4 ms·

> 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 Ai

by 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.
    - jen20 3y ago
      They don’t perform at industry averages though: they crash more, and at an increasing rate, because the management of Boeing became financialized over making quality products. The problem is one of quality assurance not quality control. The known issues can be fixed, but one can practically guarantee given the current Boeing approach to engineering that there will be a lot more. And to discover the issues in the first place is often either fatal or a near miss. > 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). Recent immigrants to a country are the most likely to be poor, and simultaneously almost definitionally will have family a plane ride away.
      - roenxi 3y ago
        > They don’t perform at industry averages though: they crash more, and at an increasing rate (1) Not but two posts ago you were pointing out that past performance is not an indicator of future performance. This is an area where that applies; airlines remediate defects after they are uncovered. (2) Unless you are suggesting Boeing has an intentional criminal conspiracy afoot to sabotage the planes, they can't be crashing at an 'increasing rate'. The rate will be either roughly constant or trending downwards. > but one can practically guarantee given the current Boeing approach to engineering that there will be a lot more You can't. There have been more than half a million flights by these machines; we've probably already seen everything that is happening at a one-in-a-million frequency, and even if we haven't we've probably seen most of them. There are 1-2 other issues lurking tops and there might not even be that. > Recent immigrants to a country are the most likely to be poor Not if they're flying planes around; if they've got enough money to do that they've established themselves and have opportunities for savings that put them ahead of the vast majority of families. The people who are poor come and go by foot. Causing metal to float through the air is an energy-intensive and hence expensive activity. While I'm sure you get the occasional poor person on a plane, the vast majority of flyers are affluent people who have access to a bit of luxury.

by jen20 3y ago

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.
  - jen20 3y ago
    They don’t perform at industry averages though: they crash more, and at an increasing rate, because the management of Boeing became financialized over making quality products. The problem is one of quality assurance not quality control. The known issues can be fixed, but one can practically guarantee given the current Boeing approach to engineering that there will be a lot more. And to discover the issues in the first place is often either fatal or a near miss. > 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). Recent immigrants to a country are the most likely to be poor, and simultaneously almost definitionally will have family a plane ride away.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > They don’t perform at industry averages though: they crash more, and at an increasing rate (1) Not but two posts ago you were pointing out that past performance is not an indicator of future performance. This is an area where that applies; airlines remediate defects after they are uncovered. (2) Unless you are suggesting Boeing has an intentional criminal conspiracy afoot to sabotage the planes, they can't be crashing at an 'increasing rate'. The rate will be either roughly constant or trending downwards. > but one can practically guarantee given the current Boeing approach to engineering that there will be a lot more You can't. There have been more than half a million flights by these machines; we've probably already seen everything that is happening at a one-in-a-million frequency, and even if we haven't we've probably seen most of them. There are 1-2 other issues lurking tops and there might not even be that. > Recent immigrants to a country are the most likely to be poor Not if they're flying planes around; if they've got enough money to do that they've established themselves and have opportunities for savings that put them ahead of the vast majority of families. The people who are poor come and go by foot. Causing metal to float through the air is an energy-intensive and hence expensive activity. While I'm sure you get the occasional poor person on a plane, the vast majority of flyers are affluent people who have access to a bit of luxury.