4 ms·

It's Alaska Airlines. I wouldn't read too much into Boeing's reliability from this, given Alaska's previous maintenance record...

ceejayoz 3y ago
It's a two-month old plane. That's not much time to fall into disrepair.
- tigeroil 3y ago
  Yeah must admit I think I jumped the gun a bit there. Reading about it a bit more it seems like this is a major manufacturing cock-up that this was even possible.
  - pinewurst 3y ago
    https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-must-inspect-thousands-of-holes-on-some-165-stored-737-max/154855.article https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-must-inspect-...
- tass 3y ago
  If an inspection done after going into service involved removing/replacing that door, it could have been done incorrectly. There really is no way to know what happened without more research, and I’m confident the priority will be to understand if this was a one off or widespread issue.
shreezus 3y ago
Aren’t maintenance protocols handled by the FAA? Otherwise it would be implied that budget carriers like Spirit or Alaska would be “less” safe (which isn’t the case AFAIK).
- kaelinl 3y ago
  In what way is Alaska a "budget carrier"? Maintenance protocols are a mix of manufacturer recommendations and carrier/maintenance contractor SOPs, which are then approved by the manufacturer and FAA.
  - pneumonic 3y ago
    In 2000, an Alaska MD-80 went down, killing all 88 onboard. The NTSB found that it was apparently due to failing to adequately lubricate the tail jackscrew, as required by manufacturer documentation, not just once, but in at least two successive scheduled maintenance periods. Also, Alaska had been increasing, with FAA approval, the period between scheduled maintenence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261
jacurtis 3y ago
This plane rolled off the factory floor in October. It’s brand new. sorry, but this one’s on Boeing.

ceejayoz 3y ago

It's a two-month old plane. That's not much time to fall into disrepair.

tigeroil 3y ago
Yeah must admit I think I jumped the gun a bit there. Reading about it a bit more it seems like this is a major manufacturing cock-up that this was even possible.
- pinewurst 3y ago
  https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-must-inspect-thousands-of-holes-on-some-165-stored-737-max/154855.article https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-must-inspect-...
tass 3y ago
If an inspection done after going into service involved removing/replacing that door, it could have been done incorrectly. There really is no way to know what happened without more research, and I’m confident the priority will be to understand if this was a one off or widespread issue.

shreezus 3y ago

Aren’t maintenance protocols handled by the FAA? Otherwise it would be implied that budget carriers like Spirit or Alaska would be “less” safe (which isn’t the case AFAIK).

kaelinl 3y ago
In what way is Alaska a "budget carrier"? Maintenance protocols are a mix of manufacturer recommendations and carrier/maintenance contractor SOPs, which are then approved by the manufacturer and FAA.
- pneumonic 3y ago
  In 2000, an Alaska MD-80 went down, killing all 88 onboard. The NTSB found that it was apparently due to failing to adequately lubricate the tail jackscrew, as required by manufacturer documentation, not just once, but in at least two successive scheduled maintenance periods. Also, Alaska had been increasing, with FAA approval, the period between scheduled maintenence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

jacurtis 3y ago

This plane rolled off the factory floor in October. It’s brand new. sorry, but this one’s on Boeing.