5 ms·

The 737 Max was released in 2014 and has flown millions of flights, there's 1400 planes. Here's from Wikipedia: > After one year of service, 130 MAXs had been

The 737 Max was released in 2014 and has flown millions of flights, there's 1400 planes. Here's from Wikipedia: > After one year of service, 130 MAXs had been delivered to 28 customers, logging over 41,000 flights in 118,000 hours and flying over 6.5 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX That's 315.38 flights on average per plane per year (41,000 flights in year / 130 planes) How many crashes have there been...? 2 or 3? Let's assume (very very rough estimate) we have similar averages across 1400 planes, that's 441,532 flights last year. If we assume two 2 crashes per year. So you'll have a safe flight 99.9995% of the time.

dev_tty01 3y ago
In 2022, globally, there was one accident per 664,186 flights. [1] That includes a lot of poorly funded airlines and a lot of very old aircraft. The 737 Max numbers you present are worse than the global average when they should be much better for a well designed modern aircraft. [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/31529/most-airplane-accidents-happen-during-landing/ https://www.statista.com/chart/31529/most-airplane-accidents... This is not even considering the numerous documented issues with their quality control programs. Also, the global average I referred to are for accidents, not crashes like your numbers.
- noirbot 3y ago
  Sure, but A. most people don't know or care to avoid Boeing and B. the odds are still really good, and probably safer than driving and quite a bit faster. It's not to say we shouldn't do better, but I really doubt that public demand shifts are doing much of anything to apply pressure. If anything, the couple days airlines had to spend with the 737s grounded did more FAA-enforced financial damage than the collective of consumers is likely to bring to bear. If there's a trip I need to make, I'm not spending 3x the money to maybe not be on a 737. There's also just the incident treadmill. Boeing is getting all the bad news now for good reasons, but how confident are we that there isn't a similar Airbus issue that'll come out soon? The 737 seemed like a fine plane before a few years ago. If we're playing a pure game of statistics, the 737 looks bad, but maybe it's just a really unlucky streak? Even terribly designed products that shouldn't have been allowed work fine a lot of the time.
  - piva00 3y ago
    > There's also just the incident treadmill. Boeing is getting all the bad news now for good reasons, but how confident are we that there isn't a similar Airbus issue that'll come out soon? That's not how confidence works, while Airbus has confidence from the public and doesn't do something to lose it, they have the upper hand. You are trying to use numbers and statistics to fight against a loss of confidence, that won't work in the short to medium term, confidence and trust is built upon human emotions, not hard data. There's a reason why "loss of confidence" is a major trigger for economic crisis, the feeling itself triggers a domino effect that feedback into the issue, aggravating it. The same is happening to Boeing, they lost confidence while Airbus didn't, people won't trust Boeing, bad press will be focusing on Boeing, so on and so forth, until they have regained confidence. It's well deserved, if they didn't lose it they could continue their practices and potentially worsen the safety of their products since there wouldn't be blowback triggering fear in their executives, loss of confidence is working as intended.
    - noirbot 3y ago
      For sure. I totally agree with you about what's happening from a business perspective, but I'm just pointing out that it's innately not completely rational and it's not necessarily a good guide to how we should think about risks as a customer. You see this in the cycle of "OMG, GCP had a big security issue, move to AWS!" and then in 6 months it's "AWS has a big security issue, move to Azure!" and then later it's "Azure has a big issue, move to... ???". It's not that you shouldn't pay attention to the incidents, just that when you're evaluating risks, it's important to not just assume that the most recent and high profile problem is indicative of higher risk in that system, as opposed to it being that system's chance to have its 0.01% failure case hit. As they say in finance, past performance is not indicative of future outcomes.
  - nostrademons 3y ago
