A window blown out of a 737 Max 9 has caused massive damage to a plane making a large hole, with a section of the fuselage falling to the ground and depressurizing the cabin.
This latest failure has caused Alaska airline to ground all 65 of its Max 9 aircraft.
This may cause disruption.
UPDATE - now the FAA has grounded all 171 of them.
To add a little detail - grounded for full inspection and plan to be back in service within a few days. It will be interesting if any other airlines follow suit.
It wasn't a window that blew, but a door plug that looks like a window-
From the Seattle Times [ST]-
The neat rectangular hole that appeared in the fuselage was located at the position where Boeing fits a plug to seal a door opening that is not used as a door by most airlines and by no U.S. carriers.
An emergency exit door is installed in that location only for jets going to low-cost carriers like Ryanair who cram in additional seats that require an extra emergency exit. Otherwise, the hole is sealed with a plug and from the inside it is covered by a sidewall so that to a passenger it looks like a normal window, not a door opening.
This plug, halfway between the over-wing exit and the door at the rear of the plane, is present only on the largest versions of the 737.
It’s fitted on the previous generation 737-900ER and the same design is on the 737 MAX 8-200, the high density version for low-cost carriers, as well as the MAX 9 and MAX 10. It is not present on the MAX 7 or MAX 8. Online FAA records show this specific MAX 9 was almost new. Boeing delivered the jet to Alaska on Oct. 31. Flightaware data shows Flight 1282 was the aircraft’s third flight of the day and second take off. It had flown from San Diego to New York overnight and then on to Portland earlier in the day.
This is the ST report which should be free to view, unless you are a regular reader of the ST- https://www.seattletimes.com/business/180-on-alaska-airlines-flight-safe-and-scared-in-portland-after-window-blows/
Terrifying situation.
Thankfully all passengers were strapped in or someone might been blown out.
Remember that Boeing had trouble with an earlier Max and two planes went down.
Boeing was having trouble keeping up with demand for planes. I do not know if that is still the case but hoping there is no rushing to complete an order.
THANKFULLY, I've been able to avoid flying this aircraft type.
I never, ever fly Westjet and I just book around Air Canada flights that utilize 737s.
Breaking News on CNN
United grounding their 737 Max 9 for now. I did not catch for how long.
More Breaking News
FAA is ordering the grounding of these planes that fly within the USA for now. Did not catch the whole story
Bet most passengers and crew were offering prayers during and afterwards.
UPDATE in OP. Now FAA has grounded all 171 of that plane which fly in the US.
“CEO Ben Minicucci called the grounding "precautionary," saying in a statement the 65 planes will return to service "only after completion of full maintenance and safety inspections."
So what happens now for people booked on this MAX?
And what about those who are in the airport waiting to fly on this MAX?
The good news:
The only casualties were two iPhones that got sucked out and landed somewhere in the Portland Metro area. The Find My Phone feature will come in handy here! (I suspect Apple's marketing department is already working on the ads...)
More good news: Two lucky Alaska Airlines passengers will undoubtedly be getting an unexpected complimentary upgrade to iPhone 15!...Now, aren't we all so jealous?
Reminder to all: Has it been a long time since you synced your phone? Consider yourself warned!
Probably good news:
Alaska Airlines already started doing the mandated inspections last night (before they were actually mandated...) and they expect to complete their inspections "in a few days", returning the planes to service once they pass inspection.
Based on initial observations and cursory analysis by rank amateurs (so, take with a big grain of salt), finding the root cause of this incident may not be terribly difficult (the equivalent of "somebody forgot to properly close the hatch on a submarine"), so while certainly dramatic and potentially catastrophic (especially if you were in seat 26A...), the "fix" may be quick and easy. Of course, that's just speculation, the NTSB needs to weigh in officially (but they're on it already).
The required inspection appears to be something that can be accomplished pretty quickly and without having to pull too much apart (it appears that Alaska already completed inspections and returned several aircraft to service overnight). So this may not be a long-term issue - it depends on what the inspections find.
The bad news:
Today the FAA stepped in and mandated inspections for all 737s with the same "plugged door" configuration, for all airlines flying them in US airspace. While that's actually good news, this may (probably will) cause some degree of disruptions over the next little while (maybe a few weeks?) as these planes are yanked from service for inspection and other aircraft are swapped in. Might be just a little churn for some airlines, might be more disruptive for others. Airports may be full of grumpy passengers (well, even more full of even more grumpy passengers than usual). As they say, pack your patience.
IF the inspections turn up a more widespread problem (beyond "somebody just screwed up") this could be a long-term issue.
Another black eye for Boeing and this series of aircraft. 'Nuff said.
Personally, I'm scheduled to fly on a 737MAX9 in a few weeks (same aircraft type, though on a different airline). I'm hoping this issue is easily understood (initially, it appears that it may well be) and that the NTSB (I do trust them) signs off on the simple required inspection protocol, and things settle down fairly soon. Fingers crossed.
You can be sure that before I get on that plane, I'll backup my ancient phone, and when I strap in (yes, in a window seat...) the seatbelt will definitely be oh-so-securely fastened. My ancient iPhone X will be placed by the window, and I'll be dreaming of a fancy new iPhone 15. Good luck up there.
🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻
So what happens now for people booked on this MAX? And what about those who are in the airport waiting to fly on this MAX?
At least in the case of Alaska Airlines they have introduced a fully flexible policy on all tickets booked directly with them (identified by a 13-digit ticket number that begins with Alaska Airlines code 027) on flights up until 20 January.
Or on many fare types a full refund or credit certificate will be given if unable or unwilling to travel.
This is partly due to this incident and partly due to disruption arising from winter weather in the North Eastern US.
Alaska Airlines at least seem to be dealing with this in an exemplary manner. Already about a quarter of their fleet had been passed as ready for service before the FAA announcement.
A window blown out of a 737 Max 9 has caused massive damage to a plane making a large hole,
Nigel, I am a bit surprised at your ( sensationalistic) statement.
There is no 'massive damage', just a missing door plug.
The real question is, was it improperly installed at the factory, or did an Alaska employee remove and reinstall it and not latch it correctly
As for the Apple 'find me" working, I doubt a 2+ mile drop was ever a design consideration. ( any science major out there that can calculate what the speed would be after falling 10k feet?)
So what happens now for people booked on this MAX?
And what about those who are in the airport waiting to fly on this
MAX?
I would expect all airlines to treat this just like any other case when the originally-scheduled aircraft is not available (which happens thousands of times every day to every big airline all over the world). Just like bad weather happens and flight crews calling in sick happens and other things that happen, it's part of running a large, complex business. Any decent airline will have plans in place for such events. They'll pull in a different airplane, maybe shuffle schedules a bit, and do their best to accommodate all passengers with as little inconvenience as possible.
Most big airlines have enough "slack" in their system (extra airplanes, extra staff, contingency plans ready) to easily manage a minor disruption. If the disruption is big enough - or keeps going long enough - things will start to collapse (ask Southwest Airlines about that...). Some smaller airlines (or airlines that are running "too lean") will start to collapse sooner.
If the required 737 MAX9 inspections go smoothly and quickly, and they do not turn up any issues that concern the NTSB, this will be over pretty quickly (a week or two?). If the inspections find issues and those raise concerns with the NTSB, it's anybody's guess where this goes and for how long.
That said, it appears that as part of routine previiously scheduled maintenance, a handful of Alaska Airlines' planes recently went through a detailed inspection of the system suspected in last night's explosive decompression incident, and there were no issues found, so those planes are considered to have just "passed" the now-mandated inspection. That's a good sign (I think) that suggests the issue was a one-off (probably a maintenance error) rather than a systematic design flaw.
In any case, airlines and the federal agencies are now on this; I'm sure passengers will be accommodated. Hopefully the disruptions and inconveniences will be minimal. The excitement of aviation!
Nigel, I am a bit surprised at your ( sensationalistic) statement.
that's what I read when it broke here
I actually didn't quote the bit I read about how large a section of the airframe ripped off the plane.
And sensationalistic or not - having flown some and participated in drills for downed aircraft, I would expect that a sudden unplanned disassembly of any part of a pressurized aircraft would be an issue. Nobody mentioned the person on the ground that might have been hit by the material and the iphones for which somebody was trying to calculate terminal velocity
A window blown out of a 737 Max 9 has caused massive damage to a plane
making a large hole
It was more than just a window - it was the exact size and shape of an exit door, because it was the replacement "plug" used for the hole that the door would occupy if it was there. I think it's fair to call that a "big hole" (although it was a "neat", clean one, shaped perfectly like a door). A door-sized hole in the side of the plane, open to the world where there had previously been a wall and a (sealed) window.
Since it blew out at around 16,000 feet, I don't think it's hyperbole to call that "massive damage." If you asked anyone on the plane, they'd probably use stronger words than that. Crew did a great job bringing the plane down successfully, passengers seemed to be behaving well, despite undoubtedly being completely freaked out. What an amazing view the passenger is 26B must have had on approach to PDX!
The Find My Phone bit was a joke (hey, new iPhones can automatically dial 911 for you if they think you've been in a car crash...wonder if they have planned for this contingency..."It seems you have fallen out of a plane at 16,000 feet. Shall I call an EMT to come scoop up your remains?"). Apple has everything covered!
Depending on wind direction (we had a major storm come through yesterday) and how the plane took off, six minutes after take off may very well mean the part fell into the Columbia river. Our family flies Alaska quite a bit, we trust they will resolve the issue thoroughly.
Here's a list of Alaska Airlines cancelled flights...
https://www.flightaware.com/live/fleet/ASA/cancelled?;offset=0;sort=ASC;order=origin
any science major out there that can calculate what the speed would be after falling 10k feet?
I'm not a science major, but I'm sure somewhere well before 10,000 feet it would have reached whatever the terminal velocity is of an iPhone, or how that would compare to the velocity of an unladen swallow :-)
Ok, I’m flying to Fairbanks on Alaska Air on Jan 19 on this model plane from DFW to SEA. Plus I have a fear of flying (that I resolutely try to ignore) but I was laughing at the end of all these comments. So thanks for that, y’all. Monty Python reference…… chef’s kiss. 😉
or how that would compare to the velocity of an unladen swallow :-)
European or African swallow? 😀
European or African swallow? 😀
I don't know that!
