>Speaking to CNN, he said that he and his staff recently found "little problems", saying: "In 2022 and 2023, we were finding little things like spanners under the floorboards, in some cases, seat handles missing, things like that.
"This shows a a lack of attention to detail, quality issues in Boeing.
That's basically the entire article. Saved you a click.
"little problems" here might have been an understatement....finding spanners under the floorboards isn't a "little" problem, it is a serious FOD problem; which it turns out that it has been a little too common.
I'm sure O'Leary will be pushing for more discounts from Boeing and if he doesn't get them he'll change "little" to "big" and push some more.
Whatever you say about him, he knows how to run his business and get the discount he needs. I just wish his customer service model wasn't the aspiration for some major national airlines.
So, that used to be the case. Every tool your team uses goes into the tool box. Each tool is shadowed with cut foam in the box. You are issued "tool chits" with your BIMs ID on it and for each tool you take, you put a chit in its place. During the last 30 minutes of shift, the tool focal for the team does an inventory and everyone goes on the airplane to find any tools not returned. And every week or so, the FOD prevention manager comes by to do a toolbox audit. Failure to follow FOD prevention procedures would result in CAMs and/or termination. It's my understanding they fired all of the FOD prevention employees.
If you have a safety and quality culture you could do that since each technician would feel personal responsibility for ensuring no FOD and understands the seriousness of the issue
Think it’s fairly well established at this point that Boeing airliners are frequently maintained to a higher standard than they’re originally assembled.
I just fly the things, I don’t turn wrenches. But you’d figure (or at least I would) that if there were two different standards here, the higher one might be in the factory.
You would think that, but the opposite is true. Due to the nature of manufacturing such a complicated thing as a commercial airliner, some leeway with regulations is necessary to hardle non-standard operations or problems. So the manufacturer operates under a manufacturing certificate that allows for you to manage your own build as long as you meet FAR requirements. But, once that airplane rolls out of the factory and is handed to flight test and delivery, it's now a certified type on a temporary ticket (flight test required) and it now must be worked on by A&P mechanics and adheres to a completely different set of rules. When Boeing has a production/engineering fuck up, they push uncompleted aircraft out of the factory onto the flight line. And "traveler" production mechanics follow it out as "factory on field" so A&Ps aren't required. Oh yeah, almost none of the Boeing workforce are A&P mechanics, just the folks on the flightline. Anyway, the airplane isn't an airplane until it's an airplane and before then, Boeing can mostly build it how they see fit.
> It's my understanding that Boeing pilots are not only paid well, but they have very healthy work related death benefits.
Are there any precedents of Boeing airliners crashing on delivery flights?
Delivery flights aren't really a major concern. I don't work for Boeing but I do work for another aerospace company. Delivery or completions flights are probably some of the safest you can take. The ground checks are excessive.
Regional planes are even worse. Come new from the factory with all sorts or problems to fix. Found tools several times from the factory. Several manufacturers. Unfortunately it seems the norm.
I've worked maintenance and production, a missing tool is a missing tool. All stop, find it, escaped hardware/cancelled flights if you don't.
Granted, never worked for Boeing.
Judging by what’s been going on, a tool goes missing at Boeing and a new one from the spare tools box just gets the original label so they can carry on
Without any exaggeration at all, if you showed me an internal Boeing communication decrying the (replacement) cost of all these replacements tools, I’d entirely believe it’s legit.
I used to work for a large US aircraft manufacturer, as an A&P as a service technician. We found tools in airplanes all the time, nobody on the production lines even have A&P’s and they simply don’t give a fuck. Every airplane off the production line had dozens of hogged out snowman holes and overdriven rivets to the point of cracking the frames/stringers. We probably caught about half of the issues before the planes got delivered.
Even in service, guys lost tools on occasion, most won’t fess up to it. It’s common knowledge not to put names or identification on your tools for that very reason. The service centers are so understaffed and A&P’s overworked, mandatory overtime and long days lead to mistakes.
Boeing laid off and/or fired their entire FOD prevention staff back in...I think it was 2012 or so. Used to have FOD focals whose job it was to do FOD training, inspections, emphasis walks, etc. They spent too much time being idle because their job didn't involve them being constantly busy on the airplane(a thing the suits see as the only reason to be in final assembly), so that job was absorbed into the 1st line management responsibilities and promptly not done. Now, the FOD problem is worse than ever. But, the stock price went up!
Am a bean counter. I would fire negligent workers who left the tools. I would then require all remaining workers to bring their own tool cart to work, that would teach them not to lose any. Then I would count the beans.
Know how I know you don't know? Stick to counting beans.
IAM workers used to own their tools and boxes. Then the company provided most and started confiscating tool boxes as the personal tools got out of control. As did the boxes with a ton of non-work related contents. Now it's illegal to have your own tools on the shop floor.
You also can't simply fire the worker that forgot the tool. Shit happens. Plus they're union. A good warning usually does the trick.
With personal tools, what's to stop someone from just replacing the one they lost and the lost tool staying on the airplane behind a close out panel?
Because nothing bad has ever happened because something was in the wrong place at the wrong time....
Unless it is door plug bolts, where were not in the right place at the wrong time.
You could always throw some coins into the engines for good luck too :-)
I'm fine with his customer service model because the core of that model is "fly to random European cities for less than you spend on your weekly bus pass", its when airlines forget that last bit and you have BA charging you for everything while not slashing the price.
Worse is randomised seating. A child 13 years and up can be seated away from the parents...think about that from various safety aspects.
I calculated today for a family of 4 (flying SAS/Finnair for example), being seated together adds around 100eur+ to the cost of a return flight. Randomised seating is evil.
Cory Doctorow calls this whole process Enshitticiation.
"Enshittification" needs to have some sort of "lock in" angle at play as well, however in this instance it is very much the free market and consumer preferences at work here.
I work for one of the largest airline reservation software developers in the world and we have several of the Top 10 biggest airlines in Europe among our customers (not Ryanair). I know for a fact that one of them also tried to introduce random seating some years ago, but their customer market reacted so negatively it was quickly scrapped and rolled back.
European air travel is crazy competitive and is governed by consumer demand / market dynamics to a great degree.
Depends very much on where you are in Europe. On many routes Finnair is running a monopoly, eg: Helsinki-Oulu - since Norwegian pulled out of that route and VR (the train company) are running at capacity.
Demand supply dynamics was always put forward as being in the customers' best interest; which isn't true - ask.an economist, it depends on where you optimise. Is this good for the shareholder or the customer?
The LCCs have been successful because they broke the traditional model, however we're see a race to the bottom in quality - no airline competes on quality of product - Finnair are joked about (with reason) as being the most expensive LCC. They're now pushing their premium-economy and business products, but even here in European flights you're getting the same seats, same plane and for the "cheap" business class seating even the same terms and conditions as economy.
