Recent incidents involving major airlines have reignited concerns about aviation safety, prompting passengers to question the reliability of air travel. While flying remains one of the safest modes of transportation, these events highlight the importance of ongoing vigilance and regulatory oversight in the industry. We recap events from this year and the legal measures being taken to address concerns.
The Recent Boeing Max Grounding
In January, an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 plane made an emergency landing at the Portland airport due to a hole in the plane's body (yes, you read that right). The California-bound plane returned to PDX about 20 minutes after takeoff. No one was seriously injured, but passengers reported wind blowing through a gaping hole.
After investigation, it was later revealed that one door plug tore off 10 minutes into the flight at an altitude of about 16,000 feet. The incident could have been worse if it had occurred at cruising altitudes when passengers and crew might have been moving around. The plane was relatively new, having been delivered to Alaska Airlines on October 31.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered U.S. airlines to ground some Boeing 737 Max 9 planes for inspection following this incident. Alaska and United Airlines canceled dozens of flights to comply with the order. The FAA has ordered inspections of a "mid-cabin door plug," which is used in planes configured with fewer seats and exits than the maximum. The Flight 1282 plane had two such plugged doors.
The FAA's order affected 171 planes, and inspections for each plan took several hours. The investigations into United’s planes found about 10 different aircraft that had loose bolts during preliminary checks. Alaska similarly found loose parts on multiple Max planes.
Boeing’s History of Plane Problems
But Boeing should not have been surprised. In fact, last December, Boeing warned its partnered airlines that they should inspect all Max planes for a possible loose bolt in the rudder-control system. And this is not the first time Boeing's Max aircrafts has faced scrutiny.
After two Max 8 crashes in 2018 and 2019 killed hundreds, the planes were grounded. Boeing made changes and the FAA cleared the Max to fly again in late 2020. In 2021, Boeing paid a $2.5 billion settlement over a criminal charge of conspiring to defraud the FAA.
Then, in a March flight from Sydney to Auckland, a 787 abruptly plunged mid-air, injuring 50 passengers. Fortunately, there were no fatalities. The same day, the New York Times reported that an investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) into the 737 Max production revealed that Boeing failed 33 of the 89 audits at the factory where these planes are produced.
Following the January incident, Boeing’s leadership was shaken up, and its CEO and commercial airplane head stepped down. But the reality is that Max planes remain in wide use globally.
Lawsuits Against Parts Manufacturer
Was anything done about it, from a legal standpoint? Who is responsible?
Many claim that the plane’s manufacturers are responsible. For example, Spirit AeroSystems (not to be confused with Spirit Airlines) is a major non-OEM aerostructures manufacturer that supplies parts like fuselages to Boeing. Spirit was once a part of Boeing, and now the companies collaborate closely on design, development, and production, ensuring quality and efficiency. This partnership is economically significant, with Boeing being one of Spirit's largest customers, thereby playing a crucial role in Spirit's operations and financial performance. This relationship is integral to the aerospace manufacturing industry.
After the Max incident, Spirit’s shareholders took the company to court, alleging that the company concealed widespread quality failures from investors, including debris in products, missing fasteners, and poor skin quality. The suit claims that Spirit's emphasis on meeting production targets and short-term financial goals led to a culture that prioritized quantity over quality.
The lawsuit cites several incidents, including a defect related to tail fin fittings on some 737 aircraft and quality issues with the aft fuselage section of certain 737 models. Boeing reportedly sent manufacturing and engineering resources to Spirit to aid in the repair process. Spirit has denied the allegations, stating that it will "vigorously defend against the claims."
Separately, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation into Spirit for potential manufacturing defects in certain 737 models, citing concerns over recurring issues with airplane parts, including the Alaska Airlines incident in January. Boeing had also reported the need for additional work on undelivered 737 MAX jets due to misdrilled holes.
In response, Spirit AeroSystems filed a lawsuit to block the investigation, claiming Paxton's demands were unreasonable and unlawful. The company argued that the probe had no connection to events in Texas and violated constitutional rights. Spirit AeroSystems maintained that it did not manufacture any parts allegedly involved in Boeing 737 incidents.
Manufacturers Thrive Despite Parts Failures
Airplane issues aren’t just limited to Boeing. he aviation industry is witnessing a peculiar phenomenon, where jet-engine manufacturers are thriving despite their products requiring frequent repairs. American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate RTX Corporation's recently reported a surge in earnings following by climbing share prices. GE Aerospace’s stock similarly closed at a 16-year high, driven by strong demand for spare parts. Similar trends can be seen with European companies.
This trend has raised eyebrows among industry insiders because the prosperity seems at odds with the fact that these engines are causing significant headaches for airlines and plane manufacturers. The Pratt & Whitney's geared turbofan and the LEAP engine, built by CFM, are experiencing durability issues, leading to increased maintenance costs and grounding hundreds of Airbus A320neo planes.
The shortage of spare parts and experienced employees has prolonged shop visits, diverting resources away from new engine production. This, in turn, is slowing down plane assembly and orders. At the Farnborough International Airshow, Boeing and Airbus received fewer orders compared to previous years, partly due to carriers' overstretched capacity and long backlogs.
Industry experts point out that engine manufacturers make most of their profit from maintenance and repairs, rather than the initial sale of the engine. This business model creates an incentive for manufacturers to prioritize the aftermarket over developing new, more fuel-efficient engines. While this doesn't mean engines are designed to break down, it does raise questions about the alignment of interests between engine makers and their customers, Boeing and Airbus. As the industry continues to grapple with supply chain bottlenecks, shareholders in engine makers must consider the long-term risks of this business model.
A Wake-Up Call for Air Travel Safety?
Experts warn that the company's focus on profits over safety has led to a culture of cost-cutting and corner-cutting, which can have deadly consequences. The FAA's oversight has also been called into question, with critics arguing that the agency's self-certification policy allows manufacturers to prioritize profits over safety.
Despite assurances from Boeing and the FAA, many are skeptical about the effectiveness of their efforts to address these issues. Some experts, including a former aerospace engineer, are advising passengers to avoid flying on recent Boeing products until more comprehensive reforms are implemented.
While the risks of flying remain extremely low, passengers can minimize their exposure to potential safety issues by checking flight details and monitoring status updates.
Related Resources:
- Can I Sue an Airline? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Air Travelers Get Payback (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- How To File a Complaint Against an Airline (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
