How Much Will The Alaska Airlines Incident Cost Boeing?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2024
- Alaska Airlines is seeking well over a hundred million dollars in compensation for having to ground its entire 737 MAX 9 fleet for three weeks. At least two lawsuits have been filed by groups of passengers from flight AS1282. Billions of dollars in market value vanished over the span of a week.
Taking all of these actions and events into account, just how much has Boeing lost as a result of January 5th's door plug incident?
Article: simpleflying.com/how-much-wil...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com 
Развлечения
Boeing took its eye of building a great product in favour of maximizing profits and they are paying for it.
Any fool knows that quality always wins over in the end. Thats when true profits begin. Apparently Boeing management doesn't know this.
Saving a penny costs a dime. Unknown proverb in management circles.
😐😉
Short term gains, long term pains
No they didn't junior. They put profits at the cost of lives and put other lives & businesses at risk by trying to tweak a 50 year old aircraft instead of redesigning and building a brand new aircraft from scratch that was fit for purpose.
Anyone flying on a B737 MAX any type is playing Russian roulette with their lives!
Penny wise and pound foolish
Whatever the number is, it needs to be a high enough number so that it makes Boeing change its direction on how it builds aeroplanes.
If they can easily afford it, nothing will change.
I think it really needs to hurt for them to take it seriously .
The share price drop is probably the most important figure to these people .
But looking back to the Max 8 crashes of 2018 and 2019, which must’ve cost dearly; even that was not enough to make them change how they do things.
Actually it looks like it had the opposite effect, it looks like that they decided to up the production of the Max, at the expense of quality to try and recover the revenue .
Will they ever learn?
(Edited to correct text errors ).
Not with the current corporate leadership in charge. It's clear they're too shortsighted on quarterly profits to be concerned with the company's greater longevity. Boeing engineers themselves have raised alarm about their corporate culture since about the release of the 787.
We need a law mandating CEO and board of directors to be aboard of all test flights of every plane coming out from factory.
And Without a parachute!
Many say on the previous Max incidents the then CEO should have been sacked on spot without any golden payoff's, fortunate in this incident it wasn't a total breakup accident but this CEo and managers involved in the construction of these planes and procuring parts from 3rd parties need to be made stricter with more QC;s they need to be made account; if 80%+ Boeing at fault in this incident then this current CEO needs to be sacked immediately without again golden Goodbyes.
@@dafyddthomas7299the CEO’s are given these payouts because they are not making the cost cutting decisions. The board firing the CEO’s are and they don’t want any responsibility coming back to them because they are making bank on cutting cost and corners to get these planes out. The CEO is just the public face for this corrupt board or directors and they will only hire someone that will be their puppet and not stand up for themselves or the company.
If compensations are paid directly by Boeing executives, then it will mean something. Otherwise a fart in the wind for Boeing.
Statement should include the Board.
Unfortunately true on this, applies to most NYSE and FTSE companies
This door plug blowing out could have been an absolute catastrophe.
Imagine if it had reached 32,000 feet and cabin staff are serving drinks and food and people have their seatbelts off and wandering around.
It’s only by pure luck, that there wasn’t a massive loss off life.
Everyone got lucky! - Including Boeing.
And that’s if the aircraft survived the initial blowout. At that altitude it’s likely a huge hole would have been ripped out of side of the fuselage. It could have torn the entire aircraft apart. Or possibly the debris or even the door itself could have hit the wing or the horizontal stabiliser at the tail. At minimum this would have created real stabilisation problems for the pilots and at maximum render the aircraft impossible to fly and it would have tumbled to the ground/sea.
I've got acute PTSD from being on that flight. I'm an emotional mess from it.
My thing is why did they still find loose bolts on the other ones are they working loose bolts
@@mikestein1024 The bolts should have castellated nuts with split cotter pins to stop unscrewing. During inspections often the whole bolt was missing as if it never got fitted at all.
"How Much Will The Alaska Airlines Incident Cost Boeing?" - whatever the cost will be it WILL NOT NEARLY ENOUGH!
The cost will be passed to the aircraft buyers and they will pass it on to the passengers.
100 million dollar seems very little ??
Way too little considering the history of Boeing.
@@DAVIDKAMEN-xj7rg this also will be a massive cost to airlines who won’t have their deliveries in time for summer vacations and will have to scale back. I still can’t believe they offered passengers just 1500 dollars ? Really if am gonna be on a flight where one has to fear for your life they better ad a zero and throw in a bunch of free flights and at least a years lounge access for free.
