Jump to content

Justice Department investigating door plug blowout on Alaska Airlines flight, report says


Social Media

Recommended Posts

image.png

 

The Department of Justice has initiated a criminal investigation into a door plug blowout incident on an Alaska Airlines flight involving a Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft. The investigation, reported by The Wall Street Journal, involves contacting passengers as potential victims and interviewing pilots and flight attendants who were on the flight.

 

The incident occurred on January 5 when Flight 1282 departed from Portland International Airport bound for Ontario International Airport but had to return after a portion of the plane's fuselage, known as a "door plug," detached shortly after takeoff. While there were no serious injuries, the situation raised concerns about the safety of the aircraft.

 

Preliminary investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board revealed that there were no bolts installed on the door plug, prompting questions about compliance with safety standards and protocols.

 

The DOJ's scrutiny extends to Boeing's adherence to a settlement agreement following the 2018 and 2019 crashes involving 737 Max 8 planes, which resulted in the loss of 346 lives. Boeing was ordered to pay $2.5 billion as part of the settlement, with the DOJ reserving the right to prosecute if terms were violated.

 

Following the January incident, several passengers filed lawsuits against Alaska Airlines and Boeing, alleging negligence and failure to ensure proper manufacturing and safety standards. The DOJ's investigation aims to determine accountability and ensure that such incidents are prevented in the future.

 

Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration has conducted audits revealing alleged failures to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements by Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems, the manufacturer of the aircraft involved in the January incident.

 

As investigations continue, stakeholders in the aviation industry are closely monitoring developments to address safety concerns and uphold regulatory standards to prevent similar incidents from occurring.

 

11.03.24

Source

 

image.png

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody is gonna make a pile of money out of this fiasco and here’s a clue not Alaska Airlines or Boeing or the passengers…….the lawyers that’s who!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

 

Following the January incident, several passengers filed lawsuits against Alaska Airlines and Boeing, alleging negligence and failure to ensure proper manufacturing and safety standards. The DOJ's investigation aims to determine accountability and ensure that such incidents are prevented in the future.

 

Those passengers are not looking for a small pay out.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/passengers-sue-boeing-alaska-airlines-1-billion-dollars-blowout-rcna141636

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wingnut conspiracy guy in me wondered about the odds that both the seats next to the plug would be empty, given an almost full plane and the fact that Alaska knew there was something wrong with the pressurization to the point they would not allow the plane to fly over water.

 

It's still a wingnut conspiracy, but here's my calculation for both those seats being empty, with 171 of the 178 seats being full: 

 

(7/178) x (6/178) = .0393 x .0337 = .0013 = 0.13% chance that both of those seats would be empty.  That's about a 1.3 in a thousand. 

 

Pretty lucky, or was something going on there?  Can someone check my math and logic?

 

Edit:  Feel free to call me full of bullpucky.  It is way out there.  But please show your math if you do.

 

Edited by impulse
  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impulse said:

The wingnut conspiracy guy in me wondered about the odds that both the seats next to the plug would be empty, given an almost full plane and the fact that Alaska knew there was something wrong with the pressurization to the point they would not allow the plane to fly over water.

 

It's still a wingnut conspiracy, but here's my calculation for both those seats being empty, with 171 of the 178 seats being full: 

 

(7/178) x (6/178) = .0393 x .0337 = .0013 = 0.13% chance that both of those seats would be empty.  That's about a 1.3 in a thousand. 

 

Pretty lucky, or was something going on there?  Can someone check my math and logic?

 

Edit:  Feel free to call me full of bullpucky.  It is way out there.  But please show your math if you do.

 

Your logic assumes that there was foreknowledge of that particular door plug would blow out.

 

Otherwise the calculation becomes a conditional probability = Probability Seats Empty|Probability That particular Door Plug Blow Out.

 

Depending on how many doors this would reduce the probability by orders of magnitude.

So highly unlikely that anyone could game the seating at that particular door.

 

There are also conditional influences on the probability of the seats being empty.

 

These being, extra charge for a door seat and/or disabled passengers and people unable to operate the door not being seated in door seat rows.

