6 ms·

A lot of people don't realize that the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus.

A lot of people don't realize that the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus. We don't really know who to blame here until the investigation concludes.

dralley 3y ago
True, but as integrator, Boeing is still responsible for ensuring the quality of the final product.
- btown 3y ago
  And, importantly, it's entirely consistent to hold off on blaming any singular party until the investigation is complete, while simultaneously not wanting to personally fly on a 737 Max!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jessriedel 3y ago
  You can also argue that the airline is responsible for operating only quality products
  - ghaff 3y ago
    An airline is responsible more for safely operating the aircraft (including most maintenance). An airline really isn't in a position to verify every design detail of an aircraft any more than you're responsible for verifying there are no potential design flaws in your (much simpler) car that could potentially cause someone injury.
    - jessriedel 3y ago
      I think airlines are a lot more responsible for verifying design flaws in their airplane than I am in my car. First, they are a giant business which has way more resources to do this. Second, they are selling a service. If I was running a US taxi service and bought a fleet of flawed Indian cars that caused crashes, I think I would be partially responsible.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        They're responsible for using street legal cars, yes. But I don't see any taxi company being responsible if they used GM cars that turned out to have a defective ignition switch back in the day for example. I assume airlines do some degree of due diligence and, I believe they choose the engine type if there are options available but you probably overestimate the ability of a business whose primary job is to ferry passengers from point A to point B to do a serious design verification of every tiny detail of an aircraft. And those details can be tiny; take the case of the Airbus engine disassembly mentioned elsewhere on this thread.
      - mkipper 3y ago
        This analogy isn't very convincing to me. Car manufacturing is a regulated industry. When I buy a car in the USA, even for my taxi business, I shouldn't need to hire a team of engineers to verify that it was properly designed and won't spontaneously combust. I should be able to assume that if the car is being legally sold to the public in the USA, the manufacturer has demonstrated that it meets some basic safety requirements set out by the government. I obviously have some _operational_ responsibilities (e.g. taking my taxis out of service if they're recalled for a design flaw), but I wouldn't consider myself responsible at all if my taxi happened to be the first 2025 Toyota Camry that spontaneously combusted from some design flaw. Regulators aren't perfect but this is one reason they exist. The FAA has a set of requirements for manufacturing and selling planes in the USA and they have a set of requirements for operating an airline. If I'm operating an airline and the FAA tells me that the verification of an airplane's design and its assembly is the manufacturer's responsibility and not mine, I don't think it's fair to hold me responsible if my brand new airplane falls from the sky because of a design flaw.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    The US justice system has a notion of "joint and several liability", where we say "both parties are guilty and both are liable for the damages". I think that applies here: - It's the assembler's responsibility to make sure the exit door bolts are properly tightened, and - It's the manufacturer's responsibility to find assemblers that correctly tighten door bolts, and the manufacturer's responsibility to design doors that don't explode, and - It's the airline's responsibility to find manufacturers that design planes with not exploding doors, which are assembled by assemblers that correctly tighten door bolts, and checked by the airline's own maintenance teams during regular servicing of the planes. Everyone should be looking over and double-checking everyone else's work. But that's not how the 737 MAX was designed or built.
diggan 3y ago
Did you comment on the wrong story? The submission doesn't seem to try to assign blame to either Boeing or Spirit AeroSystems, but tries to just give you a true/false depending on if they airplane you're going with is a 737 Max.
- kube-system 3y ago
  It has obvious topical context.
  - diggan 3y ago
    Just because the website happens to be about 737 Max, does it mean absolutely everything related to Boeing is on-topic in this submission? Especially discussions related to who to blame for (the recent) mishaps?
    - vikramkr 3y ago
      Umm, yes? This website is obviously on the front page because of the recent mishaps so that's literally the most on topic possible topic to discuss lol
