>those use actual flight plan data, so will take into account any last minute aircraft changes.
But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it.
But at that point it's too late. I doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it.
Luckily the airlines I travel with only use Airbus, but if they were using 737 Max, I'd definitely book tickets that I can change at the last minute, and refuse to board if it turns out to be a 737 Max.
Yes, that's probably illogical. And probably much of life is illogical. But I rather have to wait some hours for the next flight than take the risk to die because of Boeing.
"A lot of people don't realize that the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus. We don't really know who to blame here until the investigation concludes."
So I guess you just shouldn't fly.
Don't get me wrong, the culture at Boeing has changed (for the worse). The 737 Max is not without issues. It's horrific that hundreds have died due to both ignorance and deception on behalf of Boeing.
But Airbus isn't some sort of flawless golden goose either. Any time something like this happens, failure modes are identified and things will get safer.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32
[2] https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/photos-airb...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichuan_Airlines_Flight_8633
And this loose bolts thing shows up on a plane model where the "driving controls" were designed wrong.
Note that no one is complaining about the other Boeing 737 models.
But why not? The 737NG has a known issue that killed someone in 2018 and the fix isn’t even planned to be in place until 2028.
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/faa-mandates-boeing-737ng...
> That includes a new spacer design for the engine inlet with increased fastener capability, changes to the fan cowl and fan cowl support beam, and the implementation of new exhaust nozzle structural stiffening elements.
> According to the National Safety Transportation Board’s (NTSB) executive summary of the incident, parts “of the left engine inlet and fan cowl separated from the airplane, and fragments from the inlet and fan cowl struck the left wing, the left-side fuselage, and the left horizontal stabilizer”. One of the fragments of the cowl struck the fuselage near a cabin window, with the window departing the 737-700 and resulting in rapid depressurization.
Modern airliners can glide tens miles with complete loss of power. (It's why they have RATs [1].)
The point is that none of the Airbus planes had the same sort of in-flight extreme ventilation as the Boeing plane just had, nor are any entire series of airplanes from Airbus currently grounded because of lose bolts.
As I said, it's not logical, it's not based on reason nor numbers. It's just a feeling.
E̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶f̶l̶e̶x̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶i̶c̶k̶e̶t̶s̶,̶ ̶m̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶a̶r̶r̶i̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶c̶e̶l̶ ̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶2̶4̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶e̶p̶a̶r̶t̶u̶r̶e̶ Also, airlines would most likely charge you the difference between the fare price, which for a last minute ticket is might be a significant price difference.
>But I rather have to wait some hours for the next flight than take the risk to die because of Boeing.
So you'd rather lose a few hours of your life waiting at an airport, than losing a few minutes of your life over the risk of dying from a 737 Max? Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Thanks for the summary!
Edit, as you added more content to your comment rather than just a one-liner snark:
> Even with flexible tickets, most carriers don't allow you to cancel less than 24 hours prior to departure
I guess my typical airline isn't in your personal category of "most carriers" as they allow me to change any dates for my ticket up until I've boarded the first flight. YMMV obviously.
I’ve chosen a less-than-ideal itinerary for comfort (e.g. lay-flat seat or direct flight).
Flying is stressful for a lot of people. As OP admits, it’s irrational. But if it means you avoid spending the flight in a panic, it’s not unreasonable to swap planes or even eat the ticket cost. (It might be a sign to talk to someone about anxiety.)
They definitely do! It's usually until just before departure - but some flexible tickets you can just no-show and get a refund. In some cases, there may be some no-show penalty, but definitely not universally. I can't think of any US carriers that impose a 24 hour cancelation restriction. I'm sure there's some international ones.
> Also, airlines would most likely charge you the difference between the fare price, which for a last minute ticket is might be a significant price difference.
Usually within the US, you can do a same-day change or same-day standby for some nominal, fixed amount of money on any ticket (free with status) and swap to any flight within ~24 hours (specific restrictions vary).
Here's American's policy on same-day changes [1]. Here's Delta's [2]. United's [3].
