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

41–50 of 180 posts

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#41

Post by piadodjanho »

sailingparrot wrote: post #23
piadodjanho wrote: post #12

This is not the first time an airline rebrands an airplane due fearmongering after an accident. The Fokker-100 was rebranded as MK-28 in Brazil after an accident (trust reverse deployed after take-off). The news reported every incident with the plane afterward. I remember my parents avoiding flights with Fokker-100. The MK-28, on the other hand, had a very good safety record.

Is it appropriate to call this fearmongering when the issues are real (for the 737)?

Yes. I think it is appropriate to call this fearmongering.

The planes with the faulty software are grounded and won't be flying until they new software is proven to be safe. The re-certification process will likely be stricter than usually is. Thus, any fear about flying in those planes are unjustified.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#42

Post by magduf »

mannykannot wrote: post #13

On the one hand, I personally feel that trying to avoid the Maxes specifically, once they are allowed back in service, would be an excess of caution that overemphasizes the legacy of one issue. On the other hand, could they have found a better way of sending the message that they think the problem is passenger perceptions, rather than in systems engineering and adequate pilot training?

It's not an excess of caution, and it isn't one issue. This whole debacle has shown that safety is not a priority at Boeing at all, with misstep after misstep; we've only scratched the surface of the cancer running deep within this company.

Remember, when the first plane crashed, they tried to blame the pilots. Then the second plane crashed, and they continued to insist it was safe. All the other nations' air safety agencies had to ground the plane before the FAA would. Then after that they continued to refuse to admit fault, they wanted to make a small, lame patch to the MCAS software instead of making it triply redundant, they didn't want to retrain pilots, I could go on and on. In short, they didn't really want to fix the issue completely, they just wanted to gloss over it and get the planes back in the air as quickly and cheaply as they could, which proves my original point: safety is not a priority with Boeing today. And they certainly haven't fixed their internal management or engineering to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

So why would you trust this company at all at this point?

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#43

Post by magduf »

CodeSheikh wrote: post #14

Boeing is not going to disappoint you when it comes to shady stuff. I think now I am going to avoid any 737 models from now on-wards.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to avoid the 737 for a lot of routes because it's so ubiquitous. Also, most of them were engineered and built before the current management, and have proven themselves with a good safety record so far, so they really should be OK. It's the new MAX model you really want to avoid, and it's probably a good idea to avoid the 787 as well.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#44

Post by salawat »

cm2187 wrote: post #31
mannykannot wrote: post #13

On the one hand, I personally feel that trying to avoid the Maxes specifically, once they are allowed back in service, would be an excess of caution that overemphasizes the legacy of one issue. On the other hand, could they have found a better way of sending the message that they think the problem is passenger perceptions, rather than in systems engineering and adequate pilot training?

To be honest even without the fix, the risk for a passenger taking a single trip on this plane it still negligible. It is not really rational to worry as a passenger. It is when you work all year long on one of these planes that the risk becomes unacceptable.

I despise these types of arguments. Look I get the statistical argument; but take a moment and consider the enormity of what Boeing has done here.

Their best selling plane in history is also that which carries the most blatant stain of corruption and negligence. If Boeing gets away with this type of behavior, we really do essentially break the system by acknowledging that as long as you get big enough, it's totally fine to cheat; even in a life/safety critical industrial vertical. Sure, the PR will suck, but the network effects will ensure you keep rolling unharmed because you're too big to be allowed to fail.

This is way more than any one person's convenience at stake. This is any hint of actual systemic integrity that is at jeopardy.

This is the danger of excessive centralization and consolidation. Yes, synergy happens, and money gets unlocked, but the consequences of failure also get amplified, becoming of such a scale the entire infrastructure starts getting jeopardized. More seperate, redundant pieces at least ensures there is buffer to keep some semblance of stability in case of catastrophic failure of one particular agent in the system. When the system is essentially one agent, you're flying on a prayer nothing goes wrong. When you only have two realistic options, it isn't much better.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#45

Post by magduf »

rileyteige wrote: post #34
neilv wrote: post #5

Will this prompt some fliers to avoid 737-anything or Boeing-anything?

737 Max? Yes. Others? No. The safety record of the 737-non-maxes has been stellar for the combined flight-hours of the fleet. I'm happy to stake my life on it. Despite the rubber-stamping of the 737-MAX, I view these as separate.

There is one reason to avoid the older 737s if you have a choice and all other factors are equal: they're kinda shitty airplanes to fly on, because they're crappy old designs. Sure, they're very safe, but they're just not very nice to fly on; the more modern Airbus designs are more comfortable for passengers.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#46

Post by saiya-jin »

tyingq wrote: post #38
CodeSheikh wrote: post #14

Boeing is not going to disappoint you when it comes to shady stuff. I think now I am going to avoid any 737 models from now on-wards.

Perhaps not the best strategy. Excluding the MAX, the 737 has been around long enough, with enough incremental improvements, that the safety record is quite good.

Sometimes, when voting with your wallet, you don't only go for the best choice, but express lack of support for some amoral piece of sh*t behavior of competition. That's how all the boycotts of various brands/businesses happens, even if their products are fine otherwise.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#48

Post by sailingparrot »

piadodjanho wrote: post #41
sailingparrot wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it appropriate to call this fearmongering when the issues are real (for the 737)?

Yes. I think it is appropriate to call this fearmongering. The planes with the faulty software are grounded and won't be flying until they new software is proven to be safe. The re-certification process will likely be stricter than usually is. Thus, any fear about flying in those planes are unjustified.

> Thus, any fear about flying in those planes are unjustified

No they aren't. Not until the new software is indeed proven to be safe, and a review of the Max program completed to ensure corners weren't cut elsewhere as well.

It will be fearmongering if all the above is done, and media are still trying to push fear. This is not the case today, so it's not fearmongering.

Re: Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change

#49

Post by mrtksn »

I wonder what happens if 737 max becomes the first Ryanair plane to crash(even with no fault on Boeing's part)?

Would that bring down the trust for low-cost airlines too?

Maybe cheap tickets can get associated with low security?

"Yeah, don't buy that ticket they are probably using the crashy plane"

Post reply on HN