Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Boeing 737 NG Pickle Fork issues

Options
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,749 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    737-800 deleveries only started in 1999 pretty much:

    Commercial Jets Total Unfilled Total 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997
    737-600 69 — 69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10 3 3 6 5 4 6 24 8 —
    737-700 1,128 — 1,128 — 2 4 6 7 11 12 7 43 23 51 61 101 103 93 109 80 71 85 75 96 85 3
    737-700C 22 — 22 2 — — 3 — 2 — — 1 2 — 1 — 1 — 2 — 2 3 3 — — —
    737-700W 17 3 14 — — — — — — — — — 2 2 — — 5 2 1 1 1 — — — — —
    737-800 4,991 9 4,982 23 269 397 411 396 386 347 351 292 323 283 190 214 172 104 78 69 126 168 185 133 65 —
    737-800A 157 35 122 13 18 17 18 15 13 8 9 5 1 3 2 — — — — — — — — — — —
    737-900 52 — 52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6 6 11 8 21 — — — —
    737-900ER 505 — 505 22 34 37 52 73 70 67 44 24 15 28 30 9 — — — — — — — — — —
    Total 6,941 47 6,894 60 323 455 490 491 482 434 411 365 366 367 284 324 291 208 199 167 213 281 269 253 158 3


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 VivaLasBegas


    Things going from bad to worse for Boeing with all these issues. It's going to cost them an absolute fortune, an eye watering sum of money when all is said and done. Serious questions need to be asked and they could do with a management clearout instead of one sacrificial lamb.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭billie1b


    STB. wrote: »
    Interestingly, two ryanair planes went to Boeing in Seattle on 26th October and remain there. One 15, the other 16 years old.

    https://planefinder.net/data/aircraft/EI-DAL

    https://planefinder.net/data/aircraft/EI-DCL


    That seems to be where the repairs are being carried out in the US for affected planes.


    Are RyanAir playing down possible disruptions ?

    Both planes went to Victorville VCV for their repairs


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Thirdfox wrote: »

    Are the guardian reading boards.ie ? They have found a third eh. But they only tested those over 30000 cycles. That's not what quantas were doing as they are testing anything over 22700 cycles as they found some under 30k.

    From reading that article it is clear that Ryanair are not being upfront. It had to be dragged out of them with leaked logs. Aviation Authority need to step in here and do some checks.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 341 ✭✭lfc200


    STB. wrote: »
    Are the guardian reading boards.ie ? They have found a third eh. But they only tested those over 30000 cycles. That's not what quantas were doing as they are testing anything over 22700 cycles as they found some under 30k.

    From reading that article it is clear that Ryanair are not being upfront. It had to be dragged out of them with leaked logs. Aviation Authority need to step in here and do some checks.

    Why? Ryanair have the planes grounded and for repair. Why do the aviation authority need to step in?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    STB. wrote: »
    Are the guardian reading boards.ie ? They have found a third eh. But they only tested those over 30000 cycles. That's not what quantas were doing as they are testing anything over 22700 cycles as they found some under 30k.

    From reading that article it is clear that Ryanair are not being upfront. It had to be dragged out of them with leaked logs. Aviation Authority need to step in here and do some checks.

    The article says they are in the process of testing aircraft under 30,000 cycles while the over 30,000 have been completed. So far they haven't found anything else.

    They haven't denied it, they clearly stated a small number were found and stated more than once the issue wont have an effect on their operations and fleet availability. I think the paper were looking for Ryanair to tell them x amount were grounded instead of been told they're in the process of been repaired.

    Depending on what the question put to them was, the answer doesn't seem to suggest their not been up front in my opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭Comhrá




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,505 ✭✭✭ElNino


    Typical Ryanair. They have released a statement to RTE stating that the Guardian pickle fork story was rubbish while at the same time confirming that it is true!

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1106/1089049-ryanair-boeing-737/


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    ElNino wrote: »
    Typical Ryanair. They have released a statement to RTE stating that the Guardian pickle fork story was rubbish while at the same time confirming that it is true!

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1106/1089049-ryanair-boeing-737/

    To be fair, since RTÉ doesn’t publish the full statement (unless I have missed it), it could also be their journalist quoting the word rubbish out of context.

    But yeah - having said that it does sound like Ryanair talk :-D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Would it be correct to presume that Boeing are going to have to contribute towards the cost of replacing a major structural part this far in advance of its design life?

