20 ms·
Alaska CEO: We found many loose bolts on our Max planes
- jauntywundrkind 3y agoOff topic as hell hopefully, but "Why we lubricate threaded fasteners was a semi recent submission & it's had surprising uhh sticking power in head. Lubrication overcomes a lot of friction that can create variability in tensioning. The standout example was giving students a bunch of torque wrenches & telling them to fasten a bolt, & then measuring the applied tension. And folks getting absurdly different numbers. The lubrication is there to allow the torque to consistently get applied. There could be all kinds of issues here, but this lesson on the difficult of bolting things consistently was interesting on its own & perhaps apropos. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38921339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38921339 https://reliabilitysolutions.net/articles/why-do-we-lubricate-threaded-fasteners/ https://reliabilitysolutions.net/articles/why-do-we-lubricat...
- rib3ye 3y agoThe scale of the issue is so big I am beginning to suspect industrial sabotage.
- belter 3y agohttps://youtu.be/IZf0bNDWH4s https://youtu.be/IZf0bNDWH4s
- bmy78 3y agoThey should have made the bit about Boeing instead.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoYes, the skit makes no sense.
- pstuart 3y agoIf a fire is lit under the right asses then that doesn't matter. Not that it's the intent, but it sure wouldn't hurt.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoSNL’s intent is not to “light a fire”, it is to be funny, which shaming the wrong party makes it not funny. And I don’t see how lighting a fire under the wrong entity’s ass helps anyone other than Boeing.
- pstuart 3y agoI noted the intent. Alaska has been lax in maintenance before (critically so, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261). If this pressure flows through to Boeing than so be it. I do agree that it would have been better to skewer Boeing directly but I can see why they chose the path they did.
- mmarquezs 3y agoIt makes sense as it parodies the typical Airlines ads/videos showing the new features, services etc. Yeah the fault is at Boeing but not like they do this kind of videos, or if they do most people wouldn't have seen them.
- solids 3y agoImagine how much money Boeing paid for having it this way.
- LeifCarrotson 3y agoThey never once mentioned the word Boeing. Every news article about the incident mentions the plane type, but not this skit. The plane in the green screen backdrop at the terminal isn't even a 737. The side windows on the cockpit of a 737 are lower than the front, on an A320 they're in a straight line like in the skit. I'm pretty sure that's an A320. Maybe the SNL lawyers were scared of getting sued and vetoed earlier scripts, or maybe they got paid off, or maybe my wife is right and I'm just a skeptic, but that seems suspicious.
- wasmitnetzen 3y agoThe "safety brochure" at 0:54 is titled "Boeing 737 MAX 9".
- throwanem 3y agoOn the other hand, the aircraft taking off with a slide deployed is a 737, so maybe they were working mostly with off-the-shelf assets to complete one skit in an entire show of same, and saved the relatively time-consuming animation work for where they had to use it. Presumably they assumed no one would be paying all that much attention to stuff like an aircraft out a terminal window in the background, which looks nothing much like Boeing or Airbus and would not much surprise me to learn was produced by a diffusion model.
- LeifCarrotson 3y agoGood catch, I didn't notice that or the safety brochure title.
- inputError 3y ago[dead]
- prmoustache 3y agoWell they still decided to fly that plane with the auto pressurization fail light going on several days in a row.
- rainbowzootsuit 3y agoOn these 'ole MAX planes they're used to just having to give it a Fonzarelli adjustment here and there. Ayyy!
- _shadi 3y agodisgusting, but I guess the airline is easier to bin it to than the airplane manufacturer who had airplane problems with multiple airlines.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dreamcompiler 3y ago"We're gonna go ahead and tighten some of those." Priceless.
- mort96 3y agoSurely this is the final nail in the coffin for the whole 737 Max?
- aerhardt 3y agoWouldn't trust the craftsmanship, better to cremate.
- baq 3y agothey survived two decades or so of penny wise pound foolish management, maybe they can weasel themselves out of this mess to keep the show going for another two
- checker659 3y agoNot until a tragedy hits too close to home (America, that is). I mean, we've had two 100% fatal crashes and yet here we are.
- SilverBirch 3y agoThe reality is that whether Boeing choose to do a re-brand of the Max, the underlying airplane is here to stay. For this class of airline, there are basically two suppliers in the west - Boeing and Airbus. Boeing has about 6,000 orders for the Max, and Airbus has about 10,000 orders for the A320 Neo. Airbus is delivering about 500 planes a year. So let's say an airline bites the bullet and cancels their orders for the Max and goes to Airbus - Airbus won't be able to deliver for the best part of a decade at best. Meanwhile, it would be enormously expensive for Boeing to design a replacement for the 737 Max from scratch and it still has tonnes of outstanding orders. And that's not even considering the fact that these airplanes have a lifespan of 25 years. So in general there's simply no replacement for the 737 Max. People will be flying on them for the foreseeable future unless something causes a massive drop in air travel.
