4 ms·

Alaska was the airline who had their door ripped off. A reasonable take is to expect them to want to ensure that things like that don't happen again. PR is an a

Alaska was the airline who had their door ripped off. A reasonable take is to expect them to want to ensure that things like that don't happen again. PR is an added bonus.

zuppy 3y ago
same Alaska that knew there is something wrong with the pressure, but decided to continue flying with their plane, just not over the water: https://apnews.com/article/alaska-airlines-portland-oregon-emergency-landing-aab8ee1e594369ab48fa3ce60f3acdc6 https://apnews.com/article/alaska-airlines-portland-oregon-e... not saying they’re completely guilty, but they do have some part of the fault in that incident.
- XzAeRosho 3y ago
  Pressurization problems are not uncommon in aviation. Most planes will drop to a safer altitude or divert to "safer" routes in case something goes wrong. They did what they are supposed to do in those circumstances. I'm finding these type of apologists comments placing fault towards the airline really hard to sympathize with.
  - lupire 3y ago
    How would you feel if you were on a flight where a door fell off, and the pilot said "only 2% of flights on this specific plane have had unexplained depressurization, and now we have an explanation, folks"?
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      They hadn’t had unexpected depressurization. They had an error in one of the redundant automatic controllers for pressurization. That controller isn’t even required equipment. Airplanes fly around ALL THE TIME with equipment that isn’t working. They have a procedure for determining what is and isn’t necessary for a given flight both legally and by the airlines own standards. In this case it very much looks like the pressurization controller was a red herring.
    - mips_r4300i 3y ago
      I was on a flight where the ADS-B transponder failed (the captain told us after takeoff) and they got approval to change routes, lower the flight ceiling and we continued on our way.
- HankB99 3y ago
  I don't understand why you are being downvoted. The pressurization warnings are a recorded fact. What I have not heard is if the problems with the door plug are connected to the warnings.
  - cityofdelusion 3y ago
    Alaska followed standard procedures in aviation for pressurization issues. Downvotes are probably from people with aviation knowledge/experience.
    - HankB99 3y ago
      Thanks for that explanation. I'm ignorant of the inner workings of the aviation industry. Edit: If that warning was, in fact, an indication of the door plug problem then perhaps the reaction to that warning should be reviewed.
  - jvolkman 3y ago
    NTSB has said there is no indication that those warning lights were correlated, and that the pressurization system is triple-redundant and only the first layer was generating warnings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGWLBLb9Pm4&t=521s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGWLBLb9Pm4&t=521s
- lupire 3y ago
  It's a tough question. If a plane starts behaving a little wonky, per sensor, but you can't figure out what the sensor is complaining about, and the sensor doesn't match human observation, do you have to throw it away? What fraction of planes would be discarded under this model?
  - retrocryptid 3y ago
    "I would recommend that we put the unit back in operation and let it fail. It should then be a simple matter to track down the cause."
  - raegis 3y ago
    You don't have to throw it away. Just ground it and test.
- samus 3y ago
  Pressure loss can be mitigated by dropping oxygen masks and descending to a lower altitude. The plane falling apart is more tricky. The door leading to pressure loss is a red herring. What about a wing falling off?
  - retrocryptid 3y ago
    I don't think the wing fell off the plane and there are several types of failures which are distressing short of the wing falling off.
    - samus 3y ago
      The wing was an exaggeration. Plenty of other critical parts could fall off.
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  Apropos the discussion of the warning lights, it sounds like there may be some human factors engineering issues as well. https://youtu.be/5FcyvFfHsjQ https://youtu.be/5FcyvFfHsjQ It would be nice to get the black box data, but Alaska mishandled the box and allowed it to write over data from the flight in question. Oops.
retrocryptid 3y ago
Sure, but grounding planes doesn't buy Alaska's (or Boeing's) CEO a new yacht. I suspect they will spend the minimum amount of time necessary, modulo whatever amount of time the IR and PR people think makes it appear they've accomplished something. I don't think PR is an added bonus, I think it's the entire point.
- cj 3y ago
  Even if the only care they had is PR, they surely realize that the worst possible PR for Boeing and Alaska is for these incidents to begin happening on a regular basis, which will lead to consumers flying less, which leads to less demand for Boeing airplanes. If I were a PR person, thinking only about PR (not caring about anything else), the #1 thing that seems obvious is "what do we need to do to have these incidents stop occurring ASAP". Or they could be just putting on a show like you're suggesting, but that would do a huge disservice from a PR perspective if that results in the underlying issues not being fixed. "Door fell off airplane during flight" headlines a couple times a month would be some of the worst PR you could possibly have (with the exception of planes crashing, obviously even worse)
- jpalawaga 3y ago
  I don't agree. This is a pivotal moment. If these planes start falling out of the air, it could be the end of alaska. they've been through serious air disasters before and have scar tissue from it. and if it is strictly a pr thing, the auditors go to boeing, take some pr photos, have a beer, and go home, then they deserve to fail.
wkat4242 3y ago
They're also the airline that skimped so much on maintenance that a stabilizer jackscrew nut was stripped bare and killed almost a hundred people in a crash off the coast of LA. https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-price-of-an-hour-the-crash-of-alaska-airlines-flight-261-c797a7c3d90d https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-price-of-an-hour-the... They also fired the mechanic that raised this issue before the accident. It could have been avoided if they had only listened to him. It is indeed a bit ironic.
- jjulius 3y ago
  Very valid point, but it's been twenty-three years since that crash - is it irony, or an attempt to be better than that? Hard for any of us to say, but the fact that they're taking these steps now suggests that perhaps it's moreso the latter.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Did they re-hire the fired mechanic? If not, then it's all smoke and mirrors.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      Well that's just baseless speculation.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        it's not baseless at all. any company that has any respect for quality, safety, and its employees do not fire the employee that brings attention to poor quality resulting in diminished safety either for the employees or the customer.

