Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Requested move 1 July 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawal. Avalanche Theheezy (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737 MAX groundings → Boeing 737 MAX crashes – Per WP:COMMONNAME, Boeing 737 MAX crashes has 3.19 to 1 ghits than Boeing 737 MAX groundings. Theheezy (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - As opener, see talk page conversations above. Boeing 737 MAX crashes has 3.19 to 1 ghits than Boeing 737 MAX groundings. Swapping the redirect with the page title would be appropriate given these ratios. Theheezy (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just clarifying here: the word "groundings" in the title isn't referring to a plane crashing into the ground — it's referring to the widespread decision to keep these planes on the ground until they worked out the hiccups, and the grounding of these planes is what this article is about. The two crashes already have their own articles. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I think that maybe when typical people search for this specific set of events maybe they're more interested in the overall crashes aspect, rather than the groundings aspect. So now I will have to start editing the current page to make it more suitable to being about the crashes overall, instead of just the groundings. Meanwhile at the same time I can't have the content be too divergent from the current title of groundings. A bit like open heart surgery so I'll have to think about how to do it. I'll take a look later and see if this is possible within the time period of the requested move. Theheezy (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Huh. Instead of having to change the entire scope of the article to a thing we already have two articles about — I think I'd much rather Oppose a page move, and keep this page where it is so it can keep its current scope. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, please do vote on the request for move. I withdraw my intentions to perform edits on the content of this page. I think that before we go any further in this direction we should let other editors voice their opinions. Either in this request or a future one. Theheezy (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is about the aircraft being grounded, not the two crashes, both of which already have their own articles. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Pppery. This is about the regulatory groundings, not the two crashes, which each has its own articles -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split of 2024 MAX-9 door plug groundings, they are a different topic from MCAS groundings[edit]

Split proposal 9 January 2024[edit]

I propose that the 2024 groundings of MAX 9 aircraft due to faulty door plugs be split off, since they are a fundamentally different topic from the MCAS groundings and crashes. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: while I agree that they don't have their place here, I'm yet to be convinced that they are anywhere near a major long-term issue of lasting significance and worthy of a separate page. A few inspections, a few bolts to be tightened, and the aircraft will shortly all be back in service. We'd be better off determining a more specific title for this article, e.g. 2019–2021 Boeing 737 MAX groundings, and leaving discussion of the 2024 groundings under Boeing 737 MAX § Alaska Airlines Flight 1282. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would use MCAS in the title, perhaps, since the end date depends on the aviation authority. Boeing 737 MAX groundings due to MCAS perhaps. Then, should the door-plug material be split into the Alaska 1282 article? -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is right to have all the faults of the 737 max together to highlight the problems of this aircraft type. 2A0A:EF40:646:3E01:F4AB:B906:7B91:FB96 (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what Boeing 737 MAX article is for, not this grounding article. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any move or split for at least 6 months, including the one below

a few bolts to be tightened
— User:Rosbif73 07:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's more serious than that. They've already said there were other problems discovered during the inspections. Which given that there appear to be parts that were not installed in the Alaska 1282 plane to hold the plug in, and the FAA rejected Boeing's first solution, suggests it'll be a minute. Missing parts may even cause FAA to demand some or all planes be checked for missing parts anywhere - not part of the plug-hole complex. We don't know. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Given the obvious issues that have plagued the MAX line, we should reformat the article to include both since there are obviously systematic issues at Boeing and their partners. No matter how you slice it or dice it, they are nevertheless groundings that have affected the fleet. While the MCAS was a far greater severity, both the MCAS and the plug door are more on the lack of quality assurance practices and what appears to a dereliction of the safety culture at Boeing. Not to mention the wiki's title is already in the plural. Coasterghost (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MCAS already has its own article (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). This article could be an ongoing development for this aircraft. Shencypeter (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it would be Problems with the Boeing 737 MAX, if it were to be that topic instead of the MCAS groundings (plural because different aviation authorities have different groundings, and grounding periods). This article was already of sufficient size before 2024 to be separate from the MCAS article, so it would seem that a separate MCAS groundings article was considered worthy in 2023 on Wikipedia -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a page dedicated to 737 Max Defects Dw31415 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think there is enough material of 2024 grounding to justify splitting. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But should it be in this article at all? Should this article be focused on MCAS groundings (already a very large article before 2024). The non-MCAS door plug groundings would appear somewhere else. