4 ms·

As a consumer, there are a lot of things a company can fail at and still get me to give them another try by saying, "We fixed it, you totally won't get burned t

As a consumer, there are a lot of things a company can fail at and still get me to give them another try by saying, "We fixed it, you totally won't get burned this time." Chipotle and salmonella outbreaks being one example. It's a much harder sell when the product in question is an aircraft. If Chipotle is wrong, I get food poisoning. If Boeing is wrong, I get to learn what it feels like to be in a plane falling out of the sky. Killing off the 737 Max seems awfully expensive. For a more traditional business, I would guess that the failed product would be fixed, renamed, and then released as something brand new. I'm not sure if that's possible in the aerospace industry, but I'm curious to see what Boeing does here.

ulfw 7y ago
Exactly that. You will see the MAX naming go away with many carriers, to be replaced with some generic numbering.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
foobar_fighter 7y ago
On the other hand, food poisoning kills many more people than plane accidents. Despite that, I have heard a lot more from the media about fatalities from plane accidents than from food poisoning. And I suppose that's simply because fear sells.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  If you get food poisoning, your chance of living is still pretty good. If your plane crashes, you might live, but your odds are much worse than if you get food poisoning. Many more people eat meals each day, than fly in a plane.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Your odds of surviving a plane crash are also quite good, though I agree it's much more likely to kill you than food poisioning.
    - ipython 7y ago
      Not if the plane crash is caused by runaway uncontrollable maximum deflection of the elevator trim as in the case of these MAX crashes.
    - BigJono 7y ago
      Are they? I'd be interested to see some stats. What kind of plane crashes are there where you have a good chance of surviving? I'd have guessed the only ones where everyone survives are where they run off the runway at half speed and bump around a bit on an empty field of grass. Surely if something happens in mid air and you're not able to make it back to a runway and actually land the plane your odds would be complete shite (<5%?)
      - foldr 7y ago
        Some old but still relevant stats: https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_oct01.pdf https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_oct01.pdf "From 1983 through 2000, NTSB investigated 26 accidents involving fire, serious injury and either substantial aircraft damage or aircraft destruction. There were 2,739 occupants involved in these serious accidents; 1,524 (55.6 percent) of the occupants survived the accident, 716 (26.1 percent) of the occupants died from impact, 340 (12.4 percent) died from unknown causes, 12 131 (4.8 percent) died from fire/smoke, and 28 (1.0 percent) died from other causes."
    - lagadu 7y ago
      Well it depends on the type of crash really. Landing gear failure has a fairly high survival rate for example, on the other hand MCAS-related crashes are pretty damn lethal compared to everything else.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  In proportion to the exposition, badly stored eggs kill way less than the overall history of the Boeing 737-800Max. Cars also kill proportionally less. Last time I looked at the numbers, riding a motorcycle on the city killed more. by a small margin. Of course, that is extrapolating from the small number of flights and deaths that occurred. I don't think the sample is statistically significant enough to compare with cars... but the eggs are on a quite safe territory.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tim333 7y ago
  Food poisoning is not very exciting. Anything involving large things falling from the sky and blowing up will get hugely more media coverage for the same number of deaths.
tim333 7y ago
I'd fly it if they fix the automatic gizmo that caused the crashes. Flying remains statistically pretty safe. I was thinking the other day on my flight to Siem Reap as they did the saftey demo they'd be better dropping the stuff about life vest of which the chances of being useful are roughly zero and giving some tips on not being involved in a vehicle accident after landing which is maybe 10,000x more likely.

ulfw 7y ago

Exactly that. You will see the MAX naming go away with many carriers, to be replaced with some generic numbering.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

foobar_fighter 7y ago

On the other hand, food poisoning kills many more people than plane accidents. Despite that, I have heard a lot more from the media about fatalities from plane accidents than from food poisoning. And I suppose that's simply because fear sells.

rossdavidh 7y ago
If you get food poisoning, your chance of living is still pretty good. If your plane crashes, you might live, but your odds are much worse than if you get food poisoning. Many more people eat meals each day, than fly in a plane.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Your odds of surviving a plane crash are also quite good, though I agree it's much more likely to kill you than food poisioning.
  - ipython 7y ago
    Not if the plane crash is caused by runaway uncontrollable maximum deflection of the elevator trim as in the case of these MAX crashes.
  - BigJono 7y ago
    Are they? I'd be interested to see some stats. What kind of plane crashes are there where you have a good chance of surviving? I'd have guessed the only ones where everyone survives are where they run off the runway at half speed and bump around a bit on an empty field of grass. Surely if something happens in mid air and you're not able to make it back to a runway and actually land the plane your odds would be complete shite (<5%?)
    - foldr 7y ago
      Some old but still relevant stats: https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_oct01.pdf https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_oct01.pdf "From 1983 through 2000, NTSB investigated 26 accidents involving fire, serious injury and either substantial aircraft damage or aircraft destruction. There were 2,739 occupants involved in these serious accidents; 1,524 (55.6 percent) of the occupants survived the accident, 716 (26.1 percent) of the occupants died from impact, 340 (12.4 percent) died from unknown causes, 12 131 (4.8 percent) died from fire/smoke, and 28 (1.0 percent) died from other causes."
  - lagadu 7y ago
    Well it depends on the type of crash really. Landing gear failure has a fairly high survival rate for example, on the other hand MCAS-related crashes are pretty damn lethal compared to everything else.
marcosdumay 7y ago
In proportion to the exposition, badly stored eggs kill way less than the overall history of the Boeing 737-800Max. Cars also kill proportionally less. Last time I looked at the numbers, riding a motorcycle on the city killed more. by a small margin. Of course, that is extrapolating from the small number of flights and deaths that occurred. I don't think the sample is statistically significant enough to compare with cars... but the eggs are on a quite safe territory.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tim333 7y ago
Food poisoning is not very exciting. Anything involving large things falling from the sky and blowing up will get hugely more media coverage for the same number of deaths.

tim333 7y ago

I'd fly it if they fix the automatic gizmo that caused the crashes. Flying remains statistically pretty safe. I was thinking the other day on my flight to Siem Reap as they did the saftey demo they'd be better dropping the stuff about life vest of which the chances of being useful are roughly zero and giving some tips on not being involved in a vehicle accident after landing which is maybe 10,000x more likely.