4 ms·

> The Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023, according to FAA record posted online. I

> The Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023, according to FAA record posted online. It’s 2 months old, so poor maintenance, wear and tear, etc are not even minor factors. This is just a poorly made plane with awful quality control. And that’s even before we get into some of the design issues, both the shortcuts they’ve taken and ones that are more fundamental.

russdill 3y ago
It's not even an operable door.
supportengineer 3y ago
Was it made at the plant in North Carolina? Or in Seattle?
- plegresl 3y ago
  Fuselage assembled by Spirt AeroSystems in Wichita, KS with final assembly by Boeing in the Seattle area
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  Stan and the gang will try and pawn this off on Spirit, but Renton is supposed to do high blow[1]. It's one of the last things that gets done, with hydraulics and suchlike. I'm just guessing here, but I bet someone waived a batch of Spirit stuff through the process to get more units out the door. "Eh, this whole block is probably fine". False Equivalence strikes again[2]. [1] Simulated full pressurization, often many of them [2] And yeah. Spirit's got problems. But those problems wouldn't be problems if Boeing didn't sell off BCA's Wichita fuse fab to investment bankers back in 2005 as "Spirit". It's a pretty good name, since it's what some religions think is left behind after you're dead.
  - 19h 3y ago
    Please, Stan the Man will blame the pilots, the passengers, the Wright brothers themselves before admitting Boeing screwed up again. Accountability left that company years ago.
- numpad0 3y ago
  The part that blew off was a blank filler panel for an optional emergency door. With that context, are they still delivered as part of the fuselage or are they added in the final assembly?
  - pixelesque 3y ago
    There seems to be varying info on this... The BBC article claims it wasn't "installed" for AS, but this article: https://www.flightglobal.com/the-737-story-the-long-stretch/65315.article https://www.flightglobal.com/the-737-story-the-long-stretch/... "Provision for the new exits – which boost the exit limit capacity from 189 to 215 passengers – “will be structurally installed as standard in all -900s, and will allow operators to decide if the door should be activated or deactivated”, says 737 chief project engineer Mike Delaney." Makes it sound like they're always installed, and airlines can opt to activate them or not...
dclowd9901 3y ago
[flagged]
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - rnk 3y ago
    I think the idea is that it used to be Boeing didn't have these kinds of problems, they managed themselves and made safer airplanes. At least they appeared safer.
    - ratg13 3y ago
      Boeing made better planes when they had to compete with McDonnell Douglas. Once they bought them out and became a monopoly that was deemed ‘not a monopoly’ they had room to relax and replaced engineers with finance people. This is what happens when finance people make aircraft.
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        Airbus is much, much stronger competition then Douglas ever was.
        realusername 3y ago
        Internationally yes. In the US, Boeing has their guaranteed government contracts, it's not a market anymore.
        zeusk 3y ago
        They are still competing defence contracts with Lockheed, General Dynamics and Northrop.
        3y ago
Sparkyte 3y ago
Stuff you only hear in Chinese manufactured goods, oh how the world has turned... I wouldn't trust either, industry is moving to Airbus because of their failures.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Simon_ORourke 3y ago
> This is just a poorly made plane with awful quality control. Maybe if Boeing, you know, lobby to lower these safety restrictions then those pesky quality control checks will reduce and somehow everything will just work out just fine [1]. Seriously though, as a brand new, fresh off the production line 737 this kind of event should be so rare as to be nearly impossible. [1] - https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...
- parineum 3y ago
  > Maybe if Boeing, you know, lobby to lower these safety restrictions then those pesky quality control checks will reduce and somehow everything will just work out just fine I am open to the possibility that an industry might be over-regulated and also expect that the people who would be most likely to try and correct that imbalance would be the companies in the industry. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a company should be able to lobby the government in it's own interests. The issue of de-regulation creating safety hazards lies completely with the government officials who take their advice (and probably money) without regard to the effects that might happen. When a mobster bribes a cop, the person that's commiting the (much) greater offense is the cop.
  - mft_ 3y ago
    Such a skewed world view! If I follow you, then: a) you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest b) you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them c) you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation Wow.
    - parineum 3y ago
      > you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest I didn't say that. I said I'm okay with them lobbying for their interests and that am open to the idea that some industries might be over-regulated and that the companies in that industry are in the best position to know that. > you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them Yes. > you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation Again, I didn't say that. I used that as an analogy. Analogies aren't perfect. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I expect you know exactly what I was getting at and chose to misinterpret me so you can dunk on the strawman. My overall point being, if you're upset with deregulation, you should direct your ire at the regulators who took the word of lobbyists at face value instead of doing their jobs.

