• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

3 month old 737-9 Max depressurisation incident

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,978
Location
Nottingham
I don't like flying anyway, but I do wonder if having an entire fleet of 737's (mostly) will hurt Ryanair's reputation? I know the Max 10 wasn't anything to with the previous issues with the Max BUT I do think this latest incident raises concerns about the manufacturing processes at Boeing. I think I would rather pay a bit more than travel on an Airbus, even though I know the risk in mathematical terms is no worse with Boeing.
Ryanair itself is all 737s though they have a subsiduary that flies Airbus. However rude we all are about them, they are now a very large airline and they've never had a fatality in a flight accident, so we can't really knock their safety record. From that point of view I have no qualms about flying with them - it's all the other things about Ryanair I'd rather avoid.

I do agree there has to be a question mark about the manufacturing quality of anything that has come out of Boeing recently.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,204
The link doesn't say so but I'm guessing this must be voluntary - allowing airlines with orders pending manufacture to cancel them without the usual penalties.
Who would voluntarily cancel something which is a scarce quantity in this environment though?
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
I don't like flying anyway, but I do wonder if having an entire fleet of 737's (mostly) will hurt Ryanair's reputation? I know the Max 10 wasn't anything to with the previous issues with the Max BUT I do think this latest incident raises concerns about the manufacturing processes at Boeing. I think I would rather pay a bit more than travel on an Airbus, even though I know the risk in mathematical terms is no worse with Boeing.
Ryanair has a large 737-800 fleet (part of the NG series), and with their low fares, people will still choose Ryanair regardless of the aircraft.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,306
Location
Isle of Man
Take this with a pinch of salt, this is Michael O'Leary after all, he will change his mind as often as I change underwear.
Ryanair got where they are today by buying a load of new aircraft at rock bottom prices immediately after 9/11.

If Boeing are in distress then Ryanair will stick with Boeing- at the right price.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
Ryanair got where they are today by buying a load of new aircraft at rock bottom prices immediately after 9/11.

If Boeing are in distress then Ryanair will stick with Boeing- at the right price.
True, but remember how often O'Leary changes his mind, he originally walked away from a 737-10 order but then last year, signed a deal for up to 300 737-10s. The man knows how to get what he wants, and cheaply.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
Under intense political pressure, Boeing on Monday withdrew its request for an exemption from key safety regulations to allow the 737 MAX 7 to be certified to carry passengers.

“We have informed the FAA that we are withdrawing our request for a time-limited exemption relating to the engine inlet de-icing system on the 737-7,” Boeing said in a statement. “We will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process.”

This means entry into passenger service of the MAX 7, the smallest model of the MAX family, will be significantly delayed until Boeing can design a fix for the flawed design and get it approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.

It will cut Boeing’s promised cash flow for the year, though by how much is not yet clear. And key MAX 7 customer Southwest Airlines, which has 302 of the jets on order, faces inevitable delivery delays.

Scrutiny of Boeing has intensified since a Jan. 5 incident in which a piece of fuselage blew out of another MAX, the longer MAX 9.

U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who last week was the first in Congress to call for the FAA to deny the exemption, said Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun told her Monday that Boeing has come to an agreement with Southwest over the delay in delivering the jet.“This was a tough decision on their part, but I’m glad they took it because I think this is good for Boeing’s future and also for America’s flying public,” Duckworth said in an interview.

Last week Southwest announced that it had taken the MAX 7 out of its plans for this year.

Exemption requested for serious design flaw
The FAA had determined last summer that a design flaw uncovered in the MAX’s engine inlet de-icing system could be potentially catastrophic.

The MAX’s engine inlet, the circular part at the front end of the pod surrounding the engine — known as a nacelle — is made from carbon composite, unlike earlier model 737s, which have a metal inlet.

Flying through cold, water-saturated air, the de-icing system — similar in purpose to the defroster on a car — blows hot air onto the engine inlet to prevent a buildup of ice.

But Boeing discovered after the MAX entered service that if the system remained switched on after leaving the icy air, it could overheat and damage the composite structure, possibly leading it to break off the nacelle.In an August Airworthiness Directive, the FAA stated that debris from such a breakup could penetrate the fuselage, putting passengers seated at windows behind the wings in danger, and could damage the wing or tail of the plane, “which could result in loss of control of the airplane.”

Boeing assessed the risk of this scenario as “extremely improbable,” and so the FAA allowed the MAXs currently in service, the MAX 8 and MAX 9, to continue flying — but with a directive to pilots that they must turn the system off after leaving icy air and not fly with it on for more than five minutes in dry air.

However, that compromise solution couldn’t work for a jet like the MAX 7 that is not yet certified. To get that approval to carry passengers, it must meet all safety regulations.

More ouch for Boeing, we're yet to hear anything from Southwest (the largest customer of the 737-7 with over 200 on order). I'm interested as to what Allegiant will do, they have both the 737-7 and 737-8-200 on order (the first of their 737-8-200s was meant to arrive last year) but they have a large fleet of A320-200s.

Steven Udvar-Hazy says management ‘did not demonstrate industry leadership’ with their ‘knee-jerk reaction’ to Airbus plan. Boeing failed to demonstrate industry leadership when it decided to develop the 737 Max family of aircraft in what was a “knee-jerk reaction” to developments by rival Airbus, according to Steven Udvar-Hazy, the founder and executive chairman of aircraft leasing giant Air Lease Corporation.
Speaking at the Airline Economics Growth Frontiers conference in Dublin on Monday, the highly-regarded aviation chief said that when Boeing announced the Max development programme in 2011, it put the idea of an entirely new aircraft “on the back burner”.The Max programme – now beset with years of delays as it lurches from crisis to crisis – began in 2011.

The Airbus neo programme for the A320 series was launched in 2010, with the first aircraft brought into commercial service in 2016.

The neo aircraft were developed as a result of Airbus concerns that the C-series jet (now the Airbus A220) being developed by Bombardier could muscle in on the single-aisle aircraft market, noted Mr Udvar-Hazy.

“This was just an evolution of the 737,” he said of the Max project.When Boeing made that decision, plus they were having tremendous industrial problems on the 787, they basically put the whole idea of a new airplane on the back burner.

“If you look back – history will prove that if Boeing had launched a new airplane it would have changed the whole market dynamic,” he added.

“It was a reaction and it did not demonstrate industry leadership. It was a reaction to what Airbus was doing.

“Leadership is not only dealing with today’s manufacturing and production issues,” said Mr Udvar-Hazy.

“It’s also looking five, 10, 15 years down the road and seeing where do we want to see Boeing in the picture. That is where the Boeing board and Boeing management has not paid enough attention.”Also at the Airline Economics conference on Monday, Norman Liu, the chief executive of Ireland-based lessor Nordic Aviation Capital, said Donald Trump could be a net positive for the airline industry if he emerges as the next president of the United States.

“He’s been pro-business (and) deregulation,” said Mr Liu.

“That’s good. Put aside all the other traits, I’d say he’s pro-aviation.

“He’s got his 757,” he added. “Remember, the $50bn the airlines got (in emergency funding from the government during the pandemic) came under his watch.

“He’s pro-fossil (fuels), and what he can do with his pals in Russia and North Korea, who knows?“Maybe a different approach might work there.

“He’s talking privatising ATC (air traffic control). I think that would be net-net positive for the airlines,” said Mr Liu.

A number of participants at the Airline Economics conference noted that the ESG (environment, social and governance) issue has slipped significantly down the agenda for many big lenders outside Europe, who no longer see it as the vitally important concern it was a couple of years ago.

The continued development and delivery of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is also subject to major challenges, according to Mr Udvar-Hazy.

Air Lease reckons just 3pc of global jet-fuel requirements will be met from SAF by 2030, based on its most optimistic projections.

Not exactly the best start to the week for Boeing, ALC is a huge customer of both Airbus and Boeing, and has even faced delays of up to 4 years for deliveries on new 787s.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
4,330
Location
County Durham
Yes, I've seen that. Will be interesting who Airbus buys slots from.
I understand that JetBlue are interested in deferring some of their slots until post-2027.

Delta is not going to cancel their Airbus order, they just ordered up to 40 A350-1000s a few weeks ago, they need the A321neo to replace their 757s and operate the A330neo. Many airlines operate both the MAX and NEO (United, Southwest, Air China, China Southern, ANA, China Eastern and more).
Cancel maybe not but deferral is entirely possible. If they’re confident in the MAX then they can take those sooner and let airlines who have a more pressing need for the NEO have them first.

The A330 and A350 are irrelevant, cancelling or deferring orders for either of those would make no difference as they’re built on different production lines.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
Cancel maybe not but deferral is entirely possible. If they’re confident in the MAX then they can take those sooner and let airlines who have a more pressing need for the NEO have them first.
They're already taking A321neos so it doesn't make sense to push them back.
I understand that JetBlue are interested in deferring some of their slots until post-2027.
Wouldn't surprise me as JetBlue have just released their Q4 2023 results which weren't great and they've had their merger with Spirit rejected.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,877
Location
Scotland
They're already taking A321neos so it doesn't make sense to push them back.
Depends on how many they've got.

Once they have enough for it to be a usable sub-fleet which can be allocated to cover a route grouping (eg. all Atlanta - Caribbean flights) then they can pause expanding the fleet.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
Depends on how many they've got.

Once they have enough for it to be a usable sub-fleet which can be allocated to cover a route grouping (eg. all Atlanta - Caribbean flights) then they can pause expanding the fleet.
Delta has 48 A321neos in active service with 2 parked according to Planespotters.

Delta has 48 A321neos in active service with 2 parked according to Planespotters.
49 now active, 1 inactive.
 
Last edited:

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
I've no idea how they schedule, but I would expect that's enough to form a usable sub-fleet if they wanted to go that way.
They still have a few A321-200s as well (they took the last one a few years ago), and have many more A321neos on order.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,877
Location
Scotland
They still have a few A321-200s as well (they took the last one a few years ago), and have many more A321neos on order.
Then they likely have more than enough to cover all their Atlanta - Caribbean and Central American routes. Given that they serve about 40-ish destinations and very few (if any) aren't done as out-and-back flights.

Probably be able to do a morning run down to the islands and be back by dinner time, then an evening flight up to New York, Boston, etc and back in time for overnight maintenance.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
The New York-based carrier said Tuesday it plans to defer $2.5 billion in spending on new aircraft until the end of the decade.

Here's a potential candidate to give up slots for United.

ARLINGTON, Va., Jan. 31, 2024 /PRNewswire/ --

Fourth Quarter 2023

Delivered 157 commercial airplanes and recorded 611 net orders
787 production rate at five per month; 737 production rate at 38 per month
Generated $3.4 billion of operating cash flow and $3.0 billion of free cash flow (non-GAAP)
Full Year 2023


Boeing's Q1 2024 earnings will obviously be far worse due to the fallout following AS 1282.

A one-time titan of the space industry finds itself on the sidelines, plagued by ballooning costs and slow timelines in its space division at a time when price and speed are king.

Boeing’s ($BA) earnings release this week rightly focused on trouble with the 737 Max, which drove the company to report a $773M loss in 2023 and suspend 2024 financial forecasts. The company’s space business was a footnote, but its future is equally uncertain.

