FAA boosts oversight of Boeing; undelivered MAX 9s have discrepancies

By the Leeham News Team

Jan. 12, 2024, © Leeham News: The Federal Aviation Administration today announced it is boosting its oversight of Boeing production and manufacturing on the 737-9 MAX.

The FAA’s been overseeing Boeing deliveries of the MAX since recertifying the airplane in November 2020. Following the discovery of production issues of the 787 in October 2020 that resulted in Boeing suspending delivery for more than a year, the FAA also assumed certification by an FAA official.

With today’s announcement, the FAA said it will add “new and significant actions to immediately increase oversight” to audit the MAX 9 production line and its suppliers to “evaluate Boeng’s compliance with its approved quality procedures.

The FAA also will increase monitoring of MAX 9 in-service events and assess the safety risks of delegated authority. The full announcement is below.

Boeing finds discrepancies in undelivered aircraft

Boeing employees have found discrepancies in four of six undelivered MAX 9s that are on the flight line, LNA has learned. The nature of these discrepancies has not been detailed. The customers were not identified to LNA.

LNA yesterday revealed that according to data from Cirium, there were six scheduled for delivery this month—three to Alaska and one each to Copa, Greater Bay Airlines (Hong Kong), and Corendon Dutch Airlines. Two are scheduled for delivery to Greater Bay and Alaska in February.

Global MAX users

Visual Approch, a consultancy, created a chart that succinctly shows the global operators of the MAX 9 and their routes. COPA, Turkish, Aeromexico and Lion Air grounded MAX 9s pending inspection and if necessary repair.

FAA’s notification to Boeing

FAA Increasing Oversight of Boeing Production and Manufacturing

Friday, January 12, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After taking decisive and immediate action to ground approximately 171 Boeing 737-9 MAX planes, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced new and significant actions to immediately increase its oversight of Boeing production and manufacturing. These actions come one day after the FAA formally notified Boeing that the FAA has launched an investigation into the company as a result of last Friday’s incident on a Boeing Model 737-9 MAX in which the aircraft lost a passenger door plug while in flight.

The actions announced today include the FAA conducting:

  • An audit involving the Boeing 737-9 MAX production line and its suppliers to evaluate Boeing’s compliance with its approved quality procedures. The results of the FAA’s audit analysis will determine whether additional audits are necessary.
  • Increased monitoring of Boeing 737-9 MAX in-service events.
  • Assessment of safety risks around delegated authority and quality oversight, and examination of options to move these functions under independent, third-party entities.

“It is time to re-examine the delegation of authority and assess any associated safety risks,” FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker said. “The grounding of the 737-9 and the multiple production-related issues identified in recent years require us to look at every option to reduce risk. The FAA is exploring the use of an independent third party to oversee Boeing’s inspections and its quality system.”

Yesterday, the FAA announced an investigation to determine if Boeing failed to ensure completed products conformed to its approved design and were in a condition for safe operation in compliance with FAA regulations. The letter to Boeing is available here.

The safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 MAX to service.

See the FAA’s statements on the grounding of certain Boeing 737-9 MAX aircraft here.

195 Comments on “FAA boosts oversight of Boeing; undelivered MAX 9s have discrepancies

  1. “It is time to re-examine delegation of authority” seems to be a major move. How significant?

    • Stay tuned, they are talking 3rd Party which is nothing more than a cop out.

      • Designating a 3rd. Party to oversee Boeing’s inspections and its quality system is just another name to Boeing doing the inspections. In order to have faith and confidence in the third party, they will have to be audited to ensure they have the knowledge and experience to carry out the task successfully. In addition, will the FAA just leave the 3rd party to do the inspections without FAA overseeing it? There are too many ifs and buts regarding this and one never know it will be like the scenario of out of the frying pan into the fire situation

    • Dream on- after firing the janitor Calhoun and Welch interns will have to cut back on the caviar with their cheesecake and put off their planned expansion of their pickleball courts.

      • This.. likely to be same-ol same-ol, with lots of backside-covering rhetoric and little action.

        • Interesting. I don’t agree, but we will see. After all, it was just a blown-out door, after many other MAXProblems. Nobody died. (/s)

          • You have a point. But the other quality escapes didn’t draw attention beyond the aviation community. Even then it wasn’t enough to warrant even one news segment. This is going on and it’s not going away. FAA has launched an investigation there’s so much focus on this that the public will be expecting Boeing to make significant changes and they will buckle to the pressure and they should.

            I don’t really think Stan deal knows what he’s doing. Calhoun doesn’t know what’s going on actually

          • “just a blown-out door”

            Is that supposed to be sarcasm? Not really appropriate in my view given the gravity of the situation and the impact on those onboard.

        • Or Both? This happened on their watch – Surely the company should have been extra vigilant given the issues and prior accidents

        • I would expect Deal to be the limb to be sacrificed, just like McAllister, if I read the tea leaves right. Calhoun would be smoothed out later with a nice press release say near or after the year end if everything goes smoothly.

          • I wonder if Calhoun thinks that Muilenberg is the lucky one…

          • It depends on how much money he gets when ejected (errr spend time with his family)

            Time for Clawback of the MAX bonus (only at the top do you get 10s of millions for not doing your job.)

          • Shanahan is walking a fine line here. He doesn’t want to take the blame for the plug install, yet he doesn’t want to dump all over BA so that the extra cash keeps flowing…

          • I was thinking Shanahan didn’t expect this mess when he agreed to take the job.

  2. Why the focus on the Max 9? Sure, the problem here was with the plug but, if Boeing has issues with managing its quality processes, why is that specific to the 9? This is a common production line so are there other concerns and, if so, wouldn’t the 8 be affected too?

    • Agree, esp as this is just off another Max issue with unsecured bolts in a critical flight system which wasn’t a “9” specific issue

      • Also agreed in spades.

        The FAA has major eggs on its face as they have had MAX under scrutiny, so now what? Scrutiny is not enough?

        Well darn it, lets hire a 3rd party so we have someone to blame the next time.

    • Yes, are there really zero defects/quality escapes on every -8 shipped? With the same system, management and mechanics.

  3. a flat 8 is the sign for infinite.

    my guess: if focus shifts to the MAX8 all hell will break loose.
    resulting in infinite hurt for Boeing.
    Self-flagellation used to be popular medieval sport.

  4. What are the odds that the ‘third party’ will end up being an entity that is primarily staffed by retired FAA inspectors, wanting to double-dip on top of their retirement pensions? I am a retired FAA ATC and this was a big motivator for contracting out ATC towers. Just to be clear, contracting is fine, but if it does not shift the prevailing culture and assure accountable performance, it ends up being only a bandage on a contaminated wound. All for show, not for results.

