5 ms·

Of course it's not a safe plane, common sense says so. Would you trust a bunch of bureaucrats and corporate sellouts with your life, when engineers have been ri

Of course it's not a safe plane, common sense says so. Would you trust a bunch of bureaucrats and corporate sellouts with your life, when engineers have been ringing alarm bells for years? Not only will I never fly this plane again, but I'll do my best to avoid Boeing altogether. Given that I'm European, it should be fairly easy.

dataflow 6y ago
> I'll do my best to avoid Boeing altogether https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-probe/airbus-bribery-scandal-triggers-new-probes-worldwide-idUSKBN1ZX2MW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-probe/airbus-bribe...
- saiya-jin 6y ago
  This is about Airbus bribing to get more deals, which is abhorable but common practice in any multinational corporation even these days, be it soda, weapons or banking. Boeing is about utterly incompetent management killing 300+ civilians +-knowingly, and acting like little children. Still refusing to take blame, still refusing to actually fix the source of the issue. As a passenger, I and my family are in direct risk from this incompetence. Yes, in almost duopoly in civilian flying, I will take Airbus anytime. And never, ever, fucking ever 737 Max.
  - dataflow 6y ago
    What I was trying to say was: yes, you probably shouldn't fly the 737 Max in particular (and perhaps 787), no doubt about that. But to write off the entire company's fleet of airliners when they still obviously have planes that continue to maintain excellent history seems kind of extreme and unwarranted. Like presumably you think they somehow compromised on safety on their other models too, despite their safety records, to bring them into the market. Shouldn't that give you pause on Airbus too, given they've actually gone so far as to to bribe people to get their planes into the market? I've more critical of Boeing than some folks here in the past, but if your goal is safety, you're just limiting your own options by rejecting planes with provably good safety records. (Or if you somehow think that's warranted, then there seem to be plenty of reasons to question Airbus's integrity too.) OTOH, if your goal is to just do this as some kind of economic retaliation (a "vote with your wallet" thing), in which case, never mind, I misunderstood your goal as being safety-related. Though you're not the person who wrote the initial comment, so I guess your reason could be different.
    - TravelPiglet 6y ago
      With the current leadership of Boeing I wouldn’t really trust anything they do or say.
    - piva00 6y ago
      This is a loss of confidence situation, not one based on deep fundamental analysis. As much as all other Boeing airframes can be safe, I'm not confident at all with the way Boeing's management runs the company. What other cost-cutting measures have been implemented? How can they affect current airframes maintenance and reliability? It probably doesn't affect them much but it's been blunder after blunder from Boeing, from the 777 built at Charleston, the 737 MAX fiasco and the 787. As an airline customer I'm completely dependent on trust that Boeing was doing things correctly, from a safety standpoint at least. I don't have that trust anymore and it'll take decades to earn it back.
    - StopHammoTime 6y ago
      You're also forgetting the fact that Boeing still maintain the current aircraft. What if they cut corners in some updated manufacturing design or material? What if a new update to an FMS introduces faulty design into how something or other works. Yes, you're totally right if planes rolled out of the factory and was never touched by Boeing again, but that's not necessarily how it works.
      - dataflow 6y ago
        I mean, if they were going to do that, why would they start doing that now? By most accounts I've read, their culture supposedly changed with the McDonnell-Douglas acquisition in 1997. They could've and would've already started doing so long ago before all this mess burnt their reputation, and we would've seen its effects on other planes' track records, yet I don't think we've seen anything to indicate this. And it seems to me like they have far less of an incentive to start engaging in these shenanigans now.
- avereveard 6y ago
  textbook whataboutism