The company’s Starliner spacecraft, scheduled to carry a crew for the first time in April after years of delays, still doesn’t have an obvious path to recoup its cost overruns, which included an additional $288M in 2023.
The ISS, which Boeing built and operates for NASA, is set to retire in 2030. Boeing isn’t the prime for any of the commercial stations vying to replace it, but plans to support Blue Origin’s Orbital Reef.
Boeing lost $315M due to problems with the mPower satellites it built for SES; it’s now building two more and fixing the problems with the rest—at cost. At a time when satellite manufacturers are pushing speed, Boeing delivered 10 spacecraft in the last three years, and hasn’t won any of the SDA’s billions of dollars in new satellite orders.
The company’s Space Launch System rocket is the centerpiece of the Artemis lunar return program, but those missions keep getting delayed—and the massive rocket’s price tag makes it a constant target for cost-cutting.
With United Launch Alliance up on the auction block and Boeing reportedly not among the bidders, it looks likely to lose access to the commercial and military launches.
The bottom line: Boeing’s iconic space division—which does boast the X-37B, the US military’s favorite semi-secret space drone, and which won a $500M Space Force missile tracking contract in December—has suffered not just from its own troubles, but the company’s recent years of losses. Keeping up with traditional rivals and new entrants alike demands investment the company just can’t prioritize.

Boeing Space has been in trouble for a long time, especially with the Starliner. They also face far more competition than Boeing Commercial, from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Airbus Space, Jetzero, SpaceX and others so are not protected from being part of a monopoly like Boeing Commercial is.

A former Boeing engineer said he would tell his family to avoid the Boeing 737 Max 9 – the aircraft that was involved in an Alaska Airlines emergency earlier this month in which a doorplug came off the plane mid-flight.

The bolts that were supposed to be on the doorplug were reportedly missing from the aircraft altogether, recent media reports stated.Alaska Airlines and United Airlines, which also owns a large number of the aircraft, have begun to return their planes to service following strict Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspections.

Before that decision, both airlines reported finding loose bolts on their models of the plane.

“I would absolutely not fly a Max airplane,” Ed Pierson, a former Boeing senior manager, told the Los Angeles Times. “I’ve worked in the factory where they were built, and I saw the pressure employees were under to rush the planes out the door.I tried to get them to shut down before the first crash.”

The 737 Max 8 was involved in two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 that resulted in the deaths of nearly 400 passengers.

Joe Jacobsen, a former engineer at Boeing and the FAA, echoed Mr Pierson’s remarks. “I would tell my family to avoid the Max,” he also told the outlet. “I would tell everyone, really.”

Mr Pierson called the decision to return the aircraft to service “another example of poor decision making” that “risks the public safety.” Meanwhile, Mr Jacobsen said he and other colleagues had been warning of problems with the model for the last several years.

He called the decision to return the planes to the sky “premature”.

“Instead of fixing one problem at a time and then waiting for the next one, fix all of them,” he said, unsure about whether the next emergency might occur. “Maybe it’s a week. Maybe it’s a month.”

He continued: “Imagine you had a new car that had a couple parts fall off of it, and the manufacturer went to go look at it and they found a couple other parts fell off.

“They got and fix it, but would you think there’s a possibility that something else would’ve been done improperly on that car?” the expert asked. “Now magnify that by 100.”

Pierson’s group, the Foundation for Aviation Safety, completed a report in September that found more than 1,300 reports about safety problems on the aircraft.

“These same issues that were there in 2018 and 2019 that were the precursors to the accidents are still there,” he said. “This is a culture where money is everything. They measure success by how many airplanes are delivered, instead of how many quality airplanes are delivered.

“When you factor all of this together, it’s just a disaster waiting to happen.”

Really bad press for Boeing and shows how engineers don't have confidence in the aircraft they're building. Boeing fundamentally needs to listen to their engineers to be able to build an aircraft with proper quality control.

Boeing Co said on Sunday it will have to do more work on about 50 undelivered 737 MAX airplanes, potentially delaying some near-term deliveries, after its supplier Spirit AeroSystems discovered two mis-drilled holes on some fuselages.

Boeing confirmed the findings in response to a Reuters query after industry sources said an "edge margin", or spacing problem, had been found in holes drilled on a window frame on some jets.

Boeing, which has been under fire from regulators and airlines since the Jan. 5 blowout of a door plug on a 737 MAX 9, said safety was unaffected and existing 737s could keep flying.

"This past Thursday, a supplier notified us of a non-conformance in some 737 fuselages. I want to thank an employee at the supplier who flagged to his manager that two holes may not have been drilled exactly to our requirements," Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Stan Deal said in a letter to staff referring to Spirit, which is the sole 737 fuselage supplier.

"While this potential condition is not an immediate flight safety issue and all 737s can continue operating safely, we currently believe we will have to perform rework on about 50 undelivered airplanes," Deal said in the letter, first reported exclusively by Reuters.

Spirit spokesperson Joe Buccino told Reuters that as part of its 360-degree quality management program, a member of its team identified an issue that did not conform to engineering standards.

"We are in close communication with Boeing on this matter," he said.

Deal said Boeing plans to devote several "factory days" this week at the Renton 737 plant outside Seattle to work on the mis-aligned holes and finish off other outstanding work. Such days allow teams to pause normal work and attend to specific tasks without shutting production.

The amount of rework time is expected to be finalised in coming days.

It is the latest effort by Boeing to tighten its operations after the blowout on an Alaska Airlines jet threw the spotlight on quality controls.

Investigators, who have been examining whether the bolts on the Alaska Airlines door plug were missing or badly fitted, are expected to issue an interim report this week.

At the same time, Boeing has asked a major supplier, which it did not identify, to halt shipments until jobs have been completed to specification, Deal said.

"While this delay in shipment will affect our production schedule, it will improve overall quality and stability."

Boeing said parts that already conform to the right specification can continue to be shipped.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had no immediate comment.

QUALITY DEFECT

The U.S. regulator has ordered Boeing to cap 737 production at the current rate of 38 jets a month for an undefined period while it addresses quality lapses, deferring the increases in production needed to meet rising demand for new jets.

So far, Boeing has said it will keep buying parts from suppliers at previously planned higher rates in order to cushion the impact they face from the freeze in production growth.

The 737 MAX checks focus on potentially sloppy positioning of two holes on a window frame assembly supplied by Spirit, a condition known as "short edge margin," the industry sources said.

Edge margins, or the gap between a fastener and the edge of a metal sheet, have to meet strict specifications designed to minimise the risk of metal fatigue over the long term.

In the past, the FAA has occasionally ordered inspections for cracks resulting from fastener holes being mis-drilled.

As of Friday, the "non-conformance" or quality defect had been found in 22 fuselages out of 47 inspected up to that point, spread between Boeing and Spirit, and may exist in some 737s in service, the sources said.

The findings came to light in a routine notification known as a Notice of Escapement, in which suppliers notify Boeing of any known or suspected quality slip, the sources said.

Such quality reports are common in aerospace but the discovery comes as Boeing and its best-selling jet are under the microscope following the Alaska Airlines emergency.

The U.S. planemaker last month urged suppliers to intensify checks and told them it is "imperative" that they meet quality requirements, according to a memo seen by Reuters.

People familiar with the matter said Boeing and Spirit have yet to come with an agreed position on how many of the mis-drilled holes have to be addressed, and how many of the errors are so slight that the fuselages can be used "as is".

Spirit, spun off from Boeing in 2005, is due to unveil earnings on Tuesday.

Boeing 737s are assembled in Renton outside Seattle from fuselages shipped by train from Sprit in Wichita, Kansas.

More bad news for the MAX, this impacts all 737 MAX variants and means that the quality stand down at both Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems hasn't worked as intended as issues are still occuring.

Boeing Co (NYSE:BA, ETR:BCO) has been warned by one of its largest customers that it is the "last chance saloon" due to its recent spate of mechanical failures.
Tim Clark, the head of Emirates Airline, told the Financial Times that he had seen a "progressive decline" in Boeing’s performance and that Emirates would be sending engineers to monitor the plane maker's production lines.
Last week, Boeing chief executive Dave Calhoun acknowledged customers were angry after the recent incidents, adding “We will work to earn their confidence."
Clark said in the interview: "They have got to instil this safety culture which is second to none. They've got to get their manufacturing processes under review so there are no corners cut.
"I'm sure Dave Calhoun and [commercial head] Stan Deal are on that... this is the last chance saloon," he added.
In November, Emirates placed an order for nearly one hundred wide-body, long-haul Boeing 777 and 787 jets worth US$52 billion (£41.2 billion) at list prices.
At the same time, Clark also fired a broadside at Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.), which supplies Airbus, Boeing’s main rival, saying its engines for the A350-1000 were "defective" and Emirates would not order any planes until the issue was resolved.
Boeing has been under intense scrutiny since 5 January when a door panel of an Alaska Airlines short-haul 737 MAX 9 flew off mid-air, prompting a grounding of the aircraft.
Alaska and United Airlines Holdings Inc (NASDAQ:UAL), another big user of 737 MAX 9s, have lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to flight cancellations.
Ben Minicucci, the chief executive of Alaska Airlines' parent company Alaska Air Group (NYSE: ALK), later said that internal inspections of its planes had found “many” loose bolts, believed to be the cause of the door failure.
"My demand on Boeing is what are they going to do to improve their quality programmes in-house," he said adding he was "incredulous" that such an incident could have occurred.
Before the January incident, Boeing had been restoring its reputation after two fatal crashes in 2018 of 737-MAXs that killed 346 passengers and crew.

Sir Tim has regularly said this in the past, Boeing knows that Sir Tim has no real choice other than the 777x as the nearest A380 replacement and that Sir Tim hit out at the A350-1000 at the Dubai Airshow in November 2023.

Boeing has been sued by shareholders who said the company prioritised profit over safety prior to the January 5 mid-air cabin panel blowout on an Alaskan Airlines 737 MAX 9.

According to a proposed class action filed on Tuesday, the aeroplane manufacturer spent more than four years after the October 2018 and March 2019 crashes of two other MAX planes - which killed 346 people - assuring investors it was "laser-focused" on safety and would not sacrifice safety for profit.

Shareholders said Boeing's statements were false and misleading because they concealed the "poor quality control" on its assembly line, and caused its stock price to be inflated.


Boeing's share price fell 18.9 per cent from January 5 to January 25, the day after the Federal Aviation Commission barred Boeing from expanding MAX production because of safety concerns.

The decline wiped out more than $28 billion of market value.

A Boeing spokesman declined to comment on Wednesday.
The lawsuit filed in the Alexandria, Virginia, federal court covers shareholders from October 23, 2019 to January 24 this year, and is led by Rhode Island General Treasurer James Diossa.

Other defendants include Boeing Chief Executive Dave Calhoun and his predecessor Dennis Muilenburg, and Chief Financial Officer Brian West and his predecessor Gregory Smith.

"This case has the potential to effect changes in Boeing's practices to protect passengers and ensure their safety in the future," Mr Diossa said in a statement.

The Alaskan Airlines flight had only just taken off from Portland, Oregon, to Ontario, California, on January 5 when a panel in the side of the plane's fuselage came detached mid-air.

The aeroplane, which was carrying 171 passengers and six crew members, needed to make an emergency landing.

No one died on the flight, but some passengers have sued Boeing and the carrier.

The blowout caused the US' Federal Aviation Administration to temporarily ground 171 MAX 9 planes, resulting in thousands of flight cancellations at Alaska Air Group and United Airlines.

On Wednesday, Boeing said it couldn't provide full-year financial targets because of uncertainty over its planes.

In a letter sent to investors and seen by the BBC, CEO Mr Calhoun reportedly said Boeing faces a "serious challenge", adding it was "not the time" to provide a financial forecast.

"We will simply focus on every next airplane," he reportedly wrote.

