11 ms·
We need a website which will list all airlines which have at least one 737 Max in stock or on order and make it easy for customers to find out what % of the fle
by dustinmoris 6y ago
We need a website which will list all airlines which have at least one 737 Max in stock or on order and make it easy for customers to find out what % of the fleet is the 737 Max, so customers can take that into account when booking flights and so that airlines know that having a Boeing 737 Max has a direct negative impact on their sales figures.
Even if Boeing truly fixes the plane, they should never get away with this. The sheer ignorance and negligence which led to the unnecessary death of so many passengers is mass murder in my eyes.
- MattGaiser 6y agoYou can usually see the aircraft being flown when booking a ticket.
- dustinmoris 6y agoThey can change it last minute and will certainly do so if they know that people look for it during booking. I rather book only with airlines which don't even have a 737 max in their hanger.
- FearNotDaniel 6y agoMany airlines will have a fleet page like this one [1] so you can tell exactly how many they have of each model/variant. If somebody less busy than me wants to find all these and scrape them into a "howmany737maxesdoesyourairlinehave.io" app, knock yourself out. [1] https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/company/fleet.html https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/company/fleet.html
- cm2187 6y agoIt may be rational to try to minimise your use of the Max, particularly if you fly frequently (though not convinced myself). But I think it is irrational to refuse to board the plane on the rare events when there is a last minute change of plane. Even before the fixes, the accident rate relative to the flight hours was extremely low. Unacceptably high for the crew flying these all year long, but not something worth worrying about for an occasional flyer. Worrying about it after the fix is worrying about “winning the jackpot at the national lottery” level of low probabilities. There are many other things you will do during that day that carry orders of magnitude more risk to hurt or kill you.
- dmurray 6y agoIf you fly a few times a year, the flight crew only spend 1-2 orders of magnitude more than you on the plane. That's not enough to move a risk from "unacceptably high" to "national lottery" levels.
- cm2187 6y ago"National lottery" is after the fix. "Unacceptably high" was before the fix.
- randomNumber7 6y ago> Even if the odds are low, it's still an unnecessary additional risk of dying. You can't avoid all risks in live but not flying a 737-MAX shouldn't be too hard. It has the additional benefit of not supporting an obnoxious corporate culture....
- organsnyder 6y ago> There are many other things you will do during that day that carry orders of magnitude more risk to hurt or kill you. Indeed, the additional driving you might end up doing (if you reschedule your flight for a different day, for instance) is likely much more dangerous than boarding the plane.
- brnt 6y agoYou'll see "737" or "737-8200" or somesuch. There are reports airlines are hiding this info.
- cm2187 6y agoUsually airlines fly the same plane on a given route. Just look on any flight tracking website the model of the plane flown the current day or week for that flight number, it will give you a very good indication.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rob74 6y agoThis page already goes a long way to fulfill your requirements: https://www.planespotters.net/special/boeing-737-max-grounding https://www.planespotters.net/special/boeing-737-max-groundi... ...however, if you don't want Boeing to "get away with it", you should boycott all their planes. Not saying we should do that though, because if Boeing goes out of business, we would be left with just one major manufacturer of passenger jets, and that's never a good thing. Already the Max issues are at least in part a result of the existing duopoly and US authorities being too lenient with Boeing because they don't want to disadvantage it against Airbus.
- systemvoltage 6y agoThat's a pretty odd take when Boeing airplanes have superior safety ratings than their Airbus counterpars for the most part if we exclude the 737-Max variant. I need to find sources, I am writing from memory. I understand the situation with 737-Max safety, Boeing entirely deserves it. But, I think we should also look at the data as well and hold off on knee-jerk reactions. Edit: http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
- ucha 6y agoAirbus seems safer from your link? They never had a crash on any of their newer models, A380, A350 and neo variants. The vast majority of flights are performed in 737s and A320 variants and the crash rate is 0.09 for Airbus vs 0.24 for Boeing. [edit]: actually excluding planes produced before the 737NG in 1984 and the 737 max, the 737 crash rate is 0.11 which is still slightly higher than Airbus.