@@SuperPerfectMan if I ever have an experience requiring compensation of any type, I will contact YOU to represent me - screw my lawyers ! I like the way you think.
@@DAVIDKAMEN-xj7rg ❤️❤️❤️
Are you a lawyer?
How is it even Alaska’s fault ? They had no idea of the condition of those bolts. The panel hides them from view. How is it even their fault ?
If you’ve been following the incident, you’d already know that the jet in question had been suffering from cabin pressurization issues prior to the blowout incident. Yet instead of grounding the aircraft for inspection, Alaska simply restricted said aircraft’s flight itinerary to exclude flights over the pacific to Hawaii.
While it is ultimately on Boeing for delivering a faulty product, the idea that an airline would not ground an aircraft with obvious issues is appalling, and goes to show how much profits are valued over safety, regardless of what the PR departments say.
@@FanRailer How do you troubleshoot a system working 100% perfectly when tested on wise one.
@@FanRailerIt’s most likely that the Alaska Airlines engineers were troubleshooting the problem. Those pressurisation warnings could have had many possible causes from faulty warning lights in the cockpit, faulty sensors and a bunch of other stuff. They were probably going down the list of possible causes per flight. “Here, I’ve replaced the sensors, let us know if that resolves it after you land.” For example.
Given that it was a brand new aircraft and the door plug wasn’t visible they probably didn’t think that was the problem-they’re meant to be foolproof. As for why the airline restricted that aircraft to flying over land was an abundance of caution. “We don’t know what is causing these problems but the worst case scenario is possible even if we think it’s very unlikely, so we’re going to take precautions just in case.”
I actually think that was commendable. If the blowout had happened at cruise, way out over the ocean and actually survived the blowout, it would have been in trouble. The pilots would have had to emergency dive from about 37k ft to 10k ft because passenger oxygen only lasts so long. Then they would need to land ASAP because the structural integrity has been compromised. And over the ocean that could be hours away. Not to mention that the air is thicker at that altitude and therefore the engines would burn through more fuel.
Good thing they did have an abundance of caution IMO.
@@FanRailer Also worth noting that the pressurization system just failed over to the alternate system, which is normal and no restrictions are required with one automatic and one manual system working. There wasn't an indication of pressure loss, just some type of issue with the pressurization system.
😐 It's like if you drive a taxi which has 4 bald tires, a bad transmission and a broken seat belt. If your passenger gets injured you're liable for not properly maintaining your taxi.
It does not really matter in what state the airplane fuselage was received at Boeing from Spirit Aerosystems. The final assembly and ensuring everything was ok before delivery of the airplane was fully on Boeing.
The accident seems to point to a quality culture problem at Boeing.
Maybe, Boeing should focus fully on deliver quality instead of worrying about shareholders. If they don't focus on delivering quality, their shares will definitely take a nosedive eventually.
It's also interesting the failure of Alaska too, this plane flew for 3 months with multiple cabin pressurization warning alerts that also didn't set off any alarms with management that something was wrong with this one.
@@PaleoWithFries A cabin pressure warning can be caused by a number of things, almost always a problem with the pressurization system itself. Since there's two automatic systems and one manual system, one of the automatic systems failing has always been considered fine and is standard deferred maintenance that any airline would do. There was nothing that'd point to a problem with a door plug.
I was on that Alaskan Airlines flight 1282. It was a nightmare and i thought we were going to crash.
I was on JAL123, it was a really long walk down that mountainside to get home.
Won't cost them enough to make them change enough for ME TO EVER FEEL COMFORTABLE ON A BOEING, AGAIN.
Don’t worry they don’t care and they build their competitions airframes as well so there’s no getting away from them
Is this going to be like a failed restaurant inspection? Boeing changes their name, "under new management" sign is drapped over the building.
That's how Spirit was born, a "former" Boeing facility in Wichita.
@@alanfaulkner5266I was about to type that myself.
I really AM surprised they kept the ‘737 Max’ naming convention. If the average flyer won’t fly on a Max because of its name, I’d have thought Market would have stepped in.
@@ronjon7942 I heard that in the aftermath of the two max 8 crashes some airlines tried exactly that.
They need to cancel the max program, SERIOUSLY!