The firm also reported better-than-expected fourth-quarter results, which included a $30 million loss, $22 billion of revenue and $3.38 billion of cash flow.

Yes Q4 results were better than expected, but Q1 so far has been a nightmare for Boeing as covered in this thread. It's extremely bad press if Boeing loses confidence from even their own shareholders.

Boeing said Friday that quality problems with parts slated for the T-7A Red Hawk training jet mean it will delay by several months delivering the next test aircraft to the Air Force.

Boeing is also now planning to start low-rate initial production on the T-7 in mid-2024, several months later than the company’s original plan. Boeing vice president and T-7 program manager Evelyn Moore told Defense News Friday that supply chain issues were also why the company will postpone the planned start for its production schedule. Boeing’s contract with the Air Force requires it to deliver the fourth and fifth engineering and manufacturing development jets in December 2023 and January 2024, Moore said.

However, Moore said, the faulty parts problem now means the fourth jet will probably be delivered later this month, and the fifth jet around March or April.

“We’ve struggled with some part challenges that have caused delays” on those two jets, Moore said. “We’re really focusing on safety and quality, and we are trying to get those jets delivered in the near term.”The Air Force plans to buy 351 T-7s from Boeing by 2034 to replace its fleet of aging T-38 jet trainers. The T-7 is designed to emulate fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and make it easier for the service to train new pilots to fly fighters and bombers. The Air Force awarded Boeing a $9.2 billion contract in 2018 to build the T-7 fleet as well as provide simulators and provide other support.

The Air Force told Defense News it did not immediately have a comment on the T-7 delays.

Moore would not detail the type of parts that had problems, but said they were multiple parts of varying sizes from several different suppliers. Boeing had to send some faulty parts back to their original manufacturer to be repaired, she said, and suppliers have been fixing the parts quickly.The fourth jet now has all of its necessary parts installed, Moore said, and Boeing expects the “handful” of remaining fixed parts for the fifth jet to arrive over the next few weeks.Moore said Boeing has a quality team working with its suppliers to understand what went wrong with the parts and address the problems.

Boeing is now assembling the new T-7 production line at its St. Louis facility, she added, and expects that to be done by mid-2024. Shortly after that production line is ready, she said, Boeing plans to start assembling LRIP T-7s.

A Government Accountability Office report in May 2023 said Boeing planned to start assembling its first production T-7 in early 2024.

Moore said Boeing could be ready to deliver the first production T-7 in 2025, though she said there is a chance it could be 2026.Boeing is required to start delivering T-7s 10 months after the Air Force issues an LRIP award, which could come in February 2025. Moore said that by starting production before the LRIP award, the company could deliver jets before its 10-month deadline.

The Air Force expects to make a Milestone C decision on whether to produce the T-7 in February 2025, and for deliveries to start in December 2025. That planned production decision timeline is about two years later than the Air Force originally intended.

GAO raised concerns in its 2023 report about potential increased risk from having the T-7′s development, testing and production phases overlapping. The auditing agency warned this approach can lead to rising costs or schedule delays if problems are found in testing that then must be fixed on the production line.Moore acknowledged concurrency can be a danger, but noted T-7s have carried out more than 500 flights so far and is about 60% finished with its flight testing process, reducing the risk of overlapping development and production.“We’ve been flying the T-7 for several years, collecting data [and] integrating that data into new software releases,” Moore said. “It is a risk, but we are managing and mitigating that risk.”

Moore said Defense Contract Management Agency officials are already conducting oversight inspections on components slated for production T-7s.

Boeing delivered the first three of five planned engineering and manufacturing development jets to the Air Force in 2023. One is now undergoing flight testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California; another is expected to wrap up climate testing at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida this month. Boeing delivered the third aircraft in December, and it’s expected to fly to Edwards this month.The fourth and fifth test jets now in the final phases of construction will stay at Boeing’s facility in St. Louis, Missouri, Moore said, and will be used to check how well maintenance procedures match the instructions laid out in the jet’s technical manuals.

More ouch for Boeing, especially as Boeing Defence makes up the majority of Boeing's revenue.
 
Last edited:

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,884
Location
Wilmslow
"Scathing" NTSB preliminary report, reported https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/06/faa-regulation-boeing-blowout
A cabin panel that blew off a brand-new Boeing 737 Max 9 jet mid-flight appeared to be missing four key bolts, according to an initial report by the US safety regulator.

The bolts meant to hold the door plug in place were absent, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said. It released photographic evidence alongside the preliminary findings of its investigating on Tuesday.


Boeing has tried to reassure regulators, airlines and passengers following the dramatic incident during an Alaska Airlines flight, which prompted 171 Max 9 jets to be grounded for several weeks.

The NTSB said the four bolts were removed while workers repaired damaged rivets last year at Boeing’s facility in Renton, Washington. A photo taken during the work shows at least three of the bolts had not been replaced, with the location of the forth obscured.


The agency is still investigating “what manufacturing documents were used to authorize the opening and closing” of the plug “during the rivet rework”, according to its report.
The report itself is currently proving difficult to download, presumably because many people are trying (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA24MA063 Preliminary report.pdf).
Bolts missing during work September 19 last year, delivered to Alaska Airlines 31 October last year, entered service November 11 last year, BBC estimates 100 flights/month until door plug blew out on 5 January this year. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282) says 510 flight hours and 154 flights.
Report also at https://avherald.com/files/Report_DCA24MA063_193617_2_6_2024 2_22_52 PM.pdf
A picture towards the end of the report shows the absence of the bolts.
 
Last edited:

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
Boeing appreciates the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board’s work and will review their findings expeditiously. And we will continue to cooperate fully and transparently with the NTSB and the FAA investigations.

Boeing President and CEO Dave Calhoun said, “Whatever final conclusions are reached, Boeing is accountable for what happened. An event like this must not happen on an airplane that leaves our factory. We simply must do better for our customers and their passengers. We are implementing a comprehensive plan to strengthen quality and the confidence of our stakeholders. It will take significant, demonstrated action and transparency at every turn – and that is where we are squarely focused.”Boeing is taking immediate action to strengthen quality. First, the company has implemented a control plan to ensure all 737-9 mid-exit door plugs are installed according to specifications:

Instituted new inspections of the door plug assembly and similar structures at our supplier’s factory and on Boeing’s production line.
Added signage and protocol to fully document when the door plug is opened or removed in our factory, ensuring it is reinstalled and inspected prior to delivery.
Moreover, Boeing is implementing plans to improve overall quality and stability across the 737 production system, including:Layering additional inspections further into the supply chain and collaborating with suppliers on production enhancements.
Performing more work on airplanes at their assigned positions.
Dedicating multiple days for our 737 teams to focus on and implement quality improvements.
Launching an independent assessment to bolster the quality management system at Boeing Commercial Airplanes by a highly experienced safety expert.
In addition to these Boeing actions, we are opening our factory to 737 customers to conduct their own additional reviews, and will fully and transparently support the FAA’s investigation, audit and oversight actions.

“This added scrutiny – from ourselves, from our regulator and from our customers – will make us better. It’s that simple,” said Calhoun.

No official response by the FAA or Spirit AeroSystems to the NTSB’s report, no airline has responded as of yet.

Spirit AeroSystems has said it is changing some of the suppliers to its Northern Ireland operations as a cost cutting measure.
It is unclear whether the cuts will have any impact on local suppliers.
The move concerns the Airbus A220 because Spirit, a US-based company, makes the wings for that plane in Belfast.
Airbus and Spirit are currently renegotiating financial terms for the A220 work.
Speaking on Tuesday, Spirit's chief executive, Patrick Shanahan, said: "The negotiations with Airbus continue and have been productive.
"We hope to conclude by February, but we need to ensure all items are addressed.
"We are converging on operational and financial solutions."
Spirit has been in Northern Ireland since 2019 when it bought Bombardier's operations.
The deal ended a long period of uncertainty for about 3,000 workers in Northern Ireland.
Mr Shanahan told financial analysts that the firm was looking at cost savings from work coming out of the old Bombardier supply chain and going to Airbus suppliers.
"We've jointly evaluated those costs, and Airbus has a significant history with those suppliers. So I feel confident in that cost basis," he added.
He was speaking as the firm reported financial results for the fourth quarter of 2024 which included another $58m (£46m) of losses related to the A220.
Spirit's US operation is the major supplier to the troubled Boeing 737 Max.
The company said it would not be providing investors with financial forecasts for the year ahead until there is clarity from regulators about when Boeing will be allowed to increase the production rate of the 737 Max.

The A220 is currently not profitable for both Airbus and Spirit (I'm not sure how profitable the PW1500G is for P&W, but that may not be a fair assessment as the PW1500G also powers the Embraer E2), but one would think Spirit would've learnt from their cost cutting measures that have happened at Wichita. Hopefully Airbus will be far stricter and scrutinise the production happening at this facility more than Boeing is. Note that Spirit also makes parts for Airbus at a site in Prestwick, Scotland.

Shares of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. seesawed to a gain Tuesday, after the aircraft-components maker reported a surprise fourth-quarter profit, but Chief Executive Pat Shanahan focused his comments on steps taken after the Jan. 5 incident on a Boeing 737 Max 9.

Shanahan said since the incident, the focus of the company SPR, +4.98% has been on supporting Boeing Co. BA, +0.94%, its customers and regulators. Among Spirit’s actions immediately after the incident was to take “a hard look” at its processes and to add inspections to both Spirit’s and Boeing’s operations.

And he said Spirit has initiated a “second wave” of actions centered on addressing “human factors,” given that a significant portion of building the Boeing 737 fuselage is performed by humans.
“Repeatability, reliability and capability and manufacturing is required to produce high quality, conforming products,” Shanahan said, according to a FactSet transcript of the post-earnings conference call with analysts. “The human condition and human factors must be accounted for in any improvement efforts.”
He said among the actions Spirit is taking to “mitigate” human factors is more testing and training and to provide employees with better tools and technology.
Spirit’s stock traded down as much as 4.5%, then rallied as much as 5.7% in intraday trading through the morning, before being up 1.1% in midday trading. It has shed 14.1% since the Jan. 5 incident.

Before the opening bell, the company said it swung to fourth-quarter net income of $58.7 million, or 52 cents a share, from a net loss of $243.1 million, or $2.32 a share, in the same period a year ago. Excluding nonrecurring items, adjusted earnings-per-share of 48 cents compared with the FactSet consensus for a per-share loss of 35 cents.
Bottom-line results for the latest quarter included a $205.6 million loss reversal resulting from an October memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Boeing Co. BA, +0.94% on price adjustments for the Boeing 787 program and the reversal of a potential claim related to the Boeing 737 vertical-fin-attach fittings issue.
Revenue ran up 37.3% to $1.81 billion, above the FactSet consensus of $1.74 billion, as commercial revenue rose 42.6% and defense and space revenue grew 12.1%.
Deliveries increased 16% to 398 shipsets, including a 28% jump in Boeing 737 deliveries to 104 shipsets.
The company said it would not provide forward guidance for 2024, “until there is further clarity” on the timing of Boeing 737 Max production rate increases, as well as on current price negotiations with Boeing’s rival Airbus SE AIR, -0.17% AIR, -0.21%.
Spirit’s stock has tumbled 14.2% year to date, given its part in the inflight blowout of a panel that led to groundings of 737 Max 9 aircraft. Meanwhile, Boeing’s stock has dropped 20.7% this year while the S&P 500 SPX, +0.23% has gained 3.6%.








