Boeing at X-Roads?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The recent Boeing incident that attracted my attention is not this mundane runway excursion and gear collapse, but the wheel falling off a 777 at takeoff which I believe is unique in decades of US scheduled flight.
A quick Google search provides a selection - the dates may be a day or 2 out as sometimes hard from media reports to figure out when the event took place. 777 – 7 Mar 2024, C5M - 6 Feb 2024, 757 – 24 Jan 2024, 747 – 12 Oct 2022, PC12 - 21 Jan 2021, A319 – 19 Feb 2020, Dash 8 - 5 Jan 2020, Dash 8 - 25 Oct 2017, Dash 8 - 10 Nov 2011, Saab 340 - 7 July 2008........Add in light aircraft - well, with them, it's a wonder any land with a full set of wheels after any flight!!!
You do know that airlines do regular maintenance on landing gear, right?
Paxing All Over The World
ABC News New York
Seat Booking web site filters on type
Once again, corporates have to learn about the Internet the hard way.
Why a Boeing 737 Max filter on Kayak spiked in usage for airplane selection
Kayak first rolled out its aircraft filter in March 2019, but the company said it saw 15 times the typical use of the tool between Saturday, Jan. 6 and the following Thursday, specifically for 737 MAX planes immediately following the Jan. 5 Alaska Airlines incident
Kayak first rolled out its aircraft filter in March 2019, but the company said it saw 15 times the typical use of the tool between Saturday, Jan. 6 and the following Thursday, specifically for 737 MAX planes immediately following the Jan. 5 Alaska Airlines incident
Once again, corporates have to learn about the Internet the hard way.
I can live with wheels falling off. After all, they are spared, and someone will get a new Lambhorgini out of it.
Given the heat around Boeing I'm surprised the LA800 incident with the 788 is not getting more attention. Seattle Times is carrying it, as is Aviation Herald. If the reports that the screens temporarily went blank and control was lost are correct this would seem to be much more serious than the minor inconvenience of landing with a wheel missing. Seems 50 people were hurt, and there was blood on the ceiling, so nasty.
And yes, I do wear my seat belt all the time, having seen the cabin crew off their feet (and swallowed the same gin and tonic twice) during a CAT 'event' with SQ in the 80's.
Given the heat around Boeing I'm surprised the LA800 incident with the 788 is not getting more attention. Seattle Times is carrying it, as is Aviation Herald. If the reports that the screens temporarily went blank and control was lost are correct this would seem to be much more serious than the minor inconvenience of landing with a wheel missing. Seems 50 people were hurt, and there was blood on the ceiling, so nasty.
And yes, I do wear my seat belt all the time, having seen the cabin crew off their feet (and swallowed the same gin and tonic twice) during a CAT 'event' with SQ in the 80's.
........ but wheels falling off a/c in general isn't all that uncommon! A quick Google search provides a selection - the dates may be a day or 2 out as sometimes hard from media reports to figure out when the event took place. 777 – 7 Mar 2024, C5M - 6 Feb 2024, 757 – 24 Jan 2024, 747 – 12 Oct 2022, PC12 - 21 Jan 2021, A319 – 19 Feb 2020, Dash 8 - 5 Jan 2020, Dash 8 - 25 Oct 2017, Dash 8 - 10 Nov 2011, Saab 340 - 7 July 2008........
Add in light aircraft - well, with them, it's a wonder any land with a full set of wheels after any flight!!!
A quick Google search provides a selection - the dates may be a day or 2 out as sometimes hard from media reports to figure out when the event took place. 777 – 7 Mar 2024, C5M - 6 Feb 2024, 757 – 24 Jan 2024, 747 – 12 Oct 2022, PC12 - 21 Jan 2021, A319 – 19 Feb 2020, Dash 8 - 5 Jan 2020, Dash 8 - 25 Oct 2017, Dash 8 - 10 Nov 2011, Saab 340 - 7 July 2008........Add in light aircraft - well, with them, it's a wonder any land with a full set of wheels after any flight!!!
In GA it's obviously much more common. Seems to be sort of a thing with high wing turboprops also.
I can live with wheels falling off. After all, they are spared, and someone will get a new Lambhorgini out of it.
