Hacker News Reader

Comment by asah | Hacker News Reader

that's fine - but 99% of everybody else will fly a 737 Max for $x less and after 1-3 months of no reported incidents.

How many people even check what kind of equipment they are flying on before booking a ticket? I know a lot of people who are not even vaguely aware which manufacturer the plane they are flying on was made by.

I'm willing to bet airliners are going to remove any indication of what aircraft submodel is planned for the flight prior to ticketing, if not aggressively debating that move.

Great opportunity for a "SkySafe" app; filter out known flight/tail numbers based on the equipment (with data from public FAA feed). Can't lie about your equipment in flight plans to the FAA.

What metrics would you consider when it comes to aircraft safety?

Flying on airframes that have been sufficiently validated by regulatory bodies and have a history of not killing passengers.

Plenty of aircraft have a history of crashing. There need to be more metrics, like recent crash history, maintenance routines, even things like financial performance.

Even the best airframe will go down if poorly maintained or their pilots aren't experienced and properly rotated.

Safety is a good brand differentiator.

I agree that I don't want to fly them. The DC-10 had a similarly bad safety record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10#Cargo_...

It seems to have continued on for several years, though ultimate its poor safety record seems to have been a factor in its discontinuation.

I think you’re underestimating how much fear people have of flying. If there’s a plane that is considered “dangerous” then people are going to avoid it. It’s not like airlines losing your luggage which people just put up with.

I’m the opposite. I figure the safest time to fly is when all the problems are foremost in everyone’s mind. Not worried/haven’t checked if I’m flying one today.

I have many friends who fly a lot more than me, and I've never heard any of them mention the type of airplane as an issue. Most of them don't know the exact model or even brand of "that plane that was grounded"..

I guess people in general rely on the government agencies to do this decision for us..

I don’t think I’ve ever made a flight decision based on the safety of a particular airline type. I prefer certain types for long hauls as well as caring about seat configuration and schedule/price. But I figure getting back and forth to the airport is more dangerous.

> I don’t think I’ve ever made a flight decision based on the safety of a particular airline type.

Neither had I, until I took a Tupolev jet between Moscow and India. I then decided I would never fly another aircraft that wasn't certified to fly in American and European airspaces. The reason for this was that I had trust in the FAA's and European aviation authory's standards and integrity. That trust has been greatly eroded (particularly with the FAA) for me.

I've definitely looked up plane models, I've looked at airline records. Just this month I re-booked to asia via South Korea instead of Qatar because my flight went over Iran or near the border on the flight maps and the assassination was <24 hours old. I ended up in a middle seat trans pacific instead, but I don't regret that decision in hindsight at all.

Most people I know look up the aircraft type on sites like SeatGuru to choose the best seats, or at least to avoid the worst. They also have a preference in aircraft, e.g. couples prefer 2+2 seating over 3+3, or jet over turboprop.

They probably don't know the scanners radiate you, as well as the sun.

Having money/status to travel doesn't == intelligence, unfortunately.

Aftee a few years I may fly them again, I just need to wait until the statistics are conviencing enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com