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      This is like someone trying to argue the reason they like looking at breasts and sucking on nipples has nothing to do with being breast-fed as a child, and they are completely separate things and the correlation between them is irrelevant to bring up.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      I am taking issue with the question implicitly begged by the submission.
  - philipov 3y ago
    Regardless of who is ultimately at fault, this is about people not wanting to fly on these planes. They don't care if it was Boeing or if it was a subcontractor, they just want the information they need to cancel their flight or demand a different plane from the airline.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thatguy0900 3y ago
Boeing is the one delivering the product, right? Why would it be not boeings fault they don't qa the bolts on their parts? If a cars doors kept falling off Noone would accept ford saying sorry it's the factory we bought it froms fault
- kube-system 3y ago
  We do in fact blame third parties for their components in regards to recalled components that are subbed out by final manufacturers. e.g. Takata airbags.
- jldugger 3y ago
  I think the concern is less about who's to _blame_ as much as "this filter may not be as effective as you think at avoiding this specific disaster."
kreeben 3y ago
I realized it months ago, years even and then I remembered an insight from decades ago. Boeing bad, mkay. Always has been.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Coincidentally, decades ago Spirit Aerosystems was still just the "Boeing Wichita division"
adrr 3y ago
Who is response for the QA of components and workmanship? It looks like its was loose bolts from information released from United Airlines and there was a notice to check for loose bolts on the Max.
- steelbrain 3y ago
  > and there was a notice to check for loose bolts on the Max. For a different part of the aircraft, yes. I don't think airlines check for every loose bolt ever when the bulletin says something specific.
Matl 3y ago
We know that Boeing has a lot of Q&A problems with these planes and are taking all kinds of shortcuts. It seems the blame should be placed squarely on Boeing.
- kube-system 3y ago
  We know they have in the past. Placing the blame on Boeing in this instance is conjecture. The investigation is not complete.
simion314 3y ago
From what I heard is that Boeing does the final assembly , they get that door out and put it back in, then at the end pressurize the interior to 1.5X the normal pressure and test the plane. Since this also was a new plane I do not see how Boeing can find a different scapegoat.
j-a-a-p 3y ago
> it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus So, how then is Boeing rewarded with this website and Airbus not if they are using the same supplier? Next step will be a plugin that filters these 737max from Kayak.
Symbiote 3y ago
> Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus True, but the main Spirit Aerosystems factories making Airbus components are in the UK, except for "central section panels" of the A350, which are made in the USA. The British factories used to be BAE and Bombardier factories, so it's very possible for there to be different working methods, culture etc. https://www.spiritaero.com/company/programs/ https://www.spiritaero.com/company/programs/
- kube-system 3y ago
  Right, I'm not saying that anyone should avoid them. I'm suggesting that "guilty by association" is a silly way to filter the planes someone flies on.
nolok 3y ago
1 - it really doesn't matter, delegating your manufacturing to a subcontractor doesn't absolve you of ensuring the product is made properly 2 - it's made in a former Boeing plant, that boeing sold to an investment fund and then contract work to, so if your point is "that's not how REAL boeing manufacturing is done" well that's certainly where boeing is heading its manufacturing. 3 - The plane is designed, certified, assembled, inspected and then sold by Boeing. If I buy a ford and the door falls off randomly after two weeks, I don't care which subcontractor made the door, I give ford an angry warranty call.
- kube-system 3y ago
  I understand all of that. My point is that people avoiding all 737 MAX variants over an issue specifically on plug doors that are no longer in the air, that we don't even know why they failed, are illogically filtering their flight options.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    > over an issue specifically on plug doors that are no longer in the air ... on the same type of plane that had the controls wrong enough to cause two crashes? People can see a pattern there...
    - nolok 3y ago
      Oh yes but that's a different type of MAX though ! No, not the one with the engine nacelle falling potential issue that we don't have a fix but want the FAA to ignore, the other one ! Out of the 3 current MAX types, one killed people two times and the other two have unresolved issues (one that make it fail FAA certification, and the other that make it lose parts of fuselage in flight ...). And then Boeing ask for fast track certification on the 4th type, because they've been doing such a great job so far.
