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

Is my plane a 737 MAX?

ismyplanea737max.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 579 posts

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#401

Post by therealfiona »

joekrill wrote: post #14

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.

Planes get changed, especially if the flight is far out.

If not enough people buy a ticket for a 737-8 sized plane, SWA will sometimes swap it out with a 737-700 with a smaller capacity. This also allows SWA to fly with one less flight attendant than they would on the larger plane.

If there is a maintenance issue with your 737-Max8, and there is a 737-800 sitting in the next gate not set to go out until a few hours after your plane, they'll swap it out to reduce the chance of having a late departure.

If the site is not scraping data every minute, there could be mismatches. It's unlikely this site is scraping data more than once a day to save costs.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#402

Post by Sirizarry »

gruez wrote: post #330
Sirizarry wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take it like this: If you have to ride share and you hear that a common car used by drivers of Uber is having an increased failure rate, not passing inspections and have been temporarily banned from being on the road until more is learned; I think a pretty fair response is to try and avoid entering that car regardless of the ratio of incidents when driving that car, and when biking to the dealership to get it

>I think a pretty fair response is to try and avoid entering that car regardless of the ratio of incidents when driving that car, and when biking to the dealership to get it "avoid" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here though. If doing so doesn't cost me anything, then avoiding that car is a non-brainer. However in real life nothing is really costless. Avoiding that car at the very least would cause you to wait l…

Right it would be a bigger problem if I owned and depended on this hypothetical car but my hypothetical self only needs it for Ubers. Maybe I’ll switch to Lyft or local Taxi service. That might make me wait more but the point is that this isn’t a hysterical response, much like monitoring and avoiding the 737 MAX until further notice isn’t hysterical. It’s simply sensible.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#404

Post by bitcharmer »

stouset wrote: post #393
bitcharmer wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Boeing-designed and -assembled airframes have resumed a track record of safety that eclipses that of any other transportation industry. 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?

Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_in... You'll note the last time a major carrier in the U.S. experienced a fatality due to an engineering, manufacturing, and/or design error attributable to Boeing was in 1996, when a spark in the center fuel tank in a 747 caused it to explode midair. Before that, 1994. Then 1991, 1989, and 1988. We did also see one fatality aboard a 737-700 in 2018, but…

Can't say if you missed this on purpose or by omission but there's a few more after 1994.

From your own source:

The aircraft experienced a contained engine failure with debris penetrating the fuselage; one passenger was partially ejected from the aircraft and later died of her injuries.

This is horrific. Boeing, of course and happened in 2018

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#405

Post by bagels »

alpb wrote: post #26

Are you less safe on a 737 MAX than driving to the airport in a car? Genuinely curious, I’m trying to understand if this whole saga is statistically significant.

Cars are getting safer all the time. It's okay to drive the car where the airbag has been replaced with a spike.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#406

Post by StreetChief »

stouset wrote: post #349
StreetChief wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> A child in the middle row had his shirt sucked off his body. You're kind of making my point for me when clothing being removed from a person is the most harrowing part of an aviation incident.

except if he was sitting at the window, he might have gone out too...

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#407

Post by StreetChief »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #314
StreetChief wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Only two people would have died, so it's really not that bad," is wild. What if it were you sitting at that seat and you died? Still not that bad an outcome?

> "Only two people would have died, so it's really not that bad," is wild. Straw man. Nobody says even a single death isn't tragic. What I'm saying is it doesn't overwhelm trillions of miles of safe flight. Not flying a 737 Max 8, only to go onto a Spirit Aerosystems-assembled Airbus, doensn't make sense. (Note: not implicating Spirit. Just saying that the window of culpabilitiy extends more in their direction than i…

I guess if you think all miles of flight are the same, then sure, the 737 max 8 and 9 have trillion of miles.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#408

Post by stouset »

bitcharmer wrote: post #404
stouset wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_in... You'll note the last time a major carrier in the U.S. experienced a fatality due to an engineering, manufacturing, and/or design error attributable to Boeing was in 1996, when a spark in the center fuel tank in a 747 caused it to explode midair. Before that, 1994. Then 1991, 1989, and 1988. We did also see one fatality aboard a 737-700 in 2018, but…

Can't say if you missed this on purpose or by omission but there's a few more after 1994. From your own source: The aircraft experienced a contained engine failure with debris penetrating the fuselage; one passenger was partially ejected from the aircraft and later died of her injuries. This is horrific. Boeing, of course and happened in 2018

I literally addressed this:

> We did also see one fatality aboard a 737-700 in 2018, but this was due to an issue with the CFM engine and which isn't attributable to Boeing.

There is essentially no aviation industry expert who will place this failure at the feet of Boeing and not CFM. That said, the fact that engines are designed to completely contain debris from a failure is wild and speaks to the incredible standard of safety we hold aviation to.

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#409

Post by idontpost »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #301

If you are outraged and want to be more than performative about it, check if your electeds are on the Senate Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation [1] and/or House Aviation Subcommittees [2]. If not, the broader Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation [3] and/or House Transportation & Infrastructure Committees [4]. Call their office (D.C., preferably) or submit a comment noting the issue and your concerns a…

[dead]

Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?

#410

Post by Fischgericht »

I find it puzzling that airlines are still ordering this plane.

It's not just us, the customers, who should "vote with their feet", but the airlines, too. I would not buy from a vendor that is not able to have a QA process that makes sure all screws and bolts are in place, fastened and secured. Even if it would not be an airplane where this is critical for safety, even if it would just be a toaster, I would stop buying.

I would find it insulting as a customer to buy something for 50 Million USD to find out that the vendor was not willing to invest a little bit in QA. I understand that the 737 MAX is very cheap, but the damage to an airlines reputation, even if 90% of the customers do not care, should be priced in, which in the end makes it an expensive airplane.

Looking at the number of quality and design issue problems Boeing had during the last couple of years, combined with the press attention they are getting now, I think we can take it for granted that during the next couple of months more such issues will be found, including the "oops, that potentially could have crashed the airplane" category.

Also, I find it really insane that after all these issues the FAA still has not been reformed, properly staffed and funded. It really really should be clear by now that the system of Boeing doing the "certification" the FAA is supposed to be in charge of themselves.

And finally: It goes beyond my comprehension that someone would decide to build a version of the voice recorder specifically for the US that only stores 2 hours of voice, while the international version of the same plane stores 25. What kind of cost reduction per unit is that, $1 per airplane? Having two different models to "certify", produce and warehouse just to save a dollar or something per unit does not sound like any sane business decision.

Some people say that Boeing is that terrible because they cut corners to save costs everywhere. But to me it sounds like they even are bad at executing cost cutting...

Post reply on HN