Spirit has a fundamental skill issue, automation can't solve all of it, meaning Spirit has to focus on training engineers. Most companies don't have this issue, Spirit does.








 
Last edited:

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,884
Location
Wilmslow
Spirit has a fundamental skill issue, automation can't solve all of it, meaning Spirit has to focus on training engineers. Most companies don't have this issue, Spirit does.
Not just training, I suggest, but a focus on quality with implementation of procedures which reinforce quality processes and which are seen to be followed completely and properly.
Such as having a clearly marked receptacle for parts removed during repair processes and a check process to ensure that they are all appropriately replaced at the end of the work.
Clearly some wisdom of hindsight from a layman like me here, but these kind of enforced quality processes need to be a fundamental part of the company, not an add-on. Whoever did this rivet repair work isn't currently fit for purpose.
EDIT I remember BS5750 and ISO9000, so much so that I remember their names, and they serve a real purpose; these particular standards may have been replaced now but the principle is important.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
Not just training, I suggest, but a focus on quality with implementation of procedures which reinforce quality processes and which are seen to be followed completely and properly.
Such as having a clearly marked receptacle for parts removed during repair processes and a check process to ensure that they are all appropriately replaced at the end of the work.
Clearly some wisdom of hindsight from a layman like me here, but these kind of enforced quality processes need to be a fundamental part of the company, not an add-on. Whoever did this rivet repair work isn't currently fit for purpose.
EDIT I remember BS5750 and ISO9000, so much so that I remember their names, and they serve a real purpose; these particular standards may have been replaced now but the principle is important.
The problem is, it's not just one or two people, it is a skill issue with hundreds of people at the Wichita site. There also needs to be QA inspectors (which are coming), but they should've always been there.
 

Lost property

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Messages
697
Not just training, I suggest, but a focus on quality with implementation of procedures which reinforce quality processes and which are seen to be followed completely and properly.
Such as having a clearly marked receptacle for parts removed during repair processes and a check process to ensure that they are all appropriately replaced at the end of the work.

Clearly some wisdom of hindsight from a layman like me here, but these kind of enforced quality processes need to be a fundamental part of the company, not an add-on. Whoever did this rivet repair work isn't currently fit for purpose.
EDIT I remember BS5750 and ISO9000, so much so that I remember their names, and they serve a real purpose; these particular standards may have been replaced now but the principle is important.
You are correct when it comes to the processes / storage of removed components as this is standard. Ironically, I watched a programme showing Alaska Air removing fan blades for NDT inspection and was impressed, having done the same, with their processes.

However, again, as you correctly say, QC is fundamental. Given every organisation has to have a QC exposition to gain approval from the regulatory authority, the problems as it were begin with how this is enforced and, as always, the prevalent organisational culture.

There is also one, almost fool proof, quality technique known as the duplicate inspection, another pair of eyes inspects the work, which is mandatory for the disturbance of any control system for example. It would be reasonable to expect the riveting work to be inspected, but not for a "dupe" to be carried out.

However, I take great exception to your disparaging and unproven comment about being "unfit for purpose ". Neither you, nor I, know anything about who carried out this repair, did they act "I.A.W" local procedures for example, and what Human Factors may almost certainly have been, possibly still are, present.

Outright, instant, condemnation of people is a very negative Flight Safety response and serves NO purpose
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
The story has been updated to better reflect Mounir's statements and Boeing's communication with its suppliers. The previous version of the story incorrectly described the situation, saying that the plane maker was "pressing" its suppliers to stick to the master schedule.

Mounir's full comment from his presentation at the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference, as provided by Boeing:

“Now on the question on rate, it's a fair question. I know it's on everybody's mind, and everybody's wondering what's going to happen to the master schedule. What I'd like to tell you is we have, as you saw, you've all got a letter from me. I hope you did. You saw in the compass action that I asked you, we asked you to continue performing and producing to the master schedule as it sits, as it is today, what you have. As you know, as you've read, there's an FAA audit that's going right now. And at the end of that audit, we're going to see what the findings are, and then we'll have to work on mitigating those findings and see what it's going to take to do that. It may or may not change the master schedule. We won't know until we have those findings, and then we can deal with those findings."

I would argue that suppliers (Spirit AeroSystems) needs to focus on the issue of worker moral and skill issues as well as QC inspections before increasing production.

Copa Airlines is seeking “full and fair” compensation from Boeing for the three-week grounding of the 737 Max 9 in January, executives say.

The Panama City-based carrier cancelled 1,788 flights, or about 20% of its daily schedule, from 6-29 January following the US Federal Aviation Administration’s grounding of Max 9 aircraft with mid-cabin door plugs. Copa grounded 21 of its 29 Max 9s, all of which are flying again.“Boeing has been and continues to be an important partner for Copa and we remain committed to our relationship in the long term,” says Copa chief executive Pedro Heilbron during the airline’s fourth-quarter earnings call on 8 February. “Nonetheless, we hold them accountable for the grounding and its impact on our passengers and our financials for which we expect to be fairly compensated.”Copa operates an all-Boeing 737 fleet that also includes 737-700s and -800s.

Max 9-related flight cancellations forced Copa to cut its capacity plans in January, one of the busiest months on its calendar. That hit the airline’s total revenue and revenue per available seat mile (RASM) during the peak period.

Speaking during the call, Copa chief financial officer Jose Montero does not specify the financial impact of the grounding. However, he attributes much of a forecast 6.9% year-over-year drop in first-quarter RASM to the situation.Fallout from the Max 9 grounding will also hit Copa’s new deliveries from Boeing this year. The carrier anticipates taking 12 new 737 Max — eight Max 8s and three Max 9s — which is down from its previous forecast of 15 aircraft.

Copa expects to grow it available seat miles by roughly 10% this year, down from its initial guide of up 12-14%, says Montero. That reduction is the result of January flight cancellations and delayed aircraft deliveries.

“It’s going to be a difficult year in terms of additional capacity or having planes available,” Heilbron says.

Copa plans to end 2024 with 117 aircraft, or 11 more than the 106 it operated at the end of December.

They follow AS. Here comes the pile on by Turkish, Aeromexico and United who will likely end up following suit.

In a TV report, a whistleblower has aired some extremely serious claims about non-compliance at Boeing's Everett facility.A number of articles have appeared in the mainstream media citing Boeing whistleblowers, revealing how the OEM's practices are not meeting expectations. However, in almost all cases, the whistleblower is not identified, so the story's integrity is hard to establish.

A whistleblower takes to TV
Last week, another such report was carried by TV station KIRO 7, quoting an unidentified Boeing employee sharing his concerns over non-compliance issues at the Everett manufacturing facility.NTSB
KIRO 7 carried the exclusive report on February 9, saying it protected the employee's identity "because he fears for his job and retribution." The male employee said it is painful to reach this point, and it hurts because he knows Boeing could be significantly better.

In the report, the man said he decided to contact KIRO 7 after what happened on Alaska Airlines flight 1282 on January 5, when the rear door plug blew out on a new Boeing 737 MAX 9, causing an uncontrolled aircraft decompression."That's one thing, another is being told by management to do something and to my core, I could not do that. It had to be taken care of because I will not ship to, or allow it to ship to our customer, in this case Renton, a faulty product.

"Being told to send a product no matter what that product is to a customer knowing that it is not right to ship it or send it to the customer in the manner that we are being told, is wrong. You gotta send it right the first time we can't, we can't like automobile manufacturers, there are quality issues there, but an airplane can't just pull off to the side of the road when something goes wrong."Disturbingly, the whistleblower said that policies and procedures are ignored in the name of efficiency, and non-compliance is a regular thing at the plant. The report also carries an image of a sign that reads "JUST SHIP IT...," which the man said is on a main aisle in the plant and that everybody who walks through that aisle sees that message. He adds, "If by chance something is caught it's caught by chance, not by design like those inserts, that was by chance it was caught and not by design."He claimed to have gone through multiple channels to voice his concerns and report the ongoing issues, but nothing has changed because all management wants to do is check their boxes, and they don't care about anything else.

"I'm just one person very low on the totem pole and if I can see it, management should be able to see it and correct it. They don't I wish they would."

The Boeing reply
Thankfully, KIRO 7 said it reached out to Boeing regarding these allegations and received the following statement:"Boeing takes very seriously any allegation of improper work or unethical behavior. We continuously encourage employees to report concerns as our priority is to ensure the safety of our airplanes and the flying public. Since KIRO-TV contacted us Wednesday afternoon with general information, we have been working to assess these claims and will take any necessary action to ensure our airplanes meet all requirements. Boeing employees can anonymously report concerns through our Speak Up portal or directly to the FAA at hotline.faa.gov."The report does not mention how KIRO 7 verified the man's status as a Boeing employee; hopefully, that was done before it went to air. Boeing has provided clear information on how whistleblowers can report non-compliance to itself or the FAA, so there is no reason this person can't anonymously go through those official channels.

Very interesting that it's Boeing's Everret facility and mot their Renton facility where the 737 is made. Whilst Boeing had planned for the old 747 production line at Everret to become a 737 production line, the FAA's cap on production has put this plan on ice. Currently, only the 777 and 767 (including KC-46 tanker) are produced at Everret with 787 production at Charleston, South Carolina.

WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration said on Thursday it was formally mandating inspections in Boeing 737 MAX airplanes for loose bolts in the rudder control systems after the planemaker recommended them in December.
The FAA said all U.S. airlines had completed the inspections in early January and found no missing or loose rudder bolts. The inspection requirement issued on Thursday, opens new tab fulfills U.S. international continued operational safety obligations.
The issue of bolts and Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab planes has taken on new significance since the National Transportation Safety Board released its preliminary report this week on the Jan. 5 mid-air emergency of an Alaska Airlines (ALK.N), opens new tab Boeing 737 MAX 9 that lost a cabin panel at 16,000 feet. The agency said evidence suggested the door panel was missing four key bolts.
The NTSB said the panel known as a door plug - fitted into this MAX 9 model in place of an optional exit - could have detached from the plane.In December, Boeing recommended the loose-bolt inspections after an international operator discovered a rudder bolt with a missing nut while performing routine maintenance, while Boeing discovered an additional undelivered aircraft with a nut that was not properly tightened.
Boeing said on Thursday that since it recommended the inspections in late December, operators have scrutinized more than 1,400 737 MAX airplanes, with only one inspection remaining."To date, no other airplane has been found with the condition that initiated the inspection," Boeing said. "Operators who completed the inspection do not have to perform additional examinations and can continue safely flying their airplanes."
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell told reporters on Thursday that the NTSB told her this week that markings on the recovered 737 MAX 9 door plug suggested that "there was movement" of the door plug on prior flights. "How come that wasn't detected in the process?" Cantwell said.Alaska and United Airlines UAL.O both said last month during inspections of MAX 9 jets that they had found loose bolts on numerous airplanes.
The FAA on Jan. 6 ordered 171 MAX 9 jets grounded and then lifted that grounding on Jan. 24 after it mandated extensive inspections of the door plugs. The agency also barred Boeing from boosting the existing 737 MAX production rate, pending improvements in quality control.

Hopefully airlines have already conducted these inspections and not waited for the FAA's mandate, but these inspections are quick so won't have a huge impact on airline's operations.

European plane maker Airbus was humbled by the incident involving its rival Boeing on January 5 when a door panel blew off one of the US manufacturer's 737 Max 9 jets in the midst of an Alaska Airlines flight.

