For a number of industries, supply chain issues have been problematic. The inability to get key parts, having to switch to different suppliers, and heightened demand for finished products all contribute. With many industries, this has simply been an inconvenience, but for some sectors, like aerospace, such problems carry greater weight. This was recently highlighted (again) for Boeing when one of its newest 737 Max models lost a fuselage door plug while in flight. This isn’t’ the first time Boeing’s 737 Max planes have had problems, which again raises concerns about Boeing’s quality assurance. In fact, based on repeated occurrences, it’s clearly time Boeing made much stronger efforts to ensure the safety of its customers.
(Hyperloop One is kaput–read all about its downfall in this Bold story.)
Fortunately, this time around, no one was injured when problems with Boeing’s 737 Max 9 occurred. This doesn’t mean the potential wasn’t there, but as a result of some fortuitous circumstances, passengers were unharmed. The event, however, did cause significant interior damage to the plane, requiring an emergency landing. Within hours, the F.A.A. grounded all Boeing 737 Max 9 planes until further review of Boeing’s quality assurance methods could be evaluated. While such action was both appropriate and necessary, it’s unfortunate such government agency oversight was required. When it comes to consumer safety, the responsibility should fall on companies. Not only is this good business practice but also essential business ethics. Given this, Boeing needs to take a much more comprehensive look at itself and its suppliers.
Persistent Questions About Boeing’s Quality Assurance
This most recent event isn’t the first time concerns about Boeing’s quality assurance methods as of late. In fact, it’s also not the first time there have been problems with Boeing’s 737 Max planes. In 2018, the company’s 737 Max 8 involving Lion Air suffered a plane crash killing hundreds. Then, in 2019, the same model plane flying for Ethiopian Air did the same. As it turned out, a glitch in the flight control software caused both crashes killing 346 people in total. In the aftermath, Boeing promised to revamp its efforts to ensure passenger safety and product quality. But as is evident by this most recent event, major issues clearly persist that have not been effectively addressed. Whether this is solely an internal issue or something broader involving Boeing’s suppliers has yet to be determined.
The flight control software problems with Boeing’s 737 Max planes in the past aren’t the only issues in question. In addition to these shortcomings, Boeing has had to notify its planes’ purchasers of some other recent issues. For example, Boeing encouraged companies that bought their 737 Max planes to check for loose rudder bolts. This was identified as a potential issue after planes had been delivered. Other problems in manufacturing detected as part of Boeing’s quality assurance oversight included incorrectly drilled holes. This required measures to similarly correct the defects before proceeding. The lost fuselage door plug is thus just another misstep for Boeing among many. And it’s why it’s time for Boeing to take much more aggressive measures to turn things around.
The Most Recent Debacle
While there have been problems with Boeing’s 737 Max 8, the most recent event involved Boeing’s newer model. Its 737 Max 9 is similarly a single-aisle plane that is highly fuel efficient and reflects the future of aviation. But it has an extended fuselage that allows up to 221 passengers on board. To date, however, Boeing has not requested that their 737 Max 9 accommodate this many passengers, which would require a functional exit door. Therefore, the door that does exist is supposed to be sealed and function as a fuselage plug instead of a door. Apparently, this is where the problems with Boeing’s 737 Max 9 occurred as it relates to Boeing’s quality assurance steps. It’s not clear yet, however, whether improper sealing was the fault of Boeing alone or the door’s supplier, Spirit AeroSystems.
(Hypersonic transport could be the future of air transport–read up on it in this Bold story.)
The flight in question left from Portland, Oregon, and was still in its assent when the mishap occurred. At 16,000 feet, a loud bang was heard, and the door plug was lost. The sudden decompression ripped headrests and seatbacks off passenger chairs. Likewise, it forced the cockpit door open and sent loose cellphones flying. It even stripped the shirt off a young boy. But because no one was seated in that same row, and because it was lower altitude, no one was injured. Likewise, because it was still ascending, no one was walking around the plane but was instead buckled. The F.A.A. immediately grounded all 171 Boeing 737 Max 9 planes in the country of the total 200 in operation worldwide. And the plane itself made an emergency landing without anyone being harmed physically.
A Call for Bold Fixes, Not Band-Aids
In the wake of the problems with Boeing’s 737 Max 9, share prices dropped immediately. By Monday, they had fallen 9% from their closing price Friday. Likewise, the F.A.A. plans to perform a deep investigation into the issue alongside the National Transportation Safety Board. As expected, Boeing’s CEO supports these decisions and again vows to examine Boeing’s quality assurance methods in greater detail. But after hearing these same promises previously after 2018 and 2019, they simply carry less weight. If there had been bold changes to Boeing’s quality assurance approaches, events like this one wouldn’t be happening. And more importantly, involvement of regulatory agencies wouldn’t be needed.
At the root of the problems with Boeing’s 737 Max planes are supply chain issues and heightened demand. Extensive oversight of suppliers in terms of quality is likely lacking, which may be at fault in the current case. Likewise, pressure by customers and shareholders to meet the tremendous backlog of demand for the 737 Max planes also plays a role. But at the end of the day, the buck stops with the company when it comes to ensuring Boeing’s quality assurance–not the F.A.A, not the NTSB, and not individual suppliers. Customer safety should be a priority for Boeing and not an afterthought or a regulatory requirement. When doors blow off planes, it’s certainly time to step back and take a long, hard look at how things are being done.
Embargoes Against Russia Have Pushed Russia and China Together–That’s a Problem!