    If it is supposed to last the lifetime of the air frame (i.e not the usual wear and tear issue) which the pickle fork is or there is a design fault than it's not just a case of Boeing contributing towards the cost, rather Boeing would be fully liable for the cost.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    GM228 wrote: »
    If it is supposed to last the lifetime of the air frame (i.e not the usual wear and tear issue) which the pickle fork is or there is a design fault than it's not just a case of Boeing contributing towards the cost, rather Boeing would be fully liable for the cost.


    Agreed. At approx. €250,000 per air frame I doubt the carrier is going to pick up the tab for a design / manufacturing flaw.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Agreed. At approx. €250,000 per air frame I doubt the carrier is going to pick up the tab for a design / manufacturing flaw.

    Especially since the simple fact of not being able to use the plane while it is being repaired is probably costing the airline money in the first place.

    Do we know how long the plane is unavailable for and how much of a financial impact that might have?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Especially since the simple fact of not being able to use the plane while it is being repaired is probably costing the airline money in the first place.

    Do we know how long the plane is unavailable for and how much of a financial impact that might have?
    I've read one article that indicated that in the US the loss in revenue could be in the region of USD$150,000 per air frame per day. What that translates into in loss of profit would depend on the margins the airline operates.


    The daily cost to lease a replacement air frame if available would be in the region of USD$12,000 per day.



    With approx 5% of the aircraft examined to date needing remedial work now and assuming most other aircraft will need remedial work at some stage during their lifetime I can see Boeing having to set aside a substantial sum against future costs of fixing this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    IE 222 wrote: »
    The article says they are in the process of testing aircraft under 30,000 cycles while the over 30,000 have been completed. So far they haven't found anything else.

    They haven't denied it, they clearly stated a small number were found and stated more than once the issue wont have an effect on their operations and fleet availability. I think the paper were looking for Ryanair to tell them x amount were grounded instead of been told they're in the process of been repaired.

    Depending on what the question put to them was, the answer doesn't seem to suggest their not been up front in my opinion.

    They weren't upfront. They were silent.

    When the story broke about the problems with the NG series, and in particular Quantas who released a lot of detail about their tests, RyanAir said it does not expect flights it operates to be affected. That is despite 3 of their planes already in the US being fixed for this very issue.


    It is only when the guardian contacted them with internal engineering reports that they finally confirmed that some of their planes were affected.


    They still have not confirmed how many cycles those planes had (raises a lot more questions) and how many more planes they have inspected. They are using the FAA's suggested testing regime, yet the FAA have no standing in Ireland. Quantas have pointed out the importance of looking at anything over 22k.


    Despite the averages being quoted of their fleet, there are 70 planes that are at least 13 years old. By their very business model, they have a lot of short haul flights which may also result in higher than average cycles.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,011 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    STB. wrote: »
    They weren't upfront. They were silent.

    When the story broke about the problems with the NG series, and in particular Quantas who released a lot of detail about their tests, RyanAir said it does not expect flights it operates to be affected. That is despite 3 of their planes already in the US being fixed for this very issue.


    It is only when the guardian contacted them with internal engineering reports that they finally confirmed that some of their planes were affected.

    They still have not confirmed how many cycles those planes had (raises a lot more questions) and how many more planes they have inspected. They are using the FAA's suggested testing regime, yet the FAA have no standing in Ireland. Quantas have pointed out the importance of looking at anything over 22k.


    Despite the averages being quoted of their fleet, there are 70 planes that are at least 13 years old. By their very business model, they have a lot of short haul flights which may also result in higher than average cycles.


    It doesn't affect their operations. They've 3 planes out of 450 out of service during the winter schedule.

    And why should Ryanair make everything public, just because Qantas did? Airworthiness directives occur all the time and don't become public knowledge. This probably wouldn't have either if it wasn't for the MAX issue. Ryanair have stated that they've checked all aircraft with 30k cycles and are in the process of checking aircraft with lower cycles.

    You're looking to find something that isn't there. Ryanairs safety record is second to none.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    STB. wrote: »
    They weren't upfront. They were silent.

    When the story broke about the problems with the NG series, and in particular Quantas who released a lot of detail about their tests, RyanAir said it does not expect flights it operates to be affected. That is despite 3 of their planes already in the US being fixed for this very issue.


    It is only when the guardian contacted them with internal engineering reports that they finally confirmed that some of their planes were affected.


