20 ms·
Kayak's new flight filter allows you to exclude aircraft models
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lordofgibbons 3y agoI love the idea, but as far as I know, there's nothing stopping an airline from changing the plane "last minute" right before the flight. Then you have to make a decision at the gate whether you want to turn around a go back home (or hotel) after spending hours getting to the airport, going through security, and waiting at the gate.
- rob74 3y agoTrue - at least most "737-only" low-cost airlines (Southwest, Ryanair, ...) use the older 737 models and the MAX (which Ryanair has rechristened to "737-8200" because of... reasons) interchangeably AFAIK.
- chx 3y agoThe 8200 is a higher density version of the 8 and it comes with an extra pair of exits because of this.
- rob74 3y agoYes, but according to Wikipedia, Boeing refers (or referred) to it as "737 MAX 200", so the suspicion that Ryanair insisted on renaming it to get rid of the tainted MAX moniker is warranted...
- chx 3y agoAccording to https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7297/en https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7297/en the type is called 737-8200 and belongs to the Max group. According to https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/FSBR_B737_Rev_19_Draft.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/FSBR_B737_Rev_19_Dra... > In January 2021, the FSB conducted an analysis of the changes introduced for the 737-8200. The analysis identified that the 737-8200 is functionally equivalent to the 737-8. The 737-8200 is incorporated into the MAX series aircraft group in paragraph 8.1 and in Appendix 2, Master Differences Requirements (MDR) Table. Both the EASA and the FAA calls it 737-8200. Neither did it to remove the MAX moniker from it.
- Armisael16 3y agoSouthwest has dozens of Max 8s, for what it’s worth: https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-Airlines https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-Airlines I booked a flight with them last night, and it’s scheduled to fly on one.
- mihaaly 3y agoTrue for individual flights but not on the mass scale. For the masses this will still be useful. And a hit to MAX 8 and other Boeing 737 models in the short and medium run. The aversion will die out eventually for those who can weather the storm (and make some more money by those having other type of planes).
- Arnt 3y agoLet me try a sanity check. I fly a lot for work, have eleven tickets booked now. There's nothing stopping the airline in one of those eleven cases. For five flights, the airline would have a problem swapping out the planes because there's likely only one plane on hand at that airport at that time. For three, I think the population of the country would be quick to disapprove if the airline did it with any frequency. For two, the airline can't very well swap because it's that airline's biggest aircraft and the route is usually nearly full.
- marcus0x62 3y agoI used to fly a lot for work. I think I encountered "equipment change"[0] maybe once a month. The idea that an airline would do it as some sort of ploy to attract passengers afraid of a particular airframe seems...unlikely. 0 - the airline term of art for this.
- Hamuko 3y agoI think the idea that passengers would be afraid of a particular airframe is a relatively new one, so I'm not sure how useful past data is here.
- Arnt 3y agoIt happened to the 1970 MAX 8, which was grounded permanently before Kayak could filter it, but "sales never fully recovered" as Wikipedia says. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
- marcus0x62 3y agoHard disagree. First, when I was flying regularly, it was during the height of the original 737 Max scare, which also occurred within a few years of the CFM56 fan blade problems and the 737NG pickle fork fatigue cracking problem. It was a rough couple of years for the 737 family, yet I didn’t notice any serious uptick in equipment changes, and I was flying on airlines with a bunch of 737s in their fleets. Second, the idea of some conspiracy involving falsely advertising which airframe an airline intends to use for a flight, which would involve submitting false flight plans and publishing false flight data, is patently absurd to anyone who has been exposed even as an end-user to the tech stack of the airlines, such as it is. Between getting licensed employees to lie to the government and the airlines antiquated software, I don’t believe they could do what is being suggested, even if they wanted to.
- HenryBemis 3y agoFrom own experience, the latest (in the day) a flight is (especially the short 2-3h flights within EU) the more chances is you will be delayed (if every fight is delayed by 30mins, by the end of the day multiple those 30mins x 4 or 5 or 6). When a company may see that "oops we are gonna be paying $$$$ for the delays" they will have no fear to bring in another plane (not the one you booked). The same applies of course for any planes that are damaged, etc. I tried asking ChatGPT but couldn't give me an answer of the frequency "how often to air companies swap the planes" (I tried with various choices of words) and it couldn't give me a percentage or any other metric.
