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

Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 180 posts

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#131

Post by txcwpalpha »

alexhutcheson wrote: post #122
amyjess wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto. And I'm really sad because after nearly two decades of not flying, I flew again last year (two round trips!) on Southwest, and I loved it and was looking forward to flying Southwest again. And now because of the 737 MAX, I'm going to have to avoid them. What low-cost carriers in the US fly Airbus exclusively? There's Spirit, which is notoriously horrible, and I saw someone mention JetBlue elsewhere in this thr…

There is Allegiant, which has an all-Airbus fleet, but you're unlikely to fly them unless you're taking a vacation to Vegas or Florida. Spirit also gets an unnecessarily bad rap. Yes, their seats are tight, but they fly very few true long-haul flights, so it's not that big of a deal, and the Big Front Seat is probably the best value "premium economy" experience in the US. Prices for food and drinks in flight are more…

Allegiant has one of the notoriously worst safety records of any US airline. I definitely wouldn't recommend them if your goal is to pick a safer flying experience.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/allegiant-air-the-budget-airlin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiant_Air#Safety_concerns

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#132

Post by apexalpha »

matonias wrote: post #118
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #101

>Airlines fear some passengers will refuse to fly on the Max. Well this sure solves that problem in an anti-customer way. Your partner doesn't want want duck for dinner? Order it anyways and tell them it isn't duck. If you make up a new word for duck, it's not lying and you're a good partner. /s

In Amsterdam there is a steakhouse that has been serving horse steaks as just ‘steaks’ for over 40 years. People thought they were great and prefered them over beef, untill they found out it was horse. Its all in the mind! (Steak doesn’t kill you though, airplanes do) Edit: resto is called Piet de Leeuw

To be fair you can make a steak from horse meat, or any beefy animal for that matter.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#133

Post by lawnchair_larry »

Kiro wrote: post #119
argd678 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What company makes it hard to pick your flight that you’d need to resort to leverage?

What mid-size and above company lets you book your own flights at all?

What company doesn’t? Who books them otherwise?

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#134

Post by pnw_hazor »

skybrian wrote: post #66
gourou wrote: post #3

> Photos have emerged of a repainted 737 Max in Ryanair colours outside Boeing’s manufacturing hub, with the name 737 Max replaced by 737-8200 on the nose. Now I'm worried about boarding any 737

Why? Do you think their safety record is worse than driving?

Far worse than my safety record for driving that is for sure.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#135

Post by chongli »

ulfw wrote: post #124
magduf wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The planes they built before the current era of management should be ok. I've heard the 777 has the best safety record of any plane flying, but it was engineered before the current management.

I very much agree with that in terms of the old 777-200(ER) and 777-300(ER). The upcoming 777-8 and -9 don't fill me with confidence though.

Yes and that's the point. As a lay person it's not my business to determine which Boeing aircraft are safe and which aren't. Boeing's conduct has dealt tremendous damage to their reputation for safety and this casts a shadow over the entire fleet. They have to do a lot of work to rebuild that reputation and restore the public trust.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#136

Post by addicted »

djsumdog wrote: post #95
retSava wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This company is dead. Doubt it. For you perhaps, but the short memory of the general public, rebranding, and Boeing rebates (probably some generous amounts of heavy wine'n'dine), mean they will definitively show up at an airport near you.

The 737 survived one serious design flaw decades ago (the stuck rudder issue). People will forget about this as well.

The argument is that the issue with Boeing isn’t that they had a flaw with the 737 Max, but that their entire culture has moved away from a safety focused engineering one.

If that is indeed the case, it’s unlikely the 737 Max’s flaw is the last one (in fact, we know it isn’t, and that the FAA discovered something else, which is why it was sent back to Boeing).

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#137

Post by skybrian »

imtyler wrote: post #125
skybrian wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Do you think their safety record is worse than driving?

You're comparing the mortality rate of automobile travel to that of aircraft travel. Would you also compare the rates at which the two forms of travel are subject to, say, bird collisions? Comparing the two is drawing a false equivalence. Yes, flying and driving are both modes of transportation, but they're radically different in terms of methodology.

I don't understand your objection. I asked a question. I didn't pick a methodology for comparison, so you can choose your own.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#138

Post by txcwpalpha »

soapdog wrote: post #127
btgeekboy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny how quick we forget things like the totally insane control scheme that brought down the AirFrance Airbus.

But the Airbuses were not grounded right? It is a different thing when they end up grounding all planes of a given model...

The very first passenger flight of the A320 was said to have been brought down by a software issue* and was effectively grounded by its launch being delayed. It isn't exactly the same situation, but its close enough to draw some parallels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

* - official reports blamed the pilot, but the pilot blamed the new software in the plane. Airbus was also accused of tampering with evidence to blame the pilot. These are also some parallels to Boeing's involvement in the initial MAX crash...

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#139

Post by skybrian »

benj111 wrote: post #96
skybrian wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Do you think their safety record is worse than driving?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Compare pilots to drivers or cars to planes. I would guess that somewhere north of 90% of crashes are human error mainly or completely.

I didn't actually do the comparison. I asked a question. You can choose your own methodology.

But if you die, it doesn't matter whether it's human error or not, so it might be better to compare overall risk from all causes?

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#140

Post by imtyler »

skybrian wrote: post #137
imtyler wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing the mortality rate of automobile travel to that of aircraft travel. Would you also compare the rates at which the two forms of travel are subject to, say, bird collisions? Comparing the two is drawing a false equivalence. Yes, flying and driving are both modes of transportation, but they're radically different in terms of methodology.

I don't understand your objection. I asked a question. I didn't pick a methodology for comparison, so you can choose your own.

Respectfully, my objection is the implication that people should be okay with an "acceptable rate of mortality" for air travel because there's a relatively high rate of mortality for automobile travel (which is unrelated.)
Post reply on HN