Posted on 03/13/2024 7:25:46 AM PDT by packagingguy
Beleaguered Boeing has experienced yet another problem with one of its planes - after one was forced to land due to fuel spewing from its landing gear.
The incident - only the latest from the embattled manufacturer - occurred Monday, and is the fifth involving a Boeing plane in the span of seven days.
Now under investigation, the forced landing happened as the San Francisco-bound 777-300 embarked from Sydney, with fluid filmed leaking from its undercarriage.
On Saturday, an ex-Boeing staffer-turned whistleblower was found dead by an apparent suicide, after saying he witnessed second-rate parts being fitted on planes.
Moreover, following the recent incident Monday - and another hours before that saw 50 passengers injured on the firm's flagship 787-Dreamliner - Boeing lost more than $4billion overnight, after shares dropped more than 4 percent Tuesday morning.
The FAA has since revealed the firm failed 33 of 89 audits during an exam of Boeing's 737 Max - a model it had been planning to update with the long delayed Max 10.
After the incident Monday - and the several before - United Airlines requested the firm halt work on the unreleased jets: an apparent sign of carriers' diminishing faith...
Feds have been vetting the incident ever since, during which time Boeing's value has nosedived an eye-watering $150billion to $112billion. Also within that span, the firm has seen at least four other planes planes technical failures.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
They never would have made it from Sydney to San Francisco losing that much fuel.
Does anyone ever remember an airplane manufacturer having this many problems all at one time?
Headline writer must have run out of room. “Suicide” should have been in quotes.
Boeing is a very WOKE company. And it shows.
NOT a fuel leak. It was a hydraulic leak from the landing gear.
Nothing to do with Boeing or the 737 Max program except for the weak-minded lemmings out there who love sensationalist media.
United should not be pointing a finger at Boeing since most of these recent problems point at United’s maintenance, not Boeing’s engineering/manufacturing.
United and Boeing. Two reasons to drive or take the train.
[737 Max]
Re-engine the plane with engines that provide the proper centerline of gravity (not pushed so far forward to accommodate the larger engines - even if they are more fuel-efficient)
Oh, and fix that blowout panel on certain models
Boeing 777......the Ford pinto of airliners
[It was a hydraulic leak from the landing gear.]
Ah. I hate to click on DM because it takes so long to load with their ads.
Sometimes reality is just reality. Consequences are consequences. And, yeah, Nikki Haley was a board member until Boeing started with the "begging bowl" and she planned her losing campaign.
The article says fuel in the first paragraph then fuel in the third.
It looks like another great American institution has fallen ro DEI
“United and Boeing. Two reasons to drive or take the train.”
Or drive
Or walk.
That’s why you can’t believe the legacy media. It was definitely hydraulic fluid and NOT fuel! Go to Blancolirio’s Youtube site for an intelligent analysis.
It’s not fuel it’s hydraulic fluid. The daily mail has their head up their butts. The left hand main gear steering actuator hose ruptured and caused a fluid loss. This and most other incidents recently are all on United Airlines planes. Something bad is going on with United maintenance. The only perhaps Boeing issue was the 777 Latam Airlines incident where information is thin until the FDR are downloaded and analyzed.
It seems all except Latam Airlines have been United. United is pointing the finger at Boeing:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/united-tells-boeing-stop-making-max-10s-airline-ordered-report
It’s odd, when I looked to see if United had failed audits all the stories were about Boeing.
Surely United is also audited by various countries in which they operate?
I think the LATAM flight was a 787, not a 777. The 787 is a relatively new plane designed for long hauls point to point. Good for going from Sydney to the Americas though in this case it was just going to Auckland. It can fly over 7500 miles without refueling. I wonder if that issue was a software bug similar to the first MAX planes.
For this 777 story I don’t know why fuel lines would run through or in proximity to the landing gear so I presume the story is incorrect. Hydraulic fluid makes more sense. Do these planes still have a manual landing gear crank?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.