@Badger - OMG, hahahahahahaha. "It's a matter of weight ratios!"
Unfortunately this is a type of plane I’m scheduled to fly on in February with Alaska.
Just everyone relax. Let us see what the investigation shows. Maybe this is going to be a one time problem. Maybe someone put in a. screw backwards when the plane was in production. Maybe someone closed the door wrong and or forgot to tighten it.
My gut feeling is that the cause is going to be human error.
My gut feeling is that the cause is going to be human error.
I know it's early days as far as the investigation is concerned, but I'm trying to think of a non-human-error cause for this.
Something tells me if you were sitting by that window when the world opened up, It was massive damage.
😂
Is anyone besides me wondering what happens if this occurs 3 hours from an airport? If its not good, feel free to make something up.
Unfortunately this is a type of plane I’m scheduled to fly on in February with Alaska.
By then all the planes will have been inspected
Is anyone besides me wondering what happens if this occurs 3 hours
from an airport?
I don't know if the 737 Max 9 is allowed to fly 3 hours from the closest airport. But even if it is, this would probably not have happened that far from an airport. It happened at around 5000 m so whatever the problem is would probably not occur at cruising altitude.
But that is just guessing from me, as I have not idea what caused this. If it does happen 3 hours from airport, it will be 3 very windy and cold hours for the passengers.
The Boeing 737 has history
I don't know if the 737 Max 9 is allowed to fly 3 hours from the closest airport.
Yes it can. It regularly flies SEA-Hawaii ( 6.5 hrs) When you are half way there, you are more than 3 hrs from land.
I don't know if the 737 Max 9 is allowed to fly 3 hours from the closest airport.
It's called ETOPS (Engines Turn or Passengers Swim)
I’m flying home from Seattle tomorrow. I’m glad I’ll be on Southwest instead of Alaska.
Meanwhile in Oregon, the FAA has asked for the public's help to find the door plug which they think may have landed in a densely populated suburb (seems like someone would have noticed by now). To correct a comment above, it was not a manually operated door, so the cabin crew is not to blame.
Local news has been playing parts of the cockpit audio and kudos to the extremely professional and calm pilot and control tower crew for getting the bird back on the ground quickly and safely.
Safe Travels Andrea
I do not think the problem has anything to do with what airline you fly. I think it has to do with what Max plane is being used by the airline. Maybe Southwest does not own any of the new Max's.
I was reading comments on a Norwegian Cruise Line Facebook page.
And one person wrote that she and companion would not be able to join a particular cruise because their flight had been cancelled. It was one of the new Max's in question.
So passengers are being affected but another example of why it is important to add buffer time if possible.
of course they might be able to get a flight to the next port or the next. Maybe it will not be a complete loss.
@CL, thank you for that link. I love to listen to cockpit audio and that pilot is extremely well-trained and cool under duress. Kudos to the Air Traffic Controller and folks on the ground who were ready for anything.
Piece that broke off has been found in the back yard of a Portland man's home.
OMG that 2 iPhones survived that fall. 16,000 feet is a log way even with the ‘terminal velocity’ explanations. I’m impressed.
Bad that a plane can lose a part in flight. Good that a plane can lose a part in flight and land safely.
Latest updates from Alaska Airlines' (and Boeing's former) hometown newspaper:
FAA in no rush to lift 737 MAX 9 grounding as cancellations mount
Boeing is under fire after Alaska Airlines MAX 9 blowout. So is the FAA
Bottom line: None of these planes are going to be flying anytime soon.
Expect flight cancellations and disruptions for an extended time going forward - nobody knows for how long. There's no end in sight to this, US regulators appear to be serious about identifying and correcting the root cause of this plane's troubles, and in no great hurry to just get them back in the air (👏).
Alaska and United are the primary US airlines operating this model of the 737MAX (they have a LOT of them), and all of those planes are parked (other, foreign-based airlines have them, too, and most seem to be following the same practices). Disruptions to flight schedules will be ongoing, especially for Alaska and United passengers (over 1/3 of Alaska's mainline fleet is grounded; United is a much bigger airline and has relatively fewer of these planes in their fleet so is not quite as disrupted) . Pack your patience.
Technical detail that might make a difference for you: Not all 737MAX9s are included in the current FAA grounding. Only those with the same "mid-cabin exit door plug" associated with the Alaska Airlines "blowout" decompression incident are grounded; some 737MAX9 aircraft (without the "mid-cabin exit door plug") are still flying.
You don't fly Alaska or United? Note that if you're flying beyond the USA you might still be impacted by this plane's troubles, as they're also operated by some foreign airlines (including some you may occasionally fly on). As luck would have it, not long ago I was on a regional Turkish Airlines 737MAX9 in Europe (it was actually a lovely flight, with decent food and no in-flight explosive decompressions at all); and I'm scheduled to be on a COPA Airlines 737MAX9 next month (we'll see about that).
The following airlines operate the 737MAX9 (and all these planes do have the "mid-cabin exit door plug" associated with the Alaska Airlines "blowout" decompression incident; if operated in US airspace, they are subject to the FAA grounding of the aircraft type):
The following airlines operate the 737MAX9 (and some, but not all of their planes have the "mid-cabin exit door plug" associated with the Alaska Airlines "blowout" decompression incident):
The following airlines operate 737MAX9s that do not have the "mid-cabin exit door plug" associated with the Alaska Airlines "blowout" decompression incident. These planes are not impacted by the current grounding and may continue to fly (probably are flying).