 

These would increase the probability of the seats being empty without any other considerations needing to play a part.

Edited by Chomper Higgot
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

I don’t need maths to disprove your conspiracy claims, just truth, facts and living within reality.

 

If reality was as simple as you claim, why do you figure the DOJ is calling in passengers, flight attendants and the pilots in their criminal investigation?


What could those people possibly tell us about a shop floor defect at Boeing?   They're Alaska employees and passengers, totally unrelated to shop floor issues, much less Boeing shop floor issues.

 

Now ask yourself what they may possibly tell us about Alaska's decision to fly the plane, but only over land...  And the 1 in 770 (0.13%) odds that those 2 seats would randomly be empty on an almost full aircraft.

 

Citing documents and people familiar with the matter, the newspaper said investigators have contacted some passengers and crew — including pilots and flight attendants — who were on the Jan. 5th flight.

 

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-ntsb-door-plug-emergency-landing-2d23408a25eff999579c88071836dbec

 

In any case, do you think Alaska told their passengers they were flying in a plane that wasn't cleared to fly over water?  They're in for a wicked ride at the lawsuits.  Even if those empty seats were sheer, dumb luck.

 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Georgealbert said:


Really?

 

Please tells us who you think is going to gain from your conspiracy theory and why would it be planned?

 

What does the airline gain, as they must have allocated the seat? Do you think the booking computer was programmed to not allocate these seats, or hacked by outside sources?

 

Did the persons, at Boeing maintenance, who missed replacing the bolts, know when the door would fail, how many flights it may take, to come loose, and then liaise with the airline  so that the seats are kept empty? Did you forget an advisory light had come on during 3 previous flights on this aircraft? 
 

The airline had prevented the aircraft from being used on long flights over water, was this part of the conspiracy? 

 

If your theory was correct, then these seats would have to been kept empty on every flight the aircraft made after leaving maintenance. Do you think that the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) would not look at things like this? Below is from the preliminary report showing previous flight numbers and hours.

 

I don’t need maths to disprove your conspiracy claims, just truth, facts and living within reality.

IMG_2261.jpeg

If there was a known problem - warning light coming on 3 times - then keeping the aircraft from flying long distances over water was a pretty limp wristed precaution!

 

Not only do Boeings safety standards and self certification need a long hard look, but Air Alaska's protocol's may benefit from close scrutiny.

 

Far from a conspiracy, but both the builder and operator knew that there was something wrong, and took a chance.  Everyone was extremely lucky.

Edited by herfiehandbag
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

If there was a known problem - warning light coming on 3 times - then keeping the aircraft from flying long distances over water was a pretty limp wristed precaution!

 

Not only do Boeings safety standards and self certification need a long hard look, but Air Alaska's protocol's may benefit from close scrutiny.

 

Far from a conspiracy, but both the builder and operator knew that there was something wrong, and took a chance.  Everyone was extremely lucky.

Yes agree, and have posted many links on the Boeing issues, on many different recent threads. 
 

I also think most airlines procedures would have followed similar protocols to Alaska Airlines, as after the warning light had activated , the system was tested and cleared for further flights.

 

The NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy provided the following information during a press conference on 7 January.

 

“The air pressurisation warning light went off on December 7, January 3 and January 4. The crews reported it each time, the system was tested and reset. We have record they were tested and then reset by maintenance personnel.”

 

My original reply was to another poster who was claiming that there must be a conspiracy, because of his calculated odds of the seats next to the door being empty. My information was to highlight the facts, and question how that poster believed how his conspiracy theory could ever have been achieved and who or what could have benefited from this incident.

 

Please note that aircraft incidents are reported almost daily and investigated fully when required.

 

Incident involving a Boeing aircraft today.

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/dozens-injured-on-sydney-flight-to-new-zealand/c5866998-2119-46e2-9894-5b2b816b6f94

 

Incident involving a Airbus aircraft on Saturday.

