[HN Gopher] Kayak's new flight filter allows you to exclude airc...
___________________________________________________________________
Kayak's new flight filter allows you to exclude aircraft models
Author : Eisenstein
Score : 491 points
Date : 2024-01-22 07:41 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reddit.com)
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| I love the idea, but as far as I know, there's nothing stopping
| an airline from changing the plane "last minute" right before the
| flight. Then you have to make a decision at the gate whether you
| want to turn around a go back home (or hotel) after spending
| hours getting to the airport, going through security, and waiting
| at the gate.
| rob74 wrote:
| True - at least most "737-only" low-cost airlines (Southwest,
| Ryanair, ...) use the older 737 models and the MAX (which
| Ryanair has rechristened to "737-8200" because of... reasons)
| interchangeably AFAIK.
| chx wrote:
| The 8200 is a higher density version of the 8 and it comes
| with an extra pair of exits because of this.
| rob74 wrote:
| Yes, but according to Wikipedia, Boeing refers (or
| referred) to it as "737 MAX 200", so the suspicion that
| Ryanair insisted on renaming it to get rid of the tainted
| MAX moniker is warranted...
| chx wrote:
| According to
| https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7297/en the type
| is called 737-8200 and belongs to the Max group.
|
| According to https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/FSBR
| _B737_Rev_19_Dra...
|
| > In January 2021, the FSB conducted an analysis of the
| changes introduced for the 737-8200. The analysis
| identified that the 737-8200 is functionally equivalent
| to the 737-8. The 737-8200 is incorporated into the MAX
| series aircraft group in paragraph 8.1 and in Appendix 2,
| Master Differences Requirements (MDR) Table.
|
| Both the EASA and the FAA calls it 737-8200. Neither did
| it to remove the MAX moniker from it.
| Armisael16 wrote:
| Southwest has dozens of Max 8s, for what it's worth:
| https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-Airlines
|
| I booked a flight with them last night, and it's scheduled to
| fly on one.
| mihaaly wrote:
| True for individual flights but not on the mass scale. For the
| masses this will still be useful. And a hit to MAX 8 and other
| Boeing 737 models in the short and medium run. The aversion
| will die out eventually for those who can weather the storm
| (and make some more money by those having other type of
| planes).
| Arnt wrote:
| Let me try a sanity check. I fly a lot for work, have eleven
| tickets booked now. There's nothing stopping the airline in one
| of those eleven cases.
|
| For five flights, the airline would have a problem swapping out
| the planes because there's likely only one plane on hand at
| that airport at that time. For three, I think the population of
| the country would be quick to disapprove if the airline did it
| with any frequency. For two, the airline can't very well swap
| because it's that airline's biggest aircraft and the route is
| usually nearly full.
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| I used to fly a lot for work. I think I encountered
| "equipment change"[0] maybe once a month. The idea that an
| airline would do it as some sort of ploy to attract
| passengers afraid of a particular airframe seems...unlikely.
|
| 0 - the airline term of art for this.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I think the idea that passengers would be afraid of a
| particular airframe is a relatively new one, so I'm not
| sure how useful past data is here.
| Arnt wrote:
| It happened to the 1970 MAX 8, which was grounded
| permanently before Kayak could filter it, but "sales
| never fully recovered" as Wikipedia says.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| Hard disagree.
|
| First, when I was flying regularly, it was during the
| height of the original 737 Max scare, which also occurred
| within a few years of the CFM56 fan blade problems and
| the 737NG pickle fork fatigue cracking problem. It was a
| _rough_ couple of years for the 737 family, yet I didn't
| notice any serious uptick in equipment changes, and I was
| flying on airlines with a bunch of 737s in their fleets.
|
| Second, the idea of some conspiracy involving falsely
| advertising which airframe an airline intends to use for
| a flight, which would involve submitting false flight
| plans and publishing false flight data, is patently
| absurd to anyone who has been exposed even as an end-user
| to the tech stack of the airlines, such as it is.
|
| Between getting licensed employees to lie to the
| government and the airlines antiquated software, I don't
| believe they could do what is being suggested, even if
| they wanted to.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Look up the history of the DC-10. People have been afraid
| of specific airframes for many decades.
| pirate787 wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember this, can confirm that the
| general public was afraid of the DC 10- the entire model
| was banned for a time when the FAA pulled its
| certificate. We're one deadly US crash from the end of
| the MAX and from a Boeing bankruptcy.
|
| https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-11/AvWeek%20
| -%2...
| _heimdall wrote:
| My wife once got bumped off the last flight out of DC one
| night because the airline decided to switch to a smaller
| plane. There was no mechanical or logistical reason given.
|
| Hopefully its rare but it can and does happen.
| szundi wrote:
| Obviously there were aforementioned reasons.
| playingalong wrote:
| For technical reasons.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I'm sure the airline had a reason, though at a minimum it
| wasn't shared with the passengers. In all likelihood that
| means it wasn't a mechanical issue as those are always
| shared in my experience.
|
| My best guess was that, given it was the last flight of
| the day, the airline decided they needed to move planes
| around differently for the next morning.
| furyofantares wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're saying, as you using
| "aforementioned" to mean "not mentioned" rather than
| "previously mentioned"?
| niklasrde wrote:
| "the population of the country would be quick to disapprove"
| - now you've got me curious. Who would be disapproving? I
| doubt US population would care much for a Boeing Swapout, or
| Europe for an Airbus one. Embraer is from Brazil, but I don't
| think LATAM even has any. Does the Eastern world care more?
|
| Or is it a model thing? Noise/pollution thing? Are you flying
| to some small island nation with special planes?
| BoxFour wrote:
| > Or is it a model thing?
|
| Yes, this is very likely about avoiding the max 8.
| mkl wrote:
| 737 Max in general [1], but especially recently the Max 9
| [2].
|
| [1]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Alaska_A
| irlines...
| Arnt wrote:
| Germans would.
|
| It's difficult to explain, you have to live here a while
| and experience it. Some things are tolerated, some things
| NOT. Occasionally flying other aircraft than planned? OK.
| Skewing the occasional swaps, deceptively using an aircraft
| type that the general public distrusts? NOT OK. That would
| turn niche distrust of an aircraft type into wide distrust
| of the airline.
| logifail wrote:
| > For five flights, the airline would have a problem swapping
| out the planes because there's likely only one plane on hand
| at that airport at that time.
|
| This is disingenuous at best.
|
| Assuming you're talking about flights where an aircraft
| operates an outbound flight from its base to airport XXX and
| then an inbound flight back "home" again.
|
| _If_ the airline decides to swap on outbound (base-XXX)
| flight, you 'll get exactly that aircraft on the inbound
| (XXX-base) flight. It won't be completely last minute,
| because as soon as the outbound flight is swapped you know
| you'll be flying that aircraft on the inbound leg, but still,
| unless you change your flight to another, you'll be flying
| the swapped aircraft nevertheless. You just get a few more
| hours' notice.
|
| FWIW, exactly this happened to my wife on Friday (Lufthansa
| transatlantic flight scheduled as A350, operated by an A340
| due to disruption in Germany earlier last week due to
| freezing rain). For her that was the second late aircraft
| swap of 4 flights in the last 14 days.
| Arnt wrote:
| True. Sorry. GP wrote "last minute", I suppose I was a
| little too narrowminded. I should have considered a swap at
| the last hub as well.
| ghaff wrote:
| I used to fly a lot and it's not common in my experience
| though it does happen. Far more common is a flight is
| canceled or delayed and you have to take a different flight,
| possibly even on a different airline.
|
| If someone's objective is to reduce their likelihood of
| flying a particular airframe, these tools can probably help
| albeit at the possible cost of higher prices or less
| convenient schedules.
|
| But there are no ironclad guarantees if someone feels _that_
| strongly.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Off topic but because you seem to be a frequent flyer: Have
| you come across a program that sustainably offsets emissions
| caused by one's air travel? I did the calculation the other
| day and a single flight to Hawaii caused as much CO2e as my
| entire household for a year (electricity, LNG, gas). I'm
| reducing flying to a minimum but I wonder if there's an
| actual measurable thing I could do to reduce the damage.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| From own experience, the latest (in the day) a flight is
| (especially the short 2-3h flights within EU) the more chances
| is you will be delayed (if every fight is delayed by 30mins, by
| the end of the day multiple those 30mins x 4 or 5 or 6).
|
| When a company may see that "oops we are gonna be paying $$$$
| for the delays" they will have no fear to bring in another
| plane (not the one you booked).
|
| The same applies of course for any planes that are damaged,
| etc.
|
| I tried asking ChatGPT but couldn't give me an answer of the
| frequency "how often to air companies swap the planes" (I tried
| with various choices of words) and it couldn't give me a
| percentage or any other metric.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| It's not that there's 'nothing stopping' the airline, it's that
| under the normal operation of an airline, planes are moved
| around and rescheduled _all the time_ , up just hours (or
| sooner!) before the flight.
|
| I would guess something like 0% of assigned _tail numbers_ (not
| plane model) remain the same a week before booking. Airlines
| that fly multiple models on the same route would be harder to
| reassign, but days before the flight if it hasn 't sold out,
| it's still very possible they'll get moved around.
|
| The safest way to not fly a particular model of plane is to not
| fly with airlines that open them.
| dacryn wrote:
| This happens very rarely, and is usually of the same family.
| You replace an Airbus 320 with another airbus, not a boeing.
| Simply because those airlines don't have both on them in their
| portfolio.
|
| Now if its specifically to avoid a certain type of Boeing 737
| max when the airline already flies boeing, yeah thay might
| happen indeed.
|
| The only cases of switching families is long haul, like
| Emirates replaced an Airbus a380 with a 777 once on a trip I
| took. Still caused massive issues because the boeing is
| smaller, so they don't like doing this.
| jojobas wrote:
| Plenty of airlines have both A320 and B737 and/or a mix of
| NG/MAX. Replacing one with another will almost always have a
| different seat arrangement, necessitating mucking around with
| pre-allocated seats, and is avoided whenever practical.
| taneliv wrote:
| How often the pilots have certification (or whatever it is
| called) to fly the swapped in aircraft? Maybe the usually
| do, or perhaps it is typical to swap the crew as well?
| mattmaroon wrote:
| You'd generally be swapping the crew as well which is
| another reason this doesn't happen a lot.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _certification_
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_rating
| rangestransform wrote:
| well the whole point of MCAS was to allow pilots to fly
| the 737MAX without needing another type rating
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| I don't think anyone's suggesting that an airline would
| misrepresent all their flights as being on A320s that
| don't exist and then claim to swap for mechanical issues
| at the gate to 737s that do. And they could do this on
| every single ticket. (Is that what people are
| suggesting?)
|
| They're complaining that they could buy a ticket out of
| one airport on an A320, that plane could get delayed, and
| the airline could swap in a 737 that was waiting for
| another route. Passengers on the other route would then
| get the Airbus that they hadn't specifically filtered
| for. That might happen on one in 50 or one in 100
| flights.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| It _can_ happen but is it a real problem or just a hypothetical
| one?
| ghaff wrote:
| It does happen and there are a variety of other reasons why
| you can end up on a different plane than you intended. You
| can improve your odds of avoiding specific airframe(s) by not
| booking them but you mostly can't guarantee it.
|
| (Sort of. If you want to be sure to avoid regional jets on
| trans-oceanic flights you're pretty safe.)
| vasco wrote:
| Congratulations, you've found a new insurance niche.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Many airlines, in practice, only fly a particular type or type
| of planes on a particular route.
| instagib wrote:
| Everyone responding saying it doesn't happen is wrong. It may
| not happen often to them. I have flown 500,000 miles.
|
| I have family and friends in the industry who pilot, work
| ground ops, maintenance, and are flight attendants. At an
| airline with over 300 departures per day things go wrong, crews
| time out, aircraft have issues on landing that somehow get
| ignored until morning, and many more examples then planes get
| swapped.
|
| They generally have very few planes on standby because it's
| like flying them empty, it's an inefficient use of money. It
| turns into wack a mole quickly and one flight steals a plane,
| gate, or crew from another until none are left.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Yeah, I mean, sometimes they find stuff wrong with the plane
| they can't fix.
|
| I've definitely swapped planes a few times after sitting in
| the plane for a while.
| trbleclef wrote:
| It absolutely happens, I had a WN flight on a MAX 8 last week
| that was changed to a 737-800 the day before.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Aviation authorities would get upset if some airline has a
| routine of doing this. This is absolutely something they keep
| a track of.
|
| But yes, there's nothing stopping them from doing it for you
| flight. Or even from "permanently" doing it and undoing a day
| later.
| dcow wrote:
| Why would authorities get upset?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| TBH, because they track it.
|
| They would have some good reasoning, because they don't
| make a fuss about exchanging equivalent planes, but if
| it's happening all the time, the planes must not be
| equivalent. But the actual reason is that somebody is
| always looking, and that somebody would get wary.
| pavon wrote:
| Playing it safe by delaying a flight to swap out planes
| looks good to aviation authorities.
| _puk wrote:
| Especially in Europe, where any delay over 3 hours results in
| a right to compensation [0]. It's quite usual to swap a
| technical fault out so then have time to fix it.
|
| Last few flights the poor staff have come from one airport
| and returned to another country..
|
| 0: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-
| right...
