back to article Engine cover flies from Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 during takeoff

The engine cover on a Boeing 737-800 used by Southwest Airlines detached during takeoff from Denver on Sunday, prompting an investigation by aviation regulators. The engine cowling struck the wing flap as the aircraft left the runway just before 8am local time, in an incident filmed by a passenger and shared on social media. …

  1. Locomotion69
    Megaphone

    Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

    Why has this particular passenger decided to share "on social media" instead of alarming the cabin crew? What was he/she/... thinking? It is OK to take off in an airplane with an engine falling apart in front of my eyes? Why?

    1. HammerOn1024

      Re: Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

      If the aircraft was far enough down the runway, past a point at which the aircraft can abort (Aircraft type, Weight and conditions dependent, known as "V1") a takeoff, then the aircraft will take off, declare an emergency and do a go-around. The flight crew would also shut down the failing engine.

      It's better to go around than plow off the end of the runway and crash.

      There is no 'WTF' about it.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

        In fact, from TFA, it was well beyond the point where it could abort: "The engine cowling struck the wing flap as the aircraft left the runway".

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

      pay attention.

    3. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

      You do know that you can call the crew *and* share a video later.

    4. Filippo Silver badge

      Re: Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

      Either they alerted the crew immediately and shared the accident later, or someone else had already alerted the crew, or, most likely, the crew was already alert on account of all the screaming. I honestly can't fathom why you would think that this was an "instead of" situation. There's enough in this story to be outraged at already, no need to make up more.

    5. JoeCool Silver badge

      Please get a clue

      The fact is there's almost nothing that you can "alarm" the aircrew about that will matter, once you are rolling.

      The Aircraft becomes airborn about 30 seconds after starting.

      Everything the pilots need to know at that point is coming from their controls and gauges.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Please get a clue

        "Alerting" the crew while the fasten seatbelt sign is on will either get them ignored, arrested or shot depending on skin color.

        Interestingly airport security is one area where danger from law enforcement is a non-monotonic function of skin color

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Please get a clue

          Based on risk prevalence? I'd say that I'm somewhat ok with that tbh, people who blow up planes etc. tend to have a somewhat monotonic and fairly gender specific blend (which happens to be my profile too, but I get it)

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Graham Cobb Silver badge

            Re: Please get a clue

            The first female hijacker was in 1969. There have been others since.

    6. Russ T

      Re: Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

      This is the "emergency" landing being filmed. You can tell by the position of the flaps.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

        You can tell by the way that the aircraft is slowing down not accelerating though they cannot and dare not use thrust reversers.

      2. Dave@Home

        Re: Shared on social media ??? WTF ???

        And the words above the video, they provide a clue

  2. Khaptain Silver badge

    Video looks like a landing not a takeoff

    After having looking elsewhere for more information I now realise that the video is of the landing and not the takeoff, however the initial cowling problem did indeed happen during takeoff..

    1. Spazturtle Silver badge

      Re: Video looks like a landing not a takeoff

      They took off and the cowling opened so they went around and immediately landed.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Video looks like a landing not a takeoff

        Which is annoying on a 737. One of the interesting 'historical' features of the 737 is that it can't dump fuel so you either have to fly around ion circles for a few hours - not recommended if you suspect you have a bit of wing missing, or you land overweight and risk damaging some expensive concrete

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Video looks like a landing not a takeoff

          > Which is annoying on a 737

          Is there anything which isn't annoying or dangerous? This is starting to get ridiculous!

          "Boeing, named for the sound their aircraft make when dropping out of the sky"

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Video looks like a landing not a takeoff

            >Is there anything which isn't annoying or dangerous? This is starting to get ridiculous!

            No it's a very good aircraft. It's low enough to the ground that it can carry air-stairs on board so you don't need a terminal, air bridges or ground crew, you can load baggage without any special equipment.

            But this does mean you have no room for wheel bay doors and it might get tricky if engines ever get bigger - but we can worry about that in the future if these 'jet airliners' ever catch on.

        2. Marty McFly Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: Video looks like a landing not a takeoff

          >"One of the interesting 'historical' features of the 737 is that it can't dump fuel so you either have to fly around ion circles for a few hours

          True, it cannot dump fuel. However, this is not a long-haul aircraft either with massive amounts of fuel onboard. It can safely land overweight with full fuel tanks. It just means the landing gear gets an inspection before flying again.