russdill 3y ago

It's not even an operable door.

supportengineer 3y ago

Was it made at the plant in North Carolina? Or in Seattle?

plegresl 3y ago
Fuselage assembled by Spirt AeroSystems in Wichita, KS with final assembly by Boeing in the Seattle area
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Stan and the gang will try and pawn this off on Spirit, but Renton is supposed to do high blow[1]. It's one of the last things that gets done, with hydraulics and suchlike. I'm just guessing here, but I bet someone waived a batch of Spirit stuff through the process to get more units out the door. "Eh, this whole block is probably fine". False Equivalence strikes again[2]. [1] Simulated full pressurization, often many of them [2] And yeah. Spirit's got problems. But those problems wouldn't be problems if Boeing didn't sell off BCA's Wichita fuse fab to investment bankers back in 2005 as "Spirit". It's a pretty good name, since it's what some religions think is left behind after you're dead.
- 19h 3y ago
  Please, Stan the Man will blame the pilots, the passengers, the Wright brothers themselves before admitting Boeing screwed up again. Accountability left that company years ago.
numpad0 3y ago
The part that blew off was a blank filler panel for an optional emergency door. With that context, are they still delivered as part of the fuselage or are they added in the final assembly?
- pixelesque 3y ago
  There seems to be varying info on this... The BBC article claims it wasn't "installed" for AS, but this article: https://www.flightglobal.com/the-737-story-the-long-stretch/65315.article https://www.flightglobal.com/the-737-story-the-long-stretch/... "Provision for the new exits – which boost the exit limit capacity from 189 to 215 passengers – “will be structurally installed as standard in all -900s, and will allow operators to decide if the door should be activated or deactivated”, says 737 chief project engineer Mike Delaney." Makes it sound like they're always installed, and airlines can opt to activate them or not...

dclowd9901 3y ago

[flagged]

baggy_trough 3y ago
[flagged]
- rnk 3y ago
  I think the idea is that it used to be Boeing didn't have these kinds of problems, they managed themselves and made safer airplanes. At least they appeared safer.
  - ratg13 3y ago
    Boeing made better planes when they had to compete with McDonnell Douglas. Once they bought them out and became a monopoly that was deemed ‘not a monopoly’ they had room to relax and replaced engineers with finance people. This is what happens when finance people make aircraft.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Airbus is much, much stronger competition then Douglas ever was.
      - realusername 3y ago
        Internationally yes. In the US, Boeing has their guaranteed government contracts, it's not a market anymore.
        zeusk 3y ago
        They are still competing defence contracts with Lockheed, General Dynamics and Northrop.
        3y ago

Sparkyte 3y ago

Stuff you only hear in Chinese manufactured goods, oh how the world has turned... I wouldn't trust either, industry is moving to Airbus because of their failures.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Simon_ORourke 3y ago

> This is just a poorly made plane with awful quality control. Maybe if Boeing, you know, lobby to lower these safety restrictions then those pesky quality control checks will reduce and somehow everything will just work out just fine [1]. Seriously though, as a brand new, fresh off the production line 737 this kind of event should be so rare as to be nearly impossible. [1] - https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...

parineum 3y ago
> Maybe if Boeing, you know, lobby to lower these safety restrictions then those pesky quality control checks will reduce and somehow everything will just work out just fine I am open to the possibility that an industry might be over-regulated and also expect that the people who would be most likely to try and correct that imbalance would be the companies in the industry. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a company should be able to lobby the government in it's own interests. The issue of de-regulation creating safety hazards lies completely with the government officials who take their advice (and probably money) without regard to the effects that might happen. When a mobster bribes a cop, the person that's commiting the (much) greater offense is the cop.
- mft_ 3y ago
  Such a skewed world view! If I follow you, then: a) you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest b) you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them c) you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation Wow.
  - parineum 3y ago
    > you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest I didn't say that. I said I'm okay with them lobbying for their interests and that am open to the idea that some industries might be over-regulated and that the companies in that industry are in the best position to know that. > you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them Yes. > you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation Again, I didn't say that. I used that as an analogy. Analogies aren't perfect. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I expect you know exactly what I was getting at and chose to misinterpret me so you can dunk on the strawman. My overall point being, if you're upset with deregulation, you should direct your ire at the regulators who took the word of lobbyists at face value instead of doing their jobs.