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

Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 384 posts

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#361

Post by parineum »

mft_ wrote: post #203
parineum wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe if Boeing, you know, lobby to lower these safety restrictions then those pesky quality control checks will reduce and somehow everything will just work out just fine I am open to the possibility that an industry might be over-regulated and also expect that the people who would be most likely to try and correct that imbalance would be the companies in the industry. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to m…

Such a skewed world view! If I follow you, then: a) you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest b) you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them c) you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation Wow.

> you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest

I didn't say that. I said I'm okay with them lobbying for their interests and that am open to the idea that some industries might be over-regulated and that the companies in that industry are in the best position to know that.

> you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them

Yes.

> you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation

Again, I didn't say that. I used that as an analogy. Analogies aren't perfect. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I expect you know exactly what I was getting at and chose to misinterpret me so you can dunk on the strawman.

My overall point being, if you're upset with deregulation, you should direct your ire at the regulators who took the word of lobbyists at face value instead of doing their jobs.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#362

Post by Eisenstein »

_heimdall wrote: post #359
Eisenstein wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately corporations are not democracies, so no matter what happens, they can ignore our 'vote' when we use dollars. Spending or not spending money does not compel any company to do anything. So, the comparison is not valid.

Companies are entirely driven by money. If one person chooses not to patronize the business it probably won't change anything. But ehst if a hundred do? Or a hundred thousand? Agree or disagree with the politics behind it, Budweiser was absolutely rocked by a large enough number of customers deciding to no longer buy their product. The comparison is absolutely valid from where I sit. One vote or one customs makes lit…

They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. Case in point -- Zuckerberg is blowing billions of dollars on VR without a path to profitability. No one can make him do anything -- he can tank Facebook/Meta if he wants to, regardless of how many people do or do not buy Quests.

Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#363

Post by vsl »

charles_f wrote: post #331
sandworm101 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aircraft are not minivans. Whether a ship, large truck, aircraft, power plant, datacenter, or new house, its is normal for complex systems to suffer more faults when brand new. This was a dramatic and unacceptable fault, but the idea that brand new planes sould have fewer faults than those a few years older doesnt mesh with the reality of such complex and dynamic products.

> brand new planes The whole shtick is that it's not a brand new plane . Boeing sought (and obtained, and seeks yet again) exemptions because it's "just a 737". Pretending that it is a brand new plane would mean they lied to avoid costly and time consuming safety certifications. You can't have it both ways.

Brand new plane, not brand new model. The plane was out of factory 2 months ago, this could well be assembly defect.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#364

Post by dang »

amluto wrote: post #12

Better link: https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18znz5p/as_1282_k... (The tweet is just referencing this and a flighradar track, poorly.)

Thanks! a mod changed the URL to that from https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1743460035135476030 above.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#365

Post by Tylast »

tedd4u wrote: post #330

The Air Current reports [1] that the same aircraft experienced pressurization warnings on two flights the prior day. [1] https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/alaska-737-max-9-t...

I'm surprised that this aspect isn't discussed more. Alaska Airlines knew this plane had a problem, but chose to fly it anyway. Ughhh!

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#366

Post by _heimdall »

Eisenstein wrote: post #362
_heimdall wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are entirely driven by money. If one person chooses not to patronize the business it probably won't change anything. But ehst if a hundred do? Or a hundred thousand? Agree or disagree with the politics behind it, Budweiser was absolutely rocked by a large enough number of customers deciding to no longer buy their product. The comparison is absolutely valid from where I sit. One vote or one customs makes lit…

They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. Case in point -- Zuckerberg is blowing billions of dollars on VR without a path to profitability. No one can make him do anything -- he can tank Facebook/Meta if he wants to, regardless of how many people do or do not buy Quests. Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just be…

> Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell.

I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar.

> They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it.

That's not true for publicly traded companies, they are legally obligated to do what is best for their shareholders. Obviously no one can predict the future so they only do what they believe is best and can get it wrong, like Zuckerberg seems to have done with the metaverse bet.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#367

Post by Eisenstein »

_heimdall wrote: post #366
Eisenstein wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. Case in point -- Zuckerberg is blowing billions of dollars on VR without a path to profitability. No one can make him do anything -- he can tank Facebook/Meta if he wants to, regardless of how many people do or do not buy Quests. Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just be…

> Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell. I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I neve…

> I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar.

