6 ms·
I don't know about you, but I never want to fly on a 737 Max -Even after they re-certify it.
by BitwiseFool 7y ago
I don't know about you, but I never want to fly on a 737 Max -Even after they re-certify it.
- SirensOfTitan 7y agoI’m with you, I’ll go out of my way to avoid the max after this. I just don’t trust that plane is safe to fly.
- bdamm 7y agoWhy? If anything, it's going to become the most intensively analyzed airplane with the most widely broadcast flight envelope in aviation history. I personally hope that the Max gets back in the skies soon. I can't wait to get on board one, and enjoy the better connections and cheaper tickets that this economical airplane brings.
- natch 7y agoIt’s been analyzed by people who have proven themselves untrustworthy.
- JohnFen 7y agoBecause everyone failed (I suspect intentionally, in some cases) to properly vet the plane in the first place. I have no reason to trust that the same people will do a better job the second time around. I won't avoid the plane forever -- but I will certainly give it a few years before I fly in one. Better safe than sorry.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt won’t be the same people this time. Regulators that previously accepted “the Boeing employees the FAA outsourced it to say it’s fine” will not be doing so this time.
- JohnFen 7y agoThe individuals may not be the same, but the organizations are.
- ceejayoz 7y agoNo, they're not. Many regulators around the world were willing to accept the FAA's approvals rather than do their own certifications. Many of those will no longer do so. The EU has already signaled this: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/european-regulator-plans-its-own-test-flights-of-boeing-737-max-in-sign-of-differences-with-faa/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/europ... > But he said such a new review was necessary because there were parts of the original MAX design that EASA “had not completely certified ourselves, because we had delegated some of the tasks to the FAA.” Additionally, I expect Boeing's self-certification privileges (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-allows-jetmakers-to-self-certify-that-planes-meet-us-safety-requirements/2019/03/15/96d24d4a-46e6-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-al...) to be dramatically curtailed. > In practice, one Boeing engineer would conduct a test of a particular system on the Max 8, while another Boeing engineer would act as the FAA’s representative, signing on behalf of the U.S. government that the technology complied with federal safety regulations, people familiar with the process said.
- JohnFen 7y ago> Many regulators around the world were willing to accept the FAA's approvals rather than do their own certifications. Many of those will no longer do so. Yes, and that's great for those other nations. I live in the US, though.
- ceejayoz 7y agoChances are you'll still benefit. If the US approves the plane, but the EU rejects, that's substantially more information than you'd have under the old regime, and it's likely Boeing wouldn't fly the plane even in the US if that happened - the liability and PR risks would be incredibly high. The second point - that Boeing's ability to have their own engineers act as the FAA's representatives is likely to go away or curtailed - protects you, too.
- thefounder 7y agoYou can't ignore the politics. They already talk about a "temporary" transitional solution so that the plane can take off sooner and a long term(i.e a 3rd sensor) solution they may use at a later time. If safety is not your thing I can understand your eagerness.
- PhantomGremlin 7y agoThis might fly with the FAA (ha ha, pun intended) but it's hard to believe that the European regulators would be so accommodating. Especially since they have competitor Airbus in their backyard.
- michaelt 7y agoSome might feel, given the regulatory capture of the FAA, there’s no authority available to sign off the ‘fixed’ plane.
- HarryHirsch 7y agoConsidering the fact that a high-priority campaign to fix the 737-MAX was started on the day of the Lion Air crash (if not before) which failed to deliver in time to prevent the Ethiopian Air crash. Then the August and October deadlines for return to flight were missed; we are now looking at a date in early 2020, and the European Union indicates that they aren't going to believe Boeing. This isn't looking good.
- ianhawes 7y ago> I can't wait to get on board one Oh yes, the joys of a cramped 737 with the added benefit of in-flight nose dives. The post-9/11 trend of every domestic flight being a 737 (or Airbus equivalent) is generally just as bad as TSA. Boeing needs to come out with a redesigned medium-range narrow-body airliner that doesn't hug the ground, has ample leg room and overhead bin space, and sell it domestic carriers as the future of air-travel instead of releasing the airplane equivalent of Windows XP Service Pack 8.
- ncbrit286 7y agoYou mean like the 757?
- tropo 7y agoIt's fine to hug the ground. Simply place the engines elsewhere, as was done on the 717. Like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717 Another option is to high-mount the wing.
- PhantomGremlin 7y agohas ample leg room You do know that the seat spacing isn't fixed by Boeing, it's adjustable by the airline. Boeing can introduce a plane with 60" seat pitch and the airlines will just turn it into 30" and pack in twice as many passengers. Same with seat width. The 787 was originally designed for eight-abreast, and many airlines turned it into nine-abreast. It's an airline industry problem, not a Boeing or Airbus problem. Most seats are purchased primarily on price. I can't afford first class, so my response is less travel. A lot less travel.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago> It's an airline industry problem, not a Boeing or Airbus problem. Most seats are purchased primarily on price. And we have a race to the bottom because there's no standardization, so the prices can be gamed like this. An airline ticket needs to be defined to provide a minimum, standard set of amenities; and at a minimum airfare search sites need to highlight tickets that don't meet that standard as nonconforming.
- magduf 7y agoEven if it really is examined so thoroughly as to be the safest plane ever, it's still going to be a pretty lousy flying experience because it's a crappy old narrowbody chassis that's decades behind in technology and refinement. They need to just scrap them and start building some Airbus designs.
- semiotagonal 7y agoHow many additional major problems did they find when they re-vetted the plane? If it is again zero, then I'm still concerned about the quality of their vetting.
- semiotagonal 7y agoI've already figured out which airlines to avoid to prevent ever getting on one of those planes.
- aggie 7y agoThat's a simple but crude method of avoiding the 737 Max. You'll have more flight options if you just check any flight you plan to book on https://flightaware.com https://flightaware.com
- garmaine 7y agoUntil they change your plane due to maintenance at the last minute. It happened to me that I ended up in a 737 Max despite specifically picking flight plans with different airplanes at time of booking. Now I only fly airlines that never had the Max in their fleet.
- amyjess 7y agoThis is why once the MAX is re-certified, I only intend to fly on carriers which have all-Airbus fleets. Which sadly probably means I'll be flying Spirit from now on, but it'll be worth it.
- adam12 7y agoPlease tell.
- toomuchtodo 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ithinkinstereo 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_... In the US, you'll want to avoid Southwest, American, and United.
- tanilama 7y agoPretty much. Trust is gone.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]