Blue skies and tailwinds.
The following airlines operate 737MAX9s that do not have the "mid-cabin exit door plug" associated with the Alaska Airlines "blowout" decompression incident. These planes are not impacted by the current grounding and may continue to fly (probably are flying).
Might be worth adding that the reason they do not have the "plug" is because they have an actual exit door in that location, due to seat configuration...which is the purpose for having a porthole in that location.
David: I,too am scheduled on a Copa 737MAX9 next month. Got general email notice that they are doing required procedures. They are still selling seats for my flights on website so hoping they will not cancel.
Might be worth adding that the reason they do not have the "plug" is
because they have an actual exit door in that location, due to seat
configuration...which is the purpose for having a porthole in that
location.
Actually, I don't think that's necessarily the case. For example, COPA has several 373MAX9s still flying that AFAIK do not have an actual, functioning emergency exit row/door there. I'm not sure of the exact difference, but I think it's just a different design of the "plug". From the exterior, it LOOKS like an exit door - it has the small, round "porthole" style window - but the interior seat layout shows no exit row there. Looks like those planes just have a different "plug" and possibly a different mounting system - just a guess. COPA has grounded most of their 737MAX9s, but a few (with the "porthole" there) are still flying (and apparently with the FAA's blessing, since even though it's a Panamanian airline, some of those planes are flying to/from the US, so the FAA directives do have jurisdiction).
@Lynn - I've heard nothing from COPA (yet). I checked and the flight I'm booked on is still scheduled, and I see it's still operating (between Panama City and LAX). My fingers are crossed (for multiple reasons).
UPDATE - now the FAA has grounded all 171 of them.
EASA has also grounded the planes. While there are no EU operators of the type, it means they are banned from European airspace.
For example, COPA has several 373MAX9s still flying that AFAIK do not
have an actual, functioning emergency exit row/door there. I'm not
sure of the exact difference, but I think it's just a different design
of the "plug". From the exterior, it LOOKS like an exit door - it has
the small, round "porthole" style window - but the interior seat
layout shows no exit row there. Looks like those planes just have a
different "plug" and possibly a different mounting system - just a
guess.
There are three options for how airlines can use this hole in the plane.
Emergency exit. A door is installed and can be used as an emergency exit if needed.
Deactivated door. A door is installed, but with no door handles and the inside is covered with a regular wall panel. It sounds like COPA uses this option.
Plug. Just a piece of wall to fill the gap.
And someone shared this article recently: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-safe-boeing-analysis-2019-9 I have to say that the headline "The 737 Max will be the safest plane in the skies once it starts flying again" didn't age well.
There are three options for how airlines can use this hole in the plane.
1- Emergency exit. A door is installed and is capable of being used as an emergency exit if needed.
2- Deactivated door. A door is installed, but with no door handles and the inside is covered with a regular wall panel. It sounds like COPA uses this option.
3- Plug. Just a piece of wall to fill the gap.
Badger, where did you find this?
It seems odd an airline would choose option 2. ( or that it would be offered) That would have the extra weight a door would entail, but no egress access. That seems to be antithetical to the imperative to keep weight to a minimum to reduce fuel consumption.
Badger, where did you find this?
On the internet. It's getting very late here, but I can see if I can find the source again tomorrow if you're interested.
It seems odd an airline would choose option 2. ( or that it would be
offered) That would have the extra weight a door would entail, but no
egress access. That seems to be antithetical to the imperative to keep
weight to a minimum to reduce fuel consumption.
But it provides flexibility and makes it easier to activate the door if needed. Replacing a plug with a door is a much bigger job that costs a lot more and takes longer.
Deactivated door. A door is installed, but with no door handles and the inside is covered with a regular wall panel. It sounds like COPA uses this option.
A door, even if "deactivated" and covered-over, still requires regular maintenance (this is probably even more costly than the weight penalty). A functional door is surprisingly heavy (compared to the simple but now obviously inconvenient "plug" options). It may be true that there's a real, functional (and disabled) door hidden and buried in the wall there, that seems like a crazy option (and a really poor design choice), but they didn't ask me. 🤷♂️
While there are no EU operators of the type, it means they are banned
from European airspace.
Thanks for the update from EASA, good to hear.
I'm pretty sure that Turkish Airlines has three of them, used for regional flights. While Turkey may not be an EU member, their 737MAX9s were flying to EU destinations - I flew on one in October from EU member Malta to Istanbul (and that was definitely not a high-density configuration cabin: I've never seen so much legroom on a flight before, I recall being shocked at all the room). TK already voluntarily grounded those 737 MAX9s when the FAA issued their emergency AD (if the US FAA grounds a US-manufactured plane, most non-US airlines quickly follow the FAA's dictates even if they're not technically required to do so, just out of common sense; of course, other foreign aviation agencies may have their own dictates to follow). I'm reassured that EASA took the same steps to ground the planes with the problematic configuration.
I don't know about Icelandair or Corendon, theirs 737 MAX9s are supposedly plug-less.