    My point with the original comment is that flight pricing today shows that people do know and care to avoid Boeing. The market value of a 737-MAX-9 flight is about 1/3 of what a flight on any other airplane is, and even at that price they couldn't fill the plane. The scheduling was relatively convenient too, and my leg out (on Air Canada) was also a 737-MAX-9 that was discounted by about 2/3. That shows that consumers actually are actively avoiding the aircraft and factoring it into their purchasing decisions. And TBH, if pricing were equal there's no way you could get me to fly on a 737-MAX. My thesis is just that everybody else is valuing the risk much higher than it is, and that 737-MAXes have likely had every bolt combed over at this point, and the systemic issues found indicate that really it's every plane made in the last 25 years that is risky.
KingOfCoders 3y ago
That's reassuring for those who died.
- _3u10 3y ago
  Human's don't accurately measure risk, and society doesn't allocate resources according to minimizing deaths in the cheapest way possible. Lots of people die, likely many more due to shoddy work on the drive to / from the airport. As a society we could probably save far more lives with far less cost by say changing tire grippiness standards / mandating people get their tires inspected. The Boeing stuff is just for the most part moral grandstanding. Everyone drives around all day every day in cars that are far less safe than a 737-MAX without worrying about "reassuring those who died". Worse yet, we let people ride bicycles to work which are far more dangerous than cars.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    Okay the problem is that there is a competitor to Boeing that’s seriously better than Boeing in its track record recently.
    - _3u10 3y ago
      Turbulence is the #1 cause of accidents on flights, what makes airbus planes better in turbulence? As I said before people are extremely bad at modeling risk. How much longer of a life span would a person have if they flew only airbus vs only Boeing? My guess. The exact same.
      - hypothesis 3y ago
        “Well, some of them are built so the front doesn’t fall off at all.” How good are people at evaluating risk of e.g. “conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration”? https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/case/united-states-v-boeing-company https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/case/united-...
      - aaomidi 3y ago
miyuru 3y ago
Airbus A320neo was also released in 2014 has 1 hull loss and 0 crashes. Thats 100% safe fight the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family Your are trying to whitewash Boeing and doing it all wrong.
- NicoJuicy 3y ago
  Past the smell test. > 2 x more Airbus A320neo were build/in service than the Boeing version
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> safe flight 99.9995% Not taking into account that all of the crashes so far happened in third world countries which had much lower standards for pilots than the US.
- cromka 3y ago
  Ethiopian Airlines are some of the safest in the world, very professionally run. Ranked 4-star. Your bigotry is disgusting.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    The first officer only had 200 hours of flight experience when the minimum in the US is 1500. Regardless of the massive design flaws that were the primary cause this still seems like a major safety issue. Also: > The NTSB further detailed: > Appropriate crew management of the event, per the procedures that existed at the time, would have allowed the crew to recover the airplane even when faced with the uncommanded nose-down inputs.
  - blackhawkC17 3y ago
    > Yonas Yeshanew, a former top engineer for Ethiopian Airlines, also said that going into the records, which should have been sealed, was part of a pattern of corrupt habits that included signing off on poor or non-existent repairs, and even physical violence against those who would not cooperate. > Following the March 10, 2019, crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 outside Addis Ababa that killed all 157 passengers and crew, Yeshanew said it was clear that nothing had changed within the culture of the airline. > Besides the poor practices in regards to safety, he said he knows of at least two mechanics in the past three years who were beaten after running into trouble with the airline, and he feared the same fate awaited him. https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/10859-claims-of-corruption-violence-at-ethiopian-airlines https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/10859-claims-of-corruption-vi...

