8 ms·

For the most reliable info, you can look up your flight number in Flightaware or Flightradar 24 -- those use actual flight plan data, so will take into account

For the most reliable info, you can look up your flight number in Flightaware or Flightradar 24 -- those use actual flight plan data, so will take into account any last minute aircraft changes.

gruez 3y ago
>those use actual flight plan data, so will take into account any last minute aircraft changes. But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it.
- m_a_g 3y ago
  I would. I'm that afraid.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it Nobody rational will. But there are plenty of people with an understandable fear of flying who will create a customer-service kerfuffle over it. On the margin that might not do anything. But in aggregate it could affect how the airlines negotiate settlements from Boeing.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    No. It’s just that people want to vote with their feet, and inflict damage to Boeing for abhorrent behavior. I mean not even every army general in every country has killed as many as Boeing.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > people want to vote with their feet, and inflict damage to Boeing for abhorrent behavior People want to express outrage. That’s understandable. Most flight revenue is from frequent travellers, and they understand the business enough to know histrionics won’t change Boeing’s incumbency. A couple people who fly twice a year swapping airlines isn’t going to move the needle. And I doubt a material fraction of them are likely voters who would bother their electeds about this.
      - _jal 3y ago
        > their histrionics won’t change Boeing’s incumbency You seem to entirely miss the possibility that this has nothing to do with "punishing" anyone, and that people simply don't want to stress out about dying during their flight. You can call it irrational if you like, that feeling of superiority and a few bucks will get you a snack. The brain worm is there, I know I'll be thinking about it next time I book tickets.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > people simply don't want to stress out about dying during their flight Sure, and as I point out elsewhere, that's reasonable [1]. It's irrational because it doesn't actually change anything, about your situation or systematically. Not flying a 737 Max to feel better is reasonable. Doing it to be safer, or because it's going to punish Boeing or whatever, is not. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38929638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38929638
      - ddalex 3y ago
        That's why we need to be vocal about the badness of 737 MAX - bad reputation is just as worse as people not flying.
  - dist-epoch 3y ago
    Everybody agrees that FAA is not what it used to be, these days the Boeing engineers are basically self-certifying their planes. So what's irrational in not believing that 737 Max is safe?
    - averageRoyalty 3y ago
      Thankfully, the US is not the world and there are other authorities beyond the FAA.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > what's irrational in not believing that 737 Max is safe? The millions of miles they've flown without incident. The key difference this conversation demands is a design versus fabrication or maintenance error. MCAS was a design error. It called into question the entire 737 Max fleet. This looks like a fabrication or maintenance mistake. That calls into question all of the planes similarly fabricated or maintained--those have been grounded. It doesn't affect a 737 Max of a different type, that has been flown for years and been through routine inspections, including of the very bolts suspected to be the cause of this accident. Caveat: I strongly suspect more than the type 9 need to be looked at. But we do not have evidence that they are unsafe.
      - 123pie123 3y ago
        interesting question.. how many miles have 737max flown without any incidents?
    - stevehawk 3y ago
      > Everybody agrees that FAA is not what it used to be, these days the Boeing engineers are basically self-certifying their planes. I think Boeing /engineers/ would argue that statement and instead tell you that Boeing /management/ is self certifying the planes.
- diggan 3y ago
  > But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it. Luckily the airlines I travel with only use Airbus, but if they were using 737 Max, I'd definitely book tickets that I can change at the last minute, and refuse to board if it turns out to be a 737 Max. Yes, that's probably illogical. And probably much of life is illogical. But I rather have to wait some hours for the next flight than take the risk to die because of Boeing.
  - frakt0x90 3y ago
