3 ms·

at this point I'm just not flying Boeing anymore, period and no, I don't want to know about similar problems with Airbus, please leave me in blissful ignorance

by bedobi 3y ago

hedgehog 3y ago
The risk of being affected by this is so small as to be insignificant compared to the many likelier causes of death and injury that you can also do much more about.
- simion314 3y ago
  So? Let's think of a story, say there are 2 companies that make Orange juice A and B, and we have evidence that in some of company A juice some rat excrement was found a few years back , they promised to fix it but this month again we found evidence in a bottle of rat excrement. And your reply sounds like, the chance of you dying from this is lover then if you eat a delicious hamburger so you should continue buying from company A even if you know that they do not took the rat problem serious and probably if we would check all the bottles of juice from A and do deep scan we would find much more problems. If you continue to give money to A why would they hire back the QA people they fired before so they can get giant bonuses. IMO it is proven that Boeing does not care about your safety, they just asked for an exception for a safety requirement, putting the passanger safety responsibility on pilots training and memory because fixing the issue the proper way would cost time and money and that is more important then safety. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-requests-boeing-737-max-7-certification-exemption/ https://simpleflying.com/boeing-requests-boeing-737-max-7-ce...
  - hedgehog 3y ago
    I live in the US and drink orange juice about once a year so it's not worth even thinking about whether there might be a safety differential between brands, it'll work itself out. On the other hand diet, sleep, exercise, driving habits, exposure to infectious disease (mostly COVID right now), etc, all have significant impact on odds of getting sick, injured, or dying.
  - weaksauce 3y ago
    > IMO it is proven that Boeing does not care about your safety, they just asked for an exception for a safety requirement, putting the passanger safety responsibility on pilots training and memory because fixing the issue the proper way would cost time and money and that is more important then safety That's a rather uncharitable take on what they are asking for which is a temporary reprieve over a pretty minor risk. > Boeing states it is working on a "long-term solution" for the problem, which would be rolled out across the entire global Boeing 737 MAX fleet. The FAA confirmed this, stating that Boeing is looking at design changes.
jlmorton 3y ago
This is an example of how attention from the media causes us to vastly overweight the significance of a negative event. The 737-900 has never had an incident. We found some loose bolts on a door plug that shares a design with the 737 MAX-9, which has had two major incidents. This is out of something like ~5 million flight cycles for these aircraft types. I don't necessarily mean to defend Boeing. In the case of the door plug, it seems they chose an inferior door plug design (which plugs from the outside, resisting pressure, rather than from the inside, being pressed closed by it) in order to save a revenue seat and a common fuselage. Nevertheless, it's just not anything you need to personally worry over.
- PedroBatista 3y ago
  You are missing the point, while your so focused on the bolts, the models and whatnot you are missing the -> pattern <- with Boeing. These people cutoff something like 3000 quality inspectors since 2019 and focused on "quality optimizations", their subcontractors and suppliers is something you'd only expect from an Amazon warehouse hellhole, constant lobbying to be exempt of safety regulations and the observation that when put against the wall Boeing always choose the cost-cutting, full production max profit approach just like any other mediocre mega corp, which is NOT how run a major aircraft manufacturer and the evidence is in the last 2 decades.
  - jlmorton 3y ago
    That was not the point. The point was how much you should individually worry flying on a Boeing aircraft, and the answer is significantly less than the drive to the airport.
    - salawat 3y ago
      Wrong. You're look ing at the risk the individual undertakes engaging in activity X. The poster is concerned about the risk posed by Boeing as a whole to society. To be frank, I think if more people were like the poster you're pitching as unreasonable, we'd live in a far better world than if people thought in as short sighted a manner as you espouse.
pwarner 3y ago
Often the equivalent Airbus plane is more comfortable as well. Especially A320 vs 737, which has to be the most common for most folks. Of course operators control the leg room for example, but the width of the fuselage is down to the manufacturer. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-vs-airbus-a320/ https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-vs-airbus-a320/ > One discernable difference when it comes to passenger comfort and experience is the width of the cabin. The Airbus A320 has a wider cabin by seven inches than the Boeing 737. When measured in terms of personal space, an economy seat on a Delta Air Lines Airbus A320 measures 18 inches, whereas a seat on the same carrier's 737s measures 17.3 inches.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Huh. I'm always vaguely inclined to think that the A320 is more pleasant to be in, but the only Boeing planes I've been in in the last decade were Ryanair and United flights, both notably terrible airlines, so I'd assumed this was mostly just a bad-airline thing. I didn't realise the seat widths were actually different!

