Another Boeing Plane Sees Critical Failure
as 757’s Nose Wheel Falls Off Before Takeoff

Sounds more like a maintenance issue than a manufacturing issue/

Once again as other people have pointed out, this is not Boeing's fault, but the maintenance people of the airline. The plane did not leave the factory with this problem. Mutiple take offs and landings will create problems with an aircraft. It's up to the airline's maintenance personnel to go over the plane. This could also be an airline's cost cutting measures. Adding seats, charging for bags, and then flying a plane past the maintenance schedule to keep it generating money could also be the problem.

Maintenance OR parts suppliers. A decade ago, the Air Force was buying grade 8 bolts from a supplier that had them made in China. They weren't up to spec. Wish I could find it.

I realize that Boeing has no control over a plane they made last century but it nonetheless further diminishes their brand. Kinda wish I'd shorted their stock.

Obviously Delta needs to put greater emphasis on DEI hiring- hire more incompetent, mediocre people based on their color in their maintenance dept.

Meanwhile, Transportation Sec Pete Buttguy is still trying to figure out how he can lactate.

Perhaps the SEC needs to look at recent short-sellers of BA stock by maintenance personnel at Atlanta.

#4, only because of journalistic malpractice. Or should that be “malice”?

Diversity, equity, and incompetence.

DEI and vax mandates have severely damaged the entire airline industry. From the production of aircraft, to the flight crew to the ground crews to maintenance. Every aspect of the industry (except for CEO salaries) has been damaged.

Maintenance, for certain. #1 is exactly correct. The 757 and 767 are very similar aircraft, basically wide and narrow bodies on the same design. The number of these flying is about 1000 or so. More 757 than 767, about 2:1 or 3:1. Design is solid, proven for decades. This is some maintenance screwup.

Re #3, ALL aerospace suppliers got caught in the Chinese counterfeiting scandal. The ChiComs did perfect copies of aerospace fasteners but made out of crap steel. And they sold TONS of them. My aerospace weapons factory had problems with this, too, as did essentially all who use aircraft grade bolts. Now all aerospace fasteners have a makers mark forged into the head, and there is a solid paperwork trail to the maker and to the testing outfit that certifies each batch. The ChiComs cheat on EVERYTHING, always.

I'm guessing that short-on-qualified-personnel airlines are routinely skipping ground inspections. Customers are not paid to find visible problems but it's a good thing that they are or we would be seeing more failures and crashes.

Just where is your head? Up your backside? This is the airline's maintenance issue. The Boeing 757 hasn't been built in decades, and there are fewer of them in the air today, probably only a handful. The reason for the wheel falling off is 100% on the airlines' maintenance, period. As much as I criticize Boeing, they have nothing to do with this failure. On the other hand, Boeing's decline began when it moved its headquarters to Chicago, and I believe it's now moving again to the greater DC area. Their CEOs and senior management are mostly bean counters. Boeing used to do 90% of what went into one of their aircraft. Now, because of only looking at the bottom line, they go cheap and outsource. The 'Medical Door' that blew out was manufactured in Malaysia and supplied to Spirit Aerosystems. It's Spirit Aerosystems which builds the entire 737 of all types. MSgt USAF (ret)

Re #14, a quick online check indicates that the last 757 was produced in 2004, so out of production for 20 years, relatively young by airliner standards. And 1,050 were built and 650 are still in airline service. A lot of these wind up as air freighters around the world in second tier air freight operations. So, I'll bet a lot more than 650 are flying, just not in airlines.

Details have come out on the possible cause of the door plug failure that indicate a problem between Spirit and Boeing. These companies use different TQM documentation systems which provide a specific repair or reinstallation procedure for every part on the aircraft. In the 737 Max 9 case, the door that was shipped from Spirit was found to have a deficiency with the rubber gasket that seals the cabin pressure. To repair it, they can either "open" the plug door or "remove" the plug door. After consultation, it was determined to just open the plug door. The procedure is the same in both cases. Four bolts must be removed that lock the door in position. Removing the door also requires removing four other bolts that hold the door hinges to the fuselage. From a TQM standpoint, removing the door requires a subsequent reinspection of the lock bolts but just opening the door does not require a documented reinspection. Given the time pressures that Boeing is under to ship the 737, it's almost certain the retaining bolts were not reinstalled. This is also supported by the fact that the bolts were not found with the door or sheared off somehow in the locking hole. Fortunately, this is not a design defect, but a limitation of using a TQM maintenance procedure that tries to shave a few minutes off the assembly line budget. Here's a link to a video with more details. https://youtu.be/XhRYqvCAX_k

Death by DEI.

I smell a whole pile of DEI at Boeing, Prove I'm WRONG!