Would make sense if you consider all the incidents. But unfortunately for boeing the max program makes them the most money by far
The 737 is the most popular aircraft
They should have kept making the pocket rocket 757. That plane is much safer and has had 0 accidents due to faulty design. It is probably the best narrow body plane that is still flying around. It could serve routes that Boeing is trying to get the 737 Max 10 to serve when the 757 was built for those 4-6 hour flights. The 737 should have been kept as a short haul aircraft.
@@SwagBastardBoeing has to bite some bullets - it isn't about profit, profit and profit. It's about building aircraft in which the airlines and passengers know they are flying on the BEST and SAFEST aircraft. Running for money has caused Boeing endless problems ever since the hollow propeller blades on the 337 Stratocruiser - more cutting corners, people dying and cutting corners.
@@Ayden2008the latest models are also the most dangerous to fly on. Stop worrying about numbers, think of how many have died on various 737 models including the early ones with vertical stabilizer loss of control.
Suddenly, retiring the A321 Neo’s and a320’s seems like a bad idea
Before 2019: If it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going.
After 737 max mcas kerfuffle: If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going.
Between 737 max reinstatement and door plug incident: If it’s Boeing, I will probably be going?
After door plug incident: If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going.
Why? It is still among the safest aircraft in the world due to the high standards placed upon it. And it isn’t like the other guys are much better.
give one example of a320 or a321
they are much better than 737 max and have no incidents like this @@aycc-nbh7289
@@aycc-nbh7289high standards of loose and missing bolts?
If it’s Boeing it’s probably Blowing..
For what is a good 737?
A Grounded 737. (Max)
I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to fly on a Boeing aircraft and I will never fly on one of the max variants. If not out of an abundance of caution then as a moral objection to Boeing’s shoddy practices and airlines willing to buy the max variants.
Alaska Airlines should change their tagline "Proudly All Boeing" to "Regrettably All Boeing"
Yeah don’t they have some a320s?
Edit: embraer 175s
@@AKS-4191 they inherited Virgin’s A320s after the merger and have flown on their E175. The tagline is on the nose of their 737s
They still believe that PROFIT FIRST RATHER THAN SAFETY DESIGN BY THE CORPORATE HEADS THAT CAN TOOK LIVES.
Even airbus still believe that PROFIT FIRST RATHER THAN SAFETY DESIGN BY THE CORPORATE HEADS THAT CAN TAKE LIVES!
By this point, I wonder if there would be any more order for the MAX if there wasn't an enormous backlog for the A320 NEO. Except for Ryanair of course with its mad CEO.
Of course there would be.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Einstein
I think you're very right, if it weren't impossible to get enough NEO's to fill it's vacancy I think many carriers would pull out from the program. If only we hadn't have let Boeing buy up every sliver of the commercial air market in the states they might face some real competitive and idealistically capitalist consequences. As it stands now, though, Airbus is the only manufacturer that makes a legitimate (and superior) competitor, but good luck getting one of them, let alone hundreds, in the next decade to fill the shoes of the Boeing's negligence.
Whilst there is money to be made, somebody will always buy the Max.
Michael O’Leary went to Boeing to order scores of Max aircraft in Boeings’ darkest hour, when nobody had a good word to say about them, a few months after the second crash.
He did this because he knew he would get them at a bargain basement price, because Boeing were desperate for any good news. And also he knew very well that your average Joe in the street, has no idea what type of aircraft he is flying on.
So by using the ignorance of the world’s travelling public and desperation of Boeing he saved a fortune. Fantastic business for somebody who is only concerned about the bottom line.
My hope is that people take an interest in the aircraft type they are flying on and vote with their wallets.
The Max has had more scrutiny than any other aeroplane in history I would guess, so there is an argument for saying that eventually, it will be the safest.
I don’t think that’s good enough. I don’t want to encourage them and reward them by spending my money by stepping on to this plane and it’s my intention not to do so.
I’d like nothing more than a massive show of public interest in what aircraft type they choose and voting with their feet and their wallets, by refusing to fly on a Boeing 737 Max and eventually consigning it to the dustbin where it belongs. That would be the end user market telling Boeing exactly what they think.
That’s what Boeing deserve.
And let's not forget Southwest where most of the specs came from for simplicity in pilot training
I've observed that Airbus factories look roomy and airy, the people are more at ease and are enjoying their work with blue shirts_t-shirts with Airbus written on them. On the other hand the Boeing factory looks darker (as if the employees are on night Duty) with little work space and that they don't wear company inspricted work wear, and finally most hardly smile...just my observation
The Renton facility is not very big so it might be a bit tight there. I worked on the 747 at Everett in 1998... It was very well lit and very very very open, being the biggest building in the entire world. I didn't smile though.