          The incident flight was only 35 minutes, hardly flying around in circles.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Video looks like a landing not a takeoff

            >The incident flight was only 35 minutes, hardly flying around in circles.

            Yes that was my point, they couldn't fly around in circles with a potential damaged wings so had to land overweight.

            The 737-Max8 has a range of 3300nm so while not the longest of long-range has a fair bit of fuel onboard

            It also has a max landing weight about 15t less than it's MTO weight - so in an aircraft that can carry 20t of fuel and can't dump fuel might be concerning.

            ps. Although this flight was probably not heavily loaded for a domestic flight

        3. druck Silver badge

          Re: Video looks like a landing not a takeoff

          One of the interesting 'historical' features of the 737 is that it can't dump fuel so you either have to fly around ion circles for a few hours - not recommended if you suspect you have a bit of wing missing, or you land overweight and risk damaging some expensive concrete

          You've got the last bit a bit backwards, a 737 isn't going to be too heavy for any runway long enough for it to land on as, but landing overweight may cause damage the landing gear or buckle the airframe.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Announcement over the Tannoy

    "This is you Chaplain speaking."

    1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
      Coffee/keyboard

      Re: Announcement over the Tannoy

      Icon - Nuff Said.

  4. STOP_FORTH Silver badge
    Trollface

    Bolts for Boeing

    Scour your sheds, empty out those jam-jars. Send nuts and bolts to our friends in Seattle.

    None of that metric rubbish, Imperial or Whitworth only.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Bolts for Boeing

      All major airliners use Imperial fasteners - even Airbus.

      When airbus was trying to break into the US market they realised that demanding every mechanic buy a new set of tools and have everyone stock a confusingly similar set of nuts, bolts and screws would be a challenge - so they stuck to precision components based on the length of 3 barley corns

      1. chuckufarley Silver badge

        Re: Bolts for Boeing

        They are not Imperial Fasteners, they are Freedom Fasteners. This might seem like an oxymoron but entropy is. Boeing is just doing it's part to help it along.

      2. bazza Silver badge

        Re: Bolts for Boeing

        >so they stuck to precision components based on the length of 3 barley corns

        In name only. Today, an inch is defined with respect to the metre in the same way a millimetre - a fixed ratio. A millimetre is obviously 0.0010 of an metre, and an inch is 0.0254 of a metre. The latter was recognised and adopted by all countries using imperial units in 1964; prior to then, different countries had different definitions of an inch w.r.t. 1 metre, though all had adopted 1metre as their fundamental reference length with the Metric Treaty.

        Airbus's decision certainly made sense; when the US licensed the English Electric Canberra (to become the B57 bomber), despite both countries working in "inches" they worked to different definitions of an inch, had different standard thicknesses of aluminium (and different names for the stuff). They basically had to re-draw the entire design package to Americanise the aircraft to make it manufacturable in the USA.

        Had Airbus followed European / British design practises (like the Canberra), there was a fair chance that there'd be nothing at all about the aircraft that would be familiar to Americans, not just the use of metric tools.

        The Canberra was pretty impressive; the US bought it because, for the demo flights in the USA, the RAF simply flew straight across the Atlantic Ocean non-stop. No other jet at the time was capable of that. Great aircraft, much missed.

        1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Bolts for Boeing

          @bazza

          Canberra...

          In WB-57 guise, a couple of examples on a NASA Eclipse chasing mission today

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68746638

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Bolts for Boeing

            So NASA is chasing eclipses with a foreign jet fighter from the 1940s - and we're expected to believe they had the technology to land on the moon ?

            1. LogicGate Silver badge

              Re: Bolts for Boeing

              Well, they got to the moon on technology from the sixties, so that adds up...

              1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                Re: Bolts for Boeing

                At least in the 60s they didn't rely on foreign technology from WWII

                1. Tim99 Silver badge

                  Re: Bolts for Boeing

                  They relied on foreign scientists who had developed the foreign technology during WW2: Wernher von Braun, Wikipedia.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Bolts for Boeing

                    3...2...1.... woosh

  5. chuckufarley Silver badge
    Joke

    I just flew in from Detroit...

    ...and boy are my government inspectors tired!

  6. Just An Engineer

    Is it Just Me??

    But how is this a "Boeing issue"? Since this aircraft has been in service for 9 years.