Given the heat around Boeing I'm surprised the LA800 incident with the 788 is not getting more attention. Seattle Times is carrying it, as is Aviation Herald. If the reports that the screens temporarily went blank and control was lost are correct this would seem to be much more serious than the minor inconvenience of landing with a wheel missing. Seems 50 people were hurt, and there was blood on the ceiling, so nasty.
And yes, I do wear my seat belt all the time, having seen the cabin crew off their feet (and swallowed the same gin and tonic twice) during a CAT 'event' with SQ in the 80's.
Given the heat around Boeing I'm surprised the LA800 incident with the 788 is not getting more attention. Seattle Times is carrying it, as is Aviation Herald. If the reports that the screens temporarily went blank and control was lost are correct this would seem to be much more serious than the minor inconvenience of landing with a wheel missing. Seems 50 people were hurt, and there was blood on the ceiling, so nasty.
And yes, I do wear my seat belt all the time, having seen the cabin crew off their feet (and swallowed the same gin and tonic twice) during a CAT 'event' with SQ in the 80's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Darkest Brum
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some details from the FAA 737 MAX audit
Plenty for Boeing to get to work on. Seattle Times:
WASHINGTON — A six-week audit by the Federal Aviation Administration of Boeing’s production of the 737 MAX jet found dozens of problems throughout the manufacturing process at the plane maker and one of its key suppliers, according to a slide presentation reviewed by The New York Times.
The air-safety regulator initiated the examination after a door panel blew off a 737 MAX 9 during an Alaska Airlines flight in early January. Last week, the agency announced that the audit had found “multiple instances” in which Boeing and the supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, failed to comply with quality-control requirements, though it did not provide specifics about the findings.
The presentation reviewed by the Times, though highly technical, offers a more detailed picture of what the audit turned up. Since the Alaska Airlines episode, Boeing has come under intense scrutiny over its quality-control practices, and the findings add to the body of evidence about manufacturing lapses at the company.
For the portion of the examination focused on Boeing, the FAA conducted 89 product audits, a type of review that looks at aspects of the production process. The plane maker passed 56 of the audits and failed 33 of them, with a total of 97 instances of alleged noncompliance, according to the presentation.
The FAA also conducted 13 product audits for the part of the inquiry that focused on Spirit AeroSystems, which makes the fuselage, or body, of the 737 MAX. Six of those audits resulted in passing grades, and seven resulted in failing ones, the presentation said.
At one point during the examination, the air-safety agency observed mechanics at Spirit using a hotel key card to check a door seal, according to a document that describes some of the findings. That action was “not identified/documented/called-out in the production order,” the document said.
In another instance, the FAA saw Spirit mechanics apply liquid Dawn soap to a door seal “as lubricant in the fit-up process,” according to the document. The door seal was then cleaned with a wet cheesecloth, the document said, noting that instructions were “vague and unclear on what specifications/actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic.”
Spirit did not immediately comment when asked by the Times about the appropriateness of using a hotel key card or Dawn soap in those situations.
Boeing did not immediately comment on the results of the audit. In late February, the FAA gave the company 90 days to develop a plan for quality-control improvements. In response, its CEO, Dave Calhoun, said that “we have a clear picture of what needs to be done,” citing in part the audit findings.
Boeing said this month that it was in talks to acquire Spirit, which it spun off in 2005. Joe Buccino, a spokesperson for Spirit, said Monday that the company had received preliminary audit findings from the FAA and planned to work with Boeing to address what the regulator had raised. Buccino said the company’s goal was to reduce to zero the number of defects and errors in its processes.
“Meanwhile, we continue multiple efforts undertaken to improve our safety and quality programs,” Buccino said. “These improvements focus on human factors and other steps to minimize nonconformities.”
The FAA said it could not release specifics about the audit because of its ongoing investigation into Boeing in response to the Alaska Airlines episode. In addition to that inquiry, the National Transportation Safety Board is investigating what caused the door panel to blow off the plane, and the Justice Department has begun a criminal investigation.
The air-safety regulator initiated the examination after a door panel blew off a 737 MAX 9 during an Alaska Airlines flight in early January. Last week, the agency announced that the audit had found “multiple instances” in which Boeing and the supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, failed to comply with quality-control requirements, though it did not provide specifics about the findings.
The presentation reviewed by the Times, though highly technical, offers a more detailed picture of what the audit turned up. Since the Alaska Airlines episode, Boeing has come under intense scrutiny over its quality-control practices, and the findings add to the body of evidence about manufacturing lapses at the company.
