14 ms·
I recently had the frivolous idea of creating a flight search engine for flights that DID NOT use the 737 Max. Any actual interest in this?
by DevX101 6y ago
I recently had the frivolous idea of creating a flight search engine for flights that DID NOT use the 737 Max. Any actual interest in this?
- Xenoamorphous 6y agoAre airlines even obliged to disclose the type of plane? One of them even changed the type of plane and destination airport (same city though) for one of my flights.
- judge2020 6y agoI don't think they're obligated, but Delta does provide that information currently.
- hehetrthrthrjn 6y agoProbably because they have none of these planes and no plans to add them.
- chrisdhal 6y agoDelta has had it for years though, way before the Max issue came up. When you book a flight it's right there and tells you what model you're getting, which is needed since you can select seats ahead of time. Admittedly, there are times it gets changed at the last minute for whatever reason, but when you book you see what you're getting, and have for years.
- kelnos 6y agoI don't think they're obligated, but many airlines do. Changes do happen, though, so the plane listed at booking may not be the plane you fly on.
- xiphias2 6y agoIsn't at least the system for past flights public? Flightradar24 has the information: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa9750/#26332420 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa9750/#26332420
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- phinnaeus 6y agoI would be interested in such a search engine, if it allowed me to use positive filters rather than just a single negative 737MAX filter.
- ericbarrett 6y agoI'd use it when the pandemic is over. Zero confidence in Boeing. In general I think a prosumer-oriented flight search engine would do well. Something like ITA Matrix, before Google absorbed it into Google Flights.
- DevX101 6y agoI have no illusions I could easily create anything on the level of complexity of ITA (super impressive team/product). If I were to do this, it'd be a layer on top of some flight API doing the heavy lifting.
- ericbarrett 6y agoSound. Just being able to avoid the 737 MAX for the next few years would be welcome.
- txmachinery 6y agoYes, I would use it every booking.
- lqet 6y agoWould use it. I have read too many descriptions of the final moments of Lion Air 610 to ever board a 737 Max again.
- ghayes 6y agoSerious question: if an airline changes the aircraft, is that grounds for a refund on your flight?
- mocheeze 6y agoDoesn't appear so: https://thepointsguy.com/2017/05/refund-when-airline-changes-plane/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/05/refund-when-airline-changes...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- quickthrower2 6y agoWhat if they switch it for a Tiger Moth?
- niij 6y agohttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/kayak-and-tripadvisor-offering-filters-to-screen-out-boeing-737-max-flights/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kayak-and-tripadvisor-offering-...
- DevX101 6y agoSo much for that idea, thanks!
- lukehutch 6y agoPlanes can be switched out last-minute. I plan to check the plane type at the gate every time I fly for the next 10 years, and if it's a MAX, I'll reschedule my flight on the spot. They claim they solved the software problem, but they didn't solve the physics problems created by the engine position (which necessitated the software in the first place).
- pdonis 6y ago> they didn't solve the physics problems created by the engine position The engine position, in itself, isn't terribly unusual; the 757 and 767 both have engines in similar forward positions on the wings and have a similar pitch up moment due to the engines at high angles of attack. So do a number of Airbus models. Designing flight controls to deal with this issue is not new and has been well tested. The particular issue with the 737 MAX was that Boeing wanted to change the engine position on an existing aircraft, without requiring a new type certification and pilot retraining. That meant that the flight controls had to not just properly account for the engine position, but to do so while keeping the same stick force curve vs. angle of attack as existing 737 models. That is what drove the MCAS software system that caused all the trouble. If the plane had been designed as a new type from the start, the engine position would not have been an issue; and the redesign is basically doing what a new type design would have done, as far as I can tell from the documents the FAA has published.
- bostonvaulter2 6y agoDoes the 737 MAX now require pilot retraining? Or did they make some other sort of adjustment?
- hehetrthrthrjn 6y agoYes it's required.
- bostonvaulter2 6y agoI'm very glad to hear that!
- 0xy 6y agoThis seems utterly counter-productive, considering the Max is now the most scrutinized plane in history. It's probably far safer now than other models.