    I understand how the world works, but the press coverage of this incident seems to point to some flaw in the Boeing design, when it appears to me to be a SWA maintenance issue.

    1. Chris Miller

      Re: Is it Just Me??

      Indeed, and a relatively minor one at that, roughly equivalent to getting the back knocked off your car's wing mirror.

      1. cyberdemon Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Is it Just Me??

        My suspicion is that some powerful people went short on Boeing at the time of the door blowout, and they have friends in the media to help their position further.

      2. DJO Silver badge

        Re: Is it Just Me??

        a relatively minor one at that

        Unless the cowling smashes into the tail plane, which is exactly what happened here.

        1. Chris Miller

          Re: Is it Just Me??

          Causing any damage? Of course, land as soon as practicable is absolutely the correct course of action, but the press vibes are that the aircraft was about to fall from the sky, which is nonsense. To purse my analogy, your wing mirror cover coming off **might** land under your tyre, and then cause a blowout and a crash, but that doesn't of itself mean it's a major incident.

          1. DJO Silver badge

            Re: Is it Just Me??

            Causing any damage?

            Absolutely, all they needed was for the co-pilot to climb out and have a look.

            In Aerospace you always assume damage. Steering issues are a lot more serious in the air with 100+ people on board than a Ford Escort being a bit wobbly. Even if there was no damage it'll need a major inspection to be 100% sure of that.

    2. blackcat Silver badge

      Re: Is it Just Me??

      If Boeing wasn't in the middle of the door plug issue and hadn't suffered the two MAX crashes due to MCAS then the press attention would be different.

      Exactly the same happened with the DC10 early in its life. The type had two cargo door failures (one landed, one crashed) caused by a rather poor design that allowed the door handle to be fully seated even if the locking pins were not properly seated. This very much was McD-D's poor design at the root cause. Then American 191 crashed after an engine ripped off on takeoff. Entirely a maintenance issue, just like this, but this was pretty much the nail in McD-D's coffin as the flying public now saw the DC10 as unsafe.

      1. Gene Cash Silver badge

        Re: Is it Just Me??

        > nail in McD-D's coffin

        So of course Boeing bought them. And here we are.

        1. blackcat Silver badge

          Re: Is it Just Me??

          Indeed! You would have thought that when a successful company merges with a less successful company you would pick the management from the more successful branch....

          1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

            Re: Is it Just Me??

            You might think so, wouldn't you. But, considering that such deals are generally driven by monopsodic investors trying to make even more money by reducing competition, the reverse is usually the case. Look ambitious for saps to take a basket case of your hands by praising its efficiency. Just look at 3i's track record: juicy returns for a couple of years until the wheels, sometimes very literally, start falling off.

            1. YetAnotherXyzzy

              Re: Is it Just Me??

              Another example, and this from the airline industry: US Airways took over "nobody cuts more corners than we do!" America West, but found their board and C-suite taken over by the nickel-and-dimers. Then much larger American Airlines bought them, and the same thing happened. AA has been Always Awful ever since.

          2. Bearshark

            Re: Is it Just Me??

            It may be a little hyperbolic to say but, Boeing bought MD and all their brass went to executive positions. Boeing was an engineering company and they lost that after the merger. What you get now is Safety be damned because its all about the shareholders now and will never be about the customer. Airbus will capitalize hugely in the coming years if it hasn't already.

    3. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Is it Just Me??

      I'm guessing that in this case somebody has failed to secure the cowling after having it open and it has been missed on back up checks. So it's an operational failure rather than a Boeing one and might have happened to any airline with an engine slung under the wing but all the attention is on Boeing after they stopped making robust aircraft.

      1. Spazturtle Silver badge

        Re: Is it Just Me??

        It is also partly a design issue.

        Due to how low the engines are on the 737 you can't see if the cowling is properly secured without pretty much laying on the ground (the clips are on the underside). The 737 was designed 60 years ago and huge turbo fans were not a thing back then.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Is it Just Me??

          So are the CFM engine cowls anything to do with the GE turbines from the 60s?

          Does Boeing solely design the engine cowls are are the engine maker also involved ?

          It does seem a little unfair, the BA777 engine fire at Las Vegas was the fault of a GE engine, the BA777 that landed short at Heathrow was a Rolls Royce engine design flaw - but they get reported as Boeing 777 crashes

          1. Spazturtle Silver badge

            Re: Is it Just Me??

