Anyone else feeling nervous about these Boeing issues?

[Anthony1971]

My cousin has worked for Boeing's commercial division for almost 30 years and after a lot of discussions I'm convinced that their current woes are entirely down to the company culture changing with the McDonnell Douglas merger. Boeing never had these kinds of issues before because engineers were leading the way and not the bean counters. After the merger, the profit driven penny pinching corner cutting mentality came from McDs. Talk to current and former employees and it's very obvious where the problems are and that will not change without government intervention imo. In the meantime I'm sticking with Airbus. IIRC Delta has orders for the 737 Max but they are still unfulfilled.

Lets just say there are absolutely culture issues within Boeing. The real issue in better words is they have chosen CEO's that are finance based.... prior CEO's were engineers. The current Board is very much aware of this and is looking to replace the Current CEO with an Engineer background when Dave retires.
I put 0 faith in government intervention other than a sideshow. Boeing's commercial planes are only part of the business take a gander at the Govt weapons contracts and NASA to see where the real money comes from. The Board needs to do the right thing in this case as a Finance person will always be a Finance person...... Boeing should have and always have an Engineer and a Finance person on top to balance what is needed to both make a great product and a profit. Traditionally the CEO and CFO. While it is easy to say cost cutting penny pinching you just can't expect a pot to do the same job as a frying pan but if you have both you can cook up a great meal. In Boeings case you have all pots as of now.

 

[Lesverts]

United and Delta fly planes that have been out of production for 18 years or more. Hawaiian does as well. And not even joking, if it wasn't for COVID Delta would be still flying MD aircraft and American would be joining the other two in still flying 757s. American regional carriers have fleets that average age out to be in the 20 to 30 year range. The chance of bad maintenance on these aircraft should be a lot scarier than the MAXs.

 

[LoveDaisy]

Another day another issue.

United Airlines Boeing Plane Panel Breaks Off Mid-Flight, Emergency Landing
https://www.tmz.com/2024/03/15/unit...anel-breaks-off-mid-flight-emergency-landing/

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I visit an aviation forum and the general consensus after the MCAS crashes was that the Max planes were the most heavily scrutinized planes in the air after being grounded. People in the industry said they would fly on them without hesitation. Now those same people are very, very quiet.

They’re quiet because this isn’t a discourse that is worthwhile for them to wade into. The media has sensationalized it all to the point that anyone who’s an expert or knowledgable won’t be believed.

But the fact of the matter is that these incidents had zero fatalities, zero injuries, were handled perfectly by the crew, and otherwise would not have made the news were it not for the Alaska flight (which is an issue that has been corrected). Not to mention a few of them are more on the airline than Boeing.

If Boeing wasn’t airworthy, the FAA would’ve grounded them. They’re fine and the hundreds of thousands that will fly on them today, tomorrow, the next day, and on will be fine.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I thought the consensus was if anyone was seated next to the door plug they would have been killed.

Someone WAS seated by the door plug and he is very much alive.

 

[gottalovepluto]

Someone WAS seated by the door plug and he is very much alive.

He was seated in the middle seat. No one was in the window seat which consensus says would have been fatal.

 

[pigletgirl]

Another day another issue.

United Airlines Boeing Plane Panel Breaks Off Mid-Flight, Emergency Landing
https://www.tmz.com/2024/03/15/unit...anel-breaks-off-mid-flight-emergency-landing/

After watching the Boeing documentary on Netflix, nothing is surprising anymore. Flying used to be safe, but will it continue to be?

 

[DebbieB]

My first trip to Disney in 1994 was about a month after my second cousin died on USAir 427 (outside Pittsburgh). That was a mysterious 737 accident took awhile to solve. Didn’t stop me, it was even on USAir, not sure plane model. I used to fly a lot for work, at one time I estimated over 400 flights. Can’t say I’ve ever feared for my safety. I’ve flown the Max a couple times, actually liked it.

 

[EACarlson]

Another day another issue.

