3 ms·

The Boeing story is starting to sound a bit like the crime-in-cities story. We always can find some examples somewhere due to sheer volume of Boeing planes and

The Boeing story is starting to sound a bit like the crime-in-cities story. We always can find some examples somewhere due to sheer volume of Boeing planes and people in cities. However, both are very safe. We have a social problem of embracing speculation, misinformation and disinformation and movements that are little more than angry mobs, and of treating with contempt an adherence to facts and rationality. With ever more information out there, and ever more speculation, mis- and disinformation, we need to utilize the latter - the facts and rationality - more than ever. They are proven tools for distinguishing fact from all the fictions we humans have some urge to embrace. I still think Boeing has legitimate liability and responsibility, and needs to fix their manufacturing and safety situations. Airplane manufacturing can't respond only when things get worse.

sparrc 3y ago
Not really. No airplane was ever grounded by the FAA since the 1970s, when they grounded the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Since the merger, the FAA has grounded both of Boeing's new planes (The 787 Dreamliner and the 737 Max). Boeing's safety record is objectively declining. They are shipping out airplanes with safety issues that are being found "in production". This is why their planes are being grounded (something that never happened to Boeing pre-merger).
- sio8ohPi 3y ago
  Number of groundings depends on the subjective judgement of FAA employees. It's not useful as an objective measure. Christ, Boeing planes used to just spontaneously explode back in the 90s, and the only reason more people weren't killed was that two of the three had the good fortune to happen on the ground.
  - sparrc 3y ago
    Modern airplanes should be compared to what is possible in modern times with modern safety standards. If you want an objective measure then compare the Boeing Max planes to their Airbus equivalent: the A320neo. The A320 neo has had zero fatalities. This is an objective measure that Boeing should be compared against. AFAIK there have also been zero manufacturing defects at the scale of missing bolts on a door panel.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  The fact is that very people have been killed by Boeing planes, and you won't be killed in one either. The FAA's job is to prevent that - to stop it before it happens. I don't at all object to them grounding planes.

sparrc 3y ago

Not really. No airplane was ever grounded by the FAA since the 1970s, when they grounded the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Since the merger, the FAA has grounded both of Boeing's new planes (The 787 Dreamliner and the 737 Max). Boeing's safety record is objectively declining. They are shipping out airplanes with safety issues that are being found "in production". This is why their planes are being grounded (something that never happened to Boeing pre-merger).

sio8ohPi 3y ago
Number of groundings depends on the subjective judgement of FAA employees. It's not useful as an objective measure. Christ, Boeing planes used to just spontaneously explode back in the 90s, and the only reason more people weren't killed was that two of the three had the good fortune to happen on the ground.
- sparrc 3y ago
  Modern airplanes should be compared to what is possible in modern times with modern safety standards. If you want an objective measure then compare the Boeing Max planes to their Airbus equivalent: the A320neo. The A320 neo has had zero fatalities. This is an objective measure that Boeing should be compared against. AFAIK there have also been zero manufacturing defects at the scale of missing bolts on a door panel.
wolverine876 3y ago
The fact is that very people have been killed by Boeing planes, and you won't be killed in one either. The FAA's job is to prevent that - to stop it before it happens. I don't at all object to them grounding planes.