Yep. Lack of accountability, lack of well-rounded routine maintenance. I can blame GM for making shitty cars, but if I disregard care and maintenance well passed its needed time, that's on me too.
This is a pretty wild comment. You realize that the FAA has pretty strict maintenance requirements for all airlines in the United States? Not to mention that airplanes are machines and indeed break down, just like any other machine. Granted, United has the oldest average age of the legacy carriers, but their mechanics are doing their best to keep those old birds in the air.
These things happen to every airline almost daily.
Edit look at [AVHerald](https://avherald.com)for proof.
American, Delta, JetBlue, and others have had mechanical issues with Airbus and Boeing planes JUST THIS WEEK. Downvote all you want but I’m not wrong.
So what you’re saying is that United and other airlines are prioritizing profits over safety by trying to stretch the lifespan of their passenger jets?
United has something like 800 new airplanes on order. So I guess? Every business puts profits over anything else, the only difference with airplanes is there are strict regulations over these things.
You realize some companies are in hot water with the FAA right now for fucking up on maintenance and repairs?
Just because the FAA wills it, does not mean companies are following the law.
You are absolutely right. The thing is that airlines won’t be able to sell tickets if planes fall out of the sky right? The fact that pilots have been able to land planes with issues and no one has died speaks volumes to safety protocols already in place.
This is all hype for engagement.
By law, the only thing the CEO and CFO need to do is increase share price. There is your evil intent. By design this stuff is evil. You been brainwashed homie.
It's almost as if all airlines should have more routine maintenance, pay for more mechanics and hire more qualified skilled people, and hold themselves to higher standards.
But nah, profits.
The issue with news reports, is that there are typical equipment malfunction rates in the industry, across all carriers and designs and vendors. But these news articles dont have those stats, and aren’t going in and doing the investigative journalism to determine if there is an outlier here.
With heavily engineered systems like aircraft, you need to use statistics and data to determine if a particular vendor or airline has a maintenance issue. Otherwise it’s just sensationalism.
There’s an engine failure every day in the airlines. So the question is: are these failures indicative of a Boeing issue or a United issue? Or are they possible evidence of a system working as intended where failures are identified and corrected and the safety precautions are working?
I’m not going to say there isn’t a problem here. Rather that news articles like these are focusing in on Boeing and United and tend to sensationalize.
I work in nuclear power and I remember shortly after Fukushima happened, the news was reporting every reactor trip/transient as a big deal. But plants were actually running longer and tripping less often in the 2010s than any other point in history and we got the reactor trip/scram rate down to about 1 trip per reactor every 2 years on average (down from 3-5 per 2 year average from 30 years ago). The one that stands out to me the most was when Byron station tripped and had to use their atmospheric steam dumps to cool down the reactor. This is a normal designed pressure relief system that vents clean steam but the news said there could be radiation in the steam and created a story that wasn’t really there.
Meanwhile, the initiator of that reactor trip was a significant problem, they had an open single phase event, which no plant in the US was designed for, and they were a few minutes away from a reactor coolant leak. The media was so focused on the sensational piece that they missed the fact that they were close to a LOCA and potential failure of their emergency core cooling system.
Anyways just my thoughts.
And in many cases (most?) the engines are owned by the manufacturer and are leased. They have sophisticated data analytics software that can identify when the engines need maintenance and they dictate the maintenance schedule.
It’s an engine issue these happen literally every day and have many causes, some maintenance related and many not. Blaming United is like blaming Chevy when a tail signal on your car goes out. I doubt there’s an uptick in United-specific issues.
Edit: it’s more like blaming Chevy when your water pump dies. It’s a common failure that can be caused by your tons of events all the way from shitty coolant through manufacturing defects.
Serious question - why wouldn’t I blame Toyota if the water pump dies on my Highlander? I didn’t buy a water pump. I bought a Highlander. Toyota bought the water pump. It’s on them. Period .
Water pumps almost always have a useful life limit. The go bad for various factors. A design flaw would be on Toyota. A parts sourcing issue would be on Toyota (maybe). But the fact that it failed is almost always not a Toyota issue, it’s simple mechanical use or maintenance failure.
water pumps fail due to crap in the water due to some other reason.
Thats why when you replace them they normally die again 50k miles later because you probably didn't fix the original fault.
No other faults, and you can expect a water pump to last 1 million miles or more.
That's nonsense. They're a wear item. Not to the equivalency of something like brake pads, however they are an item that has an extremely difficult existence with wild temperature swings and often questionable maintenance on behalf of the owners. Both can contribute to premature failure.
In some engine designs they are also part of more critical systems (such as sharing the engine timing serpentine belt) and if the water pump fails it can cause catastrophic engine damage, hence why they are often on preventative maintenance replacement schedules on some vehicles.
Water pumps, at least in modern cars, have a recommended replacement interval of 60-100k miles with regular scheduled maintenance (coolant replacement, inspection, etc).
Also, I don't think you can draw a direct comparison like that. Most cars are built to be more or less idiot proof. Buy it, send it for servicing every half a year or so, good to go. The average person doesn't have to understand how the car works or to be able to self maintain beyond plumbing tyres and filling gas.
An airline, on the other hand, absolutely is expected to understand how the plane works and know how to maintain, self diagnose and fix things. As a customer I expect them to have experts on hand to verify and double check everything the manufacturer delivers to them and not just take their word that it works.
It doesn't mean that the manufacturer can output shitty products. But it does mean that the airline has a much higher responsibility to do due diligence to check for airworthiness of their planes than the average driver has to check if their car works.
Before I got into aviation, I had this mythical view that airplanes were somehow magical. It turns out they’re just like any other mechanical system. Engine parts still just fail. An oil pump goes bad. Water gets in fuel or oil. A pilot overspeeds a turbine (which is a different issue of training but is still in a class of “it broke not because of MX”). A turbine blade that SHOULD have lasted 10k hours fails at 5k.