- madeofpalk 3y agoIt's not that there's 'nothing stopping' the airline, it's that under the normal operation of an airline, planes are moved around and rescheduled all the time, up just hours (or sooner!) before the flight. I would guess something like 0% of assigned tail numbers (not plane model) remain the same a week before booking. Airlines that fly multiple models on the same route would be harder to reassign, but days before the flight if it hasn't sold out, it's still very possible they'll get moved around. The safest way to not fly a particular model of plane is to not fly with airlines that open them.
- dacryn 3y agoThis happens very rarely, and is usually of the same family. You replace an Airbus 320 with another airbus, not a boeing. Simply because those airlines don't have both on them in their portfolio. Now if its specifically to avoid a certain type of Boeing 737 max when the airline already flies boeing, yeah thay might happen indeed. The only cases of switching families is long haul, like Emirates replaced an Airbus a380 with a 777 once on a trip I took. Still caused massive issues because the boeing is smaller, so they don't like doing this.
- jojobas 3y agoPlenty of airlines have both A320 and B737 and/or a mix of NG/MAX. Replacing one with another will almost always have a different seat arrangement, necessitating mucking around with pre-allocated seats, and is avoided whenever practical.
- taneliv 3y agoHow often the pilots have certification (or whatever it is called) to fly the swapped in aircraft? Maybe the usually do, or perhaps it is typical to swap the crew as well?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mattmaroon 3y agoYou’d generally be swapping the crew as well which is another reason this doesn’t happen a lot.
- throw0101d 3y ago> certification * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_rating
- rangestransform 3y agowell the whole point of MCAS was to allow pilots to fly the 737MAX without needing another type rating
- Waterluvian 3y agoIt can happen but is it a real problem or just a hypothetical one?
- ghaff 3y agoIt does happen and there are a variety of other reasons why you can end up on a different plane than you intended. You can improve your odds of avoiding specific airframe(s) by not booking them but you mostly can't guarantee it. (Sort of. If you want to be sure to avoid regional jets on trans-oceanic flights you're pretty safe.)
- vasco 3y agoCongratulations, you've found a new insurance niche.
- instagib 3y agoEveryone responding saying it doesn’t happen is wrong. It may not happen often to them. I have flown 500,000 miles. I have family and friends in the industry who pilot, work ground ops, maintenance, and are flight attendants. At an airline with over 300 departures per day things go wrong, crews time out, aircraft have issues on landing that somehow get ignored until morning, and many more examples then planes get swapped. They generally have very few planes on standby because it’s like flying them empty, it’s an inefficient use of money. It turns into wack a mole quickly and one flight steals a plane, gate, or crew from another until none are left.
- RajT88 3y agoYeah, I mean, sometimes they find stuff wrong with the plane they can't fix. I've definitely swapped planes a few times after sitting in the plane for a while.
- trbleclef 3y agoIt absolutely happens, I had a WN flight on a MAX 8 last week that was changed to a 737-800 the day before.
- marcosdumay 3y agoAviation authorities would get upset if some airline has a routine of doing this. This is absolutely something they keep a track of. But yes, there's nothing stopping them from doing it for you flight. Or even from "permanently" doing it and undoing a day later.
- dcow 3y agoWhy would authorities get upset?
- marcosdumay 3y agoTBH, because they track it. They would have some good reasoning, because they don't make a fuss about exchanging equivalent planes, but if it's happening all the time, the planes must not be equivalent. But the actual reason is that somebody is always looking, and that somebody would get wary.
- rsynnott 3y agoMany airlines, in practice, only fly a particular type or type of planes on a particular route.
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoAlso if enough people start doing this wouldn't the airlines just stop reporting what the plane is.
- cjrp 3y agoOr even earlier than at the gate. If you book a flight for 6 months time, there's nothing stoping them changing the allocated aircraft in 3 months.
- nerdjon 3y agoSolution: Fly an airline that doesn't use Boeing at all. Like JetBlue. I would say there is basically zero chance that you would be switched to a Boeing last minute with JetBlue.
