The New York Times reported that the plane was scheduled for a maintenance check over ongoing concerns, but Alaska Airlines chose to allow flights to go ahead.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    "The plane was scheduled for three flights scheduled to end the evening of Jan. 5, the report continued. The plan was for the plane to fly out without passengers on its way to a maintenance facility located in Portland, but the airline approved the three flights with passengers.

    The door plug then blew out mid-flight after its second flight.

    The airline confirmed the events to the New York Times, but also said “the warnings it had on the plane did not meet its standards for immediately taking it out of service.”

    The scheduling of the maintenance check had not previously been reported."

    So Boeing is not 100% to blame here. Alaska knew the plane had a problem with pressurization and chose to keep it in flight for 3 extra legs instead of servicing it.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Engineers at Alaska Airlines wanted and in-depth inspection. Alaska Airlines decided to “take it easy”, but not ground the plane.

    Lemmy: Those Boeing bastards!

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Site 404s for me. What does “set for inspection” mean? It was due for one soon? Overdue? How far overdue?

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Alaska mechanics noted the plane kept alerting a pressurization failure and flagged it for inspection.

      Instead of taking it offline, the airline scheduled it for 3 more flights, during which the door plug blew out.

  • june@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well that’s a hell of a development. This whole thing has been laid solely at the feet of Boeing when it was also Alaska’s fault.

    It started with the fucked up aircraft production.

    The finished with Alaska choosing not to perform maintenance it knew it needed.

    The good news is that this has brought to light some major deficiencies in both the aircraft manufacturing and airline maintenance failings. Two things that would not have been highlighted has Alaska done their due diligence and discovered this issue when they should have.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Air traffic safety is done in so many layers, usually when shit starts going visibly bad it means quite a few things have failed simultaneously.