    They still have not confirmed how many cycles those planes had (raises a lot more questions) and how many more planes they have inspected. They are using the FAA's suggested testing regime, yet the FAA have no standing in Ireland. Quantas have pointed out the importance of looking at anything over 22k.


    Despite the averages being quoted of their fleet, there are 70 planes that are at least 13 years old. By their very business model, they have a lot of short haul flights which may also result in higher than average cycles.

    They were up front.

    The paper were looking for a saucy story thinking if Quantas with a smaller fleet had to ground planes that surely Ryanair with a much large fleet were going to have to ground planes and cancel 100s of flight on the run up to Christmas. That's the headline they were hoping to get.

    I'm guessing there is a PR element from Quantas and are been a bit more vocal about it as they are heading into their summer schedule now and will be very reliant on these aircraft. Should they need to cancel flights, highlighting the fact this is a Boeing fault will take a lot of the criticism away from them.

    3 planes from a fleet of 450 is not going to have an impact on operations. They will park a lot than 3 planes up for the winter period. If 3 planes were going to have a dramatic effect on operations serious questions would have to asked as to how they can operate safely with such a tight a margin on their fleet.

    I really don't understand what Ryanair would be gaining from a cover up. Its a fault on Boeing's shoulders nothing to do with Ryanair. Do you expect every airline to report to the media once a plane is sent in for repair work?

    The statement clearly states they are beginning to look at aircraft under 30,000 cycles which could include brand new aircraft. They were given a 7 month window to do the under 30,000 cycles aircraft and judging by the statement they've been very proactive in checking these earlier than required of them.

    Well if they don't use the FAA guidance on the matter who do you suggest they listen to? Nobody else has instructed them to do this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    It doesn't affect their operations. They've 3 planes out of 450 out of service during the winter schedule.

    And why should Ryanair make everything public, just because Qantas did? Airworthiness directives occur all the time and don't become public knowledge. This probably wouldn't have either if it wasn't for the MAX issue. Ryanair have stated that they've checked all aircraft with 30k cycles and are in the process of checking aircraft with lower cycles.

    You're looking to find something that isn't there. Ryanairs safety record is second to none.

    They have not checked 450 planes. They finally admitted yesterday that they have 3 in for the issue. This was from the fleet that had more than 30k in pressure cycles. They haven't indicated how many cycles the three affected have. They haven't indicated how many they Have inspected or the number they have to inspect. They have 70 planes that are at least 13 years old. They need to be upfront for customers to feel safe. This is clearly something both yourself and IE 222 are not grasping so stop stating that it's 3 out of 450. They haven't inspected 450.

    I'm not concerned about Ryanair's safety record. I am concerned about Boeing's. The lack of QA and the self regulation is well documented by previous whistleblowers in Boeing.

    They should be upfront for customers piece of mind. They are one of the largest operators with NGs in Europe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    STB. wrote: »
    They have not checked 450 planes. They finally admitted yesterday that they have 3 in for the issue. This was from the fleet that had more than 30k in pressure cycles. They haven't indicated how many cycles the three affected have. They haven't indicated how many they have to inspect. They have 70 planes that are at least 13 years old. They need to be upfront for customers to feel safe.

    I'm not concerned about Ryanair's safety record. I am concerned about Boeing's. The lack of QA and the self regulation is well documented in previous whistleblowers in Boeing.

    You should have another reading of your own link.

    All planes with over 30,000 cycles have been checked and completed. They only found 3 with the issue. The remaining 67 have been found to have no faults. Why do you need to know the precise number of cycles? They were told to split the fleet into over 30k or under 30k which they have done. What more are you asking for them to do? You got to remember this issue isn't a failure it's only concern.

    Now they've started to check the remaining planes with less than 30,000 cycles and so far haven't found any with the issue.

    What part of that are you not understanding?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,011 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    STB. wrote: »
    They have not checked 450 planes. They finally admitted yesterday that they have 3 in for the issue. This was from the fleet that had more than 30k in pressure cycles. They haven't indicated how many cycles the three affected have. They haven't indicated how many they Have inspected or the number they have to inspect. They have 70 planes that are at least 13 years old. They need to be upfront for customers to feel safe. This is clearly something both yourself and IE 222 are not grasping so stop stating that it's 3 out of 450. They haven't inspected 450.

    I'm not concerned about Ryanair's safety record. I am concerned about Boeing's. The lack of QA and the self regulation is well documented by previous whistleblowers in Boeing.

    They should be upfront for customers piece of mind. They are one of the largest operators with NGs in Europe.

