iamlucky13 wrote:mjoelnir wrote:Revelation wrote:Maybe the EU took notice and did the same? https://news.aviation-safety.net/2012/0 ... -rib-feet/
In an ironic parallel, this was discovered not via routine inspection but because the EU made engine exploded and someone had to take the wing apart to fix it.
What has that post to do with the pickle fork issue?
Does that change anything on the pickle fork issue?
Does it change anything on that the pickle fork was a lifetime part?
Does it change that there was no inspection regime for the pickle fork?
The prior poster made a snarky, mock-nationalist, false claim (Boeing's basis for its claims about maintenance cost was the comparison of the actual in-service experience of the NG and CEO, not nationalism). It is relevant to that comment's implication that fatigue in lifetime parts that should not fatigue is a Boeing-specific issue.
Please substantiate your claim that the pickle fork is not covered by any current inspections.
But the 737 has a pretty bad record as far as corrosion and structural integrity goes compared to the A320. The corrosion of fuselage joining and general weakness due to the supposed illegal modification or force-fitting of noncomforming parts. You can see this often times when a 737 has a loss of hull but isn’t fatally destroyed the fuselage breaks in generally the same two places when it should not. In fact Boeing products other than the 737 do have corrosion issues. 757s and 767s also have pretty bad corrosion issues. Fixable, sure, but these fixes come at a price. Saying their products are stronger or require less maintenance is just chest thumping probably due to the idea that America makes it tougher than Europe. Remember everyone over here called the A320 the “disposable French plane” vs the “rugged and robust 737”. Those are based on stereotypes quite clearly but we have seen it’s the 737 that is more likely to corrode and crumble.
A comparison between in service experience of course is card stacked information because the service isn’t even close to done yet on most of them (or at least it shouldn’t be) so we don’t ultimately know over 30 years what’s cheaper to have. I also suspect as typical for Boeing such a comparison would be full of marketing half truths or other misleading figures. You can guarantee there’s a lot of fine print on that comparison.