For the portion of the examination focused on Boeing, the FAA conducted 89 product audits, a type of review that looks at aspects of the production process. The plane maker passed 56 of the audits and failed 33 of them, with a total of 97 instances of alleged noncompliance, according to the presentation.
The FAA also conducted 13 product audits for the part of the inquiry that focused on Spirit AeroSystems, which makes the fuselage, or body, of the 737 MAX. Six of those audits resulted in passing grades, and seven resulted in failing ones, the presentation said.
At one point during the examination, the air-safety agency observed mechanics at Spirit using a hotel key card to check a door seal, according to a document that describes some of the findings. That action was “not identified/documented/called-out in the production order,” the document said.
In another instance, the FAA saw Spirit mechanics apply liquid Dawn soap to a door seal “as lubricant in the fit-up process,” according to the document. The door seal was then cleaned with a wet cheesecloth, the document said, noting that instructions were “vague and unclear on what specifications/actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic.”
Spirit did not immediately comment when asked by the Times about the appropriateness of using a hotel key card or Dawn soap in those situations.
Boeing did not immediately comment on the results of the audit. In late February, the FAA gave the company 90 days to develop a plan for quality-control improvements. In response, its CEO, Dave Calhoun, said that “we have a clear picture of what needs to be done,” citing in part the audit findings.
Boeing said this month that it was in talks to acquire Spirit, which it spun off in 2005. Joe Buccino, a spokesperson for Spirit, said Monday that the company had received preliminary audit findings from the FAA and planned to work with Boeing to address what the regulator had raised. Buccino said the company’s goal was to reduce to zero the number of defects and errors in its processes.
“Meanwhile, we continue multiple efforts undertaken to improve our safety and quality programs,” Buccino said. “These improvements focus on human factors and other steps to minimize nonconformities.”
The FAA said it could not release specifics about the audit because of its ongoing investigation into Boeing in response to the Alaska Airlines episode. In addition to that inquiry, the National Transportation Safety Board is investigating what caused the door panel to blow off the plane, and the Justice Department has begun a criminal investigation.
Plenty for Boeing to get to work on. Seattle Times:
" I'll see it when I believe it. ",
. . . the beliefs and "the seen" here are largely fiscal, economic and market oriented. If one has been or is contemporaneously engaged in shareholder value matters (as may be 'inherited' through performance pressure), one engages the world 'as-such'.
Getting senior management to see the value in say, FOQA programs or other safety programs because the result of such (expensive) programs is, (as intended), "nothing happening" means patiently creating a corporate and social environment such that "seeing" becomes believing. So the economic balance equation in the competition for finite resources begins at a disadvantage. The "long view" and the avoidance of "bad trouble", (because getting such programs going can often take "good trouble"...), does take time to overcome, made faster by a culture that already exists and expects such decision-making outcomes as a matter of form.
Given the heat around Boeing I'm surprised the LA800 incident with the 788 is not getting more attention. Seattle Times is carrying it, as is Aviation Herald. If the reports that the screens temporarily went blank and control was lost are correct this would seem to be much more serious than the minor inconvenience of landing with a wheel missing. Seems 50 people were hurt,
New Zealand to seize black boxes from LATAM Boeing 787 as passengers recount incident | Reuters
Given the 787 is Air New Zealand's principal long-haul type, and the extensive ETOPS operations involved with getting there, including this flight, whose onwards continuation to South America puts it very far away from anywhere, it's understandable.
Administrator
Whatever accusations are levelled against negative Boeing posts on here the situation has gone far beyond a Pprune topic or reputation damage limitation.
The world is flooded with stories like this many emanating from the USA.
https://www.businessinsider.com/faa-...737-max-2024-3
The world is flooded with stories like this many emanating from the USA.
https://www.businessinsider.com/faa-...737-max-2024-3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAL demand cease of MAX 10 manufacturing
United tells Boeing to stop making the Max 10s the airline ordered: report
United's Scott Kirby said it is 'impossible to say' when Boeing's Max 10 might get certified by the FAA
"We’ve asked Boeing to stop building Max 10s, which they’ve done, for us and start building Max 9s," Kirby said Tuesday at a JPMorgan investor conference, according to Bloomberg. "It’s impossible to say when the Max 10 is going to get certified.""We are in the market for A321s, and if we get a deal where the economics work, we’ll do something," Kirby said, referring to the Airbus jetliner, confirming earlier reports. "If we don’t, we won’t and will wind up with more Max 9s."