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's no hurry. In the fullness of time a need may emerge but right now the door plug is not sufficiently substantial in its own right. Ex nihil (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with this request, good on you suggesting it. The article's structure, as it stands, is confusing and cluttered. To keep a consolidated article requires an overhaul. We can't separately deal with the MCAS and door blowout under every section, and the MCAS section is only relevant to one. Then we get to the reactions section - reactions to which event? I think we need to assess it in a month's time once the scope of the groundings becomes clear and the article will have to be restructured. Local Variable (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but I don't think the groundings are a separate article from the accident. This article is about the 2020 MCAS groundings and should be kept to that scope. The 2024 door plug bolt groundings are a separate incident and should not be covered together like we are currently doing - covering both together suggests a causal relationship between the different faults, when they're really only related to each other by the aircraft model. The current coverage is relating the two, but we're an encyclopedia and ought to report things for what they are, not for the media sensation about them. Normally when there is an air accident which leads to regulatory involvement, we cover the entire incident in the article about the accident, and this shouldn't be any different. For example, there was a high-profile investigation which involved the FAA grounding the DC-10 and banning it from US airspace after American Airlines Flight 191, but those groundings are not a separate article. The MCAS groundings were obviously a special case as they involved multiple incidents, two crashes and hundreds of lives lost, and high-profile international response. We might refer to both in summary form in the article about the model, and the emerging story about Boeing's ongoing quality issues probably belongs in the article about the company, or maybe the article about the MAX series. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 was caused by a stall (flight maneuver). It would be interesting to compare to other examples of a design or manufacturing defect. I’ll take a look. Dw31415 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simplifying the story out of it: 191 stalled because its left engine separated and rotated over the wing, and took the wing's control surfaces with it, not because the pilots manoeuvred into a stall. The separation was found to be caused by a faulty but widespread maintenance procedure, which is what led to the groundings. It's somewhat more similar to the door plug issue I think, but if you want to look for more specific examples, you could start from Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving engineering failures. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. The Turkish 981 article is similar and the investigation, cause, and aftermath are all in the one article. The awkwardness of this groundings article may be due to the tragic reality that it took the loss of two flights before the type was grounded. The title of this article will continue to cause confusion.
    Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981 Dw31415 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (For the moment). On Jan 10, the FAA gave Boeing 10 business days to respond to notice of investigation. If the grounding only lasts for two weeks, it’s probably not worth its own article. I share the underlying expectation that this story will become that significant, but we’re not there yet. Is there a page overall for the problems with the Max? Dw31415 (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is a bit tricky. The one thing I feel sure about is that this article should not be the place for text about the Max 9 grounding, because, as previously stated, the reasons are very different. Trying to make this article about 737 groundings in general will make it too big and unwieldy, a problem earlier versions had when this article only covered the Max 8. For now, I think all the text in this article about Max 9 grounding due to Alaska Airlines accident should be removed from this article and copied into the article about the Alaska Airlines accident. New text about Max 9 grounding should then be added to the Alaska 1282 accident article, not this one. Later, the editing community might decide to split the grounding text out of the Alaska accident article and create a spinoff Max 9 grounding article. Certainly, if we can agree to move all the Max 9 grounding text out of this article and into the Alaska Airlines accident article, we should add links from this article to that one, including a hatnote at the very top and probably a "Main Article" or "More Information" link in an appropriate place in the body of this article. DonFB (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "Trying to make this article about 737 groundings in general will make it too big". I am going to propose another move because the current title will continue to invite edits with information about the Alaska door plug investigation and any other future accidents. Dw31415 (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed "Boeing 737 MAX Groundings 2019" below Dw31415 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the 2024 groundings are not related to MCAS, I think they should be moved. Mseingth2133444 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above; the MCAS and plug door issues appear to be isolated from each other. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the 2024 groundings are due to causes independent of MCAS, and the door plug issues increasingly seem to be growing into a major issue that should have its own coverage. Wasianpower (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I support mostly for the resulting move of this page. I still find it hard to imagine how we keep this page focused on the MCAS groundings without it having a a different title Dw31415 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 2024 groundings are not related to 2019~2020 one. Wendylove (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boeing 737 MAX groundings → Boeing 737 groundings (2019–2021) – I propose moving this page to clarify that it only relates to the grounding following the loss of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air 737 MAX flights. The need for this page at all indicates the extrodinary circumstances of the MCAS releated accidents, investigation, and aftermath. I hope and pray that never again will it necessitate the complete loss of two flights before sufficient investigation and corrective action is taken. Keeping the current title will neccisitate maintaining a list of any future groundings and does not follow the wikipedia pattern of the "investigation, cause, aftermath" sections in the article of the accident flight. I invite edits of this comment if I there was a template I was supposed to use for a move. Dw31415 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dw31415, Perhaps you should ping the participants in the earlier split discussion -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Will ping in New York morning from my laptop. Dw31415 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with alternative name per my split discussion above, I think this article should be focused on the MCAS caused groundings. I suggest this article be called Boeing 737 MAX groundings due to MCAS ; the 2024 door-plug groundings can be covered in Alaska 1282 or 2024 Boeing 737 MAX groundings or Boeing 737 MAX door-plug groundings and not in this article. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this comment. Would your proposal mean that every time the FAA grounds a number of aircraft, that it should get it's own page? One of the problems with this current page is that it's extraordinary for the grounding of a plane type to get it's own article. I agree with you that the name of this article should be changed. I propose that we do a move first (i.e. you withdrawl the split request). As part of that proposal information on the grounding related to the door plug should accumulate in the AL 1282 article until it has sufficient weight for it's own article. It's a little difficult to discuss both ideas at once (the best name for this article and whether there is sufficient content for an article on the door plug groundings). I appreciate your work on resolving the question on the name for this page and whether there should be a dedicated page for the door plug. I'm interested to see what others have to say. Dw31415 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't close the split poll since people have already lodged opinions. An uninvolved editor would need to do it (ie. someone not one of the participants in the split or rename requests), or it can be rendered moot, by this move request, that would rescope the article. Then it can be closed as moot (superceded by a newer result) after this rename closes. Yes, I agree that Alaska 1282 can host the groundings content. It was one of my suggestions in the split proposal in lieu of a full-up article. The objective for the split was to remove the 2024 groundings, to somewhere else. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on 2019-2021? Some editor put that in the disambiguating statement and I thought it sounded better so changed my proposal. Dw31415 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is Boeing 737 MAX groundings due to MCAS, but I do not object to Boeing 737 MAX groundings (2019) or Boeing 737 MAX groundings (2019–2023). I think MCAS is a better disambiguatory terminology as it better specifies the scope of the article, and many years from now, will clearly indicate to readers the topic of the article, when they can no longer easily distinguish what occurred when, with the close proximity of these groundings -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At the very least, the 2019 disambiguator should be put between brackets, and the rest of the title should be unchanged: Boeing 737 MAX groundings (2019). --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Modified proposal to Boeing 737 MAX Groundings (2019) Dw31415 (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Groundings' should not be capitalised, same as it is now. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Will change. I’m surprised that titles are sentence case but I looked it up to confirm. Dw31415 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding "(2019–2021)" though I think it would be preferable to keep "MAX" in the title. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any move or split 'till the grounding is over.
    They've already said there were other problems discovered during the inspections. Which given that there appear to be parts that were not just loose, but not installed in the Alaska 1282 plane to hold the plug in, and the FAA rejected Boeing's first solution, suggests it'll be a minute. Missing parts may even cause FAA to demand some or all planes be checked for missing parts anywhere - not part of the plug-hole complex. We don't know. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All text in this article about 737 MAX 9 grounding that resulted from the Alaska Airlines flight 1282 accident should be moved--now--into the article about that accident. This article is about the MAX 8 groundings that resulted from the MCAS defect. We should not append heaps of text about the MAX 9 grounding to this article. Later, if the door plug grounding, investigation and consequences have significantly lengthened or expanded, we can remove text about that grounding from the Alaska 1282 article and use the text to create a new standalone MAX 9 grounding article. I agree with other editors who've said it's still a bit early to create an independent MAX 9 grounding article. This article already has a Hatnote helpfully directing readers--and editors--to the Alaska 1282 article for the subject of the MAX 9 grounding that resulted from the Alaska Airlines accident. That's where existing and new text about the MAX 9 grounding should go until such time that the editing community decides a new, separate grounding article is needed. DonFB (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a move to a new article now. Wikipedia hosts articles on evolving topics all the time. The fact that this topic is ongoing does not mean that it is not worth differentiating between the two now. The 2024 groundings are already notable and have significant developments that are worth being recorded sooner rather than later both because of their significance and to capture how the situation changed in real time.