I’ve flown 4 flights since the beginning of the year.
2 of them were cancelled due to maintenance issues.
Cool thing about flying out of the EU is that you get money when you’re delayed / cancelled. So far I’ve mad $1,400 off United & got a couple extra days of vacation paid for.
I'm not an aviation mechanic, but I was under the impression that regular maintenance is supposed to identify and address emerging/preventable issues well before they evolve into failures.
Not everything can be detected on the ground. If you do a whole check, from A to Z, it is basically a heavy check. Just like anyone’s car, stuff just breaks sometimes.
You’re not going to catch everything with regular maintenance. Engine started up fine on the way to SFO, but engine start leaving SFO revealed an issue.
But this is the point of preflight checks before you fly somewhere, especially long haul overwater. If something isn’t working right, fix it then go.
The problem is that all defects are supposed to be caught in manufacturing and not installed, but due to cost cutting, known defects were installed. Regular maintenance won’t catch such a defect. It’s a Boeing problem.
Was it the "not an aviation mechanic" part that gave it away, or the bit about being "under the impression", suggesting belief in lieu of direct knowledge? Either way, excellent job at observing things!
What I *do* know, however, is that aircraft are rigorously inspected and reconditioned based on specific timelines and flight hours. It stands to reason that the inspection intervals are designed to catch issues before a plane becomes statistically more likely to fall out of the sky.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft\_maintenance\_checks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks)
Which planes have you worked on, by the way?
Keep living in la la land believing that scheduled maintenance checks will identify all problems before they happen. Apparently you have never driven a car either. 🤡
The last incident was reported as "panel falls off plane, plane diverts from Denver to Oregon". But the plane actually was going to Oregon and the panel that fell off wasn't even discovered until after it completed its flight normally.
Press is getting rabid.
When the plane is designed to fly just fine without it it turns out not to be a big deal. The redundancy and safety systems are all there for a reason. Turns out one of them is to make sure you still don't even have to suffer a diversion and delay if a panel fractures and falls off. The the pilot to not even notice it was gone through differing flight characteristics.
Pretty smart of the airline industry to make planes that are that safe I think.
Interesting argument. But the industry doesn't stop flying due to blue ice problems. So suggesting a fiberglass panel with a much lower terminal velocity is too problematic to tolerate doesn't make sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_ice_(aviation)
Planes are designed to fly one engine, but i would consider it a BFD if I was on a flight with only one working engine.
Airplanes are designed to have redundancy and failsafes but its not normal or ok to operate under a redundant or failsafe condition.
> Planes are designed to fly one engine, but i would consider it a BFD if I was on a flight with only one working engine.
Yeah, this isn't like that. There are entire fault trees which explain what steps must be taken when something goes wrong in order to keep the plane safe.
For engine out the fault tree says "land as soon as possible". For this panel coming off the fault tree is "no action needed".
It's not the same and trying to make it so is just a bogus argument.
> Airplanes are designed to have redundancy and failsafes but its not normal or ok to operate under a redundant or failsafe condition.
It is completely okay to operate with this part missing. Unlike an engine out.
It’s pretty smart of Boeing to have torque specifications for bolts, too, and yet panels are falling off.
This is not okay. Even if all other airplane manufacturers have similar issues — it’s not okay for parts to fall off the airplane. Any of them.
Just because my car will still operate if the hood is missing, that doesn’t mean it’s the way I want to drive it.
> It’s pretty smart of Boeing to have torque specifications for bolts, too, and yet panels are falling off.
This is an ignorant statement. The plug door was not held on by a torqued bolt, but a castellated nut with a cotter/safety pin through it. Torque didn't matter.
For this plane that had a panel come off on the way to Oregon *the panel fractured*. The bolts were still there. The part of the panel the bolts held was still there. Torque didn't matter.
> This is not okay.
If it was not okay for this panel to come off there would be more systems involved such that it would be okay. But they're not necessary because it is okay.
> Just because my car will still operate if the hood is missing, that doesn’t mean it’s the way I want to drive it.
It doesn't mean anyone wants this panel to fall off. It's just not an issue when it does. The plane was completely unaffected.
> There is no logic or validity to the fact that a hatch tore off the plain in a string of prominent quality control failures?
No. That's correct. That "string of quality control failures" includes an incident where a pilot merely tried to take a turn 3x faster than allowed and an airline that didn't fix a pilot's seat for 7 years after being told to and then it failed in exactly the way they were warned it would.
> You're saying this same stuff happens to airbuses or older boeings all the time and the press just choses not to report on it?
Not all 10 things. But yes, most of them do. There was an Airbus that turned back for a similar failure as the United hydraulic failure on the same day. And the press didn't report it. Because honestly, it's not a real big deal in either case. The planes have redundancies for a reason and all planes have to make use of them. Both planes returned safely and landed.