- cjbprime 6y agoFWIW, I don't see any pilots or aviation experts saying this. I think it's actually still poorly designed -- I don't think they added a third AoA sensor and used a quorum on them, as Airbus does given their own link of AoA to an automatic flight control.
- 0xy 6y agoThere's been hundreds of independent pilots and experts who have signed off on the plane from multiple regulatory bodies and other independents. Including 565 independent pilots in Europe alone. [1] No other plane in the history of aviation has had this level of scrutiny. [1] https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-737-max-safe-fly-says-european-regulator/ https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-737-max-safe-fly-...
- cjbprime 6y agoThat's fine, but signing off on it just means that they were convinced that it's airworthy. Your own [1] link even says: > “While the software upgrades and changes are enough to get the plane back in the air, the agency is still demanding the development of a so-called synthetic sensor (that will be ready in 20 to 24 months) to reach even higher safety levels.” This seems clear that we're talking about a conditional airworthiness rather than absolute confidence, safest plane ever made, etc etc. Recall that you said "It's probably far safer now than other models". Why are you saying that given that the experts you quoted are using the paragraph above for this plane, when they don't have similar concerns and requirements for other models?
- 0xy 6y agoBecause safety is far from a binary equation. Safety is a sliding scale that never reaches 100%. If the Max is 99.9999% safe and regulators are demanding they make it at least 99.99991% safe it doesn't detract from my point. If other planes received this level of scrutiny, changes would similarly be demanded. The practice of re-badging old models is widespread. I'm telling you that personally, I'd exclusively travel on just the Max for the rest of my days and wouldn't lose sleep.
- myrandomcomment 6y agoNo, it is an irrational human fear. Hold one, humans are dumb so yes, it will be a money maker playing on that fear!
- ummonk 6y agoDepends on what you consider rational. E.g. flying a few hours on the pre-fixes 737 Max would have been more dangerous than driving a few hours in a car. And a cautious person can greatly reduce their risk of death in car driving by being a cautious driver.
- myrandomcomment 6y agoFlying is much safer then driving, but that a statement based on real statistics. However, a large number of people have an irrational fear of flying vs driving. That’s the point.
- ashtonkem 6y agoFlying is safer than driving on average. But a lot of bad can hide in averages. Boeing delivered 387 Max 8 aircraft to their customers before they were grounded in 2019. Two were destroyed, killing everyone aboard. That's half a percent of the aircraft they delivered destroyed within two years. That's obviously much worse that most other aircraft, and far worse than any car currently for sale. You wouldn't buy a car that had a one in 200 chance of killing you and your family before the lease was up, would you?
- myrandomcomment 6y agoThat is the wrong way to look at this. The only apples to apple comparison is miles/hours/people. How many miles over how many hours for how many people.
- ashtonkem 6y agoI was not able to find official statistics on 737 Max flight hours, which is why I fell back to percentage of aircraft as a means of comparison. But to continue down this path, let's compare the 737 Max to its predecessor, the 737NG. Out of the 7,065 737NGs delivered, 22 have been completely destroyed, for a rate of 0.3%. If we only look at fatal accidents, we find 12 (0.16%). If we limit this to accidents that were caused by some failing of the aircraft, even if it was made worse by pilot error, you end up with two fatal accidents (0.027%). So in order to believe that the 737 Max is no more or less dangerous than the 737NG, you have to believe that the 387 delivered 737 Max aircraft were flown enough in 2 years to cover the massive difference in their fatal hull loss rate. I'm sure that the 737 Max was flown a lot, the reduction in fuel consumption means that airlines would want to use it as much as they could, but there is over an 18x difference between the rate of fatal accidents caused by those two aircraft; do you really think that the 737 Max flew 18x more on average than the 737NG has? Oh, and Airbus has delivered 1,499 airplanes in their a320neo series. None have crashed so far.
- mlindner 6y agoPlease don't fearmonger. The 737 Max is not fundamentally less safe than any other 737... What made it less safe is the corporate culture that added this flaw and the flaw has been fixed. The fix was obvious at the time of the failure and that hasn't changed.