“With our competitor and with the rest of the industry, we share the objective of safe flight, safe mode of transportation for aviation, so it's never good when an incident happens, whatever the type of plane,” Guillaume Faury, chief executive of Airbus, said on Monday at the World Governments Summit in Dubai.“This incident makes us very humble. We're just thinking again and again and again what should we be doing not to be in that situation? Are we well-protected from events? The less accidents we see, the less acceptable each and every single accident. So the bar is constantly being raised and that's good, that's for the safety of passengers.”

Asked if there were changes at Airbus that can be made in response to such incidents, Mr Faury said: “We're always challenging ourselves on what we do, on what we don't do and what we should be doing differently to try to get better.“And we take learnings from everywhere, from mishaps, from what's happening in other industries, innovation, discussions with regulators, the trends in the industry, and digitalisation and what it enables.”

Airbus is always reviewing its actions, he said, pointing to the role of corporate governance, management discussions with the board and consultations with experts outside the industry.

This is particularly important amid a “very fast-changing world” that is volatile, unpredictable, complex and vigorous.

“Therefore, you need to constantly be reviewing what you're doing and challenging yourself,” Mr Faury said.The Alaska Airlines incident has become the biggest crisis for Boeing since the entire global fleet of its Max jets was grounded in 2019 following two deadly crashes.

Boeing's recovery from the latest incident will take years as the US plane maker seeks to rebuild its reputation, regain the confidence of regulators and airlines, and put an end to the production glitches plaguing its commercial aircraft unit, analysts say.

It must become laser-focused on tightening quality control, improving safety checks and design, investing more heavily in training, overhauling its corporate culture and ensuring stricter supervision, they said.The fuel-saving Boeing 737 Max, launched in 2011, competes with the Airbus A320 Neo, which was launched in 2010.

The world's two largest plane makers have seen increasing demand for the workhorse jets, which has culminated in competition for market share, long wait-times for jet delivery and pressure on production to meet the boom in travel demand.

Aircraft manufacturing duopoly
There are currently about 10,200 Boeing passenger jets in service globally, representing about 42 per cent of the global jet fleet, compared to about 10,900 Airbus passenger aircraft, Cirium said.“Whilst there is clearly negative reputational impact on the Boeing brand from the latest issue, it is also clear that airlines retain faith in operation of the wider Boeing fleet,” Rob Morris, global head of consultancy, Ascend by Cirium, told The National.Boeing's road to recovery “is clearly to make a promise to ensure no further future quality issues occur, and then deliver on that promise by returning to the pre-2019 performance and track record of delivery”.Meanwhile, Airbus is grappling with its own production problems. It is facing a major headache due to a problem with engines built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of RTX. Hundreds of Airbus 320neo jets must be inspected between 2023 and 2026 to check for engine components made with contaminated metal powder that could fail prematurely.

This is expected to result in a rolling average of 350 aircraft parked at any one time through 2026, equivalent to about 2 per cent of the global single-aisle fleet, Cirium said.Mr Morris said Airbus is “not well placed to benefit” from Boeing's latest setback as its order backlog is full for several years to come so there are no early slots to offer airlines who wish to switch from Boeing to Airbus due to its latest woes.


Very humbling reaction from Airbus' CEO, this whole saga continues to push the argument for a third, major aircraft manufacturer.

SINGAPORE, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Boeing's (BA.N), opens new tab CEO Dave Calhoun is the right person to lead the company out of its latest safety crisis, after a panel blew out of a 737 MAX 9 plane in flight last month, the head of the world's biggest airline trade body said on Monday.
Boeing has come under fire from regulators, lawmakers and some airline bosses after the Jan. 5 incident on an Alaska Air (ALK.N), opens new tab flight sparked broader concerns over its manufacturing practices.International Air Transport Association (IATA) Director General Willie Walsh said that while some in the industry were angry after the blow-out, Calhoun and his leadership team had done well to take responsibility and commit to finding solutions.
"Boeing are taking the right measures. I think they've responded much, much better to this than other events," Walsh told Reuters on the sidelines of an industry summit in Singapore."I've heard people say you need a change in leadership. I disagree ... I'm confident that he (Calhoun) will fix it."
Walsh said he didn't expect Boeing's safety problems to result in airlines ordering fewer of the manufacturer's planes or prompt passengers to avoid booking tickets with airlines that use the 737 MAX 9 aircraft.
Walsh was speaking a day before the start of the Singapore Airshow, Asia's largest aviation event, where there is a buzz around the first trip outside Chinese territory for China's homegrown passenger jet, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China's (COMAC) narrow-body C919.The C919, which is only certified in China where four are in operation, staged a fly-by in Singapore on Sunday.
Walsh said he expected the C919 would mostly be used for the large Chinese domestic market and it could take "decades" before China was able to produce a jet capable of competing with Boeing and Airbus on the international stage.
"It's impressive and it's going to be interesting to see but I think it will be a bit of time before they can be seen as credible competitors," he said.For months, the global aviation industry has been struggling with severe supply chain disruptions, as a post-pandemic travel boom after COVID-era layoffs and shutdowns caused delays to everything from engines to windscreens.
Walsh said the supply chain situation was "unprecedented" but slowly improving.
"It's better today than it was this time last year, but it's still a major problem."

Walsh seems to be alone on supporting Calhoun. Boeing didn't really have a choice but to follow the FAA's grounding, production cap and EAD. Boeing could've done things differently, they could've not fired QA Inspectors, they could not sold off Wichita, they could've not only had a 1 day production stand down but done a far longer one, they could've not even developed the MAX. Need I go on?

Boeing has ousted the head of the 737 Max program as the planemaker fights to repair its reputation following a terrifying cabin panel blowout.

Ed Clark, who was also general manager of Boeing’s plant in Renton, Washington, is leaving the business with immediate effect, according to an internal memo. His exit was first reported by the Seattle Times.

The company has scrambled to reassure regulators, airlines and passengers since a brand-new 737 Max 9 jet was forced into an emergency landing last month.The dramatic incident during an Alaska Airlines flight – which prompted 171 Max 9 jets to be grounded for several weeks – has sparked the biggest safety crisis for Boeing since the crashes of two of its Max 8 jets, in 2018 and 2019, in which 346 people were killed.

Clark will be replaced by Katie Ringgold, who is currently vice-president of 737 delivery operations. Boeing also created a new role of senior vice-president for quality in its commercial airplanes business, appointing Elizabeth Lund to the post.

It comes after an initial report by the US safety regulator found the Alaska jet’s cabin panel appeared to be missing four key bolts. The bolts meant to hold the door plug in place were absent, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said.In a message to Boeing employees on Wednesday, Stan Deal, who leads the company’s commercial airplanes division, said the changes were made as part of its “enhanced focus on ensuring that every airplane we deliver meets or exceeds all quality and safety requirements. Our customers demand, and deserve, nothing less.”

Clark “departs with my, and our, deepest gratitude for his many significant contributions over nearly 18 years of dedicated service to Boeing”, Deal added, offering him the company’s “very best wishes”.

The shake-up followed a meeting of Boeing’s board, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Dave Calhoun, Boeing’s chief executive, has acknowledged the business faces a “serious challenge” to win back the confidence of regulators and airlines. Some analysts had called into question whether senior executives at the company would have to resign.
Calhoun plans to meet with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chief, Mike Whitaker, next week after the top aviation regulator traveled to Renton to tour the Boeing 737 plant.

The FAA initially grounded the Max 9 for several weeks in January, and has capped Boeing’s production of the Max while it audits the planemaker’s manufacturing processes.

I fail to see how any meaningful change will come from this when it's still the same Execs, same aircraft, same suppliers and same Board. The structural issues are still there, one relatively minor shuffle like this won't change much.

  • flydubai reports record profits and passenger numbers in 2023 despite Boeing 737 MAX delivery delays.
  • Further aircraft delivery delays prompted flydubai to wet lease 6 aircraft from Smartwings to meet travel demand.
  • flydubai still plans to take delivery of 12 Boeing 737 MAXs in 2024.
flydubai, the Dubai International Airport (DXB)-based airline, has announced its 2023 financial results, posting record-breaking profits and passenger numbers. However, the carrier warned that aircraft delivery delays will continue into 2024, forcing it to wet lease aircraft during the upcoming peak season.

Boeing 737 MAX delivery delays​

The airline ended 2023 with a fleet of 84 aircraft, split between 29 Boeing 737-800 Next Generation (NG), 52 737 MAX 8, and three 737 MAX 9 aircraft, with three 737-800 NGs returning to the lessors during the year.

While Boeing delivered 13 new 737 MAXs during the year, flydubai said it received four fewer aircraft than it had planned in 2023. As a result, to offset the delays and to respond to the surge in demand, especially during the peak summer travel period, the carrier has completed an agreement with Smartwings for six aircraft.
Smartwings is a Czechia-based airline that provides charter and aircraft, crew, maintenance, and insurance (ACMI) services to other carriers in addition to regularly scheduled flight services. However, flydubai did not specify the type of aircraft that it would be wet leasing, with Smartwings having both Boeing 737 NG and 737 MAX aircraft in its fleet.

Nevertheless, flydubai is planning to take delivery of 12 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2024, with Ghaith Al Ghaith, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the airline, saying that this will help the airline add capacity on existing routes as demand continues to recover and return to pre-pandemic levels.

For those wondering, FlyDubai originally hoped to take delivery of 20 MAX aircraft in 2024. They are part of a huge group of airlines impacted by the delivery issues at Boeing.

  • Air New Zealand's eagerly awaited Boeing 787-10 deliveries were delayed until June 2025 due to pandemic effects.
  • The carrier's unique network across the Pacific Rim includes Dreamliner routes to Shanghai, New York, and more.
  • Challenges expected in aircraft delivery managed with dry-lease 777-300ER introduction and strategic forecast planning.
Unfortunately, Auckland-based Air New Zealand will be waiting a little longer to receive its first two Boeing 787-10 aircraft, with deliveries not expected to touch down until June 2025. The Oceania carrier, which already operates 14 of the 787-9 variants, has eight of the -10 variants on order.

From New Zealand, the Star Alliance member operates a unique network across the Pacific Rim, with the deployment of the Dreamliner on routes to such destinations as Shanghai, Taipei, Chicago, and its flagship route, New York.When the carrier ordered the ten variants in 2019, the delivery was pushed back due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and expected from 2020 to 2027.

Two Dreamliners for 2025​

Expecting the first two in the financial year ending June 2025, we will now see the aircraft touch down in the 2026 financial year. The airline Cheif Executive Officer, Greg Foran, noted:

”Boeing has now confirmed that the first of the new 787 Dreamliners is unlikely to arrive until at least mid-2025, which will delay delivery of our innovative new Skynest. The interior retrofit of our current 787 fleet remains on track."
While aircraft deliveries can cause havoc for airline expansion and operations, Air New Zealand forecasted some challenges and introduced the dry-lease Boeing 777-300ER last November to mitigate this. Once deliveries begin, it is expected to receive four more significant variants in the 2026 financial year, with two each year following in 2027 and 2028.

Taking to the skies in the 787-9​

Air New Zealand already operates a fleet of 14 Boeing 787-9 from Auckland, with its first delivery dating back to July 2014 (ZK-NZE). The last time the airline received a new delivery of the Dreamliner was ZK-NZR, which was leased and welcomed to the carrier in October 2019.
The carrier operates a unique fleet of only narrowbody Airbus aircraft (A320-200, A320neo, and A321neo) for short-haul international and domestic jet operations, while Boeing holds supreme for widebody, long-haul operations. Historically, the airline has operated the 767-200 and 300, 777-200, and 747-400), which have all since been replaced by the popular 787. The carrier operates eight 777-300ERs, all set to be replaced by the 787-10 once deliveries are completed later this decade.