  - nolok 3y ago
    But virtually no one really is avoiding it over that, they're avoiding because of the multitude of various faults and issue over the entire MAX line that makes it highly unlikely that there isn't something else coming.
consumer451 3y ago
The 737 fuselage is shipped from Spirit to Boeing without an interior. The door plugs are removed by Boeing during the interior installation. It is up to Boeing to reinstall them properly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38920716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38920716
- kube-system 3y ago
  We don't know whether the reason they are failing is due to an installation issue or not.
  - consumer451 3y ago
    We don't know for sure, but informed speculation indicates that this is likely the problem. See the replies to my link above. However, you are correct. Until the final NTSB report comes out, we don't know.
    - shermantanktop 3y ago
      This type of delay is of strategic value to the status quo. "We need to wait until all the facts are in," "investigations take time," "We're still looking at root causes and it is premature to..." These statements may be factually true, but the time it takes allows people to be distracted by something else, passions to cool, and urgency to dissipate. It's no brainwave for Boeing or anyone else (e.g. the NTSB, on Boeing's behalf) to realize that the slower and more methodical the investigation, the lower the final penalty (of whatever kind) will probably be, at least for one-off incidents. When the track record gets long, the actual quality of the investigations may start weighing against them...eventually.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        Public opinion isn't a functional way to increase transportation safety anyway. All measurable increases in any form of transportation safety are due to regulatory reasons. The people who matter on this issue aren't going to forget.
sorokod 3y ago
Spirit AeroSystems may have it's own subcontractors, they may have their own, etc... and buck needs to stop somewhere. The the airliner is called "Boeing 737 MAX" and not "Spirit AeroSystems - Boeing 737 MAX" which makes it pretty clear where overall accountability sits.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Right, but this website isn't for regulators to assign accountability. This website is for people to choose what plane they fly on. Choosing to not to fly on a MAX 8 because a MAX 9 has a part that is failing, is jumping to conclusions. If someone wants to jump that far, maybe they should avoid the Airbus A220 because it has wings made by Spirit AeroSystems. There's a lot of finger pointing going on when nobody knows why the doors are falling off yet.
  - wasmitnetzen 3y ago
    The MAX 8 killed more than 300 people due to Boeing's culture. This incident is a fair indication that this culture hasn't changed.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      You don't know if this issue was due to a cultural problem at Boeing, because you don't know the reason the doors came off.
      - wasmitnetzen 3y ago
        That's why I said it's an indication, and not an actual proof.
  - sorokod 3y ago
    I'll assume you are arguing in good faith so... People are angry, concerned and not willing to wait for NTSB to complete their investigations and see what if anything the FAA will do with the conclusions. People are applying a heuristic and for many the outcome (correct in my opinion) is that Boeing should not be trusted.
ketchupdebugger 3y ago
If my brand new Honda's door fell off when I'm on the highway, I'm not blaming the door manufacturer I'm blaming Honda
- kube-system 3y ago
  When Takata airbags failed across the industry, we blamed Takata, even if the manufacturers had to clean up the mess.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    That's because the failure was entirely internal to the airbags. If the problem were with the installation of the airbags in the vehicles, then we'd have looked at the carmakers.
KoftaBob 3y ago
> the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus. Why would a company with the resources of Boeing choose to contract out such an important part of their planes, rather than vertically integrate that?
- Brananarchy 3y ago
  Boeing has been selling off various parts of its manufacturing for years to investment firms, then contracting out to what used to be their own factories. They are intentionally de-integrating (disintegrating?). Some say this is for union-busting. Others say it's "just" boardroom financial engineering. Whatever the reason, Boeing clearly hasn't cared about being a manufacturing company for a long time.
t8sr 3y ago
According to their wikipedia page, at least, Spirit AeroSystems are a Boeing spinoff in any case, and something like 85% of their sales is only to Boeing. It seems like corporate budget maneuver, and a distinction I, a member of the flying public, don't really care about.

