3 ms·

Is there anyone who would willingly get on one of these planes, regardless of software patches and extra training, when we know they have a compromised airfram

Is there anyone who would willingly get on one of these planes, regardless of software patches and extra training, when we know they have a compromised airframe, whose design prioritized cost over safety?

dreamcompiler 8y ago
Not me.
invalidusernam3 8y ago
I'm not a nervous flyer at all and I'm very used to flying (over 15 flights this year so far), but currently I'm scheduling a flight for next week and every flight I look at I now check what aircraft it is. This is something I had never done previously
sokoloff 8y ago
I would get on and/or put my family on a -MAX flown by a US or major European carrier, where the crew training and experience requirements match my sensibilities of what should be required for airline transport operations. That trip would no doubt be statistically safer than the flying we already do in single engine piston aircraft (itself an operation that prioritizes cost over the safety of flying a twin turboprop or twin jet that we can’t afford to own and feed).
- magduf 8y ago
  >That trip would no doubt be statistically safer than the flying we already do in single engine piston aircraft Maybe, but it'd be statistically less safe than flying on a different model of aircraft, such as one from Airbus.
mannykannot 8y ago
Claims that the airframe is fundamentally unsound have been exaggerated. I would fly on one of these airplanes, even as they are now, as I am confident that the crew will be very well aware of the issue and capable of dealing with it. Boeing's decision not to require simulator training may backfire on it, however, if enough passengers say that's not good enough, and vote their concerns by avoiding flights on this model, or if other regulators (or even the FAA) insist on simulator training. Boeing is doubling-down on the issue.

3 ms·

Is there anyone who would willingly get on one of these planes, regardless of software patches and extra training, when we know they have a compromised airfram

by teh_infallible 8y ago

dreamcompiler 8y ago
Not me.
invalidusernam3 8y ago
I'm not a nervous flyer at all and I'm very used to flying (over 15 flights this year so far), but currently I'm scheduling a flight for next week and every flight I look at I now check what aircraft it is. This is something I had never done previously
sokoloff 8y ago
I would get on and/or put my family on a -MAX flown by a US or major European carrier, where the crew training and experience requirements match my sensibilities of what should be required for airline transport operations. That trip would no doubt be statistically safer than the flying we already do in single engine piston aircraft (itself an operation that prioritizes cost over the safety of flying a twin turboprop or twin jet that we can’t afford to own and feed).
- magduf 8y ago
  >That trip would no doubt be statistically safer than the flying we already do in single engine piston aircraft Maybe, but it'd be statistically less safe than flying on a different model of aircraft, such as one from Airbus.
mannykannot 8y ago
Claims that the airframe is fundamentally unsound have been exaggerated. I would fly on one of these airplanes, even as they are now, as I am confident that the crew will be very well aware of the issue and capable of dealing with it. Boeing's decision not to require simulator training may backfire on it, however, if enough passengers say that's not good enough, and vote their concerns by avoiding flights on this model, or if other regulators (or even the FAA) insist on simulator training. Boeing is doubling-down on the issue.