3 ms·

This seems like an overreaction. According to Wikipedia [0] the rate of fatal crashes has gone from 0.2 per million to 4 per million. That isn't a change that r

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• beAbU 3y ago
  Are you kidding? That's an order of magnitude increase!
  • roenxi 3y ago
    An order of magnitude from approximately 0 to approximately 0. If I fly somewhere on a 737 Max, I've got great odds of it being a normal plane flight. And it'd be reasonable to assume the odds are getting better as pilots get used to the plane and remediations are put in place. If 1 in a million odds are going to scare you off a plane, you shouldn't be flying anyway. The response by the regulators is a waste of time and money. Let alone trying to remake an entire company as this article title calls for. Maybe a call for people to get a $ discount when flying on a 737 Max as hazard pay would be reasonable.
    • Tainnor 3y ago
      The reason why it's only such a "small" increase is precisely because planes are being grounded. Imagine that after the 737 Max incidents in 2018, they hadn't grounded the airplanes. How many people might have died then? You're also ignoring how humans react to such things. If people learn that a specific make of planes is much less safe, they're going to refuse flying that plane. I sure as hell wouldn't want to fly the "more dangerous" plane just to save some money.
      • roenxi 3y ago
        (1) It is a rate; that line of thinking doesn't make much sense. I mean, it might change as we get more evidence but if anything it'd probably go down because that is how aerospace industry works. The airlines would fix things. (2) Am I not a human any more? What do I count as? Flying in a 737 Max is safer than getting vaccinated, I think the Astra Zenica clotting thing was about 50 per million and that was the one I got. We were forcing people to do things that were an order of magnitude more risky than this where I live. At least with a 737 if you don't want to get on one you don't have to. You can round small numbers. There isn't much of a difference in practice between 1 in a million and 0.1 in a million fatal risks. The odds of it biting you are almost literally 1 in a million.
        • jen20 3y ago
          > if anything it'd probably go down because that is how aerospace industry works. This thread started with you talking about an order of magnitude increase. Any notion that the management of Boeing is interested in anything other than the short term stock price is deeply naive. > At least with a 737 if you don't want to get on one you don't have to. Provided you are rich enough to walk away from a plane ticket at boarding time when the airline switches out your carefully-booked Airbus flight underneath you with no recourse (usually - some airlines are more flexible with status).
          • roenxi 3y ago
            They aren't going to have an easy time selling planes if they are known to be an order of magnitude less safe. Airline number crunchers would say "Oh wow, we're going to do millions of flights and that means they'll crash! That is really expensive!". Then they'd buy Airbus. That is the effect that will cause Boeing management to do something about the safety problems. Or the airlines to do something about the plane safety. I dunno, someone would do something, these plane crashes are expensive and bad PR. > Provided you are rich enough to walk away from a plane ticket... If you have enough money to hurtle through the air at a million meters per hour in a tin can, you have enough money to walk away from a plane ticket. I don't think I've even seen homeless people in an airport, let alone on a plane. Flying is a luxury good.
  • Engineering-MD 3y ago
    Absolute risk vs relative risk. Both are useful in different contexts, but from the aspect of a single flight, arguably the absolute risk is more important.
• whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >That isn't a change that requires a crisis response. Why not?