I think you overestimate how much the average traveler who may die when parts fall off cares or is parsing whether it's Boeing's mistake or Delta's. What I'm taking from the headline (we need to get our shit together before a bunch of people die) is different than what you seem to be worried about people taking from the headline.

There were passengers on the flight. I would feel highly uncomfortable after this incident to be on another plane of Delta.

I'm pretty sure nearly every such incident is reported on in the news.

Now, is it being spread far more due to everything else going on? Sure. But I don't see why this headline would be weird if nothing else happened with Boeing recently.

It has been this way for decades. Literally decades. It's not anything to do with making Boeing look bad or good. It's everything to do with the model of plane. Airbus planes back in the day had catastrophic hull failures.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357502/San-Francisco-plane-crash-Two-dead-tail-snaps-Boeing-777.html

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/first-airbus-a350-hull-loss-after-haneda-runway-incursion

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/jl516-tokyo-accident/

i don't work directly with these guidelines, but i'm told that whoever does maintenance has to follow the maintenance intervals dictated by boeing alone.

if a plane doesn't experience much wear, the intervals can be elongated. in addition, the maintenance company can change certain parts of the maintenance if they have the right qualifications.

but no one really checks every single nut and bolt, so delta could've also been sloppy.

Because otherwise airlines buy different planes. All airplane models have extremely detailed maintenance schemas with alternative procedures described where possible. And minimum equipment lists that describes exactly what must work and what is "okay" to be broken to still fly. And it's on FAA to make sure Delta is following these manuals. So in the end the blame is on Boeing for either bad parts, lasting shorter than required or prescribing insufficient maintenance procedures. Or it's on FAA for not doing ther duty in making sure the procedures are followed. Of course if Delta hasn't followed the procedures, blame is on them too, but only ever in combination with either Boeing or FAA.

I thought that there were specific "critical" operations that would require them (Delta, Boeing, or both) to record an entry in Boeing's Collaborative Manufacturing Execution Systems (CMES) database. But I'm discovering this field, so I don't know if they make a difference in this context between before and after delivery, and if the normal plane maintenance is covered by the same processes or not, and that's why I'm asking, and not stating.

However, if one doesn't know more than me, stating isn't more correct.

Required by law? I dunno, im guessing here.

Because of regulations, because of contracts, because of a myriad reasons I won't waste my time listing here.

The point is that they have been in business for over a century, that the aerospace industry is heavily regulated, and so I somewhat expect them to have processes in place and responsibilities to make sure the planes are delivered and remain according to their design specification.

And you don't strike me as someone who knows more than me (a total newbie) on the matter, so maybe we stop wasting each other's time on a pointless argument about shit that is absolutely beyond us both. Yeah?