This will continue to evolve (and probably for a long time...it would not surprise me if it's months before these planes are all back in service).
It may be true that there's a real, functional (and disabled) door
hidden and buried in the wall there, that seems like a crazy option
(and a really poor design choice), but they didn't ask me. 🤷♂️
The point of having a deactivated door is that it is much easier to activate an existing door compared to installing a door. I'm not in charge of ordering new aircraft and have never been, but obviously some airlines like this option. https://youtu.be/nw4eQGAmXQ0?si=p2g8rOBMBHezreHv&t=362
This will continue to evolve (and probably for a long time...it would
not surprise me if it's months before these planes are all back in
service).
Probably, and people at Boeing are probably praying that they don't find anything that will cause more versions of the 737 to be grounded.
Heard on the morning news that lawsuits have or are being filed.
I have been expecting this and can understand why but if down the road too much money is awarded, Boeing will either be forced to or choose to file bankruptcy..
For those of you interested, here is a video sent out to Alaska airlines to its customers.
https://youtu.be/BPUGOFS0Dpg?si=LSR_5nxGRJfNhykb
Heard on the morning news that lawsuits have or are being filed.
I have been expecting this and can understand why but if down the road
too much money is awarded, Boeing will either be forced to or choose
to file bankruptcy..
Boeing will be writing a lot of checks - the cost of doing business.
They're not going to go bankrupt. Boeing is one of the country's largest defense contractors, too big (and too important) to fail. Their commercial airline division (which is indeed still a huge operation) is actually small potatoes compared to their defense business.
The world has effectively a duopoly for commercial airliners - just Boeing and Airbus make full-size airliners (with a few smaller players trying to catch up and become actual competition, but in the big picture those are ankle-biters). Even with both companies cranking out planes at full capacity (and arguably beyond their capacity), the waiting list for new jets is many years long. Take Boeing out of the picture and most of us would be staying home rather than jetting off to the far corners of the world. That just does not seem likely to me.
They're not going to go bankrupt.
Thats what they said about Studebaker!
The world has effectively a duopoly for commercial airliners - just
Boeing and Airbus make full-size airliners (with a few smaller players
trying to catch up and become actual competition, but in the big
picture those are ankle-biters).
Because of the libailty (the standard is perfection) and poor profits I would suspect.
Agree with David. I do wonder about Alaska with 20% of their planes not flying. They are my go to airline for local flights.
Nobody in their right mind would want to fly on
a Boeing death plane.
This why Boeing is in deep doodoo. No, not the plane, the hyperbole .... and the attorneys.
Ticket prices just went up. Who do you think is going to pay?
I’m somewhat ‘afraid to fly’ and even I think Nick’s statement was way overblown. I’m scheduled for Friday morning at 06:15 on Alaska leaving DFW on our way to Fairbanks and I’m praying that flight takes off. They are having such an issue switching planes around that cancellations and rescheduling is quite likely unfortunately. Today’s flight was canceled but Tuesdays took off. It’s a long day to fly to Alaska, two 4 hour flights to get to FAI going through SEA. Keeping my fingers crossed…..
My husband has been at SEA since about 8:30 this morning. His Alaska flight was delayed due to maintenance, but they were not told what and Alaska was not forthcoming at all. Then finally at 3:50 it was cancelled. I am hoping he will be home by 6 or so tonight.
He also tried to fly on Monday, but that flight was cancelled due to weather, also after he was at the airport and had checked his bag.
Yesterday there was a five hour wait to speak to an Alaska Air agent. Today they couldn’t tell me how long of a wait. Their call back option didn’t work either. It took an hour for me to connect with an agent via the chat option and I successfully changed my flight to a day earlier, and not on a max 9. Who knows how long they will be grounded. I got an $80 voucher as well.
While people's frustrations are understandable it is very unfortunate that a very reputable airline such as Alaska finds itself in such difficulties due to problems which are (as far as we know currently) totally outside it's control.
A lot of real people work for Alaska, they are doing their level best under the circumstances. If the airline finds itself in deep difficulties they will be the ones who could be out of a job through no fault of their own.
Boeing in Seattle (and other cities) are a major employer- directly and indirectly through their supply chain.
People sharpening their pencils to take legal action and profit from this, those with their hyperbole taking the opportunity to rail against Boeing and wish the company the worst need to remember that. Jobs of ordinary people are potentially on the line here. If Boeing ends up in major difficulties, the economy of Seattle and other cities will feel the chill.
And, yes, I am waiting to hear from a friend flying on Alaska Honololu to SEA today- who had a 4 hour delay and a refuel divert outbound. So far her flight is running, on time and direct. I don't expect that to remain the case. It could be a long and draining day for her.
isn31c--I agree with some of that, but my husbands experience yesterday was ridiculous and did not need to be. First of all they needed a part, and they were here in SEA with Boeing so close, but they were getting the part from Portland. Portland was covered in ice so it took a while for that part to get up here. Then because of these delays in required a change in flight crew. I missed a few points with the part, but but biggest issue was the lack of communication on Alaska's part. Then when my husband finally got home at 6pm, after being at the airport at 8:30 that morning, he had to call Alaska get his refund. They would only put the miles into his wallet, not a refund. And then did nothing to make amends, no extra miles etc and my husband is MVP Gold with them and has been for years. So even after the airport events, they still didn't have their act together in dealing with the aftermath. I sure hope they are better next week when we go to my moms funeral.