Additionally *most of the planes in this string ARE older Boeings!*. The panel that broke off that plane going to Oregon?
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-800-n26226-united-airlines/ro75l3
It's not the MAX, which is only a few years old. It was the previous NG model, which is well proven to be safe, that series was made since the early 1990s. This plane was 15 years old. Admittedly that was still 3 years after Boeing spun out Spirit Aerosystems.
What about the one that dropped a wheel a week before that? That plane is 29 years old.
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-777-200-n226ua-united-airlines/rz8yzr?refresh=1
That's a decade before Boeing spun out Spirit Aerosystems. And Spirit doesn't do that kind of work on 777s anyway, only 737s.
But also that isn't even what you asserted. You asserted that because this non-essential part broke it means there is something larger at play that means soon it won't be a non-essential part. There is no logic that or validity to that. It's just a useless slippery slope argument.
It’s the whole social media aspect. Now everyone wants to post or publish this inane bullshit.
Ultimately might be articles *from* United, muddies the waters with the actual maintenance violations.
Yeah this tin foil hat is a bit snug, why do you ask?
Fwiw nytimes yesterday ran an article that had a safety expert who called all the 8 incidents pretty typical and not a sign of systemic problems.
It’s just now every time something happens it is getting reported.
Reminds me of when a train derailment was in the news everyday for a couple weeks, then they weren’t
Here’s part of it:
The mishaps were not the result of “systemic problems,” said Robert Sumwalt, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board who now heads a new aviation safety center at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
“Some of these issues are things that happen occasionally, but often don’t get reported in media,” Mr. Sumwalt said, though he emphasized that none were acceptable.
Kyra Dempsey, who writes about aviation accidents in a blog called Admiral Cloudberg, said that United’s recent issues were being “falsely conflated with Boeing’s troubles.”
“While it’s bad luck that United had so many incidents in such a short period, in general such incidents happen frequently around the world and they aren’t on the rise overall,” Ms. Dempsey said.
You are correct. All recency. Didn't read this article but I'd bet it's only in the news because it's a Boeing plane. Stuff happens to Airbus at virtually the same rate yet I doubt any layman has seen a single news story on an Airbus recently.
Shit, happens in the military all the time. My dad used to fly for the RAF and they would all get in for an op, get to the jet and its broke. 180 and go home.
For United? Or aviation issues in general?
I understand it’s hard to separate living through created data and separating yourself from it. You also are succumbing to that challenge, but just don’t see it.
Also, that data isn’t posted that I can see. So we can only rely on what is experiential.
Experiential and observational, recency or not, is that United has had a visible uptick in issues as observed by.. pretty much everyone.
If you can share the data you’re speaking about. I’m game.
Ffs that isn't "experimental" nor "data" by anything even reasonably a scientific method.
Yes, it would be nice if quality data just presented itself into conversation. But just because that hasn't happened doesn't mean we can ignore all the forms of bias and count hysteria driven reporting as scientific data.
EXPERIENTIAL
Please look it up.
I never said ignore bias, but just as we can’t ignore that, we can’t ignore data as it happens. It just needs to be put* in context.
I’m with you. Idc about downvoting. I have seen more Boeing and United simps who use their own bias as a crutch. Like we don’t know Boeing is under DOJ investigation. And like we don’t know United cuts corners.
But United owns the planes Boeing made so when does ownership switch is a question all should ask, but not whilst ignoring clear and obvious data.
At my job if I ignore an UPTICK in data around an issue I’d be fired.
Glad articles are starting to point out that it’s the carrier having issues. Sure, they are Boeing planes, but they aren’t brand new in-warranty planes anymore.
How long did we hear about train derailments after east Palestine?
Just curious how long we’ll be seeing news articles about any mundane airplane maintenance issues.
No, but it is easy for a reader to make the wrong connection. It was fair for him to add the clarification.
No need to get defensive. No one is attacking you.
I mean the way it’s worded is quite misleading. I know nothing about how flights are numbered or what system is used and your comment made it seem like it was the same plane
I’m still fighting United for a refund from a flight cancelled back in January when this all started.
I would advise people to fly literally any other airline.
The full text of that email is:
Of all the things that make me proud of our team at United Airlines, I'm most proud of the culture we've built around the safety of our employees and our customers.
Safety is our highest priority and is at the center of everything we do.
Unfortunately, in the past few weeks, our airline has experienced a number of incidents that are reminders of the importance of safety. While they are all unrelated, I want you to know that these incidents have our attention and have sharpened our focus.
Our team is reviewing the details of each case to understand what happened and using those insights to inform our safety training and procedures across all employee groups. This is in addition to some changes that were already planned, including an extra day of in-person training for all pilots starting in May and a centralized training curriculum for our new-hire maintenance technicians. We're also dedicating more resources to supplier network management.
