This seems like a potentially much worse problem than the OP topic.

Forget to turn the engine heat off in certain conditions and the engine pylon might melt off, with a possibility of the engine smacking the plane as it detaches?

I guess (?) this must be an extremely unlikey possbility.

I certainly don't believe Boeing when they say "but we'll totally fix this by 2026" (after a couple hundred planes are in the air)

Insane that Boeing still has the same CEO. Insane that Boeing didn't rebrand the 737 MAX after the whole debacle. Who knows what caused this door event, could be a systemic problem, or a one-off bad luck (bad metallurgy in the bolts). Either way, if they had rebranded the 737 MAX and this was the 'Boeing Stratoliner' or something like that the press wouldn't be nearly as bad on this event. But the people running this company are obviously incompetent.

The CEO was replaced after the MCAS debacle, in early 2020.

There was an attempt to rebrand as "737-8", "737-9" etc which didn't seem to fully take off. I have seen safety cards labeled that way.

You're right about the CEO, but the replaced him with the Chairman from the same time period. None of these C-Suite bean counter types are special enough to be worth keeping around that they shouldn't have found someone completely now. As for rebranding, all the planes still say MAX on them, and Boeing still proudly keeps the MAX name. Silly.

The problem is that when you stop branding the MAX airplanes, now you lump the NGs in with the problem children.

The general public isn't savvy enough to tell the difference. NBC initially reported it as a 747 MAX. Most people can't tell the difference between an A320 and an A380. A completely new name and suddenly this is just a one-off incident rather than reminding people of the Ethiopian and Lion Air accidents and all the drama for years about that.

​​​​​​Maybe it's still under warranty?

No kidding?

So we can't blame this on a passenger trying to open the door? Crazy. This is a bigger problem than I thought

Depends on what they find with the inspections. That new of plane I would bet on bad quality control over some type of fatigue issue.

John Ostrower is one of the most respected US aerospace journalists. Wall Street Journal and CNN aerospace editor

Emergency AD out. Affected 737-MAX 9's for all operators grounded pending inspections.

AD#: 2024-02-51

AD Requirements

This AD prohibits further flight of affected airplanes, until the airplane is inspected and all
applicable corrective actions have been performed using a method approved by the Manager,
AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA

yadda yadda.

Effective upon receipt

It doesn't work like that.

Glad it all worked out; good on the crew.

Also, to the AS guys whose MAX got grounded in MYNN, good on ya as well! Hope yall get a day or two to hang there on their dime!

AS grounds their fleet of MAX9s...

Why not just cancel their orders of this s#!+ product?
Put in an order for some A220-300s since they just sold AAL their only 10 321NEOs.

Deleted unable to post photo

It is a place for a door on aircraft configured for enough seats to require another door to meet evacuation criteria. But from the inside it looks like just another side of the aircraft with a window in it. It was an almost new aircraft and you have to wonder if the opening wasn't used by the people installing the interior and then not sufficiently secured before the paneling was put in place concealing it...

Nominal service ceiling is FL410. Not saying it gets there very often...

I think it was a joke…

Boeing doesn’t make engines. Blame (insert 777 engine manufacturer here).

Well, doesn't look all that permanent.

Thanks genius. Boeing doesn’t make most of the parts that go on their aircraft.

Then tell us, when was Boeing's last clean-sheet design? When will their next one be?

when did Airbus last do a clean sheet design and when will the next one be?

who did the most recent clean sheet design and how did that work out for them?

love how you all think this is as easy as it sounds.

"...............

A350?

But regarding narrowbodies, if both mfgs just keep re-hashing their current designs airbus still has a 20-year advantage in technology out of the gate.


Airbus? A350?

Seems to be going OK.


BCA top management recently said that they have no timelne for a new NB design, the technology doesn't exist, and they'll look at it for the next decade.

Some mitigation in their favor... they may be afraid to commit to a clean-sheet design ($$$) at this moment while there's a real looming possibility that carbon hysteria will drive a need for drastic changes to current operations, which could include radical technology and designs. It would suck to make the multi- $B R&D investment now only to have the new design outlawed and have to repeat the whole process in ten or fewer years. Personally I think that's just a bean-counter excuse, not any sort of great vision, but it could turn out to be a good play.

I think their WB product line is adequate for a while.


But with all that said, I think this door incident is just going to come down to a very localized QA issue and will be easy to fix. Door frames are not hard technology, I'm sure the design is just fine, and has been for a long time. The install work was probably done on a Fri afternoon in a weed-legal state.