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've personally been on a flight that was delayed because of
| an issue with a plane where the airline was waiting for a
| different plane to arrive. I don't know if it was a different
| model or not, but it was definitely a different plane.
|
| As hearsay, I've had a friend on a flight where they made
| everyone deboard the plane because of an issue so they could
| get on a different plane. After waiting for that plane to
| arrive and boarding it, they decide there's an issue with
| that plane too. Then, after all of that hassle and a long
| delay, they claim the original plane has been fixed and re-
| boarded that plane.
|
| Lots of things can happen
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I enjoyed the Disney+ series "Dubai International" way more
| than I expected partly because it illuminated all kinds of
| weird issues that pop up and the individuals whose
| responsibility it is to make a go-no-go call.
|
| Baggage was loaded but the passenger isn't at the gate,
| have to unload all the baggage.
|
| Plane that was supposed to be unloaded by now has a pallet
| that's jammed and needs to be hit with a sledge hammer for
| 20 minutes.
|
| Hydraulics sprung a leak, maybe it's a nut that needs to be
| tightened maybe the whole thing needs to be taken out of
| service.
|
| etc etc
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Also if enough people start doing this wouldn't the airlines
| just stop reporting what the plane is.
| cjrp wrote:
| Or even earlier than at the gate. If you book a flight for 6
| months time, there's nothing stoping them changing the
| allocated aircraft in 3 months.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Solution: Fly an airline that doesn't use Boeing at all. Like
| JetBlue.
|
| I would say there is basically zero chance that you would be
| switched to a Boeing last minute with JetBlue.
| qazxcvbnmlp wrote:
| Until there's a mechanical issue last minute and they put you
| on another airline to get you a seat home.
| golergka wrote:
| How long until airlines start to advertise that they don't have
| 737 MAX in their fleets? Or no Boeing planes at all?
| rob74 wrote:
| I don't think airlines will do that, because having at least
| two (more would be of course better) competing manufacturers in
| the market is better for them, so they have to hope that Boeing
| survives even if they don't currently use their planes...
| lostlogin wrote:
| If there is a way to be more profitable this year, with a
| potential issue several years away, what percentage of
| companies would take that chance?
|
| Airlines take the quick money every time as far as I can
| tell.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| It is like Samsung shitposting on Apple about removing the
| 3.5 mm audio port, enjoy the marketing stunts, and then
| remove it themselves a coupl eof years later. All companies
| and their PR teams know the memory retention of their
| audience is tiny. I'm honestly surprised the airlines that
| dont have Boeing 737 in their fleet are not taking this
| opportunity to make a splash yet.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| The recent 737 Max issue doesn't seem particularly aircraft
| specific. If the QA and culture have gotten that bad then it
| could happen to 787 just as easily.
|
| I doubt however this will ever move the needle in terms of
| passenger numbers. Even for those people who are aware of the
| issues, a tiny minority of them would pay more to avoid a
| particular aircraft model.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > I doubt however this will ever move the needle in terms of
| passenger numbers.
|
| Maybe, but these things have a momentum and it's very clear
| things are moving in an uncomfortable direction for Boeing.
| viraptor wrote:
| Yup, some flights are going to be extremely unlikely to
| change and are basically always 100% booked. QF10 London-
| Perth (Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner) will not be affected at all
| by a non-trivial percentage of people refusing to fly it.
| There's not enough supply on those routes and Qantas can fly
| whatever they want there.
| discordance wrote:
| Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian airlines and Azul Brazilian only
| operate Airbus aircraft
| wil421 wrote:
| Yea but Qantas never crashed.
| dingaling wrote:
| QANTAS have had 14 fatal accidents over their history.
|
| The most common claim is that they have never suffered a
| jet hull loss, which is technically correct as they paid
| over $100 million to repair 747 VH-OJH instead of letting
| it be written-off:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/LucEz
| andsoitis wrote:
| Randomly picked Hawaiian airlines to see what mechanical
| failures their aircraft have had and I get this list:
|
| - Most recent in 2023: significant problems and disruptions
| due to problems with the Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engines in
| their A320neo aircraft -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G
|
| - Mid-air diversions: several Hawaiian Airlines flights
| forced to divert to different airports due to mechanical
| problems. One example is Flight 383 from Honolulu to Kauai
| and had to return to Honolulu shortly after takeoff due to
| unspecified issues - https://liveandletsfly.com/hawaiian-
| airlines-lax-diversion/
|
| - 1994: Flight 481 experience complete hydraulic system
| failure en route from Maui to Honolulu - https://archives.s
| tarbulletin.com/2000/12/25/news/story3.htm...
|
| etc.
| trbleclef wrote:
| Azul also has 40 ATRs and (naturally) Embraer. They
| actually do operate 2 Boeing 737-400 for cargo use.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Except during the pre-flight safety presentation, the airlines
| generally don't want you thinking about safety at all. Simply
| advertising that they don't have a particular incident prone
| aircraft in their fleet makes customers think about all the
| things that could go wrong. A press release highlighting that
| they don't have that particular aircraft in their fleet during
| the news cycle of an incident should be sufficient enough.
| hosteur wrote:
| I don't think they would go for that. Airlines do not want
| customer to think about the possibility of a crash at all.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Or no Boeing planes at all?
|
| That will never happen, the federal government would never
| allow it, and they have many avenues to ensure it
|
| 1. All Future bailouts of Airlines could be contingent on them
| buying Boeing Aircraft
|
| 2. Direct Bail out of Boeing to make them the most inexpensive
| plane to buy
|
| 3. Regulation to prevent advertisement of aircraft type
|
| 4. Increase import tariffs or other protectionism to make
| Airbus and other manufacturers more expensive
|
| Boeing is a national defense contractor and it too important to
| our national interests to be allowed to fail, if the 4 things I
| listed above do not happen something else will will prevent
| Boeing from Going under, or even losing market share.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Even if Boeing lost its entire civilian market as a result of
| this sort of thing (which is not plausible) it'd survive as
| military contractor; it might have to be restructured, and
| the shareholders would probably be wiped out, but it would
| survive. Note that Lockheed still exists.
|
| And Boeing would likely not thank the US government for this
| sort of 'help', because it would be read as, essentially, a
| trade war, and provoke retaliation. Most of Boeing's market
| is outside the US.
|
| And also, I mean, this already exists. There are large single
| supplier airlines. JetBlue is an all-Airbus airline.
| Southwest and Ryanair are all-Boeing.
| dralley wrote:
| Boeing's reputation in military circles seems to be, if
| anything, worse than it's civilian one.
| golergka wrote:
| Airlines also exist outside of US.
| kube-system wrote:
| Both Boeing and Airbus planes have had mechanical issues, and I
| don't think it's in any airline's interest to start slinging
| shit about passenger safety.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Ryan air exclusively uses 737 and as far as I know they only
| had 2 incidents, one being a fake bomb threat and the other
| (bird strikes) proving the plane was safe
|
| It's (by far) the largest airline in Europe and the third
| largest in the world in term of passengers per year, I don't
| see them going anywhere because of the 737 max issues
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ryanair_accidents_and...
| cm2187 wrote:
| I don't think it makes sense for passengers to worry about the
| plane model. I haven't done the math but conceptually it's like
| being paranoid about taking plane A that has a 99.99998 safety vs
| plane B that has a 99.99999 safety.
|
| For the crew, things are a little different given that they are
| all day long, all year long in the same plane model, so those
| minuscule risks compound.
|
| People are bad at conceptualising low probabilities. That's why
| they play lottery!
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| Of course it makes sense to avoid the 737 MAX. Both at an
| individual and at a population level.
|
| Someone has to win the lottery and it could be you. The fact
| that the probability isn't high doesn't matter when you're
| dying because Boeing wanted to make an extra dollar.
|
| It also makes sense at the population level. It's clear that
| Congress and the FAA are not capable of overseeing Boeing. And
| they're too big to even stumble now, never mind fail. The
| solution is for consumers to punish them. That will get them to
| fix their problems ASAP.
| dangus wrote:
| This whole hubbub is hilarious to me.
|
| People are so bad at statistics.
|
| You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car companies.
| 30,000+ people die every year in car crashes in the US but
| that's totally fine. (Of course I am well aware of various
| car company safety scandals where profit was placed above
| safety).
|
| With US airline travel you have to go back multiple years
| before you find a single flight-related death on a mainstream
| commercial jet.
|
| Meanwhile everyone I know seems to refuse public transit to
| the airport because of the "crackheads" and "homeless people"
| even though their car is way more dangerous than those
| supposed threats. I have to beg people I travel with to stop
| assuming that a taxi is going to be a better experience than
| a train or even a bus.
|
| The fact that most Americans are against abolishing the 2nd
| amendment is also another piece of statistical ignorance.
| It's such a no-brainer win on public safety but everyone is
| drunk on their revolutionary war propaganda from when guns
| didn't even have the modern concept of bullets. You're wildly
| more statistically likely to be shot by a police officer in
| the US than to be shot by an actual criminal in the UK
| because that's how dumb enshrining the rights of killing
| appliances into a constitution is.
|
| I'm all for the customer's power to boycott, but the actual
| solution that will save lives is for the government and the
| FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough.
|
| For a plane type filter I'd personally use it more for
| comfort or perhaps CO2 emissions preferences and not safety.
| swader999 wrote:
| Safety stats are lagging indicators.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| For a piece criticizing people for being dumb you get a lot
| mixed up.
|
| Car companies don't certify their own safety, they have to
| send them in to the government to be crash tested. Car
| deaths don't happen (much) because of mechanical failures,
| they happen because of crashes. They don't self-certify
| their crashworthiness.
|
| Most people don't live somewhere where there's a subway to
| the airport in the USA. You can count on one hand (and
| probably have multiple fingers left over) the number of
| cities where you have that option. For most people a bus
| adds significant time to their trip. I can take a 30 minute
| Uber whenever I want or a God-only-knows-how-long bus ride.
| Even if it weren't for the mentally ill (but mostly
| harmless) passengers, a taxi is in every way a better
| experience than a bus, and still negligible risk, it just
| costs more.
|
| Even if we could abolish the second amendment that still
| leaves over 300 million guns here, and this may surprise
| you but people also sell things illegally. The problem
| isn't the law, it's that people want guns.
| dangus wrote:
| There wouldn't be 300 million guns in citizens' hands
| without the law existing in the first place. That's why
| the law is dumb.
|
| Laws can be changed. There's no obligation to double down
| on them. We don't keep lead pipes legal just because it's
| very costly and time-intensive to replace all of them.
| That's only an argument to start sooner rather than
| later. Guns would be a cakewalk to take off the streets
| compared to lead pipes. For one thing, guns need a
| consumable to function at all (ammunition).
|
| Yes, car makers self-certify. You are not correct about
| that. Government crash tests aren't a prerequisite to
| being allowed to sell a vehicle.
|
| Example source:
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-
| will-ne...
|
| You can also ask ChatGPT if you want.
|
| And then here we go with the carbrain argument "the only
| option is cars, America is set up for cars." That was and
| continues to be an intentional choice. It is not
| irreversible. It is not something that we are forced to
| double down on just because that's been our choice so
| far. Every time a road is built or a highway is widened
| that's an intentional choice that is no less intentional
| or costly than sending the money toward transit options
| or pedestrian/cycling infrastructure.
|
| The Netherlands had this exact same problem in the 70s
| and reversed it. Something like 90% of daily trips are
| under 5 miles, which is less than 30 minutes on a bike.
| The Netherlands has zero cities that are as populous as
| the top 10 most populous American cities.