Boeing probably is a case of too big to fail.
There have to be minimum two airliner manufacturers and essentially that's what we have now. All the talk about re engining the lovely 75 and building a new single aisle to crush Airbus is fantasy land because then AB would be able to deliver planes not quite as good but in two years not 8 and just like the US will support boeing for tis military side and 'the national interest' .EU?UK would support Airbus in that situation. Not that bad a thing either way because on the one hand no one wants monopoly pricing (except Google) but pax and regulators do not want cut throat competition in something like the Airline industry.
The problem is rampant greed also known as 21st century capitalism . These determined /psychotic CEOs with their , its just another company, shareholder value, monster un-earned bonusses should not be allowed within a million miles of serious companies that are integral to safety related or critical infrastructure industries. That also means of course that Wall Street has to have a serious look at itself because of the influence it has on their appointments -all comes back to greed again
Finally, nothing much will change until some of these issues are addressed and a few C level people get to find out what responsibility really means when they go to jail-thats not just a US thing the UK is just as bad (The Post Office saga for example/ Railways etc). So a duopoly in the airliner business isn't such a bad thing but until greed is squeezed out of the equation stories like the gradual collapse of Boeing will continue to happen,
There have to be minimum two airliner manufacturers and essentially that's what we have now. All the talk about re engining the lovely 75 and building a new single aisle to crush Airbus is fantasy land because then AB would be able to deliver planes not quite as good but in two years not 8 and just like the US will support boeing for tis military side and 'the national interest' .EU?UK would support Airbus in that situation. Not that bad a thing either way because on the one hand no one wants monopoly pricing (except Google) but pax and regulators do not want cut throat competition in something like the Airline industry.
The problem is rampant greed also known as 21st century capitalism . These determined /psychotic CEOs with their , its just another company, shareholder value, monster un-earned bonusses should not be allowed within a million miles of serious companies that are integral to safety related or critical infrastructure industries. That also means of course that Wall Street has to have a serious look at itself because of the influence it has on their appointments -all comes back to greed again
Finally, nothing much will change until some of these issues are addressed and a few C level people get to find out what responsibility really means when they go to jail-thats not just a US thing the UK is just as bad (The Post Office saga for example/ Railways etc). So a duopoly in the airliner business isn't such a bad thing but until greed is squeezed out of the equation stories like the gradual collapse of Boeing will continue to happen,
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no scenario where Boeing does not bounce back. After ALL these problems - for those who read SEC financial statements - it lost only $2 billion in 2023 on a $77 billion revenue stream.
It's not good for the industry either to have a monopoly. But in any case, Boeing is way bigger and more important than Lehman Brothers or whatnot.
There's only a few American companies vital to the US interests (Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls on the navy side), Boeing and Lockheed, General Electric, Google, Intel, Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, Dow industrial, Pfizer, Comcast, Visa, Mastercard, Union Pacific and a few others.
It's not good for the industry either to have a monopoly. But in any case, Boeing is way bigger and more important than Lehman Brothers or whatnot.
There's only a few American companies vital to the US interests (Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls on the navy side), Boeing and Lockheed, General Electric, Google, Intel, Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, Dow industrial, Pfizer, Comcast, Visa, Mastercard, Union Pacific and a few others.
There is no scenario where Boeing does not bounce back. After ALL these problems - for those who read SEC financial statements - it lost only $2 billion in 2023 on a $77 billion revenue stream.
It's not good for the industry either to have a monopoly. But in any case, Boeing is way bigger and more important than Lehman Brothers or whatnot.
There's only a few American companies vital to the US interests (Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls on the navy side), Boeing and Lockheed, General Electric, Google, Intel, Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, Dow industrial, Pfizer, Comcast, Visa, Mastercard, Union Pacific and a few others.
It's not good for the industry either to have a monopoly. But in any case, Boeing is way bigger and more important than Lehman Brothers or whatnot.
There's only a few American companies vital to the US interests (Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls on the navy side), Boeing and Lockheed, General Electric, Google, Intel, Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, Dow industrial, Pfizer, Comcast, Visa, Mastercard, Union Pacific and a few others.
I agree totally, but they need to sort their sh!t out, and fast.