 

https://yamal-media.ru/news/samolet-sochi-tjumen-ekstrenno-sel-v-aeroportu-minvod

Edited by Georgealbert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

My original reply was to another poster who was claiming that there must be a conspiracy, because of his calculated odds of the seats next to the door being empty. My information was to highlight the facts, and question how that poster believed how his conspiracy theory could ever have been achieved and who or what could have benefited from this incident.

 

Homendy also confirmed that the Max 9 door plug had moved during prior flights, citing markings on the door. There were 154 prior flights by the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 before the Jan. 5 flight. “There were very small movements until it eventually came out,” Homendy said, adding that testing showed “you could see a bit of a gap towards the end” but that it was not clear how noticeable it was.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/06/ntsb-chair-criticizes-boeing-for-lack-of-cooperation-in-737-max-9-probe-.html

 

Citing documents and people familiar with the matter, the newspaper said investigators have contacted some passengers and crew — including pilots and flight attendants — who were on the Jan. 5th flight.

 

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-ntsb-door-plug-emergency-landing-2d23408a25eff999579c88071836dbec

 

You figure they may want to see if Alaska or their employees or their passengers may have noticed the "bit of a gap" any time during the 154 flights, many of them after the decompression alarms?  And that maybe there was a reason they didn't want anyone in those 2 seats?  Because the DOJ certainly aren't going to be asking the Alaska pilots or passengers what went on at the Boeing plant.

 

And it seems that I'm not the only one asking what Alaska may have known and when. 

 

A “whistling sound” was heard on a previous flight of the Boeing 737 Max 9 whose door plug blew out during an Alaska Airlines flight last month, an attorney representing passengers in a lawsuit said in new court documents.

 

According to the complaint, passengers on the earlier flight heard the sound “coming from the vicinity of the door plug.” They brought it to the attention of flight attendants, who then “reportedly informed” a pilot, according to the complaint. After the pilot checked cockpit instruments and found readings to be normal, no further action was taken, the complaint says.

 

Timothy Loranger, an aviation lawyer and licensed pilot who worked as an aircraft mechanic while serving in the Marine Corps, said airplanes are noisy machines and the whistling sound described in the lawsuit may have been unrelated to the door plug. But he also said it was plausible that passengers on previous flights heard such a noise, given its prior pressurization issues.

“We know that the bolts were missing. ... So this sound makes sense,” Loranger said. “If they heard that whistling noise, that’s very possible to have been an indication that the aircraft had some small leaks around the seal and that it wasn’t keeping pressure properly.”

 

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-alaska-airlines-door-plug-lawsuit-whistling-484bb238f540e1fa9c7bc84d7fbd2286

 

With just a 1 in 770 chance that those 2 seats (in the area of the whistling) were empty by random chance, do you figure that maybe Alaska knew not to put anyone there, if only so they wouldn't be bothered by the whistling noise?  Or pester the employees by reporting it?  I'm certainly curious.  Hopefully, the DOJ is talking to those passengers and the employees to whom they claim to have reported the noise...  If the NTSB hadn't already.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve already explained the error in your math.

 

No, you gave your opinion. 

 

You're not the least bit curious that Alaska left the seats nearest the reported whistling noise empty?  Do you really think it was sheer dumb luck?

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Homendy also confirmed that the Max 9 door plug had moved during prior flights, citing markings on the door. There were 154 prior flights by the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 before the Jan. 5 flight. “There were very small movements until it eventually came out,” Homendy said, adding that testing showed “you could see a bit of a gap towards the end” but that it was not clear how noticeable it was.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/06/ntsb-chair-criticizes-boeing-for-lack-of-cooperation-in-737-max-9-probe-.html

 

Citing documents and people familiar with the matter, the newspaper said investigators have contacted some passengers and crew — including pilots and flight attendants — who were on the Jan. 5th flight.

 

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-ntsb-door-plug-emergency-landing-2d23408a25eff999579c88071836dbec

 

You figure they may want to see if Alaska or their employees or their passengers may have noticed the "bit of a gap" any time during the 154 flights, many of them after the decompression alarms?  And that maybe there was a reason they didn't want anyone in those 2 seats?  Because the DOJ certainly aren't going to be asking the Alaska pilots or passengers what went on at the Boeing plant.

