The American Airlines’ 767-300 had just finished undergoing maintenance at Fort Worth when “the nose gear retracted and put the aircraft on its nose,” says a spokesperson for AA.
No personnel were hurt and the plane has been being assessed for damage since the incident on July 15th. AA doesn’t expect any change in schedule due to the absence of this plane.
Is Boeing threatening to move jobs out of Washington State unless their labor union commits to a no-strike clause in the next contract? I was waiting for a bit more information on the reports of Boeing’s ultimatum to their Washington machinists’ union before blogging about it, but details have not been forthcoming since U.S. Representative Norm Dicks from Washington broke the story a couple of weeks ago:
“The whole thing comes down to, can they get a long-term agreement with the union, with a no-strike clause. That’s what ultimately has to happen here in the next two or three or four months — or they are going to go elsewhere. I think if they get this agreement, they would stay.”
The no-strike clause rumor comes in the wake of Boeing’s purchase of a 787 rear fuselage production plant in South Carolina – prompting concerns that Boeing will move more of its production out of the Everett and Renton, Washington plants.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO District 751, who represents Boeing’s machinists in the Pacific Northwest, issued a statement assuring members that no proposal on a no-strike clause had been presented by Boeing. They also expressed disappointment with Boeing allowing rumors to spread this way: “To use politicians as microphones to deliver a message, creates problems and does nothing to improve the relationship [between Boeing and the Machinists’ Union].” That being said, the union asserts that they will look at any possible routes to keeping jobs in the state.
Washington State greatly benefits from the two large Boeing plants, and I’m sure residents would hate to see more Boeing jobs go out of state. Boeing has also been hemorrhaging money in the delayed production of the Dreamliner Boeing 787, so I can understand their desire to avoid costly strikes that could cause further delays. Boeing’s method of self-preservation, however, leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and I tend to feel for the union’s dismay over having all this leaked to the media before sitting down with labor. It will be interesting to see how negotiations pan out, and how strong public opinion will play a part.
Most of the major airline crashes in the last year have ended in no survivors. When an aircraft drops out of the sky or has a huge catastrophe, no safety feature would prevent fatalities. However, there are many crash scenarios where some additional safety features could help to save lives.
When an accident happens on the ground (while taxiing, take off, landing, etc), in most cases passengers survive. However, in some cases, the cabins can be overcome by fire or smoke before passengers can escape.
Most aircraft today have “16g” seats. This means the seat has to be able to withstand 16 times the force of gravity (16 times the force of gravity is about equal to going from 30mph to 0mph instantly). Creating a seat to withstand more than 16g’s wouldn’t make sense, since any force greater than that would not be survivable.
Newer seats are not the only measures in place to keep passengers safe. Taking a page from the auto industry, some airlines have added airbags to seats and other surfaces. To make sure the airbags would not go off due to turbulence or a rough landing, the sensor only looks at the axis the plane is traveling for sudden stops, much like in an automobile. The goal is like that of stronger seats – get passengers out of a wrecked aircraft. “You’re going to be conscious. You’re going to have the opportunity to survive,” said Bill Hagan, president of AmSafe, which makes the airbags.
Airbags are currently installed in First and Business class seats where they are too far from the seat in front to offer protection. They are also starting to be seen on bulkhead, exit, lavatory, and galley rows.
USAToday asks – do all these extra safety features mean extra weight, and therefore more costs to the passenger? It possibly could, but wouldn’t it be worth the costs? Airlines often upgrade their safety equipment and sometimes the costs are handed down the customer. I know I would be willing to pay a few extra bucks to better the chance of my survival and of those around me if I were to be put in a disastrous airline situation.
A McDonnell-Douglas MD-82 of American Airlines takes off from LAX.
Terry Williams, an American Airlines flight attendant, is suing Boeing after having a mist spray on her from the ventilation system from an MD-82 (Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas, which built the MD-82) aircraft. Williams states she has been suffering from chronic pain, tremors, migraines and vision issues.
Williams and her attorney allege that the ventilation system on the aircraft is faulty and the air is heavily contaminated. Her attorney said, “We believe the hazard is preventable. Sensors and filters are available. It’s up to the aircraft manufacturers to put them on.”
Boeing’s spokesperson Bernard Choi responded, “We believe that the air in airplane cabins is safe.”
This is not the first suit of it’s kind against Boeing. About seven years ago, flight attendants sued Boeing over hazardous air conditions, but the jury found Boeing not liable.
If you haven’t seen it already, Southwest has one awesome rapping flight attendent. He got to show his skills again to celebrate Southwest’s new service to LaGuaria airport.