    • Perhaps EASA has excess capabilities and might be subcontracted?😀😇😂

      • EASA said some time ago that “they had full trust in FAA”.

        i.e. they’ll they out of that quicksand stuff.

    • Or the FAA asks United, LHT, Korean and SIA Engineering to get one brand new MAX each to fine comb for defects.

    • They have 3 max deliveries planed in the next 24hrs. Try delivered two yesterday

    • Companies that make good products and give good service should be able to just let the stock take care of itself, but unfortunately the US justice system has ruled that management is somewhat responsible for maintaining the price of the stock.

      • ‘the US justice system has ruled that management is somewhat responsible for maintaining the price of the stock.’

        Could you post a link to support that. Thanks

        • I would like to see that as well.

          There is some nosecone out there that Coronations Legally are obligated to make money.

          While that is the reality now, its not legal, the Legal System has made it so, but there is nothing written to that affect. Its all about a Corporate obligated judicial system that has been corrupted to rule that way.

          We have all seen that occur repeatedly at the highest level of US court system.

  5. So, I’m left wondering why the B737-900ER is not part of the grounding and enhanced inspections? Exactly same plug design, presumably from the same, or related, production facilities….

    • Its not the design. Different production timing. 900s were built by more experienced staff

    • Rick….. the 737-990er fleet has all been C checked by now, and that door is serviced and inspected as a part of that. You are looking at non C checked plug door 737s….. that limits you to the max

      • …………………………………………………..2019…2018…2017…2016

        737-900ER 505 — 505 — — — — 22 34 37 52

        From wiki

        The last of those 22 delivered in 2019, been through a C-check? 4-5 years old.

        Probably, huh?

  6. Is it possible that the tightening of these bolts and then the checking that the job was done are not actually on any checklists?

    • possible but NOT probable- just the result of faster- cheaper- schedule and pencil whipping.
      The ” janitor ” is toast
      The brass gets polished since posterior covers and platinum parachutes always work.

    • The fact that the bolts were not tightened multiple times indicates a process step that was never included or contemplated. As a quality audit I can only imagine the FAA will want to see the travelers on every assembly sheet both at Boeing and its Tier 1 suppliers to that every necessary step is clearly indicated. Bigger question is whether MAX9’s are grounded until that full audit is complete.

    • In pictures of the MAX9 production this gate is never open. There is also no stage for this gate. It arrives at Boeing like this and goes out like this again only just with fairing inside and paint outside without ever having been open. It’s gonna hold up.^^ Presumably, this was never intended for all MAX9 without a real emergency exit.

      • Reported that Spirit deliver them with the plug loosely secured as Boeing open it to install the interiors. Just wondering if there might be cases when Boeing don’t open it? Might explain how it slipped through, if someone assumed it was tight to start with & it hadn’t been opened. Add a new QA inspector on the line, who wasn’t so familiar with the process and made undue assumptions and…?

        • The openings are quite small, big items are better to go thru the door according to reports.

  7. Delegation of Authority is crucial to aircraft certification and production. The FAA simply lacks the resources to provide the level of oversight that would be required to disallow a delegation process. In my experience OEM employees that have been delegated authority as FAA Airworthiness Representatives are all top-notch engineers with integrity and commitment to their delegation roles.

    • The FAA may lack the numbers you would want, so they shift the ODA back to reporting direcly to the FAA and the ODA people continue to get paid by Boeing.

      The net affect is, not enough FAA personal to staff that, production slows down.

      Boeing goes to congress and its, please fund the inspectors, this is killing us (well, reality is figurehead and literal for passengers and crew). Congress than approves the hire and in a few years we have a safer system.

      note the Safer, Boeing will then try to eat away at the ODA much like the Maconda disaster though hopefully that will not get any traction.

  8. “With today’s announcement, the FAA said it will add “new and significant actions to immediately increase oversight” to audit the MAX 9 production line and its suppliers to “evaluate Boeng’s compliance with its approved quality procedures.”

    Will the FAA also look at the production of other Boeing products, especially other 737 MAX variants? While they might not have the particular kind of plug, a QA system that misses incorrectly fastened plugs in several aircraft might also have other deficiencies.

    • Still unraveling that as the focus seems to be on the -9 with the Exit Blank, but it seems the whole program is going to be scrutinized.

      They still have not a proved the inspection process.

      As near as I can untraveled it, its put out the requirement, report back what was found and then notify us so we (FAA) can determine next steps.

      • As someone here or elsewhere offereed:

        Take one MAX9 from stores and
        disassemble it down to single items.

        Note all discrepancies.

        • @tw

          Be careful what you wish for. Be very, very careful. A fine comb to put BA through is not a survival tactic for BA. 😂

          • Your dog is terminally ill.
            Either you can heal or you put it down.
            no misery.

            At some point in the (near ?imminent?) future the safety implications will be untenable.

            Move the door incident to cruise levels and no “Fasten Seatbelts”, FA’s pushing their juice trolleys around….

  9. At the heart of the FAA and congressional investigation has to be how CEO Dave Calhoun could have been so poorly informed.

    On the Q3 earnings call he said “I got to tell you, these fuselages, they have been gone over with a microscope in light of what we’ve experienced here in the last four months,”


    If the above were true, it is hard to imagine how the Alaska accident and other reports of loose parts could have occurred.

    • re Q3 earnings call – and Calhoun being ‘ poorly ‘ informed-
      When the Kulture is to shoot all the messengers who bring ‘ bad’ news, reports become all sunshine. Its been that way in most large organizations, armies, countries for millenia.

      In most areas of Boeing before 1997-2000 when a problem was discovered by inspection or test, it was expected to be properly reported or identified. There were few exceptions. And yes I wuz there. example ; I was testing a GOX distributor design for Saturn 5 in renton Boeing Jet lab about 1966. trying to determine flow impingement issues on the inside of the LOX tank. The distributor failed – blew apart – in a spectacular fashon on a Friday. We had filmed the test. By Monday my supervisor had arranged a meeting with George Stoner- then program manager in corporate offices, and the designers from Michoud were flown in to attend. There were /f course 3 levels of ‘ MY ‘ management between myself and George who were NOT invited- just myself. I showed the film, described what I found ( fatigue problem ). Then was asked what/how I thought should be changed-redesigned. had sketched out my comments. Was asked a few questions- then the desigers and myself were asked – what do we need- and when- and the simply told go do- let me know if you need more help or anything. Took about 30 to 45 minutes. And NO issues/ comments as who did what wrong, etc. That revised design flew on all Saturn 5 boosters.

