FAA grounds 737 Max 9 Aircraft Indefinitely after Alaska Airlines incident

[justinbrett]

On the surface yes, and I have no knowledge of why, but what if the concern is a more recently detected similar drop in built and inspection standards by the same supplier?

"The 737-900ER models have carried out 11 million hours of operations without similar incident to the newer 737 Max 9s."

 

[p--and--t]

"The 737-900ER models have carried out 11 million hours of operations without similar incident to the newer 737 Max 9s."

Understand that. i said “recent drop in….”

 

[elanshin]

Tangentially related, but seems UA is reconsidering its MAX10 orders atm. Maybe this grounding is one problem too far for the bottom line and reliability.

We'll find out. Huge blow to Boeing if UA pulls their MAX orders.

 

[Ansett]

It seems to be more around planning without the aircraft delivered as expected as they lack confidence in them being able to get FAA approval in a timely manner, rather than cancelling the order.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/united-airlines-shares-rise-upbeat-2024-forecast-2024-01-23/

 

[elanshin]

It seems to be more around planning without the aircraft delivered as expected as they lack confidence in them being able to get FAA approval in a timely manner, rather than cancelling the order.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/united-airlines-shares-rise-upbeat-2024-forecast-2024-01-23/

I think it's also a risk management perspective. The MAX 9 grounding this time around is hurting the bottom line significantly again.

There's only so many free passes Boeing gets and if in the future another issue is discovered with an even bigger MAX fleet, that would hurt even more.

The delivery timing (certification) is another factor as well.

 

[Himeno]

There's only so many free passes Boeing gets and if in the future another issue is discovered with an even bigger MAX fleet, that would hurt even more.

Even though it seems that the bulk of the current issue is on Spirit AeroSystems.

 

[Quickstatus]

at the bulk of the current issue is on Spirit AeroSystems

It's still assembled by Boeing in the end and Boeing certifies the aircraft.

 

[justinbrett]

It's still assembled by Boeing in the end and Boeing certifies the aircraft.

Spirit manufactures both the fuselage and the door plugs, and it was my understanding they arrive at Boeing already fitted.

 

[Quickstatus]

ing they arrive at Boeing already fitted.

Sure but Boeing also has to provide oversight of Spirit's work and finally has to sign off on each aircraft it releases.

737-900ER

In other news, FAA recommends 737-900ER operators check the door plugs. As you said correctly the -900ER has operated problem free for years (and periodic heavy maintenance would have discovered any anomalies) but for some reason the FAA thinks it's worth doing. The FAA oversight has been lacking of course in this whole FAA-Boeing relationship so it too has to carry some of the blame

 

[elanshin]

In other news, FAA recommends 737-900ER operators check the door plugs. As you said correctly the -900ER has operated problem free for years (and periodic heavy maintenance would have discovered any anomalies) but for some reason the FAA thinks it's worth doing. The FAA oversight has been lacking of course in this whole FAA-Boeing relationship so it too has to carry some of the blame

Probably precautionary move like the max9 inspections, should be all good.... Right ...
Looking for wood to knock on.

 

[justinbrett]

I think I'd be happier if they didn't inspect the -900s.

As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[DejaBrew]

As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Wasn't that the issue with the MAX 9s... at least right up until the moment they discovered that it was indeed broke?

 

[justinbrett]

Wasn't that the issue with the MAX 9s... at least right up until the moment they discovered that it was indeed broke?

You're comparing an aircraft 3 months off the production line (which has well documented safety issues), with a 25 year old aircraft from a family that has proven to be one of the most successful and safest aircraft ever built.

 

[p--and--t]

You're comparing an aircraft 3 months off the production line (which has well documented safety issues), with a 25 year old aircraft from a family that has proven to be one of the most successful and safest aircraft ever built.

747s were particularly long lived but didn't stop a well known AFF member having to divert to Manilla. The 380 has flown lots of kms/miles but didn’t stop QF almost losing an aircraft and lots passengers. 737s almost as ubiquitous as houseflies but Aloha air found out things that weren’t known and waiting to happen.

If there is the slightest whiff in the air that the FAA want to investigate, I’m with them.

 

[DejaBrew]

If there is the slightest whiff in the air that the FAA want to investigate, I’m with them.

This. Seems the FAA have a choice of looking at the 737's long term safety record and saying "she'll be right", or being thorough and investigating anything remotely suspicious in light of recent incidents. I'm sure most airlines would rather an aircraft being briefly (in the scheme of things) out of action for a "visual check" that potentially amounts to nothing, versus not bothering and potentially having a major incident on their hands (not to mention the very real possibility of loss of life).

 

[justinbrett]

747s were particularly long lived but didn't stop a well known AFF member having to divert to Manilla. The 380 has flown lots of kms/miles but didn’t stop QF almost losing an aircraft and lots passengers. 737s almost as ubiquitous as houseflies but Aloha air found out things that weren’t known and waiting to happen.

If there is the slightest whiff in the air that the FAA want to investigate, I’m with them.

Well I think you're comparing the whole fruit bowl there.

FAA has clearly dropped the ball in recent years and that is what my comment was referring to - the 737 of the previous generation was a terrific aircraft and this one has been problem after problem, and FAA is completely complicit in this.

Sounds to me FAA has had a rude wake up call and is possibly overacting and needing to be seen to be taking action. No harm done obviously but I can't see the -900s being grounded.

 

[Tropic]

some reason the FAA thinks it's worth doing.

I thought the SAFO provides some insight as to why FAA thinks its warranted...
"The Boeing 737-900ER mid-exit door plugs have an identical door plug design to the 737-9
MAX. As part of their Safety Management Systems, some operators have conducted additional inspections
on the 737-900ER mid-exit door plugs and have noted findings with bolts during the maintenance
inspections." They don't define "findings" though...

 

[Tropic]

CEO of Alaska Airlines reported they found "many loose bolts" on their 737 max 9s. All other issues aside, many loose bolts is not something I want to see mentioned in regard to any flying machine...

 

[Scarlett]

New Boeing VP for Products, Alan Joyce, has noted that, currently, Boeing doesn’t sell aeroplanes, but rather a bundle of capabilities.

…most of which have been assembled correctly.

Whilst your aeroplanes safety is always our first priority and while we will try our best to provide our service in accordance with the consistent departure and arrival of your aeroplane, flight completions are not guaranteed.

 

[SCM]

Even though it seems that the bulk of the current issue is on Spirit AeroSystems.

That's completely irrelevant. Boeing can and does use many contractors, who have their own contractors and so on and so forth. Boeing is the company charged with ensuring these planes are safe, passing compliance, fixing any problems and so on. They are the company ultimately responsible for everything, and they must take steps to ensure that everything is safe.

If they choose to spin off parts of the company they don't like or use some contractors because they are cheaper - that cannot come at the expense of safety! It's their decision what contractors they use for what and how, and it's their duty to ensure ultimately safety. They must take every measure necessary to ensure this, and if they haven't - then they better begin to more closely inspect every component they get, or dump the idea of using a contractor for some components and bring it in-house, if there is no other way to ensure safety.

At no point can Boeing claim that it was't them - that's not an option.


Just look at shotty apartment construction as an apt analogy for why it must work this way.