United Airlines Boeing Plane Panel Breaks Off Mid-Flight, Emergency Landing
https://www.tmz.com/2024/03/15/unit...anel-breaks-off-mid-flight-emergency-landing/

Horrible inaccurate headline, not a surprise given the source. Panel was found to be missing on the post flight inspection. Nothing was noted during flight, flight operated as scheduled and there was no emergency landing. It wasn't even a diversion, the flight was scheduled SFO-MFD. Industry experts that have looked at the picture noted it was probably a component fatigue issue as all fasteners are still in place. Difference here between many other incidents is that someone on the ground took a picture and sold it to TMZ. Also of note, this was a 25 year old 737-800. I would put that much more on United than on Boeing, if were something preventable.

 

[tony67]

I did want to mention - its not just Boeing with issues.

Does everyone forget the issues with Air Bus engines and counterfeit parts?
There were no major issues luckily, but still it was concerning at the time.

Just wanted to be fair to Boeing.

Also - I mentioned earlier I avoid Embraer - supposedly they are the safest.

 

[Sparrow'sLady]

I am not worried because I will not live in fear, but I admit it is concerning how many incidents there have been in the past few weeks. We flew from Ft Lauderdale to Dallas last week. I prayed and got on the plane, not worried about it.

Hopefully they will stop hiring based upon DEI and ensure they are hiring qualified people. These two things happening at the same time may just be coincidence, but I doubt it.

 

[Lesverts]

Boeings problems stem from Wall Street not who they hire. Boeing started the Yellowstone Project. It was going to be a wholesale changeover of Boeings fleet offerings. A replacement for the 717/727/737, a replacement for the 757/767 and a replacement for the 747/777. The only part of the project that came to completion was the replacement for the 757/767 which became the 787. The current best plane Boeing produces and the only one that is winning against Airbus's direct competition. The 737 replacement was scuttled in favour a cheaper project to redevelop the current generation of 737s into the MAX series and the other project was scuttled in favour of 'improvements' to the 777 that has become the 777x. Cost cutting and lack of vision derailed Yellowstone. And now the Airbus next gen A320s and A350s are walking all over Boeing's offerings. The A350 being used for Project Sunshine and for every other ULH route. The engineers got ahead of the 'investors' to get the 787 to market but not the new planes. And have been preventing Boeing from starting on the 797 as well. And if Boeing keeps up with their BS the A330neo will start to take away orders from the 787-10.

 

[Karin1984]

I used to work for Air France KLM during the AF 447 crash. That was an Airbus.

I got a passenger on the phone who didn't want to fly Airbus anymore and asked her flight to be changed to Boeing. This was before we knew that most likely this crash was a human error.

I put her on a different flight that was scheduled to be operated by a Boeing plane. With the message that there is never a guarantee. It can always happen that a change in the operation gets made and equipment change is not something we informed our passengers about (only schedule changes & cancellations).

So, if you do not want to fly Boeing, see if you can change your flight, but keep in mind no guarantees.

 

[jec6613]

Does everyone forget the issues with Air Bus engines and counterfeit parts?

Still ongoing issues with the A320 and A320neo aircraft and constant engine issues, actually. Statistically, you're much more likely to suffer an aircraft failure that causes a diversion on an A320 series than a 737 series, but because that headline doesn't sell, you won't hear about it. And of course, nobody in MSM is talking about the 737MAX engine issues with the ability to melt the cowling via the anit-ice system.

The most important thing I've found, statistically, is to fly on a US flagged carrier. US aircrews are trained to standards and held to rest period standards, and have so many no-fault outs, that most of the rest of the world, including Europe, find the US policies ridiculous and overblown. But in the last 15 years, there has been exactly one fatality on US commercial airlines, when the WN 737 had an uncontained engine failure a few years back. The MCAS issues on the 737 MAX? Happened twice to US aircrews (one UA and I think the other was AA), got reported, and a fix was in the works before it happened to the two accident aircraft overseas. Edit: yes, there was a rule change about 20 years ago after a mishap in upstate NY caused by pilot fatigue.

