 2019, i don't have the specifics). The maintenance guy wanted to replace the joints with high quality one (like the original were), but they were deemed "too expensive" so they bought new joints at half cost, to gain 10€ on the maintenance of the 400k machine. Less than a week later, the machine broke, someone lost an arm or something (don't have specifics), and a new machine had to be shipped and given for free, i don't know who paid the the amputated guy.

ramesh31• 3 years ago

Boeing's engineering culture went to shit after the MD merger and the shortcuts used to get the Max delivered.

QA is always the very first neck on the chopping block when the bean counters take over. Seen it time and time again.

politelemon• 3 years ago

I'm guessing other airlines are feeling pretty nervous right now too, wondering if they should ground or not. What normally happens here, are other airlines going to wait for AA's report or do their own investigation?

el-dude-arino• 3 years ago

AA will do their own investigation but it's the FAA's investigation that actually matters.

Doubtful much will happen though. The FAA allowed Boeing to do the FAA inspections on the MAX planes they produced, and the FAA rubber stamped the certifications.

Fuck Jack Welch and fuck his devil spawn, the likes of Boeing CEO's Dave Calhoun and James McNerney, and sycophant Dennis Muilenburg.

idlephysicist2• 3 years ago

I know that the air accident rate is pretty much at its lowest since records began. I have heard a lot about grounding aircraft in recent years, though being a relatively young person, I am wondering is this new or was this always the procedure?

marcodiego• 3 years ago

I think competition increased the number of occupied seats, also margins are way lower now and news fly way faster. A single crash now may mean the end of an airline company.

dragontamer• 3 years ago

The 737 Max is looking to be an incredibly accident prone airplane.

Note that USA has extremely safe airplanes, probably the safest in the world. But when a singular design (737 Max) has so many issues, it means we need to look at our safety process and think how Boeing could let so many mistakes through.

cyborgrising• 3 years ago

Grounding aircraft types when there is a significant airworthiness concern has been a phenomenon from the very beginning of commercial jet aviation during the 1950s. The pioneering DeHavilland Comet, the very first jet airliner, suffered ironically similar failures of the pressurized cabin, albiet more serious than the pictured incident. Just like the current article, airlines at the time voluntarily grounded their Comet fleets in 1954.

The only difference is an uptick in risk aversion. It took multiple serious incidents to trigger the grounding of the comet, but here we see grounding after one moderate incident. Then again, the greedy and selfish decision by Boeing executives to install only a single angle of attack sensor without redundancy as a cost cutting measure, which caused fatal crashes when paired with poorly designed software - on this very model, I believe - took multiple fatal crashes before a grounding occurred.

edhelas• 3 years ago

2024 will be a good year for Airbus... again

idlephysicist2• 3 years ago

steveBK1233• 3 years ago

Boeing is a good example of how screwed up management can ruin a company culture and therefore products with bad incentives.

Contrast recent products like the 737MAX with the absolute workhorse and nearly unbreakable 777 designed 20 years earlier.

Really a shame.

gukov• 3 years ago

"They don't build them like they used to anymore" applies to pretty much everything these days.

+1 for the Downfall documentary on Netflix. Answers a lot of questions.

steveBK1233• 3 years ago

One of my random theories of engineering is that as we’ve gotten better and more precise in our computer modeling we’ve also gotten overconfident in our own modeling abilities.

So we no longer over design with random “engineering factors” added in for the unknown, saving on costs. This of course falls apart when reality differs in some unexpected way from our modeling and it turns out our “just cost optimally regulation safe enough” design actually “just shy of being actually safe”.

The 737max debacles seem like patches on patches on patches trying to thread that needle.

Scubabear68• 3 years ago

Maybe I need to rethink sitting in the exit row.

don_neufeld• 3 years ago

Not an exit row in this seating configuration.

If you were sitting inside, you probably wouldn’t notice a difference.

SwiftyBug• 3 years ago

If you have your seat belt buckled, as you should, you would be fine. A little chilly, maybe, but fine.

timw4mail2• 3 years ago

I understand some unease about this, but this appears to be an isolated incident. Until it's shown not to be, I don't see how this makes the MAX family any more dangerous.

Lest Alaska airlines be given too much of a free pass: they had a deadly incident due to lack of maintenance, where a DC-9-family jet lost elevator control entirely.

Regardless, an incident like this is not the worst outcome: nobody was hurt, and the aviation industry can learn lessons from the situation. That includes learning whether this is an isolated incident, or a systemic one, and where the issue actually came from.

jamwil• 3 years ago

The plane is two months old and experienced an airframe failure. The only way this is on Alaska is if they backed a truck into it.

nceasy• 3 years ago

question is: should we worry? now i just have a new fear that i dind't have before

mdaniel• 3 years ago

Presumably the panel landed in in some farmer's field, otherwise we'd hear the news report about someone's roof getting an unexpected emergency exit addition?

Come to think of it, I bet that's something the NTSB investigators will track down so they can do forensics on the debris

georgeplusplus• 3 years ago

I wonder if the engineers are being more risk tolerant because if I had to guess an engineer that says “no don’t do this” is not appreciated by management but an engineer that says yes we can do it is lauded as finding solutions than saying no.

I’ve seen this in my role in a large company in cybersecurity. I also worked at Boeing early in my career and I remember them having a pretty cut throat leadership ladder where reporting an issue might get you passed over for that promotion.

nickdothutton• 3 years ago

The whole premise of the Max was that it didn’t need full certification because it wasn’t a new aircraft. The engineers knew this was nonsense, many of them quit the company rather than work on it. The Max will go down as a textbook example of what happens at an engineering company when the engineers are overruled, silenced, ignored, and finally quit.

Alaska Airlines grounds Boeing 737 Max 9 planes after mid-air window blowout

Related Stories