![]() |
Originally Posted by clearandcold
(Post 3750719)
That area encompassing the door is only so big and there is only so much to look at. Unless they are looking at other parts of the plane I don’t see this lasting months.
Sorry Alaska & UAL pilots. |
Originally Posted by PorkyMcFuzz
(Post 3750713)
I get the impression there is perhaps a lot more being discovered behind the scenes and the issues found are going a lot deeper than a few bolts. Could be wrong but sure looks that way at the moment. I’d be kinda shocked if they are flying sooner than at least a couple more months at this stage.
Boeing and the airlines are no doubt wanting a quick resolution but I can’t see the feds taking any chances on this one with so much public interest.
Originally Posted by PineappleXpres
(Post 3750715)
Hopefully not an fuselage engineering flaw.
Originally Posted by clearandcold
(Post 3750719)
That area encompassing the door is only so big and there is only so much to look at. Unless they are looking at other parts of the plane I don’t see this lasting months.
Also rumored that Spirit installed the plugs, and the fuselages were then transferred to Renton for final assembly and fitting out, where the plugs were removed for easy access to the interior. So the things might well have been assembled correctly, but bolts got left out when they opened them up again to install cabin seats. Hopefully for the airlines involved the process failure was with a team installing cabin fittings, that seems easier to fix than the entire assembly line in KS. Now about those 321 options, how many does HA have again? |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3750837)
Now about those 321 options, how many does HA have again?
|
Several problems need to be addressed before the FAA can authorize an inspection process and return to service.
First, why did the door fly off? Everyone is speculating that it was the loose bolts but the NTSB hasn't made an official ruling and the FAA hasn't said anything specific. Maybe the agencies, airlines, and Boeing already know the cause but the information hasn't been released to the public. Or maybe, the NTSB hasn't determined a cause. Either way, the FAA can't approve a fix until we have an official cause. Then there's the problem of Boeing's failure to maintain the trust of the traveling public. Nobody trusts Boeing after the Max crashes, the 787 QC issues, and now the door blow-out. The politicians who run the FAA certainly won't hang their careers from Boeing's loose bolts. It wouldn't be such a big deal if it was only one aircraft with loose bolts, but both United and Alaska have found loose bolts throughout their fleets of Max 9s. Therefore, the only way the FAA could grant an easy fix is if Boeing shows that this issue is a closed case. Boeing has to pinpoint exactly how these bolts became loose, otherwise the quality control of their entire operation is suspect. Can Boeing trace this issue back to one crew, one shift, or one person? Then maybe they can claim it was a one-off training issue. Or maybe, they discover a typo in the manual, a missing page, or an incorrect diagram. Those could be valid explanations. But if the answer is "Our crews didn't properly tighten and fasten these bolts and we don't know why", then it stands to reason that Boeing's quality control is substandard and all Maxes need to go through a heavy check. We can gripe about the FAA moving too slowly or administrators only caring about their political careers, but isn't that why we appoint independent government oversight? There must be independent, third-party oversight that is bound to the public's interest, or else complex entities like Boeing run themselves into the weeds. As somebody who operates a 737 for 600 hours a year, I welcome another set of eyes on the manufacturing process. I want someone with the power to say "no" who isn't beholden to the shareholders. |
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
(Post 3750792)
Oh I do. Months at least if we take into consideration the FAA’s snail’s pace with anything regarding the MAX. We’ve seen how this plays out before.
Sorry Alaska & UAL pilots. We all know that AS is very good with “right-sizing” quickly to minimize loss of capital on the operation… 🤞 |
Originally Posted by airb320
(Post 3751661)
For all our Sakes here at AS, these planes better be coming back very soon, otherwise, we are looking to be overstaffed by at least 700+ Pilots!
We all know that AS is very good with “right-sizing” quickly to minimize loss of capital on the operation… 🤞 Thats what I was thinking as well. I bet they have already run the numbers on different "time the max is expected out of service" scenarios and got a plan to offer leaves............willing or not. They hate being overstaffed. They like running lean if anything. |
Originally Posted by ZINTKAZ
(Post 3751690)
Thats what I was thinking as well. I bet they have already run the numbers on different "time the max is expected out of service" scenarios and got a plan to offer leaves............willing or not. They hate being overstaffed. They like running lean if anything.
|
Originally Posted by LonesomeSky
(Post 3751243)
We can gripe about the FAA moving too slowly or administrators only caring about their political careers, but isn't that why we appoint independent government oversight? There must be independent, third-party oversight that is bound to the public's interest, or else complex entities like Boeing run themselves into the weeds. As somebody who operates a 737 for 600 hours a year, I welcome another set of eyes on the manufacturing process. I want someone with the power to say "no" who isn't beholden to the shareholders. https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-ai...tions/as-1282/ In addition to the FAA’s review and oversight, Alaska Airlines will initiate and enhance our own layers of quality control to the production of our airplanes:
Fact of the matter is Boeing is no longer the same company it once was. They keep failing and the flying public is getting fed up. If it’s not passengers being nervous to fly on the airplane so they book on a competitor not flying the MAX, it’s people worried that if it’s a MAX, what’s going to ground an entire fleet again for their next vacation or work trip. |
The USAF has TWICE sent generals to the Everett plant about absolutely basic problems with the KC-46. We aren't talking esoteric engineering problems or software glitches, we are talking stuff like metallic FOD and old Big Mac wrappers being found rattling around various closed spaces and the occasional fuel tank
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...-debris-found/ I've always liked Boeing. I hold shares of Boeing stock, but the recent goings on there are ridiculous. It's like nobody really gives a damn. |
Originally Posted by ZINTKAZ
(Post 3751690)
Thats what I was thinking as well. I bet they have already run the numbers on different "time the max is expected out of service" scenarios and got a plan to offer leaves............willing or not. They hate being overstaffed. They like running lean if anything.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands