5 ms·
Airlines are just bluffing to try and get better deals from Boeing. Many airlines have no interest in creating (or extending) mixed fleets.
by richwater 2y ago
Airlines are just bluffing to try and get better deals from Boeing. Many airlines have no interest in creating (or extending) mixed fleets.
- chatmasta 2y agoI’m a customer of airlines, and I’m not bluffing when I choose the airline with a fleet of Airbus planes over the one with a bunch of Boeings.
- Alupis 2y agoSomething about airplanes really brings out the illogical side of otherwise very smart folks. You've heard about a couple Boeing incidents over the past few months - during which millions and millions of miles where traveled in perfectly safe Boeing aircraft of all ages and models, all over the world. It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft. Knee-jerk reactions and declarations like this are as foolish as naïve.
- chatmasta 2y agoAnd I’m more likely to die on a Boeing than an Airbus, so as long as we’re comparing micromort risks, why is my survival preference rational only above some threshold of risk differential? There’s also the “vote with your wallet” aspect of it. I don’t like the direction Boeing is moving. Their past safety profile is less relevant to me than their future trajectory. (Also, I take the train to the airport, and I minimize highway driving precisely because of its high relative risk.)
- Alupis 2y agoAirbus has their share of issues as well. You just haven't cared to read about them. In fact, several Airbus crashes have been a result of their illogical control system, with two disconnected, additive-input joysticks. I don't mean this is a disparaging way, but this perspective is naïve and ignorant.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y agoWell let's quantify it. How many crashes per miles are there for Boeing vs Airbus? And if per mile is not the correct metric, what is? I found this infographic after a quick search which implies Boeing is a lot worse than Airbus. https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/enzplrs6avvc1.jpeg
- Alupis 2y agoThis graph doesn't say what you think it does. It's more naïve click-bait. An incident is anything abnormal, including low tire pressure or bird strike. The graph uses data from NTSB, a US agency - and the graph shows US data. In the US, vastly more Boeing aircraft are in the skies than Airbus. The graphics is effectively click-bait BS.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y agoIf you have no data to support your argument, then you have no argument. I asked you how many crashes per mile and you ignored it. I asked if you have a better metric and you ignored it. I'm open to my infographic being misleading, but so far I'm the only person that brought data to this argument.
- Alupis 2y agoLast I checked, a made-up sensationalist "graphic" from reddit doesn't count as data.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago[flagged]
- Alupis 2y agoI asked you for data, and you provided a ragebait graphic from reddit.
- whimsicalism 2y agoi can see it making sense if the flight price and other details are identical, but even the remotest difference you care about (like a $1 price differential) should matter more than this
- whatevaa 2y agoI hate that statement. People have some level of control over their trip to airport. At the plane you are at the mercy of airline, pilots and airframe manufacturer. Failure to understand this psichological effect and just using naked statistics is naive too.
- williamcotton 2y agoDon’t you have no control over what other drivers are doing, nor control over the manufacturing of your vehicle?
- onemoresoop 2y agoToo many safety concerns raised by whistleblowers or stories about how poorly Boeing is being managed are not good reasons to risk your life. Why would you do it when there's an alternative? Maybe if flying with Boeing was heavily discounted people would want to incur the risk.
- thegrim33 2y agoYou're basing your decision off a handful of anecdotal reports whereas you could instead look at the literal billions of data points that say you have a better chance of winning your state lottery than ever dying on a Boeing plane. If you're worried about your safety, isn't the safety data what you should base your decisions off of?
- EricE 2y agoHandful? What are we up to - four? - magically dead Boeing whistleblowers? How many dead whistleblowers does it take before it moves from anecdotal to something else?
- onemoresoop 2y ago>You're basing your decision off a handful of anecdotal reports whereas you could instead look at the literal billions of data points that say you have a better chance of winning your state lottery than ever dying on a Boeing plane. If you're worried about your safety, isn't the safety data what you should base your decisions off of? It's your life, do what you want with it and I'll do the same with mine. Im aware that it may not be a rational decision, but a rational decision should be based on trust and trust is long gone. And there's an alternative, why risk it?
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoIt is essentially already discounted because [choosing to fly either Airbus or Boeing] is way more efficient and cheaper than [look for routes that don't fly Boeing].
- simion314 2y agoYou are assuming that OP is doing math and made some mistake, but what if it is more then math. now can you understand? Also you failed to provide the math proof that the user is wrong and Boeing is equal or better in safety then alternatives. In case you failed the understand, it is also about what we feel, I feel a GIANT negativity towards Sony because the shit they pulled to me and others so no mather what some apologists would try to spin things bringing math or other correct sounding logic I will not do business with assholes if I have an alternative, even if I pay a few cents more.
- the_mitsuhiko 2y agoI have said this before: I don’t worry about dying. I’m using my power as a customer to send a message to the market that I do not appreciate Boeing’s behavior. It’s a tiny message but that’s as much as capitalism gives me.
- hsshhshshjk 2y agoWell said. Direct register your stocks too. Use all the benefits the system has to offer.
- munk-a 2y agoCan I ask for clarification about what you don't appreciate about their behavior? Some of the reasons I've seen have been focused on the MBA-izationation of the company leadership, the relaxing of quality controls and the lack of long term R&D investment - I don't want to misattribute your sentiment though.
- hindsightbias 2y agoIf you dissuade them, that just leaves our flights more crowded.
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago> It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft. You're conflating two issues here. Yes, air travel is safer than any other means of travel. But comparing apples to apples (Boeing vs Airbus), Boeing has twice as many incidents per 100k flights than Airbus. It's not unreasonable to prefer one to the other, however safe they both might be in the grand scheme of things.
- pton_xd 2y agoIf I dislike a companies business practices, I will stop paying for their products. It's really that simple.
- anvuong 2y agoWell statistically Airbus is currently safer than Boeing, and as a consumer I have a choice to choose which plane to fly in, at least for my regular routes. Now you tell me why should I pick Boeing over Airbus?
- whimsicalism 2y agoif the time is even 5 minutes better or the price even $1 better, that should trump any difference in risk profile
- EricE 2y agoKnee-jerk? The entire flawed premise of the Max development was based on the economics of not having to retrain/re-certify flight crews above all else. No thank you! The planes do things that Boing didn't tell the pilots about. That's not confidence instilling! Juan Brown of the Blancolerio youtube channel has mentioned that on at least two different occasions - and as a professional pilot was pretty miffed at basically being mislead by Boeing. What we are seeing in Boeing are not just one-off lapses, but systemic failures in judgement and processes. Software processes, manufacturing processes, test and validation processes. There is serious rot at Boeing and until they get back to an engineering focus I won't be flying on any of their newer stuff - period!
- jrflowers 2y ago> You've heard about a couple Boeing incidents over the past few months This is true so long as you define “a couple” to mean “any number” https://www.npr.org/2024/03/20/1239132703/boeing-timeline-737-max-9-controversy-door-plug https://www.npr.org/2024/03/20/1239132703/boeing-timeline-73... Boeing just pled guilty to criminal charges yesterday stemming from two crashes. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/08/business/boeing-doj-criminal-charges/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/08/business/boeing-doj-criminal-... And there have been several whistleblowers talking about problems in production recently. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/business/boeing-whistleblower-safety-hearing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/business/boeing-whistleblower... It seems like your position is “I simply do not care about these things, personally” and anything else is foolish and naive
- snakeyjake 2y ago>It's been said over and over, but should be said again - you're vastly more likely to die on your way to the airport than once aboard an aircarft... any aircraft. For many people this is true. For me it is not. I drive one of the safest cars ever created (45,000 sold, zero occupant deaths so far in both the US and EU) in an area that, in the United States, has the lowest traffic fatalities per capita and per 100 million miles driven, and I am in a demographic group that makes me, "StAtIsTiCaLlY" the safest driver on the road. I've also received defensive driving training through a former job, held a CDL for over a decade (which makes me even safer than a regular driver), and have no health issues. My local airport is served, mainly, by the 737NG and MAX. The MAX has a fatal hull loss rate of 1.48 per million departures, or 0.06 per 40,000. I have made over 40,000 "departures" in my car and have a confirmed, irrefutable, unquestionable fatal hull loss rate of 0.00 per 40,000. You cannot use miles flown or driven as a comparison because of the nature of airline incidents, which tend (90%+) to occur on takeoff or landing.
- whimsicalism 2y agofrankly that is irrational
- Zigurd 2y agoThere is room for some bluffing for a while: a) Until Boeing's backlog is drawn down to where a 737 could be delivered years before an A320, which would be to Boeing's advantage, or... b) Airbus manages to make A220 production faster, more profitable, and they make a stretch variant, which could make the 737 obsolete.
- ramesh31 2y ago>) Airbus manages to make A220 production faster, more profitable, and they make a stretch variant, which could make the 737 obsolete. This is the dark horse. The A220 is a strictly superior aircraft to the 737-8/9 for its segment, and Boeing has nothing to match it, because they spent the last decade retrofitting a 60 year old airframe rather than building a new plane. Turns out innovation is important for companies who produce high technology.
- Alupis 2y agoAirlines invest heavily into the ecosystem around their chosen aircraft. They will not switch away from 737's and their excellent track record just because A220 might be moderately slightly improved for a short duration...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- barryrandall 2y agoAirlines want planes in the air making money every hour of every day. They can't make money from the planes when they're grounded due to lax QA at their incumbent supplier (who happens to be a felon).