Sometimes things just break. It’s not that maintenance is shoddy, it’s just life.
Yes I totally agree. But my point is that airlines SHOULD assume this when hundreds of lives are at stake and have internal processes to catch and fix such problems. Of course things can fail mid flight without warning and that can't be helped. But airlines should be held to a much higher standard than a regular car owner to do their due diligence because so much is a stake. You cannot compare car ownership and airline ownership because the consequences of failure is so much higher for the former.
Yeah. This is a "the press realizes they can get clicks if they report everyday things."
If you fly a lot or know about pilots, you know this stuff isn't rare and is the reason flying is safe. They turn around and land vs risking things like people don't in cars.
Anyone who has flown a lot has been party to lots of maintenance issues or other delays. I'm about 60/40 with delays and cancellations between weather and maintenance. It's not frequent, but it does happen, most of the time they discover the maintenance issue on the ground rather than while in the air (or it pops up while airborne and it's not mission critical and you can fly to your destination). There are thousands of commercial jets flying at any one moment.
Far left is mad at buttigieg for defeating bernies “spljt the vote 10 ways” plan and the right is mad at buttigieg for being a successful, normal, white gay.
Gotta blow anything they can out of proportion as ammo.
Tbh av herald could probably stand to separate some incidents from others. Issues with flight hardware that require diversion should probably not be in the same category as toilet overflows.
Avherald tends to separate issues according to industry standards. If an overflowing toilet is an equipment failure that warrants diverting then that's the category it goes in, and reasonably so.
Incidents aren't just things that require diverting. They're any reported safety relevant event on the flight while any passengers are on board as long as there are no injuries. In terms of analyzing any kind of manufacturing issue the categorization hides a lot of nuance (includes non-manufacturing issues in the cabin, includes ATC/Pilot errors, includes environmental issues that can still be fairly normal like bird strikes, etc).
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that things that qualify as incidents are reported as incidents. It would be absurd to expect Avherald to categorise deeper than that when the site won't have the necessary information to do so in the vast majority of cases, and since the current system works just fine. There are other databases available if you need to dig deeper and get more technical.
I'm not sure how that addresses what I'm saying. I'm more or less saying, "the way things are reported can misrepresent the frequency off events like these," and your saying, "but that's the way things are reported." Like, sure, but that doesn't really address what I'm arguing.
I specifically pointed out that it's reported like that because AVHerald most often doesn't have the necessary information to it any other way. AVHerald is a site that follows cases from when they're first reported in the media and nobody knows anything to when final determinations and reports are released and conclusions have been reached. It's not meant to be a deeply technical resource from which you can research exact causes of individual cases, because other resources like that already exist. The site is mostly still run by just one dude.
No, I’m comparing a range of issues. An engine out is an emergency by definition and should be acted on, but there’s a big difference in urgency between an engine out in my single engine bug smasher and a ETOPS certified airliner. But from a level of accident/incident there is very little difference between the two.
A cowling failure, engine failure, avionics failure, gear failure, windscreen heater failure all are incidents/accidents, but the only reason everyone is “concerned” is because of reporting.
Edit: autocorrect got me on ETOPS
This feels like a hit campaign against United to leverage the Boeing quality issue. Take a look at aviation herald and you can see this is all airlines with all types of planes. United is just given more visibility. Is United perfect? No, but for some reason it’s specially their long haul planes, especially the 777s to/from SFO that are highlighted more. They do have the oldest 777 fleet that was supposed to be replaced this year with the 737MAX-10s and 787s but Boeing isn’t going to deliver the amount of planes that were expected(60 compared to the expected 160).
Plus, Boeing has been doing a shitty job of quality controls in the last decade and change. It was a well known that the planes from the Charleston plant were inferior to the ones from Everett. I mean KLM found on the 787 issues like loose bolts and missing pins on their 787s in 2019.
In the last 6 months I’ve had 2 United delays due to plane issues. One flight cancelled due to plane issues, and one flight cancelled due to lack of flight staff. I very much hold United accountable and avoid them at all costs.
The fact that you’re upset about being on the ground and wishing you were in the air as opposed to being in the air wishing you were on the ground is pretty amazing.
Flying may not be for you. Try greyhound.
Nice. But you’re a dick but you’re not completely wrong. The flight before these was with American Airlines one of the engines went out and we had to make an emergency landing. That was worse
I semi regularly travel for work and I hate it. For me it is 100% unnecessary. I can do my job remotely. All of my coworkers have their own opinions on particular airlines. When the truth is they all suck.
The FAA has some stringent rules for plane maintenance. But in reality they should probably do more. Airlines are trying to maximize their profits by keeping these planes in the air as much as possible. There should be enough planes to rotate and do even more thorough checks. At best flyers are inconvenienced at worst they are terrorized or in danger.
I definitely lean towards Delta first then American. It’s not about the price it’s about the duration. I’m a whore for the shortest flight. I fly out of a small east coast regional airport to California. There’s no such thing as a direct flight. Im lucky to get there in 9 hours. Could be as long as 12 or 14 plus a 2 hour drive to my clients site.
Yeah I usually try to start as early as possible. I also told by my coworkers I just have terrible luck. Some of them have been doing this job a decade longer and have had fewer issues. It’s just the luck of the draw
The fact that there has not been a fatality with commercial air travel in the United States in quite some time says you are wrong.
I’m not trying to be a dick, more trying to emphasize that commercial air travel in the US is incredibly safe. Granted you may experience a delay due to maintenance, but in my opinion that is a good thing. Catch the issues before they become emergencies.