@@StratMatt777 ha ha ha u made ma day
@@herbertmoshesh7448 :D Ok, here's another! I was 20 when I was hired at Boeing and I've always had a baby face (thanks mom & dad!)... One time a woman in the tool room asked me, "Do you work here? You look like you are 13 years old!".
@@StratMatt777 ha ha ha must have been tough, i guess that's why there was hardly a ☺ love from South Africa
@@herbertmoshesh7448 South Africa?
Whatever the number is, it will not be enough for me. I have no limit on how high it should be. The saga of Max with Southwest and the two crashes cemented that they need to be punished severely.
This final financial numbers from this incident will be large, there is no question about that. The quality aspect regarding commercial aircraft manufacturing, and the overall reputation of Boeing as a whole - could be in the toilet for decades.
FAA must not certify ANY of the new Max aircraft as continuation of the 737 series. They must be certified as completely NEW aircraft with extensive pilot recertifications required.
thats what they are doing
Has it been proven if the warning lights or alarm days earlier about the cabin pressure was connected to the door plug or not?
We only have the current findings. It will take years before we know further details beyond the immediate critical issues in regards to safety.
It's however very likely that it is connected.
FAA should also be sued for its negligence
At this point, I will be deliberately avoiding flights that use any variant of the 737 MAX if at all possible. The assurances of “737 MAX’s are the safest airplanes out there due to how scrutinized they are” following the 2 MCAS crashes was clearly bullshit
Besides financial compensation Boeing needs a total change of its production management and total replacement of its board of directors. Failing those changes, Boeing is creating its own demise at a really fast rate. Dump your stock shares before they dump you !
Yeah, bring in Space Karen Musk to teach them how to seat an independent Board of Directors!
(Yeah, read the Delaware Pay Case to see why that's IRONIC)
Looks like B may be giving AS and UA a couple of free planes each, at least. Whatta mess..
Airbus hq dancing around, happy. Team airbus for life!
Hmm... Airbus wouldn't want to take advantage of this, because their aircraft (especially the A320neos) have large order backlogs
And the 350 way over 1000 been ordered and with continuing delay with the 777 that number will surely increase, only problem is will Airbus be able to keep up with the demand in time to satisfy the carriers.
The numbers may be higher than what we think. What if all of this leads to the Max 7 and 10 never finishing certification? All sales for these types would go down the drain.
I don’t normally agree with a lot of lawsuits - but flying along in the model with the balcony seating option would seem to be reasonable grounds…
In the short term, I am in agreement with this segment. In the long term; Boeing's BS makes the option of purchasing aircraft from other than Boeing even more attractive. Boeing management forgot quality and reliability factors heavily for repeat customers. I remember when Boeing choked when United Airlines announce contracts for their first Airbus purchases. History could repeat itself with other manufacturers entering the market. (I am also old enough to recall Airbus was blown off as a newbie. Well, look where they are now.)
While I might be old enough to have been around when Airbus was small and insignificant, I wasn’t paying attention to the aviation industry back then. It’s hard to imagine a time when Boeing and Airbus weren’t the two big juggernauts in aircraft production.
It must be kind of frustrating for Airbus right now. Boeing is repeatedly making itself look very unattractive toward prospective buyers, but Airbus can’t seize the opportunity because it already has a backlog of orders. I kinda hope that they expand production.
But in the ideal world this would be the best opportunity for a third aircraft manufacturer such as Embraer or whatever to lure the airlines into choosing them over Boeing. Another huge competitor would be advantageous for flying passengers everywhere.
Boeing needs a change in leadership from the top down. I expect the current CEO to be forced out by the end of the year.
How many times is this said about new management in leadership from top down?
Boeing’s spread out into so many different aerospace industries and has so many different types of divisions, how could ANY management structure keep track of all them?
There used to be a saying “if it’s not Boeing I ain’t going” but it’s now “if it’s Boeing I’m mot going.” Next time I fly I look for a carrier that uses Airbus. Boeing has a very long way to go earn back public trust.
Boeing shareholders suing the company when their greed and demand for greater profits caused the corporate shortcuts in the first place is a perfect example of why “nothing is ever fixed.”