I realized I left out the part that the new flight crew couldn't get there, so that is when the flight was cancelled. Yes a series of events, but all handled very poorly.
People sharpening their pencils to take legal action and profit from
this, those with their hyperbole taking the opportunity to rail
against Boeing and wish the company the worst need to remember that.
Jobs of ordinary people are potentially on the line here. If Boeing
ends up in major difficulties, the economy of Seattle and other cities
will feel the chill.
Exactly and my 401(k) will feel it too I suspect. We forget "Big Business" is nothing but the sum of thousands of little guys who work for, supply and have investments in their retirement accounts.
@mikliz- I really, really hope everything goes OK next week for your flight to the funeral (operationally and weather wise).
The prayers of many on the forum will be with you.
I remember the other thread on that subject.
I've seen this afternoon on local tik toks that SeaTac was also coping with burst pipes yesterday in baggage reclaim.
isn31c--Thank you so much for the kind words. Little things like that make such a difference during difficult times and I appreciate it. Both Monday as well as yesterday, when my husband was finding his bags after they were checked, the AirTag in them helped the agent find the bag much faster. Most everyone else was aimlessly wandering around, yet the agents that helped my husband used the AirTag and found the bag right away.
Alaska is trying to make amends, trying. They gave my husband a $150 credit. It's a start, but falls far short, IMO. I am not sure if it's a start or just insulting.
Have heard on the news that the plug that flew off was made in Malaysia.
Boeing has been behind in orders for some time due to supply chain and staff shortages. And is possibly trying to contract out as well as maybe rush things.
And is possibly trying to contract out as well as maybe rush things.
Both Boeing and AirBus contract out huge amounts of work, and have for years, only taking control of final assembly.
Respectfully, there is a lot of unsupported speculation going on right now. The facts are that we don’t know all the facts yet. Suggesting Boeing is buying cheap parts on the side with no proof is irresponsible.
Was a mistake made here? Clearly. What we don’t know is how widespread the issue was or where/when the mistakes were made. That is what an investigation is for and trained professionals are doing this now and will report.
Alaska is caught in a situation not necessarily of their own making. They voluntarily grounded these planes before FAA did. Are cancellations and delays really frustrating? Of course, but I appreciate the emphasis on safety first.
Alaska is caught in a situation not necessarily of their own making. They voluntarily grounded these planes before FAA did.
I'm not so generous when it comes to safety -
" ... Alaska and United Airlines reported separately that they found loose parts in the panels — or door plugs — of some other Boeing 737 Max 9 jets."
That tells me that neither carrier did any ongoing inspections since acquiring that model, knowing full well the aircraft type had door plugs. They became reactive after the blowout.
That tells me that neither carrier did any ongoing inspections since acquiring that model, knowing full well the aircraft type had door plugs.
Is the suggestion here that door plugs in and of themselves should require more thorough inspections from the airlines? If so, why? I'm not familiar with any prior issues with these plugs, but would be interested in hearing of any earlier faults.
It's troubling that Alaska Airlines seemingly didn't pursue this on-going situation to the utmost, instead just issued an internal operational restriction on the aircraft type
Have heard on the news that the plug that flew off was made in Malaysia.
Fake news.
Fake News
NOT so fast.
A plant in Malaysia, operated by Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, manufactured the faulty door plug on the 737 Max 9 jet involved in the incident, announced NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy on Wednesday. (Door plugs replace unneeded emergency exit doors). That means a fault could have happened anywhere between Malaysia, Spirit’s facility in Wichita, or Boeing’s factory near Seattle.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/alaska-airlines-faulty-boeing-door-103810280.html
Carol now retired-- " Are cancellations and delays really frustrating? Of course, but I appreciate the emphasis on safety first.". I too appreciate the emphasis on safety first, however the way Alaska is dealing with their customers is not making them feel valued, which may very well come back to bite them. For one thing, keeping passengers up to date on what is going on would go a long ways. My husband got more information from the people at the desk in the lounge than he did from any of the Alaska agents. Then, to refund the money back to the original credit card when a flight is cancelled would be the right thing to do, but no, they are putting it into your Alaska "wallet" instead. The $150 that Alaska also added to my husbands "wallet" was a nice gesture, but at this point all the rest of the ineptness overshadows that.
Other aircraft types with a mid-cabin emergency exit door or plug include the Airbus A321neo (with the Cabin Flex interiors) and Boeing 737-900ER........
Airbus delivered the first A321neo in the Cabin Flex configuration in July 2018. Saab, the supplier of plug doors for the A321neo, .......... The part is manufactured by Aerostructures Assemblies India (AAI) in Hyderabad, India.
https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-door-plugs-guide/
The 737 Max9 is not the only plane with door plugs.( made somewhere in Asia)
The 737 Max9 is not the only plane with door plugs.( made somewhere in
Asia)
Indeed. Everything is made everywhere.
NOT so fast.
A plant in Malaysia, operated by Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems,
manufactured the faulty door plug on the 737 Max 9 jet involved in the
incident, announced NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy on Wednesday.
