5 ms·
The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s. The main motivation for recertifications
by bushido 3mo ago
The 737 has had 14 major recertifications. The aircraft today looks/behaves nothing like the original from the 1960s.
The main motivation for recertifications comes from commercial pressure where if a aircraft is given a new number and not recertified, then the pilots have to be retrained.
Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working.
Recertifications are very common. The issue really is is the aircraft is AS different and untested as the old MAXs, and I really can't see that happening again in the next decade or two atleast.
- pudgywalsh 3mo agoConsumers are indeed very concerned... that they be able to purchase £49 tickets on RyanAir.
- ghaff 3mo agoAnd then they complain about seat sizes and baggage dimensions.
- Dylan16807 3mo agoPeople want to get what they're promised in a reasonable fashion. If the prices are hiding something like nonstandard seats or unreasonable baggage procedures, then that's a legitimate problem, not something they should shut up about because they should have known.
- ghaff 3mo agoThey're getting from Point A to Point B for a pittance. What more should they expect?
- Dylan16807 3mo agoThey deserve to know upfront how big the seat is, how big of a bag they can bring, and how much extra bags cost. On top of that, it can be useful if bag sizes and measurement have some standardization across the industry. Nothing major here or hard to provide.
- ghaff 3mo agoHonestly, I think a lot is pretty well documented. But people don't have a good sense of what an inch more or less related to the seat actually means and don't necessarily know how picky a given airline is going to be on the size and weight of carry-ons. I expect that the carryon I routinely take on United might be an issue with budget European carriers.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- kube-system 3mo agoThe #1 rule of marketing is that people's actions rarely line up with what they say they're going to do.
- jrockway 3mo agoSort by price ascending and pick the first result.
- jbm 3mo agoI live in Calgary. Both major airlines cost the same. There is no difference in sorting. Both airlines use the 737. I lived in Tokyo. I used to spend more to avoid getting accosted at the US border. A lot more. You can't call it choice when your vendors all offer the same product for the same price.
- stasomatic 3mo agoUnfortunately. Enthusiast "want" a manual transmission car but almost none buy. Can't blame the makers.
- carabiner 3mo agoToyota had the largest recall in history for the unintended acceleration debacle. Yes, lots of people were saying they'd never set foot in a toyota again. Now people don't even remember it.
- nothercastle 3mo agoWasn’t even an actual problem it seems just caved to pressure from lawyers
- scottlamb 3mo ago> Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working. Is this kind of consumer revolt even really possible? If you feel strongly enough that you refuse to fly altogether, then of course you can avoid flying on a 737 MAX. But I think most people did not feel the risk was that high. They just want to select "guarantee no 737 MAX" when booking a flight, and as far as I can tell that option doesn't exist. Even if the flight is not a 737 MAX when you book, they can and sometimes do change aircraft, and as far as I know there's no option to get your money back when they do. If you show up and see it's a 737 MAX...you either get on or you lose your money, and have to find some other way to get where you're going, right?
- Alupis 3mo agoIn 2013 there were approximately 24,000 737 flights per day[1] - likely more today. If narrowed to just the MAX variants, it's still thousands per day. Two, albeit high profile, crashes out of all the daily MAX volume is simply not something to worry about - let alone influence your booking choices. [1] - https://chinaerospace.oss-cn-beijing.aliyuncs.com/18.1%20%E6%9C%BA%E5%9E%8B%E8%B5%84%E6%96%99/Boeing/fct%20-737%20Family%20Facts.pdf https://chinaerospace.oss-cn-beijing.aliyuncs.com/18.1%20%E6...
- dingaling 3mo agoYou're applying everyday casual risk analysis to the highly-regulated environment of commercial air transport, where the MAX crashes absolutely were out of the norm and well beyond accepted levels. Bear in mind when the crashes occurred there were fewer than 100 MAX in service.
- gmerc 3mo agoUntil you are on the plane. Sorry, but reasonably people and countries expect zero crashes and any single crash is worth worrying about because shareholder money should not trump a single human life.
- 3mo ago
- jayofdoom 3mo agoHonestly they kinda screwed over people -- like me -- who tried to avoid the MAX planes for a while. I'd specifically book around the MAX planes and then they would change equipment at the last minute into a MAX. There is no meaningful "knob" an aviation consumer can turn to express an aircraft preference, and given how US airspace works, you often don't have a meaningful choice in carrier (unless you're willing to take on extra stops).
- archagon 3mo agoSure there is. Just fly carriers that use an Airbus fleet. It’s honestly pretty trivial.
- jfaat 3mo agoIn the US (parent mentioned US specifically) I think that's just Frontier now that Spirit is gone. I mean technically that's doable sure but idk if I would say trivial it's really limited on routes and the experience is terrible from what I understand.
- archagon 3mo agoIn my experience JetBlue and American Airlines usually fly Airbus.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- MatmaRex 3mo agoIn Europe "no 737 MAX" basically means "no Ryanair". Depending on how you feel about Ryanair, avoiding the 737 MAX can be very easy. In other places, like the US, they may not be practical to avoid.
- cryo32 3mo agoThis is what I do. No Ryanair. Everyone else runs A320 series across Europe. I usually just fly easyJet.
- odiroot 3mo agoThere's more and better reasons than MAX to avoid Ryanair. Sadly Polish national airlines (among others) also went hard on 737MAX8 so it's not only the budget ones.
- warumdarum 3mo agoThe things you do for NATO protection. You buy all franchise equipment only for the franchise giver to walk out on the deal.
- dataflow 3mo ago> In Europe "no 737 MAX" basically means "no Ryanair". Depending on how you feel about Ryanair, avoiding the 737 MAX can be very easy. Eh? - https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/AEA1517 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/AEA1517 - https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/LOT279 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/LOT279 - https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ICE613 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ICE613
- ulfw 3mo agoHonestly no Ryan Air is the right decision for oh so many reasons, but yes the horrible 737-Max is top on the list
- bmitc 3mo agoI have avoided flying on a 737 MAX and have even asked about it at gates when a plane was switched. Part of the problem though is that many, many, many routes were straight up removed during and after COVID and still haven't returned. There is often no choice, particularly with certain companies like Southwest. However, I haven't flown Southwest since I learned that they were basically complicit, if not directly involved, in Boeing's 737 MAX issues.