Can we skip or be warned when booking a flight with Boeing? I know that will be difficult for the app and airlines. But for everyone's sake. Please do something about it. Or cheaper ticket when flying with Boeing just for putting our life on the line. And maybe a special raise for staff flying Boeing.
The final effect on Boeing sales may never be known, many passengers will also not want to fly on Boeing aircraft ( even new ones ) so airlines may want to get Airbus now... Delta already has a huge Airbus fleet, with United now buying Airbus..
Brand new 747's were costing about 350 million USD, Boeing deals in really big amounts of revenue, so those law suits are big but not too big, Boeing should be completely OK with paying off those.
The sad thing is, thats just a matter of time before the next quality escape will kill more passengers.
airbus could have a next quality escape which will kill more passengers
Lost all remaining trust and credibility, above all
good dont fly
@@nickolliver3021 😭😭😭😭
@@da480 hahaha
*"More gain, more pain" - boeing execs.*
It will cost Boeing Bigly.
Boeing is toast .
Go Airbus❤😍
Airbus is toast too go to heaven the aviation industry!
Nick can you please advise to other posters what problems Airbus are having, ok many are aware of some faulty paintwork leading to a rift between Airbus and Qatar, Emirates getting all stropy with RR over engine performance so they have sulked and placed a big order with Boeing but what else is wrong with Airbus, I can't recall the last time a 320 family aircraft fell from the sky due to incompetence from the senior management or indeed a Airbus losing bits of its fuselage from a new hull, please just enlighten me on the perils of flying Airbus.
@@r12004rewy Who are these other posters? Again many think airbus ars perfect and downplay boeing everytime and think the very worst. We all get it going by that attitude. Airbus are perfect. Emirates just threatens and never dors anything to blow boeing. United is the same. I dont remember how many times a while blew from a fuselage of a boeing and a 737 falling from the sky apart from twice? But what about those pilots error crashes? Aren't they posed as falling out of the sky? Petti behavior if people are blind and can't act grown up about this whole drama of boeing and airbus heh
I can see that the airlines need to get paid for lost business but now passengers suing them even so nobody got hurt
Why does our society just shut all the businesses just in case something happens
I am sure all these people suing Boeing are not doing a hundred percent good quality job whatever profession they work in
our world is getting so ridiculous
ALASKA AIR you should have bought Airbus. I'm not stepping foot on one Boeing Max nor 787 FRANKENSTEIN planes
It would do harm to their “based in Seattle” brand image. And I’m pretty sure that the high standards placed on those planes have made them among the safest in the world. Plus, you may find yourself with a last-minute equipment change or cancellation that means you have little choice in which aircraft you fly.
then dont fly. how is the 787 a Frankenstein plane
exactly 1 dollar
Boeing has lost its reputation for a generally safe and quality product, that's going to be hard to get back. Also Boeing always seems to be behind Airbus in new plane development. Many an aviation source saying need a proper mid-sized mid-range aircraft to properly replace 757s, but actually Boeing should have done that already. Too late - Max10 could just do it, but not really. Or there's the A321neoXLRs, which fit the bill. Airbus's only problem is its length of order book, though I'm betting they'll already be looking at ways to increase output to capitalise on Boeing's mis-steps. You just can't erase Boeing's poor management of quality (plug door incident) and poor control of new system implementation (MCAS) without realising they only care about profit and the complete exclusion of safety - that's just not acceptable.
It will cost Boeing billions, going forward anybody who orders a 737 will only be paying about 50% of list price at best that will be the worst deal for the buyer . If you are a major customer like United, then Boeing might be lucky to get 30%. Instead of roughly $125 million Boeing will end up getting about $40 million per aircraft.
Hmmm, from a pilot
If I had $65 billion dollars or so, I would go long on Boeing, and buy a controlling interest.
This company, and its 600+ suppliers, is going to get examined top to bottom.
Result:
Safety first - which I suspect is the mantra of 99+% of its employees already.
I would be shocked if after investigation, a few top heads don't roll.
A colonic, no less.