> So you'd rather lose a few hours of your life waiting at an airport, than losing a few minutes of your life over the risk of dying from a 737 Max? Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
On this we completely agree. I ran the numbers and your likelihood of dying on a 737 NG is 1/400 the risk of dying in a car on a per-mile basis. Based on the median distance from home to a US airport of 17 miles, you're more likely to die on the road to and from the airport than a 16,500mi flight on a 737. And infinitely more likely to get injured.
[1] https://www.aa.com/i18n/plan-travel/extras/same-day-travel.j...
[2] https://www.delta.com/us/en/change-cancel/same-day-flight-ch...
[3] https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/travel/trip-planning/flight...
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/faa-mandates-boeing-737ng...
In general quite a lot of the chains wrapped around us that drive so many people to complain are really only kept there by raw personal selfish convenience. To be clear, I am absolutely not saying that they are not real as a result. They are perfectly real. But in many cases they are still really nothing more than personal convenience holding you. For instance, as I write this, almost all of the dangers of smart phones can be kept at bay just by refusing the conveniences. (Not quite all. But really quite a lot of them.)
We'd all be better off if there were more of us willing to take this kind of stand, and by that standard, it is Vulcan-grade logical.
Boeing will listen to the airlines and the markets.
It's not convenience, it's that the ONLY reasonably priced flights are non-refundable ones, and not everyone can afford another flight ticket just to prove a point. Another idiotic thing that we need to change.
Although I really do wish there were an "Airbus only" option when booking flight tickets. And as much as I don't normally like to stereotype things, when it comes to safety I feel I've consistently seen much better safety standards in EU than the USA. Safety seems more drilled into the European culture. I just somehow have this gut feeling that some random dude at Airbus crimping some wire probably actually did everything correctly and to specifications.
Not to mention they have stricter work hour limits in Europe, so I don't have to worry about someone doing a shoddy job due to lack of sleep.
If you could magically replace every passenger vehicle trip with a commercial airline flight, including the quick trips down the street to the grocery store, there would be more fatalities. Because, statistically, flying is less safe per trip.
The reason why flying is safer for long trips is because the "danger window" of a flight is generally takeoff and landing, while the "danger window" for driving is basically the whole drive.
You can slice this another way. In the book Freakonomics, they discuss that "per hour spent traveling" the passenger vehicle and the airplane are approximately the same risk level.
Nobody rational will. But there are plenty of people with an understandable fear of flying who will create a customer-service kerfuffle over it. On the margin that might not do anything. But in aggregate it could affect how the airlines negotiate settlements from Boeing.
I mean not even every army general in every country has killed as many as Boeing.
People want to express outrage. That’s understandable.
Most flight revenue is from frequent travellers, and they understand the business enough to know histrionics won’t change Boeing’s incumbency. A couple people who fly twice a year swapping airlines isn’t going to move the needle. And I doubt a material fraction of them are likely voters who would bother their electeds about this.
You seem to entirely miss the possibility that this has nothing to do with "punishing" anyone, and that people simply don't want to stress out about dying during their flight.
You can call it irrational if you like, that feeling of superiority and a few bucks will get you a snack. The brain worm is there, I know I'll be thinking about it next time I book tickets.
Sure, and as I point out elsewhere, that's reasonable [1]. It's irrational because it doesn't actually change anything, about your situation or systematically.
Not flying a 737 Max to feel better is reasonable. Doing it to be safer, or because it's going to punish Boeing or whatever, is not.
So what's irrational in not believing that 737 Max is safe?
The millions of miles they've flown without incident.
The key difference this conversation demands is a design versus fabrication or maintenance error. MCAS was a design error. It called into question the entire 737 Max fleet. This looks like a fabrication or maintenance mistake. That calls into question all of the planes similarly fabricated or maintained--those have been grounded. It doesn't affect a 737 Max of a different type, that has been flown for years and been through routine inspections, including of the very bolts suspected to be the cause of this accident.
Caveat: I strongly suspect more than the type 9 need to be looked at. But we do not have evidence that they are unsafe.
I think Boeing /engineers/ would argue that statement and instead tell you that Boeing /management/ is self certifying the planes.
But you're right, watching the incoming plane to that gate would be a good way to know earlier!
"if it's not Boeing, I'm not going" (See '79 bumper sticker: https://www.ebay.com/itm/332131135342)
Starting to look like it might be the other way around...