The CEO of Alaska Airlines, Ben Minicucci, has released a video update on the airline’s plans for the Boeing 737 MAX 9, in light of the variant’s grounding after one of their flights from Portland lost a door plug leading to rapid depressurization.
He notes that they voluntarily grounded the fleet type before the government did. They’re cancelling 110 – 150 flights per day.
Minicucci, though, makes a couple of interesting points.
- They are doing their own inspections of the planes and therefore do not trust Boeing to do them. I reported earlier in the week that airlines would be doing their own oversight inspections, of Boeing 737 factories to review productions and quality procedures.
- Alaska will remain ‘proudly all Boeing’, it is “a commitment.” But does he realize he’s in the process of buying a heavily Airbus fleet from Hawaiian Airlines? They haven’t publicly spoken to their plans for Hawaiian’s fleet, though it’s broadly assumed that eventually the Airbus planes go away (they just finished offloading the Airbus narrowbodies they took on when buying Virgin America).
Boeing has major problems. So does Spirit Aerosystems, which produces many of the components of their planes, it seems. But that, too, is a Boeing problem. It’s no longer possible to paper over those. And airlines that buy and operate Boeing aircraft are going to have to take on greater responsibility for safety assurance. The Boeing brand has been damaged.
Much like anything in this world if you can pick between something European vs American. Ways pick Europe.
European is always better.
American is a land of rednecks.
I’m sure doing their own inspections is just a PR move to assure the public. I seriously doubt that they don’t “trust” Boeing to do inspections of something with such high visibility.
As far as “proudly all Boeing”, if they keep the Hawaiian branding, but integrate operations and loyalty programs, then they can technically still say Alaska Airlines is still all Boeing.
@Mantis – precisely
Says you.
Alaska Airlines has their own engineers and executives. I got faith. Plus it would be a horrendous look for the airline based in a part of the world with a lot of Boeing workers to waver.
“The Boeing brand has been damaged.”
Such a perceptive analysis. Thanks for sharing.
The rednecks are starting to win elections in Europe too. Soon France and/or Germany shouid be lead by rednecks. And, of course, after two world wars originating in Europe, to this day, it never has been or become better. Oh, almost forgot, Airbus has had better quality control than Boeing. That is likely to continue even with the redneck parties taking over Europe!
@Andys
European is always better? Have you driven a Renault?
@derek So true!
I just watched the CEO’s video. Not impressed. This quality control by customers does not make me feel better since it should not be needed in the first place.
Even if they are internally discussing moving away from their all Boeing strategy after the max9 incident its probably not something they can talk or admit to publicly yet if its something they only just started to consider after the max9 incident.
Such a shift would represent a major business strategy change that would be dumb to share publicly before they have all their ducks in a row.
Amazon decided they wanted A330 freighters. They chose Hawaiian to operate those for them. They have extensive A330 experience, their own sim, excellent on time record etc. HA supplies the staffing and Amazon the planes and fuel. Currently the option is for up to 60 planes, could go higher.
It’s a a nice hedge for HA (and Alaska if the deal goes though) as when things like Covid, the Maui fire, runway closures in Hawaii, etc etc hit it’s a guaranteed cash flow unaffected by things that hurt passenger traffic to Hawaii.
Perhaps Alaska plans on being an all Boeing airline for passenger traffic only? Can’t see AS getting rid of that, nice cash flow for their balance sheet.
@Andys
“European is always better.
American is a land of rednecks.”
Really? Where would NATO be, without America? Perhaps you prefer to speak Russian, instead?
Furthermore, your English is definitely NOT better, as your grammar in
“American is a land …”
is totally atrocious!
Andy you’re a coward like the rest of the European population. America is always saving your soft crybaby butts
Spirit AeroSystems also produces many of the components for Airbus aircraft.
Airbus has had their issues in the past also.
etraveler and Donald Marzke….this is the Internet! Don’t you know you are supposed to pick a side and not see any other points of view and argue voraciously for that side and call people names if they disagree!….facts aren’t allowed!
I agree! Boeing quality has gone downhill. I know all about the plug door that blew out. It’s next to impossible for the door to come out if it’s installed right and the safety bolts are installed. The Alaska aircraft was not that old and maintenance on that door would have not been scheduled yet. So I believe Boeing is responsible. Have no doubt they will not claim fault and will find some way to shift blame. Airbus is far more superior in technology and safety. On a side note, I used to be a big Boeing supporter a few year ago. I’ve seen way too many quality escapes with brand new aircraft just received from the factory.