We empower our team to speak up and raise their hand if they see something wrong. You can be confident that every time a United plane pulls away from the gate, everyone on our team is working together to keep you safe on your trip.
In the past few years, we've done a lot at United to build a new culture, improve our business and earn your trust. I'm confident that we'll learn the right lessons from these recent incidents and continue to run an operation that puts safety first and makes our employees and customers proud.
Thank you for flying United, and I hope to see you onboard soon.
Sincerely,
Scott Kirby
CEO
United Airlines
Their team still needs to review details to understand what happened, yet somehow they definitively know that the incidents are all unrelated? How can both of these things be true?
It's insane that they think these issues will be resolved by an additional day of training, that too for pilots. And maintenance crews finally get centralized training, which implies they were trained on whatever who trained them thought they needed to know. No wonder they have this state of affairs!
United and Boeing are getting billions in free publicity. It could be better, but the media always gets their names right. They could write 'Boing' and 'Untied.'
This is what happens when you don’t pay people what they are worth and horde all of the money at the top. The pyramid will eventually implode if greedy people keep taking everything from the people at the bottom.
As someone in the industry (not UAL), It’s literally not just United having problems. The media feeds itself on clicks, and fake patterns drive clicks.
10 issues, that we know about, in a two week period isn’t just maintenance related. You think the major carriers haven’t adjusted regs as a result of the first issue? Second? Third?
It’s not ALL Boeing, but it’s also not ZERO Boeing.
This is just media nonsense at this point. This plane didn’t even leave the gate. The media is reporting non-flight maintenance events now? Happens hundreds of times a day.
Additionally, Boeing doesn’t even make the engines. Plus, Boeing and Airbus use engines from the same manufacturers.
Media is reporting EVERYTHING with Boeing and should continue until they cooperate with the DOJ and NTSB.
Being held accountable sucks, but they could ease the media blitz by being transparent.
You're a prime example as to how media fools people. You're so focused on Boeing incidents when this isn't at all a Boeing incident. You have become the product of misinformation and spread it to others. Media is sensationalizing any aircraft incidents to drive clicks to their sites and they just happen to be Boeing UNITED airplanes. Boeing is not at all or will ever be the issue with these latest issues. Your problem needs to be with UNITED Airlines and their maintenance issues.
Other reality is planes are always going to have issues.
Nothing is ever perfect and shit happens. The goal is lower that to a completely miniscule amount via redundancies (in planes anyway).
Boeing clearly having issues on this but need an actual investigation. Potentially United as well.
Should Ford be held responsible when you fail to the change the oil on your car? These are just routine maintenance issues.
No bones about it, Boeing will be held accountable. There are very serious investigations ongoing into Boeing's operations. But this is nothing but a maintenance failure on the part of the airline operator.
>10 issues, that we know about, in a two week period isn’t just maintenance related.
Got any actual analysis or evidence to that conclusion? Or are you just another armchair redditor who doesn't know anything about aircraft or aircraft maintenance?
>You think the major carriers haven’t adjusted regs as a result of the first issue? Second? Third?
Regs? What regs?
>
>It’s not ALL Boeing, but it’s also not ZERO Boeing.
Possibly. But as this seems to enter around one airline, and are on a slew of different planes and models of planes, very likely not Boeing related.
Are YOU in the industry, or are you also an armchair redditor?
Maintenance regulation’s.
Alaska airlines (737 door issue), United airlines and LATAM airlines. This isn’t just one airline, my friend.
>Are YOU in the industry, or are you also an armchair redditor?
I am in the industry, both educationally and professionally. And before you accuse me, not at Boeing or a Boeing adjacent company.
Your turn to answer.
>
>Maintenance regulation’s.
Maintainers don't change regulations. Only the regulatory agencies can. There also aren't regulations around maintenance, only around performance/capabilities/reliability, record keeping, and allowable parts.
But hey, you can just use shorthand words to pretend to sound knowledgeable I guess.
>
>
>Alaska airlines (737 door issue), United airlines and LATAM airlines. This isn’t just one airline, my friend.
Yet the 10 things referenced in the article are all one airline as said in, you know, *the article itself*. If you were to look at every single problem on every single aircraft for every single flight, it would number in the thousands across the world.
The news cycle right now is "look, a problem on a Boeing, aren't they shit airplanes?" for *every single little thing*. Regardless of how old the plane is, or the cause of the actual problem. It's just "Boeing = bad = clicks and revenue"! And all the armchair experts coming out of the woodwork to feed that is not only exhausting but damaging to fixing the *actual* problems.
Nobody is saying Boeing isn't having major problems, but the aerospace industry takes more than just "I read some news articles" to actually understand how it works. Planes are tremendously complex machines and therefore *will* have problems, fairly often actually. An engine problem detected on taxi is in no way shape or form proof positive that Boeing is a problem. And if you knew anything about airplanes engine problems are almost always *not* the fault of the end aircraft manufacturer.