dralley 3y ago

True, but as integrator, Boeing is still responsible for ensuring the quality of the final product.

btown 3y ago
And, importantly, it's entirely consistent to hold off on blaming any singular party until the investigation is complete, while simultaneously not wanting to personally fly on a 737 Max!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jessriedel 3y ago
You can also argue that the airline is responsible for operating only quality products
- ghaff 3y ago
  An airline is responsible more for safely operating the aircraft (including most maintenance). An airline really isn't in a position to verify every design detail of an aircraft any more than you're responsible for verifying there are no potential design flaws in your (much simpler) car that could potentially cause someone injury.
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    I think airlines are a lot more responsible for verifying design flaws in their airplane than I am in my car. First, they are a giant business which has way more resources to do this. Second, they are selling a service. If I was running a US taxi service and bought a fleet of flawed Indian cars that caused crashes, I think I would be partially responsible.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      They're responsible for using street legal cars, yes. But I don't see any taxi company being responsible if they used GM cars that turned out to have a defective ignition switch back in the day for example. I assume airlines do some degree of due diligence and, I believe they choose the engine type if there are options available but you probably overestimate the ability of a business whose primary job is to ferry passengers from point A to point B to do a serious design verification of every tiny detail of an aircraft. And those details can be tiny; take the case of the Airbus engine disassembly mentioned elsewhere on this thread.
    - mkipper 3y ago
      This analogy isn't very convincing to me. Car manufacturing is a regulated industry. When I buy a car in the USA, even for my taxi business, I shouldn't need to hire a team of engineers to verify that it was properly designed and won't spontaneously combust. I should be able to assume that if the car is being legally sold to the public in the USA, the manufacturer has demonstrated that it meets some basic safety requirements set out by the government. I obviously have some _operational_ responsibilities (e.g. taking my taxis out of service if they're recalled for a design flaw), but I wouldn't consider myself responsible at all if my taxi happened to be the first 2025 Toyota Camry that spontaneously combusted from some design flaw. Regulators aren't perfect but this is one reason they exist. The FAA has a set of requirements for manufacturing and selling planes in the USA and they have a set of requirements for operating an airline. If I'm operating an airline and the FAA tells me that the verification of an airplane's design and its assembly is the manufacturer's responsibility and not mine, I don't think it's fair to hold me responsible if my brand new airplane falls from the sky because of a design flaw.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  The US justice system has a notion of "joint and several liability", where we say "both parties are guilty and both are liable for the damages". I think that applies here: - It's the assembler's responsibility to make sure the exit door bolts are properly tightened, and - It's the manufacturer's responsibility to find assemblers that correctly tighten door bolts, and the manufacturer's responsibility to design doors that don't explode, and - It's the airline's responsibility to find manufacturers that design planes with not exploding doors, which are assembled by assemblers that correctly tighten door bolts, and checked by the airline's own maintenance teams during regular servicing of the planes. Everyone should be looking over and double-checking everyone else's work. But that's not how the 737 MAX was designed or built.

diggan 3y ago

Did you comment on the wrong story? The submission doesn't seem to try to assign blame to either Boeing or Spirit AeroSystems, but tries to just give you a true/false depending on if they airplane you're going with is a 737 Max.

kube-system 3y ago
It has obvious topical context.
- diggan 3y ago
  Just because the website happens to be about 737 Max, does it mean absolutely everything related to Boeing is on-topic in this submission? Especially discussions related to who to blame for (the recent) mishaps?
  - vikramkr 3y ago
    Umm, yes? This website is obviously on the front page because of the recent mishaps so that's literally the most on topic possible topic to discuss lol
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    This is like someone trying to argue the reason they like looking at breasts and sucking on nipples has nothing to do with being breast-fed as a child, and they are completely separate things and the correlation between them is irrelevant to bring up.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I am taking issue with the question implicitly begged by the submission.
- philipov 3y ago
  Regardless of who is ultimately at fault, this is about people not wanting to fly on these planes. They don't care if it was Boeing or if it was a subcontractor, they just want the information they need to cancel their flight or demand a different plane from the airline.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