    Except according to the top comment, "A lot of people don't realize that the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus. We don't really know who to blame here until the investigation concludes." So I guess you just shouldn't fly.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Except Airbus doesn't have planes falling apart in midair even if they are using the same supplier. This is clearly an issue during assembly regardless of the supplier of the parts.
      - davely 3y ago
        In 2010, an Airbus A380 engine exploded. The fact that it landed safely was a miracle. [1] In 2017, an Airbus A380 lost an engine (literally, fell off the plane). [2] In 2018, a cockpit windshield blew out in an Airbus A319. [3] Don't get me wrong, the culture at Boeing has changed (for the worse). The 737 Max is not without issues. It's horrific that hundreds have died due to both ignorance and deception on behalf of Boeing. But Airbus isn't some sort of flawless golden goose either. Any time something like this happens, failure modes are identified and things will get safer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 [2] https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/photos-airbus-a380-engine-fell-off-the-plane-hopeful-investigators-dug-it-out-of-deep-snow/ https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/photos-airb... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichuan_Airlines_Flight_8633 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichuan_Airlines_Flight_8633
- codegeek 3y ago
  I am usually a very practical person but looking at the catastrophic failures specifically of 737 MAX and not one but many in short period, it is way too many for a plane. Yes planes crash but the probability is extremely low in general except for 737 MAX. Officially it is now on my no fly list. I will not board a plane if it is 737 MAX. And yes, I will suffer the consequences of that.
- uudecoded 3y ago
  In Seattle (since Boeing was the largest employer in the state until Amazon succeeded them), there was a common line: "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going" (See '79 bumper sticker: https://www.ebay.com/itm/332131135342 https://www.ebay.com/itm/332131135342) Starting to look like it might be the other way around...
  - rconti 3y ago
    Move Boeing back to Seattle!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- booleandilemma 3y ago
  I'm starting to get there though.
- jjav 3y ago
  The planes only start transmitting when they are ready to go (not sure if they do it after pulling out of the gate or when doors close or thereabouts). So by the time you see the flight data you're most likely boarded already. So yes, too late.
  - stevehawk 3y ago
    The planes are all flying IFR flight plans which are submitted in advance and include airplane type. How far in advance is a little bit random but still in advance of leaving the gate.
  - netsharc 3y ago
    I don't think this is true, in any case you can extrapolate, e.g. if you're leaving from gate 34, see which flight of this airline is arriving at gate 34 just before, then you can check that flight's details, including plane model, on the tracking websites
    - jjav 3y ago
      My kid is a huge fan of flightradar so we spend way too much time watching it. I don't know the exact timing, but it is a consistent behavior that planes pop onto flightradar only a little bit before pulling out of the gate. But I'm not sure if there's a standardized point in the sequence when they turn it on or it's up to each pilot. But you're right, watching the incoming plane to that gate would be a good way to know earlier!
dpflan 3y ago
I mean, isn't the info on your ticket? Which can be electronically updated when the airline makes a change, right?
- alkonaut 3y ago
  Final aircraft assigned to the flight can be changed until the last minute. The info is most useful when booking. Presumably people might switch if the price/schedule is reasonably close while very few would turn away at the gate if they discover a max (I sure wouldn’t and I belong to the tiny minority that even think about aircraft models ever). So the info is most useful when booking. Flying an airline that doesn’t operate a specific model is the most (and almost only) reliable way to avoid one.
  - diggan 3y ago
    > Flying an airline that doesn’t operate a specific model is the most (and almost only) reliable way to avoid one. Even that could make you end up on a 737 Max, if the airline you have your ticket via actually "outsourced" (simplified and not the right word) the actual flight to another airline, which happens sometimes.
    - pb7 3y ago
      Multiply all these probabilities together and you have a better chance at winning a billion dollars in a lottery you didn't buy a ticket for.
      - diggan 3y ago
        Yes, if I was a perfectly reasonable and logical robot, I'd agree with you. But I'm a 30+ year old human, with plenty of experiences that "should never have happened" and "that was once in a million odds" that I won't risk it. I'd love it if I could turn off the lizard parts of my body, but I cannot. I try my best, but when it comes to life/death, I just trust my gut over anything else.