    No it's you who's not grasping how an airworthiness directive works. They (and all NG operators worldwide) were told to check all aircraft over 30K cycles. They've done that, stating that they've checked over 70 of the oldest aircraft in the fleet. They're now in the process of checking aircraft below 30K cycles.
    In a statement to RTÉ News, Ryanair said Boeing is carrying out repairs on behalf of the airline after an inspection of more than 70 of its oldest aircraft in full compliance with the Airworthiness Directive.
    Ryanair said it has completed all the Airworthiness Directive inspections "on the small number of our fleet with over 30,000 cycles, we are now engaged in inspections of other aircraft in the fleet with under 30,000 cycles and we are not finding any further issues."

    Also nobody claimed they checked 450 aircraft. But that is their fleet size so 3 grounded aircraft won't affect their operations.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    IE 222 wrote: »
    You should have another reading of your own link.

    All planes with over 30,000 cycles have been checked and completed. They only found 3 with the issue. The remaining 67 have been found to have no faults. Why do you need to know the precise number of cycles? They were told to split the fleet into over 30k or under 30k which they have done. What more are you asking for them to do? You got to remember this issue isn't a failure it's only concern.

    Now they've started to check the remaining planes with less than 30,000 cycles and so far haven't found any with the issue.

    What part of that are you not understanding?

    I linked nothing.

    Boeing wrote to ALL their customers at the end of SEPTEMBER. I did link that email over a week ago. The first acknowledgement that RyanAir had planes affected by the serious defect was YESTERDAY.

    The FAA do not govern Ireland, so their direction to Irish airlines had no standing here. Their recommendation was those above 30k cycles must be tested within 7 days. Quantas also adopted their own testing regime way beyond what the FAA had directed as they had found some with only 25k with this structural problem. That is why airlines should be upfront especially with their milage. Ryanair are the largest NG customer in Europe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,702 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    STB. wrote: »
    I linked nothing.

    Boeing wrote to ALL their customers at the end of SEPTEMBER. I did link that email over a week ago. The first acknowledgement that RyanAir had planes affected by the serious defect was YESTERDAY.

    The FAA do not govern Ireland, so their direction to Irish airlines had no standing here. Their recommendation was those above 30k cycles must be tested within 7 days. Quantas also adopted their own testing regime way beyond what the FAA had directed as they had found some with only 25k with this structural problem. That is why airlines should be upfront especially with their milage. Ryanair are the largest NG customer in Europe.


    Should Dublin Bus tell you when they find a crack on the rear axle of the 46A?



    An airworthiness directive was issued, Ryanair followed it and found three aircraft with the issue. One is in Bordeaux at the minute and the other two went to Victorville on Oct 26 for repairs. They have zero obligation to inform people.



    The FAA have no standing in Ireland when it comes to regulatory oversight, but they do with Boeing and if they issue a directive on a US produced aircraft (or part) then it must be adhered to globally.


    Aircraft go tech every day for all sorts of reasons, next time you fly with Aer Lingus, if your on EI-DUO should they tell you before boarding that it had a major fire in the cargo hold a few years back that damaged the airframe?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    46A indeed. If you are going to use an analogy pick one that compares with flying at 38 thousand feet above the ground. The option to pull in is limited.

    This is a major structural defect in planes that worsens over time. The latest in the Boeing saga. A litany of oversight failures by the manufacturer and the regulator.

    Yes Airlines do have responsibilities to their customers. They also have responsibilities to maintaing their good name. You can only do that by being upfront. The guardian article shouldn't have prompted the releasing of information. They have known of the widespread possible issue since the end of September.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,702 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    STB. wrote: »
    46A indeed. If you are going to use an analogy pick one that compares with flying at 38 thousand feet above the ground. The option to pull in is limited.

    This is a major structural defect in planes that worsens over time. The latest in the Boeing saga. A litany of oversight failures by the manufacturer and the regulator.

    Yes Airlines do have responsibilities to their customers. They also have responsibilities to maintaing their good name. You can only do that by being upfront. The guardian article shouldn't have prompted the releasing of information. They have known of the widespread possible issue since the end of September.


    You didn't answer the question, should an airline inform customers off all aircraft inspected following an airworthiness directive?