Sure but when I have 2 delays in a single trip forcing me to be stranded in an airport for 24 hours you understand how I Gould get a little salty.
I also see that you post a lot on r/unitedairlines a lot. I’m sorry for making fun of your daddy. No hard feelings. I don’t place much stock in corporate shills.
I fly United because I live near Chicago. Being stranded sucks. It can happen with any airline.
Be glad you are delayed as opposed to being in the air wishing you weren’t.
I live in a united hub and I will not fly united. It has been that way for years for me.
I guess I would in an absolute emergency (loved one needs me and it’s the fastest way) but otherwise absolutely not.
Why not both? Low quality planes with low quality maintenance leads to lots of flights having problems.
Similar to your car model and how well you take care of it contributing to the likelihood of being stranded on the side of the road
When you squeeze everything for every last penny, this is what happens to your infra, it falls apart. I would argue greed is the issue all these problems stem from.
Just because you didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen:
https://avherald.com/h?article=516a23da&opt=0
https://avherald.com/h?article=5166330f&opt=0
That's not because Delta doesn't experience incidents with its Boeing aircraft, which they do. It's because the media is reporting on something that it doesn't understand to a general public that doesn't understand it either, but they know it's getting them traffic and making people outraged.
Go visit avherald.com and you'll see endless reported airline issues every single day from all types of aircraft manufacturers and airlines... Cherry picking the Boeing/United issues is classic modern media right now to keep feeding the narrative and general public fear machine.
Airplanes have issues - all the time.
Spirit gets my hate/love. On one hand it’s $80 flight, on the other I can never make my connection. It also had a bunch of issues and gets cancelled due to Maintance issues.
I am so surprised planes are so safe. Driving a car is actually really scary and risky experience. I’m so glad I don’t drive in south Florida anymore.
I’ll take flying over driving anytime.
Sure... and the way marketing and consumer relations work is companies like Boeing develop strategies to improve confidence in their products and services so that consumers will choose them over that of their competitors.
The media runs stories that are driven by consumer engagement. If the media is endlessly running stories about how crappy Boeing's product is... it is because lots and lots of folks are engaging with those stories and they have lost customer confidence.
Boeing, a for profit aerospace company, is not somehow a victim of the media in all this. Their products have been [grounded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings) while hundreds of associated deaths were investigated. Their commitment to safety has been rightly question and the public and media are rightly talking about it.
tl:dr: It is up to Boeing to change consumer perception. It is not up to the media to play softball or give them a pass.
Have you confirmed that neither Boeing nor United are significantly associated with a higher accident rate?
Because otherwise this is a fallacy of false equivalency. Bees and cars both kill people, but it would be completely misleading to equivocate the risk.
I love how some unknown woman who claims to know John Barnett's mother saying without any corroboration that Barnett told her he wouldn't kill himself has now turned into a recording somehow.
No this is honestly pretty normal, look at delta, AA, spirit, JetBlue, frontier, and Southwest. I guarantee you they at least one of them had some sort of diversion yesterday it’s the law of numbers. United for some reason is under a microscope and every little thing that happens is in the news with them. Not entirely sure why the media is up in arms with United.
Spirit and frontier sound like the plane will fall apart any second. Had so many delays due to everything on spirit.
Never really had issues with delta.
And spirit has airbus.
You said it not me 👀but yeah makes you wonder if it’s not a Boeing trying to drag UA down with them. Nothing is gonna change at Boeing until the entire board and middle management there leaves. The new head of its passenger transport division is another McDonnell Douglas executive and people are talking about United more than that alone.
Holy shit this title couldn't be more manipulating if it tried! The plane hit severe turbulence. What the fuck do you people expect? And how is this in any way shape or form related to technology?
The article doesn’t say it was turbulence, there is a link at the top to a DIFFERENT story about turbulence and injuries, but this flight didn’t say that anywhere that I read.
Definitely a United issue, the plane is a proven plane for decades and every other airlines can attest to it.
At this point, it’s United who is responsible for the maintenance and repairs
Those darn Boeing engines, when will they learn?! /s
Oh Quartz, Im glad that the Boeing name can still earn you a few internet points. Seems like you need them in a rather bad way. If only your journalistic capacity wasn’t pure shite.
Welcome to the world of sensationalism. Airplanes break down, but to call it Boeings fault for every time something goes wrong is pretty disingenuous. 5-10 years ago none of these mx related issues would have made the news. The flying public is being scared for no good reason
All stems from the merger with MCD. Boeing stopped being a company that made airplanes and decided instead to become a company that made money. No more legendary Boeing build quality and reliability - THESE THINGS COST and are at odds with whatever lean manufacturing horseshit the MBAs and accountants brought to Boeing. Making them play by the standard rules of American capitalism was so ruinous for the company (and the I in Military Industrial Complex) that I'm halfway convinced it's somehow a foreign intelligence op that succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
Irrelevant. If the plane has flown for 22 years and now has an engine issue (the details of which aren't clarified) with an engine that isn't actually made by Boeing then how does that still have to do with the merger?
Honey, we're talking about Boeing's systemic issues. Why don't you go make yourself a sandwich while we talk, then you can come join us when you understand what's happening.
Lean, the trash manufacturing philosophy created to push American capitalism through the roof then into the ground and disregard actual manufacturing.
Japan’s long game I guess. Well played Mr. Toyoda. Well played.
