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

FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 884 posts

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#381

Post by spr93 »

abawany wrote: post #204
ugiox wrote: post #151

How to avoid the 737 Max? Fly only airlines that don’t have it. Luckily there are still a few around in Europe. Since the two fatal crashes I have avoided doing flights with 737s.

In the US, Delta seems to fly a lot of Airbus but unfortunately this is fast changing too based on their recent-ish large Boeing orders.

JetBlue has an all Airbus and Embraer 175 fleet. No matter what you book on B6 mainline, you're getting a comfortable airliner.

Virgin America had an all-Airbus fleet...until Alaska bought them and ditched the Airbus leases because 'Merica-Seattle-Boeing or something. (I'm sure they justified it as mechanical/maintenance efficiencies from operating a single type, but they made a bad mistake staying all-in on a failing company's product.)

Delta's famously agnostic - they fly whatever is net cheapest for them, even if it's an old airframe (that they own outright) that sucks fuel (rather than a more fuel-efficient plane that they lease). Boeings got cheap after the MAX problems. On the plus side, Delta is a very well run operation with competent maintenance.

And then there's Southwest. All Boeing, bad maintenance history. A culture that hates change and new technology.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#382

Post by swarnie »

operatingthetan wrote: post #107
swarnie wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public don't get a vote, companies aren't a democracy.

No one said they got a vote, snark unnecessary.

So why would the public opinion even matter.

I'm confused by your original point.

No one picks a flight based on what plane takes them there. Its Departure/destination/time/price/connections.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#384

Post by mihaaly »

throwaheyy wrote: post #181
agubelu wrote: post #156

A bit off-topic, but I found it curious that Ryanair refuses to call their Max fleet "737 Max-8", instead they go for "737-8200" in both their safety cards and cabin briefings. I wonder if this is common and if other airlines do the same after the reputational damage from the crashes and groundings.

They call it that because their plane is in fact not a 737 Max 8. Ryanair’s aircraft is a different variant, made only for them, the Max 200 which is the same size as a Max 8 but has the extra exits for up to 200 pax.

...so basically the same just named to sound remarkably different. One more exit and it is not at all the problematic MAX anymore! ;)

Surprised they still call it 737 then. :)

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#385

Post by 23B1 »

samtho wrote: post #364
23B1 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly should we "exercise restraint in becoming too reductionistic on complicated engineering problems"?

When we reduce complicated problems down to inaccurate trivial ones by stripping out important details and nuance, we end up with a caricature of the original - one that easily devolves into a to strawman argument to serve someone’s point. This new representation masquerading as the original can carry the same weight as the one it was based off of.

This is spreadsheet brain thinking – likely the same MDD dorks used to justify cutting corners.

There's no nuance when people are dying. None whatsoever.

If someone can't agree to that sort of black-and-white thinking, probably they should be working in an industry where innocent lives aren't dependent upon sound decision-making.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#386

Post by eternityforest »

lostlogin wrote: post #258
CamperBob2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like sneaking a bomb on board for safety purposes. "I mean, what are the odds that there are TWO bombs on this plane?"

‘Satisfaction of search’ is very much a thing. In my field (I’m a radiographer), finding an abnormally is a classic reason to miss another one nearby. To quote a cardiologist I worked with, ‘keep scanning, you can have ticks and lice’. https://radiopaedia.org/articles/satisfaction-of-search-erro...

I notice this a lot in everyday life, with things like getting a text while heading out the door, answering it, then forgetting there were other tasks and leaving sans keys and wallet

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#387

Post by mission_failed »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #34

This is sort of ironic because they asked to bypass some safety checks on the 737 max 7 recently. Note this is a different model. EDIT: The bypass is about the deicer. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...

It's not a safety check bypass. Boeing wants to make pilots responsible for turning off the deicer within 5 min of ice disappearing to prevent the flawed engines breaking apart in flight.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#388

Post by nerdjon »

binoct wrote: post #305
nerdjon wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have made the decision that unless I absolutely can’t avoid it I am avoiding Boeing for the near future entirely. But a 737 max is full no go for me no matter what the situation is. I will do multiple stops before stepping foot on one. Personally I fly exclusively JetBlue in the US and they use Airbus almost exclusively. They have a few of whatever that other brand is. No Boeing.

Please don’t read this as a defense of Boeing, especially the MAX series aircraft, but from a flyer-safety standpoint the statistics show most Boeing aircraft in operation today are extremely safe. The post-200 series 737s, not including the MAX, have some of the largest accumulated flight miles and lowest incident rates of any aircraft ever. The 777 and 747-400 also have exceptional safety records. Even the aging 75…

That is valid and that’s why I am not quite No Boeing.

But it’s a last choice for me, if the choice exists and I am willing to put up with some inconveniences.

Especially given that this seems to be a manufacturing problem and not a problem with the series itself, does have me worried about other planes even on those other lines if it is a fundamental issue with Boeing in recent years.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#389

Post by Havoc »

einpoklum wrote: post #253

I realize it might not be fair to ask right at this moment, but: How come Boeing hasn't produced a clean-sheet-design replacement for the 737, despite its extreme age? I mean, since its design, the 747, 757 and 767 have come and gone, variants and all, no production continuing. Why the endless adaptations of this old thing: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Boeing_7... ?

>clean-sheet-design

Won't help if there are issues at each step. Design, manufacturing, certification, pilot training, "self-certification" etc. Even if they start from scratch - until they fix their corporate culture the outcomes will stay the same.

Re: FAA orders grounding of more than 170 Boeing 737 Max 9s

#390

Post by Macha »

hasperdi wrote: post #379
brcmthrowaway wrote: post #257

How does Embraer compare to Boeing/Airbus? Why don't they take Boeing's position in the market?

Embraer was a smaller manufacturer, much smaller than Boeing. The had some success, but it was tough for them to compete with Boeing, especially because Boeing bullied them through regulators. They outmanoeuvred Boeing by letting Airbus buy them for 1 dollar. Now Embraer planes are rebranded as Airbus 200 series

That was Bombardier, not Embraer.

It's also not clear at all that that was a win for Bombardier, other than giving a free win to Airbus to spite Boeing. Given up the project that they were relying on for the future direction of the company for a nominal sum?

Airbus made out like bandits, and the government of Quebec cut their losses, but Bombardier almost certainly lost as badly as Boeing in the C-Series/A200 outcome.

Post reply on HN