4 ms·

Safety is never actually first. First, you need an economically viable product. Otherwise, there is no reason for it or any if the processes behind it to exist.

std_throwaway 7y ago
Safety IS first. If it's not safe it won't fly no matter how cheap it is. This is clearly a case where engineers were proposing an inferior solution that allowed a lower price point. They mislead the whole company and let their colleagues down.
- maltalex 7y ago
  “Safe” is a relative term. For example, it would have been safer for the plane to have 2 more engines. But there are only 2 engines since it’s safe enough and much more economically viable. It doesn’t matter how safe something is if no one is going to buy it.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    Safe is not a relative term in mass transport aerospace. Safe means "not a death trap." That level of safety is a hard prerequisite for a viable product. There is no ambiguity about this.
    - spookthesunset 7y ago
      “Not a death trap” is a relative term. Safety is a feature and like any other feature it gets prioritized according to need, budget, ROI, and many other factors.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      No version of this plane has ever been as bad as "death trap".
yomly 7y ago
>economically viable product This is always touted around. Fine, you're not wrong. I think the missing implicit assertion that also needs the same level of preaching is "and truly free markets". Last I checked, the plane industry was not a free market
PaulHoule 7y ago
Yes, but the airline industry has been doing a great job for the most part on both safety and economics. The A320 costs about what the 737 costs and it has a flight envelope protection system with much better safety. It's had problems in the past that Airbus has learned from and that Boeing has applied to their newer airliners, but that Boeing got amnesia for when it came to the legacy 737. (The A320 fly-by-wire also improves fuel efficiency, lowers maintenance costs, rides out turbulence to improve comfort, etc.) Also the lack of safety has not saved anybody any money. I think now Boeing is saying they've lost $8 billion because of the MAX problems, and if they took that plus what they spent to make the MAX they could have been a clean sheet replacement for the 737. People are so used to the 737 that they don't realize what a backwards airplane it is. Every other airliner from every manufacturer makes some claim that it is comfortable on their official web page. The 737 doesn't because it is the least comfortable airliner (and thus is the baseline everything is compared to.) The 737 is loud for passengers, pilots, and people on the ground. The A220 and E190 are smaller planes that are much more comfortable because they are designed around the human body as opposed to 1960's aeronautics. Compared to a clean sheet design, the 737 wastes fuel, causes excess global warming, has a higher seat-mile cost, and it makes everybody miserable while doing so. The 737 is what secular stagnation looks like.
- tastygreenapple 7y ago
  You're missing some important details. The A320 and 737 have similar sticker prices, but it's not clear if one is cheaper to buy than the other because the prices paid for planes tend to be around half of the sticker price but the real prices aren't public. The A320 is around 10k lbs heavier than the 737 and the A320 series burns more fuel per passenger mile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft). The A321 NEO is nearer the efficiency of the Boeing 737-900 than than the 737 MAX 10. The passenger comfort of the 'human focused' designs often comes at the cost of fuel efficiency. You're right that the 737 is loud and an old design. I don't dispute that Boeing messed up their one job (making safe planes) but to call the 737 secular stagnation when the newest version is nearly three times as efficient (in terms of fuel burned to move a passenger one miles) as the original 737 misunderstands "stagnation".

std_throwaway 7y ago

Safety IS first. If it's not safe it won't fly no matter how cheap it is. This is clearly a case where engineers were proposing an inferior solution that allowed a lower price point. They mislead the whole company and let their colleagues down.

maltalex 7y ago
“Safe” is a relative term. For example, it would have been safer for the plane to have 2 more engines. But there are only 2 engines since it’s safe enough and much more economically viable. It doesn’t matter how safe something is if no one is going to buy it.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Safe is not a relative term in mass transport aerospace. Safe means "not a death trap." That level of safety is a hard prerequisite for a viable product. There is no ambiguity about this.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    “Not a death trap” is a relative term. Safety is a feature and like any other feature it gets prioritized according to need, budget, ROI, and many other factors.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    No version of this plane has ever been as bad as "death trap".

yomly 7y ago

>economically viable product This is always touted around. Fine, you're not wrong. I think the missing implicit assertion that also needs the same level of preaching is "and truly free markets". Last I checked, the plane industry was not a free market

PaulHoule 7y ago

Yes, but the airline industry has been doing a great job for the most part on both safety and economics. The A320 costs about what the 737 costs and it has a flight envelope protection system with much better safety. It's had problems in the past that Airbus has learned from and that Boeing has applied to their newer airliners, but that Boeing got amnesia for when it came to the legacy 737. (The A320 fly-by-wire also improves fuel efficiency, lowers maintenance costs, rides out turbulence to improve comfort, etc.) Also the lack of safety has not saved anybody any money. I think now Boeing is saying they've lost $8 billion because of the MAX problems, and if they took that plus what they spent to make the MAX they could have been a clean sheet replacement for the 737. People are so used to the 737 that they don't realize what a backwards airplane it is. Every other airliner from every manufacturer makes some claim that it is comfortable on their official web page. The 737 doesn't because it is the least comfortable airliner (and thus is the baseline everything is compared to.) The 737 is loud for passengers, pilots, and people on the ground. The A220 and E190 are smaller planes that are much more comfortable because they are designed around the human body as opposed to 1960's aeronautics. Compared to a clean sheet design, the 737 wastes fuel, causes excess global warming, has a higher seat-mile cost, and it makes everybody miserable while doing so. The 737 is what secular stagnation looks like.

tastygreenapple 7y ago
You're missing some important details. The A320 and 737 have similar sticker prices, but it's not clear if one is cheaper to buy than the other because the prices paid for planes tend to be around half of the sticker price but the real prices aren't public. The A320 is around 10k lbs heavier than the 737 and the A320 series burns more fuel per passenger mile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft). The A321 NEO is nearer the efficiency of the Boeing 737-900 than than the 737 MAX 10. The passenger comfort of the 'human focused' designs often comes at the cost of fuel efficiency. You're right that the 737 is loud and an old design. I don't dispute that Boeing messed up their one job (making safe planes) but to call the 737 secular stagnation when the newest version is nearly three times as efficient (in terms of fuel burned to move a passenger one miles) as the original 737 misunderstands "stagnation".