- nottorp 3y ago> it would be enormously expensive for Boeing to design a replacement for the 737 Max from scratch and it still has tonnes of outstanding orders More expensive than not selling any of them?
- addandsubtract 3y agoAlaska [Airlines] CEO. We're still a few years away from states having CEOs.
- happytiger 3y agoFire the board and put an actual engineer in the CEO seat until the company gets fixed. The wrong culture of people are in charge and until this is addressed substantively there won’t be change. Radical action is required or the company could be destroyed.
- passwordoops 3y agoAnd criminal negligence charges. There needs to be a solid message sent to the quarterly-bonus profiteers
- ChatGTP 3y agoBoeing is in bed with the DOD, this is never going to happen.
- passwordoops 3y agoNot necessarily. The moment these issues hit critical systems you'll see a change. DoD officials have already sounded the alarm on monopoly in general: https://www.defenseone.com/business/2021/02/hicks-warns-against-extreme-consolidation-defense-industry/171811/ https://www.defenseone.com/business/2021/02/hicks-warns-agai...
- willcipriano 3y agoThe DoD has lost trillions of dollars of equipment. They will rattle sabers until their grandson gets a no show job.
- lovich 3y agoBillions I might believe over their history. Trillions id need to see some evidence of. Especially if “lost” is including combat losses
- 3y ago
- aurareturn 3y ago"We’re sending our audit people to audit their quality control systems and processes to make sure that every aircraft that comes off that production line, that comes to Alaska has the highest levels of excellence and quality," he said. This seems crazy to me. Alaska Airlines doesn't trust Boeing enough that they're sending their audit team to Boeing to check for quality. Though safety inspections were initially estimated to take between four and eight hours per plane, Whitaker said they’ve “been longer than that.” “We’ve required a lot of measurements,” he said. “Once the area’s exposed, we want to understand bolt tensions and gaps and things of that nature. So we’ve required more data than would normally be the case because we really wanted to understand the issue.” Also, the FAA is at Boeing checking their quality process. They're only doing it for the door and bolts. The problem is that we don't know which other parts and systems Boeing might have quality issues for. Yes, I'm confident they'll make the bolts tighter on the door. But what about the entire plane's quality check? I feel like the FAA should ground the plane until they audit every single thing about the plane. That's the only way I would personally feel confident.
- H8crilA 3y agoIt's interesting that they managed to get this access. It may be useful in the lawsuit that will surely follow.
- hhh 3y agoThis is pretty normal is it not? In the automotive world when you have quality or run rate problems the big 3 company will have someone on the line watching.
- swiftcoder 3y agoYeah, same for consumer tech. We always had our own people embedded in the manufacturing operations in China/Taiwan/Vietnam to keep things running smoothly and ensure there were no miscommunications around specifications.
- sokoloff 3y ago
- bjohnson225 3y ago"Alaska Airlines placed restrictions on the Boeing plane involved in a dramatic mid-air blowout after pressurisation warnings in the days before Friday's incident, investigators say." Boeing absolutely deserve every single bit of the criticism they get for the Max, but it's worth keeping in mind that in this instance Alaska possibly share some of the responsibility for flying an aircraft with known issues. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67909417 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67909417
- physicsguy 3y agoWhat do you expect them to do? Replacing a whole fleet of aircraft takes years.
- bjohnson225 3y agoNot fly the specific aircraft which had three pressurisation warnings in the days prior to incident until they've carried out some checks? They were serious enough that they decided it wasn't safe to fly that plane over water. Maybe the actions of Alaska Airlines were absolutely fine, but the CEO passing all the blame to Boeing before the incident report is understandable, but a little off to me.
- blantonl 3y agoIt was already determined that the pressurization warnings the aircraft received were irrelevant to the issue at hand.
- bjohnson225 3y agoSource? Looking on Google the closest I can find to your claim is the NTSB chair saying it might not be related after she gave out the details of the previous warning lights (as you'd expect in her position before the investigation has completed).
- stevehawk 3y ago
- andyish 3y agoIt's no surprise, just speak to some of the pilots and they'll tell you all sorts of stories.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tiborsaas 3y agoI have zero commercial airplane pilot friends, what have you heard?