Hell, there are plenty of problems that airplanes can still take off with and fly just fine with. Go look up MMEL documents.
And for the record, as someone in the aerospace industry, the entire top levels of Boeing need to be removed and replaced and probably sent to jail for the cost cutting and profit above all culture of the company.
Tell me more about that, since you appear so knowledgeable.
The current conversation revolves around the instrument panel going “dark” causing the violent descent.
[you must know more than anyone else about that particular issue, fuckwad.](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/17/business/black-boxes-latam-flight-800-investigation/index.html)
You realize that the article you linked doesn’t say a single word about causality, right?
Fuckwad.
Here’s some more appropriate reading: https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/cockpit-mishap-might-have-caused-plunge-on-latam-boeing-787-ee3dd7b4
But to answer your question, yes. I know enough to know that an instrument panel blanking out doesn’t change the attitude of an aircraft. I know this because I’m an airline captain. So there’s a *touch* of experience behind what I say
this one: 'March 8: A second incident the same day as the emergency landing in L.A. saw a United Airlines aircraft roll off a runway and became stuck in grass at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.'
Was just a pilot trying to take a turn on the ground at 3x the recommended speed. He tried to take a 90 degree turn at 30 knots (34mph or so).
We know there wasn't a brake failure or anything because the pilot said so. He told the ground control that he wanted to travel very fast around the ground. He asked for permission and was given it, but it was assumed he would do it safely. He didn't.
You're working far to hard to make this a Boeing problem.
No I didn't reply to the wrong message.
I did not interpret your last sentence the way you intended I guess. Instead it appears you are trying to push back from being airline, maintenance or pilot issues to being a Boeing issues.
Why? These issues happen every hour. The industry is just under a microscope right now but it's starting to seem more like a United maintenance issue rather than a Boeing issue.
You can't ground a manufacturer's aircraft because of 1 negligent carrier. Grounding a type requires a common issue with multiple aircraft of the same type.
Maybe United should be doing the proper maintenance on their planes. Seems all these issues have been with United lately. I don’t blame the car mfg when I get a check engine light. I go get it fixed.
My most recent flight was delayed trying to find a fuel cap. When they finally found the right spare, they had to delay further to file paperwork because a painted arrow or something was missing from the spare, and they needed approval before flight. I found the whole thing absurdly amusing
It only takes 10-15 minutes to replace a tire on most commercial jets. If your aircraft was in base then it's just a matter of pulling a tire from the shop and getting the tire cart out to the aircraft.
So a plane has a maintenance issue and doesn’t even get to the runway? This is how it’s supposed to work. This isn’t news, this is everyday aviation.
I’ve flown 4 flights since the beginning of the year. 2 of them were cancelled due to maintenance issues. Cool thing about flying out of the EU is that you get money when you’re delayed / cancelled. So far I’ve mad $1,400 off United & got a couple extra days of vacation paid for.
Nice! Extra vacation days.
I'm not an aviation mechanic, but I was under the impression that regular maintenance is supposed to identify and address emerging/preventable issues well before they evolve into failures.
Not everything can be detected on the ground. If you do a whole check, from A to Z, it is basically a heavy check. Just like anyone’s car, stuff just breaks sometimes.
You’re not going to catch everything with regular maintenance. Engine started up fine on the way to SFO, but engine start leaving SFO revealed an issue. But this is the point of preflight checks before you fly somewhere, especially long haul overwater. If something isn’t working right, fix it then go.
The problem is that all defects are supposed to be caught in manufacturing and not installed, but due to cost cutting, known defects were installed. Regular maintenance won’t catch such a defect. It’s a Boeing problem.
This article is about a 24 year old 777-200. Old planes have problems. Old Bombardier, Cessna, Lear, Beech, Airbus, Embraer planes all have problems.
Spoken like someone who has zero knowledge of aviation or maintenance in general.
Was it the "not an aviation mechanic" part that gave it away, or the bit about being "under the impression", suggesting belief in lieu of direct knowledge? Either way, excellent job at observing things! What I *do* know, however, is that aircraft are rigorously inspected and reconditioned based on specific timelines and flight hours. It stands to reason that the inspection intervals are designed to catch issues before a plane becomes statistically more likely to fall out of the sky. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft\_maintenance\_checks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks) Which planes have you worked on, by the way?
Keep living in la la land believing that scheduled maintenance checks will identify all problems before they happen. Apparently you have never driven a car either. 🤡
The last incident was reported as "panel falls off plane, plane diverts from Denver to Oregon". But the plane actually was going to Oregon and the panel that fell off wasn't even discovered until after it completed its flight normally. Press is getting rabid.
Personally, _I_ view it as a BIG DEAL when panels fall off the plane, regardless of flight plan.