- qazxcvbnmlp 3y agoUntil there’s a mechanical issue last minute and they put you on another airline to get you a seat home.
- golergka 3y agoHow long until airlines start to advertise that they don't have 737 MAX in their fleets? Or no Boeing planes at all?
- rob74 3y agoI don't think airlines will do that, because having at least two (more would be of course better) competing manufacturers in the market is better for them, so they have to hope that Boeing survives even if they don't currently use their planes...
- lostlogin 3y agoIf there is a way to be more profitable this year, with a potential issue several years away, what percentage of companies would take that chance? Airlines take the quick money every time as far as I can tell.
- reacharavindh 3y agoIt is like Samsung shitposting on Apple about removing the 3.5 mm audio port, enjoy the marketing stunts, and then remove it themselves a coupl eof years later. All companies and their PR teams know the memory retention of their audience is tiny. I'm honestly surprised the airlines that dont have Boeing 737 in their fleet are not taking this opportunity to make a splash yet.
- VBprogrammer 3y agoThe recent 737 Max issue doesn't seem particularly aircraft specific. If the QA and culture have gotten that bad then it could happen to 787 just as easily. I doubt however this will ever move the needle in terms of passenger numbers. Even for those people who are aware of the issues, a tiny minority of them would pay more to avoid a particular aircraft model.
- lostlogin 3y ago> I doubt however this will ever move the needle in terms of passenger numbers. Maybe, but these things have a momentum and it’s very clear things are moving in an uncomfortable direction for Boeing.
- starbase 3y ago[flagged]
- bongripper 3y ago[dead]
- cm2187 3y agoI don’t think it makes sense for passengers to worry about the plane model. I haven’t done the math but conceptually it’s like being paranoid about taking plane A that has a 99.99998 safety vs plane B that has a 99.99999 safety. For the crew, things are a little different given that they are all day long, all year long in the same plane model, so those minuscule risks compound. People are bad at conceptualising low probabilities. That’s why they play lottery!
- light_hue_1 3y agoOf course it makes sense to avoid the 737 MAX. Both at an individual and at a population level. Someone has to win the lottery and it could be you. The fact that the probability isn't high doesn't matter when you're dying because Boeing wanted to make an extra dollar. It also makes sense at the population level. It's clear that Congress and the FAA are not capable of overseeing Boeing. And they're too big to even stumble now, never mind fail. The solution is for consumers to punish them. That will get them to fix their problems ASAP.
- dangus 3y agoThis whole hubbub is hilarious to me. People are so bad at statistics. You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies. 30,000+ people die every year in car crashes in the US but that’s totally fine. (Of course I am well aware of various car company safety scandals where profit was placed above safety). With US airline travel you have to go back multiple years before you find a single flight-related death on a mainstream commercial jet. Meanwhile everyone I know seems to refuse public transit to the airport because of the “crackheads” and “homeless people” even though their car is way more dangerous than those supposed threats. I have to beg people I travel with to stop assuming that a taxi is going to be a better experience than a train or even a bus. The fact that most Americans are against abolishing the 2nd amendment is also another piece of statistical ignorance. It’s such a no-brainer win on public safety but everyone is drunk on their revolutionary war propaganda from when guns didn’t even have the modern concept of bullets. You’re wildly more statistically likely to be shot by a police officer in the US than to be shot by an actual criminal in the UK because that’s how dumb enshrining the rights of killing appliances into a constitution is. I’m all for the customer’s power to boycott, but the actual solution that will save lives is for the government and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough. For a plane type filter I’d personally use it more for comfort or perhaps CO2 emissions preferences and not safety.
- nullandvoid 3y agoDo a significant amount of people actually worry about this when booking a flight? The chances of incident, even on these models with recent incidents is still so unbelievably low, no? I guess it's a form of being able to vote with your wallet; forcing the manufacturers to spend additional money/time on QC.
- light_hue_1 3y agoYes. I do. It's a small risk but one that I can trivially avoid. It takes seconds. Why not? And as you said. Force them to clean their act up.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y agoThe risk is low, but voting with your wallet is the only tool available to regular people. If you're unhappy with how Boeing has been handling their business, what other actions are available to you?