            Boeing actually out-sources the design and construction of it's engine cowls to Airbus. I would assume that they talk to the engine manufacturer as part of the process.

            Airbus actually makes quite a few parts of modern Boeing aircraft including the wing tips and flaps.

    4. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Is it Just Me??

      It is too early to apportion blame but how do you know it *isn't* a Boeing issue? 9 years service is not a long time for a plane and manufacturers have been involved in maintenance for years: lots of juicy after-sales cashflow; as long as nothing goes wrong.

      It's also possible to point the finger as SouthWest which is one of those companies that introduced asset-sweating to the airline industry, but this kind of thing was recommended by the same kind of MBAs that convinced Boeing to cut corners cut costs in manufacturing.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Is it Just Me??

        Charlie Clark,

        We can't know - absent information from the investigation. But engine maintenance happens all the time. Such that a design flaw in how the cowling closes ought to have shown up by now. So the most likely issue on a removable part of a 9 year old aircraft not being secure properly is poor maintenance.

        It's still perfectly possible that it's a design flaw. But the automatic linking to Boeing is lazy silly journalism. This isn't like the emergency door plug - which is a part the ailine won't touch until a major maintennace period when they strip the fuselage down. This is something they're going to be taking on and off all the time.

        1. JoeCool Silver badge

          Not Lazy at all

          If it was a Airbus, sure they get the benefit of a doubt. But when you have systemic safety and design issues and a culture of profits over sound engineering design (Boeing) it is at best naive to cast it as such.

          Also, there's this quote (which could be clarified as to if it is specific to the A/C or the carrier)

          "Reuters also pointed out that the FAA might impose engine housing inspections and component replacements on Boeing 737 NG aircraft following a 2018 Southwest Airlines incident."

          And this report is not lazy reporting at all; it is stating relevant facts that are known, including that neither Southwest or Boeing have provided responses, and reasonably reporting the status of the investigation. I don't see any slanting or opinion expressed in the article.

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: Not Lazy at all

            https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/frontier-airlines/right-hand-engine-cowl-of-a-frontier-airlines-airbus-a320-broke-loose-after-take-off-from-las-vegas-airport/

          2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: Not Lazy at all

            And this report is not lazy reporting at all; it is stating relevant facts that are known, including that neither Southwest or Boeing have provided responses, and reasonably reporting the status of the investigation. I don't see any slanting or opinion expressed in the article.

            If you don't see anything, then it's because you aren't looking. Or more likely, because it's a standard journalistic trope and people are used to it. It's perfectly understandable. Boeing are in the news for all the wrong reasons, and because they've done stupid, dangerous and quite possibly criminal things. So minor incidents that wouldn't normally get reported, now make the news.

            If I remember correctly it was 2 weeks after the door plug incident that the press were breathlessly reporting on the front wheel falling off a Boeing 777. And using that lovely journalistic shorthand to link two stories that aren't really linked, "this comes after the news of the Boeing door plug incident". Where what they're really doing is reporting on themselves and what they're interested in. Not on what's happened. Which is an aircraft build in the 1990s had an issue - and it's unknown whether it was a maintenance error, just the random break down of old components or whether there's an old design flaw that only shows up after 3 decades of use. Or possibly a flaw with established maintenance practises that we can improve on. Some even lazier journalists didn't even bother to note in their stories that the plane was 30 years old, and so it was certainly not related to Boeing having got sloppy in their production processes in the last couple of years.

            1. JoeCool Silver badge

              Re: Not Lazy at all

              "minor incidents that wouldn't normally get reported, now make the news."

              This is not minor. A detached anything in midair, that can strike a vital control system must be treated as critical. That's the NTSB methodology that has produced the level of safety that we have today.

              " link two stories that aren't really linked"

              And you know this because the investigation has completed and determined that it was NOT caused in wole or in part by

              - An incorrect maintenance episode

              - inadequate training

              - inadequate supervision

              - misleading the FAA about the training

              - Not documenting the misleading training

              - Not co-operating with the NTSB

              "If I remember correctly it was 2 weeks after the door plug incident that the press were breathlessly reporting on the front wheel falling off a Boeing 777"

              And now we come to the turn down the rabit hole.

              Yes Indeed let's shift the discussion to an ENTIRELY unlreated news report. That's a lovely shorthand for lazy thinking.

              Let's further rail against "The media" and get away from discussing this specific new report.