thatguy0900 3y ago

Boeing is the one delivering the product, right? Why would it be not boeings fault they don't qa the bolts on their parts? If a cars doors kept falling off Noone would accept ford saying sorry it's the factory we bought it froms fault

kube-system 3y ago
We do in fact blame third parties for their components in regards to recalled components that are subbed out by final manufacturers. e.g. Takata airbags.
jldugger 3y ago
I think the concern is less about who's to _blame_ as much as "this filter may not be as effective as you think at avoiding this specific disaster."

kreeben 3y ago

I realized it months ago, years even and then I remembered an insight from decades ago. Boeing bad, mkay. Always has been.

Rebelgecko 3y ago
Coincidentally, decades ago Spirit Aerosystems was still just the "Boeing Wichita division"

adrr 3y ago

Who is response for the QA of components and workmanship? It looks like its was loose bolts from information released from United Airlines and there was a notice to check for loose bolts on the Max.

steelbrain 3y ago
> and there was a notice to check for loose bolts on the Max. For a different part of the aircraft, yes. I don't think airlines check for every loose bolt ever when the bulletin says something specific.

Matl 3y ago

We know that Boeing has a lot of Q&A problems with these planes and are taking all kinds of shortcuts. It seems the blame should be placed squarely on Boeing.

kube-system 3y ago
We know they have in the past. Placing the blame on Boeing in this instance is conjecture. The investigation is not complete.

simion314 3y ago

From what I heard is that Boeing does the final assembly , they get that door out and put it back in, then at the end pressurize the interior to 1.5X the normal pressure and test the plane. Since this also was a new plane I do not see how Boeing can find a different scapegoat.

j-a-a-p 3y ago

> it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus So, how then is Boeing rewarded with this website and Airbus not if they are using the same supplier? Next step will be a plugin that filters these 737max from Kayak.

Symbiote 3y ago

> Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus True, but the main Spirit Aerosystems factories making Airbus components are in the UK, except for "central section panels" of the A350, which are made in the USA. The British factories used to be BAE and Bombardier factories, so it's very possible for there to be different working methods, culture etc. https://www.spiritaero.com/company/programs/ https://www.spiritaero.com/company/programs/

kube-system 3y ago
Right, I'm not saying that anyone should avoid them. I'm suggesting that "guilty by association" is a silly way to filter the planes someone flies on.

nolok 3y ago

1 - it really doesn't matter, delegating your manufacturing to a subcontractor doesn't absolve you of ensuring the product is made properly 2 - it's made in a former Boeing plant, that boeing sold to an investment fund and then contract work to, so if your point is "that's not how REAL boeing manufacturing is done" well that's certainly where boeing is heading its manufacturing. 3 - The plane is designed, certified, assembled, inspected and then sold by Boeing. If I buy a ford and the door falls off randomly after two weeks, I don't care which subcontractor made the door, I give ford an angry warranty call.

kube-system 3y ago
I understand all of that. My point is that people avoiding all 737 MAX variants over an issue specifically on plug doors that are no longer in the air, that we don't even know why they failed, are illogically filtering their flight options.
- nottorp 3y ago
  > over an issue specifically on plug doors that are no longer in the air ... on the same type of plane that had the controls wrong enough to cause two crashes? People can see a pattern there...
  - nolok 3y ago
    Oh yes but that's a different type of MAX though ! No, not the one with the engine nacelle falling potential issue that we don't have a fix but want the FAA to ignore, the other one ! Out of the 3 current MAX types, one killed people two times and the other two have unresolved issues (one that make it fail FAA certification, and the other that make it lose parts of fuselage in flight ...). And then Boeing ask for fast track certification on the 4th type, because they've been doing such a great job so far.
- nolok 3y ago
  But virtually no one really is avoiding it over that, they're avoiding because of the multitude of various faults and issue over the entire MAX line that makes it highly unlikely that there isn't something else coming.