- CoastalCoder 3y agoIn the U.S., organizing to get one's congressman to take action. It's probably a big uphill battle due to industry lobbying, but I expect it's possible if there were enough popular support.
- Lio 3y agoWhat's the downside for you? If you don't care just ignore it. Having the option, even if rarely used, is a good signal to bean counters that cutting corners on safety or quality or even leg room is unacceptable.
- makeitdouble 3y agoPeople don't make these choices based on probability, it come down to whether you see as worth your time and money to think about it. That's the same for buying a super sturdy SUV for commuting. Your overall chances of getting into an accident where you'll be crushed between two semi is astronomically low, but many people will still choose that option over just a normally safe car. The question comes down yo how much they'd bare disruption to assert that choice, and it doesn't look to me like a costly or super problematic choice here
- cryptos 3y agoA little indicator about technical failures (or groundings) per aircraft model would be nice to have :-)
- lxgr 3y agoUnfortunately, an elevated number of groundings can indicate two different things: A cautious, proactive regulator and good safety culture, or a more reactive/lenient regulator and a plane so unsafe, they were finally forced to act.
- teeray 3y agoProxy measures about things passengers consider “bad” are probably more useful than groundings alone. Compute some score based on things like: 1) Number of passenger fatalities as a result of a mechanical failure of the aircraft. 2) Number of passenger items ejected from the aircraft during flight.
- cryptos 3y agoTo 2) We need an app that would increase the counter for dropping iPhones automatically ;-)
- TekMol 3y agoI always use Google Flights and wouldn't know why to us Kayak or any other flight search. Am I missing something?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thallium205 3y agoKayak can arrange your car, hotel, etc. Google only does flights.
- gaiagraphia 3y agoWith all the media attention, and various departments breathing down each other's necks and demanding checks, could we assume that the 737 is now the safest aircraft to fly in? Is there some type of model or theory which dictates that doing something just after a tragedy is the safest possible moment?
- Saus 3y agoThis was said on aviation forums after the whole MCAS situation, with the grounding and the checks. Yet here we are due to a door that just flown out.
- LadyCailin 3y agoI mean, I assume the passengers of Ethiopian flight 302 would have an opinion on this.
- KptMarchewa 3y agoThis is valid assumption when talking about particular airlines and their maintenance model, yet not good when talking about bad design.
- seydor 3y agowell good that they allow them to include models as well. Some people like living dangerously
- nathancahill 3y agoMe IRL
- ghaff 3y agoSome people also find certain models more comfortable for longer flights. To the degree I look at the plane model (and seating) that's why I care.
- swasheck 3y agolol. i'm looking for a flight on the Tu-104 please.
- tekla 3y agoSupid hysteria
- swader999 3y agoI'm at the point now where I choose an airline based on them not using Boeing. I don't even fly that much. It's not that I'm worried much about the safety, I'm just so annoyed by their culture and the stories I've heard over the years about how they gutted a once great engineering force.
- hoseja 3y agoBoeing lobbyists furiously working to make aircraft racism illegal. Civil Aeronautic Rights Act.
- amai 3y agoPretty important feature for all people flying in Russia nowadays. People there only trust Embraer Aircrafts, because all other aircrafts can‘t be maintained properly due to sanctions.
- karaterobot 3y agoIf this is true, it's the most interesting thing I've learned from this thread.
- skymast 3y ago[dead]
- paxys 3y agoI don't think people realize that their taxi to the airport is significantly more dangerous than flying in a 737 MAX.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoSo yeah but I think the experience might play a difference, going down from 10000 mt is a different dying experience from being hit by a car and don’t live through anything
- rsynnott 3y agoSure, but avoiding that risk is inconvenient, whereas going for a 737-800 or A320 over a 737 Max may be no effort at all depending on the flight (this sort of thing is really bad news for Ryanair if it catches on, say; Ryanair's most important routes are typically of the 20-flight-a-day variety and there's lots of competition who don't have Maxes).
- marcosdumay 3y agoHum, no. The safety track of that plane specifically is bad enough that you are not automatically correct.
