Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by danpalmer » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:34 PM UTC

Grimburger wrote: post #230

danpalmer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 787 is nice, but the competing A350 and A380 both have similar pressurisation and I haven't noticed humidity issues on either. I think the 787 was a significant step up on the 777, but compared to modern alternatives I think it probably is slightly less comfortable.

> Park praised three aircraft types in particular: the Airbus A380, the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350. > The 787 and A350 nudge the humidity up to approximately 25% — an incremental upgrade, to be sure, but an upgrade nonetheless. That's because their composite-materials fuselages won't rust like metal ones would under increased humidity. https://thepointsguy.com/news/the-healthiest-planes-in-the-a... Haven't been o…

Yeah I live in London and my partner lives in Melbourne. Been doing 3x a year since covid.

Something that's fascinating to me though, and which puts a lot of online aviation discourse (that mostly comes from US domestic flights) into perspective, is that the short hops we sometimes do like Melbourne -> Hobart, is that they are immediately noticeable as far less comfortable. Apart from sleep effects, 1 hour of domestic flying leaves me feeling worse than 14 hours of long haul, and I think it's just seats and leg room. Economy (and cheap!) long haul flights are not actually that bad, at least for me as a 6' tall guy.

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

#382

Post by mft_ » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 11:11 PM UTC

parineum wrote: post #376

mft_ wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> successfully, resulting in Congress effectively overruling the FAA How many of the Congress people who voted for this are going to be re-elected? It's congresses authority at the end of the day and it's our responsibility to hold them accountable.

Sadly, in reality, such "holding to account" almost certainly won't happen.

1) Congresspeople's voting can often be related to local selfish incentives - they support local industries because that's what their voters care about, irrespective of the bigger picture. There are myriad examples of this - Joe Manchin being in the pocket of the coal industry is an obvious one. In this particular case, Boeing claimed that the safety work requested by the FAA would place the 737 Max program itself (and therefore the jobs that depend on it) at risk. You could see this as democracy at work... but it's really democracy tainted by the influence of money and lobbying.

2) The 'adjustment' to the FAA's safety work was placed inside a much bigger bill, therefore obfuscating responsibility and even awareness.

3) In a highly-partisan, two-party system, it would have to be a highly emotionally-charged topic to push voters into voting tactically against their previous choice. Roe vs. Wade might be big enough for some people, but I doubt that something as small as this would do so.

--

That aside, the idea that the current system is protected by the ability of voters to 'hold their representative to account' every two or so years is surely crazy:

a) such accountability (if it ever happens) has up to a two-year lag - far from acceptable given the current example related to aircraft safety (which should be noted and reversed as a matter of urgency)

b) even if such accountability transpired, is it realistic to expect that a newly-elected replacement Congressperson could reverse the previous wrong? Highly unlikely.

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

#383

Post by jbm » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 9:16 PM UTC

mikem69 wrote: post #347

jbm wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 2016 Toyota Sienna for one.

If you use synthetic oil, the interval is 10,000 miles or 1 year, even for your Sienna.

It was 7k kilometers according to my local dealer. Thanks for the info (I use synthetic oil too)

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

#384

Post by cf1241290841 » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 5:09 PM UTC

foverzar wrote: post #356

cf1241290841 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, bad case of language barrier. Thanks for asking for clarification, its an equally unpleasant misunderstanding as people feeling insulted by the use of the generic you.

Touché

This isnt my native language, might i ask you for your interpretation of that post? I didnt think i was being confrontational here, so i cant figure out how to interpret your post.

Pls be direct, any little bit helps.