From Newsweek:http://www.thedailyb...o-problems.html

A rather sensationalist article written by a journalist with very little subject knowledge.Even more ridiculous are the half-wit attacks on Airbus in the comments below the article.

Regulation 'journalese' crops up in the article, which betrays a lack of technical knowledge and research on the subject from the writer, resulting in some old myths being trotted out once more, which ignore the physics, a classic example being the phrase, 'sucked out' when referring to the Aloha cabin crew stewardess, who would in fact have been 'blown out' by the pressure difference, which is after all what the crux of the article is actually saying is the potential cause of fatigue, so that's quite a big error, and one which eschews the facts for the use of a sensationalist and oft-repeated inaccuracy. But this sensationalism aside, there is a far more serious erroneous premise throughout the article, which is..Repeated comments claiming that the basic pressurised fuselage design has not changed since the 100/200 series, which is patently untrue; the 737 NG is pressurised in a fundamentaly different manner to that of earlier Original and Classic 737 models, and indeed some other Boeing airliners too, in that the NG uses a variable cabin altitude differential, one which is based on actual cruise altitude. Earlier variants used a fixed value of about 8.3 psi, whereas between 28,000 and 37,000 feet, the 737 NG uses a differential of 7.8 psi, so at these altitudes where it is commonly flown, this does in fact put less stress on the fuselage than earlier versions. The NG uses more modern bonding techniques in its construction as well. Thus the cabin pressurisation and fuselage design is not the same as it was on preceding 737 models at all. It is true that some BBJs use a different pressurisation system which reduces the amount of cycles they are certified for as a trade off against the fact that business jets don't tend to fly their asses off, but not the NG commercial jet variants - they are fundamentally more robust when it comes to cycle longevity than the older 737s.Al

I didn't get through the whole article but did he talk about the reason for the failure being that Southwest didn't do the proper maintenance?

I hate it when the news reports about aviation...Like that one time when a Delta 767 collided with a CRJ-XXX (Video here) and they repeatedly call the 767 a "jumbo jet". That's irritating.

I didn't read all of the article either only because I don't care much for sensational reporting as well. When you have the best selling jet airliner in the history of Aviation, then of course it will be very easy for some journalist to poke it with a stick.The 737-300 that Southwest had with the cracks was only found on the Southwest fleet. Air New Zealand also has a fleet of 737-300 that has never had this problem. These aircraft are used on short 40 minute flights between Auckand - Wellington - Christchurch. they get just as much stress as any 737-300 found in the world and yet no cracks.Cheers

Given the amount of 737's around (approx 7000 iirc), if anything it's more surprising that more don't fall from the sky regularly. Considering Boeing has been building them since 1967 and are developing a new generation of them (737MAX), I reckon Boeing got the design of the 737 pretty much right from the start. Sure, there's been a few issues over the years, but my car was recalled twice as well.Cheers, SLuggy