- mardifoufs 3y agoNope, I don't think so. It still has had "just" 2 crashes.
- swasheck 3y agostatistically (from a certain perspective) i agree with you but cold statistics dont explain the reality of existing as a human being. there's something about flying in a thin, aluminum/composite tube with 100-300 other "souls" many miles in the sky that many find extremely uncomfortable. the magnitude and scale seem to be perceived differently by the human psyche. additionally, once we dive deeper into the statistics, it may be worth evaluating deaths, critical injuries, and minor injuries dimenions by different measures (per transport, per capita, per accident/incident). i wonder what story those analyses would tell.
- 3y ago
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y agoThis is great, I now want to exclude all planes but the Max to try and scoop up all Boeing Max flights I possibly can. Unfortunately I don't have the time or the logistics would be a bit crazy, trying to reversely find a reason to fly a route operated by the Max lol. But seriously, if people were this anal about cars or buildings or trains the whole world would come to a screeching halt. The lesson I suppose is that when building anything it's imperative to capitalize during the period of maximal logarithmic improvement because once you arrive at the end of the S-curve and the battle of the 9s begins it gets ugly real fast. People will start spitting in your face forgetting everything you did in the past and demanding an ever fast and sudden march to the 200th decimal place.
- albert180 3y agoTrains usually don't crash because the manufacturer isn't able to build them properly
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y agothey actually do, they get out of the rails
- albert180 3y agoThat's usually negligence of the infrastructure operator. At least in Europe
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y agodying sucks regardless, that's the entire point of my OP. Dying from aviation doesn't hurt more or sucks more than any other cause, people are freaking out because think they are special but they aren't, 99% will die like any other human ,so due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, virus, dementia (or a combination of the 4). It seems to me instead that people are particularly afraid of dying from aviation and keep the industry up to am impossiblre standard not requested of surgeries, antibiotics, medicines, buildings, trains, cars etc..
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- dreamcompiler 3y agoIt's going to be very difficult to avoid the 737 MAX going forward. Airlines love these planes because they save fuel and Boeing has a waiting list for them out to 2030. AFAIK you cannot order a new 737 from Boeing that is not a MAX. The only viable solution is an independent safety board (paid for out of Boeing profits) that supervises every aspect of design and production at Boeing and its contractors until Boeing learns how to build safe airplanes again.
- echelon 3y ago"If it's a Boeing, I'm not going." I already look for these planes and will schedule my itinerary around avoiding them.
- redcobra762 3y agoYou can try, but the point is that will only get harder, and it’s not like the economic pain will be felt in any specific sense. You’ll just fly less.
- lawlessone 3y agoIs this a US thing? In the EU and i've found as long as avoid Ryanair everyone else is using Airbus.
- redcobra762 3y agoSouthwest and United have the most, so yeah. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-airlines/ https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-airlines/ Americans fly the most out of any country though, so it’s unsurprising America also buys the most planes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_airline_passengers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_airline...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- andjd 3y agoEven if this is not a foolproof way to avoid flying on a 737 max, using it will provide a very _visible_ signal to the airlines. If they're losing ticket sales because people don't want to fly on a 737, the airlines will find a way to adapt. Even a marginal change of a few percentage points can shift a route from profitable to unprofitable. Airbus is already outselling Boeing 2-1. If you're looking at a 5-10 year lead time anyways, they can expand production to eat further into Boeing's share if that's what the airlines demand.
- richwater 3y ago> they can expand production This is MUCH, (and I must reiterate) MUCH harder than it sounds.
- lawlessone 3y agoyeah i don't want them to do this and become as bad as Boeing in the process.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> using it will provide a very _visible_ signal to the airlines. If they're losing ticket sales They’re not. And neither is Boeing. If someone using Kayak isn’t willing to contact their elected, they’re irrelevant. (Complaints might register if you’re a frequent flier who books through the airline and gives written feedback. But I haven’t seen evidence of that yet.)
- csours 3y agoI bet a few people at Boeing got heartburn about this option being added.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> bet a few people at Boeing got heartburn about this option being added Sure. They’re just not the revenue folks. It’s a sign of a degraded brand. Not a per se threat.