      From many friends I know still at BA-That kind of response by current executives is mostly unknown , very unlikely and who wants to try and find out. !!

      • Well you have to be in touch with the workforce and of course Calhoun deems it beneath himself to be at any Boeing facility.

        As I recall something about he should not micro manage.

        Well he should manage, but then “moon shot” was the reason the 787 had so many delays (not).

        Boeing has turned into a game of Whack a Mole.

        Note to self, its better to get the moles before they jump up, but who is counting? Or was it Einstein and the stupidity of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

        • IMHO and FWIW. Going back to formation of NASA and Apollo program era. Many of the lower and middle management of that era were ww2 vets who had made good use of education benefits and had gravitated to ‘ aerospace’ industries. Many had experienced both good and bad leaders
          I worked for several at various times- and they ALL were fact and data oriented and made good mentors. By the 80’s and 90’s most had retired and modern management was in blooming . Korean and Viet vets often replaced the middle management types and the education system had not yet gone to hell. But since then companies like Boeing have gone from meritocracy to DEI and wokeists and the effects are now obvious. Catch-22 is now for real and Milo Minderbinders seem to be on bored of directionless.

          • I beg to differ, sir.

            It was those blasted Canucks that put the US on the moon, after the cancellation of the Avro Arrow:


            James Arthur Chamberlin (May 23, 1915 – March 8, 1981) was a Canadian engineer who contributed to the design of the Canadian Avro Arrow, NASA’s Gemini spacecraft and the Apollo program. In addition to his pioneering air and space efforts, he is often cited as an example of Canadian brain drain to the U.S. In the early 1960s, he was one of the key people that proposed and moved that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) was the best option for landing a crew on the Moon, the method eventually used on Apollo lunar landing missions.

            (OK, patriotic rant over…)

          • Bubba 2:

            Lest you forget, pure Oxygen in the Capsule and the fire.

            Or the insane decision to not blow the retro rockets and use the strap to hold on the heat shield that a cording to the light was loose (read the Man Called Flight).

            The above had no engineer checks and assessment of the consequences, it was a pure knee jerk move and could have lost that Capsule.

            Apollo 13 and the Blow Up.

            Failure to follow process has along history to it. One fix was that “Flight” made the call and only after an engineer assessment.

            That lesson was lost on the Space Shuttle twice.

          • RE transworld and ‘lest I forget’ comment. Not at all- my point was intended to be simple- ” By the 80’s and 90’s most had retired ”

            And of course there some bad choices during Apollo. O2 and velcro re cabin fire, mgmt overruling engineers on shuttle launch, etc.
            As to boeing -not perfect but how many Saturn 5 all up failures were there ? Answer NONE. Lunar orbiter great success on first launch and around the moon and FIRST pics oor ‘earthrise ‘ on that mission.
            Boeing Lunar Rover- A lightweight EV on the moon worked well.
            and lets not forget the young man in the trenches who when faced with an apparent computer overload during Apollo 11 within a minute of landing made the choice to ignore the warning and ‘ management “Flight Director ” backed him. Can you imagine that happening now. BTW how many manned moon landings have been made since then ? :))))

          • “That lesson was lost on the Space Shuttle twice.”

            Both losses where politics topping over hard engineering.

            The demarkation between nonprofessional management and professional middlemen and further down is pushed down over time.
            It usually starts with zero nonprofessionals at the top.
            It stops when professionals get their final disconnect from the upper body.
            See Pournelle’s law on bureaucracies:
            ( ossification will turn any good organisation into a self serving entity populated by “Selbstversorger”)

  10. Delta News

    Delta orders up to 40 Airbus A350-1000 widebody planes


    CHICAGO, Jan 12 (Reuters) – Delta Air Lines (DAL.N) on Friday unveiled an order for up to 40 new Airbus (AIR.PA) A350-1000 widebody aircraft, with deliveries of the first 20 jets are scheduled to begin in 2026.

    The order, which Reuters this week reported was imminent, is likely to make Delta the first U.S. carrier to operate the model. Delta said it had options for a further 20 planes.

    • Gee. Can you blame ’em for going overseas for aircraft? I got to wonder if the MAX-10 survives in their fleet renewal plans. One thing after another with the 737MAX program. I’m beginning to think “The Janitor” is out… Muilenburg lasted long enough to go before Congress and tap dance… They’ll probably want to talk to this guy, too. The Congress has got nothing else they’re serious about fixing anyways.

      • You know Sam, if I was Airbus, I would have a quiet word with the guys in production. A smart man learns from the mistakes other make.

        I would ask them to quietly talk to dept heads and let it filter down to the troops;

        “Yes, we’re trying to boost production. Yes. we’re posting records. But this all goes away if we slip up. Make sure of what you’re doing. If not – ask the question. Take an extra minute to make sure. “

        • “if I was Airbus, I would have a quiet word with the guys in production”

          This happened this week.

          On the A350-1000, I never doubted the success of this type, when many pointed out the limited sales since launch. Just looking at the specs, much lighter then the 777s. That matters.

          • I seem to be missing something, an order for 40 x A350-1000 makes the type a success?

            Well as long as you don’t operate it in Phoenix or Vegas I guess (you know, dessert, hot, all that).

            Granted that is the engines.

            Or the fact that Delta clearly favors Airbus (not that I blame them but its not been a competition with Boeing for some time in the Wide Body arena).

            I figure over time the 1000 will do fine, its a 30 year program, its not a sprint.

          • @tw

            Roll eyes. Have you checked where DL is going to put them into service? Look at their route map for christ sake.

          • Its all a whatever.

            The 1000 is deemed a horse race, its not. Its a long distance run.

            As a derivative its done decently and over time it will do well.

            Its actually flying in commercials service unlike the 777X.

            ps: The sandy and hot remark was tongue in cheek. Delta like Airbus wide body and far more single aisle than Boeing and nothing wrong with that.

            I am struggling to find relevance to the -9 blow off Blank.

          • @Transworld

            Not for nothing, but the original 777 entered into service in 1995.

            ……….Total orders Total deliveries Unfilled
            777-200 88 88 –
            777-200ER 422 422 –
            777-200LR 61 61 –
            777-300 60 60 –
            777-300ER 837 832 5
            777F 320 264 56

            Total 1,727

            There are 56 freighters left to deliver from the original type and all variants delivered were 1,727.