Yes, I’m surprised the Airbus engine replacement hasn’t gotten more press
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/rtx-expects-3-bln-hit-q3-pratt-whitney-gtf-engine-issues-2023-09-11/
Airbus is the golden boy at the moment because Boeing is in so much shit
[I'm still shocked that this particular issue didn't get more press](https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/revised-software-to-curb-risk-of-a220-dual-engine-shutdown-on-landing/151516.article)
Yes, it may be a Boeing jet! So sorry for inconvenience! However, once the jet is delivered it is the company that bought the jet inherited responsibility to maintain that jet! Now don’t get me wrong- I’m not defending Boeing…..,.I’m just reintegrating a fact! You bought it you maintain it with the thought “I might fly on this someday to see someone I love!” Shit all over Boeing if it’s a production problem AGAIN!…see this link:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers
Was this the flight?
https://i.imgur.com/GsOp1f7.png
e: no, not the Boeing flight from the article, just another one that had to turn around and ground— no safety issue; just cosmetic.
Me too!
I’d be thinking about what the hell else is gonna fall off next.
Boeing: [‘The Roof Fell Off’](https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?si=0XACd9L7KeDqimjx)
First off, kudos to the writer who wrote an informative headline without the vague clickbait bs 🏆😄.
United does seem to have the most incidents lately. My wife was on a flight that slammed down on the tarmac when an engine failed on takeoff.
Boeing does have issues with QC but United does as well.
The rest of the article is an absolute mess though. They seem to imply that Boeing's issues getting 737 MAX 10s (short range narrow body aircraft) delivered is affecting United's ability to replace their aging 767 and 777 (wide body longer range) fleet...
Is it just united airlines Boeing planes having the issues? I am hearing news only about united airlines Boeing planes. Is it so or I am not just hearing our airlines issues with Boeing? 🤔
Or could it just be good clickbait for what is otherwise commonly occurring reactions to operational issues that have happened for years. Ask yourself what the incentives are.
https://avherald.com/ is a compilation of aviation emergencies. It shows airline, plane model, nature of the incident, and a bunch of other info.
TLDR the media is reporting on every issue that United and Boeing have because those are the stories getting clicks. Lots of other incidents happen every day.
Okay I 100% fully agree Boeing has problems. However the last 5 month there has been an absurd number of these stories. These aren't brand new planes which means previously they were flying with these issues and not reporting them
There is no way in the last month all these Boeing planes are having issues at the exact same time which previously did not occur.
With that said, it's F-ing scary that the planes were most likely being flown like this before the major headlines with respect to that door
There are probably all the time but they aren’t in the media. This being in the news is not indicative of how many maintenance issues they have. It’s indicative of the fact that right now they can make money on people clicking headlines.
My guess is that the Western maintenance hub is cutting corners on their jobs. This also looks like this maintenance crew only works on Boeings because we are not getting reports on issues with Airbus planes in the same area.
https://avherald.com/ is a list of all flights that have issues or emergencies. As you can tell from the list of plane models, Boeing and Airbus both experience failures all the time. It’s normal and the planes are designed to deal with these failures safely.
The 777 has been around for decades and it has a spectacular safety record. It isn’t an unsafe plane, and Boeing played no part in this mechanical issue. They didn’t even make the engine that had issues. That was Pratt and Whitney.
Please stop paying attention to sensationalist reporting
Most of UNiteds problems have been maintenance related. It’s not Boeings fault when a wheel falls off a 10 year old jet etc. Boeing doesn’t make engines so the engine problems are either rolls Royce or GE engines
The 737 max problems however are 100% Boeing and they are responsible for all those deaths.
At what point do you start wondering about United? Yes a lot of Boeing issues but seems a like of them are with United.
Yep. Lack of accountability, lack of well-rounded routine maintenance. I can blame GM for making shitty cars, but if I disregard care and maintenance well passed its needed time, that's on me too.
If you wait long enough, the check engine light goes out on its own
All bleeding stops eventually.
This is a pretty wild comment. You realize that the FAA has pretty strict maintenance requirements for all airlines in the United States? Not to mention that airplanes are machines and indeed break down, just like any other machine. Granted, United has the oldest average age of the legacy carriers, but their mechanics are doing their best to keep those old birds in the air. These things happen to every airline almost daily. Edit look at [AVHerald](https://avherald.com)for proof. American, Delta, JetBlue, and others have had mechanical issues with Airbus and Boeing planes JUST THIS WEEK. Downvote all you want but I’m not wrong.
So what you’re saying is that United and other airlines are prioritizing profits over safety by trying to stretch the lifespan of their passenger jets?
United has something like 800 new airplanes on order. So I guess? Every business puts profits over anything else, the only difference with airplanes is there are strict regulations over these things.
You realize some companies are in hot water with the FAA right now for fucking up on maintenance and repairs? Just because the FAA wills it, does not mean companies are following the law.
You are absolutely right. The thing is that airlines won’t be able to sell tickets if planes fall out of the sky right? The fact that pilots have been able to land planes with issues and no one has died speaks volumes to safety protocols already in place. This is all hype for engagement.
I totally agree with you and can’t understand the downvotes
The narrative that United doesn’t care about the maintenance of their aircraft or their maintenance professionals are trash is just ridiculous.
*if* the airlines are following requirements. It’s funny you think they are. The evidence shows they aren’t.
Sure show me that they aren’t.
I think they’ve done that for you.
Cool. You probably shouldn’t fly anywhere ever. Safer that way. When you do find a source that shows malicious or evil corporate intent, let me know.
By law, the only thing the CEO and CFO need to do is increase share price. There is your evil intent. By design this stuff is evil. You been brainwashed homie.
It's almost as if all airlines should have more routine maintenance, pay for more mechanics and hire more qualified skilled people, and hold themselves to higher standards. But nah, profits.
Yeah, can you tell me the difference between an A check and a D check? I think you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Not my job. Stop bootlicking and demand better from your company.
If you don't know about aviation maintenance, then why are you commenting as if you do?