The cost of incompetence when it comes to airline safety could never be high enough, unfortunately, it won't be much at the end of the day for Boeing and the culture will continue
The whole MAX project should never have even been started. With the amount of over 60 billion dollars (or whatever is near), it is clear that an old frame could bring problems - which it did. A new aircraft would cost less. Airbus never stretched its 320 family - just new engines. Boeing lost its chance, as to accommodate the new engines, MAJOR changes needed to be performed - now, engineer pride, profit margins chases, the toll has come - with quality control issues, long-lasting deliveries, and relations among manufacturer and FAA never ultimately explained. The same applies to the 777X
9:30 New generation? 🤣 Boeing? You can find traces of the 707 in the 737..... How is that new generation 🤣🤣🤣🙄
alhdgysz the 737 MAX is so ugly especially those stupid winglet things, the nose hasn't changed in almost over 50 years. But no doubt the Boeing fan club will disagree and remind me how old the A320 is 😉
LOLOLOLOL A LAWSUIT FROM THE SHAREHOLDERS?! Ummmmmm, Anyone else find it interesting that the same people Boeing is cutting quality for so they can produce better profits are suing Boeing? Aren't shareholders a part to blame in this? Just a thought.
No profit = no funding for company. No shareholders = no funding for company. To be successful you need a quality product and profit and the support of shareholders.
What is there to say except the Boeing workers that were sacked, can feel that their complaints have been up held. Where are Boeing going to find inspection staff of the quality they sacked is hard to say? Same applies to all the engineers that were deemed unnecessary, but hey management with big heads need to be walloped hard for the arrogance that willingly put peoples lives at risk. Its all so very sad, all at the feet of yet more American CEO's GREED.
would not fly on any Boeing jet what's the next chapter WHAT'S BREAKING OR NOT BOLTED DOWN UNREAL
Boeing will give a 737 for Free and call it a day
Hopefully for Alaska airlines they did not have any poor maintenance involved. I know this is probably Boeing’s fault but Alaska airlines had a MD-82 crash in 2000 ( flight 261 ) because they only lubricated the Jackscrew for 1 hour on the MD-80s instead of the required 4 hours ( if you want to learn more watch Mentour pilots video on it). Alaska Airlines has a history of cutting corners so hopefully for them it does not involve poor maintenance.
I’ve been questioning a lot about if Alaska did false repair because they didn’t do maintenance when the aircraft first started having issues
I’m not a mechanic I’m just speculating
@@Ayden2008 yeah I have been too. It’s hard to tell right now if Alaska Airlines has done any corner cutting with their planes.
I believe the fact that Alaska Airlines hasn’t had any other major crash since the 2000 incident is enough proof that this is not a maintenance issue. This issue is purely a Boeing issue
@@dejonm2001 no they have not had a crash since flight 261. However they also had a 727 operating as flight 1866 crash due to a misleading navigational information in relation to the localizer on approach, likely due to poor maintenance. All 111 onboard were killed. It was the worst accidents in US history when it happened (1971) and is still the worst crash in Alaska (both the state and airline). This is likely a Boeing problem this time though. It seems though that Alaska has had a incident every 25 years on average since 1971 due to possibly bad maintenance.
The quality of Ford motor vehicles has dropped considerable over the last few decades... but at least they aren't boeing..
It needs to cost both of them money for negligence. Alaska went all in on a broken dangerous aircraft they are to blame too it cant all be on Boeing.
I wish no one bad luck and definetly don't want to see lives lost but with the great number of planes being made by Airbus statistics say there will be crashes and Airbus will see a tough period just like Boeing. I'll even say I hope I'm wrong. Good luck to Boeing and Airbus.
At this point when everyone is suing Boeing, I think I will join the party and sue them too. :D
the same airline who got rid of the airbus planes. This is their fault.
Not entirely
I wonder why Alaska let go of their beautiful and larger and longer range A321 neos ( their my favorite narrow body plane that’s still flying, favorite overall is the 727). I don’t understand why the 5th biggest airline in the US would let go of such a nice bird.
Alaska didn't determine it economical to mix in an Airbus minority into their very Boeing fleet. Even with the MAX 9 grounded they still have enough other airframes to substitute in that they're fully equipped and well practiced to service.
Why do people literally villainize airlines who buy Boeing and not Airbus? They clearly have good reasons to buy from a certain manufacturer.
✈️
Boeing used to be the biggest passenger jet manufacturer, but Airbus took over in 2019 when boeing showed the world how incompetent they are.
Boeig should look at how things were done back in the 90s before head office moved to Chicago.
Go back to that organization.
Then things will improve.
But if nothing changes, dont expect tomorrow to be any different.
At least a trillion.
Boeing has a petition for crashed a cleaning with their 737 rudde issue door plug
By far not enough
I'm not flying on another Boeing.