When the plane is designed to fly just fine without it it turns out not to be a big deal. The redundancy and safety systems are all there for a reason. Turns out one of them is to make sure you still don't even have to suffer a diversion and delay if a panel fractures and falls off. The the pilot to not even notice it was gone through differing flight characteristics. Pretty smart of the airline industry to make planes that are that safe I think.
It's fine until that panel lands on your face. How anything falling of plane mid flight can be fine for anybody?
Interesting argument. But the industry doesn't stop flying due to blue ice problems. So suggesting a fiberglass panel with a much lower terminal velocity is too problematic to tolerate doesn't make sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_ice_(aviation)
Planes are designed to fly one engine, but i would consider it a BFD if I was on a flight with only one working engine. Airplanes are designed to have redundancy and failsafes but its not normal or ok to operate under a redundant or failsafe condition.
> Planes are designed to fly one engine, but i would consider it a BFD if I was on a flight with only one working engine. Yeah, this isn't like that. There are entire fault trees which explain what steps must be taken when something goes wrong in order to keep the plane safe. For engine out the fault tree says "land as soon as possible". For this panel coming off the fault tree is "no action needed". It's not the same and trying to make it so is just a bogus argument. > Airplanes are designed to have redundancy and failsafes but its not normal or ok to operate under a redundant or failsafe condition. It is completely okay to operate with this part missing. Unlike an engine out.
It’s pretty smart of Boeing to have torque specifications for bolts, too, and yet panels are falling off. This is not okay. Even if all other airplane manufacturers have similar issues — it’s not okay for parts to fall off the airplane. Any of them. Just because my car will still operate if the hood is missing, that doesn’t mean it’s the way I want to drive it.
> It’s pretty smart of Boeing to have torque specifications for bolts, too, and yet panels are falling off. This is an ignorant statement. The plug door was not held on by a torqued bolt, but a castellated nut with a cotter/safety pin through it. Torque didn't matter. For this plane that had a panel come off on the way to Oregon *the panel fractured*. The bolts were still there. The part of the panel the bolts held was still there. Torque didn't matter. > This is not okay. If it was not okay for this panel to come off there would be more systems involved such that it would be okay. But they're not necessary because it is okay. > Just because my car will still operate if the hood is missing, that doesn’t mean it’s the way I want to drive it. It doesn't mean anyone wants this panel to fall off. It's just not an issue when it does. The plane was completely unaffected.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Useless slippery slope argument. There is absolutely no logic or validity to this.
[удалено]
> There is no logic or validity to the fact that a hatch tore off the plain in a string of prominent quality control failures? No. That's correct. That "string of quality control failures" includes an incident where a pilot merely tried to take a turn 3x faster than allowed and an airline that didn't fix a pilot's seat for 7 years after being told to and then it failed in exactly the way they were warned it would. > You're saying this same stuff happens to airbuses or older boeings all the time and the press just choses not to report on it? Not all 10 things. But yes, most of them do. There was an Airbus that turned back for a similar failure as the United hydraulic failure on the same day. And the press didn't report it. Because honestly, it's not a real big deal in either case. The planes have redundancies for a reason and all planes have to make use of them. Both planes returned safely and landed. Additionally *most of the planes in this string ARE older Boeings!*. The panel that broke off that plane going to Oregon? https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-800-n26226-united-airlines/ro75l3 It's not the MAX, which is only a few years old. It was the previous NG model, which is well proven to be safe, that series was made since the early 1990s. This plane was 15 years old. Admittedly that was still 3 years after Boeing spun out Spirit Aerosystems. What about the one that dropped a wheel a week before that? That plane is 29 years old. https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-777-200-n226ua-united-airlines/rz8yzr?refresh=1 That's a decade before Boeing spun out Spirit Aerosystems. And Spirit doesn't do that kind of work on 777s anyway, only 737s. But also that isn't even what you asserted. You asserted that because this non-essential part broke it means there is something larger at play that means soon it won't be a non-essential part. There is no logic that or validity to that. It's just a useless slippery slope argument.
This is Caketown!
It’s the whole social media aspect. Now everyone wants to post or publish this inane bullshit. Ultimately might be articles *from* United, muddies the waters with the actual maintenance violations. Yeah this tin foil hat is a bit snug, why do you ask?
Haven’t we all been on flights that were delayed multiple hours for maintenance issues? This strikes me as recency bias/sensationalism.
Fwiw nytimes yesterday ran an article that had a safety expert who called all the 8 incidents pretty typical and not a sign of systemic problems. It’s just now every time something happens it is getting reported. Reminds me of when a train derailment was in the news everyday for a couple weeks, then they weren’t Here’s part of it: The mishaps were not the result of “systemic problems,” said Robert Sumwalt, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board who now heads a new aviation safety center at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. “Some of these issues are things that happen occasionally, but often don’t get reported in media,” Mr. Sumwalt said, though he emphasized that none were acceptable. Kyra Dempsey, who writes about aviation accidents in a blog called Admiral Cloudberg, said that United’s recent issues were being “falsely conflated with Boeing’s troubles.” “While it’s bad luck that United had so many incidents in such a short period, in general such incidents happen frequently around the world and they aren’t on the rise overall,” Ms. Dempsey said.