- alexpotato 3y agoMore Kayak related than Boeing related: I had often heard that the best price for a flight is on the airline's website vs services like Kayak. I didn't believe this as I knew some of the travel sites (E.g. Expedia) actually reserve hotel/flights spots etc. However, recently the cheapest seat I could find for a flight on Kayak was around $3K (business seat to London) whereas the airline site had it for $2.3K. Has made me now always check the airline site just to be sure given the savings of almost 10%.
- sokoloff 3y agoThat’s almost 25% savings rather than 10%.
- crazygringo 3y agoIt's a good idea to check both. But in my experience it's far more often the opposite -- the airline sells tickets at the highest price to people who visit its site because they're less likely to be "shopping around". Already have more loyalty to the airline etc. Business travelers that buy directly. Etc. While if there's a difference, the aggregator usually is the one selling for less, because people are comparing by price. Especially certain "discount" aggregators. Also you may not have been comparing exactly the same ticket -- e.g. the more expensive Kayak seat might be fully refundable while the airline one isn't. But maybe not -- maybe you did just get lucky!
- toast0 3y agoI had thought Kayak was a metasearch product and searched airline sites on your behalf, but maybe that's changed in significant time since I was involved in online travel. Either way, search how you like, but you'll almost always get better exception service if you are booked directly with the service provider than if you're booked as a 3rd party customer or a code share. For airfare, costs are usually similar or even a little less expensive if you book directly; for hotels, there are times where the prices are significantly different, but you may be able to get the hotel to match prices if you call them to book directly. Exceptions would be if you have a high value relationship with a corporate travel agent, or maybe a high level amex? If you book through an online travel agent and something goes wrong, chances are the provider will send you to the travel agent's customer support and they will be slow and may not be able to do much, because they don't have the right access.
- Night_Thastus 3y agoThe responses from people here who know very little about how commercial aircraft are designed, built, flown, managed and maintained shows through here. It's a bit disappointing but that's HN for you when the topic isn't computer-related. No, there is no point in avoiding the MAX, and yes it looks silly trying to.
- appplication 3y agoListen… I don’t want to avoid Boeing because I think it’s going to crash on me. I want to avoid Boeing because as a consumer I want to inflict maximum economic pain on a company that prioritizes profits over safety.
- albert180 3y agoAh enlighten us with your broad wisdom. It wasn't Airbus that had multiple problems in the past because of multiple missing bolts in doors, rudders etc., or complete failures of planes out of greed
- imglorp 3y agoGreat, until they rename the aircraft like they did for the MAX... https://onemileatatime.com/boeing-737-8/ https://onemileatatime.com/boeing-737-8/
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoThis is a “charge me a small premium to feel good” button. Checkbox activism. Couture retailers do this on occasion, too, from what I remember.
- andsoitis 3y agoIf people think that Airbus aircraft don't have mechanical issues as well, then I've got news for them. List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident... "As of January 2024, 180 aviation accidents and incidents have occurred,[1] including 38 hull loss accidents,[2] and a total of 1505 fatalities in 17 fatal accidents.[3]"
- nerdjon 3y agoNo one assumes that Airbus doesn't have mechanical issues, but lets not overlook the next paragraph you decided not to quote for some reason: "Through 2015, the Airbus A320 family has experienced 0.12 fatal hull-loss accidents for every million takeoffs, and 0.26 total hull-loss accidents for every million takeoffs; one of the lowest fatality rates of any airliner". We can't ignore that Boeing has been having a particularly bad few years that are not normal mechanical problems but boiling down to neglectance.
- andsoitis 3y ago> you decided not to quote for some reason No nefarious reason. Just didn't think it is worth getting into the relative risk debate, because that tends to go sideways.
- rootusrootus 3y ago> one of the lowest fatality rates of any airliner "one of the lowest" How does it compare to the 737? If we're using statistics to inform our choice of airliner, then it's worth knowing.
- ducklingquack 3y agoThis will have zero effect. First of all, this is a blip that will eventually disappear from your average passenger’s radar before the summer travel period unless Boeing is unable to satisfy FAA’s requirements in the coming months. Secondly, I believe people are mostly concerned with pricing and availability, not the aircraft type.