 

And it seems that I'm not the only one asking what Alaska may have known and when. 

 

A “whistling sound” was heard on a previous flight of the Boeing 737 Max 9 whose door plug blew out during an Alaska Airlines flight last month, an attorney representing passengers in a lawsuit said in new court documents.

 

According to the complaint, passengers on the earlier flight heard the sound “coming from the vicinity of the door plug.” They brought it to the attention of flight attendants, who then “reportedly informed” a pilot, according to the complaint. After the pilot checked cockpit instruments and found readings to be normal, no further action was taken, the complaint says.

 

Timothy Loranger, an aviation lawyer and licensed pilot who worked as an aircraft mechanic while serving in the Marine Corps, said airplanes are noisy machines and the whistling sound described in the lawsuit may have been unrelated to the door plug. But he also said it was plausible that passengers on previous flights heard such a noise, given its prior pressurization issues.

“We know that the bolts were missing. ... So this sound makes sense,” Loranger said. “If they heard that whistling noise, that’s very possible to have been an indication that the aircraft had some small leaks around the seal and that it wasn’t keeping pressure properly.”

 

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-alaska-airlines-door-plug-lawsuit-whistling-484bb238f540e1fa9c7bc84d7fbd2286

 

With just a 1 in 770 chance that those 2 seats (in the area of the whistling) were empty by random chance, do you figure that maybe Alaska knew not to put anyone there, if only so they wouldn't be bothered by the whistling noise?  Or pester the employees by reporting it?  I'm certainly curious.  Hopefully, the DOJ is talking to those passengers and the employees to whom they claim to have reported the noise...  If the NTSB hadn't already.

So now you are posting facts, trying to change the subject from your original conspiracy nonsense. It was you that said call me “a wingnut conspiracy guy, full of bullpucky” not me.
 

You have also again failed to answer the questions I raised about your conspiracy ideas and how it was planned or who would benefit from the door plug incident. Opinions, to become true need evidence and facts, not just your maths.
 

How many times on the 154 cycles of this aircraft do you believe these seats were empty? The NTSB in press conferences and the preliminary report have been very open in it’s disclosures, so I am sure if there was a history of the airline keeping the seats empty, it would have been noted, unless you believe NTSB are part of you imagined conspiracy. 

 

NTSB investigation, FAA suspensions and guidance, DOJ investigations are all part of the normal process following aircraft incidents and accidents.

 

There is also the missing records of when or why the door plug was removed during some maintenance work, all part of the ongoing investigation.

 

“Ziad Ojakli, the executive vice president of government operations at Boeing, said employees looked "extensively" and failed to turn up any paperwork about the "opening and closing of the door plug,"”

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/09/1237204488/boeing-door-plug-alaska-airlines-investigation

 

If you want to be taken seriously try sticking to the facts and our views are very much the same.

 

Please more on from your conspiracy nonsense, as you will just embarrass yourself further.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FAA issued a new airworthiness directive on 11 March for some 737 models for 

non-conforming installation of spoiler wire bundles.

 

Reported problems followed up by orders to do checks and action repairs or replacement.

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/11/2024-04956/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New passenger lawsuit filed against Alaska Airlines and Boeing, says that wearing their seatbelt saved their lives.

 

“Cuong Tran, of Upland, California, was sitting in the row behind where the side of the aircraft tore away and left a door-sized hole on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on Jan. 5, according to a news release from attorney Timothy A. Loranger. Loranger, who filed the lawsuit, said air rushed out of the hole, pulling on Tran and others nearby.

 

The suction tore Tran’s shoes and socks from his feet and he felt his body lift off his seat, the news release said, adding that Tran’s foot was hurt when it was jerked into the seat structure in front of him.”

 

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-airplane-door-blowout-lawsuit-cdc4af3e0047723cdfc4bae301243367

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AverageAussie said:

More on the former Boeing employee and whistle-blower found dead - just prior to giving testimony. :crying:

 

https://youtu.be/a32RLgqNfGs

It will be interesting to see the final outcome of the police investigation into John Barnett’s death, but the testimony he was giving before he died was not about the current Boeing safety issues, although the safety culture he spoke of, as a whistleblower, could be linked to the current problems.