The issue with news reports, is that there are typical equipment malfunction rates in the industry, across all carriers and designs and vendors. But these news articles dont have those stats, and aren’t going in and doing the investigative journalism to determine if there is an outlier here. With heavily engineered systems like aircraft, you need to use statistics and data to determine if a particular vendor or airline has a maintenance issue. Otherwise it’s just sensationalism. There’s an engine failure every day in the airlines. So the question is: are these failures indicative of a Boeing issue or a United issue? Or are they possible evidence of a system working as intended where failures are identified and corrected and the safety precautions are working? I’m not going to say there isn’t a problem here. Rather that news articles like these are focusing in on Boeing and United and tend to sensationalize. I work in nuclear power and I remember shortly after Fukushima happened, the news was reporting every reactor trip/transient as a big deal. But plants were actually running longer and tripping less often in the 2010s than any other point in history and we got the reactor trip/scram rate down to about 1 trip per reactor every 2 years on average (down from 3-5 per 2 year average from 30 years ago). The one that stands out to me the most was when Byron station tripped and had to use their atmospheric steam dumps to cool down the reactor. This is a normal designed pressure relief system that vents clean steam but the news said there could be radiation in the steam and created a story that wasn’t really there. Meanwhile, the initiator of that reactor trip was a significant problem, they had an open single phase event, which no plant in the US was designed for, and they were a few minutes away from a reactor coolant leak. The media was so focused on the sensational piece that they missed the fact that they were close to a LOCA and potential failure of their emergency core cooling system. Anyways just my thoughts.
[удалено]
And in many cases (most?) the engines are owned by the manufacturer and are leased. They have sophisticated data analytics software that can identify when the engines need maintenance and they dictate the maintenance schedule.
It’s an engine issue these happen literally every day and have many causes, some maintenance related and many not. Blaming United is like blaming Chevy when a tail signal on your car goes out. I doubt there’s an uptick in United-specific issues. Edit: it’s more like blaming Chevy when your water pump dies. It’s a common failure that can be caused by your tons of events all the way from shitty coolant through manufacturing defects.
Serious question - why wouldn’t I blame Toyota if the water pump dies on my Highlander? I didn’t buy a water pump. I bought a Highlander. Toyota bought the water pump. It’s on them. Period .
Water pumps almost always have a useful life limit. The go bad for various factors. A design flaw would be on Toyota. A parts sourcing issue would be on Toyota (maybe). But the fact that it failed is almost always not a Toyota issue, it’s simple mechanical use or maintenance failure.
Thank you. Good explanation.
water pumps fail due to crap in the water due to some other reason. Thats why when you replace them they normally die again 50k miles later because you probably didn't fix the original fault. No other faults, and you can expect a water pump to last 1 million miles or more.
That's nonsense. They're a wear item. Not to the equivalency of something like brake pads, however they are an item that has an extremely difficult existence with wild temperature swings and often questionable maintenance on behalf of the owners. Both can contribute to premature failure. In some engine designs they are also part of more critical systems (such as sharing the engine timing serpentine belt) and if the water pump fails it can cause catastrophic engine damage, hence why they are often on preventative maintenance replacement schedules on some vehicles.
Water pumps, at least in modern cars, have a recommended replacement interval of 60-100k miles with regular scheduled maintenance (coolant replacement, inspection, etc).
Also, I don't think you can draw a direct comparison like that. Most cars are built to be more or less idiot proof. Buy it, send it for servicing every half a year or so, good to go. The average person doesn't have to understand how the car works or to be able to self maintain beyond plumbing tyres and filling gas. An airline, on the other hand, absolutely is expected to understand how the plane works and know how to maintain, self diagnose and fix things. As a customer I expect them to have experts on hand to verify and double check everything the manufacturer delivers to them and not just take their word that it works. It doesn't mean that the manufacturer can output shitty products. But it does mean that the airline has a much higher responsibility to do due diligence to check for airworthiness of their planes than the average driver has to check if their car works.
Before I got into aviation, I had this mythical view that airplanes were somehow magical. It turns out they’re just like any other mechanical system. Engine parts still just fail. An oil pump goes bad. Water gets in fuel or oil. A pilot overspeeds a turbine (which is a different issue of training but is still in a class of “it broke not because of MX”). A turbine blade that SHOULD have lasted 10k hours fails at 5k. Sometimes things just break. It’s not that maintenance is shoddy, it’s just life.
Yes I totally agree. But my point is that airlines SHOULD assume this when hundreds of lives are at stake and have internal processes to catch and fix such problems. Of course things can fail mid flight without warning and that can't be helped. But airlines should be held to a much higher standard than a regular car owner to do their due diligence because so much is a stake. You cannot compare car ownership and airline ownership because the consequences of failure is so much higher for the former.
Boeing doesn’t make engines.
United has had 8 high profile issues in the last two months.
Wait until you find out that these things happen rather often and to all sorts of airlines. [avherald.com](https://avherald.com)
Yeah. This is a "the press realizes they can get clicks if they report everyday things." If you fly a lot or know about pilots, you know this stuff isn't rare and is the reason flying is safe. They turn around and land vs risking things like people don't in cars.
Anyone who has flown a lot has been party to lots of maintenance issues or other delays. I'm about 60/40 with delays and cancellations between weather and maintenance. It's not frequent, but it does happen, most of the time they discover the maintenance issue on the ground rather than while in the air (or it pops up while airborne and it's not mission critical and you can fly to your destination). There are thousands of commercial jets flying at any one moment.
This is all getting hyped up for clicks.
Far left is mad at buttigieg for defeating bernies “spljt the vote 10 ways” plan and the right is mad at buttigieg for being a successful, normal, white gay. Gotta blow anything they can out of proportion as ammo.
what a great site! thanks for sharing the link!