- tyho 3y agoForgive me for my ignorance, but I understand that the only bolts which have been checked are those which secure door plugs. The checks have found that in many cases they are not tightened to spec. I imagine there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of bolts on an airliner. How is it that the industry has confidence in the rest of them, and that the investigations are limited to the plug door bolts?
- atdrummond 3y agoFor one, the door plugs are installed not by Boeing but by Spirit Aerosystems. Alaska’s maintenance will be focused on that specific vendor’s performance. Secondly, other bolts will be checked far more frequently as part of standard maintenance. Door plug fitments typically are only checked during heavy checks (which occur every few years depending on type and interval) unless there’s a specific incident that demands an immediate assessment.
- Adrig 3y agoA convincing explanation I saw is that usually all doors are loosely attached by the subcontractor, since Boeing needs to remove them to build the interior. Then puts them back to specs. A miscommunication probably happened where the plug doors were not tightened to specs same as every other doors, but Boeing didn't touch them (or checked) for their usual interior setup.
- yread 3y agoThe whistleblower said they don't usually do that but had to open this door (not remove it) and merely opening the door doesnt require someone to signoff on the bolts being put back in place
- andix 3y agoSounds plausible. But what if this is only one of many miscommunications with subcontractors?
- specialist 3y agoYou may have seen my comment. I was quoting my neighbor's speculation, who was career QA/QC at Boeing. Since then, we have the whistleblower's account. TLDR: A bureaucratic snafu where the record keeping didn't match the actual work. The repair of the plug's air seal was miscategorized ("reopen" vs "removal") in the system, so did not trigger the required post-repair inspection, which would have (most likely) spotted the missing nuts. My neighbor said he'll look into the whistleblower's account, though he admitted it was plausible. Also: IIRC, castle nuts, which use cotter pins, are used for the plug's bolts. Meaning no tightening or torquing. The pressure differential keeps the plugs sealed. The bolts just keep the plug in place. If I'm wrong on that, please correct me.
- Xenoamorphous 3y agoAs someone who doesn't know anything about aviation: is this really as bad as it sounds, or it's getting overblown?
- lotsofpulp 3y agoBoth. The risk to an individual passenger on an individual plane is overblown. The cultural changes at Boeing that led to a decrease in quality control that increased risk to all passengers on all planes is not overblown, and will take years and years to remedy. Their reputation (and by proxy, United States’ manufacturing since Boeing planes are one of the most publicly known American products) will not recover for decades I think.
- alluro2 3y agoSome planes fly 3-4 times each day. Each time, they carry ~150-200 people. They are incredibly mechanically, electronically and software -wise complex machines, and fly under huge range of conditions (number of conditions and range of values for each), withstanding elements, forces of physics, material exertion / fatigue etc etc. So if there's an airplane manufacturer, delivering hundreds of planes to airlines, where processes allow for something like this to happen to a plane, and it's confirmed that it wasn't a single exception, it really brings to question how many out of tens of thousands of parts/aspects of those planes do not meet the expected parameters/standards and how many disasters are waiting to happen.
- NDizzle 3y agoBoeing can’t even torque bolts correctly?! What on earth has happened?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dickersnoodle 3y agoThe company has been run by spreadsheet mechanics and now the bill is coming due.
- OnACoffeeBreak 3y ago4 years ago Boeing cut their quality inspection staff as part of its "Quality Transformation". "In the Puget Sound region, there are currently [2019] just over 3,000 Boeing Quality Inspectors, who typically work as a second set of eyes. For each of the tens of thousands of jobs that go into assembling an airplane, they formally sign off that it has been completed and done right. By the end of next year, Boeing’s plan would bring that down to not many more than 2,000 people." [0] "They got quality inspectors, quality managers, out of the picture," one former quality manager said, adding that the positions had been reduced from about 15 inspectors per building per shift, to one. [1] 0: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-overhauls-its-quality-controls-more-high-tech-tracking-but-fewer-inspectors/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein... 1: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1224998393/boeing-737-max-9-downfall-documentary https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1224998393/boeing-737-max-9-d...
- lupire 3y agoQuality is Job 1. Now that it's done we're on to Job 2.
- fuzzfactor 3y agoIOW rather than having "air-tight" procedures proven beforehand, apparently flight 1282 served as a full-scale early-warning system for the entire fleet, or the entire aircraft supplier, whichever is more realistic. How clever, you can't get much more realistic of a mock-up than that. The undeniability is undeniably palpable. Some people are just not quality people. Thankfully there weren't any fatalities this time, it may be risky but hey you pays your money and you takes your chances.
