3 ms·

No, 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 ago
Depends 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 ago
  Flying 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 ago
    Flying 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 ago
      That 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 ago
        I 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.
  - ummonk 6y ago
    The decision isn't about flying in general - it's about flying on a 737 Max, which was multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous than existing aircraft in its class.
hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
It's not an irrational fear at all. The plane by any measure is a serious kludge, even after these patches have been applied. Think about the fact that you're flying what is essentially a management designed plane. No reasonable engineer would chose to build this plane.

Depends 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 ago
Flying 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 ago
  Flying 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 ago
    That 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 ago
      I 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.
- ummonk 6y ago
  The decision isn't about flying in general - it's about flying on a 737 Max, which was multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous than existing aircraft in its class.

hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago

It's not an irrational fear at all. The plane by any measure is a serious kludge, even after these patches have been applied. Think about the fact that you're flying what is essentially a management designed plane. No reasonable engineer would chose to build this plane.