4 ms·

If it's a Boeing I'm not going.

shiroiushi 2y ago
I don't mind flying on a well-tested 777 (i.e. one that's been in service for years). It's a great design from before Boeing really went down the shitter, and is probably the backbone of most carrier's long-haul intercontinental fleets today. But there's no way I'd fly as an astronaut on Starliner. I have very little confidence it won't have a catastrophic failure, considering how Boeing's been doing things lately.
- ls612 2y ago
  787 is also a well tested safe design which was designed after those nasty MBAs took over. 11 years and counting without a hull loss gives me confidence flying across the ocean on one of them.
  - hedora 2y ago
    The 777 has killed one and injured 104 passengers this year, and the 787 has injured 50. Are you and the parent comment missing a /s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_321 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_32... https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flight-injuries-new-zealand-tuesday-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flig...
    - xeornet 2y ago
      Both of those incidents have a total of zero percent relation to the aircraft being Boeing or its design. The CNN article is wrong, it was since found the seat move switch was pushed and interfered with flight controls. The 777 was severe turbulence. The death was a heart attack. Lol…
      - hedora 2y ago
        Regarding the turbulence, from Wikipedia: > The autopilot, being engaged, pitched the plane downwards to return to 37,000 feet (11,278 m). That was the strong negative G maneuver that broke the ceiling by crashing people into it. There was a second strong acceleration when it returned to the desired altitude. My reading of this is that most of the injuries were due to the autopilot’s reaction to the turbulence. Otherwise, it just would have been an unexpected increase to about 1.4 G followed by the cabin pitching around. For the other one, why is the seat capable of interfering with controls? (Also, that doesn’t match the pilot’s story, which was that the screens cycled off and on, unless the seat can press the “reboot plane” button).
        ls612 2y ago
        The seat switch was accidentally jammed into the “seat forward” position which led to the pilot (who was strapped in) being physically forced into the controls, leading to a significant pitch down.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
OutOfHere 2y ago
https://www.amiflyingonaboeing.com/ https://www.amiflyingonaboeing.com/ (but remember that planes can sometimes change)
WhackyIdeas 2y ago
If it’s Boeing, I’m boating!
cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
A statement as completely absurd as it always was.

I don't mind flying on a well-tested 777 (i.e. one that's been in service for years). It's a great design from before Boeing really went down the shitter, and is probably the backbone of most carrier's long-haul intercontinental fleets today. But there's no way I'd fly as an astronaut on Starliner. I have very little confidence it won't have a catastrophic failure, considering how Boeing's been doing things lately.

ls612 2y ago
787 is also a well tested safe design which was designed after those nasty MBAs took over. 11 years and counting without a hull loss gives me confidence flying across the ocean on one of them.
- hedora 2y ago
  The 777 has killed one and injured 104 passengers this year, and the 787 has injured 50. Are you and the parent comment missing a /s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_321 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_32... https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flight-injuries-new-zealand-tuesday-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flig...
  - xeornet 2y ago
    Both of those incidents have a total of zero percent relation to the aircraft being Boeing or its design. The CNN article is wrong, it was since found the seat move switch was pushed and interfered with flight controls. The 777 was severe turbulence. The death was a heart attack. Lol…
    - hedora 2y ago
      Regarding the turbulence, from Wikipedia: > The autopilot, being engaged, pitched the plane downwards to return to 37,000 feet (11,278 m). That was the strong negative G maneuver that broke the ceiling by crashing people into it. There was a second strong acceleration when it returned to the desired altitude. My reading of this is that most of the injuries were due to the autopilot’s reaction to the turbulence. Otherwise, it just would have been an unexpected increase to about 1.4 G followed by the cabin pitching around. For the other one, why is the seat capable of interfering with controls? (Also, that doesn’t match the pilot’s story, which was that the screens cycled off and on, unless the seat can press the “reboot plane” button).
      - ls612 2y ago
        The seat switch was accidentally jammed into the “seat forward” position which led to the pilot (who was strapped in) being physically forced into the controls, leading to a significant pitch down.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

OutOfHere 2y ago

https://www.amiflyingonaboeing.com/ https://www.amiflyingonaboeing.com/ (but remember that planes can sometimes change)

WhackyIdeas 2y ago

If it’s Boeing, I’m boating!

cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago

A statement as completely absurd as it always was.