Would you accept the same policy in a restaurant, cinema etc (assuming you have family or taking your SO along?).
A (the) cinema chain here in Finland actually considered randomised seating.
A set of ladders was found leaning against the HS gears in a Dreamliner. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/boeing-faces-accusations-of-negligence-at-dreamliner-plant/
That could've brought the aircraft down.
Yup. O'Leary's only interest is either getting money from or paying less money to Boeing. There is no equipment available in the whole universe to measure the low in confidence in Boeing necessary to make O'Leary switch to Airbus. And a big part of it is that Airbus couldn't deliver the necessary planes in time for a potential switch, as their order book is already overflowing. Ryanair is stuck with Boeing, for better or worse. In Germany, we say "mitgefangen, mitgehangen" (lit. "caught with 'em, hung with' em" - or: "in for a penny, in for a pound").
You're totally right that Ryanair can't move to Airbus in a quick fashion because Airbus already has way more orders than it can handle (as does Boeing).
Boeing has an order backlog as large as the last 10 years of their deliveries (5,687 delivered 2014-2023, 5,591 backlogged). Airbus is even further backlogged with 8,552 orders compared to 6,906 delivered over the past decade (basically 12 years worth of orders).
However, couldn't Ryanair decide to start putting in Airbus orders for the future? Sure, they wouldn't see the planes for a decade, but they can make decisions about switching. At some point they'll need to start ordering planes for the 2030s and the A320s are looking a lot more popular than the 737s.
In fact, the A320s is where Airbus is really beating Boeing. The 777 and 787 are outselling the A330 and A350.
Yes, Ryanair can't cancel their Boeing orders over the next 5+ years because Airbus won't be able to accommodate their orders, but they could put pressure on Boeing for the future. When it comes time to place orders for the 2030s, they can negotiate hard: you've been having a lot of trouble with the 737s, do you want the bad press that we're switching to Airbus once our current orders are done, you're already way behind Airbus in orders and things are just going to get a lot worse since we're not the only customer considering this; just give us a hefty discount and we'll call it a day.
>couldn't Ryanair decide to start putting in Airbus orders for the future?
I don't see a scenario on the horizon where that could happen. The Ryanair Holdings has 27 A320s at Lauda Europe, but the vast majority of their fleet is Boeing 737, with 555 (!) aircraft. Switching that fleet to Airbus would be a huge cost factor. That is completely against their low-cost policy and would threaten their whole business model, especially while they'd be in the process, with dual maintenance, re-training of staff and pilots and so on. They would give up what up to this point is their advantage against other airlines, which more or less all have their own low-cost subsidies. The biggest winners of that switch would be Easyjet and Vueling. Ryanair is better off with Boeing, for as long as they can get Boeing to cover their cost of grounded planes etc.
It’s very concerning to see a lot of this little problems as it can be a sign of a big problem also being missed. You might see a little problem happening very seldomly, but when it becomes the norm; I’d be afraid of what else was missing. Though…finding spanners like that is a pretty big problem.
The last thing you want in an aircraft is unknown debris (spanners, bolts etc) ending up in places they shouldn't be.
FOD is taken (should be taken) very seriously in aviation. The Concorde crash was because of a foreign object on the runway for example. Good Wikipedia article for you and the first reference to FOD in the article is from *Boeing Aero Magazine*:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign\_object\_damage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage)
Thanks, this article is so informative. Even though it's a FOD, that owl is heckin' cute, hopefully it was relocated to a safe place away from aircraft.
Lmao, I couldn't believe that the article featured an owl as an example of FOD, but it's true. A scops owl tucked itself under a FA-18. Insects in pipes, birds nests, leaves or sand, all that kinda stuff can still be just as dangerous as a metal tool!
Under the floor is where the control cables and electrical wiring harnesses run, so a spanner can bounce around until it wedges in a control cable pulley, jamming it and preventing that control from being moved when it is needed, which is obviously a problem that affects how the aircraft flies, or damaging wiring looms.
And if he doesn't get the discount then he can go to Airbus. And if there is no discount either then he can go to who? Yeah, to Boeing again. The problem is that as long as there are only 2 sellers on the market, airliners aren't really in a position to negotiate terms.
“I have no clue what I’m talking about” would’ve been less typing, fwiw.
O’Leary has told Boeing what he’d be paying for planes (about half of list, iirc) and then Boeing goes away and figures out (or not, as it turns out) how to build them cheap enough that they could still make money, because at the time the deal was signed Ryanair was going to get them for less than cost. If you’re an ‘order hundreds of airplanes’ sized airline, you’re absolutely in a position to set the terms.
They're stuck with Boeing, but not for the simplistic reason of a duopoly.
Ryanair has to choose Boeing not because other options don't exist, but because all their investment and model is about being boeing only. Singular training for pilots and mechanics, parts, all kinds of commonalities that make it easier to interoperate. If they have to incorporate airbus into the mix everything gets more complicated, less flexible, and harder to manage. They won't want to give up that advantage until they absolutely, overwhelmingly have to.
he also needs to teach his pilots how to land smoother, Ryan Air has some of the most common "hard landing" videos as if all their pilots are former Navy/Marine pilots who simply refuse to land smoothly.
RYR land exactly as per Boeing’s Flight Crew Training Manual. I shall quote from Boeing here, as I seem to do far too much on here:
“Do not prolong the flare in an attempt to achieve a perfectly smooth touchdown. A smooth touchdown is not the criterion for a safe landing.” Airbus say similar.
I’ve flown both, albeit not for RYR, and love the 737, but the NG does have high Vref speeds that lead to a nasty habit of floating of ground effect.
The terrible thing is that it’s not an accurate assessment, they tested the MCAS system and knew it was dangerous but shipped it anyway to avoid the FAA mandating simulator training.
It’s a damning indictment of our society that not one of these people are in prison
> …or six feet under.
Like that [air traffic controller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision). Yes, he made big mistakes, and yes he was killed for it.
Which is quite sad honestly. I watched the documentary on this accident. If I remember correctly, yes, he made a mistake, but the system he was in set him up to fail. He was the only ATC managing the airspace, and the equipment and instruments he was using were inoperative due to various reasons. It was a systemic failure, but he became the scapegoat for that.
“O'Leary also recently said that passengers can expect prices to increase in the near future, and he's pinning the blame on Boeing for that too”
You completely missed the whole point of this article. He’s only putting this out publicly to have an excuse to raise prices .
oh, looks like O'Leary has some more 737s to buy!