For the airline regional operations, the country's unique geography sees the carrier as the world's largest De Havilland Dash 8-300 operator, with 23 in its fleet connecting as far north as Kerikeri Bay of Islands (KKE) to Invercargill (IVC), in the South (the southernmost controlled airport in the commonwealth), alongside the ATR 76-600 (29 currently in operation, and two on order).


Air New Zealand will also be dipping its toes in electric-powered aircraft, with a Beta ALIA eCTOL on order. It will be used for cargo services and will join the airline's fleet in 2026.

One of the many airlines impacted by delivery delays, and Boeing isn't the only OEM facing this. I believe the 777-300ERs that Air New Zealand is leasing are from Cathay Pacific.

A new report for the US government has raised serious concerns about Boeing's safety management systems, adding to the scrutiny facing the US plane maker.
The review found a "disconnect" between senior management and regular staff, and signs that safety-related messages and behaviours were not effectively implemented across the company.
The report was ordered after crashes involving Boeing planes in 2018 and 2019.
Boeing pledged to review the findings.
"We've taken important steps to foster a safety culture that empowers and encourages all employees to share their voice. But there is more work to do," the company said.
"We will carefully review the panel's assessment and learn from their findings, as we continue our comprehensive efforts to improve our safety and quality programs."
The company, one of two major global plane makers, has been under added pressure since last month, when a section of one of its passenger jets blew off in mid-air, forcing an emergency landing.
The incident, which narrowly avoided serious harm, revived questions about Boeing's manufacturing processes, years after the 2018 and 2019 accidents, which killed 346 people and led to accusations that the company had put profits before safety as it produced its planes.
The panel of experts, which was convened after the earlier crashes, said Boeing had taken steps to improve, but that it saw indications of "gaps in Boeing's safety journey".
It said some Boeing staff were hesitant to report problems and worried about retaliation because of how the reporting process was set up.
Boeing also did not have a clear system for reporting problems and tracking how those concerns were resolved, it said.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it would also review the findings.
The agency is currently investigating Boeing's manufacturing processes, triggered by the 5 January blowout. It has barred the company from expanding production of its popular 737 Max planes while the review is under way.
"We will continue to hold Boeing to the highest standard of safety and will work to ensure the company comprehensively addresses these recommendations," the FAA said as it released the report.
The troubles at Boeing are expected to lead to delays delivering new planes to airlines, which Ryanair has said could cause ticket prices to rise. Other airlines have also voiced frustration over the issues.
Earlier this month, Boeing said it was replacing the person in charge of the 737 Max programme and creating a new position of senior vice president for quality.

Don't think that came as a surprise to anyone, least of all Boeing Management.

Boeing’s board has killed a longshot shareholder proposal that the company move its headquarters back to Seattle.

The proposal was put forward to be voted on this spring at Boeing’s annual general meeting by 83-year-old Walter Ryan, a retired Chicago business owner, corporate gadfly and stock market investor who owns 10,000 shares in the company.

But a Securities and Exchange Commission ruling last week means shareholders won’t get to vote on his proposal. With SEC approval, Boeing’s board won’t put it on the ballot.

Ryan bought the shares in December 2019, right after the first 737 MAX crash in Indonesia, when the stock was priced at just under $337. He assumed Boeing would quickly recover, “the stock would go up, and they’d correct all their problems,” he said in an interview. “I was wrong.”

Boeing stock today is hovering around $200, his investment down more than 40%.

“It’s a shame that they took a company that was a first-class operation and drove it into the ground,” Ryan said.

Shame, it was easier for Management to have oversight on QA when Boeing HQ was in Seattle.

In a harshly worded statement released Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration said it has given Boeing 90 days to come up with a comprehensive action plan to address its “systemic quality-control issues.”

New FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker laid out the ultimatum to Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun and his senior safety team at an all-day meeting Tuesday at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

“Boeing must commit to real and profound improvements,” Whitaker said after the meeting.  “Making foundational change will require a sustained effort from Boeing’s leadership, and we are going to hold them accountable every step of the way, with mutually understood milestones and expectations.”

The FAA said the plan to fix the quality problems must take account of both the forthcoming results of an ongoing FAA production-line audit and the findings released Tuesday in an expert review panel report commissioned by the FAA.

The plan must also include steps Boeing will take to mature its Safety Management System, a formal safety program Boeing committed to implement in 2019.

And the FAA said Boeing must integrate this program with its Quality Management System, to “ensure the same level of rigor and oversight is applied to the company’s suppliers.”


The goal, the FAA said, is to create “a measurable, systemic shift in manufacturing quality control.”

“Boeing must take a fresh look at every aspect of their quality-control process and ensure that safety is the company’s guiding principle,” Whitaker said.

In a statement Wednesday reacting to the FAA announcement, Boeing CEO Calhoun said “we have a clear picture of what needs to be done” and that the company’s leadership “team “is totally committed to meeting this challenge.”

“Boeing will develop the comprehensive action plan with measurable criteria that demonstrates the profound change that Administrator Whitaker and the FAA demand,” Calhoun said.

Alaska Airlines incident demanded action​

The strong language in the FAA release suggests Whitaker has little to no patience left after a litany of quality problems at Boeing.

The last straw was the in-flight blowout of a fuselage panel on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX last month that left a door-sized hole in the passenger cabin at 16,000 feet over Portland.
Though the pilot landed quickly and injuries were minor, the incident terrified passengers and could have ended much more tragically if the blowout had come at a higher altitude.

A preliminary report on that incident by the National Transportation Safety Board revealed that four retainer bolts required to prevent the fuselage panel from coming off were not put back after the panel was opened and re-closed at Boeing’s Renton 737 MAX final assembly plant — work that was done by Boeing employees.

The report of the expert panel identified substantive upgrades needed to improve Boeing’s quality and safety systems and directed the company to develop an action plan within six months. Just a day later, the FAA has cut that to three months.
The FAA statement Wednesday provides no clear “or else” as to what the federal agency will do if Boeing doesn’t satisfy the demand.

However, the FAA has already stopped Boeing’s planned ramp-up of 737 MAX production, capping the rate for now at 38 jets per month.

And it is exploring the use of an external third party to do some of the oversight conducted internally by Boeing engineers.

In addition, the FAA is investigating the fuselage blowout on the Alaska flight and gathering evidence on the incident.

The FAA is understandably annoyed with Boeing, not just because of this AS 1282, but because of years of QA issues, asking for exemptions and of course to 2 737-8 crashes that led to the world wide grounding in 2019-2020 (2021 in some places).

The Justice Department is reviewing whether an early January incident in which a part of a Boeing plane blew out in midflight violated a 2021 agreement to settle a criminal charge against the company, according to a person familiar with the review.
Boeing agreed to pay more than $2.5 billion to settle the charge, which stemmed from two fatal crashes of its 737 Max 8 planes. The deal, reached in the final weeks of the Trump administration, was criticized at the time as being too lenient on the company.
Under the terms, Boeing agreed to compensate the families of the crash victims as well as the airlines affected by the grounding of the planes. The Justice Department agreed to drop a criminal charge that was based on the actions of two employees who had withheld information from the F.A.A.
Last month, a panel in the fuselage of a larger Max 9 blew out at an altitude of 16,000 feet shortly after takeoff from Portland, Ore., exposing passengers to deafening wind. There were no serious injuries, but the incident could have been catastrophic had it occurred minutes later, at a higher altitude. The panel is known as a “door plug,” which is used to cover a gap left by an unneeded exit door.

The Justice Department review was reported earlier by Bloomberg.
The episode in January reignited the intense scrutiny and criticism that Boeing faced after crashes in Indonesia in late 2018 and Ethiopia in early 2019 killed a combined 346 people. The Max 8 and Max 9 were banned from flying globally days after the second crash. Since the jetliners started flying again in late 2020, they have carried out several million flights worldwide.

The weight of the crisis appeared to be lifting before the January incident. A preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board suggested that the plane in that episode may have left Boeing’s factory without bolts needed to secure the panel. The Federal Aviation Administration immediately grounded nearly 200 Max 9 jets in the United States, pending inspections. Flights using the plane have since resumed.
The F.A.A. also increased inspections of the Washington State factory where Boeing makes the Max. On Wednesday, the agency gave the company 90 days to put together a plan to improve quality control.
“Boeing must commit to real and profound improvements,” the F.A.A.’s administrator, Mike Whitaker, said in a statement announcing the deadline. “Making foundational change will require a sustained effort from Boeing’s leadership, and we are going to hold them accountable every step of the way, with mutually understood milestones and expectations.”
Earlier in the week, a group of F.A.A. experts released a long-awaited report stemming from the Max crashes, and it found that Boeing’s safety culture was still lacking, despite improvements in recent years.

The bad news just keeps on coming for Boeing, although their execs will likely get off scott free.

In fraught negotiations over a new contract for a group of 23 technical and safety pilots, Boeing has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against its engineering union while the union raised the level of acrimony Thursday by publicly blaming a skewed company safety culture for blocking progress.

The affected group, based at Boeing Field, are flight technical and safety pilots with the flight operations group. Their contract expires Wednesday.

These are not the pilots who routinely fly production aircraft. The technical pilots develop pilot training programs and pilot manuals, and liaise with airlines on their flight operations. The safety pilots work to help develop flight deck systems for new aircraft and support certification efforts.

In a statement Thursday, Ray Goforth, executive director of Boeing’s white-collar union the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, said the dispute reflects a safety culture that devalues this pilot group.

He said the most contentious issue in the contract talks is pay and that the latest company proposal offers to pay these pilots “28.6% less than the Boeing corporate pilots who chauffeur executives around.”

“With the entire world focused on the Boeing safety culture, it was truly startling to see how differently Boeing leadership values the safe operation of its products versus the comfort of executives,” Goforth said.For the company, Boeing spokesperson Doug Alder insisted that “we respect and recognize the important role our technical and safety pilots play in enhancing our safety efforts and supporting our customers.”

“These pilots are already well paid (averaging over $240,000 a year), and our contract offer would ensure they continue to be well compensated,” Alder said via email.

“We are disappointed that the union is not bargaining in good faith,” Alder continued. “Their most recent proposal is significantly higher than the original economic offer they made when bargaining began.”

He said the union asked for an immediate 28% wage increase to match the pilots of the corporate jets.Citing bad faith bargaining over this shift in salary demands, “indicating a clear lack of good faith desire to reach agreement,” Boeing has filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board.

The dispute grows hot over a pay comparison
In early negotiations the union asked for pay parity with Boeing’s production pilots, who fly newly built aircraft on their initial flights.Goforth said the dispute ignited when Boeing insisted that the correct comparison was with the pilots who fly the corporate jets who ferry executives around.

He said Boeing at first refused to disclose what the corporate pilots are paid, then relented and released the data. It later asked SPEEA’s negotiators to sign a retroactive nondisclosure agreement so that they couldn’t disclose this information to the pilot group.

SPEEA declined, said Goforth, calling the request “weird.”

In its filing with the NLRB, Boeing complained that “the Union has refused to engage in any discussions or negotiations over a nondisclosure agreement that would protect the Company’s proprietary information.”
When the corporate pilot pay data revealed the 28.6% gap, the union raised its demand to match that, Goforth said. SPEEA, the white-collar union, asked for an immediate pay raise to close that gap, plus an additional 3.5% each year of the three-year contract thereafter.

Boeing told the NLRB that this latest demand “moved the parties significantly further away from reaching a deal.”

