jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You might think that I'm anti-Boeing, but I'm not. Boeing has been getting lots of negative press for years, and for good reason. One of the YouTube channels I watch regularly is Maximus Aviation. Last night, I watched one of his videos that gave a very good summary of Boeing from its heyday as "King of the World" to a company that can't be trusted. Below is a link to a very good summary of Boeing from then to now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOBxT2q4_-Y

srt101fan

Jerry, I don't mean to be disagreeable, but I find this kind of post unsettling. You say that Boeing is "a company that can't be trusted". That's a pretty strong statement. And you link to some YouTube video.

How do I know the video is credible? (Full disclosure: I have not looked at the video)

Flash Gordon

I found the issue of the “door plug” interesting. Apparently some of the attachment holes were misaligned, some bolts were not tightened properly. Do the airlines which have purchased these airplanes not have maintenance crews? Certainly some of these issues can be traced back to Boeing. When you purchase a new car from Ford or Chevrolet or any other new car maker you expect the tires not to fall off. You also expect the doors to not fall off. However, I think that the dealer does/should perform a cursory inspection of the vehicle to verify that the doors and wheels are properly attached. With the current situation of door plugs and front wheels on aircraft not properly secured to the aircraft my expectation of after purchase checklist and current maintenance procedures may be premature. They say flying is safer than driving. Maybe, maybe not. With out a doubt I’m sure flying is safer than diving considering the competence of many drivers out there. They tend to get intoxicated pilots off the planes fairly quickly.

mindzye Loc: WV

Boeing, Boeing, Gone?
Just look at their new found DEI hiring program. And the division between the corporate bean counters and the division of people who actually build/ maintain the aircraft, and their restricted/ business suppressed involvement. I believe it's because of selling off Boeing parts of the team; or merger with McDonnell Douglas; who I thought was a reputable capable company.

At one point, I think back in the 80's, Delta Airlines stood for Don't Ever Leave the Airport.......
though I believe they have changed for the better in the last few decades.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

For Boeing -- Is it bad luck or Terrible Quality Control
I don't trust Bad Luck

BebuLamar

Or quality control

goofybruce

So, the logical outcome of the thinking of most of these posts, if you don't maintain your F-150 pick-up over the course of the three years you have owned it, you can blame Ford because the tires are now bald, or the passenger door (which you have seldom used) has a rattle in it, even though you know it was never closed properly the last time it was used. And to blame loose bolts on a door after it was in the hands of the airline for some time, on a corporate "policy"??? Boy, that's some stretch.

marine73 Loc: Modesto California

You asked the question "Do the airlines which have purchased these airplanes not have maintenance crews?. Yes the airlines have maintenance crews. All newly purchased aircraft go through a Pre-service inspection from flight to maintenance. These inspections can take up to two months to complete as discrepancies have to be fixed when they are found and the inspections are not limited to new aircraft but is also applied to aircraft that have been purchased from other airlines. This preservice inspection also allows the airline to put in any company upgrades such as type of seats ,galleys Lavatories etc. As far as the door plug inspection go, a detailed inspection would not have been part of the preservice inspection. A detailed inspection would not have been called out for until either a C or D check (heavy maintenance visit) when the seats would be removed from the aircraft, then the sidewall panels and insulation would be removed to facilite the inspection. The MAX -9 are not yet old enough for the D check. Every airline determines how often a C or D check is performed.

Every aircraft gets inspected at a maintenance base or overnight station, these are light inspections and can be performed in a couple of hours and are scheduled with other work. These are 1SVC, 2SVC, A check PC check etc. and Items on MEL (minimum equipment List), NEF (non essential furnishing), AHM (aircraft health monitoring) EG (engineering callouts) along with any open log pages (discrepancies) that is written up by the flight deck crew or flight attendants. Open logs must be addressed by either fixing or putting on MEL. All this is work is based on when the aircraft is next scheduled and the availability of parts and AMT's. On top of this if the aircraft is scheduled overwater it must have an ETOP's inspection completed 3 hours before departure plus a pre-departue check.