            Call it 1,800

            The A350 has 1,250 orders with 585 delivered since 2015.

            500 orders to catch the original 777’s number.

          • If I’m not mistaken (@scott will know), the A350 development costs have been recovered & the A350 is making a profit, the 787 I don’t believe has reached this point yet & that’s some way off for the 777-X of course ?

            Airbus will continue to incrementally improve the A350, after that, where do they go … A350 NEO with Ultrafan ? A220-500 or new wing & slight stretch of the A320 family ?

            Will they be radical enough to look at a true A320 – 737 replacement or be content to wait for BA to jump first (IMHO BA isn’t ready yet & will wait for Airbus) ?

  11. I’m curious on how fast or smooth the max 7 and 10’s certification process will go now. Eventually all these issues will be in the rearview mirror or so I hope but Boeings reputation is almost completely shot. Just as a guess the airlines that have these on order are sweating bricks right now for not getting their aircrafts anytime soon. Perhaps if at all. This is certainly a serious issue but I’m still willing to fly on the max 8’s and 9’s. I’m confident that all the particular aircraft are being throughly checked out before flight again. Any 737’s be it an older version or a max 8 or 9’s and are currently sitting at your departing gate are not affected or have been repaired to design specifications. This is not a blanket max 9 aircraft. Only those with these plug type doors.

    So many people claim the max versions of the 737 as an old, unchanged aircraft version however , if that’s true then these aircraft wouldn’t be having manufacturing, quality control concerns. The former 737 900 version of aircraft aren’t affected as they’re not the newer max produced version.

    The easiest way to tell the difference just by sight, is the engines of the older series 737’s, be it a -9 or whatever will be the engines. If the bottom of the engines seem to be flatter the totally round then that’s an older version of 737’s which have been flying many many years with a proven safety record.

    • You’re confident that the MAX-9 is/will be thoroughly checked out *for this issue*. Are you confident that there are not other issues that have not been
      found yet, or have been covered up (see Spirit whistleblower lawsuit)?

      • I’m as confident as much as I’m unknowingly am going to get into a car wreak today! Mechanical issues happen with everything. Things break but I will say that with this version of the Max and its seemingly uncommon manufacturing concerns does make one think extra about flying on these model aircraft. I’m not afraid of them just like I’m not afraid of getting on any Airbus aircraft, which by the way haven’t been free of issues when first being made. They too had crashes, mechanical issues not previously known about etc. In fact a good current issue is with the 321-XLS version and its center fuel tank.

        Boeing is going through self induced and self invective management and manufacturing. They need to get their house in order and very soon. However I still trust flying on Boeings aircraft.

        • I used to think that till the door blew out. Boeing’s problems our systemic. And the pool of leadership has been for decades from the same swamp. If The Janitor is offered a big golden parachute, his replacement will be the type that will be looking for the same type of setup and bring little innovation to what was one of the greatest engineering companies of the 20th Century.

          • Correct-even Hairy Stonecipher agreed with you

            ” When I say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm. It is a great engineering firm, but people invest in a company because they want to make money. ”
            Harry Stonecipher, 2004, former CEO of The Boeing Company, reflecting on the late 1990s

            ” If I’m away from my desk,then I must be cowering
            somewhere. Please leave a note.”

            SPEEA poster re Mcnearney comment

            July 25  2014
            Boeing’s McNerney apologizes for remark about ‘cowering’ workers

            Boeing CEO Jim McNerney apologized Friday in a companywide message for telling analysts that he won’t retire after turning 65 next month because
            “the heart will still be beating, the employees will still be cowering. “

          • Pretty sad and very tragic. Some unsuspecting passengers gave all.

    • Well sadly, Boeing has the rear view mirror pointed forwards and its Ground Hog day all over again.

    • -> The FAA on Jan. 10 opened a formal investigation into whether Boeing’s role in not flagging nonconforming assemblies violates its production certificate approval and agency regulations.

      “Boeing may have failed to ensure its completed products conformed to its approved design and were in a condition for safe operation in accordance with quality system inspection and test procedures,” the agency wrote in a letter to Boeing, citing the accident and “additional discrepancies” on other 737-9s.

  12. It seems the declarations, promises and commitments on the most scrunitized aircraft in aviation history had a lot to do with marketing and stake/stockholder perception management.

    Instead of really adding capacity for thourough auditing, implementing improvements and root cause analyses.

      • You would be correct. And his sexy ‘cyber-truck’. And his self drive rig. Hyper loop isn’t looking too good, either. But his followers believe the PR…

        • Frank P:

          Well its off topic, frankly I don’t get Musk at all.

          You can’t argue with Space X, so is he a great idea guy who turns it over to good people and lets it run. Star Link. Is there a them there (space is good and earth is bad?)

          As noted, he has had some specular failures, including so called X.

          • He is both.

            The prevalent trend to paint any one person either
            black or white ( and that depending on a continuously changing and very narrow domain )
            is a path into hell.

  13. I must say Boing is becoming very ripe for some satirical Rhetoric v Reality videos (if anyone dared).

    I wonder if the DPA held. A very interesting article on the sweetheart DPA can be found by searching Nosedive-Boeing-DPA.

  14. Further to a reply I just posted, Boeing have a number of airframes, MAX 9 without the extra exit, going through mixed in with hundreds of airframes without plugs. In the oil industry this is handled by something known as a management of change, something which has become so overused in some companies that it is done even in quite common jobs. It looks to me like this might well be a management of change failure

      • Now ain’t that the truth.

        You only get out of the Ground Hog day jail when you address the real problem and that is at the top.

  15. So the solution to Boeing outsourcing part production to other vendors, is to use outsourced FAA inspectors?
    Doesn’t seem to be a solution to me.

  16. Boeings problem is Airbus !
    Airbus being subsidized, and able to build Aircraft like domestic Automotive companies had to start competing with the likes of Toyota back in the day, or more accurately Yugo… Boeing has had to cheapen their manufacturing costs by outsourcing to foreign countries that have severely less oversight. Even large parts of some Boeing Aircraft are now made in “smaller” off chute foreign companies and supplied to Boeing for assembly.
    Over 40 years, I’ve watched the degradation of quality of manufacturing, and maintenance happening.
    Removal of inspections from almost all but FAA mandated , manufacturer RII items , and the current generation of other countries unlicensed maintenance workers, has reeked havoc on Quality and reliability.
    The rules from the FAA need to be strengthened and enforced again !
    Or the outcome WILL be more disasters of greater magnitude !