 

He was giving testimony in his own personal defamation case against Boeing, who he accused of denigrating his character and hampering his career because of the issues/problems he had pointed out.


The sad part was that those close to him had identified some problems, and his brother Rodney Barnett told the media, after his death,

 

“Taking on his long-time employer had caused John to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and his health had been in decline.

 

He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing, which we believe led to his death," 

 

 

Edited by Georgealbert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody knows the real story - except for John and the person that pulled the trigger.

 

That may or may not be the same person, but even if it was, then consider this: if you're suffering from PTSD after years in a hostile work environment what could be more traumatic than having to face a hostile defence lawyer fronting those same people in a court environment? I know that I wouldn't be sleeping that night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AverageAussie said:

Nobody knows the real story - except for John and the person that pulled the trigger.

 

That may or may not be the same person, but even if it was, then consider this: if you're suffering from PTSD after years in a hostile work environment what could be more traumatic than having to face a hostile defence lawyer fronting those same people in a court environment? I know that I wouldn't be sleeping that night. 

 

John Barnett worked at Boeing for 32 years, and he retired in 2017. For seven years, from 2010 to 2017, he worked as a quality control manager.

 

This recent case is a defamation suit, using AIR 21 (law protecting airline safety whistleblowers), he initiated against Boeing, so it was himself that placed him there, in-front of the “hostile defence lawyer”.

 

This testimony, has nothing to do with the recent 737 MAX incidents, and the 787 issues he did whistleblow on was litigated to death years ago.

 

Charleston County coroner had initially noted the death as a self-inflicted wound, but said more tests are being done before a final determination, and the police are still actively investigating the death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this from a Boeing pilot, posted online, commenting about recent media and social media coverage.

 

“Boeing has issues. I want to see them fixed.

 

Exaggerating the problem or pretending planes are suddenly falling out of the sky is a cruel ploy for likes & clicks. Some already have anxiety – amping it up without merit is repulsive.

 

This stuff happens everyday & isn’t much of a problem. Those in the industry know it & can see this “Summer of the Shark” (an excellent analogy) is nonsense. It’s cruel & only serves to benefit the poster in likes & clicks.

 

I put my kids on these airplanes when on vacation, and I get into the front seat while working fully expecting to go home to my kids at the end of the trip. I wouldn’t do it if I thought it was unsafe.

 

There is nothing happening – it’s selective storytelling that ignores the frequency of these events hasn’t changed, ignores most of these things have little or nothing to do with design or production & ignores that it happens to other manufacturers at pretty much the same rate.

 

2023 was the safest year on record for commercial aviation. We’re not suddenly doing anything differently now…you just hear about what was always happening (with safe conclusions) but didn’t notice before. And you hear about in BREAKING NEWS or ANOTHER INCIDENT or whatever alarming/sinister headline they can muster…but it’s just grifters, moving onto the next grift, counting on the idea you won’t take the time to look into it & discover that things are pretty much normal.

 

Like the train derailments last year

 

Or the “Summer of the Shark”

 

It ends when your attention does, but in the meantime, those who are vulnerable to this kind of fear-mongering get to suffer & start making irrational, sometimes life-altering choices.

 

In my world, there’s a lesson you learn early: 

 

Panic never helps – it’s your worst enemy & is often more dangerous than whatever malfunction you’re facing is. You start making bad decisions…like seeing a fire alarm & shutting down the engine that’s NOT on fire. You harm yourself far more than you help.

 

So…don’t panic. Don’t assume something is happening. Go ahead & look into it yourself.

 

Most of all…don’t blindly trust the press or social media personalities. They make money based on the number of clicks they get…and fear sells.”