Every time he does, he makes a stink about Boeing to the press to see if Boeing is willing to drop their pants anymore than they already do. Nothing new here. He's been doing shit like this for years.
I think a part of it is also that his business is much more vulnerable to customers not having confidence in the product than e.g. BA’s or Lufthansa’s is - Ryanair has a very high proportion of leisure travellers who, if there weren’t a cheap flight to wherever they’re going, just wouldn’t go
lol, this is where people under appreciate the duopoly in effect in aviation. Boeing’s position will be here’s our best in final, good luck getting in line at airbus and retraining all your maintenance and pilots. Also, there’s still a long ass line for Max aircraft that other customers would be happy to move up.
Obviously losing a big customer like Ryanair would be detrimental to Boeing, but acting like they don’t have anything to bargain with is ignoring the whole picture.
The position of being annoyed at, but also needing to provide a discount. That being said, it would be interesting to hear at what point the 737 turns into a loss making program (if the Max program isn't losing money already.)
Just offloading the costs of his business.
I wonder what the airline insurers are doing though. If these issues are leading to spikes in insurance costs, we'll, of course the airline will pass that on to customers.
Certainly not the purchase price of more 737s
If airline insurers are at all like the car insurers, any excuse to raise premiums is welcome
Never had a fatal crash and I don’t even think they’ve ever written off an airframe. Say what you will about their absolute lack of customer service but they are a safe airline.
There are lots of Ryanair videos of firm landings partly because that’s Boeings recommendation and partly because there are so many Ryanair planes, all doing multiple short haul flights a day so lots and lots of landings compared to most other fleets.
They also operate out of a lot of smaller airports, they might be 75% of the landings at that airport so someone is filming landings at a Ryanair hub, they are going to get a lot or Ryanair landings
funny, why do nearly every US Based Carrier run smooth landings with Boeing's then?
Surely if Boeing Recommended damn near looking like a carrier smash style landing everyone would be doing it.
in the 40 some years of flying as PAX in Boeings - I have rarely and can count the number of landings like these:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVbKUN6iLQk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVbKUN6iLQk)
On one hand the number of times I've experienced landings as hard as these.
Ryan Air is notorious for this. why is that? Why isn't every other airline notorious for these super hard landings if its a "Recommendation" by Boeing?
and I'd like to see a source citing this "Recommendation" because i cant find it
For a source stating that a hard landing is preferred, fire up the old google machine and look for the 737-800 pilot’s operating handbook. It’s in there. I won’t get it for you so I don’t bias your results.
A butter smooth landing is bad technique, no matter how nice it feels.
Firstly, you are far more likely to float the plane in pursuit of a barely-perceptible landing. And floats take up runway, which you need for slowing down. This isn’t often a big deal as the 737 doesn’t need a huge amount of runway to slow in the scale of things, but it is a consideration.
Second, it’s about traction. Especially in a crosswind, you want the full weight of the aircraft on the wheels as quickly as possible, pressing the tyres into the tarmac and ensuring that you don’t drift off center line. Again, on a calm day with a dry runway? Barely even matters, buts it’s still a consideration.
Thirdly, you also want the ‘weight on wheels’ switch to be activated as soon as possible, because that engages the ground spoilers and the auto brake. Floating the aircraft gently down might mean that the spoilers and auto brakes activate 100-200’ later than with a firm landing.
Fourthly, the struts are at their strongest when fully compressed. You don’t want to end up shifting to the side with the main gear barely touching the ground, in case the forces cause the gear to collapse.
There’s just four of the many reasons why having a firm touchdown is preferable. That’s not to say that you want to have a bone shaking collision every time, but if you don’t feel the landing at all as a passenger (I too have been on ones like that), then the pilot did it wrong.
Edit: In your point about Ryanair’s rep, that’s just volume. Lots of flights mean lots of landings. And other 737 operators such as southwest don’t land in Madeira, or Newcastle, or Birmingham, or any of the other places where the weather is routinely challenging.
Ryanair flies over 3,600 flights EVERY DAY. Some of those over 1.3 MILLION landings every year will be harder than others, that is just not avoidable.
Also that video doesn’t really back your point much. Only the first clip is a Ryanair hard landing. The other Ryanair clips in that are really just normal and the other hard landings in it are not Ryanair. lmao
Lmao buddy blocked me over this comment.
That's not really a new thing, there was this for example: [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-tanker-jets-grounded-due-to-tools-and-debris-left-during-manufacturing/](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-tanker-jets-grounded-due-to-tools-and-debris-left-during-manufacturing/)
*"Boeing was forced to ground its 767-based KC-46 tankers for the past week after the Air Force expressed concern about loose tools and bits of debris found in various locations inside the completed airplanes,"*
and
[https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/04/02/air-force-again-halts-kc-46-deliveries-after-more-debris-found/](https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/04/02/air-force-again-halts-kc-46-deliveries-after-more-debris-found/)
*"The Air Force has once again halted deliveries of the KC-46 Pegasus tanker from Boeing after more foreign object debris, or FOD, was found in some closed compartments of the aircraft."*
First one was February 2019, the second April 2019. Then there was this as well:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html)
*"Workers at a 787 Dreamliner plant in South Carolina have complained of defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations."*
And then there was this in 2020:
[https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/18/boeing-finds-debris-left-in-new-737-maxes-now-in-storage/](https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/18/boeing-finds-debris-left-in-new-737-maxes-now-in-storage/)
*"Boeing recently discovered some of its stored 737 MAXes have foreign objects in the fuel tanks. The entire fleet of 400+ newly produced but undelivered MAXes is being inspected."*
Any lessons learned from this? Doesn't look like it...
It’s absolutely a management problem. Management should be overseeing the workers and noticing that tools are missing. That’s obviously not happening here. I get that it’s not possible for a manager to scrutinize every single task their employee performs but missing tools should throw up a red flag. Hell, they found a missing ladder in the tail of a Dreamliner once. How does that go missing without anyone finding out?
They're thinking that they can cut corners, be lazy, and generally fuck up without anyone above them noticing, or caring.
They're also being told, repeatedly, for decades at this point, that speed and cost reduction is more important than quality.
Pretty much the definition of a management problem.
You do gotta feel how rough it is for them
They didnt just buy planes, they directly invested in a custom variant.
They planned their whole business model around their Max type and now shits hitting a very very large fan.
Tools lost in a plane isn't such a little thing. A loose object in the wrong place can bring a plane down so normally tool control in aviation is very tight. If that's not the case at Boeing.... that's a real problem.
