There may be a political lean in the reporting here, there is a new start airline in AUS that is based on the Max as their equipment, for better or worse. Aircraft coming out of storage often have dispatch reliability issues, a fleet of them increases the number of events that will occur.
Did Boeing have issues with the production line? That is not limited to the Max, recall the Ducommun ring frame saga, and the manner by which Boeing handled QA concerns raised by the discovering investigators? Those planes still hold C of A's even with the full knowledge by the FAA that the aircraft involved, those early 2000-odd NGs that used those ring frames were not produced consistent with the TCDS, making a primary structural part that is supposed to have been CNC fabricated were made by hand over ad-hoc formers.... then there was the KC version of the B767, the B787 debacle, swarf in fuel tanks, etc. Building planes is an industrial process that takes a lot of QA steps, Boeing has shown it's attitude to QA with most of its product production runs since the takeover of Boeing by the MDD management.
Are Boeings safe? Pretty much, they are not bad aircraft, their lords and masters have driven their reputation into the dirt by their continuous ethical disregard of their engineering heritage. Pretty sure that Joe Sutter would not be amused by the corporate attitude to what was an impressive engineering company. It should be again, but the attitude that has stained the reputation of the brand for the last 25 years seems to be ingrained in all aspects of the enterprise, which is not in the company, the country or the industry's best interests.
The resultant economic advantages of the last 25 years on shareholders is lost on me, I would have thought that a well-run engineering program would have had as good or better outcomes. The takeover of much of the DOD aerospace production and concentration in a company with such ambivalence towards quality. It is a company's right to determine what how they see the value (quality/cost) to customers vs value (short-term return and long-term potential returns) to shareholders, but an imbalance in either direction becomes unsustainable over time.
The Max "quality" problems that are being raised now are curious. The alarming headlines would suggest that there are real problems, however, a look at the actual reports and the rates do not seem to support such alarming headlines.
- Engines have had to be shut down.... If that is a surprise, then we have other problems. There has been a number related to lubrication indications, and a few too many for filter bypass, which begs operational and maintenance questions.
- Engine shutdowns have resulted in declared emergencies. And that is considered to be alarming?
- Stab trim motors have failed. They are an electromechanical device...
- Wiring faults have been found. Should be avoidable, but it happens.
- Autopilot pitched down all on its lonesome... Annoying but not Robinson Crusoe...
Some decisions seem to be curious, but, while odd are not unique to this fleet only.
The Max systems failures (forget MCAS, that is a specific badness that showered embarrassment on many, not just Boeing...) can be expected to have some grounding-related early failure issues, some random ones, and the usual series of age-related issues would be surprising if they didn't. Planes don't like being parked; stuff happens; things get old n' worn.
Would be happy to jump on the bandwagon of beating up Boeing, but, while the production line QA issues still appear to be real issues, they are not related to the operational issues that the latest media frenzy seems to imply are the unfixed Max problems.
The Max had some really bad development processes applied, and the stain from that is real. The Max production QA deems to be as poor as it is with other Boeing production, and the fact that corporate management seems to facilitate that by their style and substance of management is a choice, I think a really bad one, but they are at apparent liberty to do so without the ire of customers resulting in voting with their wallet, or the FAA suspending production approvals for the corporate attitude towards their responsibility. Other than that, the ASRS, event data that is published suggests that birds are having some bad days with planes, that is not news in itself. The LEAP blender should be more accommodating of birdstrike damage from it's inherent design... but they seem to get scheduled into places where birds like to meet n' greet them. Maybe the complaints should be about flight schedules around dusk and dawn, or the lack of effective bird prevention around TO and approach paths. That is itself annoying, there are bird tracking systems for sale, and there are standoff means to disincentivize birds playing chicken with blenders.