Alaska doing their own inspections just means more wallets to go after when the next mishap occurs…and it will, it’s just a matter of time.
At this point it’s obvious that a) the current Boeing board and senior management need to be fired and banned from ever working in position of authority within the industry again, and b) the clowns who approved the McDonnell Douglas takeover/reverse-merger should be sued into absolute oblivion so that every penny they ever earned off their Boeing leadership is forfeit down to the 10th generation.
And nobody should ever work at an aerospace manufacturer, FAA, NASA, etc… without an extensive training course on what a shitshow this company made of itself.
@ Donald – Airbus undoubtedly makes safer/batter planes. Their safety speaks for itself. Just Google Airbus vs Boeing safety record and read the Simple Flying article regarding hull loss and fatality statistics. Airbus is much more automated, reducing pilot judgment errors as well. Plus, I’ve found them to be quieter (better cabin air moving system) and more comfortable than equivalent Boeing planes. Only U.S. pilots prefer Boeing, because it doesn’t constrain them as much and makes them feel more in control. It’s ok to admit that a foreign company makes better stuff than us. It should motivate us to innovate.
As an AS MVP Gold FF, I was not overly “comforted” by his video. Too much corporate CYA speak . He doesn’t go after Boeing as hard as he could have IMO. By not recognizing other Max model issues and doubling down on their committment to the Max plane tells me that they refuse to address the fact they bet the entire company on a Pig (MO) of a plane. No mention of cutting their losses on the questionable bet. He also seems to be o.k. with his staff doing Boeing staff’s jobs, his expense.
Remember, he was real quick to put approx. 19 Max-9’s into service after quick inspections, before the FAA said “no”. On that night, was the maintenance background AS CEO more worried about Wall Street and the bean-counters? Sounds like Boeing Mgmt.
I guess it’s my turn to be “that guy” and point out that none of three planes in the picture is a Max 9…
Oh no, looks like I pissed off the pickup driver and beer drinker crowd.
When a company makes its CFO the CEO, it’s like asking a bean counter to captain a ship. Case in point: Nortel. They tried it, and their century-old blue-chip company sank faster than a lead balloon. CFOs are great with numbers (many of them lack vision and only care about money), to let them lead a company. That’s a different sea to sail. They steer towards money, not horizons.
Ever since Boeing “merged” with McDonnell-Douglas, they changed radically, it seems. The way I see it, they went from an “engineering” based company to an “accounting” based company. This is the kiss of death. Accountants are just that: menial yet maniacal lunatics that WILL destroy any company if the CEO and board members allow it. “What are the odds the plane will go down if we: 1) outsource our software to India for $5/hr instead of $150/hr here, 2) if we cut off 6 threads from all of our bolts to save hardware and fuel costs, 3) don’t allow negative feedback from employees about quality control issues and design or part’s failures?” And if the planes go down and we get caught doing any of these things, what is the likely cost to settle litigation out of court? Engineers don’t think that way. They imagine that their wife or daughter is on that plane and make certain it won’t crash. I loved seeing accountants get fired. They are the bane of corporate America.
Both Boeing and Alaska are full of s**t. Anytime you put profits over safety things start to go bad.
Boeing demise started after they merged with McDonnell Douglas.
You have beancounters instead of engineers running the company.
As for Alaska , I don’t know if their board has a relationship with the Boeing board.. Follow the money .
I’m a 100K MVPG with AS. I’m also a shareholder.
Alaska needs to start having fleet resilience. Which means different products to ensure your planes aren’t all in one basket. What if the FAA insists on 900 inspections after they found on the max 9. Grounding another half of Alaskas fleet.
Alaska still has 20 Airbus in storage. I would say start getting them back out and get your pilots back current in the meantime while they get them ready.
I’m putting a shareholder petition over getting fleet diversification. Also a token. Remove the “proudly all Boeing” on the nose.
Why is Alaska providing thier own oversight. Boeing better pay for these processes.
Alaska had a chance to provide a guidance to look elsewhere for aircraft to take care of thier customers and not endlessly defend the company that has caused all these issues with Alaska.
Remember. If it wasn’t for the VX airbuses. Alaska would have been again in this situation with the past max grounding.
