Old May Banker said:

---

Imagine being in the seat beside that.

---

Whenever I see a hole shaped like that It would make me want to stand up, lean out and do a door check.

Supposedly the interior shows no sign of the plug door. Looks just like the rest of the windows with the same trim

bjorn said:

---

This is what happens when you change company culture focused of delivering best product to maximizing profit for shareholders

---

Or implementing DEI vs hiring the best and most qualified. And I bet the union makes it almost impossible to fire someone who isn't cutting it.

FTAG 2000 said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Kind of looks like some dip**** pulled the handle on emergency door mid flight. 24 hour rule in effect

---

Talked to Boeing rep tonight (client). Confirmed this is an exit row window.

TBD if it blew out on its own or some drunk ass passenger pulled the red bar

---

Rightttttttt

FAA orders grounding. That BA will impact the DOW Monday

Dan Scott said:

---

FAA orders grounding. That BA will impact the DOW Monday

---

It affects only 171 aircraft. Once they're inspected to make sure the door/plug is installed correctly and not defective, they will be able to fly again.

Rapier108 said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

FAA orders grounding. That BA will impact the DOW Monday

---

It affects only 171 aircraft. Once they're inspected to make sure the door/plug is installed correctly and not defective, they will be able to fly again.

---

Not sure that is true, per above on a.net it's a bit over 500 that have these plugs (737-900ER's and 7379max models that don't have the alternative high-density full blown exit door (pun sort of intended).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

N664US wrote:
Current potential scope of the door plugs is 578 frames (based on my quick counting from planespotters.net, likely +/- a couple considering I might've miscounted):

737-900ER: 377 in service with plugs, versus 127 with exits
--> operators with door plugs: AS, DL* (ex-Lion Air/Batik aircraft from ship 3931 up still have doors), LY, KE, TK, PS, UA, 7W, and 1 BBJ
737-9MAX: 201 in service with plugs, versus 18 with exits
--> operators with door plugs: AM, AS, CM* (appears to be in-progress converting doors to plugs, all counted as plugged here), TK, UA, and 2 BBJs
737-8MAX-200: none have door plugs, but 137 in service with exits

It also means the oldest aircraft with plugs is flying around likely 16 years old(N37413, a -924ER at UA), which leads to another question -- do these plugs get replaced at some point in a 737's service life?

---

---

The aviation geek discussion is here, though I'd note there is a high level of anti-Boeing attitude among that site (lot's of Europeans, plus some animus about labor unions/Boeing/McD etc).

Bottom line is I dunno why the 900ER's with said plug wouldn't similarly require a grounding/inspection since it is identical in that respect (as is the plane fuselage).

Its Not Rocket Surgery said:

---

I used to be a "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" person, but they are not the company they once were. There's an old joke that McDonnel Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money. Basically, the MD board of directors took all of the senior leadership positions at Boeing when Boeing bought them out. Which leads me to another old saying in the aviation industry, "Boeing builds aircraft, McDonnel Douglas builds profits." MD built some great aircraft over the years, but I think you can read between the lines on where corporate priorities headed after the two companies merged.

I cringed when they announced they were moving their global HQ from Chicago to Virginia. They should have gone back to Seattle and focused on engineering the best products in the world. Instead, it appears they went to DC to lobby their way out of their issues. Boeing absolutely has a huge place in my aviation loving heart, but I worry about where the company is headed (or will continue to head) in the future.

---

Boeing used to have the likes of MD, Lockheed, General Dynamics, Curtiss, etc as competition to keep them in check. Now, they have all merged into one giant mega corp and, well, you see the result. Their only real competition now is Airbus, a de facto government run company that should have gone out of business decades ago. If those two ever start talking merger...look out.

With the report about the tanker issues and this is be worried about what other issues there might be out there that nobody is tracking.

All the articles out there so far say it is only certain 737 MAX-9 aircraft.

That might change later, but my post was based on what is being published at this time.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/alaska-airlines-flight-makes-emergency-landing-in-portland-fox

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12933735/FAA-grounds-737-MAX-9-aircraft.html

https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/alaska-airlines-jet-makes-emergency-landing-after-boeing-737-max-rips-open-b3af13fc

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/06/boeing-737-max-9-grounding-after-alaska-airlines-door-blows-midflight.html

https://aviationsourcenews.com/incident/faa-orders-grounding-of-171-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67903655

Lockheed and General Dynamics aren't part of Boeing, never have been.

The real problem with Boeing is the people who took over after the merger with McDonnell Douglas were the same people who ran McDonnell Douglas into the ground.

More likely union thugs protecting bad workers .