You originally implied that AIRLINES didn't want to pay for a new narrow body. They do. The C series/A-220 for one. Boeing is the one who doesn't want to spend the money on designing and certifying a new airplane. Boeing outsourced so much of its operation that it can no longer efficiently develop a new airplane. New airplanes always take a long time to reach an ROI and the board for Boeing doesn't have the stomach to wait a decade before they can see a profit. Much better to kick the can down the road and let future investors deal with the problem.

People love to blame Southwest for the current 737. That may be true for the classics and even the NG to an extent, but Southwest just told Boeing what they wanted to hear. By the time the Max was announced, the common type rating meant nothing. That saved airlines money back when FOs didn't get full type ratings and some airlines had pilots pay for their own training at privately run training centers. Now a new hire at an airline is going to receive dozens of hours of training so the additional difference in training is insignificant.

C-series, now A220

So far, airlines are loving them. Ironic Boeing tried via the court system to prevent Delta from buying them as they had no competitive product. They offered up used Embraers? What a joke.

yeah the A350… 20 years ago. Neither has had anything clean sheet in a long time and does not have plans for anything.

the C series almost bankrupted Bombardier and they had to sell it off. For cheap.

so, not one want to take that kind of a risk without assurances it will be certified, and sell.

That's because it was Bombardier. They have an... interesting approach to aviation. Their commercial aviation department was very small. They did the hard part and certified a new plane, but they didn't have the cash to sustain production to their break-even point. No airline wants to buy an orphan plane so they had to sell the first few hundred cheaply. I don't think Bombardier was planning on that. Then the Boeing lawsuit made them think it was going to take even longer to sell enough to justify the cost. In the end, they realized their time was spent building business jets and trains. The fact that such a small company can do the hard part of designing an all-new aircraft proves it can be done. Boeing doesn't have an excuse. They know that you take a bath on the first hundred or so planes to fill the order book up and then you can start charging airliners more. It's the designing and certification that Boeing struggles with.

China's C919

Non-certifiable in the west. Maybe the next generation.

Just published technical review of how the plug-type exit option works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maLBGFYl9_o

Bingo! There are no plans for Boeing to do a clean sheet design, because airlines don't wan't to spend the money training their people on a new type rating. Also they don't want to take a chance with innovation because it's risky. They want proven technology. And Boeing doesn't want to incur that level of risk either.



Excellent point I hadn't considered. Although it does factor into the risk of a new design. But yeah... government...

That's a different animal. As the problems with the bs governmental protectionism were already pointed out, they had to practically give them away to get proven. Baltic Air flew them first for almost a year before anyone else did. And as pointed out it nearly bankrupted Bombardier. Not to mention, let's be honest, the C-Series is basically a souped up regional jet. Boeing doesn't want to build aircraft that small apparently. At least that's how it appears.


And yes that is part of it too.

And that their cost per unit is probably not worth it to them.

This is by far the 2 most absurd statements I've ever read on this site. In what world do you think there is going to be not only a consensus on climate change, but to make it so strict that commerical aircraft that are already designed and built are banned? And you think a drug tested maintainer is more to blame than Boeing cutting costs and deciding to pay new A&P's $20 a hour to work in Seattle?

If you truly believe that I think you're the one smoking the ol wacky tobaccy.

Lighten up frank. The part about weed was hyperbole. The point is that it should be a quick fix, regardless of the root cause. I don't think BCA suddenly forgot how to design a door frame after 100 years.

The carbon thing is very real though, your lack of awareness on that is fairly absurd. There is actually a bunch of new technology being developed via government/industry partnerships on both sides of the Atlantic specifically to reduce carbon. A lot of that is expected to reach an appropriate TRL within ten years. You might not want to shoot your R&D wad now only to have the other guys wait for the new tech and then market something which blows your new-ish plane out of the water WRT to carbon efficiency.

I tend to agree that regulators cannot go full Greta and mandate impossible standards which would shut down the global airline industry. Usually the regulators try to keep up with industry... if somebody builds a significantly improved airliner, then regulators will use THAT as the new standard. The euros are more likely than the US to take draconian climate positions, they're already cutting back slots for that reason as we speak.

Anyone who pays attention to the technology and mfg side of the industry knows all that. Maybe get a subscription to AW&ST... excellent cliffs notes.

Delta has always loved adopting orphans! Convair 880, L1011, 737G, MD90, MD11, 717, A330-900. I am seeing C919's in Delta's future!

Any Max9s back flying again?

It's really time for Alaskan to be shutdown. Flight 261 2.0 is right around the corner. Them and southwest, worst safety culture I've ever witnessed.

This wasn't Alaska's fault. But thanks for your aviation expertise.

"261 2.0"... "Alaska shutdown".... quite the strong statements there buddy. Look forward to seeing all the specific examples on Alaska's safety culture you're going to provide to back that up. I'll wait...