What people don’t realize and understand is that Boeing for the longest time was run by engineers not bean counters. This all changed when McD and Boeing merged and Harry Stonecipher literally told the company that he was going to change the company from an engineering run company to a business. From then on the culture changed drastically, it was all downhill and this was very evident with the 787 program and of course the MAX program. Sure, Airbus has had its issue but none like what Boeing is having. Mind you that the CEO of Airbus, Guilaume Faury is an engineer, not like Calhoun who is NOT an engineer and is a business and works from home. What a joke that Boeing has become.
Andys is the guy that wears a mask alone in his own vehicle. Y’all leave him alone. He’s sensitive about his pronouns.
Al highlighted some of the source of Boeings problems. People making decisions based on financial reasoning and not engineering.
Boeing spun off their structure division into Spirit. Mantra there was drive down costs. Driving down costs from the bean counters perspective takes down QC too.
There are lots of Boeing issues: KC-46, 737 MAX and some 787 issues.
One friend that worked QC at Boeing left. Just didn’t like the culture.
Is Airbus better? Not really. Their design philosophy is different. Remember the tail failures a few years ago?
When something complex is built, there are many opportunities for failure. You design a development program, test and refine. You build, test and use QC to make sure it is right.
When the focus is on quarterly bonuses, it pushes shortcuts. This affects almost all US companies where corporate philosophy has changed over the years from long term sustainability and growth into Wall Street analyst driven stock price.
Until that changes, get used to failure.
@Andys, please hold for a call from Elon Musk.
The “proudly all Boeing” slogan is dead. No one agrees with it. They need to remove it from their planes and embrace Airbus.
They must get better terms from Boeing, profits over safety.
Well said AI and Doug….safe to say the concept of Boeing changing itself from a “great engineering company to a great business “ would have been better served if they strove to be a great engineering company that is a great business. Their greatest strength, quality, has been squandered for short term greed. One thing for sure, it’s a good case study of the shortcomings of over emphasis on Capitalism and the dangers of not enough Government oversight……..and no I’m not a far left extremist. But you need a balance.
How many Jack Welch underlings have to try to run companies into the ground before we realize the emperor had no clothes?
No one who worked for him at GE should be anywhere near another company, except to clean toilets and they would probably screw that up as well!
FACT 98% of European workers are Union vs 11% of American workers. Keep outsourcing to “Right to work States” where if you speak up you get fired!
I agree that the merger of McDonnell Douglas with Boeing was a terrible move. Boeing wanted the military contracts. Unfortunately, Boeing was engineering and MD were bean counters. Let’s look at the DC-10 (Death Cruiser 10), and MD-11. Airlines couldn’t dump the DC-10 fast enough. The MD-11 took a bit longer. On the other hand, the DC-9/MD80/90 series were very profitable and reliable aircraft. But then, the MD bean counters moved the headquarters away from the Seattle area and away from the engineers that could walk up to management and say, “We have a problem.” Boeing has pushed the limit on the 737 and it’s time to bury the carcass and start with a clean piece of paper. Look at the very successful Bombardier C-Series/Airbus A220 as an example. The saying used to be, “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going!”. Now days, “If it’s a MAX, I ain’t a PAX!”.
The video was PR to slow the bleeding of customers. We’re at the beginning of the year, it’s very easy to change your mind in terms of loyalty and fly someone else, and be set with them for the year. Now that customer is gone, possibly for good. Delta even has a bonus MQD promo for PNW flights. 😀
The MAX-9 predominantly flies longer routes, so the impact is greater. They have to cancel 5+ SFO-SEA equivalents to free up enough aircraft time for a transcon turn to Florida. It’s not just cancelling 110+ flights a day, the impact to the AS operation and customers is significant. They’re not United with lots of frequencies, big planes, and multiple hubs to move people around. Plus, this time of year, the other planes AS has cannot reliably make the missions on some of these routes (Florida-SEA/PDX, SEA-Hawaii, etc.) resulting in fuel stops (e.g., 2 SEA-HNL’s canceled yesterday, 2 more fuel stopped in the Bay Area to get fuel and go from there). And that’s if they can scrounge up the aircraft to fly them, now they have to waste precious utilization time with diversions and fuel stops because of their route network.
They fly FLL-SFO once a day. MIA-PDX once a day. SAN-LIH once a day. And so on. Some routes are niche point to point routes, and people pay a premium to fly them nonstop. A cancellation on AS is far more impactful on AS than it is on other carriers, which is why they’re signing over tickets to other carriers left and right, and customers are getting hit pretty hard. Harder than if this were another airline.