consumer451 3y ago

The 737 fuselage is shipped from Spirit to Boeing without an interior. The door plugs are removed by Boeing during the interior installation. It is up to Boeing to reinstall them properly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38920716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38920716

kube-system 3y ago
We don't know whether the reason they are failing is due to an installation issue or not.
- consumer451 3y ago
  We don't know for sure, but informed speculation indicates that this is likely the problem. See the replies to my link above. However, you are correct. Until the final NTSB report comes out, we don't know.
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    This type of delay is of strategic value to the status quo. "We need to wait until all the facts are in," "investigations take time," "We're still looking at root causes and it is premature to..." These statements may be factually true, but the time it takes allows people to be distracted by something else, passions to cool, and urgency to dissipate. It's no brainwave for Boeing or anyone else (e.g. the NTSB, on Boeing's behalf) to realize that the slower and more methodical the investigation, the lower the final penalty (of whatever kind) will probably be, at least for one-off incidents. When the track record gets long, the actual quality of the investigations may start weighing against them...eventually.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Public opinion isn't a functional way to increase transportation safety anyway. All measurable increases in any form of transportation safety are due to regulatory reasons. The people who matter on this issue aren't going to forget.

sorokod 3y ago

Spirit AeroSystems may have it's own subcontractors, they may have their own, etc... and buck needs to stop somewhere. The the airliner is called "Boeing 737 MAX" and not "Spirit AeroSystems - Boeing 737 MAX" which makes it pretty clear where overall accountability sits.

kube-system 3y ago
Right, but this website isn't for regulators to assign accountability. This website is for people to choose what plane they fly on. Choosing to not to fly on a MAX 8 because a MAX 9 has a part that is failing, is jumping to conclusions. If someone wants to jump that far, maybe they should avoid the Airbus A220 because it has wings made by Spirit AeroSystems. There's a lot of finger pointing going on when nobody knows why the doors are falling off yet.
- wasmitnetzen 3y ago
  The MAX 8 killed more than 300 people due to Boeing's culture. This incident is a fair indication that this culture hasn't changed.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    You don't know if this issue was due to a cultural problem at Boeing, because you don't know the reason the doors came off.
    - wasmitnetzen 3y ago
      That's why I said it's an indication, and not an actual proof.
- sorokod 3y ago
  I'll assume you are arguing in good faith so... People are angry, concerned and not willing to wait for NTSB to complete their investigations and see what if anything the FAA will do with the conclusions. People are applying a heuristic and for many the outcome (correct in my opinion) is that Boeing should not be trusted.

ketchupdebugger 3y ago

If my brand new Honda's door fell off when I'm on the highway, I'm not blaming the door manufacturer I'm blaming Honda

kube-system 3y ago
When Takata airbags failed across the industry, we blamed Takata, even if the manufacturers had to clean up the mess.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  That's because the failure was entirely internal to the airbags. If the problem were with the installation of the airbags in the vehicles, then we'd have looked at the carmakers.

KoftaBob 3y ago

> the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus. Why would a company with the resources of Boeing choose to contract out such an important part of their planes, rather than vertically integrate that?

Brananarchy 3y ago
Boeing has been selling off various parts of its manufacturing for years to investment firms, then contracting out to what used to be their own factories. They are intentionally de-integrating (disintegrating?). Some say this is for union-busting. Others say it's "just" boardroom financial engineering. Whatever the reason, Boeing clearly hasn't cared about being a manufacturing company for a long time.

t8sr 3y ago

According to their wikipedia page, at least, Spirit AeroSystems are a Boeing spinoff in any case, and something like 85% of their sales is only to Boeing. It seems like corporate budget maneuver, and a distinction I, a member of the flying public, don't really care about.