Fair enough, my apologies. Appears I was wrong about that detail.
More to the point, though: So what if a particular piece was manufactured overseas? Modern aircraft are made up of millions of parts (literally, millions), and most of those were manufactured by hundreds or thousands of subcontractors - Boeing (or Airbus) don't make all the nuts, bolts, rivets and all the other stuff (same as your car or phone); a lot of those subcontractors make parts and major assemblies outside the USA.
I've had my hands all over (and inside the guts of) airplanes for a long time (I own a small one), so while I'm not a hands-on Boeing expert myself, I do know plenty of people who actually are or were (including close friends and trusted mechanics), career Boeing mechanics and engineers. I've replaced plenty of parts on my own plane, always legally and following best practices (I literally have skin in the game...believe me, that gives you some very useful perspective when turning a wrench).
Parts for any machine come from all over the world. Because you, dear consumer, always demand things that cost less, so Big Business has heard your demands loud and clear and have responded accordingly (so if your flight to Rome is on a jet that's full of parts manufactured in Malaysia, you're actually getting exactly what you asked for). If you want to fly on planes with only US-manufactured parts, enjoy your swim to Italy, because that ain't an option.
As for the 737MAX blowout, based on what we appear to know (still early in the investigation), IMHO it's very likely that the issue was not a defect in a part (whether that was made in Malaysia or Milwaukee), but rather more likely to have been caused by something being installed or secured incorrectly. We need to let the NTSB and FAA do their jobs to identify the likely root cause of the failure. I've been following this pretty closely, and (to me) all indications seem to point to improper installation of some of the attaching parts (or outright failure to install one/more of those parts at all). (There's also a possibility that parts are becoming loose due to forces imposed on them during flight, but this seems pretty unlikely since loose parts have been found on brand new planes).
Ultimately this is all speculation, the NTSB will figure it out (they're v-e-r-y good at what they do). But I don't think it's helpful to point to the fact that a part came from a factory in (insert any country here) and suggest that's a smoking gun. It's not, and suggesting it is only contributes to the online feeding-frenzy around this incident.
I believe the quote from Ms. Homendy at the NTSB was simply to provide some context for the baying crowds demanding to know RIGHT NOW who's to blame (note: the NTSB doesn't do "blame"). Her point was, I think, that the investigation is going to take some time, because they're thorough, painstaking, and have to look in a lot of places (including Malaysia). People want answers (preferably simple ones) and want them NOW. Unfortunately the NTSB doesn't work that way.
Just my opinion, of course everyone's welcome to their own interpretation.
that's an excellent summary, and as somebody who has also flown small aircraft, I concur.
A lot more responsible than the Death Plane comments. We wait and see.
Saturday Night Live did a funny segment of this situation, tonight. Actual situation may not have been funny but SNL segment sure was.
The FAA has come out with their inspection instructions for the airlines to get their grounded MAX 9's flying again. Alaska says they might have some of theirs back in service by Friday (January 26th).
Indeed. But things appear to be only getting worse for Boeing each day. It's like a Disaster Sandwich and they have to keep taking bites...
Boeing's CEO visited DC today and got some minor grilling from the feds. Meanwhile, Boeing's biggest commercial customer, United Airlines (which once was actually part of Boeing) has now said (essentially) that they will be looking elsewhere for some airplanes. United has aggressive expansion plans in the coming years, and have a large order in for the not-yet-approved 737 MAX-10. But that plane's certification was already delayed and controversial (I'm being gentle) before the latest blowout; with the recent events, United's CEO said today they were now planning for a future without the 737 MAX-10.
With many airlines now putting their 737s (not just the MAX-9s) under a microscope, they appear to be finding, well, let's just say, more non-conforming items (typically loose parts) than they had hoped to find. Not enough to set everyone's hair on fire (yet) but part of the growing drumbeat over quality issues.
Up until today, many had been pointing their fingers at major Boeing subcontractor Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita (which also used to be part of Boeing but was spun-off in a corporate cost-cutting shuffle). There has been a lot of grousing (for years) about the quality of the airframes that Spirit delivers to Boeing. But if whistleblower allegations are true (and that should be VERY easily proved or disproved) then Boeing's Renton plant own the Alaska Blowout 100%.
Meanwhile, a "whistleblower" (purportedly a current Boeing machinist) has "leaked" his detailed insights to an online aviation news site, and his scathing, devastating-if-confirmed comments are going to turn Boeing's freak-out dial up to 11. I read that guy's comments a couple days ago, and he seems highly credible to me. Now the Seattle Times has picked up this gentleman's allegations and published them.
Here's today's Seattle Times article on that (does not appear to be behind a paywall for me, and hopefully isn't for others):
Boeing, not Spirit, mis-installed piece that blew off Alaska MAX 9 jet, industry source says
I have no particular insight into this person's allegations, but I have to admit many of his comments align with what I have heard from more than a few Boeing machinists for years. I'd summarize his comments more-or-less as "The company has gone way too far, for too long, trying to cut costs and boost profits at the expense of safety; current processes are a complete mess, the Alaska door plug blowout or something much worse was inevitable, and it's all the fault of the top brass." There's a lot more to it but that's the gist (just my own summary). If you want to go down the rabbit hole, you can find the whistleblower's anonymous allegations (attached as user comments) to this article posted last week to Leeham News dot com:
“Unplanned” removal, installation inspection procedure at Boeing
Whistleblower's username is "throwawayboeingN704AL" and here's how he begins his comments (his full comments here):
Current Boeing employee here – I will save you waiting two years for the NTSB report to come out and give it to you for free: the reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeings own records. It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions...
