• A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!
  • The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 31st anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $24,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $24 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!
  • The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!

Alaska Airlines grounding fleet of Boeing 737 Max jets for inspection after emergency landing

M

MULTIZ321

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
33,160
Reaction score
9,497
Location
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL
Resorts Owned
BLUEWATER BY SPINNAKER HHI
ROYAL HOLIDAY CLUB RHC (POINTS)
Note to self: Do not book exit row.
 
That would have been extremely scary.
 
I have a flight to Honolulu on Tuesday and listed aircraft is the Max 900. Originally our flight was on Monday , during CFP title game. We got an offer from Alaska a few days ago to change flights for a little money back. Since our local college team UW is playing in championship game, it was an easy decision.

Just hope Alaska doesn't cancel our Tuesday flight. Fortunately our schedule is flexible since we're retired and only visiting family. Have no hotel, timeshare or car rentals to adjust.
 
Now the FAA has ordered temp grounding of MAX 9's in the US, requiring inspections before they go back in service.
 
This is also impacted United. Our flight to Kona is delayed by over 5 hours today. Still hoping to get there today.

First trip with our 18 month grandson, he is not a fan of delays...
 
Our friends fly out tomorrow. They were Alaska Air but now it's either Korean or Figi on a 737 Max 9. I wonder if their flight gets cancelled. We sat one row behind the exit row on an Alaskan flight to Hawaii last Saturday.

Bill
 
I read that it wasn't even an exit row!
 
delete
 
Last edited:
claraj said:
I read that it wasn't even an exit row!
Click to expand...

It was an exit but Alaska doesn’t use it - I’m not sure why. So it looks like a permanent part but it is an exit row. I saw an image that showed the rear exit door from the outside, but it’s not available within. I’m sure someone else will chime in with a better explanation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You are right. I read another article that it was "plugged" without a door (to make the plane lighter?). That does not sound very safe.
 
That can be an exit row based on plane configuration. It was not required in that configuration so they use a plug. Clearly it was installed improperly.
 
Ken555 said:
It was an exit but Alaska doesn’t use it - I’m not sure why. So it looks like a permanent part but it is an exit row. I saw an image that showed the rear exit door from the outside, but it’s not available within. I’m sure someone else will chime in with a better explanation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Per local news -

The blowout occurred where the is an opening in the fuselage for an added emergency exit. That additional emergency exit is required on MAX9s used by certain low-cost carriers, such as Ryan Air, that cram more seats onto the plane. With thad added number of passengers, an additional emergency exit is required. The problem doesn't exist on the MAX8s because that is a smaller plane that doesn't require an extra emergency exit even when crammed full by the Ryan airs of the airline industry. For carriers who don't configure the planes for that many passengers, that opening in the fuselage is plugged.

It's evident that the plug blew out. Presumably, the inspections established by Alaska Airlines in their initial grounding of planes, followed later by the general FAA grounding notice, is for inspection of the fasteners for that plug.

I expect that the fasteners will be a critical component of the NTSB investigation.
 
We jumped to standby on a different flight, and fortunately we all made it. Will be late when get to the resort, but hopefully that the last of the drama for us
 
simpsontruckdriver said:
Boeing wants a FEDERAL EXEMPTION so they don't have to follow safety guidelines for the Max 7. Yeah, pilots and the pilot's union are not happy, neither are safety groups!

TS
Click to expand...
That's a bit overbroad and highly misleading. More accurate is that they are seeking that the same engine system (completely unrelated to this incident) approved by the FAA and currently being used on on existing aircraft be grandfathered for the 737Max7 aircraft, despite updated guidelines that apply to newly designed/certified aircraft that would otherwise require a new certification.

It is a de-icing system that has already been approved for use by the FAA, not the entire Max 7 aircraft. The FAA has the authority to grant such an exemption, which it may or may not do, likely based in no way upon what pilot unions say.
 
Some additional notes:

As stated above this is not considered an exit row, but could be configured to be an emergency exit. It was not on this plane, and from the inside it basically looks the same as other rows (on this aircraft it is row 26, but this may change based on the cabin seating configuration).

This plane has only been in service for about a month. The day before this flight, there was a maintenance report of pressure anomalies. It is unknown what action, inspection, or testing was done if any.

So far there is no word on the specific cause, and the "plug" has not been located. Discussion of bolts, attachment, etc are currently pure speculation.

It is unclear if such an incident has ever happened before, involving a similar plugged exit.
 
davidvel said:
Not true. There was one bolt that was found with a missing nut found after routine inspection.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "not true" ? Every 737 Max underwent inspections for this which isn't the same thing as the regular routine maintenance performed on this aircraft.

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top