Alaska was the airline who had their door ripped off. A reasonable take is to expect them to want to ensure that things like that don't happen again. PR is an added bonus.

zuppy 3y ago

same Alaska that knew there is something wrong with the pressure, but decided to continue flying with their plane, just not over the water: https://apnews.com/article/alaska-airlines-portland-oregon-emergency-landing-aab8ee1e594369ab48fa3ce60f3acdc6 https://apnews.com/article/alaska-airlines-portland-oregon-e... not saying they’re completely guilty, but they do have some part of the fault in that incident.

XzAeRosho 3y ago
Pressurization problems are not uncommon in aviation. Most planes will drop to a safer altitude or divert to "safer" routes in case something goes wrong. They did what they are supposed to do in those circumstances. I'm finding these type of apologists comments placing fault towards the airline really hard to sympathize with.
- lupire 3y ago
  How would you feel if you were on a flight where a door fell off, and the pilot said "only 2% of flights on this specific plane have had unexplained depressurization, and now we have an explanation, folks"?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    They hadn’t had unexpected depressurization. They had an error in one of the redundant automatic controllers for pressurization. That controller isn’t even required equipment. Airplanes fly around ALL THE TIME with equipment that isn’t working. They have a procedure for determining what is and isn’t necessary for a given flight both legally and by the airlines own standards. In this case it very much looks like the pressurization controller was a red herring.
  - mips_r4300i 3y ago
    I was on a flight where the ADS-B transponder failed (the captain told us after takeoff) and they got approval to change routes, lower the flight ceiling and we continued on our way.
HankB99 3y ago
I don't understand why you are being downvoted. The pressurization warnings are a recorded fact. What I have not heard is if the problems with the door plug are connected to the warnings.
- cityofdelusion 3y ago
  Alaska followed standard procedures in aviation for pressurization issues. Downvotes are probably from people with aviation knowledge/experience.
  - HankB99 3y ago
    Thanks for that explanation. I'm ignorant of the inner workings of the aviation industry. Edit: If that warning was, in fact, an indication of the door plug problem then perhaps the reaction to that warning should be reviewed.
- jvolkman 3y ago
  NTSB has said there is no indication that those warning lights were correlated, and that the pressurization system is triple-redundant and only the first layer was generating warnings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGWLBLb9Pm4&t=521s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGWLBLb9Pm4&t=521s
lupire 3y ago
It's a tough question. If a plane starts behaving a little wonky, per sensor, but you can't figure out what the sensor is complaining about, and the sensor doesn't match human observation, do you have to throw it away? What fraction of planes would be discarded under this model?
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  "I would recommend that we put the unit back in operation and let it fail. It should then be a simple matter to track down the cause."
- raegis 3y ago
  You don't have to throw it away. Just ground it and test.
samus 3y ago
Pressure loss can be mitigated by dropping oxygen masks and descending to a lower altitude. The plane falling apart is more tricky. The door leading to pressure loss is a red herring. What about a wing falling off?
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  I don't think the wing fell off the plane and there are several types of failures which are distressing short of the wing falling off.
  - samus 3y ago
    The wing was an exaggeration. Plenty of other critical parts could fall off.
retrocryptid 3y ago
Apropos the discussion of the warning lights, it sounds like there may be some human factors engineering issues as well. https://youtu.be/5FcyvFfHsjQ https://youtu.be/5FcyvFfHsjQ It would be nice to get the black box data, but Alaska mishandled the box and allowed it to write over data from the flight in question. Oops.

retrocryptid 3y ago

Sure, but grounding planes doesn't buy Alaska's (or Boeing's) CEO a new yacht. I suspect they will spend the minimum amount of time necessary, modulo whatever amount of time the IR and PR people think makes it appear they've accomplished something. I don't think PR is an added bonus, I think it's the entire point.

cj 3y ago
Even if the only care they had is PR, they surely realize that the worst possible PR for Boeing and Alaska is for these incidents to begin happening on a regular basis, which will lead to consumers flying less, which leads to less demand for Boeing airplanes. If I were a PR person, thinking only about PR (not caring about anything else), the #1 thing that seems obvious is "what do we need to do to have these incidents stop occurring ASAP". Or they could be just putting on a show like you're suggesting, but that would do a huge disservice from a PR perspective if that results in the underlying issues not being fixed. "Door fell off airplane during flight" headlines a couple times a month would be some of the worst PR you could possibly have (with the exception of planes crashing, obviously even worse)
jpalawaga 3y ago
I don't agree. This is a pivotal moment. If these planes start falling out of the air, it could be the end of alaska. they've been through serious air disasters before and have scar tissue from it. and if it is strictly a pr thing, the auditors go to boeing, take some pr photos, have a beer, and go home, then they deserve to fail.

wkat4242 3y ago

They're also the airline that skimped so much on maintenance that a stabilizer jackscrew nut was stripped bare and killed almost a hundred people in a crash off the coast of LA. https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-price-of-an-hour-the-crash-of-alaska-airlines-flight-261-c797a7c3d90d https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-price-of-an-hour-the... They also fired the mechanic that raised this issue before the accident. It could have been avoided if they had only listened to him. It is indeed a bit ironic.

jjulius 3y ago
Very valid point, but it's been twenty-three years since that crash - is it irony, or an attempt to be better than that? Hard for any of us to say, but the fact that they're taking these steps now suggests that perhaps it's moreso the latter.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Did they re-hire the fired mechanic? If not, then it's all smoke and mirrors.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Well that's just baseless speculation.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      it's not baseless at all. any company that has any respect for quality, safety, and its employees do not fire the employee that brings attention to poor quality resulting in diminished safety either for the employees or the customer.