Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 407 posts

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#321

Post by snarf21 »

rbanffy wrote: post #232
radcon wrote: post #40

Is anyone else extremely reluctant to fly on a Boeing plane after this? A lot of people say "It's no big deal, they just need to update the MCAS software" , but I see this entire situation as a sign of much deeper issues at Boeing, issues that can't be fixed with a simple software update and could affect every plane they make.

I'm not really worried. I prefer the A320 Neo because it's quieter and more comfortable, but the odds of dying due to an airplane accident are vanishingly small. Even if my chances of dying on a 737 MAX are much higher than dying on a tried and true A340, they are probably around the same as me dying from pancreatic cancer and I don't get my pancreas checked regularly.

You are not wrong but you getting pancreatic cancer is a largely random event based on factors too numerous to name and define. Boeing specifically cut corners to not retrain pilots on the MAX and lied so they could give it the same rating.

A better analogy would be if you found out your favorite drink gave you a 100x greater chance of getting pancreatic cancer, would you stop drinking it? (Note: the odds of you getting pancreatic cancer on the whole are still immeasurably small even at 100x) What if you found out this new drink recipe never went through any safety testing but the company claimed it was basically the same as the old tested drink you enjoyed previously from the same company?

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#322

Post by snarf21 »

magduf wrote: post #221
village-idiot wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, recertification will not be cheap. Second, it will hurt sales. No airline wants to buy a plane they can’t fly, but they also don’t want to buy more old planes that use more fuel. My bet is that companies like Southwest will half all orders and see what happens. Finally, it’ll drive companies that straddle the Boeing airbus decide deeper into Airbus’ arms.

The problem with Southwest is that their entire fleet is 737s. So the 737MAX was a big thing for them: they could stick with that same crappy old airframe, but get better fuel economy, and not have to retrain pilots. They don't want to switch to Airbus because that means they can't standardize on a single model and manufacturer, and they'd have to retrain so many pilots too.

I agree but isn't there enough evidence now for Southwest to sue Boeing to make them pay for all the training (after there is a real fix)?

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#323

Post by FabHK »

polotics wrote: post #275
dstola wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think people will all of a sudden start ditching cheap flights just to avoid the max or Boeing. Airline industry is extremely price sensitive from a consumer perspective, and for people to potentially sacrifice hundreds of dollars of savings would be a non sequitur. For example, if airline A flies MAX and has a ticket for 200 and another airline B has the same route for 400 on A320, most people I know would st…

Here is one data point for you: no matter the price of alternatives, I will not step on a 737. Ever.

The 737s are the most common airliner in the world, more than 10000 have been built, and more than 1000 are in the air right now. The pre-MAX 737s are just fine (though it had some issues with the rudder in the 90s, and, well, nearly 2% of all 737s built have been lost (184 hull losses) with nearly 5000 fatalities. Goes to show how much they fly.)

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#324

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pfortuny wrote: post #285
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially since this isn’t the first time Boeing’s malfeasance killed people. What are you referring to here?

The MAX line being pushed on to “not requiring specific training”.

That is this time - the time we're discussing. So what's the other time that makes this not the first time?

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#325

Post by nocturnial »

freehunter wrote: post #317
nocturnial wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote victim and not dead passenger as you falsely implied. The contracts are with the surviving familing members. If you don't consider them as victims then give me another word for it. edit: If you downvote me at least give me a chance to defend why I chose the word victim. The reply gizmo is there.

The definition of victim implies the same as "dead passenger". The families of dead passengers would be stretching the definition, at the very least it's not the most obvious definition in this case >a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action "Victim's family" is how people would normally refer to them.

Ok fine "victim's family". I stand corrected. It's not like when we change the words to describe it, is going to change how they feel.

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#326

Post by FabHK »

wahern wrote: post #307
bdamm wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP has a point. Flying on Boeing airplanes is something basically everyone does. Even if the executives themselves don't, they have parents, children, aunts, uncles, best men, grand-children, friends, children of friends, lawyers, and government contacts who do. It's not like they're sitting by the gate sucking the blood of passengers. They're still delivering the safest method of transportation around, not only by d…

> They're still delivering the safest method of transportation around, not only by distance, but also by time. It's safe by distance and time because most accidents will occur on take-off or landing. For example, the two recent MAX incidents. It's the nature of flying, not the technology per se, that makes it relatively safe as compared to other modes of transportation. Once you're cruising at altitude the components…

Yes, the statistics per distance look much better for airlines than for cars, but per time it's already less so (planes go faster), and per journey even less so (typical plane ride is much longer than typical car journey).

