This doesn't seem correct. I checked a few flights I have coming up and it identified a United flight as not being a MAX, when United itself tells me it is. And it identifies a Southwest flight as being a MAX when it isn't.
Yeah, the data source is imperfect. The flight information pulls the "nearest" (live, scheduled or landed) flight that matches that flight number, to give you a sense of the aircraft on that route.
Wait, what? There's no point in that.. Having flown nearly a decade its more common than not flying the same route with different tail than yesterday.
For the most reliable info, you can look up your flight number in Flightaware or Flightradar 24 -- those use actual flight plan data, so will take into account any last minute aircraft changes.
>those use actual flight plan data, so will take into account any last minute aircraft changes. But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it.
The planes only start transmitting when they are ready to go (not sure if they do it after pulling out of the gate or when doors close or thereabouts). So by the time you see the flight data you're most likely boarded already. So yes, too late.
It's possible for quality of the 737 MAX to be significantly below the typical bar for aviation standards while still being significantly above the bar of things people should be personally concerned about. Demand aviation standards stay high if you value it, by all means, but don't become part of a hysteria around worrying if your plane is a 737 MAX purely on the basis it made the news instead of thinking about how…
After the Lion Air and Ethiopia Arlines crashed, the FAA calculated that on average, the Max fleet would suffer a fatal incident once every 2 years and that was based on the existing number of craft. That's such an unbelievably ridiculous number to ignore. People saying this is insignificant are really putting their blinders on and I don't know why.
Again, that number is almost certainly an insignificant risk for an individual taking a random flight to worry about. That does not imply or relate to being an insignificant number airline safety regulators should not worry about or force improvement on. Air safety has been successfully held to a much higher standard than the vast majority of other safeties, and we should definitely try to maintain that, but that's unrelated to whether it's reasonable to be personally concerned about which plane model you take your flight on due to personal risk avoidance.
That is a big statement. Since 2019 there have been 32 fatalities connected to commercial aircraft. Most of those were iv very small aircraft like seaplanes and helicopters. 32 deaths in 4 years compared to ~40k/year in cars. We need to keep things in perspective.
People spend so much more time inside cars than inside airplanes every year, that such a comparison seems disingenuous. You should normalize the deaths by time travelled.
Literally any way you slice it, flying a major airline in the U.S. is safer than any other form of transportation, including walking.
Those other planes aren't experiencing active safety disruption events at the moment, so no. We might not ultimately know whose fault it is, but we know which planes are faulty. 737 MAX has a history of problems, and I'm shocked they weren't shelved the first time.
The planes listed on the website in this submission aren't experiencing any safety issues at the moment, either. The plug doors are only on MAX 9s, which are currently all grounded.
The MCAS crashes have been on MAX 8s, and those are not grounded. I have been avoiding all MAX models since that grounding back in 2019.
Spirit AeroSystems may have it's own subcontractors, they may have their own, etc... and buck needs to stop somewhere. The the airliner is called "Boeing 737 MAX" and not "Spirit AeroSystems - Boeing 737 MAX" which makes it pretty clear where overall accountability sits.
Right, but this website isn't for regulators to assign accountability. This website is for people to choose what plane they fly on. Choosing to not to fly on a MAX 8 because a MAX 9 has a part that is failing, is jumping to conclusions. If someone wants to jump that far, maybe they should avoid the Airbus A220 because it has wings made by Spirit AeroSystems. There's a lot of finger pointing going on when nobody knows…
The MAX 8 killed more than 300 people due to Boeing's culture. This incident is a fair indication that this culture hasn't changed.
How about checking that while booking? I’m flying usually with Lufthansa and they inform during booking about the used type of aircraft. I’ve a strong preference for the B747 ;) Other prefer the A380 or ensure that it is a least a twin-aisle or whatever your preference is.
I've heard a lot of people say this in these comment threads, and I think this glosses over the actual issue: safety is getting worse, not better or even staying the same. So it's MORE statistically significant than it was. The trend is heading the wrong way. Air safety going down is a trend you want to stop ASAP. Not wait around until it's just as dangerous as something else like driving your car.
Okay, but I'm not sure fearmongering is the way to go. There are already people in this thread afraid of taking a flight in one of these machines.[0] My mother is terrified. A subthread about the actual personal risk when flying the MAX is perfectly valid. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38929336
> My mother is terrified.
This is more or less equivalent to the little old lady in this comic saying "I'm wearing this to ward off A." Laypeople are notoriously crap at judging any kind of risk.
