The New York Times reported that the plane was scheduled for a maintenance check over ongoing concerns, but Alaska Airlines chose to allow flights to go ahead.
The New York Times reported that the plane was scheduled for a maintenance check over ongoing concerns, but Alaska Airlines chose to allow flights to go ahead.
Well that’s a hell of a development. This whole thing has been laid solely at the feet of Boeing when it was also Alaska’s fault.
It started with the fucked up aircraft production.
The finished with Alaska choosing not to perform maintenance it knew it needed.
The good news is that this has brought to light some major deficiencies in both the aircraft manufacturing and airline maintenance failings. Two things that would not have been highlighted has Alaska done their due diligence and discovered this issue when they should have.
it was reported on fairly early on in the saga. it was lost in the whole ‘missing bolt’ thing that was discovered to have been the ultimate cause. I’m not sure how critical the pressurization alarms were- from what I remember, those could have been anything from critical “we need to drop the plane now” to “oh, there’s an increased leak but the pumps are handling it”.
I also don’t know that the mechanics would have looked at the door plug or not while doing that inspection.
Air traffic safety is done in so many layers, usually when shit starts going visibly bad it means quite a few things have failed simultaneously.