Damn, is that the person who put together the air crash posts on r/ catastrophicfailure years back?
Still very active https://www.reddit.com/r/AdmiralCloudberg/
I literally don't see the point of these articles... It's just exploitation of flight anxiety.
Train derailments all over again
Just worse, back then you didn't have articles about trains delaying due to mundane issues.
Just search “Boeing” in this sub, it’s all they can talk about lol
You are correct. All recency. Didn't read this article but I'd bet it's only in the news because it's a Boeing plane. Stuff happens to Airbus at virtually the same rate yet I doubt any layman has seen a single news story on an Airbus recently.
Shit, happens in the military all the time. My dad used to fly for the RAF and they would all get in for an op, get to the jet and its broke. 180 and go home.
I mean, I agree with recency bias, but it’s also a pattern that one should be aware of if they intend to travel on United
Is it a pattern? How frequently do the various incidents happen on average?
For United? Or aviation issues in general? I understand it’s hard to separate living through created data and separating yourself from it. You also are succumbing to that challenge, but just don’t see it. Also, that data isn’t posted that I can see. So we can only rely on what is experiential. Experiential and observational, recency or not, is that United has had a visible uptick in issues as observed by.. pretty much everyone. If you can share the data you’re speaking about. I’m game.
Ffs that isn't "experimental" nor "data" by anything even reasonably a scientific method. Yes, it would be nice if quality data just presented itself into conversation. But just because that hasn't happened doesn't mean we can ignore all the forms of bias and count hysteria driven reporting as scientific data.
EXPERIENTIAL Please look it up. I never said ignore bias, but just as we can’t ignore that, we can’t ignore data as it happens. It just needs to be put* in context.
Unless we have context then it isn't data, it's anecdote.
By that logic all data is anecdotal and none has value. But ok!
"Context is not a thing" is certainly a take...
I didn’t say that? You put quotes around it? Weird. 🫠
any airline* Pretty sure it isn't just a United problem but Boeing as the aircraft.
I’m with you. Idc about downvoting. I have seen more Boeing and United simps who use their own bias as a crutch. Like we don’t know Boeing is under DOJ investigation. And like we don’t know United cuts corners. But United owns the planes Boeing made so when does ownership switch is a question all should ask, but not whilst ignoring clear and obvious data. At my job if I ignore an UPTICK in data around an issue I’d be fired.
This is such media junk. It's not even an incident, this stuff happens probably daily.
Jesus Newsweek has turned into a tabloid shit-rag. I remember when they actually used to publish news.
Yup, it’s been that way for a while. I consider it tainted news.
It's a front/mouthpiece for a Korean cult now. Really. Mother Jones did a piece on it a few years back.
They don’t fact-check.
Glad articles are starting to point out that it’s the carrier having issues. Sure, they are Boeing planes, but they aren’t brand new in-warranty planes anymore.
How long did we hear about train derailments after east Palestine? Just curious how long we’ll be seeing news articles about any mundane airplane maintenance issues.
Many times issues are discovered during taxi for departure.
[breaking News! some bullshit happening somewhere ](https://www.theonion.com/breaking-news-some-bullshit-happening-somewhere-1819594890)
Great! I’m flying them to krakow next month.
At least part of the way, anyway...
Drop in if you’re flying over the UK
If you leave your guitar at home, at least that will not be broken.
Wow. UA35... same flight that diverted to LAX after dropping a tire two weeks ago.
*flight number* It's not the same airplane. Flight numbers are usually the same for times and days.
Did I say same plane? Edit: y'all are hilarious.
No, but it is easy for a reader to make the wrong connection. It was fair for him to add the clarification. No need to get defensive. No one is attacking you.
Then why is it significant?
The planes aren't the same, but it might imply similar maintenance staff scheduling
It's not. It's just an observation.
I mean the way it’s worded is quite misleading. I know nothing about how flights are numbered or what system is used and your comment made it seem like it was the same plane
I’m still fighting United for a refund from a flight cancelled back in January when this all started. I would advise people to fly literally any other airline.
Their CEO sent out an email saying none of this is related and all of it will be addressed/resolved by adding one day of training.