It's, um, disquieting to say the least. I think heads are gonna roll (maybe this guy's; he better lawyer-up and fast).
Yikes.
David, I read that whistleblower's comments yesterday. As you noted, if true, they are damning.
Do you think United (of all people!) will actually go somewhere else for their narrowbody needs? Or is United just angling to get their MAX 10's on the cheap? (relatively speaking, of course.) Airbus' backlog for the A320 family is already pretty large. And, I don't see United signing up with Comac :-)
The one bit of good news in this mess is that the 'fix', is to install the thing correctly. A re-design of major components is not needed.
The fact that a portion the 737-900ER ( NG) fleet has been flying for ~20 years with this configuration demonstrates, if you install it correctly, nothing bad happens.
Do you think United (of all people!) will actually go somewhere else
for their narrowbody needs? Or is United just angling to get their MAX
10's on the cheap? (relatively speaking, of course.) Airbus' backlog
for the A320 family is already pretty large. And, I don't see United
signing up with Comac :-)
Hard to tell if this is a serious threat, or just the CEO blowing smoke. As you correctly point out, it's not like they have any good alternatives at hand - it's a duopoly, and the other player, Airbus, has a long line at their door. Airbus might throw United a bone, as it would represent an opportunity for them to woo one of the world's biggest airlines (and would give them a chance to further stick it to Boeing). But Airbus has all the customers they can handle right now (including European customers who arguably should come first). Comac is not really widely accepted as a viable alternative (at least it hasn't been yet...if Boeing continues to stumble, ask about that again in a few months). My guess is ultimately it's mostly posturing and venting. But the smaller players (Bombardier, Embraer, and yes Comac) all surely see an opportunity here, but none of these (or others) will be able to really compete with the big two anytime soon.
I don't think Boeing, as a company that makes large commercial airliners, is going away. Too big/too important to fail. Can't say the same about their leadership team. But it seems evident the company is in for a lot of rough sledding, maybe for years. Not a happy thing for the (jilted, former) hometown fans.
The one bit of good news in this mess is that the 'fix', is to install
the thing correctly. A re-design of major components is not needed.The fact that a portion the 737-900ER ( NG) fleet has been flying for
~20 years with this configuration demonstrates, if you install it
correctly, nothing bad happens.
That's true, but it's a double-edged sword: sure, most folks want to see these planes return to service - safely - as soon as it can be accomplished. And finding that it's not necessarily a design flaw probably allows that to happen in a relatively short time. But the flip side of that is this: if it was a design defect, they could redesign the needed components, rebuild them, test, manufacture, install, etc. and move 'em out, and be done with it, even it that takes a bit. A specific, known component that everyone could point to.
But the whistleblower alleges (and more than a few others have, too) that the problem really stems from leadership and the business culture and daily practices. The immediate crisis happened to manifest itself over Portland a couple Fridays ago on an Alaska MAX 9, due to allegedly poor workmanship on a production line. But in theory it could have been any part on any plane, because the part itself wasn't at fault, it was the process and the culture that's deeply ingrained. If that's the case, how do you fix THAT?
No easy answers. And I have two flights in February scheduled on MAX-9 airframes (one leg on United, one on Copa).
(For the record, I have enough confidence in the systems and their staff to get on those planes; if the Feds say they're OK, and if the airlines say they have followed all the requirements, I'll put my faith in them...but I just might have a couple of drinks in the lounge before I board...I'll be reminding myself that with all the intense scrutiny they're getting, the 737 MAX 9 could be one of the safest planes in the sky. Then I'll have another drink).
Good news
First flight now enroute SEA to San Diego
As you correctly point out, it's not like they have any good
alternatives at hand - it's a duopoly, and the other player, Airbus,
has a long line at their door. Airbus might throw United a bone, as it
would represent an opportunity for them to woo one of the world's
biggest airlines (and would give them a chance to further stick it to
Boeing). But Airbus has all the customers they can handle right now
(including European customers who arguably should come first). Comac
is not really widely accepted as a viable alternative (at least it
hasn't been yet...if Boeing continues to stumble, ask about that again
in a few months). My guess is ultimately it's mostly posturing and
venting.
We can only guess, but guess would be that it's not just posturing from United. It has been mentioned that Airbus is talking to existing customers to try to free up slots for United. And United's CEO went to Toulouse recently. Maybe he just wanted a vacation in France, but it certainly seems like he is serious about ordering more planes from Airbus.
Airbus certainly has a much larger backlog, but they are also building planes at a much higher rate. And the A321neo exists today, over 1200 planes are in service with airlines all over the world. The 737 MAX 10 still isn't certified.
I'll be reminding myself that with all the intense scrutiny they're
getting, the 737 MAX 9 could be one of the safest planes in the sky.
That's also what people said about the 737 MAX when they returned to service after being grounded…