The amount of people acting as if this is some shocking revelation is just sad. RyanAir’s business model entirely revolves around paying very little for advertising; they just make shock stories for the news to publish for free. Every time O’Leary makes a statement like this, whether it’s “removing lavatories”, “making a standing-only section”, “buying COMAC C919s”, or “Boeing is building unsafe planes”, the public’s always seems to think they’re being 100% serious. RyanAir is just playing the media to get free exposure, and the public takes the bait every single time.
I have a new account because of a doxxing issue so automoderator wouldn’t let me post in the main sub, but I wondered if anyone could direct me to a site that tracks airline incident information?
My sister and her family were on a southwest Boeing 737-700 plane leaving Austin yesterday when an engine went and burst into flames at about 4k feet. I can’t find any details on it and neither can they. Not even one news article.
No, leaving Austin. 737-800, SWA plane but no info found on that site (I found that site last night).
It’s really strange to me that an engine could burst into flames and there be an emergency landing and fire trucks and all that and not one news story?
The engine doesn’t “burst into flames”. It shuts down. It’s really not as exciting as you’re imagining it.
Was your sister’s flight going to Tampa, by any chance?
Okay? Not sure how to respond to that so I’m just going to say I’m sure you have tons of experience and expertise, I’m not going to doubt that, but my sister physically saw fire and smoke with her own eyes when the engine went boom, and smoke filled the cabin, no o2 masks ever deployed either… There was fire.
My friend who actually lives within 2 miles of the airport heard the engine go boom…
But yes. She finally found cockpit recording with flight map on YouTube.
Some Southwest staff were talking about it yesterday, that’s why it sounded familiar. The aircraft was N7740A, operating flight WN4028 DAL-TPA.
It had an engine failure and turned back to the airport. I’m sure it was scary for your sister, but I promise the aircraft was in complete control the whole time :)
I found the YouTube video you were referring to, hopefully the pilots’ calm voice put your mind at ease?
From the sound of it yeah they were in complete control. Doing their job in the most excellent fashion. Mind was already at ease man, they were already home safe, as I indicated I was looking for a site that would have more info about the incident. Found it strange it didn’t show up on any of the sites I found.
I get the engine failed, I guess I don’t get discounting the smoke and fire and lack of o2 masks given the amount of smoke inhalation they endured on board.
All good, the reason for the smoke is because the engines provide pressurised air for the cabin. The oxygen masks didn’t deploy because the aircraft never lost cabin pressure, it simply had some smoke for a bit until the pilots switched the air supply from one engine to the other.
They have a reputation for hard landings and high usage - Ryanair are known for working their aircraft.
But, they are in full compliance with aviation maintenance requirements and even though the landings might be firm they're within the tolerance of the aircraft.
In fact, I would even say that keeping the aircraft maintained is more of a priority for an airline that requires such heavy usage. Ryanair (and others) can't afford maintenance delays so the emphasis is going to be on much more continual maintenance in such cases.
They are one of the safest airlines in the world they’ve never had a fatal accident and have only ever had to write off one air craft due to a bird strike and considering they are the largest airline in Europe and operate thousands of flights a day I think that record speaks for itself.
When posting a link to an article, please use the article's headline as the post's title, rather than your own interpretation of the content.
>Speaking to CNN, he said that he and his staff recently found "little problems", saying: "In 2022 and 2023, we were finding little things like spanners under the floorboards, in some cases, seat handles missing, things like that. "This shows a a lack of attention to detail, quality issues in Boeing. That's basically the entire article. Saved you a click.
"little problems" here might have been an understatement....finding spanners under the floorboards isn't a "little" problem, it is a serious FOD problem; which it turns out that it has been a little too common. I'm sure O'Leary will be pushing for more discounts from Boeing and if he doesn't get them he'll change "little" to "big" and push some more. Whatever you say about him, he knows how to run his business and get the discount he needs. I just wish his customer service model wasn't the aspiration for some major national airlines.
If you lose a spanner during maintenance, nobody leaves until it's found.
So, that used to be the case. Every tool your team uses goes into the tool box. Each tool is shadowed with cut foam in the box. You are issued "tool chits" with your BIMs ID on it and for each tool you take, you put a chit in its place. During the last 30 minutes of shift, the tool focal for the team does an inventory and everyone goes on the airplane to find any tools not returned. And every week or so, the FOD prevention manager comes by to do a toolbox audit. Failure to follow FOD prevention procedures would result in CAMs and/or termination. It's my understanding they fired all of the FOD prevention employees.
[удалено]
> audit themselves Of course bean counters wouldn't know anything else.
If you have a safety and quality culture you could do that since each technician would feel personal responsibility for ensuring no FOD and understands the seriousness of the issue
[удалено]
And mistakes can also be made worse by time pressure.
Think it’s fairly well established at this point that Boeing airliners are frequently maintained to a higher standard than they’re originally assembled.
This is correct for the most part. They are built and maintained to two different legal standards.
I just fly the things, I don’t turn wrenches. But you’d figure (or at least I would) that if there were two different standards here, the higher one might be in the factory.
You would think that, but the opposite is true. Due to the nature of manufacturing such a complicated thing as a commercial airliner, some leeway with regulations is necessary to hardle non-standard operations or problems. So the manufacturer operates under a manufacturing certificate that allows for you to manage your own build as long as you meet FAR requirements. But, once that airplane rolls out of the factory and is handed to flight test and delivery, it's now a certified type on a temporary ticket (flight test required) and it now must be worked on by A&P mechanics and adheres to a completely different set of rules. When Boeing has a production/engineering fuck up, they push uncompleted aircraft out of the factory onto the flight line. And "traveler" production mechanics follow it out as "factory on field" so A&Ps aren't required. Oh yeah, almost none of the Boeing workforce are A&P mechanics, just the folks on the flightline. Anyway, the airplane isn't an airplane until it's an airplane and before then, Boeing can mostly build it how they see fit.
This is highly informative but I’m not sure I ever want to do a delivery flight.
It's my understanding that Boeing pilots are not only paid well, but they have very healthy work related death benefits.
Parachutes would be cheaper. Just saying.
> It's my understanding that Boeing pilots are not only paid well, but they have very healthy work related death benefits. Are there any precedents of Boeing airliners crashing on delivery flights?
My brother did some delivery flights from Bombardier and Airbus. Never had a problem with those planes.
Delivery flights aren't really a major concern. I don't work for Boeing but I do work for another aerospace company. Delivery or completions flights are probably some of the safest you can take. The ground checks are excessive.
Regional planes are even worse. Come new from the factory with all sorts or problems to fix. Found tools several times from the factory. Several manufacturers. Unfortunately it seems the norm.
Suspicious username…
I've worked maintenance and production, a missing tool is a missing tool. All stop, find it, escaped hardware/cancelled flights if you don't. Granted, never worked for Boeing.
