Not only will I never fly this plane again, but I'll do my best to avoid Boeing altogether. Given that I'm European, it should be fairly easy.
Seems excessive. Most of Boeing plane families have been flying for decades. We're unlikely to discover new major failure modes in them at this point.
If anything, I'd wait before flying any recent Boeing designs.
Why does this change anything? Every major European carrier flies Boeing aircraft. Some exclusively.
Two Boeing 737max out of a total close to 400 crashed in the span of around a year before being grounded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings
The FAA predicted that the Boeing 737max would cause about 15 crashes during the next 30 years.
The right figure to look at is how many plane crashes there are with other commercial flight planes of the same class due to design defects covered up like Boeig did, which is zero.
You seem to have mistakenly believe that I'm defending Boeing here. I'm not. The following two things can be simultaneously true: The 737 MAX is less safe than other aircraft, and the 737 MAX is still safer than driving.
Look at how many car crashes leading to fatalities there were over those two years and it's a lot more than the mere 2 with the 737 MAX. The point still stands; the only reasonable way to make comparisons here is not by absolute number, but per passenger distance traveled. Any other comparison isn't correctly normalizing the things being compared.
That's your personal decision, and one you feel you meet to be vocal about on public forums.
Others feel the exact opposite, and flying Boeing is a risk not worth taking due to the company's track record.
Think about it for a second: your decision comes down to either fly with company A or company B, who have pretty identical offers, and company B flies planes with known safety problems. Not a hard decision.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-probe/airbus-bribe...
Yes, in almost duopoly in civilian flying, I will take Airbus anytime. And never, ever, fucking ever 737 Max.
I've more critical of Boeing than some folks here in the past, but if your goal is safety, you're just limiting your own options by rejecting planes with provably good safety records. (Or if you somehow think that's warranted, then there seem to be plenty of reasons to question Airbus's integrity too.) OTOH, if your goal is to just do this as some kind of economic retaliation (a "vote with your wallet" thing), in which case, never mind, I misunderstood your goal as being safety-related. Though you're not the person who wrote the initial comment, so I guess your reason could be different.
As much as all other Boeing airframes can be safe, I'm not confident at all with the way Boeing's management runs the company. What other cost-cutting measures have been implemented? How can they affect current airframes maintenance and reliability? It probably doesn't affect them much but it's been blunder after blunder from Boeing, from the 777 built at Charleston, the 737 MAX fiasco and the 787.
As an airline customer I'm completely dependent on trust that Boeing was doing things correctly, from a safety standpoint at least. I don't have that trust anymore and it'll take decades to earn it back.
> A conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless
> Excusing your mistakes with whataboutism is not the same as defending your record.
This was emphatically not what I was doing.
and how is highlighting airbus misconduct not a textbook example of this?
you even linked the explanation sentence, but did you read it?
That said, GGP post did not point out similar actions. Airbus did not risk passengers' lives. That is the issue here: public safety.
Doesnt mean Boeing shouldnt restructure or disappear.
I think we disagree on what whataboutism means. I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, because we're having a meta argument at this point.