    • You start you screed on wrong premises.
      From there you get nowhere in scope of useful insights.

      Airbus was “fragmented production” from day one.
      Which forced perfect interface definitions by the way.

      Worker protections, “Mitbestimmung” and other regional limitations
      on going capitalist overboard where (falsely) seen in the US as downsides hampering Airbus.

      Finally the RLI instrument forced Airbus to produce some hay with those moneys ( versus Boeing getting return less gifts ( tax, ressearch money, … )

      Historically US saw themselves as successful due to overwhelming proficiency while in all truth it was nothing more than “no competition due to lack of leverage” after WWII.

    • While it is true that Airbus has received subsidies, don’t forget that Boeing has had access to a much bigger military market and federal research funding and partnerships (NASA).

      Before the problems, boeing was making record profits year after year. They could have invested a couple hundreds of millions per year in better QA and engineering without becoming meaningfully less profitable.
      It was a management decision to run QA into the ground and not invest sufficiently in R&D and new products.

      • Boeing “super profits” always seem to have had a large smoke and mirrors aspect. Increasing over time. Protective folklore via the PR department was always a strong activity vector.
        Only nobody really wanted to look carefully as product quality didn’t rock the boat.

        Tongue in Cheek:
        the last time they really had an overflow of profits they jumped into the Das80 development. ( at the time Just to avoid war profiteering charges )

  17. IF-big IF i recall correctly about Ali baharmi (FAA and Boeing and . . ) Earlier in his career, he worked as a senior engineer at McDonnell Douglas. During his time at Boeing/FAA he pushed the major change in ‘ safety checks from the long established DER system to some sort of alternate methods by ??? name-organization. That was after the strike by SPEEA in 2000 which shut off deliveries since DER types joined SPEEA. Boeing pulled-pushed all sorts of strings and games to essentially water down the whole safety and approval and certificatiion and sign-off games. looked good on paper- and the result since then is now VERY obvious.

    The mc Dummy virus is found in many many places.

    • WSJ extract which IMHO proves my earlier posts about shooting the messenger

      ” The result, some current and former employees say: a factory where workers rush to meet unrealistic quotas and where pointing out problems is discouraged if not punished. Increasingly, they say, planes have been leaving Wichita with so-called escapements, or undetected defects.

      “It is known at Spirit that if you make too much noise and cause too much trouble, you will be moved,” said Joshua Dean, a former Spirit quality auditor who says he was fired after flagging misdrilled holes in fuselages. “It doesn’t mean you completely disregard stuff, but they don’t want you to find everything and write it up.”

      His account is included in a shareholder lawsuit filed in December against Spirit that alleges the company failed to disclose costly defects. …


  18. The picture that United posted of the loose bolt was not of a hinge bolt, but of one of the bolts fastening the hinge to the body of the plane. It’s not even the bolt you would remove if you wanted to take out the panel.
    If that is true that is a major oversight error.

  19. IMO there is a basic difference between B and AB when it comes to “distributed manufacturing “ which they both practice.
    B kind of fell into it in an opportunistic manner, bit by bit, and without any conscious overall planning and oversight.
    No wonder they ended up in somewhat of a (multiple) mess(es). See the results on the 787 andMAX…
    AB’s approach was very different in as much as, from the start and due to their national work share approach they HAD TO plan for quality assurance at widely separate (geography, languages, etc ) locations. So an overall supervision and coordination framework was included an initio. This approach later in turn helped when managing outside subcontractors when the need arose.

    • That needs a bit of expansion.

      Airbus was following Boeing down the selling off of divisions when the 787 debacle occurred and the divisions were not selling as no one could make money doing so (see Spirit)

      So they pulled back.

      There is also the A380 wiring mess.

      But it is a good point that Airbus has not had the kind of Hydra monster BAC has become (defense is a mixed bag, motly MD legacy systems but the P-8 is doing well as is the E-7 (after a lot of issues).

    • I wonder how much differences in employment law has played a part. In Europe / the UK, there’s not much of a hire / fire business environment. Thus a new project probably has many of the same people working together yet again; they’re given the chance of getting good at it. Arguably it took Airbus the best part of three decades to totally merge into one seamless organisation, culminating in the success of the A350 project.

      They have had some close shaves. RR had their problem with an oil pipe on the Trent 900, and it was only because of that that the cracks were found in the A380 wing thanks to a sharp eyed worker repairing the damage to Qantas’s VH-OQA. I’ve no idea it the cracks could have resulted in a downed aircraft, but regardless it was a suboptimal situation. Now, however, the A380 seems to have become an exemplary aircraft.

      Today Airbus seems to get QC/QA right across multiple continents, in multiple languages. It’s quite impressive.

      Speaking to former Airbus engineers of my acquaintance, the other thing that seems solid is that management never sought to override safety / QC / QA. If something wasn’t right, in my chum’s experience, that was accepted and everyone just got on with sorting the problem out.

      I think market share is a big component of that. Airbus knows that, pretty much no matter what, they’re going to get sufficient orders to keep the business afloat. Airbus does not face extinction simply because of some fixable structural issue delaying a project. Thus they can afford to get thing right.

      Things must be very different when you’re a smaller, weaker company. Look at Bombardier; they too didn’t take short cuts on QA/QC, and built a wonderful aircraft. But they killed the company doing so. The staff are extremely fortunate that Airbus came in and took it over; their jobs are safe and it’s looking like they’ll be a busy and active part of the Airbus megacorp for decades to come.

      Things must also be very different in a company that owes $100billions and has been shedding market share over the past few decades but disguising the decline with share buy backs.

      • couple of points:
        Airbus took a couple decades to grow to 50+% market share.
        (quite the achievement with a competitor with no holds barred attitudes.)
        Their products though were solid from day one.
        IMU: A380 cracking would have been discovered early enough with their first scheduled regular checks. Obviously the US controlled press jumped on it while Boeing had and GE still has press protection.

        BBD had to work in the financial and PR environment that Boeing projected. Airbus with the added support of the EU had enough “mass” to weather this, BBD being much smaller and with its US captured government not.

  20. As far as I can see,various bolts and fasteners were not fitted properly or possibly not fitted at all.Also,some of these bolts and fasteners were supposed to be attaching fittings which are common to all emergency door apertures and 737MAX models.So why haven’t all 737MAX models been grounded?

    • Because everyone is hoping to heck that this is localized to the Max 9 and if the 8 gets grounded again, it’ll cost BA billions they don’t have.