- Daho0n 6y agoYour link disagrees with your conclusion?
- rob74 6y agoDo you mean the 0.07 "fatality rate" for Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 vs. the 0.09 for the A320 family? I would say they are both very safe aircraft, but I wouldn't read too much into the 0.02 difference, because that includes accidents like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 (where the copilot intentionally crashed the plane) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 (which was 100% due to human error)
- 0xy 6y agoI'd choose to fly on a 737 Max over any other plane, personally. Because no other plane in operation has ever received the amount of scrutiny the Max has.
- J-dawg 6y agoI don't like seeing comments like this downvoted, especially with zero comments responding to it. It seems a totally legitimate viewpoint, even if it's one that many of us disagree with. Downvoting just to signal disagreement is against the guidelines, isn't it?
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago38,000 people die annually in auto accidents. Car manufacturers should never get away with it. Two incidents with 200+ fatalities indeed is tragic, but automobiles are nearly two orders of magnitude worse in death counts. We should be 100x more serious about automobiles.
- tjungblut 6y agoHow many of them die because the car is malfunctioning?
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoSome non-zero amount, though not 100%. But if a life is a life, and we can only lobby politicians for so many things, we could probably reduce more deaths by having higher standards for licensing. And our lobbying efforts could save magnitudes more lives.
- doix 6y agoWhat really shocked me when speaking to my american colleagues is that you guys have no equivalent of an "MOT". In the UK, for a car to be road legal it needs to hava passed some safety checks. From what I understood, that doesn't exist over there? Anyone can go, buy a $100 car from some guy on craigslist and drive it around. I'd wager that makes a big difference to road fatalities. That and the drunk driving. I guess it depends on the place, but in Austin it was awful. I was out drinking with some guys from work, we had maybe 6 beers? Then they all walked back to the office, got their cars and drove home. It made me much more paranoid about crossing the road.
- jfk13 6y ago> you guys have no equivalent of an "MOT" It depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit...
- kungito 6y ago
- sofixa 6y agoThat's funny, i thought about making just that, but there area already a bunch of sites ( planeapotters, flightradar, etc.) which contain the data, so a dedicated website would add little value. I might still make it, especially if more airlines decide to "rename" it ( e.g. Ryanair with their 737-9200).
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThe sites you mention seem oriented towards discovering what any given plane currently in air is, and who operates it. What GP is talking about is a site that lists airlines operating that particular plane. A simple, dedicated interface. Drop in an airline, get a probability estimate you'll be flying on a 737 MAX. Or, better, drop an airline, start/stop points and time, get an answer whether you'll be flying 737 MAX. EDIT: https://airlinelist.com/ https://airlinelist.com/ has a feature I was thinking about, though not prominently visible. There's a button "No 737 MAX in fleet", which you can use as a filter. So a dedicated website could be just that, with this filter always on.
- jhowell 6y agoPerhaps using satellite imagery to count the number of 737 MAX airplanes sitting on the runways of major airports, in addition to traditionally available data.
- pjc50 6y ago> sheer ignorance and negligence which led to the unnecessary death of so many .. has been totally obscured by the ignorance and negligence which led to the unnecessary death of so many from coronavirus. The UK is running at about seven 737-MAX passenger loads of deaths per day. Really I'm surprised that Boeing hasn't bunged a few dollars to the denialism industry to ask "how many of those passengers would have died within a few years anyway" or to assert that oxygen masks on planes are an unnecessary infringement of liberty that actually makes it hard to breathe.
- capableweb 6y agoI'm unsure if your comment is actually serious or sarcastic. If Boeing came out and said "how many of those passengers would have died within a few years anyway" they would be in a much worse situation (PR wise) than today, where they have taken responsibility for the accidents that lead to people dying. And yeah, the handling of coronavirus around the world is really sad also, but in no way obscures Boeings fucked up handling of the 737 Max and its (re)certifications.