    Only something like 5% of the total checked worldwide have been found to have the issue (which is non critical when identified early) FR didn't the pull the wool over anyone's eyes... they done the inspections when required and pulled the 3 frames found to have the issue, then flew two of them across the Atlantic, which they wouldn't have done if there was any danger with the defects found. And the third is in Bordeaux awaiting its turn for repair.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,011 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    STB. wrote: »
    46A indeed. If you are going to use an analogy pick one that compares with flying at 38 thousand feet above the ground. The option to pull in is limited.

    This is a major structural defect in planes that worsens over time. The latest in the Boeing saga. A litany of oversight failures by the manufacturer and the regulator.

    Yes Airlines do have responsibilities to their customers. They also have responsibilities to maintaing their good name. You can only do that by being upfront. The guardian article shouldn't have prompted the releasing of information. They have known of the widespread possible issue since the end of September.

    Here a list of all the airworthiness directives for 737s going back to 2007. There's are hundreds of them. There have been 15 for the NG alone since Jan 2018. Airworthiness directives are regular occurrences and as I said before, this would not have been mainstream news without the MAX issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    STB. wrote: »
    They are using the FAA's suggested testing regime, yet the FAA have no standing in Ireland.
    STB. wrote: »
    The FAA do not govern Ireland, so their direction to Irish airlines had no standing here.

    Actually all EASA states are legally bound by non EASA ADs.

    A FAA issued AD (or indeed any non EASA AD) is valid in EASA states unless the EASA issue a different AD or a directive of non applicability.

    As the EASA has not issued a different AD or a directive of non applicability the FAA AD is valid here and must be followed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    STB. wrote: »
    I linked nothing.

    Boeing wrote to ALL their customers at the end of SEPTEMBER. I did link that email over a week ago. The first acknowledgement that RyanAir had planes affected by the serious defect was YESTERDAY.

    The FAA do not govern Ireland, so their direction to Irish airlines had no standing here. Their recommendation was those above 30k cycles must be tested within 7 days. Quantas also adopted their own testing regime way beyond what the FAA had directed as they had found some with only 25k with this structural problem. That is why airlines should be upfront especially with their milage. Ryanair are the largest NG customer in Europe.

    Still don't get were your going with this.

    Its cycles, not mileage, that counts. No airline is hiding anything. Quantas took it upon themselves to check aircraft below the 30,000 cycles and found the faults occurred with them also. They then issued their findings back to the FAA who revised the AD.

    FAA don't govern Ireland but they govern Boeing planes. If the FAA grounded Boeing planes and an Irish airline ignored this, because they don't govern Ireland, would you be happy to apply your line of thought to that?

    Your actually in conspiracy theory territory here. Normally I'd only expect to see this type of madness slapped on the front page of The Mail or Sun.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Still don't get were your going with this.

    Its cycles, not mileage, that counts. No airline is hiding anything. Quantas took it upon themselves to check aircraft below the 30,000 cycles and found the faults occurred with them also. They then issued their findings back to the FAA who revised the AD.

    FAA don't govern Ireland but they govern Boeing planes. If the FAA grounded Boeing planes and an Irish airline ignored this, because they don't govern Ireland, would you be happy to apply your line of thought to that?

    Your actually in conspiracy theory territory here. Normally I'd only expect to see this type of madness slapped on the front page of The Mail or Sun.

    I used the word mileage as a usage term. I clearly know its cycles and have stated as much in previous posts. And your right cycles do count. Short haul operators would be more susceptible to the stress on what is meant to be indestructible part with more take offs and landings. In the airline game planes move out of the transporting passenger business after 35,000 of them.

    The reason that the pickle fork issue was found in the first place was not through thorough meticulous routine inspections and checking of whether the key structural components securing the wings to the fuselage were sturdy enough to keep the plane in the air. It was accidentally discovered on an older NG that was being stripped and converted from passenger to cargo for Amazon Prime.

    Part M's and 145's are useless if planes start falling out of the sky. "Ah sure its only 5%" That's 50 planes that could at any time, just fail, mid-flight. How many is acceptable ?

    Conspiracy theory my backside. This is nothing about or against FR. It's about the apparent cavalier attitude these days shown by safety regulation. Trust ? The attitude of some here who think "ah sure it'll be grand, sure don't they issue AD's all they time". They don't issue Emergency AD's all the time.

    And yes, normal everyday customers like the comfort of open, transparent and meaningful information from the transport companies they choose to engage for air transport. Nothing wrong with that is there ? Do you get where I am going with it now ???? It's not rocket science.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    STB. wrote: »
    I used the word mileage as a usage term. I clearly know its cycles and have stated as much in previous posts. And your right cycles do count. Short haul operators would be more susceptible to the stress on what is meant to be indestructible part with more take offs and landings. In the airline game planes move out of the transporting passenger business after 35,000 of them.

