More specifically, it's nearly 30 years old, will have been through thousands of flight cycles and multiple rebuilds, and the limited available information suggests an issue with an engine (i.e something which will have been designed, overhauled and refitted by organizations unrelated to Boeing)
This particular airframe was built in 1998, so this likely has more do do with whomever is providing the maintenance than it does with Boeing’s shockingly bad recent QA issues.
This was a 777; those planes aren't in production any more, so this plane is probably at least 10 years old I'm guessing. This isn't a factory or design issue, this is a maintenance issue, and that falls on the airline, United.
Even if it was some more critical part it could just mean that it has a lifetime of 10 years instead of 15 or 20. Or just needs to be checked more often so adding a bit to the maintenance costs until it is replaced. Worst case is that it is some really important part that is not designed to be changed during the lifetime of the plane making fixing it really hard (or impossible)
At the bottom of the article: "a Boeing 737-38J, an aircraft that was delivered in the 1990s". So almost certainly a maintenance problem, not a manufacturing defect.
Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this.
These planes require many man hours of maintenance for each flight hour. So it isn't unusual for them to be in a state where maintenance isn't complete.
Those claims that it was maintenance is a bit bizarre considering these were brand new craft, and that panel isn't exactly a wear item. (ofc, some wear with each pressurization cycle, but I digress)
It'd be different if it was an engine issue on a 20+ year old plane.
But still, this isn't anything like the prior MAX issue - and frankly could have just as easily happened to any manufacturer like Airbus.
I don't think it's worth bashing Boeing much about, I doubt they're too happy about it either.
Not even a maintenance issue (though it probably wasn't maintained well) - this airplane is 10 years past the safe life span and should have been scrapped long ago. Sure it flies, but metal fatigue builds up over time and eventually something serious will break. Since airplane failures tend to be catastrophic and we cannot know how bad it is on any particular airplane Boeing gives conservative estimates for how long it will last - even in the worst case the 737 is safe to fly longer than the 20 years Boeing gives - but nobody has any idea for how much longer - could be 1 year could be 30 years. Which is why airlines where safety isn't a concern can get by with flying planes well past their end of life date. However this airplane has been living on borrowed time and should not have been on the runway. No amount of maintenance will fix the problem. (only a complete rebuild with all new parts could - cheaper to buy a new airplane from Boeing even at Africa labor rates)
As an uneducated guess, the wing mounts (aluminum?) and surrounding fuselage have stretched way beyond tolerance and are no longer capable of supporting nominal load. The metal has fatigued and must be replaced, which would require new wings and nearby fuselage -- at no small cost.
reply