- electroly 3y agoForget the 737 MAX--this lets you exclude regional jets! Never see a CRJ-200 again! The worst passenger jet in the sky.
- kalupa 3y agogreat way to get a nice close up view of the mountains when flying Vancouver, BC to Seattle, though!
- sokoloff 3y agoI feel like the Embraer 175 and 195 and the little Fokker jets can compete for that title.
- rangestransform 3y agoi actually quite liked the porter E175E2 i flew on, CRJs can go eat shit for sure though
- mortenjorck 3y agoThe ERJ-140 would like a word. The three-seat-wide single cabin is so claustrophobic, it gave me a panic attack once, resulting in years of flight anxiety I had not had previously.
- zymhan 3y agoAre you in Australia? I'd love to know where else they're still operating Fokkers.
- sokoloff 3y agoKLM City Hopper was flying Fokkers (which were horrendous as a pax) not that long ago. Looking online, it seems like they've retired the last of them now.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoWhat a great proof of the value of 3rd parties. What airline would EVER provide such a feature?
- pb7 3y agoPretty much every airline I've ever seen provides the aircraft type right in the flight list view. The reason they don't let you filter by it is because aircraft types can change before the actual flight so it would be an odd feature to provide given there is zero guarantee you will get that aircraft.
- willmadden 3y agoBuy a safer car, exercise, quit drinking, and improve your diet. These actions will have a far bigger impact on your lifespan than excluding 737 Max from your Kayak search results. That said, Boeing needs a shake-up. They have become a little too cozy with the bureaucratic/political class and their benefactors.
- PLenz 3y agoIf it's Boeing, I ain't going
- caseysoftware 3y agoHow sad is it that the state of the airline industry - from manufacturing to maintenance to actually flying - triggers a need for something like this? In Foundation, the lack of the ability to fix things signaled the impending end of the Empire. We need to build a library..
- albert180 3y agoBut have you thought about the shareholders when they need to spend money on QA instead of share buybacks?
- caseysoftware 3y agoOh, good call. I didn't consider this quarter's profits. My apologies.
- j-a-a-p 3y agoI thought it would make sense to search how large Kayak actually is. It appears the there is also a pretty decent Kayak market of 500 million. I thought you might want to know: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/kayak-market-2023-2030-overview-global-trends/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/kayak-market-2023-2030-overvi... More on topic, as I predicted here 12 days ago that Kayak will be filtering on Boeing (I guessed just a max-out), I will do another prediction: Boeing will fold before the US elections, which will lead to the conclusion that a single loose bolt has led to the election of Trump.
- jnsie 3y agoI just want to be able to exclude "basic economy" (and its synonyms). I don't want premium economy, I don't want basic economy. I just want economy. My understanding is that it's not a different cabin so isn't possible to filter for most airlines but it's extremely frustrating to track prices on google flights et Al and receive notifications of price drops only to find that they are basic economy.
- rootusrootus 3y agoHandy for the paranoid. But meaningless in practical terms. The absolute fundamental reality for airlines is that ticket price wins every time. Without exception. It's the quintessential example of a race to the bottom. If this -did- have a measurable effect, the airlines would drop the price of a ticket by 5 or 10 bucks if you were willing to take the 737MAX flight. Boom, now that flight is full.
- crubier 3y agoI’m old enough to remember “if it’s not Boeing I’m not going”
- throwitaway222 3y agoThe issue is probably more pressing for "new" aircraft than 737 max. If Boeing makes a different plane, are you less worried about those same people putting those bolts on a different plane?
- Beijinger 3y agoI just flew recently in South America. First an Embraer. Then, when I checked, a Boeing 737 MAX 800. Not sure that this is the plane with the problems, but I made sure I had my seat belt fastened, should the door fly out again. I kid you not.
- londons_explore 3y agoI'd really like them to put a little icon next to the flight which said "Low risk aircraft". The tooltip can say: "Boeing has had 6 fatal crashes in the past 5 years, so their aircraft are considered high risk." The next highest jet aircraft manufacturer had 1.
- lencastre 3y agoBoeing sad panda noises