Regulation is the answer to this question. Asking a person to not fly and pretending that makes a difference to a huge airline is minimizing how much of a burden it is to have to deal with as an individual (a lot) vs how much difference it might make to the company (none). By comparing it to a democratic vote (mandating a change in government forcing accountability to the populace), I see it as effectively stating that money can take the place of democracy and that means that those with more money get more votes. This is a terrible way to think the world should work, so let's work on getting corporations to do the right thing by making them do it and not hoping they might because we decided not to give them money that they didn't know they didn't get from us.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#368

Post by _heimdall »

Eisenstein wrote: post #367
_heimdall wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell. I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I neve…

> I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar. Regulation is the answer to this question. Asking a person to not fly and p…

> Regulation is the answer to this question.

Regulation should almost never be the answer in my opinion, it should be an absolute last resort. Regulation requires government officials that both deeply understand the market today and where it will be in the future. They need to be able to define clear and relevant metrics, rules without loopholes, and do it while the large financial incentives of the industry are trying to buy their way out of real regulation. This can be done but is extremely difficult, and when done wrong can just make things worse.

> Asking a person to not fly and pretending that makes a difference to a huge airline is minimizing how much of a burden it is to have to deal with as an individual (a lot) vs how much difference it might make to the company (none).

There are certainly times where not flying would be a heavy burden, but I expect the average person flies quite often for nonessential trips that could be skipped if they wanted to out of safety concerns or disapproval of the companies involved. Have a sick parent a few state or countries away? Driving could be a big burden compared to flying. Wanting a vacation to get away from work and enjoy a week with your family? I'd argue that most people could do that st home or within driving distance if that was important to them.

> By comparing it to a democratic vote (mandating a change in government forcing accountability to the populace), I see it as effectively stating that money can take the place of democracy and that means that those with more money get more votes.

Again you're putting words in my mouth that I never said. I am comparing the power an individual voter has in their political system with the power they have as an individual customer in their economic system. I am not saying that money takes the place of votes or that the systems are interchangeable. Money should play much less of a role in politics than it does today and politics should play much less of a role in business.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#369

Post by mft_ »

parineum wrote: post #361
mft_ wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a skewed world view! If I follow you, then: a) you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest b) you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every instance, despite the pressure and temptation placed upon them c) you see no problem with this setup, and see no need to alter this situation Wow.

> you’re okay with companies (effectively) acting like mobsters, in their own pecuniary interest I didn't say that. I said I'm okay with them lobbying for their interests and that am open to the idea that some industries might be over-regulated and that the companies in that industry are in the best position to know that. > you expect every (individual, human) government official to act morally and correctly in every…

Eh, I was being a touch snarky using your mobster analogy back at you somewhat out of context, but other than that, I wasn't really straw-manning much at all.

I guess the root of where we seem to disagree is the extent to which it's reasonable for companies to lobby, and the extent to which we believe it's reasonable to expect government employees to be the last bastion of reason and good conduct, despite everything that might be brought to bear against them.

Part of the case with Boeing and the 737 Max is actually more extreme than this, and also really interesting, as Boeing's financial interest is set clearly and diametrically against the interests of the public who might fly on their planes. Here's a precis (as I understand it): following the two earlier actual crashes of the Max (each killing hundreds of people) the FAA requested changes to those planes, to make them safer. Boeing lobbied against these changes, successfully, resulting in Congress effectively overruling the FAA, via a provision in the recent spending bill. [0]

How does this make sense, in any rational world?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38896095

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#370

Post by stemlord »

bitwidget wrote: post #323
qxfys wrote: post #154

For the past two months, I have been avoiding 4 737max flights already. This is to the extent that one of them was to transit for 10 hours (without max), compared to a 2-hour convenient layover with 737max. I guess this will stay as my personal rule of thumb for the foreseeable future.

You're spending an extra 8 hours to marginally (at best) improve safety? I'd be willing to bet good money that you partake in wildly more risky activity (such as driving or even walking down the street). This feels almost like virtue signaling without it being virtue signaling.

FWIW being involved in a commercial airliner accident is an order of magnitude more terrifying a prospect than getting in a car accident. If there's a one in a million chance that multiple of my worst nightmares could be realized-- plummeting from 30,000ft, being stranded in the middle of the ocean at night, enduring such things due to the hubris, greed, bullshittery of some shmucks currently warm and cozy in their mansions somewhere-- I will have that one in a million chance top of mind. especially when it makes the news multiple times within a few years!
Post reply on HN