              That's a lazy generalization that serves no purpose.

              And a 30 year old aircraft is maintained to the same level as every other Aircraft of similiar type.

              Citing age as a reason to dismiss the story is lazy.

              You might want to have a glance at that bias mirror yourself.

        2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: Is it Just Me??

          Right, I'm not pointing the finger and we can and should wait for the report and its findings. But I don't think it's possible to cover the story and not mention Boeing's recent safety record. Whether or not it's directly related doesn't matter: this is what as known as reputational risk and tends to keep hitting companies that think they can cut corners. IIRC the case study is how much Audi had to spend after a major recall incident.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Is it Just Me??

        >It is too early to apportion blame but how do you know it *isn't* a Boeing issue? 9 years service is not a long time for a plane and manufacturers have been involved in maintenance for years

        South West operates 3000-4000 flights / day, there are about 3000 CFM56 engines in service so this could either be somebody forgot to latch a cowling shut on one of them - or a design flaw that took a decade to show up on a component that is opened and closed every day on the worlds most common airliner.

    5. vtcodger Silver badge

      Re: Is it Just Me??

      Certainly could be a maintenance issue, or a fastener issue, or maybe a cowling design issue or perhaps something really weird/unusual. How about we wait a while before assigning blame and see what the investigators have to say?

    6. Marty McFly Silver badge
      Go

      Re: Is it Just Me??

      >"But how is this a "Boeing issue"? Since this aircraft has been in service for 9 years."

      We tend to forget that Boeing (and Airbus) make the planes, but not the engines. It could be argued this is a CFM International problem and not a Boeing problem, as they made the engines on this aircraft (N8668A).

      It is the real world and bad days happen. It can even be argued the airframe, its design, and redundant systems performed admirably with a safe return to the airport.

  7. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Zebidee

    That's what they should rename Boeing (it already sounds like boing). Their planes just seem to bounce from one disaster to the next.

  8. I am David Jones Silver badge

    Passengers unharmed?

    Does that include potential mental trauma?

    Not sure how I’d of coped with sitting next to that engine…

    1. KittenHuffer Silver badge

      Re: Passengers unharmed?

      If you were sat in the seat nearest the engine then you were probably unaware. The wing would have blocked your view of the engine.

      The best view would likely have been from about 3 or 4 rows in front of you looking backwards down the wing.

      1. My other car WAS an IAV Stryker

        Re: Passengers unharmed?

        The article said it struck the "wing flap". Without having seen the video, I find this to be highly likely. With the flaps fully extended for takeoff, the parts are low enough to get hit with a piece of engine cowling. If so, a few rows behind would make the flap damage the most visible to a passenger.

      2. Roj Blake Silver badge

        Re: Passengers unharmed?

        Maybe, but you would have definitely seen the little gremlin on the wing ripping everything apart as the plane passed through the twilight zone.

  9. Groo The Wanderer Silver badge

    You mean LATEST failure by Boeing.

    Where are the hundreds of millions in fines that they so richly deserve after over a YEAR of "accidents" and "mistakes?"

    1. bazza Silver badge

      This may not have anything to do with Boeing whatsoever. It's perfectly possible that a ramp maintenance worker forgot to make fast the cowling.

      There was a spate of similar accidents with Airbus A320s, for exactly that reason. They kept happening because the worker had to get right underneath the engine to check for sure that the relevant fasteners had indeed been made properly. Busy people faced with crawling around on the wet ground tend to find short cuts... I think that, eventually, Airbus had to redesign the closing mechanism so that it was far more obvious if the cowling were not properly fastened shut.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Still, you'd think anyone working in Boeing maintenance would be walking on their toes right now.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          They aren't Boeing maintenance - the maintenance is done by the airlines. Or for smaller operators sub-contracted to people like Lufthansa-Technik

          Since Southwestern has something like 400 flights/day from Denver they probably have a significant maintenance operation there

          1. Groo The Wanderer Silver badge

            The airline "maintenance" is contracted to lowest-budget providers whose workers will do things like rotate the tire so the bald spot is on top and the inspector won't see it rather than call for a flight delay to change the tire. I had a friend who used to work maintenance for one of the big airlines until they cut their in-house maintenance and started contracting it out. He went from 60K/year+perks to 22K/year+expenses that year, and all the airlines were doing it.