      Remember, this is also an election year and the last thing anyone needs is Boeing front and center on all the news outlets.

      Side note:

      If I was more of a conspiracy theorist, I would say that it’s quite odd that David got out in front of this crisis so early in the process. Usually, you wait until things quiet down a bit and the initial report comes out.

      What are we, a week in? And here he is, claiming “it’s our mistake”

      I would postulate that perhaps he was told that if he get’s out in front of this, takes the blame, promises and actually fixes the problem, they’ll go light on BA. America needs Boeing and Boeing needs America. It is too big to fail, but now is not the time to push it over the edge.

      • The reverse is also true,if it’s just a matter of checking the fitting of the door plug, it should just be a few hours work and the MAX 9 can be sent on its merry way.There seems to be no logic or reason behind all of this and I agree that the FAAs motives seem to be at least partially politically motivated

          • So,why why not lurking on the 737MAX8 as well, or 787 for that matter? I can see no logic to this grounding .Probably the correct way forward is is to just slow down the ramp up so that training can keep up.Same thing with US ATC if they want to avoid the almost inevitable impending runway disaster.
            Neither of these things will happen

          • What’s your justifications for your move? There’ll be strong pushback from the industry. In case there’s a court challenge, can you defend your move by the book?

            FAA is collecting evidence and their next move depends on that outcome.

          • Certainly asking Max8 operators to check their plug sections would be a logical ask, at least those delivered in the same time frame as the Max9 deliveries. The Max8 does have a longer service history, but not by much.

          • There’s a lot of Wishin’ and a-Hopin’ going on, methinks.

          • IMU this extra exit is a -900 and -9MAX feature.
            so there is nothing to check on those smaller versions.

            see the 737MAX acap.page 2-29
            position F is n.a. for max7 and max8
            valid on max9, max10 and max8200
            now the RyanAir max8200 have a functional exit installed in that position not a dummyplug

          • As far as I understand, the 737MAX8200 has the same apertures and some common bracketery, but a real escape door . I would be very disappointed if nobody was curious about those too.

          • Different sizes AFAIK.
            Even the MAX 9 with actual deactivated exits are not grounded.

          • Casey, only aircraft affected are the max 9’s with the plug option. If the max 9’s aircraft has an exit installed, it’s a completely different mounting. Regarding the 87’s, again completely different aircraft with completely different design. So no other aircraft are affected then the -8’s with the plug. This is why only an approximate 141 aircraft of hundreds built and delivered are grounded until repairs are made.

          • S, the hole is the same. It wouldn’t be there otherwise and wouldn’t need a blank

          • >Who knows what else are lurking underneath?
            >Think like a regulator.

            Or indeed, think like a regulator whose international reputation got dragged through the mud a few years back, and any hint of failing to have been curous enough about what Boeing has been doing since risks international peers losing all faith (again) with grave consequential damage to Boeing’s international sales.

            There’s been a lot in the public domain over the past few years to suggest that all was will not right in Boeing. For the FAA to jump into action only when a door has fallen off seems, well, a little late. Possibly they’ve been more proactive behind the scenes, and more communicative with peer regulators around the world than is publicly apparent. But they must be somewhat embarassed.

      • “.. It is too _bog_ to fail..”

        This a freudian slip 😕

        Assume that the real tsunami is still behind Calhoun
        and currently his feet are wet from a small (forrunner)wave.

        • An old apropos joke:

          There are two people in a wood, and they run into a bear. The first person gets down on his knees to pray; the second person starts lacing up his boots. The first person asks the second person, “My dear friend, what are you doing? You can’t outrun a bear.” To which the second person responds, “I don’t have to. I only have to outrun you.”

          • Funny story from the Alaska Pipeline days.

            Rabbies being an issue of animals inthe wilds of Alaska with a prevance in Fox infection and the fellers from Texas and Oklahoma had indocriation to Alaska condtions (cold temsp and rabid animals basicly)

            So, one day 3 of the good olde boys were on a Pad up in Prudhoe looking at the next install on said pad and what do they see but a Fox headed their way.

            So a quick look and a Dozer was the nearest safe spot and all 3 took off running.

            Now two of those guys were semi decent shape and they were thinking, that last guy who is seriously over weight will be our safety as he is going to be last.

            Said overweight guy was sitting on the dozer when the other two arrived. Ooops, never make assumptions.

            Or as they said in diving class, you have a buddy and a knife for emergencies, if you see a shark, stab the other guy first and then swim fast.

          • @transworld

            ‘Or as they said in diving class, you have a buddy and a knife for emergencies, if you see a shark, stab the other guy first and then swim fast.’

            I’m a PADI OWSI

            Jeez, you’re giving sharks a bad name. I used to work the shark dive in the Bahamas. Never an issue…

  21. “Our only concern is the safety of American travellers “ Mike Whitaker FAA.
    What’s wrong with these people?

    • You know they are Bureaucrats don’t you?

      The motivation is to protect industry, but industry will be sacrificed if needed (see stories above)

  22. many govt employees suffer from Optical rectitus and its not covered by medicare. Graft helps.

    • Bubba2:

      The issue is not graft unless you expand that.

      Graft is bribes and they work within a system that is a job swapping program.

      Its insidious, I have seen industry types do a great job, but its a coin toss as to integrity.

      The Maconda failure is one of my favorites as its such a stark example of Multiple Layers of safety that were all defeated and there was no safety system in place (and perhaps the least understandable was by the Maconda Platform crew to assume the gauge was wrong, you never ever do that but they did, so in the end they aided and abetted their own deaths)

  23. I decided to return to watch a Frontline’s video showing the time line vis a vis the two tragic crashes ot the 737 with the unknown MCAS system. Sometimes a refreshing of old news sheds a bit of light on Boeing’s recurring issues of the Max. What blatently stood out was when the current replacement for Muellinberg, David Calhoun more or less declared that things would change, yet in a veiled response implied that this would never have happened with American pilots, I flashed on the current predicament that Boeing is in. Sometimes things never change. What was once the fabulous leader in aeronautical engineering and expertise is no more. Where will the competition come from because when I fly it’s never on Boeing anymore and always on Airbus we need credible competition…. IMO,Boeing is no longer credible.

    • Maybe the MAx9 pilots in the latest MAXcident
      caused the door blowout..

      Klown Kar = Boing C-suite

      Expect more of the same.

  24. From TAC, it seems there’s a consensus that both the MAX 7 and 10 would face significant delays.

    • Could you imagine if the FAA granted a waiver and certification of the Max 7 now, with all this going on?