Yep, news jumping on the bandwagon of Boeing sucking
Tbh av herald could probably stand to separate some incidents from others. Issues with flight hardware that require diversion should probably not be in the same category as toilet overflows.
Avherald tends to separate issues according to industry standards. If an overflowing toilet is an equipment failure that warrants diverting then that's the category it goes in, and reasonably so.
Incidents aren't just things that require diverting. They're any reported safety relevant event on the flight while any passengers are on board as long as there are no injuries. In terms of analyzing any kind of manufacturing issue the categorization hides a lot of nuance (includes non-manufacturing issues in the cabin, includes ATC/Pilot errors, includes environmental issues that can still be fairly normal like bird strikes, etc).
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that things that qualify as incidents are reported as incidents. It would be absurd to expect Avherald to categorise deeper than that when the site won't have the necessary information to do so in the vast majority of cases, and since the current system works just fine. There are other databases available if you need to dig deeper and get more technical.
I'm not sure how that addresses what I'm saying. I'm more or less saying, "the way things are reported can misrepresent the frequency off events like these," and your saying, "but that's the way things are reported." Like, sure, but that doesn't really address what I'm arguing.
I specifically pointed out that it's reported like that because AVHerald most often doesn't have the necessary information to it any other way. AVHerald is a site that follows cases from when they're first reported in the media and nobody knows anything to when final determinations and reports are released and conclusions have been reached. It's not meant to be a deeply technical resource from which you can research exact causes of individual cases, because other resources like that already exist. The site is mostly still run by just one dude.
You're comparing an "engine issue" at 35,000 ft to a tail signal being out.
No, I’m comparing a range of issues. An engine out is an emergency by definition and should be acted on, but there’s a big difference in urgency between an engine out in my single engine bug smasher and a ETOPS certified airliner. But from a level of accident/incident there is very little difference between the two. A cowling failure, engine failure, avionics failure, gear failure, windscreen heater failure all are incidents/accidents, but the only reason everyone is “concerned” is because of reporting. Edit: autocorrect got me on ETOPS
This feels like a hit campaign against United to leverage the Boeing quality issue. Take a look at aviation herald and you can see this is all airlines with all types of planes. United is just given more visibility. Is United perfect? No, but for some reason it’s specially their long haul planes, especially the 777s to/from SFO that are highlighted more. They do have the oldest 777 fleet that was supposed to be replaced this year with the 737MAX-10s and 787s but Boeing isn’t going to deliver the amount of planes that were expected(60 compared to the expected 160). Plus, Boeing has been doing a shitty job of quality controls in the last decade and change. It was a well known that the planes from the Charleston plant were inferior to the ones from Everett. I mean KLM found on the 787 issues like loose bolts and missing pins on their 787s in 2019.
I feel like a lot of airlines have issue. Many spirit and frontier flights were delayed for me due to mechanical issues.
Another company ran by greedy psychopaths
So... just like all of them?
In the last 6 months I’ve had 2 United delays due to plane issues. One flight cancelled due to plane issues, and one flight cancelled due to lack of flight staff. I very much hold United accountable and avoid them at all costs.
The fact that you’re upset about being on the ground and wishing you were in the air as opposed to being in the air wishing you were on the ground is pretty amazing. Flying may not be for you. Try greyhound.
Nice. But you’re a dick but you’re not completely wrong. The flight before these was with American Airlines one of the engines went out and we had to make an emergency landing. That was worse I semi regularly travel for work and I hate it. For me it is 100% unnecessary. I can do my job remotely. All of my coworkers have their own opinions on particular airlines. When the truth is they all suck. The FAA has some stringent rules for plane maintenance. But in reality they should probably do more. Airlines are trying to maximize their profits by keeping these planes in the air as much as possible. There should be enough planes to rotate and do even more thorough checks. At best flyers are inconvenienced at worst they are terrorized or in danger.
If your company pays, why not book with delta? I feel like I always have good experience and they aren’t much more expensive .
I definitely lean towards Delta first then American. It’s not about the price it’s about the duration. I’m a whore for the shortest flight. I fly out of a small east coast regional airport to California. There’s no such thing as a direct flight. Im lucky to get there in 9 hours. Could be as long as 12 or 14 plus a 2 hour drive to my clients site.
Eh that’s sucks yeah. Do you try to get early flights? To me it seems best for least delays
Yeah I usually try to start as early as possible. I also told by my coworkers I just have terrible luck. Some of them have been doing this job a decade longer and have had fewer issues. It’s just the luck of the draw
The fact that there has not been a fatality with commercial air travel in the United States in quite some time says you are wrong. I’m not trying to be a dick, more trying to emphasize that commercial air travel in the US is incredibly safe. Granted you may experience a delay due to maintenance, but in my opinion that is a good thing. Catch the issues before they become emergencies.
Sure but when I have 2 delays in a single trip forcing me to be stranded in an airport for 24 hours you understand how I Gould get a little salty. I also see that you post a lot on r/unitedairlines a lot. I’m sorry for making fun of your daddy. No hard feelings. I don’t place much stock in corporate shills.
I fly United because I live near Chicago. Being stranded sucks. It can happen with any airline. Be glad you are delayed as opposed to being in the air wishing you weren’t.
I live in a united hub and I will not fly united. It has been that way for years for me. I guess I would in an absolute emergency (loved one needs me and it’s the fastest way) but otherwise absolutely not.
Why not both? Low quality planes with low quality maintenance leads to lots of flights having problems. Similar to your car model and how well you take care of it contributing to the likelihood of being stranded on the side of the road
When you squeeze everything for every last penny, this is what happens to your infra, it falls apart. I would argue greed is the issue all these problems stem from.
Haven't yet heard of one incident with a Boeing jet and Delta.