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    I think his point was Airbus also isn't safe, not Boeing is okay.
    - avereveard 6y ago
      which is a textbook whataboutism
      - dataflow 6y ago
        https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism > A conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless > Excusing your mistakes with whataboutism is not the same as defending your record. This was emphatically not what I was doing.
        avereveard 6y ago
        > by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct and how is highlighting airbus misconduct not a textbook example of this? you even linked the explanation sentence, but did you read it?
        dataflow 6y ago
        If you read the entirety of what I wrote in all my comments here it should be fairly obvious how. You seem very keen to start a fight though, and I'm not sure I'm up for a match here, so I'll leave it at this.
        dotancohen 6y ago
        Actually, pointing out similar actions in peers of the accused is a valid method to demonstrate that such actions are not misconduct. Or, if we still insist on calling these actions misconduct, then a double standard has been demonstrated. That said, GGP post did not point out similar actions. Airbus did not risk passengers' lives. That is the issue here: public safety.
missedthecue 6y ago
Given that I'm European, it should be fairly easy. Why does this change anything? Every major European carrier flies Boeing aircraft. Some exclusively.
- creamytaco 6y ago
  Airbus is much more common.
amyjess 6y ago
I've already decided that once it's safe to fly again, I'm going to fly Spirit exclusively. They're a US-based carrier with an all-Airbus fleet.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  If you want to not be charged fees up the wazoo, JetBlue also has no Boeings.
- Arrath 6y ago
  While this is good to know, Spirit is also the worst airline I've ever had the misfortune of flying with.
  - amyjess 6y ago
    Honestly, I'd rather deal with shitty customer service than plunge to my death.
WanderPanda 6y ago
Seems irrational given the probabilities. Do you stop driving non-Tesla cars? That should give you a bigger bump in expected mortality (obviously depending on your relative mileage)
- rualca 6y ago
  > Seems irrational given the probabilities. Two Boeing 737max out of a total close to 400 crashed in the span of around a year before being grounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings The FAA predicted that the Boeing 737max would cause about 15 crashes during the next 30 years.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    The right figure to look at is the number of fatalities per million miles traveled. Those 400 covered an awful lot of distance over that year (but also, not all of them were yet flying at the beginning of the year).
    - rualca 6y ago
      > The right figure to look at is the number of fatalities per million miles traveled. The right figure to look at is how many plane crashes there are with other commercial flight planes of the same class due to design defects covered up like Boeig did, which is zero.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        The comment I was addressing was "Do you stop driving non-Tesla cars? That should give you a bigger bump in expected mortality (obviously depending on your relative mileage)". You seem to have mistakenly believe that I'm defending Boeing here. I'm not. The following two things can be simultaneously true: The 737 MAX is less safe than other aircraft, and the 737 MAX is still safer than driving. Look at how many car crashes leading to fatalities there were over those two years and it's a lot more than the mere 2 with the 737 MAX. The point still stands; the only reasonable way to make comparisons here is not by absolute number, but per passenger distance traveled. Any other comparison isn't correctly normalizing the things being compared.
oxley 6y ago
> Not only will I never fly this plane again, but I'll do my best to avoid Boeing altogether. Seems excessive. Most of Boeing plane families have been flying for decades. We're unlikely to discover new major failure modes in them at this point. If anything, I'd wait before flying any recent Boeing designs.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  It's a matter of principle