      • How many -7’s are Boeing supposed to be delivering to SouthWest? Are they going to have anything left to fly? (Wikipedia article on MAX orders doesn’t break out by subtype)

  25. I am seeing a report by Juan Brown that the Satellite install group on the Max -9 was using that Blank as access to the aircrat to install the Satellite system (subsidiary of Spirit).

    The aircraft is completed in the view presented (not verified)

    It makes a weird bit of sense, otherwise there is no reason not to have the Blank installed and secured.

    Oh, we leave that to Spirit and if they want some extra work for convenient its not up to us (Boeing) its up to them.

    In a twisted way its true, the last entity to work on the Blank is responsible for the correct install.

    Boeing has the overall responsibility so once again they will pay the cost (Ground Hog Day).

    But in a speculative concept, if Alaska Airlines pulled the interior and did work on that door, they are responsible not Boeing.

    As has been noted, there will be a procedure for correct install and if Spirit did indeed have that on their plate, directly its their failure though Boeing is responsibly to ensure Spirit does its job.

    So the check would go something like, bolts install by mechanic A and sighted off by Inspector B and it all was a pencil whip job.

    While not as direct, neither Boeing nor Airbus can say the engines they use are built correctly (and in several cases they were not – The GenX GE engine that shucked the turbine blades and the Trent 1000 come to mind).

    At what point do you count on someone not to lie about what they did.

    Fasteners come to mind. The treatment of fasteners and if they are done right comes down to tests. If someone fakes the tests?

    In this case Boeing could easily have a follow up to the Blank inspection but like an Airline mechanic, you do not expect someone to lie.

    Aloha was rife with lies on the 737 blow out. Virtually none of the inspections were being done despite a direct process that Boeing had put in place for that specific issue and cycles.

    Hopefully this coming week we get some clarification as to who did what when and not just made up stories.

    In the end, regardless Boeing has issues and Calhoun has not fixed anything at Boeing with his repeated failures since he took over.

    • Methinks ( with no data or evidence ) the ” lamb on altar ” contest is full bore, and the wi fi install group is high on the list maybe above the ‘ janitor’ and the milo minderbinder class may have a need to spend more time with family.

      • Wi fi install did say that they didn’t touch the door blank.If I were to do that job,I would get Boeing or Alaska mechanics to do that bit for me as they would be qualified to do it and it’s their aircraft.

        • @tw
          IIRC AAR, the contractor of AS, denied.
          All most recent reports I came across have stated the “door plug” was not opened after delivery. Calhoun has accepted it’s a quality escape from BA, FAA has opened an investigation against both BA/SPR.

          P.S. Diversion tactics wouldn’t work this time. Period.

          • P.S.2 Cognitive dissonance: don’t want to accept what’s shown in front of you, have to find an alternative explanation for self-satisfaction. That’s why conspiracy theories and Qanon are both popular.

          • “P.S. Diversion tactics wouldn’t work this time. Period.”

            Don’t bet on it.
            This is visible Boeing MoO since I got interested in the jingoistig agitation against the A380, then Sonic Cruiser, “Dreamliner” with a long string of unpleasant fall out, the intial NEO counter followed up by MAX the gift that keeps on giving all hung on a backbone of diversions.

            Boeing was able to displace all their US peers. But it seems to have stopped there hard.

          • The point is there has not been a definitive trail laid out so far.

            Picture I saw showed a stair setup leading up to the Exit Blank location.

            Juan reports that Blank is shipped loose. So Satellite people may not have touched the door but if it was left open for them, then there has to be a follow up to get it back in place (moire accurately in place and properly installed which means bolts)

            Either them or Boeing. There is a failure of process involved regardless. That means people lying about work done as well as the inspection. That is criminal as is Boeing failures but those of course will not get prosecuted.

            The bigger picture is that there are too many failures occurring in the build process. Boeing has to clean that up including at Spirit.

            It reminds me of the Build Issues at Charleston on the 787, I believe it was Chance Vought that built part of the 787 and then a join plant that assembled Alenia Part to the CV part. (I guess Alenia is the weirdly named Galileo now)

            No matter what Boeing did with CV they failed, that is when Boeing bought it out (the assembly plant was never intended to be there, just the fuselage join).

            I am sure Spirit would be happy to sell Kansas fuselage back to Boeing.

            Then Boeing can try to clean up the main assemblies under its own authority and not have to work with Spirit.

            As someone noted, if you used that Doorway as a non standard access then you have a non standard process in place.

            While its part of a larger picture, you still have to clean up all the flaws in the smaller picture and understanding that specific process and why it occurred is part of that.

            It looks like the FAA has now to figure out how to make things more enhanced when they already supposedly were enhanced.

            In a culture of safety, as Mentour has noted with the Swiss Cheese model, you have many layers line up to get a bad result. Clearly the failures are there, but in order for those to occur they had to be assisted by violating protocols.

          • Any proof that the conspiracy theory is supported by good evidence or more like coincidence? 🙄

            How about it’s caused by aliens and spaceships? Can we say it’s impossible?? 😂

            Oh BTW good that someone here believes BA would takeover Kansas. I still have a few more hours to go before I go to bed and start
            dreaming. 😴

          • “Swiss Cheese model”

            design metric was to not fail on single holes.

            When the probability of holes aligning is significant
            you just have too many holes around.

            and that indicates that introduction of cheap laxness has completely eaten up the achieved initially designed in safety.

    • I watched Juan’s video, as well.

      Curiously, he said that he spoke with someone (unnamed) who told him that Spirit installed the door plugs and they they were NOT opened on the FAL during their time at Renton. This goes against what Reuters reported that the doors were semi-rigged and used by Boeing.

      Most of his video seemed to focus on Spirit.

      I guess time will tell.

      • Hmm.
        Spirit delivers -9 frames with exits fitted but only provisionally fixed as intended/ordered.
        Boeing for one reason or other does not touch those doors
        and in the process omits to finalize the locking stuff?

        someone offered that painting would/could require having them open to get at the edges ( door, frame ). If someone thinks there is nothing lost if they stay unpainted and introduces ( a half assed ) optimization to manufacturing ?

        Q: does Boeing deliver painted frames or green ones with subsequent painting by some subcontractor?

        • If you look at some of the pictures on pprune or Seattle Times, door plug edges are possibly excessively painted with a thick and wide layer of paint.Compare that with the pictures of the offending article,which seems to have just a bit of overspray.
          Are people just inventing procedures on the shop floor to make things faster?

