Boeing, Alaska Air, 737 Max9's and statistics

[novacova]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Oh, Door Plug for unused emergency exits…I was thinking you meant toilet plug. 

[novacova]

4 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

So you do not believe the NTSB statement?

 

Where did I talk about the final report?

 

The OP was about the empty seats,I answered that with facts and the Dunning Kruger crowds will not want to believe.

I wasn’t trying to counteract you or anyone else. I was just merely stating the process. 😊

[Georgealbert]

Ok, sorry, your post got caught up in a couple of other posts, and looking again my comment was a bit too strong to your reply.

 

Yes agree, final report is not out yet, but do not think it will take long, as the 737 max has been cleared to fly again.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/boeing-737-max-9-flights-223612630.html#:~:text=Boeing 737 Max 9 jets,grounded 737 Max 9 jets.

[billd766]

8 hours ago, novacova said:

I highly doubt it. For one, an airline is not going to risk losing millions in a law suit and fines and loss of revenue due to a maintenance issue of a plane that can be swapped out.

 

A pilot is not going knowingly fly a faulty aircraft, they want to get home just as everyone else.

 

Its illegal to knowingly fly a faulty passenger aircraft.

Many decades ago when I was in the RAF, in the back section of the Form 700 (the aircraft logbook) was a section of the aircraft faults.

 

If the faults were written in green ink (green lined) the aircraft was flyable, but the performance was limited to the next service, a certain amount of flying hours etc, depending on the fault.

 

If the faults were written in red ink (red lined) the aircraft was grounded until the fault was repaired, and was not up on the board as available.

 

I had always thought that civilian aircraft were subject to similar regulations, but it seems more and more nowadays, that some things are more important than safety, such as profit.

 

Personally If I couldn't fix the problem  I certainly would not sign off on the job. My supervisor , or his supervisor, or perhaps HIS supervisor would have to make that decision.

 

Perhaps the airline did not have a spare aircraft, either locally or near enough to be called in to replace the unserviceable (IMHO) aircraft.

 

The good news is that they (belatedly) traced the fault and it went back as far as either faulty manufacture by Boeing or the sub contractor who supplied the door, or not enough thought went into the servicing instructions.

 

Alaska were lucky that nobody was seriously injured or killed, or that the aircraft didn't crash, and that they had a top notch flight and cabin crew on board.

[Georgealbert]

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Many decades ago when I was in the RAF, in the back section of the Form 700 (the aircraft logbook) was a section of the aircraft faults.

 

If the faults were written in green ink (green lined) the aircraft was flyable, but the performance was limited to the next service, a certain amount of flying hours etc, depending on the fault.

 

If the faults were written in red ink (red lined) the aircraft was grounded until the fault was repaired, and was not up on the board as available.

 

I had always thought that civilian aircraft were subject to similar regulations, but it seems more and more nowadays, that some things are more important than safety, such as profit.

 

Personally If I couldn't fix the problem I certainly would not sign off on the job. My supervisor , or his supervisor, or perhaps HIS supervisor would have to make that decision.

 

Perhaps the airline did not have a spare aircraft, either locally or near enough to be called in to replace the unserviceable (IMHO) aircraft.

 

The good news is that they (belatedly) traced the fault and it went back as far as either faulty manufacture by Boeing or the sub contractor who supplied the door, or not enough thought went into the servicing instructions.

 

Alaska were lucky that nobody was seriously injured or killed, or that the aircraft didn't crash, and that they had a top notch flight and cabin crew on board.

Yes, fully agree, think the bottom is profits for the airlines.

 

FAA and Boeing, both do not have a great record with the 737 max.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-boeing-and-the-faa-created-the-737-max-catastrophe

 

https://aviationsourcenews.com/analysis/boeing-the-faa-a-love-hate-relationship/#google_vignette

[impulse]

Boeing seems to have an issue with loose bolts on the Max production lines.  Whether it's Boeing or Spirit...

 

https://samchui.com/2022/07/10/how-a-loose-bolt-caused-china-airlines-boeing-737-haul-loss/

 

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2023/12/30/boeing-warns-airlines-about-potential-loose-bolt-in-737-max-jets/