That said, the entire airline experience and transit time has gotten so poor post-COVID with the various connecting airport issues and service cuts that it's entirely reasonable to take a 1,000 mile train trip - I lose less time in the destination than I do by flying up to ~900 miles or so.

Edit: it was 15 years, not 20. Still astoundingly good though.

 

[sam_gordon]

But in the last 20 years, there has been exactly one fatality on US commercial airlines, when the WN 737 had an uncontained engine failure a few years back.

Sorry, no. Delta Flight 5191, August 27, 2006, took off from the wrong runway at Blue Grass airport in Lexington, KY. 47 passengers and two out of three crew killed.

Had nothing to do with mechanical error though. Maybe that's what you meant?

 

[japanese maple]

Still ongoing issues with the A320 and A320neo aircraft and constant engine issues, actually. Statistically, you're much more likely to suffer an aircraft failure that causes a diversion on an A320 series than a 737 series, but because that headline doesn't sell, you won't hear about it. And of course, nobody in MSM is talking about the 737MAX engine issues with the ability to melt the cowling via the anit-ice system.

The most important thing I've found, statistically, is to fly on a US flagged carrier. US aircrews are trained to standards and held to rest period standards, and have so many no-fault outs, that most of the rest of the world, including Europe, find the US policies ridiculous and overblown. But in the last 20 years, there has been exactly one fatality on US commercial airlines, when the WN 737 had an uncontained engine failure a few years back. The MCAS issues on the 737 MAX? Happened twice to US aircrews (one UA and I think the other was AA), got reported, and a fix was in the works before it happened to the two accident aircraft overseas. Edit: yes, there was a rule change about 20 years ago after a mishap in upstate NY caused by pilot fatigue.

That said, the entire airline experience and transit time has gotten so poor post-COVID with the various connecting airport issues and service cuts that it's entirely reasonable to take a 1,000 mile train trip - I lose less time in the destination than I do by flying up to ~900 miles or so.

.

 

[jec6613]

Sorry, no. Delta Flight 5191, August 27, 2006, took off from the wrong runway at Blue Grass airport in Lexington, KY. 47 passengers and two out of three crew killed.

Had nothing to do with mechanical error though. Maybe that's what you meant?

I meant overall. Mechanical failures happen, fortunately they've become more rare (and most aren't as spectacular as a 737 door plug landing on the ground), but how the aircrew handles them makes all the difference.

And, my mistake, it was Colgan Air 3407 that caused the rule re-write in 2009. So 15 years, not 20 (I'll edit original post). Regardless, a single accident fatality among the billions of passengers (2022 had over 800 Million on its own) is an astounding statistic - simply walking to the gate is more likely to end in a fatal trip and fall than an issue with the flight.

 

[lowlight]

Anyone listening to the whistleblower testify to Congress regarding the 787 and 777 issues? Interesting.

 

[SL6827]

I worked in a GE plant for nearly 20 years, on the floor, hourly employee. We built stoves.
Been gone 5 years. The last 8-10 years I was there, they ran that place as lean as possible. Still is I'm sure. Turnover rate, through the roof. The quality went way down and they couldn't have cared less. It was all about $$$$$. Bet Boeing has been doing the same.

 

[Captain UP]

Saw an interesting note today that might clear some things up here:

It has been widely reported that Boeing has had far more official "incidents" than Airbus has. BUT...

The source of that info is the NTSB- the United States' Transportation and Safety Board. Not a bad source for sure. However...the NTSB investigates all incidents that take place in the US AND all incidents abroad on American built aircraft. Almost all Boeing planes are built in the US and zero Airbus planes are.

Meaning, if you are flying in Europe on an Airbus plane that has an issue, that will never get reported by the NTSB. But same place, same incident on a Boeing craft and it's reported.

Kind of skews the data...a lot.