[InTheArena]

Not really - If there had a been a gash in pressurization, they would have caught it on the way up. The 737 is a _tank_. It has more or less the same wing load as a F-16. It takes a lot to shake around - it's every bit the 1950s build 707 chassis, and like the old 50s lathe - it can take a hit and keep going.

[wahern]

Plenty of 737's have had explosive depressurization with injuries or fatalities, most recently this year

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43818752

and one of the most famous incidents (in the U.S.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Both were from fatigue, but fatigue doesn't have to be a gradual thing; it could come from a single hit that causes the pressure vessel to fail at altitude.

See the whole list here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression#Not...

[TylerE]

The difference is that happens at altitude. When the plane has just taken off there is no pressure differential. There’s no energy TO explode.

[wahern]

Damage can be less severe than an actual puncture of the pressure vessel. Damage can weaken the pressure vessel such that it only fails (possibly explosively) once under pressure.

[jacquesm]

And yet, it landed!

[wahern]

Indeed, but the two previous posters were discussing counter-factuals.

[inferiorhuman]

Don't the NGs have a nasty habit of splitting in two on hard landings (KI172, 4C8250, BW523, JT904, AA331)?