Last time I looked, planes were 200x as safe per pax mile, but 3x as safe per pax journey.

(EDIT: "Kx safer" -> "Kx as safe", though the uncertainty is so big that it doesn't really matter)

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#327

Post by AnimalMuppet »

rootusrootus wrote: post #168
jussij wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So past history tells us the 737 was marred by multiple fatal crashes cashed by bad rudder design. Recent history tells us the 737-MAX has also been marred with some serious design issues relating to it's MCAS system, which have resulted in multiple fatal crashes. That history suggests passengers should be wary of boarding a 737-MAX any time soon. I for one will give it a few years before taking up that boarding pass…

History also tells us that after the rudder issues, the 737 went on to become the safest airplane in history.

Not the safest. One of the Airbuses (A350?) has never had a fatality.

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#328

Post by FabHK »

snuxoll wrote: post #314
magduf wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The non-MAX 737s are still shitty planes to fly on. It's an ancient airframe: it's cramped, it's noisy, it just sucks. And it's a fuel hog too (which is why they made the MAX version). The competing aircraft are all much newer and nicer. The only reason anyone was buying the MAX was 1) because they had already bought into Boeing and the 737 and it's cheaper to just get a 737MAX which doesn't require any pilot retrain…

It’s not just that pilots didn’t need new training, because they were still supposed to have some minimal training on the changes. Pilots can only hold one type certification at a time, and have to retrain to switch between them. Southwest pretty much only flies 737’s and is heavily interested in the MAX because it means they don’t lose the ability for pilots to fly their other aircraft due to retaining the same type…

> Pilots can only hold one type certification at a time

Source? I am pretty sure pilots could hold any number of type ratings (sic) at any time, but it's uneconomical for the airline to keep them rated (and current), so it's rarely done.

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#329

Post by illirik »

icebraining wrote: post #150
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Most dangerous way of traveling"" This is the kind of alarmist stuff that gets perpetuated on social media and reddit. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-compares-142... "Well-known and popular commercial aircraft have been involved in far more fatal accidents than the Boeing 737 Max 8. The 3,065 fatalities onboard the Tupolev Tu-154 are more than any of the 47 aircraft models Quartz analyzed. But comme…

Counting absolute numbers makes no sense, in the long run any plane model will kill an infinite number of people; what matters is the rate - that is, the slope in that first graph - and the MAX8 has the steepest. As they write, "Compared to the planes involved in accidents with the most fatalities since 1966, the 737 Max 8 has had more fatalities in its first years in service than any of the other."

Also, conditions outside of the plane should matter. The Tupolev you listed was typically poorly maintained and flown to places like Irkutsk or Arkhangelsk, taking off from and landing onto short or poorly maintained runways, often in winter, with technology available in the sixties to the Soviets. The fact that more deaths happened sooner on a modern aircraft built with state-of-the-art technology, flown primarily by its largest users on routes like Dallas to Miami, should be somewhat alarming.

Re: Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review

#330

Post by FabHK »

PedroBatista wrote: post #187
radcon wrote: post #40

Is anyone else extremely reluctant to fly on a Boeing plane after this? A lot of people say "It's no big deal, they just need to update the MCAS software" , but I see this entire situation as a sign of much deeper issues at Boeing, issues that can't be fixed with a simple software update and could affect every plane they make.

Even more now, because now it's mainstream knowledge of how rotten the whole thing is. The more you scratch the more the Boeing-FAA relationship stinks. The way Boeing is dealing with this, they way FAA "trusts" Boeing. Deep down we know most of them don't care much about the people who fly on their planes, but damn seeing it how exactly that plays out is terrifying.

> Deep down we know most of them don't care much about the people who fly on their planes

Do you think most Boeing employees only fly Airbus?

Post reply on HN