- bumby 3y agoThis is unfortunately common when cost and schedule take priority. Quality can be seen as an unnecessary cost that delays delivery, particularly when dealing with low-probability events. When the probability is low, you can roll the dice many times without consequence and convince yourself you're good rather than just lucky.
- 3y ago
- phkahler 3y agoI'm sure I'm biased by now, but reading this from Boeing: >> We are taking action on a comprehensive plan to bring these airplanes safely back to service and to improve our quality and delivery performance. We will follow the lead of the FAA and support our customers every step of the way.” I though "follow the lead of the FAA" because you are lost when it come to such things. Not the image I want in my head of a company that should be a leader in that area...
- haswell 3y agoWhy would following the lead of the single organization that has the most authority in this area an issue? They’ve made it clear they have their own auditors stepping in to assess Boeing’s processes, which doesn’t signal “lost”, and most of the public would see that comment about the FAA as a good thing I’d think.
- engcoach 3y agoBecause it shifts responsibility for leading a solution from the engineering org to a bureaucracy
- haswell 3y agoIn what way does this shift the responsibility, specifically? The responsibility here is clearly still on Boeing. But when it comes to public communication, no one trusts Boeing right now, so it makes sense to highlight the involvement of a governing body that is not Boeing. I realize there are major issues with the FAA/Boeing dynamic right now, but if the Alaska Airlines CEO instead said “We’re following Boeing’s lead in this matter”, I don’t think that would be an improvement.
- twisteriffic 3y agoThat'd be preemptive blame shifting so they can lean back and point fingers at the FAA the next time something breaks.
- AntiEgo 3y ago
- Jemm 3y agoSurely the fasteners use a captive nut like a castle nut and pin/wire. Loose doesn't mean much in that context.
- hnarn 3y agoThe type of fastener used doesn’t matter much if the bolt was missing completely, which is still a distinct possibility. Perhaps we'll never know, but at least some information will be disseminated sooner or later from the investigations now ongoing.
- tcbawo 3y agoIn college, I knew someone who went on to become a quartermaster for the US Army. They were in charge of a group that packed parachutes. As CO he was required to periodically jump with one of the parachutes that his team had packed. Having skin in the game provides a natural incentive to keep quality up. A commercial airplane is a tremendously complex piece of equipment. Failure can come over time and in unexpected places. But Boeing executives and high level managers should fly commercially rather than having a fleet of private jets. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. At this point, it seems likely that they will be forced to take some extreme measures to counteract the bad publicity.
- missedthecue 3y agoAccording to this article, their CEO and exec teams flies on a 737 Business Jet. https://fortune.com/2015/01/27/ceo-corporate-jet-perks/ https://fortune.com/2015/01/27/ceo-corporate-jet-perks/
- throwup238 3y agoIt’s their one plane that has all of its bolts.
- barbazoo 3y agoThey should get a random 737 MAX every time they fly, that'd change things up quickly!
- robofanatic 3y agoHow can one guarantee once tightened bolts remain tight forever?
- _ph_ 3y agoForever is a long time. But with proper engineering you have a setup which can be either guaranteed for the designated life time (using loctite or safety pins) or inspection intervals which would ensure tightness. Assuming of course, the bolts were installed correctly in the first place.
- trevvr 3y agoCastellated nuts and wire?
- hnarn 3y agoNothing can be “guaranteed” which is why proper procedure for inspection and maintenance exists. This whole controversy isn’t around random acts of god but the corruption of one of aviation’s most sacred and fundamental rules: that procedures are followed and improved, not stretched and bypassed for profit.
- lazide 3y agoIt’s unlikely in this situation that the bolts were ever tightened correctly the first time. There are plenty of ways to ensure bolts stay tight that work, and these plug doors have been in service on other planes for a long time with no issues. The entire rotor assembly (literally what holds it up) on some helicopters is held on by a single nut, for example. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut] This doesn’t appear to be a case of the engineers not designing it safely - but it not being installed correctly and no one catching it before it rolled out the door.
- tristor 3y ago> How can one guarantee once tightened bolts remain tight forever? Safety wiring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_wire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_wire This is actually required for some bolts per aviation regulations. I safety wired nearly every suspension/chassis bolt on my race car when I built it.
