4 ms·
It’s irredeemable on its name alone at this point.
by adwi 7y ago
It’s irredeemable on its name alone at this point.
- amyjess 7y agoJust like the DC-10, eh?
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoSomeone just needs to find a lost Hubbard manuscript detailing how souls will be saved by flying into volcanoes on the futuristic 737-Max.
- amyjess 7y agoArrrgh. This was supposed to go under the "It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane" comment. Not sure what went wrong. Hey mods, is it possible to attach it to that one? Or if not, just kill this one and let me know so I can repost it there...
- Reason077 7y agoThe name is likely to be changed when it returns to flight. Some undelivered Ryanair 737-MAX have already been painted with the model number 737-8200. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-...
- amyjess 7y agoIf they do this when it returns to flight, I will no longer fly any carrier that operates 737s in any capacity. Which sadly means all my future flights will probably be on Spirit, but I'm willing to take the hit for my safety.
- arcticbull 7y agoThat's crazy, think about what you're saying. Yes, this is negligent behavior, yes, Boeing and the FAA should have their come-to-Jesus moment. But the odds of a crash on a MAX for you are one in five hundred thousand. Put another way you have a 0.0002% chance of being involved in a crash. You have an 0.01% chance of dying each year being involved in a car accident in the United States. That's 50X higher risk. [1] On a per-trip basis it's pretty much the same. Normally, of course, driving is much more dangerous than flying. On a MAX8 it's ball-park (based on an incredibly limited sample size). [1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortalit...
- exoque 7y agoSo what, maybe I just want to punish Boeing for their behavior?
- arcticbull 7y agoRight but plane is not the only thing that matters. For instance Allegiant has no 737s (only Airbus equipment) but one of America’s worst safety records. Take care you’re not cutting off your nose to spite your face. Policy, training, hub locations, safety culture all matter too. Your approach also fails to take into account the non-uniform distribution of accidents at take off and landing vs at cruise, so if you take a 3 stop itinerary on an Airbus-only airline with a worse safety track record, you may be at more risk than a nonstop on an even unpatched MAX. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mcall.com/business/transportation/mc-biz-allegiant-safety-record-lvia-20190831-nvab3epnergm3buqoimaankjsa-story.html%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mcall.com/business/transpor...
- t-writescode 7y agoWhen punishing an unrepentant company, you don’t look at statistics.
- arcticbull 7y agoYes, although my question remains: is it worth putting yourself at more risk than flying a MAX just to protest the risk of flying the MAX? I understand these things are irrational, however humans are notoriously bad at managing the incredibly low risk of something very bad happening. There's practically no chance of anything happening to you one way or the other and I think it's easy to forget that.
- Gibbon1 7y ago> you have a 0.0002% chance of being involved in a crash 0.0002% X 172 passengers -> 0.0334