dataflow 6y ago

> I'll do my best to avoid Boeing altogether https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-probe/airbus-bribery-scandal-triggers-new-probes-worldwide-idUSKBN1ZX2MW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-probe/airbus-bribe...

saiya-jin 6y ago
This is about Airbus bribing to get more deals, which is abhorable but common practice in any multinational corporation even these days, be it soda, weapons or banking. Boeing is about utterly incompetent management killing 300+ civilians +-knowingly, and acting like little children. Still refusing to take blame, still refusing to actually fix the source of the issue. As a passenger, I and my family are in direct risk from this incompetence. Yes, in almost duopoly in civilian flying, I will take Airbus anytime. And never, ever, fucking ever 737 Max.
- dataflow 6y ago
  What I was trying to say was: yes, you probably shouldn't fly the 737 Max in particular (and perhaps 787), no doubt about that. But to write off the entire company's fleet of airliners when they still obviously have planes that continue to maintain excellent history seems kind of extreme and unwarranted. Like presumably you think they somehow compromised on safety on their other models too, despite their safety records, to bring them into the market. Shouldn't that give you pause on Airbus too, given they've actually gone so far as to to bribe people to get their planes into the market? I've more critical of Boeing than some folks here in the past, but if your goal is safety, you're just limiting your own options by rejecting planes with provably good safety records. (Or if you somehow think that's warranted, then there seem to be plenty of reasons to question Airbus's integrity too.) OTOH, if your goal is to just do this as some kind of economic retaliation (a "vote with your wallet" thing), in which case, never mind, I misunderstood your goal as being safety-related. Though you're not the person who wrote the initial comment, so I guess your reason could be different.
  - TravelPiglet 6y ago
    With the current leadership of Boeing I wouldn’t really trust anything they do or say.
  - piva00 6y ago
    This is a loss of confidence situation, not one based on deep fundamental analysis. As much as all other Boeing airframes can be safe, I'm not confident at all with the way Boeing's management runs the company. What other cost-cutting measures have been implemented? How can they affect current airframes maintenance and reliability? It probably doesn't affect them much but it's been blunder after blunder from Boeing, from the 777 built at Charleston, the 737 MAX fiasco and the 787. As an airline customer I'm completely dependent on trust that Boeing was doing things correctly, from a safety standpoint at least. I don't have that trust anymore and it'll take decades to earn it back.
  - StopHammoTime 6y ago
    You're also forgetting the fact that Boeing still maintain the current aircraft. What if they cut corners in some updated manufacturing design or material? What if a new update to an FMS introduces faulty design into how something or other works. Yes, you're totally right if planes rolled out of the factory and was never touched by Boeing again, but that's not necessarily how it works.
    - dataflow 6y ago
      I mean, if they were going to do that, why would they start doing that now? By most accounts I've read, their culture supposedly changed with the McDonnell-Douglas acquisition in 1997. They could've and would've already started doing so long ago before all this mess burnt their reputation, and we would've seen its effects on other planes' track records, yet I don't think we've seen anything to indicate this. And it seems to me like they have far less of an incentive to start engaging in these shenanigans now.
avereveard 6y ago
textbook whataboutism
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  I think his point was Airbus also isn't safe, not Boeing is okay.
  - avereveard 6y ago
    which is a textbook whataboutism
    - dataflow 6y ago
      https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism > A conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless > Excusing your mistakes with whataboutism is not the same as defending your record. This was emphatically not what I was doing.
      - avereveard 6y ago
        > by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct and how is highlighting airbus misconduct not a textbook example of this? you even linked the explanation sentence, but did you read it?
        dataflow 6y ago
        If you read the entirety of what I wrote in all my comments here it should be fairly obvious how. You seem very keen to start a fight though, and I'm not sure I'm up for a match here, so I'll leave it at this.
      - dotancohen 6y ago
        Actually, pointing out similar actions in peers of the accused is a valid method to demonstrate that such actions are not misconduct. Or, if we still insist on calling these actions misconduct, then a double standard has been demonstrated. That said, GGP post did not point out similar actions. Airbus did not risk passengers' lives. That is the issue here: public safety.

missedthecue 6y ago

Given that I'm European, it should be fairly easy. Why does this change anything? Every major European carrier flies Boeing aircraft. Some exclusively.

creamytaco 6y ago
Airbus is much more common.

amyjess 6y ago

I've already decided that once it's safe to fly again, I'm going to fly Spirit exclusively. They're a US-based carrier with an all-Airbus fleet.

bobthepanda 6y ago
If you want to not be charged fees up the wazoo, JetBlue also has no Boeings.
Arrath 6y ago
While this is good to know, Spirit is also the worst airline I've ever had the misfortune of flying with.
- amyjess 6y ago
  Honestly, I'd rather deal with shitty customer service than plunge to my death.

WanderPanda 6y ago

Seems irrational given the probabilities. Do you stop driving non-Tesla cars? That should give you a bigger bump in expected mortality (obviously depending on your relative mileage)

rualca 6y ago
> Seems irrational given the probabilities. Two Boeing 737max out of a total close to 400 crashed in the span of around a year before being grounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings The FAA predicted that the Boeing 737max would cause about 15 crashes during the next 30 years.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  The right figure to look at is the number of fatalities per million miles traveled. Those 400 covered an awful lot of distance over that year (but also, not all of them were yet flying at the beginning of the year).
  - rualca 6y ago
    > The right figure to look at is the number of fatalities per million miles traveled. The right figure to look at is how many plane crashes there are with other commercial flight planes of the same class due to design defects covered up like Boeig did, which is zero.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      The comment I was addressing was "Do you stop driving non-Tesla cars? That should give you a bigger bump in expected mortality (obviously depending on your relative mileage)". You seem to have mistakenly believe that I'm defending Boeing here. I'm not. The following two things can be simultaneously true: The 737 MAX is less safe than other aircraft, and the 737 MAX is still safer than driving. Look at how many car crashes leading to fatalities there were over those two years and it's a lot more than the mere 2 with the 737 MAX. The point still stands; the only reasonable way to make comparisons here is not by absolute number, but per passenger distance traveled. Any other comparison isn't correctly normalizing the things being compared.

oxley 6y ago

> Not only will I never fly this plane again, but I'll do my best to avoid Boeing altogether. Seems excessive. Most of Boeing plane families have been flying for decades. We're unlikely to discover new major failure modes in them at this point. If anything, I'd wait before flying any recent Boeing designs.

hanniabu 6y ago
It's a matter of principle