3 ms·

> 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. An

by 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.
- jen20 3y ago
  > That is the effect that will cause Boeing management to do something about the safety problems. And yet, here we are, it hasn't. The fact you can't get an Airbus for love nor money for the next decade doesn't help either. > I dunno, someone would do something, these plane crashes are expensive and bad PR. They are indeed. Largely for Boeing rather than the airline, at the moment. > 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. Horse shit.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > And yet, here we are, it hasn't. What do you mean, here we are? They'll be fixing issues. I don't think there is any argument that airlines get safer over time. > Horse shit. What % of humans do you think have flown in a plane? What % of that have needed to fly in a plane? This is a luxury good.
    - jen20 3y ago
      Previous performance is not an indicator of future performance. Flying got safer because of a combination of regulation and competition. Now the regulatory bodies are fully captured and the only competition has an order book so full you can’t get a plane for a decade. Meanwhile the enshittification via financialization of Boeing is complete, and we are starting to see the results. Whether or not flying is a luxury good is irrelevant if your options are to fly in an unsafe plane or lose your family vacation. In Europe, flying is usually cheaper than a train between any sufficiently distant points. For those living on different continents to their family it is a necessity, so I couldn’t care less about your characterization of it to be fair, especially given how wrong you are about market forces.
      - roenxi 3y ago
        > Previous performance is not an indicator of future performance. If you're not using previous performance to guess at future performance here, then a reasonable assumption would be that Boeing 737s perform at industry averages. All the known issues will have been fixed and the planes checked for other ones. > For those living on different continents to their family it is a necessity, It literally isn't. And if plane flight vacations aren't a luxury, what is? Are we going with a luxury being anything that you can't afford, perhaps? If everything you can afford is a necessity then I can see this line of argument making sense. And I don't know many poor people with family spread over multiple continents, that tends to be a marker of relative affluence in my experience (much like plane flight). If you feel a need to walk away from a luxury, you can. It doesn't hurt.
        3y ago

by jen20 3y ago

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.

jen20 3y ago
> That is the effect that will cause Boeing management to do something about the safety problems. And yet, here we are, it hasn't. The fact you can't get an Airbus for love nor money for the next decade doesn't help either. > I dunno, someone would do something, these plane crashes are expensive and bad PR. They are indeed. Largely for Boeing rather than the airline, at the moment. > 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. Horse shit.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > And yet, here we are, it hasn't. What do you mean, here we are? They'll be fixing issues. I don't think there is any argument that airlines get safer over time. > Horse shit. What % of humans do you think have flown in a plane? What % of that have needed to fly in a plane? This is a luxury good.
  - jen20 3y ago
    Previous performance is not an indicator of future performance. Flying got safer because of a combination of regulation and competition. Now the regulatory bodies are fully captured and the only competition has an order book so full you can’t get a plane for a decade. Meanwhile the enshittification via financialization of Boeing is complete, and we are starting to see the results. Whether or not flying is a luxury good is irrelevant if your options are to fly in an unsafe plane or lose your family vacation. In Europe, flying is usually cheaper than a train between any sufficiently distant points. For those living on different continents to their family it is a necessity, so I couldn’t care less about your characterization of it to be fair, especially given how wrong you are about market forces.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > Previous performance is not an indicator of future performance. If you're not using previous performance to guess at future performance here, then a reasonable assumption would be that Boeing 737s perform at industry averages. All the known issues will have been fixed and the planes checked for other ones. > For those living on different continents to their family it is a necessity, It literally isn't. And if plane flight vacations aren't a luxury, what is? Are we going with a luxury being anything that you can't afford, perhaps? If everything you can afford is a necessity then I can see this line of argument making sense. And I don't know many poor people with family spread over multiple continents, that tends to be a marker of relative affluence in my experience (much like plane flight). If you feel a need to walk away from a luxury, you can. It doesn't hurt.
      - 3y ago