Don't they normally merge where the acquiring company inserts most of their management?

Dan Scott said:

---

FAA orders grounding. That BA will impact the DOW Monday

---

BREAKING NEWS: Federal officials have ordered the immediate grounding of some Boeing 737-9 Max jetliners after an Alaska Airlines plane suffered a blowout that left a gaping hole in the side of the fuselage. MORE: https://t.co/XQxra8SDj2 pic.twitter.com/0E0EErSJWG

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) January 6, 2024

depogs said:

---

More likely union thugs protecting bad workers .

---

Im sure there are some Ags on this thread that are part of unions, so my viewpoint is mine and biased:

But the purpose of unions has skewed heavily towards a socialized structure specifically around pay. It's not just about protecting the bad workers. It's about forming a pay and worker organization where your best and brightest aren't incentivized to join the company. If you are a talent mechanical engineer or any engineer: why would you join a company where the folks stitching together the design are paid 90% of yours?

Or even within union itself: it's not about promoting the best or cream of the crop. It's about time at the job. Years spent at the company. Those are not equivalent to skill and excellence.

In 50 years it will be apparent when any car manufacture reliant on unionized workers is either out of business or a shell of themselves.

Who would have guessed that space innovation and industry is moving more and more privatized.

evan_aggie said:

---

Don't they normally merge where the acquiring company inserts most of their management?

---

Yeah, there was a lot of criticism that this was a de facto merger where the execs from the 'losing' company wound up running things. They all happened to have come up through GE/the Jack Welch school of management which…probably had some drawbacks.

But it is historically true that McD had starved Douglas of new products for decades (pre-Jack Welch management). The basic DC-9 and DC-10 needed to be replaced/upgraded by the early 90's and they stuck with the same basic layout/wings etc.

Sad, really. The Max is almost universally considered a 'bridge too far' for the ancient Joe Sutter 737 design.

inconvenient truth said:

---

bjorn said:

---

This is what happens when you change company culture focused of delivering best product to maximizing profit for shareholders

---

No, this is what happens when you hire unqualified workers based on anything and everything other than their ability to preform the job.
Hth

---

Just out of curiosity do you work in the industry, or know someone who has some insight?

I usually text my brother about aviation, but he's with ATC, not aerospace/engineering.

nortex97 said:

---

evan_aggie said:

---

Don't they normally merge where the acquiring company inserts most of their management?

---

But it is historically true that McD had starved Douglas of new products for decades (pre-Jack Welch management). The basic DC-9 and DC-10 needed to be replaced/upgraded by the early 90's and they stuck with the same basic layout/wings etc.

Sad, really. The Max is almost universally considered a 'bridge too far' for the ancient Joe Sutter 737 design.

---

Yep, this (and product pressure from Airbus) is what led to MCAS on the 737 Max rather than a clean sheet design, and well, we all know the rest.

GAC06 said:

---

Supposedly the interior shows no sign of the plug door. Looks just like the rest of the windows with the same trim

---

I was referring to this action in the penetration.

Its Not Rocket Surgery said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Sad, really. The Max is almost universally considered a 'bridge too far' for the ancient Joe Sutter 737 design.

---

Yep, this (and product pressure from Airbus) is what led to MCAS on the 737 Max rather than a clean sheet design, and well, we all know the rest.

---

I wouldn't say the 737 MAX was a bridge too far. There were no inherent reasons why the enhancements needed to keep up with the A320neo couldn't have been safely retrofitted to the 737. The problem was that Boeing cut corners during design and certification.

MCAS, for example, was motivated by the belief that grafting software onto the flight controls would be faster and cheaper than mechanical modifications.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Airbus is far superior than Boeing. No question about that now.

Boeing and American civil aviation has really lost their way.

---

Air France 447 says hold my beer.

---

There is just so much fail here in this post and those that starred it. The pilots of AF447 crashed a perfectly airworthy aircraft. Pitot tubes can get clogged and competent pilots still can fly the plane.

The plane was only 10 weeks old how is this on the maintenance people?

DEI SUCKS, that being said this isn't dei. This is corporate blowhards lobbying their way out of FFA regulation

You'd like to think a company workforce so bought into union mentality would have A LOT more pride in their work and craftsmanship. Instead, it's been about a decades worth of serious issues.

This isn't unions it's the BoD of MD who stripped Boeing to what it is today

Its Not Rocket Surgery said:

---

I used to be a "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" person, but they are not the company they once were. There's an old joke that McDonnel Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money. Basically, the MD board of directors took all of the senior leadership positions at Boeing when Boeing bought them out. Which leads me to another old saying in the aviation industry, "Boeing builds aircraft, McDonnel Douglas builds profits." MD built some great aircraft over the years, but I think you can read between the lines on where corporate priorities headed after the two companies merged.