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Boeing 737-800 was missing an external panel when it landed in Oregon


No emergency was declared for the United Airlines flight, and there was no indication of damage when the aircraft was in the air.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boeing-737-800-was-missing-external-panel-landed-oregon-rcna143686

 

 

I don't know that I'd put that one on Boeing.  Apparently a 25 yo aircraft:

 

https://www.25newsnow.com/2024/03/16/united-airlines-boeing-plane-lands-oregon-with-missing-external-panel-officials-say/

 

United, OTOH, has been in the news quite a bit, and not for stellar performance.  Maybe related to their DEI efforts to have half their employees "women and people of color".   I'd rather the people working on my aircraft be "people who tinkered with their bicycles in elementary school and their cars in high school".  They have the mechanical aptitude, but they don't include that many women as I recall.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bamnutsak said:

Boeing 737-800 was missing an external panel when it landed in Oregon


No emergency was declared for the United Airlines flight, and there was no indication of damage when the aircraft was in the air.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boeing-737-800-was-missing-external-panel-landed-oregon-rcna143686

 

 

There are many reported incidents weekly. How do you considered this is a Boeing problems?

 

Have a look at a few other recent incidents. I have highlighted just the Airbus ones, to give some balance to recent media coverage.

 

United A320 - 200, 8 March 2024, diverted to LA reporting hydraulic failure.

 

United A320 - 200, 9 March 2024, returned to Chicago due to oil warning indication.

 

American Airline A321 -200, 11 March 2024, stopped climb out of Raleigh, after open cargo door indication.

 

Delta Airlines, 10 March 2024, reported problems with flight controls on final approach.

 

United  A320 x 200, 14 March 2024, descending into San Francisco reported hydraulic problem.

 

Vueling  A320-200N, 14 March 2024, climbing out of Barcelona reporting they had a smoke indication in the cabin.


PIA Pakistan International Airlines A320-200, 11 March 2024,registration  about 300nm west of Karachi (Pakistan) when the crew decided to divert to Karachi due to the failure of the Inertial Navigation System (INS).

 

Air Canada Rouge A319-100, 7 Match 2024, 210nm south of Montreal when the right hand engine rumbled, it's N1 rolled back to 52%, the airspeed began to decay, and vibrations could be felt throughout the airframe. 
 

American Airlines A321-200N, 12 March 2024, was accelerating for takeoff from Phoenix's runway when the crew rejected takeoff at high speed (110 knots over ground). The crew advised ATC their #1 engine (LEAP, left hand) "did not come up" and taxied back to the apron.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impulse said:

I don't know that I'd put that one on Boeing.  Apparently a 25 yo aircraft:

 

https://www.25newsnow.com/2024/03/16/united-airlines-boeing-plane-lands-oregon-with-missing-external-panel-officials-say/

 

United, OTOH, has been in the news quite a bit, and not for stellar performance.  Maybe related to their DEI efforts to have half their employees "women and people of color".   I'd rather the people working on my aircraft be "people who tinkered with their bicycles in elementary school and their cars in high school".  They have the mechanical aptitude, but they don't include that many women as I recall.

 


Some now you’re moving on from your alternative reality, conspiracy theory about empty seats, to an agenda to suit your racist and misogynist characteristics.

 

Have a good day, but remember to not let that total arrogance get in the way of your foolish ignorance.

 

Please do not bother to reply, I prefer speaking to people who deal with facts, do not wear tin foil hats, and do not exhibit vile characteristics, and simply base their options on others colour, race and gender.


Maybe get some more balanced information than Fox and the other Trump supporting sites.

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/conservatives-blame-diversity-dei-airlines-boycott-1234953756/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting all those recent incident reports for the A320.

 

 

The FAA found staff at Boeing's supplier using liquid Dawn soap as lubricant for a 737 Max door seal: NYT

 

The Federal Aviation Administration auditors saw mechanics for a Boeing supplier using liquid Dawn soap as a lubricant for fitting a door seal, The New York Times reported.

 

The regulator then observed mechanics at Spirit AeroSystems, which builds the fuselage of Boeing's 737 Max, cleaning up using a wet cheesecloth, per The Times' Mark Walker.

 

The slides said that Boeing had failed 33 of 89 product audits related to 737 Max production, while Spirit failed seven of 13 audits, per The Times.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/faa-boeing-spirit-aerosystems-dawn-soap-door-seal-737-max-2024-3

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...