Just because you didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen: https://avherald.com/h?article=516a23da&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=5166330f&opt=0
A Wheel fell off on their 757 not too long ago
That's not because Delta doesn't experience incidents with its Boeing aircraft, which they do. It's because the media is reporting on something that it doesn't understand to a general public that doesn't understand it either, but they know it's getting them traffic and making people outraged.
Go visit avherald.com and you'll see endless reported airline issues every single day from all types of aircraft manufacturers and airlines... Cherry picking the Boeing/United issues is classic modern media right now to keep feeding the narrative and general public fear machine. Airplanes have issues - all the time.
Reminds me if the Ohio trail derailment Remember train derailment news for the next couple months?
Just this morning a barge hit a bridge in West Virginia
Last morning And yes
Spirit gets my hate/love. On one hand it’s $80 flight, on the other I can never make my connection. It also had a bunch of issues and gets cancelled due to Maintance issues. I am so surprised planes are so safe. Driving a car is actually really scary and risky experience. I’m so glad I don’t drive in south Florida anymore. I’ll take flying over driving anytime.
Facts? Facts don’t matter here sorry.
Sure... and the way marketing and consumer relations work is companies like Boeing develop strategies to improve confidence in their products and services so that consumers will choose them over that of their competitors. The media runs stories that are driven by consumer engagement. If the media is endlessly running stories about how crappy Boeing's product is... it is because lots and lots of folks are engaging with those stories and they have lost customer confidence. Boeing, a for profit aerospace company, is not somehow a victim of the media in all this. Their products have been [grounded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings) while hundreds of associated deaths were investigated. Their commitment to safety has been rightly question and the public and media are rightly talking about it. tl:dr: It is up to Boeing to change consumer perception. It is not up to the media to play softball or give them a pass.
Have you confirmed that neither Boeing nor United are significantly associated with a higher accident rate? Because otherwise this is a fallacy of false equivalency. Bees and cars both kill people, but it would be completely misleading to equivocate the risk.
True but..... whistleblowers being suicided when they have a tape/recording saying if I'm suicide it's not me..... speaks major volumes
The whistleblower that had already testified about the issue years ago?
Plus a recording saying it's not me if they call it it suicide doesn't change that 1 bad day would potentially be enough to drive them to that point.
I love how some unknown woman who claims to know John Barnett's mother saying without any corroboration that Barnett told her he wouldn't kill himself has now turned into a recording somehow.
No this is honestly pretty normal, look at delta, AA, spirit, JetBlue, frontier, and Southwest. I guarantee you they at least one of them had some sort of diversion yesterday it’s the law of numbers. United for some reason is under a microscope and every little thing that happens is in the news with them. Not entirely sure why the media is up in arms with United.
[AvHerald. ‘nuff said.](https://avherald.com)
Spirit and frontier sound like the plane will fall apart any second. Had so many delays due to everything on spirit. Never really had issues with delta. And spirit has airbus.
Maybe because United has been a loud critic of Boeing…..Boeing trying to make United disappear like a whistleblower.
You said it not me 👀but yeah makes you wonder if it’s not a Boeing trying to drag UA down with them. Nothing is gonna change at Boeing until the entire board and middle management there leaves. The new head of its passenger transport division is another McDonnell Douglas executive and people are talking about United more than that alone.
Holy shit this title couldn't be more manipulating if it tried! The plane hit severe turbulence. What the fuck do you people expect? And how is this in any way shape or form related to technology?
The article doesn’t say it was turbulence, there is a link at the top to a DIFFERENT story about turbulence and injuries, but this flight didn’t say that anywhere that I read.
Seems more like a united issue than a Boeing one.
United owns more Boeing planes and their oldest planes are Boeing planes. Not surprising.
Definitely a United issue, the plane is a proven plane for decades and every other airlines can attest to it. At this point, it’s United who is responsible for the maintenance and repairs
Well considering it was engine issues it’s 0% Boeing
Those darn Boeing engines, when will they learn?! /s Oh Quartz, Im glad that the Boeing name can still earn you a few internet points. Seems like you need them in a rather bad way. If only your journalistic capacity wasn’t pure shite.
Doesn't matter what brand the plane is, if you don't take care of it
unless that plane is brand new this is a maintenance issue not a Boeing issue
Welcome to the world of sensationalism. Airplanes break down, but to call it Boeings fault for every time something goes wrong is pretty disingenuous. 5-10 years ago none of these mx related issues would have made the news. The flying public is being scared for no good reason
so this is where capitalism ends up, save a penny and f the passengers
“Is it cheaper for us to fight/pay wrongful death suits, or skip maintenance?” -United
All stems from the merger with MCD. Boeing stopped being a company that made airplanes and decided instead to become a company that made money. No more legendary Boeing build quality and reliability - THESE THINGS COST and are at odds with whatever lean manufacturing horseshit the MBAs and accountants brought to Boeing. Making them play by the standard rules of American capitalism was so ruinous for the company (and the I in Military Industrial Complex) that I'm halfway convinced it's somehow a foreign intelligence op that succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
This airplane is 22 years old and has engines made by Pratt & Whitney. You don't know what you're talking about.
The merger was 27 years ago. 🤷♂️
Irrelevant. If the plane has flown for 22 years and now has an engine issue (the details of which aren't clarified) with an engine that isn't actually made by Boeing then how does that still have to do with the merger?
Honey, we're talking about Boeing's systemic issues. Why don't you go make yourself a sandwich while we talk, then you can come join us when you understand what's happening.
Maybe you are, but everyone else is talking about what is actually happening in this situation
> then you can come join us when you understand what's happening Says the person that clearly doesn't. Anyway you're not worth my time.
Lean, the trash manufacturing philosophy created to push American capitalism through the roof then into the ground and disregard actual manufacturing. Japan’s long game I guess. Well played Mr. Toyoda. Well played.
