Boeing United Airlines flight LOSES a
panel mid-air before landing in Oregon,
the latest in a lengthy list of safety
incidents for the embattled aviation giant

It's almost starting to look like deliberate sabotage. How many people from a certain communist Asian company work at Boeing?

Looks like Boeing may be the next Bud Lite.

What’s going on at United??

DEI push? Doesn't sound like slow turnover of experienced techs

It's an older plane. Sounds more like a united maintenance issue than a Boeing issue.

That looks like a landing gear door, damaged. Lots of possibilities here. First, these doors are designed to be open ONLY below a certain speed. Lower the gear before slowing enough, and they are designed to tear off, without harming the aircraft. Same if raised too late, at too high a speed as the aircraft accelerates after takeoff. For landing, the doors open and the gear extends, and sometimes the door recloses, sometimes not, depending on the aircraft.. If the mechanism is misadjusted after service, the gear can extend before the door is fully open, and with enough force to destroy the door, or close before the door moves out of the way. My guess is either "gear overspeed" (pilot error) or "misrigged gear door" (maintenance error). My take is that this DM Euroweenies hating on American Boeing, trying to help British-French Airbus.

Our son in law was in town this week for business so of course we had him for dinner last night. He was flying out from Sea-Tac this morning on United on a Boeing jet. We were holding our breath until he safely reached home.

I bet DEI is in play for hiring Boeing employees. Either that or incompetent illegals at the direction of Joey.

I'll walk before getting on a United flight.

America no longer has enough competent workers. Why work when you can sit at home and live off the taxpayers.

I told my family to stay off of United flights! Apparently they have no maintenance check of their planes. And they purchased them from a manufacturer that has lost its quality control system to diversity.

Hard for me to believe Airbus is without reproach. Someone or something has it in for Boeing.

Boeing aircraft incidents are today's news equivalent of a shark attack. It doesn't matter where in the world a Boeing aircraft was serviced or how old the aircraft is, if it is a Boeing then the incident is news.

On the bright side, Boeing fixed the malfunctioning whistleblower so well that, not only will that whistleblower not cause more problems, other similarly situated whistleblowers won’t cause problems.

Re #12, the huge problem, in this pilot and engineer's view is that they decided long ago that their airliners would be ultra-automated, and 'idiot proof'. In literal reality, the "pilot" of an Airbus does NOT fly the aircraft, the aircraft is, in all cases except a rare emergency situation, flown by the computer systems, with the pilots providing guidance, and the computers always overriding any pilot inputs that the computer thinks are "a bad idea". "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't open the pod door." comes to mind. And the result is that many modern, European airline pilots would literally be unable to safely fly a Cessna 150 trainer because without the massive automation actually flying the plane, and protecting them from their incompetence, they would quickly crash the little Cessna. And, when these automatic systems go wrong, or are set in a different mode than the pilot thinks it is set in, crashes happen and the "pilots" are just baffled at what is going on. Read the crash report on the Air France Flight 447 where the flight computer became confused by disagreement between different sensors (ice) and did that 0.1% thing, called 'reversion', where the controls actually DO directly control the aircraft. And in that case, the airline pilot in the right seat pulled the aircraft into too nose high an attitude, losing all flying speed, which is an aerodynamic stall, air not flowing front to back over the wings, so no lift. The aircraft was HELD in this "deep stall" manually by the "experienced airline pilot" for about 10 minutes as the warning systems said "STALL, STALL, STALL, STALL...." as this pilot held pro-stall controls (full back on the stick) for the fall from 40,000 feet to the ocean. Literally any Cessna or Piper pilot knows that if you are in a stall, you push forward on the controls to lower the nose and let the aircraft regain proper airflow over the wings. Yet this incompetent "pilot" had been so isolated from actually FLYING an aircraft by the automatic Airbus systems, which will completely automatically recover from a stall, and all the pilot does when all the auto-magic is working is pull back on the stick. So many Airbus pilots have literally zero idea what a stall really is, and how to ACTUALLY recover from one, even given ten minutes of falling to figure it out. The captain of the flight was on a rest period out of the cockpit, and was called to the cockpit during that 10 minute fall, and sat down, scanned the instruments for a few seconds (it was night) and said "It's stalled". The idiot copilot said (proving his cluelessness) "How can it be stalled? I've been holding it full back the whole time!" To this the captain said, "You idiot, you've killed us!" Then the cockpit voice tape cut off as the aircraft hit the water. At least a half a dozen Airbus crashes have been caused by the automatic flight controls fooling the pilot, or preventing the pilot from recovering from a bad situation, and a fatal crash. Often times, the crash investigation folks do their best to whitewash the problems of overautomation and too many automatic modes, each with different features added or take away. Read about Air France flight 296Q, a flyby of an airshow with a brand new A320 and an 'expert test pilot' at the controls.....that just settled in to the trees because when the pilot added power to climb away after the low flight past a show crowd......the airplane was in "approach mode" and denied him the ability to add power and depart....."because we are landing!"......(I'm sorry, Francois, I cannot add power, we are landing".....in the trees, in a fire ball. I know of at least two or three more crashes due to Airbus overautomation. Now, the Miracle on the Hudson landing was in an Airbus 320, so they can do great flying, given a competent pilot. I avoid Airbus aircraft if I have a choice, but have flown on them many times, since often there is no choice. One pilot-engineer's view. Boeing has much less "over automation:" but pressure from third world airlines with great numbers of barely competent/semi-competent pilots to always add more automation is not being resisted well, and newer Boeings are adding more automation, too. These are bad trends, IMO.

Why does the media and posters on this site blame Boeing for all these incidents. If the incidents are the result of a design flaw, then yes. But once a plane is sold to the airlines, it is the airlines that are responsible for maintenance of those planes and panels falling off, gear falling off could easily be the lack of quality control and maintenance performed by the airline employees.