I cringed when they announced they were moving their global HQ from Chicago to Virginia. They should have gone back to Seattle and focused on engineering the best products in the world. Instead, it appears they went to DC to lobby their way out of their issues. Boeing absolutely has a huge place in my aviation loving heart, but I worry about where the company is headed (or will continue to head) in the future.

---

this is the reason Boeing sucks, tired of people on here who keep saying it's DEI or woke

They didn't cut corners. It was a long term versus short term decision with major financial implications for the company given the Airbus competition. They had to put a more fuel efficient engine on the 737. The newer engines were much larger. The larger size resulted in a different engine location. To compensate for the change in the aerodynamics of the plane, they created mcas. America Airlines was a big reason for Boeing revamping the existing 737 aircraft. When AA announced they were buying Airbus for the first time in their history, Boeing was forced to redesign the 737 for them and make it more fuel efficient. It was that or completely scrap the 737, a 50 year old model, and resign a new plane from the ground up.

TriAg2010 said:

---

Its Not Rocket Surgery said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Sad, really. The Max is almost universally considered a 'bridge too far' for the ancient Joe Sutter 737 design.

---

Yep, this (and product pressure from Airbus) is what led to MCAS on the 737 Max rather than a clean sheet design, and well, we all know the rest.

---

I wouldn't say the 737 MAX was a bridge too far. There were no inherent reasons why the enhancements needed to keep up with the A320neo couldn't have been safely retrofitted to the 737. The problem was that Boeing cut corners during design and certification.

MCAS, for example, was motivated by the belief that grafting software onto the flight controls would be faster and cheaper than mechanical modifications.

---

As I recall MCAS was added so that the software would augment pilot inputs so the plane would "feel" like the 737s currently being flown with ZERO additional training for pilots. Boring wrote the code, put it on the plane, didn't tell anyone, then told the FAA it was just like all the other 737s.

Didn't the FAA say if they'd known about that they never would have allowed Boeing to self certify?

bjorn said:

---

The plane was only 10 weeks old how is this on the maintenance people?

---

Who said anything about maintenance people?

Aggie95 said:

---

You'd like to think a company workforce so bought into union mentality would have A LOT more pride in their work and craftsmanship. Instead, it's been about a decades worth of serious issues.

---

The very European company Airbus is fully unionized and they are producing far higher quality aircraft than Boeing.

The unions aren't the problem

Bubblez said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

You'd like to think a company workforce so bought into union mentality would have A LOT more pride in their work and craftsmanship. Instead, it's been about a decades worth of serious issues.

---

The very European company Airbus is fully unionized and they are producing far higher quality aircraft than Boeing.

The unions aren't the problem

---

Are they woke like Boeing and fully into DEI? That does impact quality of product. Just sayin.

Logos Stick said:

---

They didn't cut corners. It was a long term versus short term decision with major financial implications for the company given the Airbus competition. They had to put a more fuel efficient engine on the 737. The newer engines were much larger. The larger size resulted in a different engine location. To compensate for the change in the aerodynamics of the plane, they created mcas. America Airlines was a big reason for Boeing revamping the existing 737 aircraft. When AA announced they were buying Airbus for the first time in their history, Boeing was forced to redesign the 737 for them and make it more fuel efficient. It was that or completely scrap the 737, a 50 year old model, and resign a new plane from the ground up.

---

This isn't really accurate. The timeline to bring the Max into service was, ultimately, due to the management, the same as the NSA which was already on paper (not formally offered) to customers. Boeing didn't 'have to' do the Max, they chose to do so to preserve some market share of orders (not deliveries) within a tight 3 year period to preserve cash flows/dividends. It was ultimately a big strategic mistake. They also could have re-engined the NG before the A320NEO was launched. They were too comfortable, period.

That's what happens in business, though, and the managers from the time…are well past retirement now.

Oh, and Boeing has been in a 20+ year death battle with IAM751 now (as well as engineer unions). They committed to moving away from the PacNW area for production moving forward after a certain strike. I don't blame them for that. The 747/727/767/757 aren't coming back, and their replacements won't be build there, period.

Bubblez said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

You'd like to think a company workforce so bought into union mentality would have A LOT more pride in their work and craftsmanship. Instead, it's been about a decades worth of serious issues.

---

The very European company Airbus is fully unionized and they are producing far higher quality aircraft than Boeing.

The unions aren't the problem

---

American unions are a problem.