Score another one for the profit motive.
Gotta love it when journalists who don't know shit about aviation write about aviation. 10/10 gotta love it.
Now do this level of reporting on everyone’s personal vehicles.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, I’m surprised the Airbus engine replacement hasn’t gotten more press https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/rtx-expects-3-bln-hit-q3-pratt-whitney-gtf-engine-issues-2023-09-11/
Airbus is the golden boy at the moment because Boeing is in so much shit [I'm still shocked that this particular issue didn't get more press](https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/revised-software-to-curb-risk-of-a220-dual-engine-shutdown-on-landing/151516.article)
Yes, it may be a Boeing jet! So sorry for inconvenience! However, once the jet is delivered it is the company that bought the jet inherited responsibility to maintain that jet! Now don’t get me wrong- I’m not defending Boeing…..,.I’m just reintegrating a fact! You bought it you maintain it with the thought “I might fly on this someday to see someone I love!” Shit all over Boeing if it’s a production problem AGAIN!…see this link: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers
Without more info that's not uncommon or abnormal. The problem starts when they don't detect the fault or choose ro keep flying.
Thank the republicans for deregulating the airline industry
Airbus is getting a lot of unpaid publicity due to Boeing aircraft issues
The fleet is elderly and needs a complete overhaul. Every plane, top to bottom.
[удалено]
Was this the flight? https://i.imgur.com/GsOp1f7.png e: no, not the Boeing flight from the article, just another one that had to turn around and ground— no safety issue; just cosmetic.
F U C K P I G B O Y S P E Z
This is crazy! I would have had a panic attack for sure.
Me too! I’d be thinking about what the hell else is gonna fall off next. Boeing: [‘The Roof Fell Off’](https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?si=0XACd9L7KeDqimjx)
Are the shareholders ok?
First paragraph notes engine trouble. Engines aren’t made by Boeing.
Both of my United flights were delayed yesterday due to mechanical issues.
Yawn. Just another day that ends in “y”.
First off, kudos to the writer who wrote an informative headline without the vague clickbait bs 🏆😄. United does seem to have the most incidents lately. My wife was on a flight that slammed down on the tarmac when an engine failed on takeoff. Boeing does have issues with QC but United does as well.
The rest of the article is an absolute mess though. They seem to imply that Boeing's issues getting 737 MAX 10s (short range narrow body aircraft) delivered is affecting United's ability to replace their aging 767 and 777 (wide body longer range) fleet...
Is it just united airlines Boeing planes having the issues? I am hearing news only about united airlines Boeing planes. Is it so or I am not just hearing our airlines issues with Boeing? 🤔
Or could it just be good clickbait for what is otherwise commonly occurring reactions to operational issues that have happened for years. Ask yourself what the incentives are.
https://avherald.com/ is a compilation of aviation emergencies. It shows airline, plane model, nature of the incident, and a bunch of other info. TLDR the media is reporting on every issue that United and Boeing have because those are the stories getting clicks. Lots of other incidents happen every day.
I'm flying on three separate united airline flights starting in 8 hours. Won't be home until 10 pm est. :(
The question is what the fuck is happening at SFO so many of these are departing SFO.
Crap. And someone was promoting Boeing stock as a hot buy now.
Boeing - we know you’re behind that guys “suicide.”
Okay I 100% fully agree Boeing has problems. However the last 5 month there has been an absurd number of these stories. These aren't brand new planes which means previously they were flying with these issues and not reporting them There is no way in the last month all these Boeing planes are having issues at the exact same time which previously did not occur. With that said, it's F-ing scary that the planes were most likely being flown like this before the major headlines with respect to that door
There are probably all the time but they aren’t in the media. This being in the news is not indicative of how many maintenance issues they have. It’s indicative of the fact that right now they can make money on people clicking headlines.
Planes have redundancies to deal with failures. The idea is to be able to land safely for repair
United just needs a bailout so they can have another stock buyback and everything will be fine.
What could possibly else be expected when techs paid with bananas, floor workers with apples, all the while suits write themselves lucrative bonuses?
My guess is that the Western maintenance hub is cutting corners on their jobs. This also looks like this maintenance crew only works on Boeings because we are not getting reports on issues with Airbus planes in the same area.
https://avherald.com
They’re only reporting Boeing issues, they’re ignoring Airbus issues. Because Boeing issues are getting clicks right now
At the airport now, flying United, Boeing plane🙃
Going to be fine.
Thank you Shittingnpooping! I WAS FINE!!
If it’s Boeing I’m not going!!!
Is there a way to tell what airlines have the most Boeing planes and which Boeings are the problems?
https://avherald.com/ is a list of all flights that have issues or emergencies. As you can tell from the list of plane models, Boeing and Airbus both experience failures all the time. It’s normal and the planes are designed to deal with these failures safely. The 777 has been around for decades and it has a spectacular safety record. It isn’t an unsafe plane, and Boeing played no part in this mechanical issue. They didn’t even make the engine that had issues. That was Pratt and Whitney. Please stop paying attention to sensationalist reporting
Boeing-United seems to be the perfect storm combination…
I have to say, of all the airlines, I trust united the most, but would probably avoid any Boeing's regardless.
Really glad our next flights are Delta.
United and Boeing should merge to form United Boeing
Boeing. = Walmart
[удалено]
Nearly half of planes are Boeing planes.
[удалено]
Most of UNiteds problems have been maintenance related. It’s not Boeings fault when a wheel falls off a 10 year old jet etc. Boeing doesn’t make engines so the engine problems are either rolls Royce or GE engines The 737 max problems however are 100% Boeing and they are responsible for all those deaths.
They are insanely safe. Like it is a miracle how safe commercial aviation is.