183
Kinda low-hanging fruit, but someone's gotta pick it.
(lemmynsfw.com)
"I solve practical problems. Like where all the necessary holes should be on passenger aircraft, and when they should appear."
It's also possible that the problem had nothing to do with engineering and everything to do with improper maintenance/safety checks. Which could still be corporate cost cutting, but at Alaska rather than Boeing.
It's unlikely that the plug door came off for maintenance in the first three months of the plane's life.
I used to do maintenance (specifically on Alaska 37s) at an mro as an A&P. I worked on Alaska planes for about 5 years and compared to other airlines that I worked on, Alaska was almost always conforming to higher standards, they required more inspection buy offs, and were more likely to replace parts that technically were airworthy.
Also after Alaska had their jackscrew run-in, they overhauled their maintenance program and effectively handed it off to the FAA.
I agree that the problem is likely not with engineering, my opinion is that it lies with manufacturing and QC at Boeing though.
Looks like you're right:
It seems that panel would have been installed by the manufacturer and probably not altered by any airline maintenance teams, and fleet inspections have found several of them with loose hardware.
What does "inspection buy offs" mean?
Inspection buy offs are an industry term related to getting an inspectors approval on work accomplished, sorry I shouldn't have used it since it doesn't really translate.
So Alaska required more inspector intervention than other airlines I worked on.
We use the term 'selling' and 'buying' to refer to presenting the work and demonstrating that it is airworthy (before we go to lunch, let's try to sell this to inspection, or, I won't buy that until you verify that it is torqued properly)
Think of it like you saying you cleaned your room, and your parents going 'i don't buy that'.
It has nothing to do with money.