|
| "The bus adds significant time" but that's the thing that
| people say who never take the bus. Can you work on your
| laptop while you drive? Can you read while you drive? I
| can do that on the bus. Sounds like I get time back, and
| my ride is statistically 10x safer.
|
| Also, when it comes to large urban areas, you have to
| remember that most people live in them. That's why
| they're large urban areas. A New Yorker who never drives
| anywhere isn't someone who "doesn't count" because they
| live in New York and it's an anomaly. More of America
| depends on public transit than you think.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| When the second amendment was written, guns were
| primitive and not much of a problem. Law and order was
| less institutionalized. People were afraid of being
| occupied by a foreign government because they recently
| had been. I agree that if they knew what we know now,
| they probably would have worded it better. But repealing
| the second amendment now won't make things better. We
| made drugs illegal, how's that going?
|
| The article you posted said that 97% of the cars on the
| road are crash tested by the government. I think my
| statement on that is substantially accurate.
|
| In America, most large urban areas do not have extensive
| trains. I've lived all over this country, the only places
| I can think of where most of an urban area can take any
| sort of train from most of the city to the airport are
| NY, Boston, Chicago. There may be some I'm missing, and
| even in those cities, they don't cover the entire area.
| Probably at least 75% of the country can't walk from
| their home to a train and take it to the airport.
|
| America's infrastructure is entirely beyond my ability to
| control. I can take a one hour bus ride and read I am
| sure but I've got stuff to do with my day, so I'll take
| the 30 minute Uber with no nutjobs yelling at thin air.
|
| I think you're also getting confused between population
| and population density. The US has a population density
| of 1/12th the Netherlands. You can bike just fine around
| our densely populated areas, though our poor bike lane
| design makes it far more dangerous than driving. The
| Netherlands has a small population but they live much
| closer together which is what matters for public
| transport cost. It would cost an order of magnitude more
| here to provide the same level of service, so we don't.
| Maybe we should but when I need to get to the airport
| that's not really on my mind.
| guitarbill wrote:
| > But repealing the second amendment now won't make
| things better. We made drugs illegal, how's that going?
|
| People aren't (physically) addicted to guns. If only
| there were data from other countries...
|
| > I think you're also getting confused between population
| and population density. The US has a population density
| of 1/12th the Netherlands.
|
| Few people are demanding public transport spanning entire
| sparsely populated states.
|
| There are enough cities in the US with comparable
| population densities to e.g. Amsterdam.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| There are not actually, and the ones there are (except
| Miami) are the ones I was counting as having good public
| transport. (And I've spent a lot of time in SF, I'm being
| generous counting them as good.) There are only 4 large
| cities in America that dense. They add up to about ten
| million residents, or about 3% of our population.
|
| There's one mid sized city (Jersey city) and 4 small
| cities.
|
| Not even 5% of our population lives in somewhere as dense
| as Amsterdam.
|
| These arguments come up here all the time because HN has
| a bike-friendly car hating crowd, but the actual numbers
| all support that the decision to have public transport vs
| car culture all stems from population density.
| Populations all over the world make similar decisions
| with similar inputs, they just have different inputs.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > I've lived all over this country, the only places I can
| think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of
| train from most of the city to the airport are NY,
| Boston, Chicago.
|
| DC has the most convenient airport for transit access; if
| you park, you literally have to work through the train
| station to get to the airport. Atlanta has a mediocre
| train system, but it has excellent access to the airport.
| Philadelphia has a mediocre connection to the airport,
| but stronger system overall. SFO also is reasonably
| accessible by BART.
|
| Indeed, the only US city I can think of with a large
| urban rail system with an abysmal airport connection is
| LA, although LA's rail transit network in general is just
| a smorgasbord of sadness.
|
| > The US has a population density of 1/12th the
| Netherlands.
|
| Yeah, that's because there's large expanses of land in
| Alaska or the West where literally nobody lives. But most
| people live in urban environments of some kind; the fifty
| largest MSAs account for over half the population (too
| lazy to do the math to get the exact number), and even
| the fiftieth largest is of a size that would, in Europe,
| have a functional transit system of some kind.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Perhaps fair counting DC. SFO does have it, I'm not sure
| even half of the people going to/from the airport have
| access to BART/Caltrain but I am ok counting it too. NYC,
| Boston. Anything else?
|
| Go down the list of the biggest cities (all of which I've
| spent time in and commuted to an airport except DC) and
| ask if the average person can walk to a station and get
| to it and it's like 90% NFW.
|
| https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States
| _ci...
|
| A lot more Americans live in a city that looks like
| Houston than NY.
|
| (Though I have a place in Phoenix and the tram system is
| getting better by the year and it is quite possible
| they'll change categories.)
| jcranmer wrote:
| City population isn't the right metric to use; you want
| to use metro population, i.e., MSAs (https://en.wikipedia
| .org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area).
|
| Most of the cities in the US don't have a functional mass
| transit system, but there is no population density reason
| they couldn't.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Yes I was using "city" to mean metro area, as it is
| colloquially.
| jcranmer wrote:
| You linked to a list sorting cities by population proper,
| rather than sorting them by metro area population.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| The picture doesn't change markedly. Not everyone in a
| metro area has access to a city subway system.
|
| Most Americans can't walk from their door to train
| station to the airport. However you want to count it,
| it's unlikely to be even a double digit percent.
| nemomarx wrote:
| Philly has a very good airport line - I figure most of
| the Eastern Coast will? Less sprawl here.
| tptacek wrote:
| Am I missing something, or did you forget New York City,
| perhaps the best example in the world of a city with
| great internal rail and godawful airport connectivity?
| jcranmer wrote:
| NYC has a janky train-to-train-to-train connection to the
| airports (except LaGuardia), but it at least has train
| connectivity. LAX is currently in the process of
| _upgrading_ its connection to NYC-levels of jank.
| tptacek wrote:
| Right, but "except LaGuardia" is a big caveat! :)
| jcranmer wrote:
| Hey, NYC might get around to extending the N to LaGuardia
| before I die!
| rangestransform wrote:
| even NYC is a stretch in terms of airport access. There
| is no one-seat ride to any airport unless you live along
| the route of the LGA bus, which makes it very unpleasant
| to schlep a 45lb checked luggage to the airport
| ejb999 wrote:
| Just for the record, the 2nd amendment is not a 'law' -
| it is a right guaranteed by the constitution.
|
| while it is a simple process to change a law - rights
| guaranteed by the constitution necessarily and by design,
| have a much higher bar that must be crossed in order to
| change - and there is currently not even close to enough
| people in favor in enough states to revoke the 2nd
| amendment.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Yeah but the laws enforce the limits. A tank is an 'arm'
| as is a bazooka, but you can't buy either of those with
| operable weapon systems.
| dangus wrote:
| Yes you're right, it's not technically a law.
|
| I'm the odd duck in thinking that almost any country
| would easily find 3/4 of its state/provincial legislature
| votes needed to approve a repeal of an amendment similar
| to the 2nd amendment. I am more than baffled by the logic
| behind keeping it around.
|
| Even the most progressive segments of the US aren't
| generally in favor of getting rid of it entirely.
|
| The list of countries with similarly permissive gun laws
| is basically one-hand's worth, and none of them are G20
| countries. Basically the United States is in the company
| of Yemen and almost nobody else.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nat
| ion
|
| (Check out the "comparison" section with the maps)
|
| Anyway, sorry, this is horribly off-topic.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| And anyway, to your original points, air travel got a lot
| safer in the last 40 years because of government
| intervention. Same with cars, perhaps even more
| dramatically. That's why the hubbub now. The government
| intervention was decreased and the safety seems to have
| gone down. (This is true of both the mechanical and
| operational aspects, see all the articles about
| increasing runway incursions and near collisions.)
|
| Correlation != causation, but one doesn't have to be
| ignorant of statistics to suspect the system failure is
| at least in part due to letting corporations self-
| certify.
|
| We don't want the regulators to wait until there's
| another crash to do something about it.
| jjav wrote:
| > You know who else self-certifies their safety? Car
| companies.
|
| No, they don't. Car companies (in the US) must send cars to
| NHTSA for crash testing.
|
| > I'm all for the customer's power to boycott, but the
| actual solution that will save lives is for the government
| and the FAA to tighten regulations and be more thorough.
|
| This is true. And how would you get the FAA to care enough
| to do that?
|
| Boycotts are one way, make them see people care.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>when you're dying because Boeing wanted to make an extra
| dollar.
|
| I think it is naive and dangerous to simply blame profit
| motive for the problems at Boeing, Profit has always been
| goal at Boeing, and I assume is also a goal of Airbus and
| every other manufacturer.
|
| So if something has changed recently maybe one should look at
| other corporate priorities that have in reality supplanted
| profit as the number one goal for many corporations.
|
| In fact Maybe a return to profit motive is what we need to
| resolve the problems
| rsynnott wrote:
| So, you could certainly argue that the Max is a result of a
| fixation on _short-term_ profit; it was arguably an attempt
| to push an existing design maybe a bit too far, rather than
| taking the short-term hit and designing a modern
| competitive plane in the size category. The trouble with
| that is, the payoff period is longer, so if the decision
| makers are overly fixated on "number goes up", well.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I doubt the door bolts issue has anything to do with the
| type rating hack they did.
| throwaway222577 wrote:
| Boeing's problem does have to do with making an extra
| dollar at the expense of other concerns. "Why is Boeing
| such a shitty corporation?" ---
| https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-is-boeing-such-a-
| shit...
| phpisthebest wrote:
| First off, I reject outright everything coming from
| Robert Reich but I digress...
|
| There are some big problems here, first and foremost the
| idea that because Airbus is owned by governments that
| makes it some how better. Also they seem to not
| understand that "Boeing's four largest shareholders"
| being Vanguard, and State Street means most likely Boeing
| largest Shareholders are peoples 40K's and IRA's. Meaning
| everyday middle class American's
|
| Nothing in this standard Reich diatribe against
| capitalism, in favor of socialist utopia of Workers
| Unions would solve all problems accurately identifies the
| actual problems at Boeing I was talking about in my
| parent comment.
|
| Boeing being owned by Vanguard is a problem, but not
| because Vangaurd seeks to maximize profits, infact in
| recent years so called "Stakeholder Capitalism" which I
| believe Reich is also a proponent of has taken over
| Vangaurd and even more so Black Rock which puts a whole
| host of things over profits, and IMO this "Stakeholder
| Capitalism" is the root cause of the problem. It is a
| cancer in Business.
| blcknight wrote:
| I'm sure it's to exclude the MAX but I like it so I can find
| specific planes I want to fly. The old narrow/wide body filter
| wasn't granular enough.
| maccard wrote:
| Agreed. I fly between the UK and US a few times a year, and
| if I could filter by expected plane type for comfort on an 11
| hour flight, I would.
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't do a hard filter up-front, but for longer flights,
| I'll definitely look at plane type and seating availability
| before I book if there are reasonable options (for comfort
| reasons).