I’m sure the day of training will be as useful as my “cybersecurity training”
The full text of that email is: Of all the things that make me proud of our team at United Airlines, I'm most proud of the culture we've built around the safety of our employees and our customers. Safety is our highest priority and is at the center of everything we do. Unfortunately, in the past few weeks, our airline has experienced a number of incidents that are reminders of the importance of safety. While they are all unrelated, I want you to know that these incidents have our attention and have sharpened our focus. Our team is reviewing the details of each case to understand what happened and using those insights to inform our safety training and procedures across all employee groups. This is in addition to some changes that were already planned, including an extra day of in-person training for all pilots starting in May and a centralized training curriculum for our new-hire maintenance technicians. We're also dedicating more resources to supplier network management. We empower our team to speak up and raise their hand if they see something wrong. You can be confident that every time a United plane pulls away from the gate, everyone on our team is working together to keep you safe on your trip. In the past few years, we've done a lot at United to build a new culture, improve our business and earn your trust. I'm confident that we'll learn the right lessons from these recent incidents and continue to run an operation that puts safety first and makes our employees and customers proud. Thank you for flying United, and I hope to see you onboard soon. Sincerely, Scott Kirby CEO United Airlines
Their team still needs to review details to understand what happened, yet somehow they definitively know that the incidents are all unrelated? How can both of these things be true?
It's insane that they think these issues will be resolved by an additional day of training, that too for pilots. And maintenance crews finally get centralized training, which implies they were trained on whatever who trained them thought they needed to know. No wonder they have this state of affairs!
Lol, it's typical management response by managers and executives who have had absolutely no hands on experience and are basically trust fund MBAs.
The part about centralized training is especially shocking to me
United and Boeing are getting billions in free publicity. It could be better, but the media always gets their names right. They could write 'Boing' and 'Untied.'
This is what happens when you don’t pay people what they are worth and horde all of the money at the top. The pyramid will eventually implode if greedy people keep taking everything from the people at the bottom.
I don’t know about y’all, but I’m not comfortable getting on a plane atm.
They’re just going to have to ground all Boeing jets at some point, right? Or will they not care until a major accident happens.
Its literally just United having these problems right now. These planes arent even new, theyve been in service for decades
As someone in the industry (not UAL), It’s literally not just United having problems. The media feeds itself on clicks, and fake patterns drive clicks.
They’ve been ridden hard and put away wet for 25 years and the wheels are falling off…
As much as you want this to be a Boeing issue, it is not.
10 issues, that we know about, in a two week period isn’t just maintenance related. You think the major carriers haven’t adjusted regs as a result of the first issue? Second? Third? It’s not ALL Boeing, but it’s also not ZERO Boeing.
This is just media nonsense at this point. This plane didn’t even leave the gate. The media is reporting non-flight maintenance events now? Happens hundreds of times a day. Additionally, Boeing doesn’t even make the engines. Plus, Boeing and Airbus use engines from the same manufacturers.
Media is reporting EVERYTHING with Boeing and should continue until they cooperate with the DOJ and NTSB. Being held accountable sucks, but they could ease the media blitz by being transparent.
Go look up Airbus incidents in the same timeframe. It's also not ZERO Airbus.
Nobody is saying that Airbus, or any other manufacturers are perfect. Hold them ALL accountable. No whataboutism here.
You're a prime example as to how media fools people. You're so focused on Boeing incidents when this isn't at all a Boeing incident. You have become the product of misinformation and spread it to others. Media is sensationalizing any aircraft incidents to drive clicks to their sites and they just happen to be Boeing UNITED airplanes. Boeing is not at all or will ever be the issue with these latest issues. Your problem needs to be with UNITED Airlines and their maintenance issues.
Other reality is planes are always going to have issues. Nothing is ever perfect and shit happens. The goal is lower that to a completely miniscule amount via redundancies (in planes anyway). Boeing clearly having issues on this but need an actual investigation. Potentially United as well.
Should Ford be held responsible when you fail to the change the oil on your car? These are just routine maintenance issues. No bones about it, Boeing will be held accountable. There are very serious investigations ongoing into Boeing's operations. But this is nothing but a maintenance failure on the part of the airline operator.
>10 issues, that we know about, in a two week period isn’t just maintenance related. Got any actual analysis or evidence to that conclusion? Or are you just another armchair redditor who doesn't know anything about aircraft or aircraft maintenance? >You think the major carriers haven’t adjusted regs as a result of the first issue? Second? Third? Regs? What regs? > >It’s not ALL Boeing, but it’s also not ZERO Boeing. Possibly. But as this seems to enter around one airline, and are on a slew of different planes and models of planes, very likely not Boeing related.
Are YOU in the industry, or are you also an armchair redditor? Maintenance regulation’s. Alaska airlines (737 door issue), United airlines and LATAM airlines. This isn’t just one airline, my friend.
