I know your's is a humorous comment, but I think I should explain so that others aren't confused.

I know that the reported pressurization problems and plug departure incident are unrelated for two reasons. 1. Systems knowledge from nearly a decade as a 737 pilot; and, 2. The NTSB has reported the same conclusion.

The 737 has three methods of controlling cabin pressurization, two automated controllers and a manual process. All three systems work by modulating an Outflow Valve to control how much cabin air is allowed to escape (like letting air slowly out of a balloon). The auto controllers alternate as primary and backup on each subsequent flight. When the primary controller fails, the backup controller automatically takes over and we get a yellow warning light. We call that a single-channel failure. If both controllers fail we get a second light and have to revert to the manually system. That is a dual-channel failure.

On the Alaska airplane, they had several instances of single-channel failures. In each case, the backup controller performed normally. If these failures had been caused by a leak (i.e. loose door plug), large enough to overpower the Outflow Valve, the backup controller and manual system would also have been unable to control the pressurization.

More simply, there is no way for a cabin leak to cause a single-channel failure.

The door plugs are mounted with a quadruple-redundant system. Any one of the four retaining bolts would prevent the plug from sliding off the retaining pads which hold it to the airplane. The cause, from preliminary information, seems to be that a worker forgot to install the four retaining bolts and a flawed maintenance procedure at Boeing which did not require a quality control inspection after the plug had been opened and replaced. That inspection is required if the plug was removed, not just opened. The four bolts don't actually hold the plug on the airplane. They prevent the door from moving off the ~10 retaining pads which are what holds the door on.