dev_tty01 3y ago

In 2022, globally, there was one accident per 664,186 flights. [1] That includes a lot of poorly funded airlines and a lot of very old aircraft. The 737 Max numbers you present are worse than the global average when they should be much better for a well designed modern aircraft. [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/31529/most-airplane-accidents-happen-during-landing/ https://www.statista.com/chart/31529/most-airplane-accidents... This is not even considering the numerous documented issues with their quality control programs. Also, the global average I referred to are for accidents, not crashes like your numbers.

noirbot 3y ago
Sure, but A. most people don't know or care to avoid Boeing and B. the odds are still really good, and probably safer than driving and quite a bit faster. It's not to say we shouldn't do better, but I really doubt that public demand shifts are doing much of anything to apply pressure. If anything, the couple days airlines had to spend with the 737s grounded did more FAA-enforced financial damage than the collective of consumers is likely to bring to bear. If there's a trip I need to make, I'm not spending 3x the money to maybe not be on a 737. There's also just the incident treadmill. Boeing is getting all the bad news now for good reasons, but how confident are we that there isn't a similar Airbus issue that'll come out soon? The 737 seemed like a fine plane before a few years ago. If we're playing a pure game of statistics, the 737 looks bad, but maybe it's just a really unlucky streak? Even terribly designed products that shouldn't have been allowed work fine a lot of the time.
- piva00 3y ago
  > There's also just the incident treadmill. Boeing is getting all the bad news now for good reasons, but how confident are we that there isn't a similar Airbus issue that'll come out soon? That's not how confidence works, while Airbus has confidence from the public and doesn't do something to lose it, they have the upper hand. You are trying to use numbers and statistics to fight against a loss of confidence, that won't work in the short to medium term, confidence and trust is built upon human emotions, not hard data. There's a reason why "loss of confidence" is a major trigger for economic crisis, the feeling itself triggers a domino effect that feedback into the issue, aggravating it. The same is happening to Boeing, they lost confidence while Airbus didn't, people won't trust Boeing, bad press will be focusing on Boeing, so on and so forth, until they have regained confidence. It's well deserved, if they didn't lose it they could continue their practices and potentially worsen the safety of their products since there wouldn't be blowback triggering fear in their executives, loss of confidence is working as intended.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    For sure. I totally agree with you about what's happening from a business perspective, but I'm just pointing out that it's innately not completely rational and it's not necessarily a good guide to how we should think about risks as a customer. You see this in the cycle of "OMG, GCP had a big security issue, move to AWS!" and then in 6 months it's "AWS has a big security issue, move to Azure!" and then later it's "Azure has a big issue, move to... ???". It's not that you shouldn't pay attention to the incidents, just that when you're evaluating risks, it's important to not just assume that the most recent and high profile problem is indicative of higher risk in that system, as opposed to it being that system's chance to have its 0.01% failure case hit. As they say in finance, past performance is not indicative of future outcomes.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  My point with the original comment is that flight pricing today shows that people do know and care to avoid Boeing. The market value of a 737-MAX-9 flight is about 1/3 of what a flight on any other airplane is, and even at that price they couldn't fill the plane. The scheduling was relatively convenient too, and my leg out (on Air Canada) was also a 737-MAX-9 that was discounted by about 2/3. That shows that consumers actually are actively avoiding the aircraft and factoring it into their purchasing decisions. And TBH, if pricing were equal there's no way you could get me to fly on a 737-MAX. My thesis is just that everybody else is valuing the risk much higher than it is, and that 737-MAXes have likely had every bolt combed over at this point, and the systemic issues found indicate that really it's every plane made in the last 25 years that is risky.

KingOfCoders 3y ago

That's reassuring for those who died.

_3u10 3y ago
Human's don't accurately measure risk, and society doesn't allocate resources according to minimizing deaths in the cheapest way possible. Lots of people die, likely many more due to shoddy work on the drive to / from the airport. As a society we could probably save far more lives with far less cost by say changing tire grippiness standards / mandating people get their tires inspected. The Boeing stuff is just for the most part moral grandstanding. Everyone drives around all day every day in cars that are far less safe than a 737-MAX without worrying about "reassuring those who died". Worse yet, we let people ride bicycles to work which are far more dangerous than cars.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Okay the problem is that there is a competitor to Boeing that’s seriously better than Boeing in its track record recently.
  - _3u10 3y ago
    Turbulence is the #1 cause of accidents on flights, what makes airbus planes better in turbulence? As I said before people are extremely bad at modeling risk. How much longer of a life span would a person have if they flew only airbus vs only Boeing? My guess. The exact same.
    - hypothesis 3y ago
      “Well, some of them are built so the front doesn’t fall off at all.” How good are people at evaluating risk of e.g. “conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration”? https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/case/united-states-v-boeing-company https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-fraud/case/united-...
    - aaomidi 3y ago

miyuru 3y ago

Airbus A320neo was also released in 2014 has 1 hull loss and 0 crashes. Thats 100% safe fight the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family Your are trying to whitewash Boeing and doing it all wrong.

NicoJuicy 3y ago
Past the smell test. > 2 x more Airbus A320neo were build/in service than the Boeing version

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> safe flight 99.9995% Not taking into account that all of the crashes so far happened in third world countries which had much lower standards for pilots than the US.

cromka 3y ago
Ethiopian Airlines are some of the safest in the world, very professionally run. Ranked 4-star. Your bigotry is disgusting.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  The first officer only had 200 hours of flight experience when the minimum in the US is 1500. Regardless of the massive design flaws that were the primary cause this still seems like a major safety issue. Also: > The NTSB further detailed: > Appropriate crew management of the event, per the procedures that existed at the time, would have allowed the crew to recover the airplane even when faced with the uncommanded nose-down inputs.
- blackhawkC17 3y ago
  > Yonas Yeshanew, a former top engineer for Ethiopian Airlines, also said that going into the records, which should have been sealed, was part of a pattern of corrupt habits that included signing off on poor or non-existent repairs, and even physical violence against those who would not cooperate. > Following the March 10, 2019, crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 outside Addis Ababa that killed all 157 passengers and crew, Yeshanew said it was clear that nothing had changed within the culture of the airline. > Besides the poor practices in regards to safety, he said he knows of at least two mechanics in the past three years who were beaten after running into trouble with the airline, and he feared the same fate awaited him. https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/10859-claims-of-corruption-violence-at-ethiopian-airlines https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/10859-claims-of-corruption-vi...