Goforth said that during negotiations Boeing called a meeting of the pilot group and told them they would be bringing in outside contract pilots for work that overlaps with that of the SPEEA-represented group.The pilots interpreted this as a threat to their jobs, he said.

The union has complained for several years that Boeing has systematically hollowed out the SPEEA pilot group, replacing in-house Boeing pilots with contractors.

“The resulting degradation in expert advice given to Boeing’s airline customers is another example of the safety-culture problem highlighted by the FAA” on Wednesday, Goforth said.

With the dispute mired in acrimony, both sides complain that opposing negotiators have several times failed to show up for scheduled bargaining sessions.

Boeing has told the union it’s willing to bring in a federal mediator. SPEEA is considering that request.

Note that this isn't the same Union who is asking for a 40% payrise for their members working as engineers in Renton, their contract expires in September.
According to an SEC filing, United Airlines has removed the Boeing 737 MAX 10 from its fleet plan from this year until after 2025. This comes after a string of problems with Boeing quality control and delays in the certification of the aircraft type.Planning for the unknown
Last month, an exit door plug blew out on an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9, leading to a decision from the Federal Aviation Administration to ground the MAX 9s with the same configuration as the affected aircraft. Upon inspection, several aircraft were found to have loose bolts on the door plugs, and Boeing accepted the fault for the problems. Quality lapses have been a problem at Boeing for several years now, and this seems to be the final straw that broke the camel's back.Several airline CEOs commented on the incident, many saying Boeing needs to get their act together, and United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby had his own words for the American manufacturer. Kirby added that because of ongoing problems at Boeing, the airline would be forced to consider future plans without the MAX 10, which has not yet been certified. Kirby did not explicitly state that United would cancel its entire MAX 10 order, which stands at 277 planes, but rather, it would need to plan for the unknown.Earlier today, the airline posted its 10-K filing, a comprehensive report filed annually by a publicly traded company about its financial performance. The filing reveals that United has started planning its fleet expansion without the MAX 10s. A section of the report outlines the carrier's outstanding deliveries and how many aircraft it expects to receive in coming years. As seen in the photo below, per its contract with Boeing, United was set to receive 80 MAX 10s in 2024 alone but now expects zero.Between 2024 and 2025, United was supposed to receive more than half of its MAX 10 order. Although the 10-K filing states that United does not expect any MAX 10s in the coming years, the airline specified,

"Due to the delay in the certification of the 737 MAX 10 aircraft, we are unable to accurately forecast the expected delivery period."Future deliveries
Though United is not expecting the MAX 10s anytime soon, the airline is still awaiting more MAX 8s, 9s, and 787 Dreamliners. According to the table above, United contractually expected 85 Boeing planes this year but now expects 63. The breakdown is seven 787s (variants not specified), 37 MAX 8s, and 19 MAX 9s.In addition to Boeing aircraft, United has more than 200 firm commitments with Airbus, although 45 are for A350s, and there are doubts if the airline will ever receive the widebodies. After increasing its A321neo order near the end of 2023, United now has 126 firm commitments and expects 25 this year, a few of which have already been delivered. The airline was expected to receive 26. Though the A321XLR will see its commercial entry into service (EIS) this year, United does not plan to receive its first until the end of 2025.

Not surprising, Southwest has done this with the 737-7 as well.
 
Last edited:

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York

“Boeing has not provided us with the documents and information that we have requested numerous times over the past few months, specifically with respect to opening, closing and removal of the door [plug], and the team that does that work at the Renton facility,” NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy told US lawmakers on 6 March.

“We don’t have the records. We don’t have the names… It’s absurd that two months later we don’t have that,” she adds, speaking during a meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Ouch, Boeing not providing documents to the NTSB is not a good look, Boeing is in the position where the best thing they can do is just work with the regulators.

On 6 March, Homendy also said the NTSB has “engaged our attorneys” because Spirit failed to disclose that technicians who performed the rivet rework were not employed by Spirit, but rather by three other firms. Those others were engineering services provider AeroTec, aerospace staffing firm Strom Aviation, and “Launch”, also an apparent staffing firm.

“That information was not told to us by Spirit… [but] was told to us by through the individuals being interviewed that contacted us directly,” Homendy says. “It was a surprise to us.”
Spirit has a lot of trust in their employees in that case, that may have not paid off for them.

“The manager has been out on medical leave. We have not been able to interview that [person],” Homendy says. “We’ve asked for the names of the other 25 people… Why we don’t have those names today, two months later, is really disappointing.”
Two months is just ridiculous. This cannot continue.

“Either [those records] exist and we don’t have them, or they do not exist,” she says, adding that Boeing has been unable to find some records.
Either way, it's a bad look for Boeing. Either they have the records and haven't provided the NTSB with them. Or they are doing the work but aren't even making the records. The worst would be if they do have the records but have destroyed them.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York
The bad news just keeps on coming for Boeing, although their execs will likely get off scott free.
The DOJ will investigate whether Boeing has complied with the terms of a 2021 settlement following two deadly crashes attributed to faults in Boeing’s 737 MAX Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. In that case, the DOJ had charged Boeing with engaging in “a conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Evaluation Group.”

Now been confirmed. Boeing's not having a good start to the week.

FAA auditors found that out of 89 product audits that were conducted, Boeing passed 56 tests and failed 33 of them, according to the report.

During the six-week audit, the FAA also conducted 13 product audits that focused on Spirit AeroSystems, which makes fuselages for the Boeing 737 Max — of those, only six audits resulting in passing grades, and seven failed, the NYT said.
A document reviewed by the Times found that a mechanic at Spirit used a hotel key card to check a door seal. In another instance, the FAA reportedly saw Spirit mechanics apply liquid Dawn soap to a door seal to use as a lubricant in the “fit-up process.”

A spokesman for Spirit reportedly said the company was “reviewing all identified nonconformities for corrective action.”

33 failed audits is 33 too many. This is not on, Aviation is a safety critical industry and this is unacceptable. Regarding Spirit, using a hotel key card? What? This is insane, do they not use proper tools? Using Dawn Soap? Come on!

"We were already anticipating if it came in ‘25, it'd be late in the year," Bastian told Bloomberg in an interview Sunday. "My guess is it will be another year or two beyond that."
Delta currently doesn't fly any of the MAX variants. The MAX 10 serves as Boeing’s response to Airbus’ highly successful A321 neo and constitutes more than a fifth of the outstanding MAX orders.

Sounds about right with 2027, with 737-7 certification in 2025/2026.

“We’ve asked Boeing to stop building Max 10s, which they’ve done, for us and start building Max 9s. It’s impossible to say when the Max 10 is going to get certified.”
That's a major hit to the 737-10 program, but makes sense from United's perspective. Its better for United to take delivery of smaller 737-9s than only expected 737-9s and no 737-10s.

“We are in the market for A321s, and if we get a deal where the economics work, we’ll do something. If we don’t, we won’t and will wind up with more Max 9s.”

Will be very interesting to see if United triggers a chain reaction in carriers downsizing from the 737-10 to the 737-9, at least some delivery slots, as 737-10 certification remains uncertain.

Clark, who spoke during an Aviation Club event in London, the United Kingdom, said that the 777X could be delivered in late 2025 or 2026, according to a report by Reuters. When contacted by Simple Flying, a Boeing spokesperson declined to comment on the matter. When Boeing announced the aircraft during the Dubai Airshow in November 2013, the manufacturer promised that it would deliver the first 777X in 2020.
However, multiple delays followed, including issues with the GE9X and certification issues with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other regulators. During the company’s Q4 2023 call with investors, Brian West, the chief financial officer (CFO) and Executive Vice President of Boeing, said that the company continues following the lead of the FAA during the certification process.

“We've booked $71 million of abnormal costs in the quarter, which is now fully behind us after resuming production, in line with our expectations.”

2026 is still optimistic with 737-7 certification not being expected until 2025 at the earliest and 737-10 certification in 2027 according to Delta CEO Ed Bastian.

We have calculated the cost of transitioning to multiple fleet types, and I’ll just tell you that it’s significant,” Jordan said, calling it a “big leap to move beyond” that single type. While the famously all-737 operator continues to have regular and “very rigorous discussions with Boeing and with Airbus,” to compare its options, it ultimately sees no easy solution as it detailed the latest impacts of ongoing delays.

“There is no such thing as derisking your fleet plan,” Jordan said at the JP Morgan Industrials Conference on March 12. “Even at best you might be 50/50; parking 50% of your fleet or 30% of your fleet is disastrous, so I think the idea that you can fully derisk your deliveries or your fleet plan is a fallacy.”

Newly updated guidance from Boeing projects 46 737-8 deliveries for Southwest in 2024, 12 fewer than previous expectations.

“It is not unlikely that that ‘46’ number changes,” noted Jordan. “It’s not unlikely that that creeps into [20]25, there’s just a lot to do.”

The Dallas-based airline no longer expects delivery of any 737-7s in 2024, having previously expected to receive 21 of the still-uncertified variant this year, though it had already excluded the type from its 2024 schedules.

Given the news of further delays, Southwest is “actively and urgently” focused on cost and capacity reductions. The impact of updated capacity plans, still fluid, are expected to be primarily focused on post-peak summer schedules. Full-year capacity may grow—at most—between 4.5-5% year-over-year, it said, down 1-1.5 points from prior expectations due to the impact of delays.

“We’re still in the process of determining our internal planning assumptions around the number and timing of deliveries that we will plan around,” Jordan said.

Southwest is in a sticky situation, the 737-7 is uncertified, and certification of the 737-7 remains uncertain, but they don't want to go for say the A220.

Low-cost U.S. carrier Allegiant (ALGT.O), opens new tab expects fewer aircraft deliveries from Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab this year, its president told Reuters, as the planemaker grapples with the fallout of a frightening incident last month when a cabin panel tore off of a 737 MAX 9 jet mid-flight.
The Las Vegas-based airline was scheduled to receive 24 MAX planes in 2024, but Allegiant President Greg Anderson said it is working on the assumption that it will receive closer to 12 aircraft this year. "We are in regular dialogue with Boeing on this," he said in an interview on Tuesday. "We can manage through it as long as we have an orderly delivery cadence from Boeing."

I'm surprised Allegiant is still pursuing the MAX given that they are an all Airbus carrier and the 737-7, which Allegiant ordered, remains uncertified with certification remaining uncertain.

Chafing in improperly placed wire bundles caused uncommanded spoiler deployments on a Boeing 737 MAX, prompting the FAA to issue a draft rule that would mandate inspections to prevent similar occurrences.

The FAA notice of proposed rulemaking, set for publication March 11, would require 737 MAX operators to inspect affected aircraft for damage to spoiler wire control bundles. The issue caused “multiple” uncommanded spoiler activations during cruise that caused the affected aircraft to roll. The FAA did not say which airline or 737 MAX variant was involved in the incident.

Boeing determined the issue was caused by “non-conforming installation of spoiler wire bundles that occurred during production,” the FAA draft rule said. Boeing manufactures 737 wings in its Renton, Washington, facility.

The company alerted operators to the issue in a July 2023 alert requirements bulletin and recommended a one-time inspection “of the clearance between the spoiler control wire bundles and the adjacent structure,” the FAA wrote. The area of interest is where the bundle runs along the main landing gear beam rib in the right wing’s trailing edge.

The draft rule, which is based on the Boeing recommendations, does not say how soon checks would have to be done. The proposed rule does not say how many 737 MAX aircraft may have the issue, but confirms it affects at least some of every variant in service. The draft rule incorporates Boeing’s bulletin “by reference,” meaning it tells operators to look at Boeing’s bulletin for affected fleet details and inspection requirements.

