Hacker News Reader

Comment by sitharus | Hacker News Reader

The fuselage opening for the door is still present as it’s a common part. The door is replaced with a window panel to seal the space, there is no door there.

Any mechanical component - even if unused - requires servicing and maintenance. No airline would want to pay for that and the fuel cost on every flight to carry a door they don’t want.

View on HN

“That particular Boeing 737 Max 9 rolled off the assembly line and received its certification two months ago“

Not a maintenance issue. Or if it is, that's a seriously shocking amount of maintenance demand.

The patent was not claiming this was a maintenance issue. They were pointing out that if there were indeed a hidden exit door here that it would still require maintenance, which is why there wasn’t actually a hidden exit door here. Instead it’s a solid panel of some kind.

Second paragraph as an argument for why it would be a permanent plug installation instead of a hidden door. I see your point.

Do we know about permanent plug vs semi-permanent substitute door? According to some other posts both exist, both levels of permanency exist.

It's not a permanent welded-in plug, rather it's a door-shaped panel that is secured in using the fastenings where the door would be fastened. That's why you can see the outline.

The one thing an airline likes less than carrying extra weight is not being able to change their minds later :) Or rather, for the option to be available for whoever they sell the plane to after they're done with it.

Somehow it feels less error prone to service an extra door than to replace the whole element from time to time. At least to my armchair viewpoint

Why would it need replacing? It's a permanent element, unless the aircraft is refitted in the future when they can remove the panel and fit a door. The door's connection to the fuselage isn't a service item, just the mechanism itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com