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| It's the only tool or mechanism available to regular consumers
| by which they can vote with their wallets. If you're unhappy
| with how Boeing has been handling their business in recent
| years, this is the most amount of influence a regular person
| can exert. Even if your individual risk is miniscule, it serves
| as a tool to signal discontent.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| Indeed. But, don't forget you can vote with your political
| vote - or even better - with civic participation: this is the
| most effective way to make change happen.
| awhitby wrote:
| They can vote with their vote too. If regulators do their
| job, grounded airplanes start to become quite a large expense
| for airlines and influence their fleet choices.
| stringsandchars wrote:
| > I don't think it makes sense for passengers to worry about
| the plane model.
|
| Why do you think we should surrender the tiny amount of agency
| that we still have, in the face of corporate profit-driven
| deterioration?
|
| For me, this isn't about a measured risk in relation to other
| known risks in my life (crossing the road, cycling, drinking
| alcohol). It's about removing a totally unnecessary risk caused
| by greed and corporate heedlessness.
|
| A similar case: I stopped eating British Beef when a British
| minister fed his daughter a beefburger[0] to 'prove' it was
| "totally safe", during the 'Mad Cow Disease' (BSE) crisis in
| 1990. I wasn't significantly worried about contracting BSE at
| the time, but the lengths and efforts that the government went
| to, to convince people to eat more beef for 'patriotic'
| reasons, when the farmers had fed their cows on ground-up
| carcasses for economic gain, meant that my boycott was a small
| but meaningful expression of my own agency when faced by this
| sort of appalling behavior.
|
| I feel the same way about Boeing, and about the greed of
| airlines (like RyanAir), that think only about profit and see
| passenger safety as an irritating distraction that is only
| important in terms of 'brand perception'.
|
| [0] https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/bse-crisis-john-
| se...
| cm2187 wrote:
| You may choose to not fly on a boeing plane for political
| reasons. But if you are concerned about risk, it's not about
| comparing the risk of a flight in Max vs riding a bicycle.
| It's about a flight in Max vs say, an A320.
|
| What I am saying is that those respective risks are so tiny
| that they are immaterial, and not worth worrying about. If
| you want to spend energy making your trip safer, you should
| worry much more about what car model will drive you to or
| from the airport, or level of crime in public transports,
| etc.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| > You may choose to not fly on a boeing plane for political
| reasons
|
| These are not political reasons. I'm for many years now
| trying to avoid flying on the 737 MAX and 787. Not because
| I dislike the planes even as a passenger, or because I
| worry about crashing, or because I have a political agenda.
| I want to use the little bit of voting with the wallet I
| have. This is the core of how our system works.
|
| I understand that in the grand scheme of things this is not
| really doing anything, but if a sufficient number of people
| make airlines uncomfortable they will increase the pressure
| on Boeing to improve their processes.
|
| The current duopoly/monopoly on aircraft manufacturers is
| preventing innovation in the space and I do not appreciate
| this a single bit.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I understand your reasoning and completely agree with it,
| but I suggest that if you feel strongly about this that
| you put some effort into actual politics, because in my
| opinion the only way that issues like these are solved is
| by regulation and giving teeth to agencies charged with
| it. Unfortunately our consumer dollars are insignificant
| to a company like Boeing supplying a very high-value
| market that is incredibly inelastic and 'too-big-to-
| fail', so the only way to dis-incentivize evil behavior
| is by punishing them for doing it.
| newswasboring wrote:
| > but if a sufficient number of people make airlines
| uncomfortable they will increase the pressure on Boeing
| to improve their processes
|
| I hear this sentiment a lot. And logically, it is true.
| But maybe it's my cynic nature, but isn't this like
| counting on a natural disaster level of impossible? This
| is something which can happen but has happened in history
| very few times (I personally can't think of any
| instances, but there has to be some company ruined by a
| boycott). I am not saying you are wrong, but I find this
| a naive view.
|
| Edit: Let me clarify a bit. I am not saying companies
| have not taken feedback through what sells and doesn't
| sell, that of course happens. But I don't know of many
| instances where individuals spontaneously or otherwise
| caused a company to change their internal structures and
| processes. The implication that consumers have a knob to
| finetune a company process is what I disagree with.
| pyduan wrote:
| > These are not political reasons.
|
| > I want to use the little bit of voting with the wallet
| I have.
|
| Technically, voting with your wallet _is_ a political
| statement, which you are sending to Boeing management and
| shareholders to make the world a tiny bit less profit-at-
| all-cost-driven.
|
| It is interesting that people automatically equate
| "political" with party or country politics, which gives
| it a bad rep. When in fact it is a healthy thing if more
| people were to think and act like you and stand for their
| principles on issues however minor-sounding.
| hiatus wrote:
| > Technically, voting with your wallet is a political
| statement, which you are sending to Boeing management and
| shareholders to make the world a tiny bit less profit-at-
| all-cost-driven.
|
| This must be why corporations are people in the US.
| Voting with your wallet is an economic statement, not a
| political one. It can be done for any reason, let alone
| an ideological one. Not letting your kid go bungee
| jumping because you feel it unsafe is not a political
| statement.
| redcobra762 wrote:
| Flying on a Boeing plane is incredibly safe, millions of
| people do it incident free every year.
|
| Bungee jumping is actually a great comparison, because
| it's _also_ an incredibly safe activity, with only two
| dozen or so people dying in this century.
|
| To put it in comparable terms, and based on random
| Googling, bungee jumping is approx 2 micromorts, compared
| to swimming, which is 12, and flying, which is 2.1 per
| 30,000 miles flown.
| function_seven wrote:
| No it's not. It's a statement, yes. Not a political one
| necessarily.
|
| I stopped buying El Monterrey frozen burritos last year.
| They removed some of the beef and replaced it with filler
| rice. I did not appreciate that cost-cutting, so I
| stopped giving them my money. It's not a political stance
| that I have here, it's an economic one. I don't like
| shrinkflation so I don't reward it.
|
| I will refuse to buy any GM car because they made a
| decision to juice their subscription revenue. This has
| nothing to do with my political stance. It's an economic
| decision.
|
| And so with the Boeing planes. They're obviously cutting
| corners in their safety department. The result is _still_
| a mode of travel that 's really safe, but the way we got
| to that level of safety is by _not_ cutting corners. I
| may decline to reward a company that has decided to trade
| a little of that hard-won safety margin for some better
| financial numbers.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Technically, voting with your wallet is a political
| statement
|
| There is a strange thing going on where any agency by
| individual citizen is called political. My efforts are
| somehow not a valid market activity, they are politics,
| and should not go too far.
|
| But any political effort by business, for example to
| undermine consumer safety, is 'just business' or 'free
| market'. They should not be judged for doing so.
| seadan83 wrote:
| Exercising choice as a consumer is not by definition
| political, but can be political. I think the technicality
| you pointed out is incorrect.
|
| Oxford: (political) "Of, belonging to, or concerned with
| the form, organization, and administration of a state,
| and with the regulation of its relations with other
| states." [1]
|
| Webster: (political, (2)) "of, relating to, involving, or
| involved in politics and especially party politics" [2]
|
| I would therefore interpret taking a principled stance
| because of concerns for personal safety as not political.
| As another example, OTOH, given party politics can be
| either pro or anti-union, boycotting Boeing (based on
| party politics) because it was pro or anti-union - would
| be political.
|
| [1] https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&
| q=polit...
|
| [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political
| dopidopHN wrote:
| If you don't like the free market you can go live in ...
| well. Maybe err. Well, you should like the free market.
| chronofar wrote:
| I don't think they're as small as you're saying. There have
| been multiple well documented incidents with 737 MAX that
| have not been with the A320. Maybe you think it's small
| enough to not worry about, said incidents are enough for me
| to want to avoid that aircraft entirely. Absolute risk is
| certainly still low, but I'll take the safer in comparative
| risk any day there.
|
| Paying attention to planes and risks of other forms of
| transport are not mutually exclusive.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| The 737 MAX has crashed 2 times in 800,000 flights -
| >100M passengers.
|
| The industry average for plane crashes is 1 in 16.7M
| flights. The 737 MAX is 1 in 400,000.
|
| This seems a lot worse than most people are making it out
| to be on here. It's close to 2 orders of magnitude worse
| than the industry average.
|
| And if I'm doing my math right, you have a higher chance
| of dying getting aboard a 737 MAX than you do getting in
| your car (obviously, you're going to travel A LOT farther
| on the MAX than you would on an average car trip - so per
| mile it's still significantly safer than a car).
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >I haven't done the math but conceptually it's like being
| paranoid about taking plane A that has a 99.99998 safety vs
| plane B that has a 99.99999 safety.
|
| That is literally twice as dangerous.
| glimshe wrote:
| The point is that you will still not win the lottery if you
| buy two tickets.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| It's because of that type of sentiment that Boeing has been
| doing what they have been doing.
|
| Until one day you close the bedroom door 5% harder than
| usual and the whole house collapses.
| inkcapmushroom wrote:
| Exactly, it's not about the marginal increase in risk
| today, it's about fighting the culture of
| enshittification the only way you can, with your wallet.
| gcanyon wrote:
| I _love_ this analogy, thanks!
| D_Alex wrote:
| Actually... 737 MAX is roughly 30 times as dangerous as the
| other planes in its category (eg. A320).
|
| Source: https://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
| kube-system wrote:
| Every MAX flying now has had updates made to address the
| two events captured in those statistics, so those stats
| capture something different than today's reality.
| lamontcg wrote:
| They're all being put together by Spirit Aerosystems
| which is a company that makes zero gross profit and has
| interest rate payments which are half of its gross
| revenue on top of that, which was spun off out of Boeing
| in order to aggressively cut costs and bust unions and
| fluff up Boeing's stock price.
|
| That hasn't changed at all.
| kube-system wrote:
| Spirit Aerosystems also does work for Airbus.
| lamontcg wrote:
| "Our business depends largely on sales of components for
| a single aircraft program, the B737 MAX"
|
| -- Spirit Aerosystems 2022 10-K filing
|
| They do 3 times as much business with Boeing than Airbus.
|
| (Airbus may also wrap Spirit in their own Q/A process to
| mitigate the issues, which Boeing is certainly lacking)
| albert180 wrote:
| Different purchasers can have different expectations of
| quality and pay the company differently;-)
| pi-e-sigma wrote:
| If you apply this reasoning to the MAX statistics, then
| you have to apply it to the statistics of all the other
| planes, too, which also received various changes and
| updates during their service lives improving their safety
| and you are back to square one, that is MAX is much less
| safe than other planes
| kube-system wrote:
| It is definitely fair to apply that to other planes. e.g
| the DC10
| pi-e-sigma wrote:
| That's the problem with the reputation and the perception
| of safety. If you lose it then even if you finally fix
| the underlying issues people will still have a hard time
| believing you.
| kube-system wrote:
| That's why we have regulators who scientifically qualify
| safety, rather than leaning on public opinion. Public
| opinion isn't an accurate methodology.
| ldoughty wrote:
| I agree that people are bad with probability like you explain
|
| However, I think the issue with the 737 MAX is that it's been
| involved in several high profile catastrophic mistakes while
| only being in service for a few years. It's expected that a
| page in service for 20 years might have wear and tear that
| leads to issues... But brand new planes crashing back to back
| shortly after being released..
|
| The stats on the Wikipedia page state that the MAX has 4
| fatalities per 1 million flights, while the prior generation
| has 0.2 fatalities per million flights [1]. Of course, some if
| this is due to the two crashes right out the door, and if
| excluded, perhaps they are similar... But then this new door
| blowout issue occured... And after investigation multiple
| planes had the same issue (so it likely is a production issue,
| not an individual worker screwing up one time).
|
| Overall I agree plane model should mean little to travelers...
| But the MAX is trying very hard to prove it's a lemon.
|
| 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX
| dangus wrote:
| Not to defend Boeing since the circumstances of the MCAS
| controversy didn't involve honest well-intentioned design
| mistakes, but I would argue that reliability is a bathtub
| curve so a new plane model having more issues is expected.
| lxgr wrote:
| A 20-year old plane is probably safer than one fresh off the
| assembly line, given how long they are usually in service:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > several high profile catastrophic mistakes while only being
| in service for a few years
|
| This is absolutely typical. Problems shake out in the first
| few years of a new model. This isn't to excuse any failures
| on the part of Boeing or their subcontractors, but we see the
| same pattern in software, vehicles, or any other complicated
| products.
| trabant00 wrote:
| Not only that but the crew is much more informed and qualified
| to make a decision and it's their life on the line as well.
|
| There will always be incidents no matter how rare,
| investigations will always show that the something could have
| been done better because nothing can be done perfect, the press
| will always inflame the public and the public will want to have
| an opinion/decision no matter how out uninformed.
| figassis wrote:
| I think being unreasonably pissed about certain things is good
| because it provides some randomness/wildcard behavior for those
| who enjoy modeling the masses behavior for profit, and think
| making mistakes is only about the numbers. Some things should
| have a high cost just because.
| Havoc wrote:
| > People are bad at conceptualising low probabilities.
|
| Speaking of which - the probabilities are exactly the same for
| passengers as cabin crew and there is no compounding effect :p
|
| Number of times you roll the dicey has no effect on
| probabilities and thus no impact on whether make sense.
|
| I'm not doing this often this can swallow more risk is very
| human thinking
| cm2187 wrote:
| Only if you want to meaure the number of times you die on
| average. But you typically want to measure the risk of dying
| once over a career as a crew, and that is very much a
| function of how many times you roll the dice. Your
| probability of survival is 1-(prob of no crash per
| flight)^(flight count), and it is not linear. Whereas a
| passenger plays the game many less times.
|
| If you don't take my made up numbers but wikipedia [1], and
| if I get my math right, B737 max has 4 accidents per millions
| flights, vs 0.2 for previous B737. That means that over a
| career of 15 years, working 200 days per year, 3 flights a
| day, a crew has a chance of dying of 3.54% with the Max vs
| 0.18% for the older models. 0.18% might be non material but
| 3.54% starts to be significant. (a passenger that takes 10
| B737 max flights a year over that period only has a 0.06%
| probability to die).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Accidents_an
| d_i...