The directive would affect 207 U.S.-registered aircraft, the FAA said.

Not good news for Boeing, yet another slip up on basic features on the MAX.

Flight 1539, which had flown from Nassau, Bahamas, experienced the mishap after touching down at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on Feb. 6, according to a National Transportation Safety Board preliminary report released Thursday.


The captain of the Boeing 737-8 aircraft reported that during the landing rollout, which occurs after touchdown and before the plane slows to taxi speed, the rudder pedals did not respond to the application of foot pressure while there was an attempt to “maintain the runway centerline,” the report said.

Instead, the pedals were “stuck” in their neutral position.

“The captain used the nose wheel steering tiller to keep the airplane near the runway centerline while slowing to a safe taxi speed before exiting the runway onto a high-speed turn-off,” the report said.

During the high-speed turnoff, the captain asked the first officer to check his rudder pedals and he reported the same issue. Shortly after that, the rudder pedals began to operate normally, the report said.

The aircraft, carrying 155 passengers and 6 crew members, was able to park safely. No one was injured.

The flight crew then notified United Airlines maintenance of the flight control malfunction and the plane was removed from service for maintenance and troubleshooting.

A review of the flight’s data recorder corroborated the pilot’s account of what happened, and showed that the rudder surface position remained near its neutral position during the landing and rollout, even though the force inputs to the rudder pedals were increasing, the report said.

The data showed that about 30 seconds after touchdown, a “significant pedal force input was observed along with corresponding rudder surface movement. Afterward, the rudder pedals and rudder surface began moving as commanded and continued to function normally for the remainder of the taxi.”

Three days later, on Feb. 9, United conducted a test flight on the event airplane at Newark, and “was able to duplicate the reported rudder system malfunction.”

The report indicates that this happens in cold weather, so this raises the question: why wasn't this found during cold weather testing? Thankfully this happened on the ground and not in the air, the latter would've been detrimental.

February deliveries included only 18 737s, down from 25 in January, among them were 17 737 Maxs and one 737NG-based P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.
Ouch, that's down from the 38 Boeing wanted to be producing (and the amount that the FAA has capped production on), significantly down.

Despite the slowdown, Boeing in February shipped six 737 Max aircraft to Chinese airlines – notable because the country’s carriers only started receiving new narrowbodies again in January. Those operators had halted deliveries for almost five years starting in March 2019, when regulators globally grounded the type.
That's good news for Boeing considering reluctance from Chinese carriers, although Chinese carriers have only ordered the 737-8 and not the 737-9 (the latter being the aircraft involved in January's door blowout on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282).

In February, six Chinese airlines – 9 Air, Air China, China Southern Airlines, Donghai Airlines, Shandong Airlines and Xiamen Airlines – each received one 737 Max, Boeing says. The company had delivered two 737 Max to Chinese airlines in January.
Interesting that China Eastern didn't take any, given that they were the first Chinese carrier to resume flying the MAX and they are one of the biggest Chinese carriers.

Boeing’s February deliveries also included nine widebody jets, including seven 787-9s, of which Hawaiian Airlines received its first, Air Canada received one, Etihad Airways received three, and Korean Air and Turkish Airlines each took one.

Its other deliveries last month included one 767 Freighter received by FedEx and one 767-based KC-46 military refuelling jet.

The manufacturer landed new orders in February for 15 aircraft, including 10 737 Max and one 777F ordered by customers that Boeing declines to name, and four 787-9s for Royal Brunei Airlines. Boeing recorded no cancellations last month
787 deliveries going up to 7 is good, as Boeing seemed to be stuck around 3. Looks like no 777F aircraft were delivered last month.

Ryanair (RYA.I), opens new tab will receive even fewer Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab aircraft by the end of June than previously expected, CEO Michael O'Leary said on Friday, potentially causing the budget carrier to cut its summer schedule at the busiest time of the year.
The Dublin-based airline is the first in Europe to warn of disruption due a deepening crisis at Boeing, which has been mired in a regulatory audit and has been prohibited from ramping up 737 MAX production since the Jan. 5 mid-air panel blowout of a new Alaska Airlines MAX 9.
Ryanair was due to receive 57 Boeing MAX 8200 planes by end-April, but just over a week ago Boeing told the airline it would receive around 50 aircraft by end-June, O'Leary said. That could now change.
"We don't really know how many aircraft we're going to get from Boeing," O'Leary told a media briefing. "We're pretty sure we're going to get 30 to 40. We're reasonably confident we're between 40 and 45. And now we are far less confident we're going to get between 45 and 50."

Very rare to see Michael O'Leary not slamming Boeing when discussing delivery delays with the MAX.

The de-icing fault affects Boeing Model 787–8, 787–9, and 787–10 Dreamliner airplanes in service. Similarly, it involves engine inlets.

As detailed in the FAA’s proposed Airworthiness Directive, an FAA investigation “found that the seals between the inner and outer ducts and between the outer duct and the aft compartment were missing. This led to EAI air leaking into the aft compartment exposing inlet components to high temperatures. This condition, if not addressed, could cause damage around the EAI duct, leading to reduced structural strength and departure of the inlet from the airplane, resulting in subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing or injury to occupants from a departed inlet contacting the airplane.”

The proposed AD requires operators to inspect the engine inlet and perform necessary repairs, pending Boeing’s redesign to address the issue permanently.

Not good that the 787 is having more issues, especially as its now, barely, standing on its own two feet again.

The decision to look with “a criminal focus” at Boeing Co.’s conduct around the blowout of a door plug on a 737 Max 9 was taken too soon after the January accident, said Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association. “I think it’s completely wrong,” Walsh said in an interview with Bloomberg in Hong Kong on Tuesday. He said that such moves aren’t in the interest of safety, the traveling public or the industry at large.
What? The DOJ's investigation into Boeing is regarding if Boeing violated the agreement they signed with the DOJ in 2021 following the grounding of the MAX in 2019/2020 not into what happened on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282.

The probe “risks pushing people back into a period when we didn’t have as open a culture in terms of reporting,” the IATA head said. “To me, it’s a retrograde step, something that we have to push back and push back strongly against.”
This is already the case at Boeing, and has been for years. I can't see why the investigation by the DOJ would worsen this.

The head of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said on Wednesday that investigators still do not know who worked on a Boeing 737 Max 9 door plug involved in the 5 January Alaska Airlines midair emergency and that video footage was overwritten.The NTSB’s chair, Jennifer Homendy, said in a letter to senators that investigators sought security camera footage when the door plug was opened and closed in September but were informed the material was overwritten. “The absence of those records will complicate the NTSB’s investigation moving forward,” she said.

The NTSB said previously that four key bolts were missing from the door plug that blew out on the plane.

Ouch, really not a good look for Boeing. First documents, now this.

The New York Times reported earlier Tuesday that the plane was scheduled for a safety check after some engineers and technicians became concerned — including about a light indicating problems with the plane’s pressurization system — and that it was kept in service with some restrictions.

Alaska Airlines told the newspaper that the warnings it had on the plane did not meet its standards to immediately take it out of service.

Alaska confirmed to NBC News that the plane was scheduled to head for maintenance later the night of Jan. 5.

The airline said in a statement that it, like other airlines, relies on "redundant systems, robust processes and procedures, and the willingness to stop and ensure things are right before every takeoff," and it said safety guides its decisions.

Maintenance wouldn't have looked at the door plug unless someone had raised an issue with the door plug though. How would previous pressurisation alerts have been connected to loose bolts on a door plug?
 
Last edited:

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,831
Very rare to see Michael O'Leary not slamming Boeing when discussing delivery delays with the MAX.

I think he's completely fed up with them, and for good reason. If it wasn't for Wizzair being completely incompetent, they would be savaging Ryanair with their A321s.

Ryanair have shown a huge amount of faith in the Max series, and Boeing just aren't repaying them.
 

DaleCooper

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2015
Messages
3,513
Location
Mulholland Drive
Another Boeing with bits dropping off.

United Airlines flight 433 lands safely without panel in Oregon​

A missing external panel on a Boeing plane was detected when it landed at an airport in the US state of Oregon on Friday, says United Airlines.
A spokesperson said United flight 433, from San Francisco, arrived at the Rogue Valley International Airport in Medford, Oregon, at about 11:30 (18:30 GMT) on Friday.
The 25-year-old Boeing 737-800 was carrying 139 passengers and 6 crew.
No-one was injured - the missing panel went unnoticed during the flight.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,309
Location
York

Lost property

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Messages
697
The aircraft involved in the incident is a 25 year old 737-800, doubt a manufacturing flaw would've caused it. There have been quite the few United Airlines issues this past week so it points to maintenance.
Does it really?

How, given presumably your lack of both knowledge and experience, do you come to this conclusion...other than to try and "impress" contributors. I doubt if you could even locate the component on the aircraft, let alone identify the structural designation or material.

Correct, it's a 25 year old aircraft but do you really think the aircraft still has all its original structure / components given it will have been subjected to various " C" and "D" (heavy maintenance) checks, plus lesser checks and routine maintenance.

And, presumably, you are fully aware of the maintenance regimes at United ?

You see I get more than rather annoyed when I read / hear unsubstantiated statements, like your own above, from spotters / unqualified amateurs .

There is a possibility, the causal fact could relate to maintenance practices, but, equally, catastrophic failure for example could be the cause. Until the NTSB have examined the history and remains of the panel, then it's far from wise to make incriminatory allegations.

As another contributor sensibly explained, panels of various sizes do fall from aircraft at times.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,978
Location
Nottingham
Does it really?

How, given presumably your lack of both knowledge and experience, do you come to this conclusion...other than to try and "impress" contributors. I doubt if you could even locate the component on the aircraft, let alone identify the structural designation or material.

Correct, it's a 25 year old aircraft but do you really think the aircraft still has all its original structure / components given it will have been subjected to various " C" and "D" (heavy maintenance) checks, plus lesser checks and routine maintenance.

And, presumably, you are fully aware of the maintenance regimes at United ?

You see I get more than rather annoyed when I read / hear unsubstantiated statements, like your own above, from spotters / unqualified amateurs .

There is a possibility, the causal fact could relate to maintenance practices, but, equally, catastrophic failure for example could be the cause. Until the NTSB have examined the history and remains of the panel, then it's far from wise to make incriminatory allegations.

As another contributor sensibly explained, panels of various sizes do fall from aircraft at times.
I think the point here is that on a 25-year-old aircraft it's unlikely to be an issue arising from construction.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,306
Location
Isle of Man
And, presumably, you are fully aware of the maintenance regimes at United ?
This is the fifth incident involving United in about a fortnight. Whatever the maintenance regimes are at United, clearly they are not working.


A United Airlines flight was forced to return to Sydney just two hours into its nearly 14-hour journey to San Francisco, in the carrier’s fifth flight incident in seven days.

The Boeing 777-300 aircraft, carrying 183 passengers and crew, was redirected due to a “maintenance issue,” according to a statement from United Airlines.

The incident Monday on United flight 830 is the latest in a string of incidents to hit the US airline in recent days.

Last week, an engine that ingested bubblewrap caught fire midair, while another flight lost a tire after takeoff on Thursday.

On Friday, a United Airlines aircraft skidded off a runway into a grassy area, and in another incident a flight from San Francisco to Mexico City was diverted to Los Angeles after an issue with the plane’s hydraulic system, the airline said.
 

Top