- kamaal 3y agoI saw some Netflix documentary a while back where they said after their merger with McDonnel Douglas. MD people took over, moved their head quarters out of their engineering place(in Seattle). To keep the decision makers and bean counters away from engineering culture, and pivot the company's culture from being engineering driven to be (more)profit focussed than it already was. With that of course comes things like firing Quality Assurance staff, and thinning out the need for safety and quality on the very long run. There also seems to be some sort of a feeling in these companies that might have maxed out of what they can do with passenger airline segment of products. So they have to pinch dollars to make more money. Once you arrive there, I do expect a long term slump in quality and trust. You don't arrive here in a day. Nor do you recover quickly from here, that is if you can recover at all.
- AYBABTME 3y agoSo which Boeing plane is well reputed at this point? I've been avoiding the MAX 8 if two flights were offered and one had another aircraft model, but I guess the entire MAX lineup is tainted now.
- switch007 3y ago747, 787, 737-600/700 (EDIT: not the 900), 777 (ish) Pretty much most except the MAX... https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-publishes-its-annual-safety-report/ https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-publishes-its-ann...
- aaronmdjones 3y agoThe 737-900 uses the same plug doors.
- switch007 3y agoThanks, edited
- seaourfreed 3y agoWith news titles like these... in other news, large numbers of people are shorting Boeing stock today.
- _ph_ 3y agoBy now one has to start to wonder why the doors didn't fell off much earlier. While Boeing has to change a lot about how they manufacture airplanes, the airlines themselves should install a much more aggressive process to look out for these kind of manufacturing defects. There needs to be processes in place where e.g. any loose bolt found during maintenance gets reported and tracked to spot these kind of things early on. On top of that, there should be random probing of the components of the plane.
- mechhacker 3y agoLoose bolts on the planes Loose screws at Boeing management
- nunez 3y agoBetween this and Scott Kirby (United CEO) saying they're removing the MAX10 from future planning, Boeing is in serious trouble, and Airbus should definitely break out the _good_ champagne.
- rogerbinns 3y agoIt doesn't really help Airbus. Their production lines are sold out for ~7 years. They expect to increase production over time, but there is a long complex supply chain, so it is a slow steady uptick, not a rapid change. (Rapid changes are also how you stress suppliers financially and cause quality issues.) Then engines on some Airbus planes are having supply problems too, and existing engines are requiring more maintenance and earlier parts replacements than expected, leading to grounded aircraft. It is very normal for airlines to mention the manufacturers, because that is how they do price negotiation.
- chris-orgmenta 3y agoI think this is a huge win for Airbus. Extra market barriers to entry, a hobbled competitor, a now (relatively) outstanding brand, eyes diverted from them, 10 years head start / catch-up, lessons to be learnt from Boeing, solid backing from shareholders, etc.
- hughesjj 3y agoI mean, afaik Airbus didn't overtake Boeing until the mcas issues and have done so consistently since then I'd imagine this will extend the saturation of demand for Airbus if nothing else https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2019/01/15/airbus-and-boeing-report-december-and-full-year-2018-commercial-aircraft-orders-and-deliveries/ https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2019/01/15/airbus-and-...
- hnarn 3y agoThe company that once was known for the phrase “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going” is now seeing airlines sending their own auditors. There’s really no other way to interpret this than a complete breakdown of trust and confidence. Absolutely wild.
- ryathal 3y agoAlternatively, Boeing has discovered a way to get QA for free.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThis is what the worker shortage feels like.
- skc 3y agoWhich aircraft manufacturers are currently rubbing their hands together ready to strike.
- SteveNuts 3y agoFor this class of airliner it’s really just Airbus and Boeing, unfortunately. Even if a smaller manufacturer decided to build a full size jet like the 737, it would take many years to construct a manufacturing facility capable of handling that. Embraer is probably the closest competitor, but they’ve only made 82 of their largest jet family according to Wikipedia. Only regional airlines use them. But this might be the time they decide to work towards that goal.
- iouwhldkfjgklj 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- andix 3y agoI guess Airbus won the war. There are passengers that don't want to fly on a Max plane, never heard of anyone that doesn't want to fly on Airbus. This might just be one more tiny reason for airlines to buy Airbus.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- _xerces_ 3y agoWow, so Boeing doesn't even make its own fuselage? That's like most of the plane and they spun that off into a separate business they are a customer of? It reminds me of the kind of corporate malfeasance that happened with Sears - sell of the buildings they own (to a company controlled by the CEO on the side) and make the individual stores rent them back and hope they can't pay so you can rent the space to more profitable tenants.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoSo is Boeing done? Can board of directors step in and replace all the McDonald Douglas C-suit.
- dickersnoodle 3y agoThe BoD is likely in cahoots with the McDonnel-Douglas suits. It would take a shareholder revolt to can them all and put engineers back in charge.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]