411A, all I can do is laugh at your comment. Still haven't watched the video yet I see. And now I know that I'm european since I didn't deny the facts presented in the video- that's good to know!
No one could be more biased in Boeing's favor than me, but facts are facts and I can't deny them even if the documentary that presents the facts is by Al Jazzera. BTW, after I watched the video black CIA helicopters did fly over my house. It was pretty cool.
Machinbird: Boeing has been building aircraft for quite a few years and their workforce is not inexperienced. They know how to build aircraft correctly and how to fit parts correctly if it is possible to do so without compromising the job. If they don't think that a particular part is up to the task, I would hope they have enough character and management support to say no.
The point of the video is that the whistleblowers witnesses first hand that there were assembly mechanics who did not have the character and management support to say no. Boeing is an old company, but that doesn't mean that they never hire new people.
The occurence of the mechanics filling gaps and PAINTING OVER THEM! to hide where the non-conforming parts did not fit was the most alarming to me. The real question is how many time did that happen and did Quality Assurance catch it? Afterall it is possible that QA caught that shim and paint cover-up job that the whistleblower cited. It is possible that QA inspectors caught all these problems and refused to sign off until rework was done. We don't know what happened.
The fact that the Wichita line was an environment where a supervisor told a mechanic that she must use the bad parts so they didn't get behind schedule and where other mechnics covered up non-conforming parts- that is scary.
To the concerned flyer: As shown in the video there are Structural Repair reports that mechanics file with the FAA when they discover a trend of consistent issues with a particular airframe (this is where FAA airworthiness directives come from). This is reassuring because it indicates that these non-conforming parts ARE being discovered and fixed during routine C and D checks/inspections that are carried out at airline maintenance facilities every 14 months.
The problems that mechanics were finding were premature corrosion (on airplanes only 8 years old) and when found it they replaced the part.
Corrosion and wear issues that would lead to mechanical failures are apparently linear in progression so its not like it fails all at once someday... there are tell-tale indications of problems coming down the line.
Now that I think about it, if the fuselage frames are so out of whack that it would be unsafe they might not be able to even get the skin riveted on in production.
Also, when the Aloha 737 lost its top Boeing had been calling Aloha for months and months telling them that they needed to install the new skin and fasteners that Boeing had shipped them because the airplane had reached and exceeded its cycle limit (lots of takeoffs and landing in Hawaii service). That kit from Boeing was sitting in their hangar.
The comfortaing thing about the Aloha accident is just how robust and overbuilt the 737 is! That was an old 737-200, yet even though the skin ripped off and the airplane depressurized the fuselage frames and load bearing structure remained intact allowing a safe landing!
I personally wouldn't hesitate to get on an Alaska 737 right now.
Until I find out more about this issue I might not fly on one that does not undergo heavy maintenance checks as directed by the FAA and ICAO (Europe, Austrailia, and the rest of the world other than places like Africa, and South America etc.- as far as I know)