lightyear

I have long known some of the Boeing Sea/Tac employees, some of whom are still working in a supervisory capacity. They have told me that due to diversity policy, some employees are retained who previously would have been dismissed due to poor perofrmance, including "quality control" check inspectors who certify positive inspections incompletely accomplished. Some defects are ultimately discovered by the aircraft purchaser (airline) but some, like the incompletelly attached emergency plug doors, are not. Boeing (according to my friends) must comply with Federal workforce guidelines, resulting in these failures. Boeing is now having some quality control inspections double checked, at increased cost to Boeing. No idea as to what will happen to the non-inspecting inspectors.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I doubt that all these YouTubers agreed to tell the same lies about Boeing. It was Boeing's lies and omissions that resulted in the deaths of 346 people. After the first crash, Boeing said nothing about MCAS, just "pilot error."
Boeing made sure that there was no mention of the MCAS system in their manuals. Even after the two crashes, they tried to lie their way out of responsibility. Watch the video I linked above. The FAA wasn't much help, either, letting Boeing inspect itself.

Dean37 Loc: Fresno, CA

Having worked in quality assurance/control for many years, I can vouch for the fact that almost always after a product is accepted by the customers (the general public) product quality gets pushed into the background.

Quality doesn't put money into corporate pockets until there is a serious problem (door plugs blow out of the side of an aircraft, . . .). Then in order to make a visible effort to keep the customers and avoid the company being shut down, the corporate hierarchy pulls out, what they claim is, "All Stops" to show how their quality system is second to none! Meanwhile they terminate the senior management in their quality system, hoping that the customers believe that solved the problems.

I did work for Boeing years ago, but not in a quality capacity. I do remember in 1959 or '60 a couple of their 707's had a problem with one manufacturers tires so Boeing asked the FAA to ground ALL the 707's, C135's & KC 135's until it could be verified that the aircraft had tires from other manufacturers. All of their employees that had access badges for all shop, taxi ways and runways were ordered to inspect all Boeing 707's, C135's and KC 135s for the tires in question. Of course we had to record all tires serial numbers and tail numbers so Boeing knew that all the aircraft in question had been checked.

The Boeing Company used to be so overly redundant about records keeping that they recorded all details of every aircraft they built or modified. They could research and tell you how many shims of a specific part number had been installed and where on every aircraft they had built or modified. Every serial numbered part or assembly was recorded as to what aircraft it was installed on, removed from and where it was stored while it was not on an aircraft.

A landing gear strut had been unaccounted for for over 20 years and I had been tasked with finding it, wherever it was and it's condition. It took me only a week, and people had looked for it for years. I had to get a Security Guard to open up a Boeing building that he said nobody had been in for 5 years. Leaving no stone unturned, I looked in every place that was large enough that it could fit.

I asked the Security Guard about access to a balcony above the shop floor which had a locked doorway that wouldn't allow access. He said nobody has been up there in at least the 20 years he worked there. He had the key, opened it up, of course there was a 4 inch coating of dirt and dust on everything. I found a landing gear strut, and after removing about 10 or 11 hands full of dirt and dust, the Serial number was a match.

GEngel-usmc Loc: Spencerport NY - I miss Lakeland, FL

Read Engineer ‘Whistleblowers’ report and FAA reports. The bolts were not there, they were missing when the plane took off! Removed for Boeing inspection, never put back in place! It’s a Boeing issue, not the Airlines. Please Read ‘Whistleblower’ letter for insiders and Engineers comments who work at Boeing.

srt101fan

Thanks, Jerry; I didn't know about all those Boeing attempts to cover up their failures.

BebuLamar

I read that Boeing knew that it was better to redesign the 737 as a taller aircraft to accommodate larger diameter engine (high bypass) because there is no longer the advantage of being low to the ground as all airport gates now have the ramp. But they decided against that because it would take too long and Airbus will beat them with their Neo first.

Dean37 Loc: Fresno, CA

From a quality perspective Boeing shared the responsibility, but the biggest responsibility is with the airlines. If you remove something or task another company with that task, you have that responsibility to the shareholders, customers and others to verify the work is done satisfactorily.

I would have required that my company's inspector visually verify the work appears satisfactorily done and check the torque on 25% of the bolts. If doing the inspection myself, no matter what their inspection requirements are I would have checked the torque on 100% of the bolts, probably no more than an additional minute of time. And we know that anyone arguing against that would waste at least 20 minutes.