--Slowtationjet (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the MCAS groundings are still WP:PTOPIC for this title, while the door plug groundings are still related primarily to the Alaska Airlines flight which experienced the incident and should be covered in that article, like other widespread groundings that resulted from a single accident. Disambiguation should be handled with hatnotes in this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The scope of both groundings: MCAS affected 387 aircraft at the time, and the door plug grounding affected 171 aircraft. Both "significant" in the impact of their disruptions hampering the MAX's return to service. I support the single article overview of both groundings. Shencypeter (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significance" isn't the issue and nobody is arguing that. The fact is that the MAX 9 groundings are the result of a single incident involving a single aircraft, and investigations and aftermath of incidents of that sort are normally covered in the article about that incident, regardless of their "significance". Earlier I gave the example of American Airlines Flight 191 in which a defect discovered in the investigation led to the FAA banning the DC-10 from US airspace; that entire sequence of events very closely mirrors the MAX 9 door plug groundings, and is covered entirely within the incident article. The MCAS groundings are unique in that there were several incidents and multiple crashes, such that it would not be sensible to cover them in any of the articles about the separate incidents, much like the 2013 Boeing 787 Dreamliner grounding. The MCAS grounding and the door plug grounding are not related to each other and should be covered separately, but there's no reason for there to be an article for the door plug groundings separate from the Alaska Airlines incident article. As for the legacy of issues with the MAX series, that can be summarized in the Boeing 737 MAX main article with links to the more detailed articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Reconsider after this door plug issue has settled and the grounding lifted. Ex nihil (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Final relist, in the hope that a consensus will emerge BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RickyCourtney, @Rob.au, @BarrelProof, @Clueless.explorer, @Martinevans123 , as top editors of the accident page, I'm seeking your input on this question. Dw31415 (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No firm opinion at this time, leaning toward keeping the article and scope as it is, with inclusion of some discussion of the plug-related grounding. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ivanvector. This article should be hatnoted, and content on the door plug issue should bekept to the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 article for now. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for adding (2019-2021). Strongly Oppose Removing MAX from the title. These overlapping discussions might have been a bit premature and my views on this are very much subject to change, but in my view:
Currently the focus of this article is and should be the MCAS groundings. Coverage of groundings resulting from the Alaska Airlines accident currently should be on the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 article. Overarching implications for the type belong on the Boeing 737 MAX article, at least for now. -- Rob.au (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all moves per Ivanvector et al. There is no need to add a year disambiguator, and the issue is primarily referred to in terms of it being the MAX line.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose merging John Barnett (Boeing employee) into this article[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not merged. The biographical article has expanded significantly in the time since this nomination was created, and combined with the unanimous opposition below there is no other plausible outcome of this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging John Barnett (Boeing employee) into Boeing 737 MAX groundings. Most major news outlets right now are reporting his death directly in the context of the latest investigations and technical failures, I think it's likewise directly relevant to the topic.

For those who don't care to click, basically he was a longtime whistleblower about technical issues on Boeing planes, he was in the midst of giving deposition testimony this past week, and then he didn't show up one day and was found dead in his car in a hotel parking lot from what official are calling a self inflicted gunshot wound. His death is being reported directly in the context of the technical failures listed here by pretty much every major source. [1][2][3]Snokalok (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, these are completely different topics. One is about a plane, the other is about a person. The article is focusing on talking about major people in a quick way, not in-depth, like the Wikipedia page for the person himself. ItsTheComedianYT (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this is potentially a high level case about the individual themselves who exposed information about multiple air frames, not just the 737 MAX. He also revealed issues with the 787 as well and was a direct worker on the 787. AndrewM81 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they shouldn't be merged. He was also notable for reasons other than just the 737 MAX groundings specifically, and some of the information that is relevant in John Barnett (Boeing employee) would be out of place in this article. 91.129.103.240 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it should be kept separate as per AndrewM81s comment. Autarch (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge at this time. Too soon to know if we should have a separate article for Barnett, his dead as an event, or whether it should be a redirect. Reassess after some time has passed. VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge for now. The fact that he killed himself after being a whistleblower could make him notable on his own. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge The article is already getting too long, and the merge would be a distraction. If anybody wishes to delve deeper, the separate page is readily available. Ex nihil (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. There is already enough information to warrant a separate page, with the potential to expand further should more be released to the public regarding the investigation. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_737_MAX_groundings&oldid=1214598063"