Is a Boeing 737 MAX the safest plane in service?

I think this matches the current situation at Boeing, at least when it comes to quality control:

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Big article in aviation week saying the same.
More detail is its all finace people and the new coo who is then tipped to be ceo is a finance person.
Went on to say that the name of the game for them is dividends/sharelder returns ie stock options.
That they will continue to diminish and sell off pieces of the company cashing in until there is nothing left and there is no way to stop them doing that.
Went on to say that based on orders Boeings share of the narrowbody market was 30% last year and the only reason its not less is wait time at airbus. Boeing will be around producing because for many airlines there is no alternative supplier, meanwhile airbus is replacing the base a320 with 220 sales( a program Boeing could have bought) and rolling out new long range versions of the 320 series for the rest.

meanwhile Boeing has stated there is no new narrowbody for the next decade, they're not even developing one yet, and if they wanted to probably no longer have the engineering talent to do so.

 

I think Boeing's big mistake was not buying Embraer's E-series when they had the chance, to counter Airbus buying Bombardier's C-series and turning it into the A220. I think Embraer would be selling many more of the E-series if it were Boeing-badged.

 

Please keep discussions of DEI and governments to the P&R subforum. A few out-of-bounds P&R posts have been deleted.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

If you are going to define it that broadly you should delete half the posts in this thread.

What complete B.S.

 

Others seem to be managing to discuss the situation without crossing into political commentary. If you feel you absolutely cannot discuss Boeing without political comments about DEI and governments, do please start a thread in the P&R forum to fully explore those aspects.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Supposedly a quote from Albert Einstein:

"One should not count on those who created the problem to solve it".

Rgds

 

Preliminary NTSB report issued: DCA24MA063 Preliminary report.pdf (ntsb.gov)

So Spirit delivered the fuse to Washington with the plug door retaining bolts installed. Once there 5 damaged rivets were discovered, so Spirit sent people to WA to fix the rivets, which required removal of the plug door. They repaired the rivets and re-installed the plug door, but not the 4 retaining bolts.
Nobody noticed the bolts were missing before buttoning up the interior.

It's confirmed that the plug door was not removed during installing of the WiFi system. This is entirely on Spirit and Boeing.

Yet to be determined: was there a documented process for confirming the bolts are installed before covering up the interior? If not you can bet your ass there is now...

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

From what I have heard, there is a process. However, the way Boeing documented the squawk (rivets damaged), they did not include the step of removing and reinstalling the door. So the rivets were QC checked, but the door was not part of that process. Really bad. The photo posted above, showing the door installed with no bolts is not good.

 

Similar to what's noted in post #201 above.

 

I can't comment because some snowflake moderator might get offended.

 

Some of those high quality union workers no doubt.

Opps. Is that over the line too?

 

The good news is that this suggests there is no systemic issue with the plane itself for this specific issue -- and whatever process issues exist will largely negated (for this specific issue only) because they are checking all the planes for this problem.

Hopefully this latest incident will be a wakeup call to solve the systemic issues on a more general level, but if the two prior crashes weren't already a major wakeup call, it's hard to think that this issue will move the needle.

 

It's not a design issue-- in fact, they have used this same design on previous 737 iterations with no issues.

However, it is a deeply troubling process issue, which goes beyond this specific problem. Can Boeing's processes be trusted in other areas, or do all of their manufacturing processes need to be re-evaluated?

 

I agree on all counts. The original Max issue was design -- design error upon design error upon stupid decisions (unthinkably bad choices on what were "options") upon failure to disclose things (like the crazy control parameters they needed to use to make MCAS work) -- but that should have been a major wakeup call on all facets (design and process). Agree that incident this is process only. Hopefully they've learned their lesson on both design and process. They got off so easy on unforgivable design mistakes, and that catastrophic wakeup call didn't lead to process diligence, so it's hard to feel confident either issue is fully addressed. All this said, Boeing is a very important company from many perspectives and I wish them the best in fixing these problems.

 

What is interesting is why the door departed the airplane. It had flown for several months without issue. The door had to have moved upward a significant amount to separate the pins/fittings. Not surprised it occurred at low altitude when the level of pressurization was low. So somehow a combination of speed and some maneuver resulted in loads on the door (negative pressure? and inertia) allowing the door to 'lift'.

 

Brian, I'm trying to be as gentle as possible where I have to enforce the rules. Is it really necessary to insult me while I'm volunteering my time here?

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Maybe Brian thinks you belong to a Union and he just can't help himself

From the NTSB report this appears to be a fairly unique situation: "damaged" rivets requiring rework, right next to a door plug, were discovered the day after the fuselage reached Renton.
Presumably this is a very unusual situation. Perhaps the first time a plug door had to be opened after a fuse left Kansas.
When the repair crew from Spirit arrived to replace the rivets almost 3 weeks later either Boeing or Spirit personnel removed the 4 bolts, opened the plug door, then re-set the door but apparently never re-installed the 4 bolts.
Makes me think about finishing a big car job and having a few leftover bolts with no idea where they came from.
They should have put the 4 sets of bolts and castle nuts in a labeled sandwich bag, like I always mean to do when starting a job

 

In my opinion, it's entirely possible to discuss this subject without getting into government/politics. I think that it is also possible to talk about "real world" business experiences with unions (or private equity for that matter) without touching on government/politics.

 

It would be great if this were a "unique" situation, but given that Alaska and United found numerous other instances of missing bolts, it doesn't seem like that.

And, from what I have heard, virtually all of the fuselages from Spirit require some degree of rework when they arrive in Renton.

 

Sometimes to repair small diameter holes that mysteriously appeared during the train ride from KS to WA. But that has been happening long before Spirit took over from Boeing in Wichita.

 

Has it been confirmed that plug-door retaining bolts were missing on other planes? I couldn't find any by googling.

I'm curious how the 5 rivets, all along the plug door opening, were damaged.
This is the situation I meant as seeming unique, or at the least very unusual.
If Spirit had to send a crew to Renton to fix the same rivets on multiple fuselages you'd think they'd have improved their processes in Kansas.
Should find out more as the investigation continues.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Small diameter holes? Are people shooting at the fuselages while they're on the train?

All the best,
Andrew.

 

When I was working in Everett, I saw a number of rail cars next to the 747 plant marked something like "Another Quality Assembly for Boeing from the Northrop Corporation". When I later worked for Grumman in Stuart, FL where we were building a major subassembly for the 767, our similar rail cars were entirely blank (except for essential railroad information). When I asked why they were bare, I was told that while traveling thru the South, they figured people would shoot at the cars just for fun unless they didn't know what was inside them! I guess the 737 fuselages are too big to be covered up when on the rail cars.

 

Many times when fuselages of KC-135's arrived in Renton they had small caliber holes in them. It has been going on for years. Any unprotected airplane subassembly traveling across the west was a target of "plinkers" .. I think that later on special designed railroad cars protected some of the fuselage sections.