| ammasant wrote:
| If two people perform an action with 1/10,000 chance of
| death, but person A performs it once per year and person B
| performs it 10,000 times per year, whose life is more heavily
| dependent on the underlying fatality rate of the action?
| drc500free wrote:
| See also - vending machines kill more people than sharks
| do.
| cascom wrote:
| If people want to exercise choice - by all means, and I'm happy
| at the margin to punish Boeing, but I agree from a personal
| risk standpoint it's probably inconsequential.
|
| I'm always amazed at where people spend energy mitigating risk,
| I had a coworker who was worried about taking the Covid vaccine
| but was hardly the picture of health and rode a motorcycle to
| work many days - it's like putting down the beer, eating a
| salad, and taking the bus will give you massive gains in life
| expectancy vs some minor unknown delta with the Covid vaccine,
| but to each their own. I just wish we could get people to use
| micromorts (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort)
| simmerup wrote:
| I think if you zoom out you'll realise that none of us
| actually know much about risk of things we're doing.
|
| Like there's a hundred ways changing your diet could harm you
| rather than help even if you think you're reducing your risk.
| cascom wrote:
| I don't disagree, but I'm also not talking about debating a
| Mediterranean diet vs keto, I'm talking about cutting out
| fast food and big gulps...
| ejb999 wrote:
| my favorite was watching people - riding a bike in traffic
| without a helmet - but wearing a mask (even when not required
| by law).
|
| Talk about not understanding risk.
| lamontcg wrote:
| I don't care as much about the immediate risks as I care about
| punishing Boeing for their management culture -- and I don't
| care about the model as much as the Airbus/Boeing tilt of the
| carrier I'm booking with.
|
| This does mean that this utility isn't really that useful,
| though, and its simpler to just book with e.g. Delta over
| Alaska.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Your "plane A" number is off by an order of magnitude. The
| "plane B" number is about right.
|
| Now you will certainly find it interesting to look at the
| safety profile of your other activities. And estimate repeating
| those risks through your life. That order of magnitude makes
| all the difference in the world.
| JCharante wrote:
| I think about plane models when it comes to comfort. I always
| prefer A350s over 787s, always prefer A320s over the 737 family
| because of the 737 family's more narrow cabin. I genuinely
| don't like flying on Boeing planes.
| elyall wrote:
| An alternative use case: on a long flight I would prefer to fly
| on a 787 or A350 as these composite aircraft maintain higher
| cabin humidity and pressure which is easier on the body.
| standardUser wrote:
| I am not concerned about safety, but I am concerned about
| seating layout. Some airlines, particularly United and
| American, use incredibly tight seat configurations that are a
| bridge too far for most other airlines. Getting stuck on those
| particular planes have been among my worst flight experiences.
| Now I just try to avoid those carriers, but all I really want
| are to avoid those seat configurations.
|
| In general, the more consumer knowledge the better. You may not
| know why I care and you may not think it matters, but how about
| just letting me decide anyway? I think the same goes for food
| labelling, country of origin, labor conditions and so on. We
| allow companies an insane degree of secrecy.
| nullandvoid wrote:
| Do a significant amount of people actually worry about this when
| booking a flight? The chances of incident, even on these models
| with recent incidents is still so unbelievably low, no?
|
| I guess it's a form of being able to vote with your wallet;
| forcing the manufacturers to spend additional money/time on QC.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| Yes. I do. It's a small risk but one that I can trivially
| avoid. It takes seconds. Why not?
|
| And as you said. Force them to clean their act up.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| The risk is low, but voting with your wallet is the only tool
| available to regular people. If you're unhappy with how Boeing
| has been handling their business, what other actions are
| available to you?
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| In the U.S., organizing to get one's congressman to take
| action.
|
| It's probably a big uphill battle due to industry lobbying,
| but I expect it's possible if there were enough popular
| support.
| Lio wrote:
| What's the downside for you? If you don't care just ignore it.
|
| Having the option, even if rarely used, is a good signal to
| bean counters that cutting corners on safety or quality or even
| leg room is unacceptable.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| People don't make these choices based on probability, it come
| down to whether you see as worth your time and money to think
| about it.
|
| That's the same for buying a super sturdy SUV for commuting.
| Your overall chances of getting into an accident where you'll
| be crushed between two semi is astronomically low, but many
| people will still choose that option over just a normally safe
| car.
|
| The question comes down yo how much they'd bare disruption to
| assert that choice, and it doesn't look to me like a costly or
| super problematic choice here
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Yes, they do but only for a finite amount of time and most will
| board the plane because realistically they "don't have any
| other choice" given their timeframe ( going home for Christmas,
| attending a meeting in the morning, etc ). However long term
| they internalize ( rightfully ) Boeing equals bad and danger.
| If an airline comes up and announces all their fleet is now all
| brand new Airbus people notice and prefer that, airlines know
| that and if the numbers are close they'll run Airbus. However..
| aircraft buying and operation is an incredible complex world,
| history and politics are a huge factor too, safety is not a
| factor, "risk" is, they overlap but are not really the same.
| Most of this will go away in a month or two, until the next
| plane goes down.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| I have a pilot friend who told me he wont fly (even as a
| passenger) on any Max. He flies Boeing 737s.
|
| I'm not sure a pilot who has never flown the type is really any
| better positioned to judge this than anyone else, but I do
| think that if he feels that way, a whole lot of non-pilots do
| too. If you know pilots you know they are not a cautious lot
| generally. While they get a metric shit-ton of caution trained
| into them, there are a whole lot of cowboys in the flying
| world.
| cryptos wrote:
| A little indicator about technical failures (or groundings) per
| aircraft model would be nice to have :-)
| lxgr wrote:
| Unfortunately, an elevated number of groundings can indicate
| two different things: A cautious, proactive regulator and good
| safety culture, or a more reactive/lenient regulator and a
| plane so unsafe, they were finally forced to act.
| teeray wrote:
| Proxy measures about things passengers consider "bad" are
| probably more useful than groundings alone. Compute some score
| based on things like:
|
| 1) Number of passenger fatalities as a result of a mechanical
| failure of the aircraft.
|
| 2) Number of passenger items ejected from the aircraft during
| flight.
| cryptos wrote:
| To 2) We need an app that would increase the counter for
| dropping iPhones automatically ;-)
| TekMol wrote:
| I always use Google Flights and wouldn't know why to us Kayak or
| any other flight search.
|
| Am I missing something?
| thallium205 wrote:
| Kayak can arrange your car, hotel, etc. Google only does
| flights.
| seydor wrote:
| well good that they allow them to include models as well. Some
| people like living dangerously
| nathancahill wrote:
| Me IRL
| ghaff wrote:
| Some people also find certain models more comfortable for
| longer flights. To the degree I look at the plane model (and
| seating) that's why I care.
| swasheck wrote:
| lol. i'm looking for a flight on the Tu-104 please.
| gaiagraphia wrote:
| With all the media attention, and various departments breathing
| down each other's necks and demanding checks, could we assume
| that the 737 is now the safest aircraft to fly in?
|
| Is there some type of model or theory which dictates that doing
| something just after a tragedy is the safest possible moment?
| Saus wrote:
| This was said on aviation forums after the whole MCAS
| situation, with the grounding and the checks.
|
| Yet here we are due to a door that just flown out.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| I mean, I assume the passengers of Ethiopian flight 302 would
| have an opinion on this.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| This is valid assumption when talking about particular airlines
| and their maintenance model, yet not good when talking about
| bad design.
| tekla wrote:
| Supid hysteria
| swader999 wrote:
| I'm at the point now where I choose an airline based on them not
| using Boeing. I don't even fly that much. It's not that I'm
| worried much about the safety, I'm just so annoyed by their
| culture and the stories I've heard over the years about how they
| gutted a once great engineering force.
| hoseja wrote:
| Boeing lobbyists furiously working to make aircraft racism
| illegal. Civil Aeronautic Rights Act.
| amai wrote:
| Pretty important feature for all people flying in Russia
| nowadays. People there only trust Embraer Aircrafts, because all
| other aircrafts can't be maintained properly due to sanctions.
| karaterobot wrote:
| If this is true, it's the most interesting thing I've learned
| from this thread.
| paxys wrote:
| I don't think people realize that their taxi to the airport is
| significantly more dangerous than flying in a 737 MAX.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| So yeah but I think the experience might play a difference,
| going down from 10000 mt is a different dying experience from
| being hit by a car and don't live through anything
| rsynnott wrote:
| Sure, but avoiding that risk is inconvenient, whereas going for
| a 737-800 or A320 over a 737 Max may be no effort at all
| depending on the flight (this sort of thing is really bad news
| for Ryanair if it catches on, say; Ryanair's most important
| routes are typically of the 20-flight-a-day variety and there's
| lots of competition who don't have Maxes).
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Hum, no. The safety track of that plane specifically is bad
| enough that you are not automatically correct.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Nope, I don't think so. It still has had "just" 2 crashes.
| swasheck wrote:
| statistically (from a certain perspective) i agree with you but
| cold statistics dont explain the reality of existing as a human
| being. there's something about flying in a thin,
| aluminum/composite tube with 100-300 other "souls" many miles
| in the sky that many find extremely uncomfortable. the
| magnitude and scale seem to be perceived differently by the
| human psyche.
|
| additionally, once we dive deeper into the statistics, it may
| be worth evaluating deaths, critical injuries, and minor
| injuries dimenions by different measures (per transport, per
| capita, per accident/incident). i wonder what story those
| analyses would tell.
| tayo42 wrote:
| lately Im amused by this because I actually got into a car
| accident on my way to airport (was in an uber/lyft that got
| rear ended on a highway) So for trips to and from the airport,
| they have been more dangerous for me lol.
| JCharante wrote:
| And this is what I do:
|
| Pick a taxi that won't speed or make dangerous merges.
|
| Pick a taxi with working seat belts.
|
| Pick a taxi that uses a modern car for modern safety features.
|
| When available, take the train.
|
| Don't take a helicopter to the airport.
|
| This is like saying you shouldn't wear helmets while bicycling
| because you're more likely to die on your commute to work
| anyways.
| pb7 wrote:
| > Pick a taxi that won't speed or make dangerous merges.
|
| > Pick a taxi with working seat belts.
|
| > Pick a taxi that uses a modern car for modern safety
| features.
|
| Huh? Do you want to share how you manage to do that? Because
| for me, it's a coin flip whether I have to backseat drive the
| entire way with my drivers and that doesn't at all include
| the risk of other drivers on the road.
| paxys wrote:
| > Pick a taxi that won't speed or make dangerous merges.
|
| > Pick a taxi with working seat belts.
|
| > Pick a taxi that uses a modern car for modern safety
| features.
|
| How exactly do you do any of this? The fact that no rideshare
| app offers these filters even though it would be trivial to
| add them kinda proves my point. People largely don't care
| about the safety rating of the car they are in as long as the
| ride is a few cents cheaper. But because the news tells us
| that Boeing planes are death traps everyone has an opinion on
| it.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| This is great, I now want to exclude all planes but the Max to
| try and scoop up all Boeing Max flights I possibly can.
|
| Unfortunately I don't have the time or the logistics would be a
| bit crazy, trying to reversely find a reason to fly a route
| operated by the Max lol.
|
| But seriously, if people were this anal about cars or buildings
| or trains the whole world would come to a screeching halt.
|
| The lesson I suppose is that when building anything it's
| imperative to capitalize during the period of maximal logarithmic
| improvement because once you arrive at the end of the S-curve and
| the battle of the 9s begins it gets ugly real fast.
|
| People will start spitting in your face forgetting everything you
| did in the past and demanding an ever fast and sudden march to
| the 200th decimal place.
| albert180 wrote:
| Trains usually don't crash because the manufacturer isn't able
| to build them properly
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| they actually do, they get out of the rails
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| It's going to be very difficult to avoid the 737 MAX going
| forward. Airlines love these planes because they save fuel and
| Boeing has a waiting list for them out to 2030. AFAIK you cannot
| order a new 737 from Boeing that is not a MAX.
|
| The only viable solution is an independent safety board (paid for
| out of Boeing profits) that supervises every aspect of design and
| production at Boeing and its contractors until Boeing learns how
| to build safe airplanes again.