    The reason that the pickle fork issue was found in the first place was not through thorough meticulous routine inspections and checking of whether the key structural components securing the wings to the fuselage were sturdy enough to keep the plane in the air. It was accidentally discovered on an older NG that was being stripped and converted from passenger to cargo for Amazon Prime.

    Part M's and 145's are useless if planes start falling out of the sky. "Ah sure its only 5%" That's 50 planes that could at any time, just fail, mid-flight. How many is acceptable ?

    Conspiracy theory my backside. This is nothing about or against FR. It's about the apparent cavalier attitude these days shown by safety regulation. Trust ? The attitude of some here who think "ah sure it'll be grand, sure don't they issue AD's all they time". They don't issue Emergency AD's all the time.

    And yes, normal everyday customers like the comfort of open, transparent and meaningful information from the transport companies they choose to engage for air transport. Nothing wrong with that is there ? Do you get where I am going with it now ???? It's not rocket science.

    No.

    How many have fallen out of the sky??

    It's highly unlikely they all just developed this issue in the last number of weeks. Some of these planes could of been flying around with these issues for quite sometime.
    Obviously there was a risk, hence the AD, but your blown the issue way out of proportion.

    You were clearly accusing Ryanair of been dishonest without any grounds to do so other than twisting the information to fit your theory. If you have an issue regarding the recent safety issues surrounding the 737 you should be venting your theory towards Boeing and the FAA.

    Nothing wrong with it at all and that's why there is regulators who have the expertise and authority to do these checks. Your normal airline passenger doesn't and shouldn't need to know the full maintenance and service history of each aircraft within an airline nor should they expect such information to be open to the public.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    IE 222 wrote: »
    No.

    How many have fallen out of the sky??

    Do we need them to start falling out of the sky for you to understand that a key previously thought indestructible component on the bloody planes is susceptible to cracking after UNKNOWN cycles. Unless you are a psychic, you dont know the answer
    IE 222 wrote: »
    It's highly unlikely they all just developed this issue in the last number of weeks. Some of these planes could of been flying around with these issues for quite sometime.

    There is no could about it. There are many up in Boeing getting fixed as we speak.
    IE 222 wrote: »

    Obviously there was a risk, hence the AD, but your blown the issue way out of proportion.

    Its not an AD, its an EAD. An UNSAFE condition that requires immediate action by the aircraft owner.
    IE 222 wrote: »

    You were clearly accusing Ryanair of been dishonest without any grounds to do so other than twisting the information to fit your theory. If you have an issue regarding the recent safety issues surrounding the 737 you should be venting your theory towards Boeing and the FAA.


    I am clearly pointing the finger at a lack of information(even after press enquries) from the start. Get the conspiracy theory out of your head that I have it in for RyanAir.

    This was reported to ALL NG operators at the end of September. Qantas were the same. The information had to be pulled out of them, with the Union representing aircraft maintenance engineers calling for them all to be grounded. Now Virgin are under pressure to test them all. Lion Air this week found cracks in two Boeing 737s below the mandatory checking threshold of 22,600 cycles.
    IE 222 wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with it at all and that's why there is regulators who have the expertise and authority to do these checks. Your normal airline passenger doesn't and shouldn't need to know the full maintenance and service history of each aircraft within an airline nor should they expect such information to be open to the public.


    We would not be in this position -

    IF Boeing listened to the concerns of their QA staff over 10 years ago (some of which resigned and highlighted the culture within Boeing in a TV documentary),

    IF the FAA has been doing independent safety checks from the start instead of abdicating that responsibility to the very manufacturers responsible for selling faulty structures to the industry.

    We shouldn't be dependent on an aircraft engineer discovering it by accident when converting a passenger plane to cargo. Up til then clearly these tests were not extensive enough that they did not pick up on dangers of the unkown

    And Yes your normal airline passenger does need to know that the planes are safe. If that requires specific details for the public then it should be done. Unfortunately the litany, one after the other of safety check failures will not bring people back from the dead.

    What operators can do is be upfront from day 1 and say we have checked X amount and its not surprising that we are going to find some and that we immediately sent them off to be fixed.

    Hardly too much to ask. After all, nobody wants to put their reputation on the line. But Boeing have already wrecked their


Advertisement