Home / Alaska Airlines 737 Max Incident and Aircraft Industry: Could It Impact Airbus and Bombardier?

Alaska Airlines 737 Max Incident and Aircraft Industry: Could It Impact Airbus and Bombardier?

2024-01-11 / 4 min

On January 6, 2024, an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 aircraft experienced a mid-flight emergency landing after a section of the fuselage, approximately the size of a refrigerator, blew off shortly after takeoff from Portland, Oregon. The incident, which occurred at an altitude of around 16,000 feet is again raising concerns about the safety of the 737 Max family of aircraft.

Background and Investigation

The incident on board Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, carrying 177 passengers and crew, is the latest in a series of problems that have plagued the 737 Max since its return to service in 2020 following a two-year grounding due to two fatal crashes. The cause of the fuselage rupture remains under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). However, early indications suggest that the issue may be related to the manufacturing process or the installation of the fuselage plug.

Preliminary reports indicate that in weeks leading up to the incident, Alaska Airlines’ pilots had reported pressurization warnings on three separate flights. While these warnings were initially categorized as “benign,” the connection to the door plug failure remains unclear.

“The Alaska Airlines incident has reignited concerns about the quality control measures implemented by Boeing and its suppliers.” – says Toma Matutytė, the CEO of online aviation marketplace Locatory.com. ‘It also raises questions about the durability of the 737 Max’s fuselage, particularly in areas where there are gaps or openings. These concerns are particularly worrying given the 737 Max’s history of safety issues, which have eroded public confidence in the aircraft.”

In the case of the Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 incident, the fuselage plug that blew off was manufactured by Spirit AeroSystems. The plug is a relatively small part, but it is critical to the integrity of the fuselage.

Potential Problems and Concerns

Wichita, Kansas-located Spirit AeroSystems manufactures a wide variety of fuselage parts for Boeing aircraft, including doors, windows, bulkheads, and floor panels. Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems have a long-standing relationship, and the two companies work closely together to ensure the quality and reliability of the fuselage parts that Spirit AeroSystems supplies.

Yet, last April, Boeing issued a warning about potential delays in the production and delivery of a substantial quantity of its 737 Max aircraft. The concerns stemmed from uncertainties surrounding Spirit AeroSystems’ efforts in constructing the fuselages. It was related to the setback in Boeing’s plan to deliver 400 to 450 Max jets last year, which, in turn, was attributed to a flaw involving elongated fastener holes discovered in some components.

Historically, Spirit was a part of Boeing, responsible for manufacturing and assembling a significant fraction of its aircraft fuselages. In 2005, Spirit AeroSystems was spun off from Boeing as a standalone company and since then American planemaker is manufacturer’s biggest customer, accounting for approximately two-thirds of Spirit’s sales. Today, Spirit also produces fuselage sections and front wing spars for the Airbus A350, as well as parts for fuselage of Bombardier planes. As of latest financial disclosure, roughly 20% of Spirit’s sales come from Airbus.

The recent production delays and quality issues with the 737 MAX fuselage parts could potentially affect even the relationship between Spirit AeroSystems and Airbus as well as other major aircraft manufacturers. This is because the issue could lead to further production delays, quality, and concerns, which could make planemakers reconsider its reliance on Spirit for fuselage components.

Outlook and What to Expect Next

If Airbus or Boeing itself decides to diversify its supply chain and seek other suppliers for fuselage components, it could reduce Spirit’s overall revenue and profit margins. On the other hand, if planemakers would be still satisfied with Spirit’s ability to address the current issues and maintain a high level of quality, then the relationship between the two companies could remain strong.

Of course, in the nearest future, the manufacturers will have to continue to rely on Spirit for a significant portion of its fuselage needs, and Spirit could secure a steady source of revenue from Boeing, Airbus, and smaller producers. The outcome of this situation will depend on how effectively Spirit resolves the existing issues and demonstrates its responsibility when it comes to the quality of its assembly.” – Matutytė explains.

The NTSB’s investigation is ongoing, and it could even take up to several months to determine the root cause of the fuselage rupture. In the meantime, airlines are grounding their Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft until further inspections are completed. The grounding is likely to cause significant disruption to airlines that operate the 737 Max 9, particularly Alaska Airlines and United Airlines, which are the two largest operators of the aircraft in the United States.

Being the main and largest operator of the 737 Max 9 with the configuration in question, where such door is plugged, or permanently shut, as opposed to actively used in more densely arranged seating, United currently has 79 such planes, which is significantly more than 65 operated by Alaska Airlines, or the combined total of 52 of Aeroméxico, Copa Airlines, and Icelandair.

Initially, the FAA indicated that the necessary inspections would require four to eight hours, fostering industry expectations of a swift return to service for the planes. However, specific criteria for the checks are still pending agreement between the FAA and Boeing, resulting in a possible delay in providing airlines with detailed instructions.

Implications for Boeing and the Aviation Industry

The Alaska Airlines incident is a major setback for Boeing, which is still struggling to regain its credibility following the 737 Max crisis. The incident could further damage the company’s reputation and erode customer confidence in its products. It could also lead to regulatory scrutiny, also getting to the light and bringing closer the possible implementation of long-demanded extension for cockpit voice recorder’s capacity.

The US-operated 737 MAX has a two-hour CVR capacity, while the current International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) regulations already demand for the capacity of 25 hours, so airlines, operating under the authority of FAA, could face serious issues when it comes to investigations of the incidents such as this.

Namely, the circuit breaker for the CVR was not deactivated following the incident to safeguard the recording. Consequently, when accessed later, the recording had already been entirely overwritten. Yet, this time again, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy advocated for increasing the mandated capacity from the current 2 hours to 25 hours on both new and existing aircraft.

For the aviation industry as a whole, the incident serves as a reminder of the importance of rigorous safety standards and thorough inspections. It also highlights the need for open communication, quality control, and more transparency between manufacturers, airlines, and regulators.

The Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 incident is a serious reminder of the potential risks associated with aviation safety. The investigation into the cause of the fuselage rupture is crucial to understanding the underlying issues and preventing similar incidents from happening in the future. As the investigation progresses, it is important to remain alert and ensure that all necessary steps are taken to ensure the safety of all aircraft operations.

Share this article:

Recent articles

Leveraging PMA Parts for Cost-Effective and Reliable Aviation Operations

2024-01-25 / 5 min

In the fiercely competitive world of aviation, where every penny counts, airlines are always on the lookout for ways to trim expenses without compromising safety or quality. One of solutions, which is increasingly gaining popularity is the use of Product Maintenance Approval (PMA) parts – non-OEM components approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for