            So remember that: they're expecting skilled aircraft maintenance for Mr. Lube staff prices. :(

  10. Jason Hindle

    I must admit, it's got me checking what I'm actually going to fly on

    It's been all Airbus lately, though, so there's no Boing.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: I must admit, it's got me checking what I'm actually going to fly on

      I suspect we'll soon see options to pay a premium not to fly Boeing…

      1. Korev Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: I must admit, it's got me checking what I'm actually going to fly on

        If it's Boeing then I'm not going...

      2. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: I must admit, it's got me checking what I'm actually going to fly on

        Isn't that the exact ploy Ryanair is planning?

  11. BebopWeBop
    Facepalm

    Yeeeek

    Been there, seen that :-( An engine cowling flying off an Airbus on a flight from Nairobi down to Mombassa 25 years ago. The flight staff didn't believe me (a scruffy student) until I insisted they look out of the fekin window. I suppose it wasn't a Boeing so not newsworthy :-)

    1. Jason Hindle

      Re: Yeeeek

      Back in the day, Kenya Airways had a certain talent for losing new aircraft. It wouldn't put me off flying with them today.

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Yeeeek

      So all you've got is an Airbus incident that is 25 years old.

      Compared to the way too many Boeing incidents since the Max was thrust down everyone's throats.

      Sorry, I still prefer Airbus.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Yeeeek

        https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/frontier-airlines/right-hand-engine-cowl-of-a-frontier-airlines-airbus-a320-broke-loose-after-take-off-from-las-vegas-airport/

      2. bazza Silver badge

        Re: Yeeeek

        There has indeed been a spate of A320 cowlings flying off. It was down to it being difficult to see that the cowling was indeed properly fastened shut. Enough incidents happened that Airbus had to change the design.

        A possibly naive observation is that one might expect Airbus - when faced with an obvious opportunity for improvement - would happily adopt it, whereas Boeing (of old) would not and would lobby Congress to reign in the FAA, get them off their back.

  12. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Trollface

    "Our maintenance teams are reviewing the aircraft"

    And our Board is looking into acquiring Airbus planes for added safety.

  13. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Joke

    There is a joke here, somewhere

    About living under a flight path and getting a Boeing in instalments

    But - much like Boeings quality control team, I can't be arsed..

    1. LogicGate Silver badge

      Re: There is a joke here, somewhere

      In Germany, the joke used to be that the fastest way to get your hands on a F-104 Starfighter was to buy a plot of land and wait.

      1. DoctorPaul

        Re: There is a joke here, somewhere

        Ah, Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters - that takes me back!

        1. Fr. Ted Crilly Silver badge

          Re: There is a joke here, somewhere

          Another aerospaceage warrior!

    2. Fr. Ted Crilly Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: There is a joke here, somewhere

      I'd get it one piece at a time

      And it wouldn't cost me a dime

      You'd know it's me when I come through your town...

  14. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "Passengers were unharmed and continued their journeys on a different aircraft about three hours later."

    An entirely different aircraft or just one more of the same?

    1. YetAnotherXyzzy

      Southwest flies an all-737 fleet, and in the name of cost cutting has no interline agreements with any other airline. So it would have to be more of the same.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    SNL said it best

    “An eclipse is the one moment where you can look up to the sky and see something besides the door of a Boeing airplane plummeting towards the ground”

    It appears they should replace "the door" with "parts", if I recall correctly there has also been a wheel dropping off at some point.

  16. PRR Silver badge

    > OFFBEAT

    WHY doesn't El Reg have a dedicated section for Boeing? They have surely earned it.

  17. ChaosFreak
    Stop

    Boeing doesn't make engines

    While it's clear Boeing has serious issues with quality, the two incidents mentioned in this article were related to the engines, which are not manufactured by Boeing. Most aircraft manufacturers buy the engines from manufacturers who specialize in engines.

    It's fun to pile on Boeing, but the El Reg reporter should know better. To say you've received no comment from Boeing about an engine failure without even mentioning the engine manufacturer or asking them for comment is pretty sloppy.

    1. Groo The Wanderer Silver badge

      Re: Boeing doesn't make engines

      The problem wasn't the engine, but the housing of the engine, which is not the engine manufacturer's part of the aircraft. The engine is inside the cowlings.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Build your own

    Enthusiasts will soon be able to collect enough parts that have fallen off Boeing planes to build their own!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like