371–380 of 579 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a fatal flaw in the product where precision is the most important aspect.
It’s next to impossible to actually answer this precisely at any time 3 hours before departure for airlines that fly both Airbus and Boeing. There will be specific planes scheduled for the flight in advanced, but it changes frequently up until departure due to regular airline logistics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Boeing naming is so confusing.
737 naming:
[1] The first generation "Original" series: the 737-100 and -200, also the military T-43 and CT-43, launched February 1965.
[2] The second generation "Classic" series: 737-300, -400 and -500, launched in 1979.
[3] The third generation "Next Generation" series: 737-600, -700, -800 and -900, also the military C-40 and P-8, launched late 1993.
[4] The fourth generation 737 MAX series: 737-7, -8, -9 and -10, launched August 2011.
I read a funny quote from a pilot today, "737, flying yesterday's plane tomorrow".
The fact that this is an actual concern is wild and shows the depth of Boeing's problems.
I spoke to someone who works there about a year ago. I was trying to gauge how an insider viewed the Max problem related to the auto trim issue which caused two airplanes [1][2] to crash, killing 346 people. This was shortly after watching the documentary Downfall: The Case Against Boeing [3]. The ignorance and non acceptance of fault made me cringe. I won't go into the details, but this wasn't a freak accident this…
The statistical safety of aviation is the best it has ever been - 2023 set yet another record low for commercial aviation deaths and injuries. Your automobile trip to the grocery store is far riskier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To keep things in perspective we should compare fatalities per person trips or person miles. Total deaths doesn't mean as much when a lot more people travel by car.
We do, and there has been one death due to an incident on a major U.S. airline since November 2001. You can maybe argue two, where a woman was killed after exiting an Asiana plane after it crashed at SFO. She was hit by an emergency vehicle responding to the scene.
Separately, major US airlines can reliably fly a daytime visual approach with a fully working airplane into a major airport.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But virtually no one really is avoiding it over that, they're avoiding because of the multitude of various faults and issue over the entire MAX line that makes it highly unlikely that there isn't something else coming.
This submission isn't on the front page because of incidents 4-5 years ago. It is on the front page because of the news this week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Late to the party but I'm flying a 737-900 next week. I was concerned, so I looked up if its the "plane", turns out, it is not. Boeing naming is so confusing. 737 naming: [1] The first generation "Original" series: the 737-100 and -200, also the military T-43 and CT-43, launched February 1965. [2] The second generation "Classic" series: 737-300, -400 and -500, launched in 1979. [3] The third generation "Next Generati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think we can even remotely say that. From all photo evidence I’ve seen, some cushions were sucked off the seat. These cushions are designed to be removed. If a passenger was seated and wearing their seat belt, I have every faith that they would have been fine . Uncomfortable as hell but ultimately fine. I’ll bet money the NTSB report will say as much. And the point stands that the only reason this story is no…
A child in the middle row had his shirt sucked off his body. They were only at 16,000ft, maybe half the cruising altitude? I forget if it's 35,000 or 50,000 usually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. Knowing that there is some systemic failure within Boeing must change your priors, no? What's wrong with pointing that out and being concerned?
> But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. We aren't . There were fatal issues with one system (MCAS) on one line of planes. This was addressed, and since then there have been zero fatalities (or injuries) caused by design and/or engineering issues by this manufacturer. Their safety record is not substantially different from that of Airbus (who have their own design issues, IMO, s…
Could you please share some data to back this claim? For example comparison of the number of technical incidents per airframe in use for Boeing vs Airbus?