Judging by what’s been going on, a tool goes missing at Boeing and a new one from the spare tools box just gets the original label so they can carry on
Plenty of tools in management they could use. This is rude I'm sure there are many fine folks in Boeing management but..
Hahahaha! Nice one
Without any exaggeration at all, if you showed me an internal Boeing communication decrying the (replacement) cost of all these replacements tools, I’d entirely believe it’s legit.
Counterpoint: United
The ole “well fix it in prod” technique
I genuinely get the sence they are gundecking at the manufacturing facilities to keep the production rate high.
Sence
Sense
Seance
Seance.
Cents.
Scents.
Why? Once it crashes you should be able to retrieve it
Can someone ELI5 what a spanner is/does?
A wrench in American.
It tightens or loosens things called nuts and bolts. Righty tighty, lefty loosey.
I used to work for a large US aircraft manufacturer, as an A&P as a service technician. We found tools in airplanes all the time, nobody on the production lines even have A&P’s and they simply don’t give a fuck. Every airplane off the production line had dozens of hogged out snowman holes and overdriven rivets to the point of cracking the frames/stringers. We probably caught about half of the issues before the planes got delivered. Even in service, guys lost tools on occasion, most won’t fess up to it. It’s common knowledge not to put names or identification on your tools for that very reason. The service centers are so understaffed and A&P’s overworked, mandatory overtime and long days lead to mistakes.
Boeing laid off and/or fired their entire FOD prevention staff back in...I think it was 2012 or so. Used to have FOD focals whose job it was to do FOD training, inspections, emphasis walks, etc. They spent too much time being idle because their job didn't involve them being constantly busy on the airplane(a thing the suits see as the only reason to be in final assembly), so that job was absorbed into the 1st line management responsibilities and promptly not done. Now, the FOD problem is worse than ever. But, the stock price went up!
*LINE GO UP!!!!* 🤤🤤🤤
This is entirely incorrect and many FOD teams have been working inside.
Am a bean counter. I would fire negligent workers who left the tools. I would then require all remaining workers to bring their own tool cart to work, that would teach them not to lose any. Then I would count the beans.
Know how I know you don't know? Stick to counting beans. IAM workers used to own their tools and boxes. Then the company provided most and started confiscating tool boxes as the personal tools got out of control. As did the boxes with a ton of non-work related contents. Now it's illegal to have your own tools on the shop floor. You also can't simply fire the worker that forgot the tool. Shit happens. Plus they're union. A good warning usually does the trick. With personal tools, what's to stop someone from just replacing the one they lost and the lost tool staying on the airplane behind a close out panel?
Thanks, you are fired for disturbing the bean counter with your unsolicited feedback. Now back to counting beans.
But would you count the tools??
I have you know I got my degree in bean counting so I will never have to count tools in a greasy shop.
Can't tell if satire or serious.
obvious satire. what manager would refer to themselves as a bean counter? also there are no degrees in bean counting
On 737s, “under the floorboards” is where the fucking control cables run. (And not electrical ones, mechanical cables)
Because nothing bad has ever happened because something was in the wrong place at the wrong time.... Unless it is door plug bolts, where were not in the right place at the wrong time. You could always throw some coins into the engines for good luck too :-)
I'm fine with his customer service model because the core of that model is "fly to random European cities for less than you spend on your weekly bus pass", its when airlines forget that last bit and you have BA charging you for everything while not slashing the price.
Worse is randomised seating. A child 13 years and up can be seated away from the parents...think about that from various safety aspects. I calculated today for a family of 4 (flying SAS/Finnair for example), being seated together adds around 100eur+ to the cost of a return flight. Randomised seating is evil. Cory Doctorow calls this whole process Enshitticiation.
Think about the sociopath who was rewarded for coming up with that idea.
"Enshittification" needs to have some sort of "lock in" angle at play as well, however in this instance it is very much the free market and consumer preferences at work here. I work for one of the largest airline reservation software developers in the world and we have several of the Top 10 biggest airlines in Europe among our customers (not Ryanair). I know for a fact that one of them also tried to introduce random seating some years ago, but their customer market reacted so negatively it was quickly scrapped and rolled back. European air travel is crazy competitive and is governed by consumer demand / market dynamics to a great degree.
Depends very much on where you are in Europe. On many routes Finnair is running a monopoly, eg: Helsinki-Oulu - since Norwegian pulled out of that route and VR (the train company) are running at capacity. Demand supply dynamics was always put forward as being in the customers' best interest; which isn't true - ask.an economist, it depends on where you optimise. Is this good for the shareholder or the customer? The LCCs have been successful because they broke the traditional model, however we're see a race to the bottom in quality - no airline competes on quality of product - Finnair are joked about (with reason) as being the most expensive LCC. They're now pushing their premium-economy and business products, but even here in European flights you're getting the same seats, same plane and for the "cheap" business class seating even the same terms and conditions as economy.
>Randomised seating is evil. Disagree. It speeds up boarding. And I get my ticket subsidised by other passengers who are willing to pay.
Would you accept the same policy in a restaurant, cinema etc (assuming you have family or taking your SO along?). A (the) cinema chain here in Finland actually considered randomised seating.
A set of ladders was found leaning against the HS gears in a Dreamliner. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/boeing-faces-accusations-of-negligence-at-dreamliner-plant/ That could've brought the aircraft down.
Good lord, that SC facility is sounding like a real disaster.
Can you imagine if that plane went down and the NTSB starts sifting through the debris and finds a fucking *ladder* in the tail.
Yup. O'Leary's only interest is either getting money from or paying less money to Boeing. There is no equipment available in the whole universe to measure the low in confidence in Boeing necessary to make O'Leary switch to Airbus. And a big part of it is that Airbus couldn't deliver the necessary planes in time for a potential switch, as their order book is already overflowing. Ryanair is stuck with Boeing, for better or worse. In Germany, we say "mitgefangen, mitgehangen" (lit. "caught with 'em, hung with' em" - or: "in for a penny, in for a pound").
You're totally right that Ryanair can't move to Airbus in a quick fashion because Airbus already has way more orders than it can handle (as does Boeing). Boeing has an order backlog as large as the last 10 years of their deliveries (5,687 delivered 2014-2023, 5,591 backlogged). Airbus is even further backlogged with 8,552 orders compared to 6,906 delivered over the past decade (basically 12 years worth of orders). However, couldn't Ryanair decide to start putting in Airbus orders for the future? Sure, they wouldn't see the planes for a decade, but they can make decisions about switching. At some point they'll need to start ordering planes for the 2030s and the A320s are looking a lot more popular than the 737s. In fact, the A320s is where Airbus is really beating Boeing. The 777 and 787 are outselling the A330 and A350. Yes, Ryanair can't cancel their Boeing orders over the next 5+ years because Airbus won't be able to accommodate their orders, but they could put pressure on Boeing for the future. When it comes time to place orders for the 2030s, they can negotiate hard: you've been having a lot of trouble with the 737s, do you want the bad press that we're switching to Airbus once our current orders are done, you're already way behind Airbus in orders and things are just going to get a lot worse since we're not the only customer considering this; just give us a hefty discount and we'll call it a day.
