4 ms·

This is interesting, because I feel like I agree, but I feel fairly irrational for doing so. In aggregate Boeing is doing fine on safety, not because of their a

This is interesting, because I feel like I agree, but I feel fairly irrational for doing so. In aggregate Boeing is doing fine on safety, not because of their actions, but despite them, because airline safety is so highly developed. The 787 hasn't lost a single plane yet for example. Not flying Boeing is unlikely to materially change our personal safety because the risks are so tiny in the first place, so is there any point taking a significant inconvenience (in reduced route/airline choice) in return for an imperceptible safety improvement. However. Over time the safety difference could grow if left unchecked, and voting with our wallets, taking a principled stance now, could improve things for the future. It's also interesting that we don't think the same way about cars. Most people are not buying different cars based on safety, and in fact the trend is towards bigger cars that are known to kill more pedestrians.

baggachipz 3y ago
> Most people are not buying different cars based on safety, and in fact the trend is towards bigger cars that are known to kill more pedestrians. People are buying huge cars in a selfish "me safe before you" mentality.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Maybe, although I suspect it's driven by other trends, I don't think people are setting out to buy cars that kill pedestrians. I do however don't think that most people would be using safety ratings (positive or negative) as one of their top purchasing considerations. It's all about size, seats, number of doors, features, mileage, electric vs petrol, etc.
  - baggachipz 3y ago
    No, they're not trying to buy cars that kill pedestrians, they're trying to buy cars which are bigger than other cars, which they believe won't get them killed in a wreck. So it's an arms race. The danger to pedestrians is just a side effect which isn't considered by the purchasers.
arnavpraneet 3y ago
Yes, watched the Last Week Tonight yesternight on Boeing and even the construction of the 787 seemed suspect when taking that into account. I think some of the engineers refused to say they would fly on the 787 too considering its engineering?
- danpalmer 3y ago
  I haven't seen the segment, but I have just finished reading "Flying Blind" which focuses on the 737MAX disasters, and goes through the history of other issues. The 787 did have its issues, and was certainly a bit of an early warning for the issues to come with the MAX, however it seems like it was more cheaping-out on things, than actively hiding ways in which they were going against regulations. The main issue was the battery housings, which after a few early issues, got re- designed and retro-fitted to the fleet. There hasn't been a 787 hull loss yet. Additionally because it was a new program, lots of legacy stuff never got in the way. The 787's cockpit is fairly modern, seemingly up to the standards Airbus have been setting for years, and without all the legacy gotchas that are present in the 737's cockpit. Being a higher priced plane also means that there seems to be less nickel-and-diming on the options, and therefore fewer opportunities for airlines to turn down optional safety extras. As a frequent long-haul traveller, I'm fine on a 787 (although I'd prefer an A350). The 777 is uncomfortable but fine.
  - anon-sre-srm 3y ago
    Watch the Al Jazeera 737 NG whistleblower documentary. It's little known and shocking.

baggachipz 3y ago

> Most people are not buying different cars based on safety, and in fact the trend is towards bigger cars that are known to kill more pedestrians. People are buying huge cars in a selfish "me safe before you" mentality.

danpalmer 3y ago
Maybe, although I suspect it's driven by other trends, I don't think people are setting out to buy cars that kill pedestrians. I do however don't think that most people would be using safety ratings (positive or negative) as one of their top purchasing considerations. It's all about size, seats, number of doors, features, mileage, electric vs petrol, etc.
- baggachipz 3y ago
  No, they're not trying to buy cars that kill pedestrians, they're trying to buy cars which are bigger than other cars, which they believe won't get them killed in a wreck. So it's an arms race. The danger to pedestrians is just a side effect which isn't considered by the purchasers.

arnavpraneet 3y ago

Yes, watched the Last Week Tonight yesternight on Boeing and even the construction of the 787 seemed suspect when taking that into account. I think some of the engineers refused to say they would fly on the 787 too considering its engineering?

danpalmer 3y ago
I haven't seen the segment, but I have just finished reading "Flying Blind" which focuses on the 737MAX disasters, and goes through the history of other issues. The 787 did have its issues, and was certainly a bit of an early warning for the issues to come with the MAX, however it seems like it was more cheaping-out on things, than actively hiding ways in which they were going against regulations. The main issue was the battery housings, which after a few early issues, got re- designed and retro-fitted to the fleet. There hasn't been a 787 hull loss yet. Additionally because it was a new program, lots of legacy stuff never got in the way. The 787's cockpit is fairly modern, seemingly up to the standards Airbus have been setting for years, and without all the legacy gotchas that are present in the 737's cockpit. Being a higher priced plane also means that there seems to be less nickel-and-diming on the options, and therefore fewer opportunities for airlines to turn down optional safety extras. As a frequent long-haul traveller, I'm fine on a 787 (although I'd prefer an A350). The 777 is uncomfortable but fine.
- anon-sre-srm 3y ago
  Watch the Al Jazeera 737 NG whistleblower documentary. It's little known and shocking.