For the most reliable info, you can look up your flight number in Flightaware or Flightradar 24 -- those use actual flight plan data, so will take into account any last minute aircraft changes.

gruez 3y ago

>those use actual flight plan data, so will take into account any last minute aircraft changes. But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it.

m_a_g 3y ago
I would. I'm that afraid.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it Nobody rational will. But there are plenty of people with an understandable fear of flying who will create a customer-service kerfuffle over it. On the margin that might not do anything. But in aggregate it could affect how the airlines negotiate settlements from Boeing.
- eastbound 3y ago
  No. It’s just that people want to vote with their feet, and inflict damage to Boeing for abhorrent behavior. I mean not even every army general in every country has killed as many as Boeing.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > people want to vote with their feet, and inflict damage to Boeing for abhorrent behavior People want to express outrage. That’s understandable. Most flight revenue is from frequent travellers, and they understand the business enough to know histrionics won’t change Boeing’s incumbency. A couple people who fly twice a year swapping airlines isn’t going to move the needle. And I doubt a material fraction of them are likely voters who would bother their electeds about this.
    - _jal 3y ago
      > their histrionics won’t change Boeing’s incumbency You seem to entirely miss the possibility that this has nothing to do with "punishing" anyone, and that people simply don't want to stress out about dying during their flight. You can call it irrational if you like, that feeling of superiority and a few bucks will get you a snack. The brain worm is there, I know I'll be thinking about it next time I book tickets.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > people simply don't want to stress out about dying during their flight Sure, and as I point out elsewhere, that's reasonable [1]. It's irrational because it doesn't actually change anything, about your situation or systematically. Not flying a 737 Max to feel better is reasonable. Doing it to be safer, or because it's going to punish Boeing or whatever, is not. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38929638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38929638
    - ddalex 3y ago
      That's why we need to be vocal about the badness of 737 MAX - bad reputation is just as worse as people not flying.
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  Everybody agrees that FAA is not what it used to be, these days the Boeing engineers are basically self-certifying their planes. So what's irrational in not believing that 737 Max is safe?
  - averageRoyalty 3y ago
    Thankfully, the US is not the world and there are other authorities beyond the FAA.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > what's irrational in not believing that 737 Max is safe? The millions of miles they've flown without incident. The key difference this conversation demands is a design versus fabrication or maintenance error. MCAS was a design error. It called into question the entire 737 Max fleet. This looks like a fabrication or maintenance mistake. That calls into question all of the planes similarly fabricated or maintained--those have been grounded. It doesn't affect a 737 Max of a different type, that has been flown for years and been through routine inspections, including of the very bolts suspected to be the cause of this accident. Caveat: I strongly suspect more than the type 9 need to be looked at. But we do not have evidence that they are unsafe.
    - 123pie123 3y ago
      interesting question.. how many miles have 737max flown without any incidents?
  - stevehawk 3y ago
    > Everybody agrees that FAA is not what it used to be, these days the Boeing engineers are basically self-certifying their planes. I think Boeing /engineers/ would argue that statement and instead tell you that Boeing /management/ is self certifying the planes.
diggan 3y ago
> But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it. Luckily the airlines I travel with only use Airbus, but if they were using 737 Max, I'd definitely book tickets that I can change at the last minute, and refuse to board if it turns out to be a 737 Max. Yes, that's probably illogical. And probably much of life is illogical. But I rather have to wait some hours for the next flight than take the risk to die because of Boeing.
- frakt0x90 3y ago
  Except according to the top comment, "A lot of people don't realize that the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus. We don't really know who to blame here until the investigation concludes." So I guess you just shouldn't fly.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Except Airbus doesn't have planes falling apart in midair even if they are using the same supplier. This is clearly an issue during assembly regardless of the supplier of the parts.
    - davely 3y ago
      In 2010, an Airbus A380 engine exploded. The fact that it landed safely was a miracle. [1] In 2017, an Airbus A380 lost an engine (literally, fell off the plane). [2] In 2018, a cockpit windshield blew out in an Airbus A319. [3] Don't get me wrong, the culture at Boeing has changed (for the worse). The 737 Max is not without issues. It's horrific that hundreds have died due to both ignorance and deception on behalf of Boeing. But Airbus isn't some sort of flawless golden goose either. Any time something like this happens, failure modes are identified and things will get safer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 [2] https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/photos-airbus-a380-engine-fell-off-the-plane-hopeful-investigators-dug-it-out-of-deep-snow/ https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/photos-airb... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichuan_Airlines_Flight_8633 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichuan_Airlines_Flight_8633
codegeek 3y ago
I am usually a very practical person but looking at the catastrophic failures specifically of 737 MAX and not one but many in short period, it is way too many for a plane. Yes planes crash but the probability is extremely low in general except for 737 MAX. Officially it is now on my no fly list. I will not board a plane if it is 737 MAX. And yes, I will suffer the consequences of that.
uudecoded 3y ago
In Seattle (since Boeing was the largest employer in the state until Amazon succeeded them), there was a common line: "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going" (See '79 bumper sticker: https://www.ebay.com/itm/332131135342 https://www.ebay.com/itm/332131135342) Starting to look like it might be the other way around...
- rconti 3y ago
  Move Boeing back to Seattle!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
booleandilemma 3y ago
I'm starting to get there though.
jjav 3y ago
The planes only start transmitting when they are ready to go (not sure if they do it after pulling out of the gate or when doors close or thereabouts). So by the time you see the flight data you're most likely boarded already. So yes, too late.
- stevehawk 3y ago
  The planes are all flying IFR flight plans which are submitted in advance and include airplane type. How far in advance is a little bit random but still in advance of leaving the gate.
- netsharc 3y ago
  I don't think this is true, in any case you can extrapolate, e.g. if you're leaving from gate 34, see which flight of this airline is arriving at gate 34 just before, then you can check that flight's details, including plane model, on the tracking websites
  - jjav 3y ago
    My kid is a huge fan of flightradar so we spend way too much time watching it. I don't know the exact timing, but it is a consistent behavior that planes pop onto flightradar only a little bit before pulling out of the gate. But I'm not sure if there's a standardized point in the sequence when they turn it on or it's up to each pilot. But you're right, watching the incoming plane to that gate would be a good way to know earlier!

dpflan 3y ago

I mean, isn't the info on your ticket? Which can be electronically updated when the airline makes a change, right?

alkonaut 3y ago
Final aircraft assigned to the flight can be changed until the last minute. The info is most useful when booking. Presumably people might switch if the price/schedule is reasonably close while very few would turn away at the gate if they discover a max (I sure wouldn’t and I belong to the tiny minority that even think about aircraft models ever). So the info is most useful when booking. Flying an airline that doesn’t operate a specific model is the most (and almost only) reliable way to avoid one.
- diggan 3y ago
  > Flying an airline that doesn’t operate a specific model is the most (and almost only) reliable way to avoid one. Even that could make you end up on a 737 Max, if the airline you have your ticket via actually "outsourced" (simplified and not the right word) the actual flight to another airline, which happens sometimes.
  - pb7 3y ago
    Multiply all these probabilities together and you have a better chance at winning a billion dollars in a lottery you didn't buy a ticket for.
    - diggan 3y ago
      Yes, if I was a perfectly reasonable and logical robot, I'd agree with you. But I'm a 30+ year old human, with plenty of experiences that "should never have happened" and "that was once in a million odds" that I won't risk it. I'd love it if I could turn off the lizard parts of my body, but I cannot. I try my best, but when it comes to life/death, I just trust my gut over anything else.