Look at FLL today. AS canceled FLL-PDX, 2 x FLL-SEA, and FLL-LAX. Only FLL-SFO and FLL-SAN are running. 67% of the station’s flights are canceled.
I’m surprised Gary didn’t read between the lines and pick up on the loyalty angle. You can hear the fear in the CEO’s voice. Would you start the year with AS like this not knowing how long this is going to last? Delta and American are not impacted. United is only a minor impact. Alaska is significant. DL also has a SEA hub. SFO is a UA hub. LAX has lots of competition.
How about ditching Starliner that will never fly and putting some of that$ towards replacing the 737 with more 747’s Those worked. I will never fly on a 737. I’ll just walk. 737 is the go-bot to the transformers. Id rather ride a space shuttle on a cold day than a 737. They had to rename it Max as a PR stunt so it would not be forever grounded. Send them to the boneyard. Bring back the 727!
“Alaska Airlines CEO Says He Doesn’t Trust Boeing Quality.”
Could it be because many of Alaska’s experienced high senority 737 aircraft techs that got the constructive discharge axe on Ben’s watch are now at Boeing, and many are in QA.
These are very complex machines. Problems arise. Ensure solid processes in place to stop this from happening again. Make sure changes to processes or teams performing these processes, or suppliers, or parents who divisions are spun off and become suppliers still retain the correct training and procedures and handoffs to the parent needed to ensure quality safe transportation.
The fact that they “are very complex machines” is fully academic. When engineers are in charge, it all works. When accountants are in charge (as in Boeing), that’s when failure rates become acceptable in the face of deaths, law suits, reputation versus cost savings.
Let’s not talk about Alaska pilots on crack???
It really makes you wonder what it will take for Boeing to make real systemic and cultural changes. You would have thought the MAX MCAS tragedies and ensuing debacle would have done it. But clearly not. Their problem is that they allowed the McDonnell-Douglas mindset and culture to takeover after the merger. As a result, Boeing no longer prioritizes safety and engineering. It’s all about the bottom line. And they continue to cut corners on QA. Just an incredible continued destruction of their brand.
Oh so that great discount you got on a max just went away as now you’ll be doing all of Boeing’s QC work for them.
“Alaska will remain ‘proudly all Boeing’, it is “a commitment.” But does he realize he’s in the process of buying a heavily Airbus fleet from Hawaiian Airlines?”
Why link to an article that mentions nothing about Hawaiian’s Airbus fleet? Not one word. The link provided no relevant information.
The buck stops at the top of Boeing; the board, the CEO, the CFO, and the COO should all be terminated; these people are paid crazy money to do their jobs and fail. Boeing should have never tried to take a 60-year-old airplane and modify it as they did with the MAX. Because of this poor management, they must clean their house and retrain those qualified to stay.
AS paid a fortune for Virgin America and then quickly dumped their new A321s (along with the Virgin culture). Now they have the 737 MAX debacle and are grasping at straws.
“Proudly all Boeing” should go the same way as AA’s “DC-10 Luxury Liner” decal was quickly removed after the DC-10 accidents.
And now they are going to buy HA and dump their newer A330s? Makes total business sense.
I’ m in the process of booking a Hawaii trip in May and was highly contemplating using AS via SEA. When I saw the HNL-SEA is on a Max 9 I immediately booked away. I know it is a safe airplane but this incident but I have to admit I have concerns about a MAX 9 on a 5 hour overwater segment.
This is a terribly-written article, and why the question mark in the headline if no one is asking a question?
After two crashes of the MAX with 350 souls lost, after almost two years on the ground and Boeing paying a $2.5 billion (2,500 million) settlement to avoid criminal conspiracy charges, Alaska goes ahead and orders the MAX to become the backbone of their fleet. What? The door plug blows out and Alaska is going to order more MAX while wanting their own inspectors on the production line. What?? Alaska bought Virgin America and its fleet of Airbus planes, and have sold all of them. Now they want to buy Hawaiian, with a good number of Airbus planes, all to be sold for sure. What??? I fly out of Seattle, and I am on Delta more and more. Better equipment, fewer cancellations. Boeing was wrecked by a bad board and string of bad CEOs. Alaska seems to have taken example.