at this point I'm just not flying Boeing anymore, period and no, I don't want to know about similar problems with Airbus, please leave me in blissful ignorance

by bedobi 3y ago

at this point I'm just not flying Boeing anymore, period and no, I don't want to know about similar problems with Airbus, please leave me in blissful ignorance

hedgehog 3y ago

The risk of being affected by this is so small as to be insignificant compared to the many likelier causes of death and injury that you can also do much more about.

simion314 3y ago
So? Let's think of a story, say there are 2 companies that make Orange juice A and B, and we have evidence that in some of company A juice some rat excrement was found a few years back , they promised to fix it but this month again we found evidence in a bottle of rat excrement. And your reply sounds like, the chance of you dying from this is lover then if you eat a delicious hamburger so you should continue buying from company A even if you know that they do not took the rat problem serious and probably if we would check all the bottles of juice from A and do deep scan we would find much more problems. If you continue to give money to A why would they hire back the QA people they fired before so they can get giant bonuses. IMO it is proven that Boeing does not care about your safety, they just asked for an exception for a safety requirement, putting the passanger safety responsibility on pilots training and memory because fixing the issue the proper way would cost time and money and that is more important then safety. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-requests-boeing-737-max-7-certification-exemption/ https://simpleflying.com/boeing-requests-boeing-737-max-7-ce...
- hedgehog 3y ago
  I live in the US and drink orange juice about once a year so it's not worth even thinking about whether there might be a safety differential between brands, it'll work itself out. On the other hand diet, sleep, exercise, driving habits, exposure to infectious disease (mostly COVID right now), etc, all have significant impact on odds of getting sick, injured, or dying.
- weaksauce 3y ago
  > IMO it is proven that Boeing does not care about your safety, they just asked for an exception for a safety requirement, putting the passanger safety responsibility on pilots training and memory because fixing the issue the proper way would cost time and money and that is more important then safety That's a rather uncharitable take on what they are asking for which is a temporary reprieve over a pretty minor risk. > Boeing states it is working on a "long-term solution" for the problem, which would be rolled out across the entire global Boeing 737 MAX fleet. The FAA confirmed this, stating that Boeing is looking at design changes.

jlmorton 3y ago

This is an example of how attention from the media causes us to vastly overweight the significance of a negative event. The 737-900 has never had an incident. We found some loose bolts on a door plug that shares a design with the 737 MAX-9, which has had two major incidents. This is out of something like ~5 million flight cycles for these aircraft types. I don't necessarily mean to defend Boeing. In the case of the door plug, it seems they chose an inferior door plug design (which plugs from the outside, resisting pressure, rather than from the inside, being pressed closed by it) in order to save a revenue seat and a common fuselage. Nevertheless, it's just not anything you need to personally worry over.

PedroBatista 3y ago
You are missing the point, while your so focused on the bolts, the models and whatnot you are missing the -> pattern <- with Boeing. These people cutoff something like 3000 quality inspectors since 2019 and focused on "quality optimizations", their subcontractors and suppliers is something you'd only expect from an Amazon warehouse hellhole, constant lobbying to be exempt of safety regulations and the observation that when put against the wall Boeing always choose the cost-cutting, full production max profit approach just like any other mediocre mega corp, which is NOT how run a major aircraft manufacturer and the evidence is in the last 2 decades.
- jlmorton 3y ago
  That was not the point. The point was how much you should individually worry flying on a Boeing aircraft, and the answer is significantly less than the drive to the airport.
  - salawat 3y ago
    Wrong. You're look ing at the risk the individual undertakes engaging in activity X. The poster is concerned about the risk posed by Boeing as a whole to society. To be frank, I think if more people were like the poster you're pitching as unreasonable, we'd live in a far better world than if people thought in as short sighted a manner as you espouse.

pwarner 3y ago

Often the equivalent Airbus plane is more comfortable as well. Especially A320 vs 737, which has to be the most common for most folks. Of course operators control the leg room for example, but the width of the fuselage is down to the manufacturer. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-vs-airbus-a320/ https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-vs-airbus-a320/ > One discernable difference when it comes to passenger comfort and experience is the width of the cabin. The Airbus A320 has a wider cabin by seven inches than the Boeing 737. When measured in terms of personal space, an economy seat on a Delta Air Lines Airbus A320 measures 18 inches, whereas a seat on the same carrier's 737s measures 17.3 inches.

rsynnott 3y ago
Huh. I'm always vaguely inclined to think that the A320 is more pleasant to be in, but the only Boeing planes I've been in in the last decade were Ryanair and United flights, both notably terrible airlines, so I'd assumed this was mostly just a bad-airline thing. I didn't realise the seat widths were actually different!