[xfitm3]

Alaskan Airlines is notorious for taking maintenance shortcuts, this is likely not an inherent problem with the airframe but rather this operators SOP.

Alaskan Airline flight 261 is one example.

> The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and eventual failure of a critical flight control system during flight.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

[coddingtonbear]

Although I can sympathize with the story, this particular aircraft had been in their hands just a couple months. Its first commercial flight was just a couple weeks back. Maintenance isn't the issue here, clearly.

[stjohnswarts]

Fixing known problems as you learn of them is maintenance is it not? That's just as important as changing out the lubricants and checking that the working parts are working.

[inferiorhuman]

When you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras. A pressurization fault on the ground where the plane is not pressurized almost certainly doesn't hint at problems with a permanently installed door plug.

[xvector]

> Maintenance isn't the issue here, clearly.

It is. Maintenance was aware of the pressurization warnings on this plane. They did nothing.

[habinero]

No, they logged it. Logging is not nothing.

Planes are incredibly complex and have little problems like that all the time. It's not a safety issue.

This was a brand new aircraft, this is almost certainly a manufacturing defect of some kind.

[pc86]

Do you have any examples that aren't from a quarter century ago?

[manp2]

isn't alaska airlines rated one of the safest airline? What airline is safe these days?