| echelon wrote:
| "If it's a Boeing, I'm not going."
|
| I already look for these planes and will schedule my itinerary
| around avoiding them.
| redcobra762 wrote:
| You can try, but the point is that will only get harder, and
| it's not like the economic pain will be felt in any specific
| sense. You'll just fly less.
| lawlessone wrote:
| Is this a US thing? In the EU and i've found as long as
| avoid Ryanair everyone else is using Airbus.
| redcobra762 wrote:
| Southwest and United have the most, so yeah.
|
| https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-airlines/
|
| Americans fly the most out of any country though, so it's
| unsurprising America also buys the most planes.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_airl
| ine...
| hedora wrote:
| United is absolutely horrible, so I've been actively
| avoiding them for over a decade.
|
| Southwest was my go to, but I'll happily fly a crappier
| non-boeing airline if it's an option.
| colingoodman wrote:
| I don't care for any airline, but while I see your
| disgust for United expressed often I haven't had any
| issues with them. Granted I only fly them a few times a
| year. Either they've improved a lot or I have been lucky!
| jmward01 wrote:
| Comparing the 737 max (all variants) to nearly any other
| passenger transport shows that it is safe and we are seeing why
| in real time. An issue happened which correctly caused
| immediate grounding and inspections followed by an in-depth
| review and likely corrective action both to the issue and the
| practices that created it. Implying it isn't safe is continuing
| to feed a false narrative that encourages unreasonable fear of
| flying and is holding aviation back.
| OvbiousError wrote:
| Except if part of the wall goes flying off you mean?
| hedora wrote:
| Or if the still-not-redundant air speed sensor fails.
|
| There's also the recent report that parts of the tail wing
| were not properly torqued, and they're internally falling
| apart.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Do you mean the AoA sensor?
|
| There have always been at least three airspeed pitots on
| every 737 model.
|
| Also, as of 2022, there are 2 physical sensors and a
| computed value from alternate sources for AoA on all
| flying MAX planes
| swasheck wrote:
| it does seem like there's been an uptick in "incidents"
| involving boeing planes, in particular, and maybe that's
| because of the fallout of the merger between boeing and md
| (https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-
| merg...), and even then i'm not sure if that's
| _statistically_ accurate. this does not, however,
| invalidate the CP premise that it's generally safe to fly,
| even on the Max series and that is largely because this
| part of the process is working (grounding, checking,
| remediating) even if the development and manufacturing
| processes have failed.
|
| however, i'll also agree with you that being subject to the
| effects of iterative improvement is uncomfortable in the
| air transport context.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| I've said this before, and I'll repeat it: yes, flying is
| statistically safer than other forms of transport to the
| point that you're more likely to die on your way to the
| airport than on a flight.
|
| BUT that knowledge shouldn't be used to become complacent to
| the point that we let things slip, nor should it be used to
| ignore other indicators that could signal a negative trend.
|
| "And we are seeing why in real time" only plays into that
| complacency because it suggests that the post-incident acts
| are the goal, while it used to be that they're means to a
| goal, the goal being that they're not needed in the first
| place.
|
| In particular, with the door plug, the issue is that they go
| against best practices that have been established yesteryear
| (i.e., making them bigger than the hole and plugging from the
| inside to leverage cabin pressure instead of working against
| cabin pressure) and that's aside from the knowledge both
| inside Boeing and supplier Spirit AeroSystem of quality
| issues.
|
| On a macro level, there's a more considerable erosion of
| aviation safety at play, however, especially in the US. This
| erosion has only marginally led to increased deaths (albeit
| preventable) but has significantly increased the level of
| near-catastrophic events. This, in my humble opinion, is an
| essential signal in terms of potential future fatalities.
|
| I'm talking about:
|
| - things at the manufacturer level, of which Boeing with
| their 737 MAX fulfills an emblematic role (e.g., MCAS, door
| plug, loose bolts, etc); - regulators' lack of proper
| enforcement (e.g., FAA being extremely hesitant to ground
| planes after the MCAS incidents, making them one of the last
| ones to do so, FAA being extremely deferential in the
| certification process, allowing Boeing to essentially self-
| certify most of the essential stuff, if not outright granting
| them waivers or allowing Boeing to omit information about
| specific systems from flight manuals); - lacks regulation on
| crew hours, leading to fatigued crew; - overworked and
| understaffed ATC; - "safe enough" mentality when it comes to
| protocols at and around airports to increase the number of
| movements
|
| The list goes on and on. The common denominator? Money.
|
| It's cheaper and more expeditious to let Boeing evade proper
| certification and to let them sell a range of different
| models under the same type certification.
|
| It's better for the economy not to ground planes made by
| America's darling manufacturer.
|
| It's cheaper for American airlines to only count the hours
| the planes' doors are closed as work hours and to not be too
| strict with mandatory rest requirements.
|
| It's cheaper to hire contractors to do ATC and to have one
| person do a job that would be safer to split amongst 3,
| especially when it costs more to attract two more people.
|
| It's cheaper to cram more planes onto a runway than to spread
| them out; it also makes more money for airlines and airports.
| So it's better to have pilots do a visual approach and visual
| separation; not only does this unload some of the
| responsibility to the pilots, freeing up ATC resources, but
| it also requires less separation, which means more movements
| at the airport. This practice has the blessing of the FAA, by
| the way, this is straight from the FAA Safety Alert For
| Operators SAFO 21005[0]. IFALPA, in turn, released a bulletin
| to highlight how the US practice isn't in line with ICAO
| practices and to advise non-US pilots on how to handle
| this[1].
|
| On their own, none of these might immediately lead to a
| noticeable effect in aviation safety, but combined, they most
| certainly do.
|
| For every incident that makes headlines, ten never make it
| into mainstream news, which hides the significant uptick in
| near-catastrophic events[2].
|
| So yes, while statically aviation is a safe mode of
| transport, it doesn't help to proclaim that "there's nothing
| to see here folks, everything is super safe."
|
| It's a miracle nobody died in this door plug incident, a
| straight-up miracle, and not the result of some grand safety
| design.
|
| Any attempt to paint it as other than a miracle is just
| confirmation bias.
|
| 0: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/SAFO21005_0.pdf
|
| 1: https://ops.group/blog/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/11/21atsbl04-...
|
| 2: https://sfist.com/2023/08/21/close-calls-on-sfo-runways-
| are-...
| dmix wrote:
| I didn't downvote you but it's easy to blame money/greed
| than the overt encouragememt and endorsement of Boeing's
| domestic monopoly by a litany of power players both in gov
| and most importantly, private players directly feeding into
| gov / other major corporate decision making.
|
| Boeing gets to do what it wants (like bypassing approval
| processes) _because_ it 's the only player in town. Even
| after the worst possible QC embarassement, and a massive
| financial loss few other companies could eat, they still
| have lots of orders for MAX because of that near monopoly.
| Largely supported by their OTHET convienient near monopoly
| in a few markets the US gov also actively encourages, to an
| even worse degree.
|
| Airbus might be good competition in a narrow sense but only
| because having one is worse than just two. There should
| have been market players getting a bunch of capital to
| compete with them long ago but I guess there are market and
| regulatory barriers that have made that untenable.
|
| The failures, blatant regulatory capture, and complete lack
| of real alternatives can be hand waved by reducing it to
| "money" (to a few) but if anything theres a lot more money
| to be made if the US had a wide selection of better planes,
| that aren't grounded for 2yrs, with greater global market
| demand and old planes getting replaced sooner by much
| faster by more powerful and enfficent ones.
|
| We as a society (EU too) give space, national defence, and
| aeronautics basically an unchecked green light for this
| type of behaviour constantly for so thin rationale about
| domestic security needs and "but it's complicated and
| expensive", as if America and the west can't do better.
| jwells89 wrote:
| > The only viable solution is an independent safety board (paid
| for out of Boeing profits) that supervises every aspect of
| design and production at Boeing and its contractors until
| Boeing learns how to build safe airplanes again.
|
| At this point I'd go further than that. Their ability to
| manufacture and sell aircraft should be at stake. This needs to
| be an existential threat for Boeing to take it seriously.
| JCharante wrote:
| > It's going to be very difficult to avoid the 737 MAX going
| forward.
|
| Maybe. Delta doesn't currently have any 737 max and they have
| ordered 100 max 10s, but they aren't approved by the FAA yet
| and they might change their order. There are still airlines
| that prefer airbus.
| andjd wrote:
| Even if this is not a foolproof way to avoid flying on a 737 max,
| using it will provide a very _visible_ signal to the airlines. If
| they're losing ticket sales because people don't want to fly on a
| 737, the airlines will find a way to adapt. Even a marginal
| change of a few percentage points can shift a route from
| profitable to unprofitable.
|
| Airbus is already outselling Boeing 2-1. If you're looking at a
| 5-10 year lead time anyways, they can expand production to eat
| further into Boeing's share if that's what the airlines demand.
| richwater wrote:
| > they can expand production
|
| This is MUCH, (and I must reiterate) MUCH harder than it
| sounds.
| lawlessone wrote:
| yeah i don't want them to do this and become as bad as Boeing
| in the process.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _using it will provide a very _visible_ signal to the
| airlines. If they 're losing ticket sales_
|
| They're not. And neither is Boeing. If someone using Kayak
| isn't willing to contact their elected, they're irrelevant.
| (Complaints _might_ register if you're a frequent flier who
| books through the airline and gives written feedback. But I
| haven't seen evidence of that yet.)
| csours wrote:
| I bet a few people at Boeing got heartburn about this option
| being added.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _bet a few people at Boeing got heartburn about this
| option being added_
|
| Sure. They're just not the revenue folks. It's a sign of a
| degraded brand. Not a _per se_ threat.
| wand3r wrote:
| > They're not
|
| Boeings stock price is down 18% this month. Sure it's not
| because of Kayak, this is simply another data point that
| consumers are wary of Boeing. Boeing is massively fucking up
| and even though procurement cycles are extremely long, it
| definitely will have an impact. They are a plane and rocket
| company that can't build planes or rockets
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Boeings stock price is down 18% this month_
|
| Due to the threat of damages from airlines for the cost of
| groundings and regulation. Not passengers who book through
| aggregators checking a box.
| simonklitj wrote:
| I'll quote wand3r back to you:
|
| > Sure it's not because of Kayak
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Neither is it because consumers are wary. They may be.
| But not in a market-impacting way.
|
| "I won't fly Boeing" is 2024's Kony 2012.
| dingnuts wrote:
| For that to be true, the whole Boeing fiasco would have
| to be a hoax, when it instead seems to be becoming a very
| concerning pattern.
|
| I'm very happy to learn that JetBlue is AirBus-only in
| this thread. I already am an anxious flyer with a trip
| coming up in six months and it'd be a lie to say I wasn't
| considering just driving, even though that's
| statistically more dangerous, it's a situation where I
| have more perceived control.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _an anxious flyer with a trip coming up in six months
| and it 'd be a lie to say I wasn't considering just
| driving_
|
| Sure. But someone travelling once in six months, and
| actively weighing flying versus driving, isn't a market-
| moving customer.
|
| I have no doubt _some_ demand destruction is happening.
| But it's not along frequent fliers. Airlines are
| clamouring to get their planes recertified because they
| know they'll be filled.
| stickfigure wrote:
| > "I won't fly Boeing" is 2024's Kony 2012.
|
| I'm going to call BS on this. Airline passengers are
| willing to endure all manner of indignities just to shave
| a few bucks off their ticket price. I'll believe Boeing
| is in trouble after Spirit and Ryanair go out of
| business.
|
| On the other hand, Kony is apparently still walking
| around free. So maybe the comparison is apt.
| gnu8 wrote:
| > Boeings stock price is down 18% this month.
|
| I hear Warren Buffet's voice over my shoulder telling me
| "Boeing stock is _on sale_." Boeing is a huge defense
| contractor that is never going away. Maybe this is the
| bottom of their current crisis and it is a good time to
| buy?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Boeing is an institution. Boeing shareholders are not. If
| the problems are systemic, the government can put Boeing
| into bankruptcy to wipe the slate clean.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| just like the automobile industry...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _like the automobile industry_
|
| Yes. GM and Chrysler went bankrupt [1].