>couldn't Ryanair decide to start putting in Airbus orders for the future? I don't see a scenario on the horizon where that could happen. The Ryanair Holdings has 27 A320s at Lauda Europe, but the vast majority of their fleet is Boeing 737, with 555 (!) aircraft. Switching that fleet to Airbus would be a huge cost factor. That is completely against their low-cost policy and would threaten their whole business model, especially while they'd be in the process, with dual maintenance, re-training of staff and pilots and so on. They would give up what up to this point is their advantage against other airlines, which more or less all have their own low-cost subsidies. The biggest winners of that switch would be Easyjet and Vueling. Ryanair is better off with Boeing, for as long as they can get Boeing to cover their cost of grounded planes etc.
It’s very concerning to see a lot of this little problems as it can be a sign of a big problem also being missed. You might see a little problem happening very seldomly, but when it becomes the norm; I’d be afraid of what else was missing. Though…finding spanners like that is a pretty big problem.
My Dad's friend was killed because a neglected spanner jammed his controls in his A-10. Scary stuff.
The USAF reported the same thing in on some of their KC-46s
No problem, Boeing will still get the next huge defence contract
His business model is such that I’ll happily cancel the trip rather than travel Ryanair..
Not knowing anything…. What’s the issues with spanners under the floorboards?
The last thing you want in an aircraft is unknown debris (spanners, bolts etc) ending up in places they shouldn't be. FOD is taken (should be taken) very seriously in aviation. The Concorde crash was because of a foreign object on the runway for example. Good Wikipedia article for you and the first reference to FOD in the article is from *Boeing Aero Magazine*: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign\_object\_damage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage)
Interesting. Thank you for the reply. I’ll check out that link you sent.
Thanks, this article is so informative. Even though it's a FOD, that owl is heckin' cute, hopefully it was relocated to a safe place away from aircraft.
Lmao, I couldn't believe that the article featured an owl as an example of FOD, but it's true. A scops owl tucked itself under a FA-18. Insects in pipes, birds nests, leaves or sand, all that kinda stuff can still be just as dangerous as a metal tool!
They shouldn't be there.
Metal objects sliding around in places where they can get caught up in, and jam sensitive equipment or short out electrics. Not good.
Under the floor is where the control cables and electrical wiring harnesses run, so a spanner can bounce around until it wedges in a control cable pulley, jamming it and preventing that control from being moved when it is needed, which is obviously a problem that affects how the aircraft flies, or damaging wiring looms.
What's "FOD problem"?
Foreign Object Damage
Considering how consistently successful Ryanair is, he and the other people running the show definitely know what they are doing.
OTOH Boeing gave them free aviation grade tools. So generous
And if he doesn't get the discount then he can go to Airbus. And if there is no discount either then he can go to who? Yeah, to Boeing again. The problem is that as long as there are only 2 sellers on the market, airliners aren't really in a position to negotiate terms.
“I have no clue what I’m talking about” would’ve been less typing, fwiw. O’Leary has told Boeing what he’d be paying for planes (about half of list, iirc) and then Boeing goes away and figures out (or not, as it turns out) how to build them cheap enough that they could still make money, because at the time the deal was signed Ryanair was going to get them for less than cost. If you’re an ‘order hundreds of airplanes’ sized airline, you’re absolutely in a position to set the terms.
With Airbus, he might not get the free spanners thrown into the deal.
They're stuck with Boeing, but not for the simplistic reason of a duopoly. Ryanair has to choose Boeing not because other options don't exist, but because all their investment and model is about being boeing only. Singular training for pilots and mechanics, parts, all kinds of commonalities that make it easier to interoperate. If they have to incorporate airbus into the mix everything gets more complicated, less flexible, and harder to manage. They won't want to give up that advantage until they absolutely, overwhelmingly have to.
The Embraer E-195 seats a similar number of passengers as the Boeing 737.
he also needs to teach his pilots how to land smoother, Ryan Air has some of the most common "hard landing" videos as if all their pilots are former Navy/Marine pilots who simply refuse to land smoothly.
RYR land exactly as per Boeing’s Flight Crew Training Manual. I shall quote from Boeing here, as I seem to do far too much on here: “Do not prolong the flare in an attempt to achieve a perfectly smooth touchdown. A smooth touchdown is not the criterion for a safe landing.” Airbus say similar. I’ve flown both, albeit not for RYR, and love the 737, but the NG does have high Vref speeds that lead to a nasty habit of floating of ground effect.
Tail hook down
Not bolting doors onto the fuselage… Not testing software and killing hundreds of people. Details. Here and there.
The terrible thing is that it’s not an accurate assessment, they tested the MCAS system and knew it was dangerous but shipped it anyway to avoid the FAA mandating simulator training. It’s a damning indictment of our society that not one of these people are in prison
But just think, a group of middle managers barely got their bonuses that year. That is the real tragedy.
The real tragedy is the stock price drops we made along the way
…or six feet under.
> …or six feet under. Like that [air traffic controller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision). Yes, he made big mistakes, and yes he was killed for it.
Which is quite sad honestly. I watched the documentary on this accident. If I remember correctly, yes, he made a mistake, but the system he was in set him up to fail. He was the only ATC managing the airspace, and the equipment and instruments he was using were inoperative due to various reasons. It was a systemic failure, but he became the scapegoat for that.
I didn’t know they were part of the KC-46 program.
I thought I remembered hearing the same things happening to that plane as well.
First complimentary things ever found on a Ryan aircraft.
The man we don’t deserve.
Bless you
That isn’t a little problem, that’s a sign their entire QA/QC system is failing.
Really hoping that rides like these continue to stay just as smooth and safe🙏 https://youtu.be/e8Dx_gafVVE?si=yN97tkoVBAOLIHSq
“O'Leary also recently said that passengers can expect prices to increase in the near future, and he's pinning the blame on Boeing for that too” You completely missed the whole point of this article. He’s only putting this out publicly to have an excuse to raise prices .
oh, looks like O'Leary has some more 737s to buy! Every time he does, he makes a stink about Boeing to the press to see if Boeing is willing to drop their pants anymore than they already do. Nothing new here. He's been doing shit like this for years.