Well, Alaska Airlines will probably eventually get some money from Boeing. But I find it a bit too easy. They chose to buy the Max. And it was already very well known at that point that Boeing had abandoned quality from its priorities. Quality escape and design flaws can happen, to every manufacturer, but they were sure to happen to Boeing one day or the other, as a result from the board's instructions.
Its the old story, buy cheap and when there are problems blame the manufacturer. The buck stops at Boeing, everytime whether a supplier or airline.
you're right. You speak wisely ! @@johnchristmas7522
Boeing....?......boeing?..........is that old thing still around?
This is what Boeing gets for caring more about profits than the safety.
I was the 100th like!
3:01 Boeing needs to step up their quality of building airplanes cause I think them buying McDonald’s. Douglas has affected their guilty to good engineering.
It's all McDonnell Douglas fault.
Boeing? Not going.
Sounds like boeing has minimum wage workers in the assembly line..
Boeing should be ashamed just like general motors and most of all big businesses in the USA. Profits over safety and reliability what a fucking shame many people should go to jail for this crap
Alaska needs to get over its bromance with Boeing already. It's doing them no good.
then so should all airlines but they wont
i hope Boeing will get a multi billion dollar loss due to their continues cost savings over safety. You need to speak the language of the drivers of the company!!!!
Boeing should be ashamed just like
Well if they didn't ignore the pressurization issue the previous crews reported, none of this would have happened. It was certainly preventable.
Alaska was well within requirements for safety inspections and documentation. Not necessarily the best move, but reasonable enough that the NTSB couldn't get at Alaska Airlines.
As an airline, engineer and aircrew you have to expect certain safety standards to be in place. Otherwise no plane would ever fly.
Alaska Airlines wasn’t ignoring the pressurisation warnings. They had restricted that aircraft to flying over land flights only. If they were ignoring it they’d have continued flying it over oceans.
What I think they were doing was trying to troubleshoot the issue. There were plenty of possible causes from faulty lighting in the cockpit warning indicator to a leak in any of the different parts of the fuselage or bulkheads. Basically going down the list of causes and seeing if their repair job fixed the issue during the next flight.
With the aircraft being practically brand new having only been delivered from Boeing in late October it would be unreasonable for the airline to suspect such a serious problem in a brand new aircraft. It shouldn’t have even needed an A check yet because it was so new.
Heck, it’s very likely downright illegal to ignore something like that. They had to have been in the process of troubleshooting. Nothing else makes sense.
This is what happens when u go cheap! Now it's gonna cost more, not to mention, Boeing reputation is burnt now!
Really looks like domestic terrorism...
Your title is wrong. It should be cost to Alaska, not cost to Boeing. Alaska took passenger complaints about leakage and three pressure sensing indications lightly and continued to fly instead of getting it into maintenance in a timely manner
And yet those incompetent union workers will walk free, as if nothing has happened and continue on their privileged lazy ways! Who knows, they may even get a raise!
How much will it cost Alaska Airlines? Hopefully one hell of a lot. Then they can pass it through to Boeing, which based on its recent inability to produce an airplane (or for that matter a spacecraft) that is reliable or doesn’t fall apart in the sky or crash, in and of itself, needs to be put out of business. And I am from the United States, so I am not an utterly insane, typical Europhile. Having said that and being a person who is blessed to be able to only fly in first or business class and has not had to fly in any other cabin for years… I don’t want to hear about it from the rest of you… After all, I have had to suffer over 1 million butt in seat miles on just one airline alone and so I’m high elite for life whatever that is worth anymore. The 787 is a comfortable airplane, even though Boeing can’t reliably produce it and the 757 was a great airplane, which Boeing shouldn’t have stopped making. In fact, the 757 should’ve fully replaced all 737s by now, including the POS that is the Max. On the other hand, the 777 is abomination and is even uncomfortable in business class. Give me an A350 (or if that’s not available an A330) any day. I don’t care about the CEO or NEO engine efficiency crap and I don’t care how much carbon the plane I’m on spits out. ALL I care about is how comfortable it is on the inside and how reliable it is.
It'd be interesting to know his many diversity immigrant hires Boeing has employed who worked on the 737 Max's in question...I'm guessing quite a few and the downslide of quality production is a direct result of the "no habla English" chumps...🤘🏻🇺🇸
😐 Woke Boeing's woke joke airplane tears apart like a Popeye Chicken sandwich wrapper which came from the lunch of the woke employee who built it