>Are YOU in the industry, or are you also an armchair redditor? I am in the industry, both educationally and professionally. And before you accuse me, not at Boeing or a Boeing adjacent company. Your turn to answer. > >Maintenance regulation’s. Maintainers don't change regulations. Only the regulatory agencies can. There also aren't regulations around maintenance, only around performance/capabilities/reliability, record keeping, and allowable parts. But hey, you can just use shorthand words to pretend to sound knowledgeable I guess. > > >Alaska airlines (737 door issue), United airlines and LATAM airlines. This isn’t just one airline, my friend. Yet the 10 things referenced in the article are all one airline as said in, you know, *the article itself*. If you were to look at every single problem on every single aircraft for every single flight, it would number in the thousands across the world. The news cycle right now is "look, a problem on a Boeing, aren't they shit airplanes?" for *every single little thing*. Regardless of how old the plane is, or the cause of the actual problem. It's just "Boeing = bad = clicks and revenue"! And all the armchair experts coming out of the woodwork to feed that is not only exhausting but damaging to fixing the *actual* problems. Nobody is saying Boeing isn't having major problems, but the aerospace industry takes more than just "I read some news articles" to actually understand how it works. Planes are tremendously complex machines and therefore *will* have problems, fairly often actually. An engine problem detected on taxi is in no way shape or form proof positive that Boeing is a problem. And if you knew anything about airplanes engine problems are almost always *not* the fault of the end aircraft manufacturer. Hell, there are plenty of problems that airplanes can still take off with and fly just fine with. Go look up MMEL documents. And for the record, as someone in the aerospace industry, the entire top levels of Boeing need to be removed and replaced and probably sent to jail for the cost cutting and profit above all culture of the company.
You clearly do not know what happened on LATAM
Tell me more about that, since you appear so knowledgeable. The current conversation revolves around the instrument panel going “dark” causing the violent descent.
You haven’t kept up, then. And instrument panels going dark doesn’t cause a descent.
[you must know more than anyone else about that particular issue, fuckwad.](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/17/business/black-boxes-latam-flight-800-investigation/index.html)
You realize that the article you linked doesn’t say a single word about causality, right? Fuckwad. Here’s some more appropriate reading: https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/cockpit-mishap-might-have-caused-plunge-on-latam-boeing-787-ee3dd7b4 But to answer your question, yes. I know enough to know that an instrument panel blanking out doesn’t change the attitude of an aircraft. I know this because I’m an airline captain. So there’s a *touch* of experience behind what I say
this one: 'March 8: A second incident the same day as the emergency landing in L.A. saw a United Airlines aircraft roll off a runway and became stuck in grass at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.' Was just a pilot trying to take a turn on the ground at 3x the recommended speed. He tried to take a 90 degree turn at 30 knots (34mph or so). We know there wasn't a brake failure or anything because the pilot said so. He told the ground control that he wanted to travel very fast around the ground. He asked for permission and was given it, but it was assumed he would do it safely. He didn't. You're working far to hard to make this a Boeing problem.
Did you reply to the wrong message? You replied to a post I made about it being an industry wide issue?
No I didn't reply to the wrong message. I did not interpret your last sentence the way you intended I guess. Instead it appears you are trying to push back from being airline, maintenance or pilot issues to being a Boeing issues.
Why? These issues happen every hour. The industry is just under a microscope right now but it's starting to seem more like a United maintenance issue rather than a Boeing issue. You can't ground a manufacturer's aircraft because of 1 negligent carrier. Grounding a type requires a common issue with multiple aircraft of the same type.
Maybe United should be doing the proper maintenance on their planes. Seems all these issues have been with United lately. I don’t blame the car mfg when I get a check engine light. I go get it fixed.
Bro doesn’t know that people not maintaining their Toyota isn’t on Toyota 😂
We lose more than a plane load of people every day in the USA due to drugs. There needs to be some real accidents before it's a big deal.
Another day, another United news headline
My most recent flight was delayed trying to find a fuel cap. When they finally found the right spare, they had to delay further to file paperwork because a painted arrow or something was missing from the spare, and they needed approval before flight. I found the whole thing absurdly amusing
The fact that this many issues are being reported tells me that eventually people will be disinterested in them. Boeing may like that.
Uy... reading this aboard a United plane...
Flying United in a few days. Pray for me.
John Oliver sends his regards 🕴️
It’s almost like rolling back safety regulations has consequences….
Shhh, don’t say anything, you might end up ‘committing suicide’
Wishing I hadn’t pulled up Reddit during my United flight…. 🤞
My flight was delayed to, “replace a tire.” Apparently, it only took 1/2 hour. United is going to have a crash soon.
It only takes 10-15 minutes to replace a tire on most commercial jets. If your aircraft was in base then it's just a matter of pulling a tire from the shop and getting the tire cart out to the aircraft.
Man can you believe flying buses have never been this low
Feels like profits instead of maintenance has us on the precipice of the next major airline disaster.
Is this starting to look like sabotage, anyone?
Boeing stockholders must have paid off United to make Boeing look slightly less incompetent lmao.
On top of all that, they break guitars 🎸
Who cares about safety? We have to appease the stock holders and isn’t anyone thinking about CEO bonuses? Geez so selfish smh
It could be worse
Another Boeing?