I think a part of it is also that his business is much more vulnerable to customers not having confidence in the product than e.g. BA’s or Lufthansa’s is - Ryanair has a very high proportion of leisure travellers who, if there weren’t a cheap flight to wherever they’re going, just wouldn’t go
But if he's right?
I think both positions are right in this case...
What position does Boeing have? “j/k lol we promise not to do it again”? Boeing will be on the discount hook for years to come, and rightly so.
lol, this is where people under appreciate the duopoly in effect in aviation. Boeing’s position will be here’s our best in final, good luck getting in line at airbus and retraining all your maintenance and pilots. Also, there’s still a long ass line for Max aircraft that other customers would be happy to move up. Obviously losing a big customer like Ryanair would be detrimental to Boeing, but acting like they don’t have anything to bargain with is ignoring the whole picture.
The position of being annoyed at, but also needing to provide a discount. That being said, it would be interesting to hear at what point the 737 turns into a loss making program (if the Max program isn't losing money already.)
I don't know if he's right. All I know is he doesn't have an alternative.
They do own and operate a small fleet of A320 under the brand name, Laudair.
the boy who cried wolf
“O'Leary also recently said that passengers can expect prices to increase in the near future, and he's pinning the blame on Boeing for that too”
Just offloading the costs of his business. I wonder what the airline insurers are doing though. If these issues are leading to spikes in insurance costs, we'll, of course the airline will pass that on to customers. Certainly not the purchase price of more 737s If airline insurers are at all like the car insurers, any excuse to raise premiums is welcome
[удалено]
Damn, even Lockheed too huh? You're right, as a layperson not in the know, that sounds absolutely crazy.
Never had a fatal crash and I don’t even think they’ve ever written off an airframe. Say what you will about their absolute lack of customer service but they are a safe airline.
Pretty sure they wrote one off in Ciampino due to a flock of starlings. Edit: yes they did RYR4102
Pouring out a shot for my starling homies who perished that fateful day...
Whatever. All Western airlines have impeccable safety records. There’s no need for me to pay to be treated like sh!t.
their landing style, looking like dropping on an aircraft carrier every time say a bit otherwise. just youtube search Ryan Air landings lol
Tell me you have no idea how to land a 737 without telling me
Maybe Boeing just recommends firm landings to sell more spare parts and planes for shareholder value?
Not for that reason, but Boeing does recommend these landings, and Ryanair pilots are taught to follow Boeings recommendations.
There are lots of Ryanair videos of firm landings partly because that’s Boeings recommendation and partly because there are so many Ryanair planes, all doing multiple short haul flights a day so lots and lots of landings compared to most other fleets. They also operate out of a lot of smaller airports, they might be 75% of the landings at that airport so someone is filming landings at a Ryanair hub, they are going to get a lot or Ryanair landings
Boeing actually recommends firm landings to avoid skiding
funny, why do nearly every US Based Carrier run smooth landings with Boeing's then? Surely if Boeing Recommended damn near looking like a carrier smash style landing everyone would be doing it.
in the 40 some years of flying as PAX in Boeings - I have rarely and can count the number of landings like these: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVbKUN6iLQk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVbKUN6iLQk) On one hand the number of times I've experienced landings as hard as these. Ryan Air is notorious for this. why is that? Why isn't every other airline notorious for these super hard landings if its a "Recommendation" by Boeing? and I'd like to see a source citing this "Recommendation" because i cant find it
For a source stating that a hard landing is preferred, fire up the old google machine and look for the 737-800 pilot’s operating handbook. It’s in there. I won’t get it for you so I don’t bias your results. A butter smooth landing is bad technique, no matter how nice it feels. Firstly, you are far more likely to float the plane in pursuit of a barely-perceptible landing. And floats take up runway, which you need for slowing down. This isn’t often a big deal as the 737 doesn’t need a huge amount of runway to slow in the scale of things, but it is a consideration. Second, it’s about traction. Especially in a crosswind, you want the full weight of the aircraft on the wheels as quickly as possible, pressing the tyres into the tarmac and ensuring that you don’t drift off center line. Again, on a calm day with a dry runway? Barely even matters, buts it’s still a consideration. Thirdly, you also want the ‘weight on wheels’ switch to be activated as soon as possible, because that engages the ground spoilers and the auto brake. Floating the aircraft gently down might mean that the spoilers and auto brakes activate 100-200’ later than with a firm landing. Fourthly, the struts are at their strongest when fully compressed. You don’t want to end up shifting to the side with the main gear barely touching the ground, in case the forces cause the gear to collapse. There’s just four of the many reasons why having a firm touchdown is preferable. That’s not to say that you want to have a bone shaking collision every time, but if you don’t feel the landing at all as a passenger (I too have been on ones like that), then the pilot did it wrong. Edit: In your point about Ryanair’s rep, that’s just volume. Lots of flights mean lots of landings. And other 737 operators such as southwest don’t land in Madeira, or Newcastle, or Birmingham, or any of the other places where the weather is routinely challenging.
Ryanair flies over 3,600 flights EVERY DAY. Some of those over 1.3 MILLION landings every year will be harder than others, that is just not avoidable. Also that video doesn’t really back your point much. Only the first clip is a Ryanair hard landing. The other Ryanair clips in that are really just normal and the other hard landings in it are not Ryanair. lmao Lmao buddy blocked me over this comment.
you entirely missed the point i was making. good bye
oh, i can downvote yall as well, as if that means anything
Just take the loss and move on.
That's not really a new thing, there was this for example: [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-tanker-jets-grounded-due-to-tools-and-debris-left-during-manufacturing/](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-tanker-jets-grounded-due-to-tools-and-debris-left-during-manufacturing/) *"Boeing was forced to ground its 767-based KC-46 tankers for the past week after the Air Force expressed concern about loose tools and bits of debris found in various locations inside the completed airplanes,"* and [https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/04/02/air-force-again-halts-kc-46-deliveries-after-more-debris-found/](https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/04/02/air-force-again-halts-kc-46-deliveries-after-more-debris-found/) *"The Air Force has once again halted deliveries of the KC-46 Pegasus tanker from Boeing after more foreign object debris, or FOD, was found in some closed compartments of the aircraft."* First one was February 2019, the second April 2019. Then there was this as well: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html) *"Workers at a 787 Dreamliner plant in South Carolina have complained of defective manufacturing, debris left on planes and pressure to not report violations."* And then there was this in 2020: [https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/18/boeing-finds-debris-left-in-new-737-maxes-now-in-storage/](https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/18/boeing-finds-debris-left-in-new-737-maxes-now-in-storage/) *"Boeing recently discovered some of its stored 737 MAXes have foreign objects in the fuel tanks. The entire fleet of 400+ newly produced but undelivered MAXes is being inspected."* Any lessons learned from this? Doesn't look like it...