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapte
| r_11_re...
|
| [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Chapter_11_r
| eorgani...
| otherme123 wrote:
| A stock falling prices doesn't mean it is cheap. Buffett
| sold J&J just because they changed management, and he
| probably wasn't confortable with the new bosses. They
| don't have any other know drawbacks, and if you read
| investment media each one of them has one theory.
|
| OTOH Buffett has said many times that stocks related with
| flying are usually a bad investment. And even when he
| invest, he says that he doesn't know why he keep doing
| it, as he knows it's a mistake.
|
| And finally, he usually says that he no longer buy "cheap
| companies to take a last puff of a cigar butt", but
| "great companies that are going to do great forever".
|
| Now do the aggregate: bad management + air stock +
| company in decline = not cheap for Buffett. The small
| investor could cash a rebound if it happens, but a
| behemot like B&H is not interested.
| S201 wrote:
| > Boeings stock price is down 18% this month.
|
| Sounds like a good time to buy it then. There's a 0% chance
| the government would let Boeing go down so it will rebound
| just like it did with the last 737 issue a few years ago.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| Just because the government won't let Boeing go bankrupt
| doesn't mean Boeing shares will provide the exact same
| return to investors no matter what. An incident like this
| should reduce our expectations of how much Boeing will
| pay investors in dividends/buybacks, so the share price
| should be lower.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _because the government won 't let Boeing go bankrupt_
|
| This keeps being repeated. It isn't true. The government
| won't let Boeing go under. It's fine letting it go
| bankrupt.
| krisoft wrote:
| > it will rebound just like it did with the last 737
| issue a few years ago
|
| I'm eyeballing the boeing 5Y stock graph and I'm not
| seeing that rebound. It was around USD 330 when the MCAS
| issue grounded them. Then it was riding above 300 until
| the march of 2020. Collapsed there presumably due to
| Covid and then the highest ever it climbed was last year
| december with USD 260.
|
| It seems if you bought stock just after their grounding
| you are very much in the red with that to this day. So
| where is the rebound?
| S201 wrote:
| Lion Air 610 crashed October 29, 2018. BA closed at $357
| that day. It continued to go down to $304 on December
| 17th 2018. By February 25 2019 it hit a high of $440. A
| month later Ethiopian Airlines 302 crashed sending BA
| down again. The larger issue beyond this was covid
| sending the stock plummeting so it didn't really have a
| chance to rebound after the affected 737 models were
| recertified and not grounded anymore.
|
| But you're coming at this from a long term investing
| point of view. If you're day trading or swing trading
| (which is likely given it's an individual stock and
| buying individual stocks for a long term investment is
| rarely a good idea) then it presents an opportunity. Of
| course, nothing is a sure bet in the market but seeing
| something like Boeing down 18% can present a short term
| opportunity for speculators. Would I put BA in my
| retirement funds? Absolutely not. Would I try to swing
| trade BA in a case like this? There's a good chance.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| I'm starting to treat general aviation as though it was 50
| years ago: Very unsafe and expensive
|
| My expectation is that its going to take a serious accident to
| get anything to change.
|
| I'm unaware of a highly utilized yet significantly broken
| system (Tacoma Narrows anyone?) that was able to improve
| iteratively without catastrophic failure driving improvement
| (Space Shuttle)
|
| Most human systems don't seem to have the ability to build
| fourth order forecasting into system design across all
| individual and integrated components
|
| The idea of a "factor of safety" seems to be just completely
| missing in most engineering systems because tolerances mean
| waste and shareholders won't allow waste that doesn't go into
| their pockets
| plussed_reader wrote:
| Please qualify 'serious accident' in the wake of 2 crashes
| and a decompression event forcing landing.
| sixothree wrote:
| Those two accidents didn't "happen here" and our news is
| very isolated from the rest of the world. Maybe that's what
| he means?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| My definition:
|
| Everyone on the plane has to die in a way that the
| plurality of citizens are horrified enough that they can
| put public pressure on a public figure powerful enough to
| force structural change
|
| This is the same idea as the cynical idea of "taking
| advantage of a crisis"
|
| What I'm not saying here is that this is what should happen
| or that this is how things should happen in a normative
| way. I'm simply describing that humans make progress almost
| exclusively in response to disaster rather than proactively
| preventing it.
| plussed_reader wrote:
| So watching the FAA lurch to life after it
| delegated/abandoned its regulatory mission isn't a
| horrified response?
|
| Or is that business as usual in your estimation?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > plurality of citizens are horrified enough that they
| can put public pressure on a public figure powerful
| enough to force structural change
|
| So basically only 9/11 or Perl Harbour would qualify.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Great Depression takes the cake here
|
| Pearl Harbor for sure
|
| Ozone Layer hole and the subsequent Montreal Protocol
| (banning of CFC) was notable in its speed and efficacy
|
| 9/11 is questionable - the response was bad and counter
| productive so I'd say no it doesn't count
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| No one died or was seriously injured in the decompression
| event. But people die in car wrecks on the highway everyday
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>I'm starting to treat general aviation as though it was 50
| years ago: Very unsafe and expensive
|
| 50 years ago civilian aircraft deaths were, on average, 400%
| higher per year than now. You might want to rethink your
| comparison; it has never been safer to fly commercial
| airlines.
|
| IIRC, less than 5 people have died in the USA in commercial
| airline crashes since 2010.
| Fatnino wrote:
| I'd be willing to bet it was safer to fly right before the
| 737 MAX was introduced than right now.
|
| Just a gut feeling.
| alex_lav wrote:
| Gut feelings are anxieties and biases.
| ejb999 wrote:
| ...and in this case provably wrong - there have been (in
| the USA) just 2 deaths, in all of commercial aviation,
| since the 737-max was introduced in 2015 - thats 2 deaths
| in 9 years.
|
| In the 9 years before (2014 back to 2006) that there were
| ~100 deaths, so 5000% higher deaths in the 9 years before
| the 737Max was introduced - and even that is very, very
| low historically.
|
| (and for the record, not claiming the 737Max is directly
| responsible for those lower deaths, just that in general
| - and across the board - aviation has never been safer
| than it is now).
| Eisenstein wrote:
| In 2015 and 2016 there were 0 deliveries of 737 Max's.
| They were also grounded for a good part of 2019 and you
| are only counting one country, so your statistics should
| be revised.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Maybe a better way to state my position is that, while it
| is currently the safest time to fly, I expect regression to
| the mean for airline safety over the next several decades.
| To such a degree that the increase in fatality risk is
| going to go up not down
| amarshall wrote:
| Very unsafe? In the past 14 years there have been 72
| fatalities involving US Air Carriers, out of around 250
| million flight hours flown[1]. That's fewer fatalities in 14
| years than there are US motor vehicle fatalities in a single
| day (on average).
|
| [1]: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/StatisticalReviews/Pages/Civ
| ilAv...
| crmd wrote:
| Humans are bad at statistics. For example the incident at
| three mile island in 1979 didn't kill anyone, but the
| accident crystallized anti-nuclear safety concerns among
| activists and the general public, and accelerated the
| decline of efforts to build new reactors.
| nmca wrote:
| requiring events to kill anyone as evidence of danger of
| death is a foolish standard, obviously.
|
| People are "bad at statistics" in the sense that the very
| real evidence coming from, e.g. 3 mile, is hard to bring
| into statistical models appropriately, not in the sense
| that there was no evidence there.
| Rallen89 wrote:
| So what are you basing it on if not deaths/flight hours
| j4yav wrote:
| Scary news reports per minute
| amarshall wrote:
| For Three Mile, indeed there is some disagreement on the
| long-term non-fatal health effects. That any causal
| effect is unclear does not mean it does not exist, but
| does suggest that, even if it does, it is likely small.
| (Admittedly, I have not done a thorough review of the
| data on this). Nevertheless, your point carries to the
| true comparison of nuclear power: fossil fuel power and
| its long-term economic and health impact.
|
| For the airline risk example: US Airline Carriers in past
| 14 years: 268 serious injuries (same source as above).
| Depending on the year, that's about the same or less than
| the number of road traffic related injuries in the US in
| just one hour (on average)[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191900/road-
| traffic-rela...
| Retric wrote:
| Don't underestimate the direct effects.
|
| Three mile island directly cost well over 1 billion in
| 1979 dollars (2+B today) just in terms of destroyed
| assets and initial cleanup costs. The wider impact was
| even more expensive.
|
| Such a visible failure changed the risk/reward
| calculations which then hurt the nuclear industry quite a
| bit. We did keep building US nuclear reactors afterwards,
| but they were never that profitable in the first place
| making the industry very sensitive to disruption.
|
| Timeline of US reactor construction: https://en.wikipedia
| .org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#/me...
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| Looks like Chernobyl really killed nuclear.
| Retric wrote:
| Compare active reactors + reactors in construction during
| three mile island vs where nuclear production stabilized.
|
| Things stabilizing like that is very suspect. It probably
| has to do with capacity factors and the long lead time,
| but I wouldn't assume there's no correlation.
| boringg wrote:
| You have it backwards. Industries that are profitable are
| subject to disruption.
| Retric wrote:
| Wrong kind of disruption. If your profit margins are 0.5%
| then a tiny dip in demand, 2% spike in interest rates, or
| spike in steel costs etc can be devastating.
|
| If you're a software company with profit margins over 40%
| then you don't care much about rent etc.
| amarshall wrote:
| The problem as I see it is that the costs of Three Mile
| are acute and fairly direct. Whereas fossil fuel power
| may have even an even bigger cost (from the environmental
| impact), but as they are slow, chronic, and indirect,
| they're easily overlooked.
|
| Humans just seem to be disproportionately responsive to
| rare, acute events.
| seadan83 wrote:
| To "slow, chronic, and indirect", I would also add
| "spanning most of a human lifespan." For these kinds of
| things we often don't realize something is brand new as
| of our lifetime. Said in another way, if something
| changes in our life when we are 2, we will tend to think
| that thing was always that way, even though it is very
| recent.
|
| An example, forest fires in the West (coast US). They
| have always been around. So, many say, nothing new here.
| Yet, we don't quite grok that they are 10x worse than 50
| years ago [1]. Thus, if you look at it across multiple
| human lifetimes we can see there is a radical difference.
| Across one lifetime and it might not seem like it is so
| different.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/24/climat
| e/fires... (has several graphs that indicate magnitude
| more fire & magnitude more burn area)
| Retric wrote:
| Those differences need to be prices in via Coal taxes or
| the market doesn't care.
|
| However, the market does care if something has proven to
| be a risky bet. Meltdowns involve actual money on the
| line.
| sgustard wrote:
| This question sort of answers itself, but why skirt the
| real concern, just add a "Chance of crashing" filter to
| the flight search? Bonus jobs for data scientists and
| takes the consumer out of the odds calculation.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| the impact of violence vs other causes of death is
| similar, 9/11 killed 3K people and we went to war for 20
| years and spent trillions as a result. Meanwhile 100K
| Americans died from opioids last year and the government
| does nothing
| sokoloff wrote:
| > I'm starting to treat general aviation as though it was 50
| years ago: Very unsafe and expensive
|
| General aviation* _is_ expensive and dramatically less safe
| than commercial aviation. I 'm not sure what that has to do
| with Kayak's offering model-filtering in their UI (Kayak is
| selling commercial aviation tickets, which has nothing to do
| with general aviation).
|
| * - Civil aviation, minus commercial air carrier minus aerial
| application, pipeline patrol, etc:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_aviation
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| General aviation is and always has been unsafe, due to the
| prevalence of single engine aircraft and unskilled pilots.
|
| Did you mean commercial aviation?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Yeah I did. I'm a private pilot so sometimes i mix em up.
| Thanks
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Commercial aviation is incredibly save. Yes there are
| accidents, but there are accidents in every human system.
| Commercial aviation is the safest way to travel even with all
| the mistakes Boeing has been making lately.
|
| You are far more likely to die in a car crash than in a
| plane.
| shmatt wrote:
| Planes get swapped out last minute pretty often, its pretty
| much the only way to avoid full airline meltdowns every time
| one flight is 60 minutes late to take off. Hell, there was no
| huge meltdown in the US once the 737 MAX was grounded, twice.
| They just swap them out, the system knows how to do it
| efficiently
|
| An evil (but working) way to bypass this once 737s are flying
| again, would be to put a different plane with similar layout on
| every flight, then swap to the 737 on the itinerary the day
| before
|
| Different plane, different seat, is pretty aggressively baked
| into TOS
| albert180 wrote:
| You can book with Airbus-Only carriers though like JetBlue
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| " put a different plane with similar layout on every flight,
| then swap to the 737 on the itinerary the day before"
|
| Question to True Believers in Free market, where is the line
| between free market and fraud?
| isubkhankulov wrote:
| Traveling in a different vehicle than originally intended
| is not fraud. Rental car companies do this all the time.
|
| Large countries without free market capitalism have much
| worse safety records for flying from a historical
| perspective. To be clear, i'm referring to Russia and
| China.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| In Russia they can sell you fake plastic cheese that
| catches fire, and you still have zero chance of winning a
| lawsuit. You compensation for wrongdoing or death will be
| minimal. So it's more capitalist that US in this regard.
|
| https://www.obozrevatel.com/curious/48293-zato-
| otechestvenny...
|
| If I pay for beef, but you sell me pork, that's fraud. If
| I pay for organic eggs, but you sell me 'normal' eggs,
| that's fraud. Eggs are literally the same thing, but you
| can sell me the wrong airplane?
|
| Why is the market freer for some than for others?
