3 ms·

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 qu

by 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

> 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.