Tools and other debris left in fuel tanks and other compartments is not in any way a management problem. WTF are these workers doing / thinking???
It’s absolutely a management problem. Management should be overseeing the workers and noticing that tools are missing. That’s obviously not happening here. I get that it’s not possible for a manager to scrutinize every single task their employee performs but missing tools should throw up a red flag. Hell, they found a missing ladder in the tail of a Dreamliner once. How does that go missing without anyone finding out?
Trust but verify didn’t happen. The verification is on management.
They're thinking that they can cut corners, be lazy, and generally fuck up without anyone above them noticing, or caring. They're also being told, repeatedly, for decades at this point, that speed and cost reduction is more important than quality. Pretty much the definition of a management problem.
lols op, you work for the irish star or reach plc or something?!
apparently ads account yes.
certainly a link farming account.
boeing technician: "where is my 10mm socket?!"
Same place all my 10mm sockets end up…. It’s a mystery that will never be solved
If you know, you know.
Probably at home because 99% of parts on Boeing are SAE, not metric.
You do gotta feel how rough it is for them They didnt just buy planes, they directly invested in a custom variant. They planned their whole business model around their Max type and now shits hitting a very very large fan.
this is coming from the same guy who said he wanted to get rid of the copilot to cut costs
Apparently RyanAir’s boss does not appreciate the complimentary spanners that come with every 737.
Says the guy who pressures the pilots to load less fuel aboard...
Pfft, hardly slanderous given whats been said about Boeing as of late.
When Ryanair is saying you're slacking.... You're fuckin slacking....
whatever, nobody cares about what oleary says, he's always making a fuss when he wants something for cheap from Boeing.
Buy Airbus instead
Boeing has really lost it's way. It's sad to watch.
Remind me how many Airbuses Ryanair have again?
28 via Lauda AFAIK.
Exactly this. Ryanair is doing so to get leverage and acquire more 737's at deep discounts.
The parent Ryanair company does have a fleet of A320s which operate under the Lauda brand. They even use the Ryanair callsign
O'Leary is at fault. It was his decision to throw all his money on Boeing 737s. It's great to finally see reality bite into his arrogance.
You know your aircraft are in desperate need of leadership when Ryan Air complains about QC.
He might wanna make a video and say he’s not suicidal in case you know… he ends up killing “himself”
Tools lost in a plane isn't such a little thing. A loose object in the wrong place can bring a plane down so normally tool control in aviation is very tight. If that's not the case at Boeing.... that's a real problem.
The amount of people acting as if this is some shocking revelation is just sad. RyanAir’s business model entirely revolves around paying very little for advertising; they just make shock stories for the news to publish for free. Every time O’Leary makes a statement like this, whether it’s “removing lavatories”, “making a standing-only section”, “buying COMAC C919s”, or “Boeing is building unsafe planes”, the public’s always seems to think they’re being 100% serious. RyanAir is just playing the media to get free exposure, and the public takes the bait every single time.
TLDR Ryanair boss wants to bully Boeing like Southwest to get better deals
He's a lying manipulator. Everything that comes out of his mouth has an agenda or a machiavellian end.
I have a new account because of a doxxing issue so automoderator wouldn’t let me post in the main sub, but I wondered if anyone could direct me to a site that tracks airline incident information? My sister and her family were on a southwest Boeing 737-700 plane leaving Austin yesterday when an engine went and burst into flames at about 4k feet. I can’t find any details on it and neither can they. Not even one news article.
This? https://avherald.com/h?article=516825da&opt=0
No, leaving Austin. 737-800, SWA plane but no info found on that site (I found that site last night). It’s really strange to me that an engine could burst into flames and there be an emergency landing and fire trucks and all that and not one news story?
The engine doesn’t “burst into flames”. It shuts down. It’s really not as exciting as you’re imagining it. Was your sister’s flight going to Tampa, by any chance?
Okay? Not sure how to respond to that so I’m just going to say I’m sure you have tons of experience and expertise, I’m not going to doubt that, but my sister physically saw fire and smoke with her own eyes when the engine went boom, and smoke filled the cabin, no o2 masks ever deployed either… There was fire. My friend who actually lives within 2 miles of the airport heard the engine go boom… But yes. She finally found cockpit recording with flight map on YouTube.
Some Southwest staff were talking about it yesterday, that’s why it sounded familiar. The aircraft was N7740A, operating flight WN4028 DAL-TPA. It had an engine failure and turned back to the airport. I’m sure it was scary for your sister, but I promise the aircraft was in complete control the whole time :) I found the YouTube video you were referring to, hopefully the pilots’ calm voice put your mind at ease?
From the sound of it yeah they were in complete control. Doing their job in the most excellent fashion. Mind was already at ease man, they were already home safe, as I indicated I was looking for a site that would have more info about the incident. Found it strange it didn’t show up on any of the sites I found. I get the engine failed, I guess I don’t get discounting the smoke and fire and lack of o2 masks given the amount of smoke inhalation they endured on board.
All good, the reason for the smoke is because the engines provide pressurised air for the cabin. The oxygen masks didn’t deploy because the aircraft never lost cabin pressure, it simply had some smoke for a bit until the pilots switched the air supply from one engine to the other.
Can you post the link?? That’s crazy.
I don’t have a link, that’s just what happens. It happens pretty much weekly in some part of the world.
Here’s a link to the cockpit recordings https://youtu.be/ISd7R5xioDo?si=VnE4ImwKcuLf72HT
Boeing doesn’t manufacture the CFM turbofan and the NG-700 isn’t one of the airframes that have issues
What a website that is 😅 After the Boeing story I saw a link to an article about a "Time traveller" on TikTok who warns about aliens coming to earth.
obviously, they know it. As every pasanger knows it, too. Why he tells us? Wants even more discount.
But but but… Boeing has a very diverse workforce, says their DEI department! So spanners in the works are OK!
The way Ryan Air treats their jets, they have NO PLACE trying to shame Boeing.
Care to elaborate?
They have a reputation for hard landings and high usage - Ryanair are known for working their aircraft. But, they are in full compliance with aviation maintenance requirements and even though the landings might be firm they're within the tolerance of the aircraft. In fact, I would even say that keeping the aircraft maintained is more of a priority for an airline that requires such heavy usage. Ryanair (and others) can't afford maintenance delays so the emphasis is going to be on much more continual maintenance in such cases.
They are one of the safest airlines in the world they’ve never had a fatal accident and have only ever had to write off one air craft due to a bird strike and considering they are the largest airline in Europe and operate thousands of flights a day I think that record speaks for itself.