- pjc50 6y agoDeeply sarcastic, but I suppose no sarcasm is so obvious that it can't be missed in text. I'm contrasting this with the bizarrely blase approach to far higher death numbers that can be seen everywhere relating to COVID. Even here on HN in the vaccination numbers thread on the front page.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- w-m 6y agoVoting with your wallet is not the way to go when there are actual lives involved. As a consumer, I should absolutely not have to keep up to date with what airline buys which airplane models, and which airplane models are considered safe. That's what regulatory bodies are for. If the regulatory process is broken, it needs fixing, but there does not need to be a second market-driven layer here.
- m463 6y agoYou know if there was a discount for flying on US-based 737 max planes - with american pilots who never had an accident - yeah, market forces would win.
- mnd999 6y agoChesley Sullenberger had a pretty high profile accident but I think I’d still prefer to fly with him at the controls (if he hadn’t retired). I don’t think this is a good metric to measure pilots by.
- m463 6y agoSo I had a friend who was an actuary. I remember asking if they charged extra for sports cars because they could. I was told that they were actually pretty accurately priced. The only time actuarial tables did not reflect reality was after a car accident. Statistically after an accident drivers are much safer, but the insurance fees (have to) go up.
- randomNumber7 6y ago> If the regulatory process is broken, it needs fixing This is true, but as long it isn't fixed, voting with your wallet is the only thing you can do. And definitely better than supporting boeing to go on with business as usual.
- pieterhg 6y agoI made that! https://airlinelist.com https://airlinelist.com still in beta but try the filter No 737Max in fleet
- adventurer 6y agoVery cool. Nice job!
- f6v 6y agoDoes an average passenger have the luxury of doing so? Plane tickets can get quite costly.
- alistairSH 6y agoProbably not. When I travel for work, my tickets are constrained by time/location and cost. When I travel for pleasure, I have more flexibility for date/location, but become much more price sensitive. That said, I have enough price flexibility in both cases to mostly avoid unreasonable layovers (>1 layover, or >3 hours, roughly).
- PaulHoule 6y agoEven it were not for the MCAS problem, the 737 is the worst plane on the market -- it is hamstrung by 1960s design decisions, struggles to take off under good conditions, is loud on the inside and outside, etc. Newer smaLl jets like the E195 and A220 are smaller on the outside but feel bigger on the inside the same way Japanese cars felt in the 1970s compared to American 'boats'; in the short term it is easy for airlines to keep with the 737 but because the business is a cosy duopoly passengers will be spending more in the long term, we will get more climate change, more noise at the airport, Boeing doesnt have a real business plan unless it includes replacing the 737 someday. In particular Low Cost airlnes like Southwest have built businesses around airplanes designed for mainline airlines, if one of them got a plane designed for them it could turn the industry upside down.
- huevosabio 6y agoIs there somewhere I can check whether a particular flight number is usually served by 737 Max? I would certainly use it for shopping flights.
- ubermonkey 6y agoThat's an interesting idea in principle, but IME it wouldn't be as helpful as you might think initially. This is because airline choice isn't much of a market. I live in a major US city (Houston), with excellent air service available in two airports. However, as with nearly all such cities, we are VERY VERY VERY well served by the carriers that "hub" here (Southwest and United). Choosing them usually means a direct flight, and more options for departure times, and probably lower fares. There are situations where choosing something else is viable, but usually only if you're picking an airline that hubs in the city you're going to -- for example, choosing Delta to fly to Atlanta, or American to fly to Dallas. The tl;dr is that avoiding the MAX from here would be hard without creating a materially worse experience. (Of course, crashing is an even WORSE experience, so...)
- mattacular 6y agoThe US government could be one such organization capable of doing this, and even going one step further - they could bar these companies from operating max in our airspace or they could bar Boeing from selling them. I know this solution may be too likely to succeed, some may call it crazy ...
- briandear 6y agoSo nothing about pilot training or maintenance? Ethiopian and Lion Air deserve a non-zero percentage of the blame for “mass murder.” That percentage is debatable. As a commercial pilot (who doesn’t fly 737s) and someone with close friends who are 737 captains for a major US carrier, my opinion is that the airplane itself was not the core problem. The design of the airplane was such that it enhanced the glaring deficiencies in pilot training and maintenance practices.