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| If you buy the airplane, you definitely get the airplane
| you bought. When you buy a ticket, you aren't buying an
| airplane, you're buying transportation on whatever
| airplane is most convenient for the airline
| al_borland wrote:
| They are selling transportation from location A to location
| B via an airplane. The specific airplane, assuming it has
| the features the customer paid for, is more of a
| technicality.
| depereo wrote:
| It's different when it's a deliberate conspiracy to
| mislead consumers, especially when that consumer is
| choosing services that advertise that a safe vehicle will
| be used.
|
| If they just stopped showing what plane would be used on
| the route, maybe they'd get away with using 737-MAX
| series.
|
| If they say 'it's a 737-800 don't worry about it' and
| swap in a max every time, or 'fly with us on an airbus'
| and bring in a boeing death-tube after a purposefully
| misleading advertisement of a different service...
|
| Terms Of Service only gets you so far. It's not a fraud-
| dodge.
| recursive wrote:
| The line would be right at the point where the passenger
| has a contract that says the vehicle will not be a 737.
| gfiorav wrote:
| > Airbus is already outselling Boeing 2-1.
|
| What's your source? I looked up the quarterly earnings report,
| and Boeing reports 528 planes delivered in 2023 vs 488 from
| Airbus.
|
| Just curious to know if you're talking dollar amount or what?
| kgermino wrote:
| I don't know the source or veracity but that's deliveries vs
| new orders.
|
| Planes being delivered this quarter were probably ordered
| before COVID hit in my understanding so any order differences
| would take a long time to show up in the delivery numbers
| belter wrote:
| "Airbus Vs Boeing: Who Won 2023?" -
| https://simpleflying.com/airbus-vs-boeing-who-won-2023/
|
| "Airbus led in terms of aircraft orders, with Reuters
| reporting earlier this month that the manufacturer was on
| track to hit an all-time year-end order record of over 1,800.
| Boeing's order numbers were a little further behind, with
| only about 1,200 net orders logged.
|
| When it comes to aircraft delivery targets, Airbus again
| pulled ahead. According to the latest analysis from Reuters,
| the Toulouse-based manufacturer is set to come out on top,
| with over 720 jets projected to be delivered to customers by
| the end of the year. Boeing also trails in this category,
| with delivery targets only sitting around 500."
| Zigurd wrote:
| FT article including charts and numbers: https://www.ft.com/c
| ontent/c08642f5-3aa3-447b-9028-c1c84b8e1...
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Airbus is backordered for years. Boeing is the only company
| that's actually got the capacity to take new orders for
| larger airliners.
| stevehawk wrote:
| Orders and deliveries are two different thing. Orders taken
| today are for years in the future, and deliveries made today
| were taken as orders years ago. This is true from Cessna up
| to Boeing.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| > If they're losing ticket sales because people don't want to
| fly on a 737, the airlines will find a way to adapt.
|
| Yep, by suing the shit out of Kayak and anyone else doing this.
| konschubert wrote:
| I sure hope a new competitor pops up. Monopolies are bad.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Popping up takes about two decades in commercial aircraft.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Lockheed might in theory be able to get back in. Not sure
| they would want to.
| konschubert wrote:
| see that's why I am worried
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| There's COMAC in China, not sure if that's the competition
| you're seeking
| ugh123 wrote:
| >the airlines will find a way to adapt
|
| The industry's go-to method here will probably be lawyers and
| take-down notices to Kayak, before they adapt.
| belter wrote:
| "Alaska Airlines Ad - SNL" - https://youtu.be/IZf0bNDWH4s
| jjav wrote:
| This Kayak filter is not new, it's been there for a few years
| (maybe they added more models, not sure, but you've been able
| to filter out the MAX planes since the crashes).
| alexpotato wrote:
| More Kayak related than Boeing related:
|
| I had often heard that the best price for a flight is on the
| airline's website vs services like Kayak.
|
| I didn't believe this as I knew some of the travel sites (E.g.
| Expedia) actually reserve hotel/flights spots etc.
|
| However, recently the cheapest seat I could find for a flight on
| Kayak was around $3K (business seat to London) whereas the
| airline site had it for $2.3K.
|
| Has made me now always check the airline site just to be sure
| given the savings of almost 10%.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That's almost 25% savings rather than 10%.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's a good idea to check both.
|
| But in my experience it's far more often the opposite -- the
| airline sells tickets at the highest price to people who visit
| its site because they're less likely to be "shopping around".
| Already have more loyalty to the airline etc. Business
| travelers that buy directly. Etc.
|
| While if there's a difference, the aggregator usually is the
| one selling for less, because people are comparing by price.
| Especially certain "discount" aggregators.
|
| Also you may not have been comparing exactly the same ticket --
| e.g. the more expensive Kayak seat might be fully refundable
| while the airline one isn't. But maybe not -- maybe you did
| just get lucky!
| toast0 wrote:
| I had thought Kayak was a metasearch product and searched
| airline sites on your behalf, but maybe that's changed in
| significant time since I was involved in online travel.
|
| Either way, search how you like, but you'll almost always get
| better exception service if you are booked directly with the
| service provider than if you're booked as a 3rd party customer
| or a code share. For airfare, costs are usually similar or even
| a little less expensive if you book directly; for hotels, there
| are times where the prices are significantly different, but you
| may be able to get the hotel to match prices if you call them
| to book directly.
|
| Exceptions would be if you have a high value relationship with
| a corporate travel agent, or _maybe_ a high level amex?
|
| If you book through an online travel agent and something goes
| wrong, chances are the provider will send you to the travel
| agent's customer support and they will be slow and may not be
| able to do much, because they don't have the right access.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| The responses from people here who know very little about how
| commercial aircraft are designed, built, flown, managed and
| maintained shows through here. It's a bit disappointing but
| that's HN for you when the topic isn't computer-related.
|
| No, there is no point in avoiding the MAX, and yes it looks silly
| trying to.
| appplication wrote:
| Listen... I don't want to avoid Boeing because I think it's
| going to crash on me. I want to avoid Boeing because as a
| consumer I want to inflict maximum economic pain on a company
| that prioritizes profits over safety.
| albert180 wrote:
| Ah enlighten us with your broad wisdom. It wasn't Airbus that
| had multiple problems in the past because of multiple missing
| bolts in doors, rudders etc., or complete failures of planes
| out of greed
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| This is a "charge me a small premium to feel good" button.
| Checkbox activism. Couture retailers do this on occasion, too,
| from what I remember.
| imglorp wrote:
| Great, until they rename the aircraft like they did for the
| MAX...
|
| https://onemileatatime.com/boeing-737-8/
| andsoitis wrote:
| If people think that Airbus aircraft don't have mechanical issues
| as well, then I've got news for them.
|
| List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
|
| _" As of January 2024, 180 aviation accidents and incidents have
| occurred,[1] including 38 hull loss accidents,[2] and a total of
| 1505 fatalities in 17 fatal accidents.[3]"_
| nerdjon wrote:
| No one assumes that Airbus doesn't have mechanical issues, but
| lets not overlook the next paragraph you decided not to quote
| for some reason:
|
| "Through 2015, the Airbus A320 family has experienced 0.12
| fatal hull-loss accidents for every million takeoffs, and 0.26
| total hull-loss accidents for every million takeoffs; one of
| the lowest fatality rates of any airliner".
|
| We can't ignore that Boeing has been having a particularly bad
| few years that are not normal mechanical problems but boiling
| down to neglectance.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > you decided not to quote for some reason
|
| No nefarious reason. Just didn't think it is worth getting
| into the relative risk debate, because that tends to go
| sideways.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > one of the lowest fatality rates of any airliner
|
| "one of the lowest"
|
| How does it compare to the 737? If we're using statistics to
| inform our choice of airliner, then it's worth knowing.
| ducklingquack wrote:
| This will have zero effect. First of all, this is a blip that
| will eventually disappear from your average passenger's radar
| before the summer travel period unless Boeing is unable to
| satisfy FAA's requirements in the coming months. Secondly, I
| believe people are mostly concerned with pricing and
| availability, not the aircraft type.
| electroly wrote:
| Forget the 737 MAX--this lets you exclude regional jets! Never
| see a CRJ-200 again! The worst passenger jet in the sky.
| kalupa wrote:
| great way to get a nice close up view of the mountains when
| flying Vancouver, BC to Seattle, though!
| sokoloff wrote:
| I feel like the Embraer 175 and 195 and the little Fokker jets
| can compete for that title.
| rangestransform wrote:
| i actually quite liked the porter E175E2 i flew on, CRJs can
| go eat shit for sure though
| mortenjorck wrote:
| The ERJ-140 would like a word. The three-seat-wide single
| cabin is so claustrophobic, it gave me a panic attack once,
| resulting in years of flight anxiety I had not had
| previously.
| zymhan wrote:
| Are you in Australia? I'd love to know where else they're
| still operating Fokkers.
| sokoloff wrote:
| KLM City Hopper was flying Fokkers (which were horrendous
| as a pax) not that long ago. Looking online, it seems like
| they've retired the last of them now.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| What a great proof of the value of 3rd parties. What airline
| would EVER provide such a feature?
| pb7 wrote:
| Pretty much every airline I've ever seen provides the aircraft
| type right in the flight list view. The reason they don't let
| you filter by it is because aircraft types can change before
| the actual flight so it would be an odd feature to provide
| given there is zero guarantee you will get that aircraft.
| willmadden wrote:
| Buy a safer car, exercise, quit drinking, and improve your diet.
| These actions will have a far bigger impact on your lifespan than
| excluding 737 Max from your Kayak search results.
|
| That said, Boeing needs a shake-up. They have become a little too
| cozy with the bureaucratic/political class and their benefactors.
| PLenz wrote:
| If it's Boeing, I ain't going
| caseysoftware wrote:
| How sad is it that the state of the airline industry - from
| manufacturing to maintenance to actually flying - triggers a need
| for something like this?
|
| In Foundation, the lack of the ability to fix things signaled the
| impending end of the Empire. We need to build a library..
| albert180 wrote:
| But have you thought about the shareholders when they need to
| spend money on QA instead of share buybacks?
| caseysoftware wrote:
| Oh, good call. I didn't consider this quarter's profits. My
| apologies.
| j-a-a-p wrote:
| I thought it would make sense to search how large Kayak actually
| is. It appears the there is also a pretty decent Kayak market of
| 500 million. I thought you might want to know:
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/kayak-market-2023-2030-overvi...
|
| More on topic, as I predicted here 12 days ago that Kayak will be
| filtering on Boeing (I guessed just a max-out), I will do another
| prediction: Boeing will fold before the US elections, which will
| lead to the conclusion that a single loose bolt has led to the
| election of Trump.
| jnsie wrote:
| I just want to be able to exclude "basic economy" (and its
| synonyms). I don't want premium economy, I don't want basic
| economy. I just want economy. My understanding is that it's not a
| different cabin so isn't possible to filter for most airlines but
| it's extremely frustrating to track prices on google flights et
| Al and receive notifications of price drops only to find that
| they are basic economy.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Handy for the paranoid. But meaningless in practical terms. The
| absolute fundamental reality for airlines is that ticket price
| wins every time. Without exception. It's the quintessential
| example of a race to the bottom.
|
| If this -did- have a measurable effect, the airlines would drop
| the price of a ticket by 5 or 10 bucks if you were willing to
| take the 737MAX flight. Boom, now that flight is full.
| crubier wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember "if it's not Boeing I'm not going"
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| The issue is probably more pressing for "new" aircraft than 737
| max. If Boeing makes a different plane, are you less worried
| about those same people putting those bolts on a different plane?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-22 23:01 UTC)