        • I think Juan is contending that the airframes come from Spirit sealed and that they are not opened in Renton and that the onus falls on Spirit to install them correctly.

          Or at least, that’s what his source told him, reporting aside.

    • I expect lots and lots of posturing and theatre, but little
      substantive action. The main goal is to keep attention
      off of the MAX-8 and its possible issues, I think.

      • Boeing will not change. They has been lucky, and with their normalcy bias, they believe the luck will continue indefinitely.
        Eventually, something very bad is bound to happen. A MAX crash due to an under-tightened bolt, for example.
        Can Boeing survive that?

  26. From Jacobin:
    “Over the past decade, Boeing and its parts suppliers have paid executives $817 million and showered Wall Street with $68 billion in dividends and stock buybacks. The recent Alaska Airlines malfunction is the consequence of this profit seeking.

    • Just wondering: that compensation figure includes shares given to the gang (usually options) and I believe they are calculated at the difference in the price that they are given at, versus what the shares actually cost at that time.


      BA gives an option to an exec for 100 shares at $100 today. Those shares are trading at $217. The benefit to the exec (or the cost to the company) is the value of the share less the execution price, or $117.

      But let’s say they hand onto those options and the shares go back up to $440. Although they were given at a time when it was trading at $217, now they decide to cash in at $440.

      How many execs hung onto their options during 2013-2018 window, when BA was doing well – and got out around the $400 mark?

      In Feb 2016, BA was at a low of ~$116. Feb 2019, it hit $440. If you were one of those guys who got options in the fiscal 2016 year and cashed out in 2019, you made out like a bandit.

      All you had to do was hang onto them 3 years and you almost quadrupled your money…

      • Frank P:

        While its not going to happen, the answer is to make it illegal to give any execs shares as part of their pay.

        It only leads to corruption as the incentive is to buck up the stock at the cost of the company (and in this case safety of the public)

        Base pay on profits, changes the whole incentive aspect.

        • ‘Base pay on profits, changes the whole incentive aspect.’

          In the context of Boeing, program accounting and the ability to hide expenses…think about your comment and what the C-suite would do.

          • Any changes you’ll make : they will find new loopholes for enrichment. No escape.

            The error is in who you choose for management.

    • A thought to ponder:

      The Max 9 and the 737-900ER have the same door plug situation, right? As mentioned above, the ER’s are all old enough to have gone through heavy maintenance checks (at least a C-Check) and are seemingly out of the woods.

      So a 3rd party MRO operation is being OK’ed with their inspection process to get the aircraft back into the air, but the OEM who built the darn thing in the first place, is not…

      That’s a heck of a black eye.

      • I think this has gone beyond a black eye.

        Terribly close to another crash.

        Calhoun needs to be canned. He just put the MAX back on the ground.

      • “So a 3rd party MRO operation is being OK’ed” ..

        A biggish Set of 3rd party MROs … have touched on those.
        Boeing is “single station”

        My assumption is that missing/lose door bolts on entry into major checks get noted and documented.

  27. Frank.
    BA is not in a position to OK anything until the FAA issues the corrections required for the Emergency AD Note. AS is not in a position to get their work approved as an AMOC until the FAA issues their MOC on the subject. There are so many moving parts here. I wish people would get over the thinking that this is a simple matter of the Inspectors needing to explain why they missed the 4 locking bolt installations.

    • Scottt C:

      Spot on. Its many layers of safety and the only way that can have occurred is lying in at least two levels (Blank installer and Inspector) and the oversight of both.

      When I was working we had what they called Hot Work Permits. The guy doing the work filled out the card, then another person looked at the card and inspected the equipment and site to ensure that it all was the way the first person said it was.

      I used one guy on my crew because he would not let me get away with anything (not that I was trying but I cvould miss things). He was totally hard assed about it and I wanted that.

      Flip to that was I saw the company manager use his buddy as the cross check and they tried to set fire to the place (and nothing was done about it).

      When the culture glosses over that kind of behaviour, you have a problem.

      Maconda showed no matter how many checks they had, if you had a process to violate each of them (and they did) you can evade 5 or more levels of safety.

      That is really where we are at now. Boeing is going backwards.

      The FAA is going to have to sit on them until they correct that. At some point the board is going to decide Calhoun needs to spend time with his family.

      This is his 3rd major failure, so the 777X/787 (maybe is getting there) and the MAX has reverted to grounded (or part of the fleet).

      As Truman said, the Buck is SUPPOSED To Stop Here.

      • ” As Truman said, the Buck is SUPPOSED To Stop Here.”
        per stonecipher and those following
        As Stony said, the Buck stops IN my wallet , ,

    • Scott C

      It’s the bigger picture that I’m talking about, not the mechanics or complexity of the process.

      An MRO is doing the work properly. Boeing isn’t.

  28. Anyone want to comment on ‘ probability ‘ of four bolts with cotterpins and little load having pins fall out, nuts coming unwound, bolts sliding out, and fuselage motion shaking being enough to slid door up and then out. ?

    My guess is a mcuh better chance of the pope having twins..

  29. The solution to this crisis in confidence in Boeing planes is simple. The airlines operating the Max should just strip out the interior panels so the monocoque is bare and readily accessible. Then as passengers board the plane instead of the flight attendant handling them headphones she’ll just give them each a torque wrench. The first couple minutes of the preflight safety briefing will instruct the passengers to look for loose fasteners near their seat and tighten as required with their correctly calibrated torque wrench.
    From now on if you sit in an emergency exut row you’ll be asked if you have the capacity to open the door, and anyone in a window will be asked if they have the capacity to torque a high-lok.
    Maybe we just need one torqued wrench per row.
    Maybe the torque wrench is stowed under the seat.
    ….just trying to help here.

  30. Calhoun’s response to the incident:
    “We need to admit our mistake “……then continue reducing head count and returning 100% of free cash flow to the shareholders.
    I heard he was almost crying publicly….I suppose he waz thinking of the stock price and his own stock options.

    • Interesting re Nicole. had some comm with her after 911 re Boeing spiking (via Rudy deLeon ) a Countervailing Duties Petition against Airbus. Met Walt Gillette while on B2 program in late 80’s. Both very straight forward and no BS.

  31. Re A350-1000 expectations.

    If you look at the order backlog of 300, this isn’t impressive.

    If you look at the airlines in this -1000 backlog, you see big legacy airlines from all over the world.

    If you add all A350-900 customers that fly 777W’s today, you can see opportunity shining through.

    • Agreed. It looks like it has a steady sustainment and that is all to the good.

      Its a many year program not a year here or there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *