[bjohnson225]

Not fly the specific aircraft which had three pressurisation warnings in the days prior to incident until they've carried out some checks? They were serious enough that they decided it wasn't safe to fly that plane over water.

Maybe the actions of Alaska Airlines were absolutely fine, but the CEO passing all the blame to Boeing before the incident report is understandable, but a little off to me.

[andix]

Planes constantly have numerous issues. And there are processes in place on how to deal with them. It seems like the followed all the necessary processes and even did additional non-required steps.

[blantonl]

It was already determined that the pressurization warnings the aircraft received were irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[bjohnson225]

Source?

Looking on Google the closest I can find to your claim is the NTSB chair saying it might not be related after she gave out the details of the previous warning lights (as you'd expect in her position before the investigation has completed).

[stevehawk]

but that's because if they flew over water and had a depressurization event then the plane and everyone on it dies. There aren't a lot of airports between the continental US and Hawaii and jets burn an insane amount of fuel at 10,000' MSL, which almost guarantees a water landing. However, over land, the plane can simply divert and land. And at the time of the incident, Alaska believes the problem was with the light/sensor and not the structure.