I find this hard to belive: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1231468,00.htmlDoes anyone know different?

"The parts were used in assembling the Boeing 737NG between 1994 and 2002."Something would have broken by now. We would have seen an Emergency AD also if anything was suspected to be wrong.And I have to go on the "without merit" argument. Why doesn't the accuser say which parts were faulty?

Haha that is the most rediculous thing I have heard in a long time! So one of the most popular airliners in the world that has so many hours (in the millions?) has had this problem with parts for almost a decade and it hasn't failed yet? Good 'exculsive' with no information to back it up

If I had an agenda, I could say anything I want to about any company.Haven't heard this about Boeing anywhere else...Rhett

>I find this hard to belive:>http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1231468,00.html>>Does anyone know different?That article is a total load of s**t. It's a fine example of sensationalist reporting without proper fact finding.Boeing would never knowingly install faulty parts on an aircraft and if there are faulty parts the FAA would have grounded the affected aircraft. This sounds like someone has an agenda against Boeing or thinks they have been wronged by them somehow.To take a different look on this, the manufacturer of those parts, Ducommun( http://www.ducommun.com/ ), should they actually be faulty, which I highly doubt, is just as liable for them if not more. Even if Boeing aledgedly accepted them.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpg

Just read the report myself...Serious allegation made against an aircraft manufacturer of such long standing. They better be sure they have their facts right, because if not, that will turn out to be one expensive mistake!I have heard of dubious maintenance contracts with third party firms using reconditioned and not totally legal parts in refit/maintenance on commercial jets. However, when revealed, these incidents are a matter for the courts and get dealt with accordingly. Unfortunately, not enough can be done to stop this practice from taking place...To go and accuse the aircraft manufacturer of such practices is a legally very precarious matter. I just hope for Sky News' sake (not really, grin!) that they can provide concrete proof of such allegations...Sky does like sensationalism, particularly if you view the owner and the other media in his portfolio...In reference to the points John made, the aviation authorities around the world cannot inspect every individual part built into every single aircraft manufactured. That is not physically possible. Spot checks are carried out to my knowledge. If a part fails, it is checked, and if found to be defective from the onset, well, measures may then be taken. That said, all the best QA in the world will not guarantee 100% failure freedom... Sometimes a design error may lead to a malfunction, which is only noticed after such a failure has occurred, the rudder hardover problem affecting earlier 737 variants (which was then corrected by Boeing) comes to mind here...However, knowingly producing and selling on defective parts in order to, say, cut costs is a criminal offence and should be pursued legally.Cheers...Andrew

>"The parts were used in assembling the Boeing 737NG between>1994 and 2002."Are there 12-year-old 737NGs?! :-lol

As you can see,this is a very present,and important issue that is occuring in the industry.Just like any capitalist endeaver that can become corruptable when enough blood money is to be made. Thank god for karma:-) http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_products/unapprovedparts.htm http://www.faasafety.gov/hottopics.aspx?id=21 http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=669 http://www.jdmag.wpafb.af.mil/bogus%20part...raft%20Parts%22

Close I believe it is 10 years since the NG was first flown